Uruknet on Alexa
:: Segnala Uruknet agli amici. Clicka qui.
:: Invite your friends to Uruknet. Click here.
:: Segnalaci un articolo :: Tell us of an article
:: If you find this site informative, please donate -
every donation helps us keep up with costs. Thanks.
:: If you find this site informative, please donate -
every donation helps us keep up with costs. Thanks.
|
|
The US war with Iran has already begun
Scott Ritter, Aljazeera.net
Sunday 19 June 2005 - Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.
On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."
We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.
These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.
President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power.
The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier.
This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past.
It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question.
But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.
As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.
"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.
By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration.
But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.
As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.
The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.
President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.
But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.
To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.
The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.
But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.
In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.
No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Persian Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.
A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.
US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.
Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.
Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.
America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.
Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.
Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.
We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.
Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.
The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.
|
|
:: Article nr. 12776 sent on 20-jun-2005 01:46 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=12776
Link: english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7896BBD4-28AB-48BA-A949-2096A02F864D.htm
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.
|
COMMENTS BY READERS OF URUKNET
The COMMENTs of our readers are the sole responsability of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of URUKNET. If you believe that any COMMENT contains pornographic, racist or otherwise objectionable or offensive content, or if the COMMENT is contrary to law in any way, please let us know. Our legal representatives will review any and all complaints and, if any complaint is deemed to be accurate, the COMMENT will removed at once.
Comments must be pertinent to the article and must not exceed 5000 characters.
To publish long comments, send it to the our Editor, it can become an article.
Do not complain to the Editor if you do not agree with an article or with a comment: simply reply here below.
You can get the password to become a REGISTERED USER and POST YOUR COMMENTS by clicking HERE (needed only once forever).
Click HERE to post your own comment. Now, also users not registered can post their comments.
| Comment pos ted: by tjm on 28 May 2006 - 06:03 | IRAN TOP SECRET: EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG
What if everything that you think that you know for certain about Iran is wrong? After 27 years of status quo, why do you believe that the Brits and the Yanks really want to get rid of the Islamic regime in Iran? Is it possible that the o ft-stated goal of “regime change in Iran” is cloaking a naked, 27-year-old statu s-quo truth? Is it possible that the British and American emperors are wearing no clothes?
Recent warnings about an impending bombing of Iran may be correct. But foreign b ombing of Iran only strengthens the status-quo regime in Iran – just as 9/11 str engthened the status-quo regime in America. UK, US & Israeli support for Kurdis h & MEK insurgents may exist; however, such support is minimal at best. Otherwi se, where is the proof? How long have Scott Ritter and Lyndon LaRouche been saying these things? Threadbare leaks about significant support for an indigenous insurgency in Iran are like gnat nits – ripe to be picked, hatched & woven by knitting, unwitting journalist gnomes into an equally-threadbare "regime change" cloak -- seemingly natty… but naught.
We may want to feel sorry for U.S. President George Bush. He may be ill-advised on Iran. However, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair knows better. Blair knows tha t the Brits have initiated, encouraged, and financed the Muslim Brotherhood and related terrorist groups in dividing and conquering the Middle East to achieve W estern economic and geopolitical goals for more than 100 years – especially in Iran. Yes, the Brits, the Yanks, and the rest of the West secretly support the Mullahs’ regime in Iran – whether you know it or not.
The not-so-secret history of Iran shows that Brits, Yanks, Russians, and others used the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the Shah and to install the Mullahs as leaders of Iran in 1979. In addition, the Mullahs’ secret supporters in the Wes t have symbiotically supported the Mullahs as leaders of Iran until this very da y. Simply said, since Saddam Hussein is gone, and since Osama bin Laden supposedly cannot be found, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are the best enemies that money can buy. The proof for this assertion is 27 years of naked status-quo truth in Iran. (Believe your eyes -- not your ears.)
If you do not know the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its symbiotic contr ol of the Middle East with and by the West, then you may allow the Mullahs’ secr et supporters in the West to repeat this history for you. Current British, Amer ican, Israeli, and Western policy toward Iran may be a quasi-counterproductive, unmitigated farce. If Western leaders truly want to stop or get rid of the crazy Mullahs, then why are they doing and saying all the right things to maintain and to increase the power of the Mullahs in Iran?
What are the Top Secret Western tactics to maintain rule by the Mullahs in Iran? How are the Mullahs’ secret supporters in the West delaying and preventing reg ime change in Iran? The answers may be Top Secret, but most of the answers are also hidden in plain sight.
#1) Bush & Cheney say that they might invade or nuke Iran. Oh, no! However, wh at is the perfectly logical result of draconian actions seriously contemplated b y two of the least-popular, most-hated leaders in the history of America and the modern world? The people of Iran and the people of the world rush to the Mulla hs’ defense. Pretty slick, eh?
#2) Brits, Yanks, and Israelis say that they might bomb Iran to destroy Iran’s n uke sites. Iran says that they are not making nuclear weapons, and U.S. intel o fficials say that Iran will not have a viable nuke for up to 10 years. What is the logical result? The people of Iran and the people of the world rush to the Mullahs’ defense. Pretty slick, eh?
#3) Bush, Blair, and Europeans say that they will rely on ineffective diplomacy and U.N. sanctions to deter the crazy Mullahs from developing nukes. However, e xcept for what Valerie Plame was investigating before Cheney & Bush stopped her, there is no clear proof of this. The Israelis say that they have proof – but w here’s the beef (or the pork)? Russians, Chinese, and others are opposed to U.N. sanctions against Iran. What is the result? More nations and more people are now supporting the Mullahs. Pretty slick, eh?
#4) Bush, Blair, and others are heavily influenced by oil interests. Continued chaos in the Middle East and in other oil producing areas (the only places where chaos seems to occur) maintains high oil prices by decreasing and threatening s upplies. Without Saddam Hussein and currently curtailed Iraqi oil exports and wi thout Iranian President Ahmadinejad and now threatened Iranian oil exports, the price of oil would be substantially lower. British Petroleum, Exxon, and others get richer. You get poorer. If you controlled BP, Exxon, and other big oil companies (and the naked-truth-challenged British and American emperors), then who would you want to rule Iraq and Iran for more than 27 years? Pretty slick, eh?
#5) More than 75% of Iranians oppose the Mullahs’ continued rule (as per U.S. in tel expert John Loftus and the Mullahs’ own polls). If the West really wanted t o get rid of the Mullahs, then having 75% of Iranians on your side might be the only geopolitical card necessary to win a “Revolution for Dummies.” Since 1979, have those super-savvy Brits and those superpower Yanks used these overwhelming gambling odds to win the supposedly-sought jackpot in Iran? No??? If the odds are so in favor of winning, then losing the jackpot in Iran for 27 years may have been very difficult for the Brits and the Yanks. Pretty slick, eh?
#6) There are no competent, prominent Iranian leaders to lead a new revolution f or regime change in Iran. The Mullahs, Western bankers, and others stole all th e money of the exiled son of the former king of Iran. One prominent prospective opposition leader (a satellite TV program host) promised to fly into Tehran in 2004 with a flotilla of 50 planes – at which time the crazy Mullahs would surely flee Iran in fright (he didn’t – and they didn’t). Prospective Iranian opposition leaders spend much of their time publicly and privately bickering and squabbling about who will lead “regime change” (forget “revolution” – that’s too difficult). These and other fear-and-confusion, divide-and-conquer tactics are privately promoted by the Mullahs’ secret supporters in the West. Pretty slick, eh?
#7) There are viable, promising, but NOT prominent opposition leaders who are re ady, willing, and able to lead a new revolution and regime change in Iran (by an d for the people of Iran – NOT for the West). An indigenously-led regime change strategy would be more effective, more probable, more permanent, less fatal, le ss destructive, and less costly – with none of disastrous-for-most geopolitical and economic consequences of an attack on Iran by the Brits, Yanks and/or Israelis. However, as you may know, war is a racket.
Supposedly due to item #6, neither the Brits nor Yanks nor Israelis will talk to any of the real anti-Mullah Iranian opposition leaders (who can marshal upwards of 500,000 effective indigenous fighters against the regime in Iran). The Mull ahs and their secret Western supporters are prepared for a foreign attack. Howe ver, they are not prepared for a regime-changing revolution by substantial numbers – led by Iranians from within Iran.
Bush and Blair talk about U.N. sanctions (counterproductive). They also talk ab out a military attack on Iran (also counterproductive). But do Bush and Blair t alk about issues that will productively motivate a new revolution and regime cha nge in Iran (by and for the people of Iran)? What did you say? No??? Pretty s lick, eh?
If this analysis is correct, then solutions to the crisis with Iran may be simpl e. If the people of Iran truly favor regime change, then let them do it – by an d for themselves (with a little help from their friends). The people of Iran ha ve more than 500,000 fighters in and around Iran who are ready, willing, and abl e to achieve a new revolution and regime change in Iran – if only the West would get out of the way. The Mullahs and their secret supporters in the West are prepared for a foreign attack, but they are not prepared for a revolution – by and for the people of Iran. After the revolution, Iranians can develop their infrastructure in whatever way they see fit (even with nuclear electric power – if the people so choose).
Many Muslims and predominantly-Muslim nations are secretly frightened and embarr assed by mad Mahmoud and the crazy Mullahs. Muslim nations will support the peo ple of Iran in getting rid of a threat and an embarrassment to the Muslim world. Jews and Israelis are long-time allies of the Persian people. An Israeli inte rest in regime change is clear. Jews and Israelis will gladly support the people of Iran. Christians and predominantly-Christian nations do not hate Muslims or the people of Iran. In addition, most Iranians love Americans and what Americans represent. Christians too will help the people of Iran. Russians, Chinese, Japanese, French, Italians, and Germans just want their commercially reasonable contracts to be honored. After a new revolution and regime change in Iran, the people of Iran will be more than happy to honor these commercially reasonable contracts.
Bush and Blair get what they SAY that they want: Regime change in Iran. But the y will not be able to have their cake and eat it too. They will not be able to s ay that they want regime change – while doing everything possible to delay and p revent it. Not so paradoxically, bombing Iran would help the Mullahs – just lik e 9/11 helped Bush & Cheney to solidify political control over America. Others who warn about an impending attack on Iran miss this point. Their warnings about a catastrophic bombing of Iran may not only support the Mullahs but also support Bush and Blair – if any such bombing is less than catastrophic.
Those who are controlling the Iran game have kept the natural allies of regime c hange in Iran from uniting. If they really knew what was going on, then the Lef t and the Right, and anti-Iraq-War and pro-Iraq-War factions might all support a new revolution and regime change in Iran. But the slick tactics of the Mullahs ’ witting and not-so-witting secret supporters in the West have kept them all apart.
Look again at what the UK and US emperors are saying about Iran. Are those real ly Iran-regime-changing clothes that you see? Or, after 27 years, do you now see the naked truth?
Since the West cannot lead a new revolution for regime change in Iran, if the We st truly wants to get rid of the crazy Mullahs (despite all evidence to the cont rary), then the West should either follow the people of Iran -- or get out of th e way.
|
|
[ Printable version
] | [ Send it to a friend ]
[ Contatto/Contact ] | [ Home Page ] | [Tutte le notizie/All news ]
|
|
Uruknet on Twitter
::
RSS updated to 2.0
:: English
:: Italiano
::
Uruknet for your mobile phone:
www.uruknet.mobi
The newsletter archive
|
:: If you find this site informative, please donate -
every donation helps us keep up with costs. Thanks.
|
:: All events
|