Another Oil War Within Weeks
By Richard Salbato
Yesterday,
January 12, 2006, Germany, France,
England and the United States agreed to present sanctions to the United Nations
over Iran's refusal to comply with Nuclear Inspections. Coinciding with these increased
tensions with Iran over the resumption of illicit uranium enrichment, the U.S.
Air Force dispatched additional warplanes to the region in a not-so-subtle
sign, military sources say.
An entire wing of F-16s, the Air National Guard's 122nd Fighter Wing based in
Fort Wayne, Ind., left for a base in southwest Asia on Tuesday. A wing is
usually about 72 aircraft and several hundred support personnel. F-16s and support personnel from the 4th
Fighter Squadron of the 388th Fighter Wing based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah,
were also deployed recently to Iraq. The squadron has 12 F-16s. Both units' F-16s could be used in any
military operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities.
Somehow, I feel this has nothing to do with Nuclear weapons; however, just like
everyone else I am going to say that we have no choice except to take Iran out
and get rid of their president. But
since Iran has 20% of the world's known oil depostites and is not being
freindly about it, I cannot help but think of this like I do about the bombing
of the Twin Towers on 9-11. The new
president of Iran has done everything but ask for a war with the west, just as
though he was put in power by the west to create a war. I know - I am being a conspiracy nut, but
every war since oil was discovered was for the oil or to keep open the
transportation lanes that ship oil. World War I, to stop Germany from building
an oil railroad from Itan to Germany and then to create Europian controled
countries in the oil rich Persian Gulf.
Or World War II designed to create the Jewish state in the middle of the
oil rich Persian Gulf. Or the Jewish 6
day war to open up the oil line through the Suez Canal (complete newsletter coming on that one), or the
war against Norriega for control of the oil routes through the Panama
Cannel. The wars and slaughters in
Africa again for oil control by the big powers, Europe, China, Russia and the
USA.
Follow the
money and you will see the truth. In
years past, labor was power, and wars were fought for slaves. Today oil is power, and without it you
cannot even fight a war. Hitler was
defeated by cutting off his oil supply and no country today wants to risk that
possibility. Sometimes they go to great
extremes to make sure they are not dependent on others for their present and
future supplies of oil or the method to get it here. Afghanistan war, an oil pipe line. Yugoslavia war, an oil pipe line. Yemen, oil outlet from the Persian Gulf. Iraq, 20% of the world's oil deposits.
Yes! I will
agree with everyone else that a war with Iran has to be fought, but I cannot
help but think this was set up over the years to take control of the entire
Middle East. Like Radical Islam, we
created them, so that we could fight them.
The Great Oil Game
The Great
Oil Game. That is how journalists and oilmen inevitably describe every
promising new province or heated rivalry in oil and gas. Over the years, the
jostling by Big Oil for access to the black gold in Persia, Saudi Arabia and
the Caspian have all been described in such breathless terms. Within a decade,
the scramble to develop oil reserves under the Arctic Ocean will no doubt
inspire such gush. Today’s Great Game involves Russia and China - and according
to the conspiracy theorists, this could prove bad news indeed for the West.
A glance at
recent developments suggests that there may be cause for concern. Vladimir
Putin’s bizarre and brutal crackdown on Yukos, the country’s largest
private-sector oil firm, is now nearly over. In its own bumbling way, Russia is
creating a state-run oil giant to be controlled by (or as a companion to)
Gazprom, its inept state-run gas monopoly. Most alarming, to those so inclined,
are the noises Mr. Putin has made suggesting that he might give a stake in the
new oil monopoly to China . This would come on the heels of Chinese oil deals
in Venezuela, where high oil prices are financing the petro-follies of another
elected autocrat.
That points
to the other half of this conspiracy theory. Much has been written about China’s
soaring consumption of oil, and its impact on world oil prices. Now, attention
is turning to the increasingly aggressive forays overseas by its
state-controlled energy companies in places as far-flung as Sudan, Ecuador and
Saudi Arabia. They have tried to buy the right to drill for Caspian oil and to
mine Canada’s “tar sands” (mucky hydrocarbons that can be made into gasoline
with much effort). A Chinese government firm even tried to buy Unocal, a
mid-sized American oil firm.
And if
Russia really parts with a stake in “Gosneft,” as the putative state oil firm
has been dubbed, then the acquisitive Chinese will have won a lucrative
concession that any Big Oil boss would give his right arm for. Could this
emerging alliance of erstwhile enemies disrupt the stability of oil markets, or
lead to sharply higher prices? Might this eventually lead to a realignment of
geopolitics that threatens the West’s essential energy supplies?
From the
time that the slave trade was replaced by oil as the world's greatest money
maker, you can look behind every war and see oil as the cause. As you will see below, every conflict in the
world has oil as its primary reason.
Every dictator or king had oil money backing him into power. And as you will see the future war, maybe
the biggest of them all, will be for oil rites or oil shipments. That is why China (and India, for that
matter) wastes billions on equity oil in pursuit of “energy security”
The Axis of Oil
A look at
where the world’s proven oil reserves lie reveals that Russia holds 20% of the
world’s total, while Saudi Arabia sits atop 25%. Iran has about 20% and Iraq about 15%. Russia’s oil production
today, about 10 million barrels per day, is on par with that of the Saudis. If Russia
curbed its output in cahoots with the cartel in order to squeeze prices, then
consumers would surely suffer. Russia’s
self-interest lies in doing what it has done for years: not cutting output, but
pumping freely and therefore “free-riding” on OPEC’s discipline. That could
change.
China's old
demand is climbing at a 16% rate per year and is clearly a force propping up
oil prices. However, China is
stockpiling so as to become self sustaining in a crisis, so this is
higher than consumption. Chinese demand
will not surpass America’s for decades.
But China wants what everyone else wants, energy security and that means
supply without worry.
The most
important energy relationship to watch is the one between Saudi Arabia and America.
Indeed, as non-OPEC sources of oil dwindle in coming years, every official
forecaster expects Saudi output to soar sharply. With that can only come
increased risk of terrorist attack, embargo and economic shock. These age-old
troubles, not any sinister new Axis of Oil, are the real reason to worry about
oil — and the best reason to start kicking the habit today.
China-Africa Ties Finance Wars
Beijing
imports oil, metals and agricultural products to Africa. It makes funds
available and exports merchandise, manpower and technical expertise to Africa.
Political ties are intense, even in the face of opposition from Europe and the
US. More than 700 Chinese companies are at work in 49 African countries.
Links between China and African countries are growing fast and making an impact
on global equilibrium. China, as hungry for raw materials as ever, is keen on
Africa, not least because other industrialized states pose only minor
competition. Africa is desperate for overseas investments and technical expertise.
Western firms consider investing in Africa to be a risky business, because of
the weakness and corruption of governments
and frequent wars. China, however, wants raw materials (oil, diamonds,
gold, platinum, iron and also cotton and tobacco.) Besides, it is looking for markets for its products and even
exports manpower and technical expertise, all contributing to increasing political impact. In 2003, trade
between Beijing and the continent amounted to 18.5 billion US dollars, an
increase of more than 50% over 2002. In 2004, China imported African
merchandise worth 15.7 billion US dollars and exported products for 13.8
billion.
In 2004, 25% of oil imported by Beijing came from Africa - Sudan, Chad, Libya, Algeria,
Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Angola. China imports a quarter of Angola's oil, and 60% of that
in Sudan. In these countries, oil is a major chunk of their gross domestic
product and its trade has important consequences on internal policy and social
development. In the agricultural sector, China acquires merchandise and exports
technical expertise and capital. In Zambia, for example, the fruit and
vegetable market is practically covered by products of agricultural firms run
by Chinese.
African
countries appreciate Beijing because of the seriousness and rapidity with which
it follows through trade agreements, and because they need everything. China
supplies the money to set up infrastructures: trains, roads, buildings,
electrical and telephone lines, and also mining prospects and oil refineries.
In exchange, they often ask that works are undertaken by
Chinese firms.
Political influence is considered necessary to safeguard one's economic
interests. In international organizations, Beijing often supports lesser developed countries rather
than industrialized states. In Sudan, where more than 10,000 Chinese work, it
is said that Beijing, to "protect" its oil wells, gave economic and
military aid to the government during the civil war and genocide in Darfur.
China
opposed sanctions called for by the United Nations (UN), threatening to use its
power of veto. In Angola, Chinese aid allowed the government to refuse a
proposal of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which asked for international
verification of oil contracts and political reform in exchange for loans.
Angola's corrupt system of power benefits the restricted elite leaving 13
million people in poverty.
Experts say that between 1998 and 2000, Beijing sold arms worth one billion
dollars to both Eritrea
and Ethiopia: the war
between the two countries killed tens of thousands of people. Robert Mugabe,
president of Zimbabwe
turned to China when he
was isolated by western countries: in 2004, Beijing invested 600 million
dollars in the country and supplied military radio equipment used to block
transmissions by opposition parties.
China does not concern itself with the use made by States of money it gives
them, allowing corrupt governments to siphon off sums received. Beijing sent peace contingents to the
Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia, and supplied Mali and Angola with
helicopters, Namibia and Sierra Leone with arms and Mozambique with army
uniforms.
China is active in setting up bodies to implement trade links with African
states. At the first China-African Cooperation Forum, held in Beijing in
October 2000, 80 ministers from 46 out of 53 African states participated. At
the end, China announced that it wanted to reduce the debt of African countries
by 10 billion yuan (around 1.2 billion dollars). The sum was
negligible (0.3% of the total African debt) but the gesture had a great impact.
China also removed import taxes on merchandise from 25 poor African
countries.
Wars
For The Movement Of Oil
Pipe Lines
Given the
fact that oil consumption occurs mainly in the industrialized West, while oil
production takes place largely in the Middle East, Russia, West Africa and
South America, a significant volume of oil is traded internationally. Pipelines are the mode of
choice for transcontinental oil movements.
Pipelines are critical for landlocked crude and also complement tankers
at certain key locations by relieving bottlenecks or providing shortcuts.
Pipelines come into their own in intra-regional trade. They are the primary
option for transcontinental transportation, because they are at least an order
of magnitude cheaper than any alternative such as rail, barge, or road, and
because political vulnerability is a small or non-existent issue within a
nation's border or between neighbors such as the United States and Canada.
(Pipelines are also an important oil transport mode in mainland Europe,
although the system is much smaller, matching the shorter distances.)
Oil Tankers
and Chokepoints
Oil
transported by sea generally follows a fixed set of maritime routes. Along the
way, tankers encounter several geographic "chokepoints," or narrow
channels, such as the Strait of Hormuz leading out of the Persian Gulf and the
strait of Malacca linking the Indian Ocean and oil coming from the Middle East
with the Pacific Ocean and major consuming markets in Asia. Other important maritime
"chokepoints" include the Panama Canal connecting the Pacific and
Atlantic Oceans, the Suez Canal connecting the Red Sea and the Mediterranean
Sea, and Bab el-Maddab passage from the Arabian Sea to the Red Sea.
The world
tanker fleet includes approximately 4,500 ships. These range greatly in size
and include: "Ultra Large Crude Carriers" , "Very Large Crude
Carriers", "Suezmax" tankers, "Aframax" tankers,
"Panamax" tankers, "Handymax" tankers, and "Handy
Size" tankers.
Not all
tanker trade routes use the same size ship. Each route usually has one size
that is the clear economic winner, based on voyage length, port and canal
constraints and volume. Thus, crude exports from the Middle East -- high volumes
that travel long distances -- are moved mainly by VLCC’s typically carrying
over 2 million barrels of oil on every voyage. The VLCC's economies of scale
outweigh the constraints imposed: they are too large for all the ports in the
United States except the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP). Thus, they must
have some or all of their cargo transferred to smaller vessels, either at sea
(lightering) or at an offshore port (transshipment). In contrast, ships out of
the Caribbean and South America are routinely smaller and enter ports in the
United States directly. Because of such ship size differences, a long voyage
can sometimes be cheaper on a per barrel basis than a short one.
The recent
growth in United States dependence on its Western Hemisphere neighbors is an
illustration of a "nearer-is-better" phenomenon. Western Hemisphere
sources now supply around half of U.S. oil import volume, much of it on voyages
of less than a week. Another quarter comes from elsewhere in the area called
the Atlantic Basin -- those countries on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. This
oil, from West Africa and the North Sea mainly, takes just 2-3 weeks to reach
the United States, and boosts the so-called short-haul share of U.S. imports to
over three-quarters. Most North Sea and North and West African crude oils stay
in the Atlantic Basin, moving to Europe or North America on routes that rarely
take over 20 days. In contrast, voyage times to Asia for just the nearest of
these, the West African crude oils, would be over 30 days to Singapore, rising
to nearly 40 for Japan. Not surprisingly, therefore, most of Asia’s oil comes
instead from the Middle East, only 20-30 days away.
Russian Oil and Export
Methods
Russian oil and gas exports move
via pipelines that pass through Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary, Slovakia,
the Czech Republic and Poland. Major Oil Export Ports: Novorossiisk
(Russian Black Sea); Primorsk (Russian Baltic Sea/Gulf of Finland); Tuapse;
Vetspils (Latvia); Odessa (Ukraine).
Major Oil
Pipelines (capacity, 2002E): Druzhba (1.2 million bbl/d); Baltic Pipeline
System (240,000 bbl/d); CPC Tengiz-Novorossiisk Pipeline (564,000 bbl/d, most
of which is Kazakh crude).
Major
Natural Gas Pipelines (capacity, 2002E); Brotherhood, Progress, and Union (1
trillion cubic feet -- tcf -- capacity each); Notheren lights (0.8 tcf);
Volga/Urals-Vyborg, Finland (0.1 tcf).
Yamal (to Europe, via Belarus; 1.0 TCF, partly operational; Blue Stream
(to Turkey via Black Sea; 0.56 TCF, construction completed in October 2002)
Destination of Oil And Gas Exports: Eastern Europe, Netherlands, Italy,
Germany, France, other Western Europe counties.
Russia is a
major supplier of crude oil and natural gas to Europe. All of the ports and pipelines are operating
at or near capacity, leaving limited alternatives if problems arose at Russian
export terminals. In addition, many of
the country's oil pipelines are in a state of disrepair, and Russian Energy
Ministry figures indicate that almost 5% of crude oil produced in Russia is
lost through illegal tapping of Russia's pipelines. With a windfall in oil export tariffs over the past several
years, Transneft, the state oil transport monopoly, has taken steps to upgrade
the country's pipeline system, with emphasis
on bulding new export pipelines to increase and diversify export routes
for oil exporters. In addition to
increasing capacity at Novoroosiisk, the country's main oil terminal on the
Black Sea, Transneft is constructing the Baltic Pipeline System, working to
integrate the Duzhba and Adria pipelines to allow Russian oil to be exported
via the Adriatic Sea, and looking to construct a pipeline to China. Russia also is seeking to lure additional
transit oil from Azerbaijan, Kazakhastan, and Turkmenistan.
Nearly 90%
of Russia's natural gas exports to Europe are routed through Ukraine. In an
effort to diversify its export routes, as well as reach new markets, Russia is
planning to build several new natural gas export pipelines. The Blue Stream
pipeline to Turkey is the centerpiece of Russia's export diversification
strategy. Construction on the
565-Bcf-capacity pipeline, which consists of twin pipelines laid on the bottom
of the Black Sea, was completed in October 2002.
Panama Canal
and Panama Pipeline
The Panama
Canal extends approximately 50 miles from Panama City on the Pacific Ocean to
Colon on the Caribbean Sea. In fiscal year (FY) 2001, petroleum and petroleum
products was the largest commodity (by tonnage) shipped through the Canal,
accounting for 16% of total canal shipments. Around 64% of total oil shipments
went south from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with oil products dominating
southbound traffic. Chemicals (including petrochemicals) and coal are shipped
through the canal as well, accounting for 5% and 3%, respectively, of total
Canal traffic. The largest vessel that can transit the Panama Canal is known as
a PANAMAX-size vessel. A long-term program is underway to widen the narrow,
eight-mile stretch of Gaillard Cut to allow unrestricted two-way traffic of
PANAMAX-size vessels.
If transit
were halted through the Canal, the Trans-Panama pipeline (Petroterminal de
Panama, S.A.) could be re-opened to carry oil in either direction. This
pipeline is located outside the former Canal Zone near the Costa Rican border,
and runs from the port of Charco Azul on the Pacific Coast (near Puerto
Armuelles, southwest of David) to the port of Chiriqui Grande, Bocas del Toro
on the Caribbean. It was opened in October 1982 as an economical alternative to
the Panama Canal for transporting Alaskan oil across Panama en route to Gulf
Coast ports. Transit time from Alaska to the U.S. Gulf Coast via Panama is
about 16 days, whereas a tanker would take 40 days to reach the Gulf Coast from
Alaska if rerouted around Cape Horn (the southern tip of South America). To
date, more than 2.2 billion barrels of Alaskan crude oil has been transported
through the 81-mile pipeline. However, the 860,000-bbl/d pipeline was closed in
April 1996 after Alaskan oil shipments to the Gulf Coast declined with falling
Alaskan oil production (Alaska now produces about 1 million bbl/d) and
increased oil consumption on the west coast of the United States, especially in
California. In addition, the decision to allow Alaskan oil to be exported outside
the United States reduced the incentives to ship Alaskan oil to the Gulf Coast.
There has been some discussion of reversing the direction of the pipeline to
allow Caribbean oil producers a less expensive outlet to Pacific destinations.
The United
States is not heavily reliant on the Panama Canal for its petroleum imports. In
2001, only 1.7% of total U.S. petroleum imports (crude oil plus petroleum
products) transited the Canal en route to American ports (see table). On the
whole, much more crude oil destined for U.S. shores passes through the Canal
than do petroleum products. However, as a share of U.S. imports, the Canal is
far more important for imported petroleum products. In 2001 only 0.8% of
imported crude oil came to the United States through the Panama Canal, compared
to approximately 8% of imported petroleum products. The United States imports
slightly less oil through the Canal than 20 years ago, and no longer relies
heavily on the Canal to move oil from one coast to the other.
Bosporus -
Turkish Straits
This 17-mile long waterway divides
Asia from Europe and connects the Black Sea with the Mediterranean Sea, Oil
Flows (2001E): 2.0 million bbl/d (nearly all southbound; mostly crude oil with
several hundred thousand barrels per day of products as well) Destination of
Oil Exports: Western and Southern Europe
Only
half a mile wide at its narrowest point, the Turkish Straits are one of the
world's busiest (50,000 vessels annually, including 5,500 oil tankers), and
most difficult-to-navigate waterways. Many of the proposed export routes for
forthcoming production from the Caspian Sea region
pass westwards through the Black Sea and the Turkish Straits en route to the
Mediterranean Sea and world markets. The ports of the Black Sea, along with
those in the Baltic Sea, were the primary oil export routes of the former
Soviet Union, and the Black Sea remains the largest outlet for Russian oil exports
Under the
Montreux Convention of 1936, commercial shipping has the right of free passage
through the Bosporus and Turkish Straits in peacetime, although Turkey claims
the right to impose regulations for safety and environmental purposes. In
October 2002, for instance, Turkey placed new restrictions on oil tanker
transit through the Bosporus, including: a ban on nighttime transit for ships
longer than 200 meters; a requirement that ships carrying dangerous cargo
(including oil) request permission to transit 48 hours in advance; and a
one-way traffic regulation on ships more than 250-300 meters long or carrying
liquefied natural gas (LNG) or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The regulations reportedly
have slowed tanker transit by as much as 3 1/2 days.
Exports
through the Turkish Straits have grown since the breakup of the Soviet Union in
1991, and there is growing concern that projected Caspian Sea export volumes
exceed the ability of the Turkish Straits to accommodate the tanker traffic.
Turkey is concerned that the projected increase in large oil tankers would pose
a serious navigational safety and environmental threats to the Turkish Straits.
In July 2000, the International Energy Agency estimated that exports through
through the Black Sea could reach 2.3 million bbl/d, but that the Turkish
Straits could handle only 1.8 million bbl/d maximum.
Bab
el-Mandab, Yemen
Bab
el-Mandab connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. Oil
Flows (2000E): 3.2-3.3 million bbl/d Destination of Oil Exports to Europe, United States and
Asia. Closure of the Bab el-Mandab
could keep tankers from the Persian Gulf from reaching the Suez Canal and Sumed
Pipeline complex, diverting them around the southern tip of Africa (the Cape of
Good Hope). This would add greatly to transit time and cost, and effectively
tie up spare tanker capacity. In December 1995, Yemen fought a brief battle
with Eritrea over Greater Hanish Island, located just north of the Bab el-Mandab.
The Bab el-Mandab could be bypassed (for northbound oil traffic by utilizing
the East-West oil pipeline, which traverses Saudi Arabia and has a
capacity of about 4.8 million bbl/d. However, southbound oil traffic would
still be blocked. In addition, closure of the Bab el-Mandab would effectively
block non-oil shipping from using the Suez Canal except for limited trade within the Red Sea
region.
In 2002, A
French VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) chartered by Malaysian state oil company
Petronas was attacked by terrorist suicide bombers off the coast of Yemen,
seriously damaging the ship and killing one crew member. The VLCC, known as the
Limburg, had about 400,000 barrels of oil aboard, and was on its way to load
additional oil in Yemen when attacked. The attack on the Limburg prompted a
warning by the U.S. Navy's Maritime Liaison Office in Bahrain, stating that
"Shipmasters should exercise extreme caution when transiting...strategic
chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, or Bab el-Mandeb, or...[other]
traditional high-threat areas such as along the Horn of Africa." Following
the attack, al-Qaeda issued a statement which warned that the attack on the
Limburg "was not an incidental strike at a passing tanker but...on the
international oil-carrying line in the full sense of the word."
In the
aftermath of the Limburg attack, as well as threats by al-Qaeda against oil
infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region, Lloyd's List reported that several
area states were heightening security measures around crude facilities along
their coastlines and elsewhere.
The Next War - When?
Maybe we
will be at war within weeks. As I write
this deals are being made with Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia for landing of
aircraft. Meetings are being held with
Germany, France, England and Russia.
War is being planned against Iran.
Yes! It is justified just like that war with Iraq was justified and the
war with Hitler was justified but could it be that the justification was
secretly engineered over the years to come to this point for one and only one
thing - control of Black Gold.
The
following news source, Global Research has a very grim outlook for the coming
war but everything I see so far points to the truth of this article. Judge for yourself, but as the boy scouts
say, "Be Prepared". It may be
in days, weeks or at least before March.
From Global Research
California,
Nuclear War Against Iran
The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in
the final planning stages.
Coalition partners, which
include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of
readiness".
Various military
exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian
Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian
Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.
Since early 2005, there
has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and
NATO headquarters in Brussels.
In recent
developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political
and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear
and military targets." Goss reportedly asked " for special
cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the
operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).
In turn, Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch
the attacks by the end of March:
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of
March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The
end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's
nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may
influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be
exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or
justify Israeli military action.
(James Petras, Israel's
War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005)
The US sponsored military
plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to
the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.
"Shock and Awe"
The various components of
the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon
and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt
Air Force base in Nebraska.
The actions announced by
Israel would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon. The
command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately Washington
will decide when to launch the military operation.
US military sources have
confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would involve a large scale deployment
comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March
2003:
American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope
of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more
resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full
force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying
direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters
staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen
suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.
Military planners could tailor their target list to
reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes
that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States
could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive
range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces
that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq
(See Globalsecurity.org at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
In November, US Strategic
Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled
"Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using
both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy".
Following the
"Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an
advanced state of readiness (See our analysis below)
While Asian press reports
stated that the "fictitious enemy" in the Global Lightening exercise
was North Korea, the timing of the exercises, suggests that they were conducted
in anticipation of a planned attack on Iran.
Consensus for Nuclear War
No dissenting political
voices have emerged from within the European Union.
There are ongoing
consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin. Contrary to the invasion of
Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany,
Washington has been building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic
Alliance and the UN Security Council. This consensus pertains to the
conduct of a nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the
Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, a number of
frontline Arab states are now tacit partners in the US/ Israeli military
project. A year ago in November 2004, Israel's top military brass met at
NATO headquarters in Brussels with their counterparts from six members of the
Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia,
Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed.
Following these meetings, joint
military exercises were held off the coast of Syria involving the US,
Israel and Turkey. and in February 2005, Israel participated in military
exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab
countries.
The media in chorus has
unequivocally pointed to Iran as a "threat to World
Peace".
The antiwar movement has
swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle
East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/ anti- globalization
agenda.
The "surgical
strikes" are presented to world public opinion as a means to preventing
Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
We are told that this is
not a war but a military peace-keeping operation, in the form of aerial attacks
directed against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians"
The press reports, while
revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the
broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use
of tactical nuclear weapons.
The war agenda is based
on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war
under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
Media disinformation has
been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military
action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical
strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not
an object of debate.
According to a 2003
Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low
yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times
a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the
explosion is underground.
Through a propaganda
campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear
scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather
than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for
"battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of
America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional
weapons:
Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear
weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North
Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive
to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this,
thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible.
However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably
be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents
Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
In an utterly twisted
logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and
preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this
regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are
harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of
these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and
potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped
on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima
indicate that they were respectively of 21000 and 15000 tons ( http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm