U.S. Sanctions Nine Companies for Selling Technologies to Iran

Washington. US imposed sanctions on nine companies from different countries for selling technologies for the manufacture of rockets and chemical weapons to Iran, the Israeli news agency Haaretz reported, citing an announcement of the US State Department made Tuesday. Six Chinese, two Indian and one Austrian companies were mentioned.


Mossad chief: Iran could have nuclear weapon in 2006

(Israel Business Arena)Meir Dagan, head of the Israel Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (Mossad), predicted today that Iran was liable to obtain full nuclear capability in 2006, and operational nuclear capability within a year or two.


Dagan warned against Iran's nuclear capability in an annual review in the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. He also warned that Al Qaeda terrorist units were coming close to the borders of Israel and the territories. He disclosed that these units included terrorists who had fought in Iraq, and were now attempting to undermine the stability of the regimes in Egypt and Jordan. The head of IDF military intelligence also stressed this threat in his recent briefing for the committee.

Dagan supported the evaluation by outgoing IDF military intelligence head Major-General Aharon Ze'evi Farkash last week that Iran was determined to produce a nuclear bomb. Dagan said, If there is no interference, Iran is liable to obtain the technological capability to produce enriched uranium within a few months. Once it can do so independently, it is only a matter of time before it will be able to produce enough fissionable material to produce a nuclear bomb.

In a previous evaluation given to the committee early this year, Dagan noted that Iran's point-of-no-return in the process of developing a nuclear bomb would be the end of 2005, and Iran would be able to produce a nuclear bomb within 3-4 years. His assessment today contained an element of urgency.

--------------------
Bewitched nation

By Israel Harel

In the midst of the Jewish holiday of heroics, Hanukkah, we were once again warned of the Iranian bomb. One gets a creeping suspicion that sounding the bomb alert was meant to hide the government's shortcomings in view of the Qassam rockets and Katyushas.

There is no doubt Iran would be happy if we disappeared from the face of the earth. But why should it mess with the Western world by dropping a nuclear bomb when the Jews are withdrawing from the Palestinians, who are attacking them at home, and displaying helplessness in face of Hezbollah, in Lebanon. When the Jews lose the will to fight, it's better to continue the war of attrition than use the bomb.

OC Northern Command Major General Udi Adam clearly expressed, on Tuesday, Israel's lack of desire to fight to win, which has become a national behavioral pattern in recent decades, especially against the terror organizations at home. Asked what needs to be done about the Katyusha fire, he responded: The Lebanese government must impose its authority. When Qassam rockets are simultaneously fired toward a training base in Zikim, a kindergarten in Kibbutz Sa'ad and strategic facilities on the outskirts of Ashkelon, one does not know whether to laugh or cry because we have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. Here is a commander in the Israel Defense Forces saying it is the enemy's responsibility, not his own, to prevent fire in the region whose security he is in charge of.

Advertisement

The empty warnings Shaul Mofaz is making regarding the Qassam fire also prove Israel's decision makers, both civilian and military, have blinded themselves. When they don't utter a single true phrase about the severity of the situation - and about the reasons for it - we should be worried about another thing. How have the politicians, as well as some military men, managed to deceive a considerable part of the nation into giving up the right to think? These people have put the independence of their decisions in the hands of gamblers, who are willing to bet with the nation's fate, sometimes for merely personal reasons, such as the decision on the disengagement.

In Oslo the IDF was involved in the political debate when it knowingly helped advance the very controversial political moves. Recently, when the IDF hitched itself to Ariel Sharon's political wagon and applied force against Israeli civilians in Gush Katif, the borders separating army and politics were blurred even further. No wonder Major General Adam, instead of speaking in the only language the Katyusha launchers understand - the language of force - explained that there are "many reasons" for firing Katyushas. He analyzed the situation in Syria, Lebanon and the terror organizations. And, of course, he did not mention the single and main reason the rocket fire continues, despite Israel's "great capabilities": Israel's inaction has eroded its ability to deter Palestinian militants from firing missiles at its settlements.

In the conformist Israeli discourse, in which the IDF heads play a major role, this reason does not exist at all. The nocturnal flight from Lebanon, and even more so the unilateral withdrawal from Gush Katif after more than four years of terror war, caused inestimable damage to Israel's deterrence power. Even previously, in the intifada, this ability was revealed to be limited and hesitant, and this is exactly the point. Israel does have "great capabilities," but the systemic weakness - due to loss of confidence in the rightness of its way - leaves these paralyzed.

At the beginning of the week one of the commanders of the Islamic Jihad was interviewed by Shlomi Eldar of Channel 10 News. He analyzed, with sharp clarity, the process of Israeli deterioration. First, he said, we fought with stones, and you said with stones you can't beat an army. After you were worn out and did not respond to stones, we started shooting. Then you said you'd stop it within a few days. So apparently you couldn't, or didn't want to. Afterward we started the suicide bombings and you said they were not strategically dangerous. Then we began shooting the Qassams, and you said, what can Qassams do. And now, with improved Qassams we are already firing on Ashkelon.

There were Israelis who warned, at each of those stages, that fleeing from terror will lead to increased terror, that Oslo was not a peace initiative but derived from the army's and civilians' moral erosion in the stone war. So was the fence building, which was a surrender to frightened public opinion, manipulated by politicians and economic interest parties, and of course the unilateral pullout from Gush Katif.

But an entire state has fallen under the spell of pullouts and defensive measures and does not want to listen to the voice of sanity. And now too, as the acceptance of the absurd reactions to the Qassams and Katyushas proves, the spell has not worn off.

--------------------


Japan to develop massive Iran oilfield

TOKYO: Japan will start to develop a massive oilfield in Iran next year despite opposition from the US about the investment in the Islamic republic.

Japan signed a $2 billion deal with Tehran in February 2004 to develop the massive Azadegan oilfield in southwestern Iran to try to ensure stable oil supplies for the resource-poor Asian nation.

Inpex, the Japanese oil firm which acquired the development rights, plans to start work in early 2006, the Asahi Shimbun daily reported.

Production is expected to start in 2008, a year later than initially scheduled, the report said. Washington has repeatedly objected to Tokyo about the project, keeping the Japanese government, the largest shareholder in Inpex, prudent over when work should begin.

"Inpex may lose its (development) rights if it fails to start the project soon," an Inpex official said.

European and Chinese firms are also interested in acquiring shares in the Iranian oil development, it noted.

The company already has begun preparing for constructing drilling and other facilities with an environmental assessment approved in July, the report said.

"The government should handle the oil development issue separately from the nuclear allegation," an Inpex official said in the report, referring to US concerns that Tehran is acquiring the technology for a nuclear weapons programme.

Ever since the 1973 oil crisis, Japan, which imports nearly all of its oil needs, has developed its own diplomacy with key oil producers in the Middle East, often putting it at odds with the US, especially over Iran.

Initial production in the field is seen at 50,000 barrels per day (bpd) within 40 months, rising to 150,000 bpd after 52 months and 260,000 bpd in eight years.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story...&IssueID=28285

----------



Israel rules out pre-emptive strike on Iran

JERUSALEM: Israeli Chief of Staff General Dan Halutz on Thursday ruled out the prospect of a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear installations in the near future. “I don’t think that a military intervention against Iran’s nuclear installations should be necessary in the short term,” Halutz told army radio. “There is no threat to the existence of the state of Israel as long as Iran does not possess nuclear arms.”

Israeli politicians and military commanders have recently stepped up warnings about Iran, which the Jewish state and the United States accuse of trying to develop a nuclear arsenal. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear programme is merely designed to meet energy needs. Israeli fears were heightened when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October called for the Jewish state to be “wiped off the map.”

Meir Dagan, the head of the Mossad overseas intelligence agency, told MPs earlier this week that Iran will be able to build an atom bomb within two years. Halutz however said he did not believe Iran would actually complete manufacturing a bomb “before the start of the next decade.” He said that the regime in Tehran had “decided to obtain these (nuclear) weapons”. “If they manage to do so, we will not be the only ones targeted and we should work out how to defend ourselves,” he added.

Israel itself is believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, although it has never admitted to having a non-conventional arsenal. Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, recently elected leader of the right-wing Likud party, said earlier this month that Israel needed to ‘act in the spirit’ of the late premier Menachem Begin who ordered an air strike on Iraq’s French-built Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. afp

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-12-2005_pg4_9

--------------------

Iran takes major nuclear step

Iran's right to enrichment has stalled nuclear talks with EU

Iran has developed technology to separate uranium from its ore, reinforcing the Islamic republic's self-sufficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle, state television has reported.

The technology, known as a mixer-settler, is used to separate the uranium from the mined ore to produce concentrated uranium oxide - also known as yellowcake - which can then be converted and enriched in nuclear fuel work.

"The mixer-settler can be used effectively in the fuel cycle for producing zirconium and uranium," one of the engineers, who helped develop the machinery, said on television.

"It minimises the use of solvent and has a recycling mechanism," he said, adding the country could not afford to buy the machinery before. Zirconium is a metal used for coating tubes in nuclear plants to prevent corrosion.



In a mixer-settler, two liquids of different density are mixed, allowing certain chemical compounds to pass from one liquid phase into the other. The two liquids then settle due to natural gravity.



The United States accuses Iran of trying to master the civil nuclear fuel cycle as a cover for a military programme to obtain atomic weapons - a charge Tehran vehemently denies.



Stumbling block

Iran announced in 2003 its intention to start extraction of uranium from a mine at Saghand, in the province of Yazd, which has an estimated 1.5 million tonnes of uranium ore.



Once refined, the yellowcake is usually sent to a facility for conversion into uranium hexafluoride gas and subsequently for enrichment before making it to a nuclear reactor.



In a highly enriched form, uranium can be used in the core of an atomic bomb.



In August, Iran ended its freeze on the conversion of yellowcake to uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) at a facility near the central city of Isfahan. So far, it has agreed to maintain a freeze of enrichment at a plant in Natanz.

Iran's right to enrichment has proved a major stumbling block in talks with the European Union on its nuclear programme.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...9E91AC3BF9.htm


--------------------

Iran to buy Chinese aircraft to equip air fleet

Beijing, Jan 2, IRNA

Iran-Aircraft-China
Iranian charge d'affaires in China, Farhad Asadi said that talks are currently underway between Iran and independent states such as China on the prospect of purchasing aircraft to equip the country's air fleet.

Speaking to China Youth daily, Asadi referred to US sanctions and recent crash of C-130 plane resulting in the martyrdom of a number of media persons and said that this is a historical shame for Washington to witness that a nation does not bow to its illegal demands despite attempts to suppress it.

"Sanctions against a nation on various issues such as non-military aircraft parts can be pursued at the international level," he added.

In response to a question on whether Iran will use Chinese planes in its air fleet, he noted that Iran intends to procure its requirement from independent and friendly countries.

He added that talks are currently underway on the issue and that any kind of cooperation in this respect will be welcomed.

Concerning collaboration and mutual relations in 2006, Asadi said that the two states currently enjoy the most favorable ties and referred to China as Iran's best trade partner.

"Iran and China have potentials for long-term collaboration based on mutual confidence and safeguarding each other's interests.

Iran's foreign policy outlook as an Asian country contributes to development of mutual relations and understanding.

"Bilateral agreements on cooperation in the oil and gas sector will result in several-billion-dollar revenue over the next 25 years.

Besides implementation of dozens of minor and major industrial projects in Iran by Chinese enterprises mark the significance of such relations in economic and trade fields," he added.

Asadi noted that political understanding and commonalties between the two states such as emphasis on the pivotal role of the UN in international affairs, opposition to the use of force, resolving discords through peaceful ways and focusing on the idea of a multipolar world provide the most suitable grounds for such cooperation at the regional and international levels.

He predicted that trade exchanges between the two sides will exceed 10 billion dollars in the near future.

Turning to Iran as the tourist destination of Chinese people in 2005, he said that this is a factor contributing to further bolstering of relations.

Replying to a question about Iran's domestic and foreign policies, he said that the country's domestic policy is based on improving the living conditions of people from all walks of life, fair distribution of wealth, promoting cultural principles as well as national and Islamic values, further transparency in the performance of various state sectors and safeguarding people's financial and social rights.

"On the other hand, Iran's foreign policy is based on respect for independence and territorial integrity of all countries,
non-interference in their internal affairs, expansion of friendship as well as material and spiritual cooperation with them.

"Negotiation is Iran's foremost option for settlement of difference of opinions based on mutual respect and safeguarding of bilateral interests. We are strongly against production and promotion of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, international criminal acts and drug trafficking," he concluded.

--------------------
Iran acquires ballistic missiles from DPRK

By Alon Ben-David JDW Correspondent

Tel Aviv

Iran has acquired medium/ intermediate-range ballistic missiles (MRBM/IRBMs) from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea - DPRK) with a range of at least 2,500 km, regional intelligence sources have confirmed to JDW. However, analysts remain puzzled over the rationale of the Iranian acquisition. Citing a study by the German Federal Intelligence Service, the German daily newspaper Bild reported on 16 December that Iran has acquired 18 disassembled IRBMs from the DPRK. Referring to the missiles as 'BM-25' models, the newspaper said they were based on the Soviet SS-N-6 (R-27) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). According to previous JDW reports, the DPRK, with the help of Russian specialists from the VP Makeyev Design Bureau in Miass, Chelyabinsk, has utilised the R-27 technology to develop two new (land-based and naval) versions of the R-27 with extended ranges. The land-based version, sometimes referred to as 'Taepo Dong X', is believed to have a range of 2,500 to 4,000 km. Fuelled with a storable liquid propellant, the new missile has greater survivability compared with the DPRK's No Dong and Hwasong families of missiles. "Although the technology is 40 years old, the SS-N-6 SLBM is a very complicated missile, which is not easy to copy and does not align with the current Iranian efforts," Uzi Rubin, former director of Israel's Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation, told JDW.


Janes Defence News


--------------------


'CIA bungling hands Iran vital A-bomb clue'

Botched CIA operations may have handed Iran vital information on how to make nuclear weapons and betrayed the identities of America's spies in the country, according to a new book on US intelligence.

The latest account of American intelligence failures includes details of how the CIA allegedly tried to slip Teheran some Russian designs for an atomic bomb, which contained hidden flaws that would have made any device inoperable.

State of War: The Secret History of the CIA

The Iranians, however, were tipped off by the very agent sent to give them the documents.

In a separate incident, the book claims a CIA officer mistakenly sent an Iranian agent - who turned out to be a double agent - information that was used to arrest virtually all of the agency's spies in Iran.

The claims are made in State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, by James Risen, the New York Times reporter who also revealed that the National Security Agency had tapped phone calls and e-mails of some US citizens without warrants.

The CIA says the book contains "serious inaccuracies", but has not elaborated.

The claims about Iran are startling because of the scale of bungling that Mr Risen claims has taken place.

He highlights one operation, known as Merlin, in February 2000, when the CIA allegedly sent a Soviet-era defector to Vienna where, posing an unemployed scientist selling nuclear secrets, he was supposed to contact the Iranians.

Iran factfile

The Russian scientist, who had previously worked as an engineer on the Soviet nuclear weapons programme, was given Soviet documents for a key bomb component.

These had been provided by another Russian defector and then doctored by the CIA. Had they used the documents, "instead of a mushroom cloud the Iranian scientists would witness a disappointing fizzle", Mr Risen writes.

But the Russian scientist immediately spotted the flaw and told his CIA handlers: "This isn't right." When told to go ahead with his mission, he apparently feared the Iranians would find the errors and decided to include a letter that alerted them to the flaws in the designs.

Mr Risen describes Operation Merlin as "one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA, one that may have helped put nuclear weapons in the hands of a charter member of what President George W Bush has called the 'axis of evil' ".

Mr Risen also claims that in 2004 a CIA officer mistakenly sent one of its agents some information that was used by Iran to "roll up" the CIA espionage network in Iran.

"It left the CIA virtually blind in Iran, unable to provide any significant intelligence on one of the critical issues facing the United States - whether Teheran was about to go nuclear," Mr Risen writes.

Such tales of incompetence coming after the fiasco over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, will inevitably raise fresh doubts about the accuracy of Western intelligence reports that claim Iran is bent on building nuclear weapons.

Iran insists it seeks nuclear power only to generate electricity and has steadily dismantled its agreement with European countries to freeze activities linked to its uranium enrichment programme.

Western countries have so far failed to muster enough political support to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council for breaches of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

European governments have given detailed intelligence briefings to Russian, Chinese, Indian and South African officials in an attempt to persuade them to back American claims that Iran has obtained designs for nuclear warheads, which could be fitted to its range of missiles.

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...5/ixworld.html


--------------------

Nuclear War against Iran

link http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=1714

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/milita...an-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 headqaurters in Brtussels 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

In other words, the low yielding mini-nukes have an explosive capacity of one third of a Hiroshima bomb.

The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)

The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons:

'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox,' said Kristensen. (Japan Economic News Wire, op cit)

We are a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own propaganda.

The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation of more useable nuclear weapons."

The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of World Peace.

"Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechai Vanunu,

The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).

Space and Earth Attack Command Unit

A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "

In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction."

To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.

JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia.

Since November, JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of readiness" following the conduct of relevant military exercises. The announcement was made in early December by U.S. Strategic Command to the effect that the command unit had achieved "an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons." The exercises conducted in November used "a fictional country believed to represent North Korea" (see David Ruppe, 2 December 2005):

"The new unit [JFCCSGS] has 'met requirements necessary to declare an initial operational capability' as of Nov. 18. A week before this announcement, the unit finished a command-post exercise, dubbed Global Lightening, which was linked with another exercise, called Vigilant Shield, conducted by the North American Aerospace Defend Command, or NORAD, in charge of missile defense for North America.

'After assuming several new missions in 2002, U.S. Strategic Command was reorganized to create better cooperation and cross-functional awareness,' said Navy Capt. James Graybeal, a chief spokesperson for STRATCOM. 'By May of this year, the JFCCSGS has published a concept of operations and began to develop its day-to-day operational requirements and integrated planning process.'

'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its preparedness to execute its mission of proving integrated space and global strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of STRATCOM,' he added without elaborating about 'new missions' of the new command unit that has around 250 personnel.

Nuclear specialists and governmental sources pointed out that one of its main missions would be to implement the 2001 nuclear strategy that includes an option of preemptive nuclear attacks on 'rogue states' with WMDs. (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005)

CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022

JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.

The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid).

CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)

The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.

The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.

CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. it does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops.

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations.... The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)

The Role of Israel

Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs.
The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_n...ofn=jf03norris ) .

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html

Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs:

Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."

The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.

The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft.

(See text of DSCA news release at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressRelease..._corrected.pdf

Extension of the War

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

At present there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following last year's agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

More recently, Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the acquisition of Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October, with Moscow`s collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit." (see Chris Floyd)

The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months.
Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah’s beard. What’s more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)

Ground War

While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.

Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria.

In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises as well as deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:

Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.

[According to] ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military manoeuvres in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.

Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran's borders in winter.

The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel's special military units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.

Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of cooperating with America in espionage operations against its neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab press has been publishing various reports about Ankara's readiness or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about its soil and air space being used for action against Iran.

(E'temad website, Tehran, in Persian 28 Dec 05, BBC Monitoring Services Translation)

Concluding remarks

The implications are overwhelming.

The so-called international community has accepted the eventuality of a nuclear holocaust.

Those who decide have swallowed their own war propaganda.

A political consensus has developed in Western Europe and North America regarding the aerial attacks using tactical nuclear weapons, without considering their devastating implications.

This profit driven military adventure ultimately threatens the future of humanity.

What is needed in the months ahead is a major thrust, nationally and internationally which breaks the conspiracy of silence, which acknowledges the dangers, which brings this war project to the forefront of political debate and media attentiion, at all levels, which confronts and requires political and military leaders to take a firm stance against the US sponsored nuclear war.

Ultimately what is required are extensive international sanctions directed against the United States of America and Israel.

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.,

__________________
Aalam-e-soz o saz main, wasl se barh ker hai firaaq
Hijr me lazt-e-talb, wasl main marg-e-arzoo...!!!

Musharraf Says Iran Should Not Have Nuclear Weapons

By Lisa Bryant, VOA, Paris

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf says Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. General Musharraf spoke in Davos, Switzerland, as the West and Iran continue to clash over Tehran's nuclear enrichment program.

Speaking during a session at the World Economic Forum, President Musharraf defended his own country's acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1998 as a legitimate act of defensive deterrence.

Pakistan's neighbor and rival, India, also possesses nuclear weapons. But President Musharraf expressed doubt that Iran had the right to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

"Every country has the right to defend its security if its security is threatened. So, technically, I would say if Iran's security is threatened, then they have the right to go nuclear. Under the present circumstances, I don't think their security is threatened. Therefore, I presume they need not go nuclear," he said.

General Musharraf was one of several Muslim leaders to comment on the issue during the special session in Davos. Others on the panel, including Queen Rania of Jordan and the leader of Iraq's National Assembly, rejected the notion of any government acquiring nuclear weapons.

So did Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "I think nobody should be nuclear powered," he said.

Their remarks come as both Iran and the United States have expressed interest in a Russian proposal to resolve the nuclear standoff. Moscow has suggested Iran's nuclear fuel could be enriched on Russian soil.

Iran says its enrichment program is for peaceful, civilian purposes, but Western governments fear it could be used to make a nuclear weapon.

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/jan/1230.html

__________________
Aalam-e-soz o saz main, wasl se barh ker hai firaaq
Hijr me lazt-e-talb, wasl main marg-e-arzoo...!!!