Iran: The War Begins (John Pilger)

[cool user name]

Iran: The War Begins

(snipped)

Nuclear option

The one piece of "solid evidence" is the threat posed by the United States. An American naval build-up in the eastern Mediterranean has begun. This is almost certainly part of what the Pentagon calls CONPLAN 8022-02, which is the aerial bombing of Iran. In 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 35, entitled "Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorisation", was issued. It is classified, of course, but the presumption has long been that NSPD 35 authorised the stockpiling and deployment of "tactical" nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

This does not mean Bush will use them against Iran, but for the first time since the most dangerous years of the cold war, the use of what were then called "limited" nuclear weapons is being discussed openly in Washington. What they are debating is the prospect of other Hiroshimas and of radioactive fallout across the Middle East and central Asia. Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker last year that American bombers "have been flying simulated nuclear weapons delivery missions . . . since last summer".

The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says that Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia's most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov, says the US will use nuclear munitions delivered by cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean. "The war in Iraq," he wrote on 24 January, "was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilisation.

It was only a phase in getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries. Israel is sure to come under Iranian missile strikes . . . Posing as victims, the Israelis . . . will suffer some tolerable damage and then the outraged US will destabilise Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution . . . Public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian . . . hysteria, . . . leaks, disinformation et cetera . . . It . . . remain(s) unclear . . . whether the US Congress is going to authorise the war."

(snipped)

Read more here ===>

[Altean Wanderer]

1. A good well-written article that scares the hell out of me n/t kick

[cool user name]

2. John Pilger writes about stuff that should scare the hell out of everyone ...

... but for the right reasons.

[Tom Joad]

3. There is an "enforced orthodoxy" to a belligerent stance against Iran

that is not natural. A war is not good for anyone.
Read this post:
http://tinyurl.com/yvhch2

It is referring to Glenn Greenwald's (of "How Should a Patriot Act" fame) excellent commentary on his blog.

[cool user name]

4. Thanks, I'll check that out. n/t