[A-List] CRG Newsletter - US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran

["james daly" <james.irldaly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran
>
>
> By Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, September 27, 2007


In late August, reported by the Military Times,  a US Air Force B-52 bomber 
flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base 
in Louisiana with six AGM advanced cruise missiles, each of which was armed 
with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead. "... Missiles were mounted on the pylons 
under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a yield of up to 150 kilotons, 
more than ten times as powerful as the US bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the 
close of the  Second World War."  (See Bill Van Auken, Global Research 
September 2007)





The Military Times byline was "B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard". The 
issue was casually acknowledged by The Washington Post and the New York 
Times. The reports quoted a US Air force spokesman. The matter was 
offhandedly brushed aside. The incident represented "an isolated mistake" 
and that "at no time was there a threat to public safety." (Ibid) :

"As far as is known, the incident marked the first time that a US plane has 
taken off armed with nuclear weapons in nearly 40 years. ...

... The transport of weapons from one base to another, however, is normally 
carried out in the holds of C-17 and C-130 cargo planes, not fixed to the 
wings of combat bombers.

Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. The 
question is whether it was a local Air Force commander-either by mistake or 
deliberately-or whether the order came from higher up.

B-52s from Barksdale have been used repeatedly to strike targets in Iraq, 
firing cruise missiles at Iraqi targets in 1996 and 1998, and in the "shock 
and awe" campaign that preceded the 2003 invasion, carrying out some 150 
bombing runs that devastated much of the southern half of the country.

Moreover, the weapon that was fixed to the wings of the B-52 flying from 
Minot air base was designed for use against hardened targets, such as 
underground bunkers.

Given the ratcheting up of the threats against Iran and the previous reports 
of plans for the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear 
installations, there is a very real possibility that the flight to Barksdale 
was part of covert preparations for a nuclear strike against Iran.

If this is indeed the case, the claims about a "mistake" by a munitions 
officer and a few airmen in North Dakota may well be merely a cover story 
aimed at concealing the fact that the government in Washington is preparing 
a criminal act of world historic proportions by ordering-without 
provocation-the first use of nuclear weapons since the bombings of Hiroshima 
and Nagasaki more than sixty years ago. (Bill van Auken, op. cit).

In recent developments, Wayne Madsen (September 27) has suggested, based on 
US and foreign intelligence sources, that the B-52 carrying the advanced 
cruise missiles with bunker buster nuclear warheads was in fact destined for 
the Middle East.

Is the B-52 Barksdale incident in any way related to US plans to use nuclear 
weapons against Iran?

Madsen suggests, in this regard, that the operation of shipping the nuclear 
warheads was aborted "due to internal opposition within the Air Force and 
U.S. Intelligence Community", which was opposed to a planned US attack on 
Iran using nuclear warheads.

To grasp the seriousness of the "Barksdale incident", it is important to 
understand the broader context of nuclear weapons deployment respectively by 
the US, NATO and Israel.

We are not dealing with a single aborted operation of deployment of nuclear 
weapons to the Middle East.

There are indications that a large number of US made nuclear weapons are 
currently deployed in Western Europe and the Middle East including Israel.

This deployment pertains explicitly to targets in Iran.

Without downplaying the significance of the Barksdale incident, if 
Washington were to decide to use nuclear weapons against Iran, they could be 
launched at short notice from a number of military bases in Western Europe 
and the Middle East. Turkey has some 90 B61 tactical nuclear weapons which 
are fully deployed.(See details below).

We are dealing with a coordinated military operation in which US Strategic 
Command (USSTRATCOM) plays a central role. The main coalition partners are 
the US, NATO and Israel.

There are four interrelated "building blocks" pertaining to the preemptive 
use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater:

1. CONPLAN 8022 formulated in 2004. CONPLAN integrates the use of 
conventional and nuclear weapons.

2. National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear 
Weapons Deployment Authorization  issued in May 2004

3. The deployment of Israeli nuclear weapons directed against targets in the 
Middle East

4. Deployment of Nuclear Weapons by NATO/EU countries, directed against 
targets in the Middle East

1. CONPLAN 8022

CONPLAN 8022 under the jurisdiction of USSTRATCOM sets the stage. It 
envisages the integration of conventional and nuclear weapons and the use of 
nukes on a preemptive basis in the conventional war theater. It is described 
as "a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or 
information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if 
necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world." CONPLAN became 
operational in early 2004. "As a result, the Bush administration's 
preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic 
submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic 
missiles (ICBMs)." (Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of 
Atomic Scientists)

CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022 now consists of  "an actual plan that the Navy 
and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and 
bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005, For further details 
see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, op. cit.).

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

2. Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization: NSPD 35 (2004)

National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons 
Deployment Authorization  was issued in May 2004.

The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded 
State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in 
Congressional debates. While its contents remains classified, the 
presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear 
weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

There are indications that  B61-type tactical nuclear weapons have been 
deployed to the Middle East following NSPD 35. The B-61s would be used 
against Iran, if Iran were to retaliate to a US or Israeli attack (See 
Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", 
Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).

3. Israeli Nukes

Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role 
in case  the planned attacks on Iran were to be carried out. (For details 
see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington 
and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of 
US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's 
fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . 
Coinciding with the 2005 preparations to wage air strikes against Iran, 
Israel took delivery of  two new German produced submarines "that could 
launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent." 
(Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)

The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the 
possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 
2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently it is 
touted in the form of a "necessity" of nuclear strikes. The public is taught 
to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and 
that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there 
is no other way to "stop" Iran. (General Leonid Ivashov, Iran Must Get Ready 
to Repel a Nuclear Attack, Global Research, January 2007)

At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a 
bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top 
of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to 
speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and 
without us putting pressure on them "to do it".

"Rather than a direct American nuclear strike against Iran's hard targets, 
Israel has been given the assignment of launching a coordinated cluster of 
nuclear strikes aimed at targets that are the nuclear installations in the 
Iranian cities: Natanz, Isfahan and Arak.(Michael Carmichael, Global 
research, January 2007)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to 
attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National 
Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with 
some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants [former] Prime Ariel Sharon to act on 
America's behalf and "do it" for us:

..."And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement 
to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in 
fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an 
encouragement for the Israelis to do it."

Beneath the rhetoric, what we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israeli 
military operation directed against Iran and Syria, which has been in the 
active planning stage since 2004. US advisers in the Pentagon have been 
working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence 
counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour Hersh, 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )

In recent developments, at the September 2007 meetings of the Vienna based 
IAEA, a critical resolution, implicitly aimed at Israel, was put forth which 
would put Israel's nuclear program "under international purview." The 
resolution was adopted with the US and Israel voting against it.

4. NATO Nukes. Nuclear Weapons Deployment by Five Non-nuclear States

Several Western European  countries, officially considered as "non-nuclear 
states", possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them by Washington.

The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear 
NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and 
Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. These weapons are ready 
for delivery to "known military targets".



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








Source: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm

See Details and Map of Nuclear Facilities located in 5 European Non-Nuclear 
States




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


As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the 
US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 
thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. 
(National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 
2005). These military facilities are part of the war plans directed against 
Iran.




B61-11 NEP Thermonuclear Bomb

Consistent with US nuclear policy, the stockpiling and deployment of B61 
nuclear weapons in Western Europe are intended for targets in the Middle 
East. Confirmed by "NATO strike plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker 
buster bombs (stockpiled by the "non-nuclear States") could be launched 
"against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and 
Iran" ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in 
Europe , February 2005)

Moreover, confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under 
the U.S. Freedom of Information Act):

"arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow the use of U.S. nuclear 
forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command 
(EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM now supports CENTCOM 
nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, potentially, against Iran 
and Syria"

(quoted in  http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm italics added)

Moreover, the U.S. military made arrangements in the mid-1990s for the use 
of these nukes outside the area of jurisdiction of European Command 
(EURCOM).For EUCOM, this would mean responsibility for the the delivery of 
nukes within CENTCOM (Central Command) area of jurisdiction, meaning that 
nuclear attacks on Iran and Syria could be launched from military bases in 
non-nuclear EU/NATO countries.

.. It is unclear whether [the] parliaments [of EU/NATO countries] are aware 
of arrangements to target and potentially strike Middle Eastern countries 
with nuclear weapons based in 
Europe.(http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm




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






Documents partially declassified and released under the U.S. Freedom of 
Information Act reveal that arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow 
the use of U.S. nuclear forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility 
of U.S. European Command (EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM 
now supports CENTCOM nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, 
potentially, against Iran and Syria.

Source: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm



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



Nuclear Weapons' Double Standards. Where is the Nuclear Threat?

While these "non-nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing 
nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have 
capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran.  To 
say that this is a clear case of "double standards" in the process of 
identifying the threat of nuclear weapons is a gross understatement.

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy Endorses Bush's Pre-emptive Nuclear War 
Doctrine

France accuses Tehran of developing nuclear weapons against mountains of 
evidence that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

The Sarkozy government favors a military operation directed against Iran. 
Ironically, these threats by President Sarkozy and his Foreign Minister 
Bernard Kouchner were formulated immediately following the release of the 
IAEA Report. The latter confirms unequivocally the civilian nature of Iran's 
nuclear program.

According to President Sarkozy in his September 26,  2007 address to the UN 
General Assembly:

 "There will be no peace in the world if the international community falters 
in the face of nuclear arms proliferation ... Weakness and renunciation do 
not lead to peace. They lead to war,"

France has also confirmed that it could use its own nuclear warheads 
estimated at between 200 and 300, on a preemptive basis. In January 2006, 
(former) President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France's 
nuclear weapons policy.

Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be used 
in the form of  "more focused attacks" against countries, which were 
"considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be 
used in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US and NATO 
nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear 
weapons , Nucleonics Week January 26, 2006).

Chirac's successor, Nicolas Sarkozy has embraced the US sponsored "War on 
Terrorism".

France supports the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the conventional 
war theater, broadly following the principles formulated in the Bush 
Administration's nuclear doctrine, which  allows the use of nukes (against 
Iran or Syria) for "self-defense".



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



Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America's "War 
on Terrorism"  Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the 
University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on 
Globalization.

To order Chossudovsky's book  America's "War on Terrorism", click here





Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to 
spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle 
East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.


media inquiries crgeditor@xxxxxxxxx


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

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility 
of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for 
Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on 
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The 
source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of 
Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial 
internet sites, contact: crgeditor@xxxxxxxxx

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not 
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making 
such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in 
an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and 
social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to 
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and 
educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes 
other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@xxxxxxxxx

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007

The url address of this article is: 
www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=6918

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


© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

Forward email
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1101807978350&ea=james.irldaly%40ntlworld.com&a=1101827487395





This email was sent to james.irldaly@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
by crgeditor@xxxxxxxxx

Update Profile/Email Address
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1101807978350&se=2867&t=1101827487395&lang=en&reason=F

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1101807978350&se=2867&t=1101827487395&lang=en&reason=F

Privacy Policy:
http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp




Email Marketing by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com




GlobalResearch.ca | v | montreal | Canada