|
Afghan border drug lords set pre-text for Iranian Adventure?
|
U.S. Warplanes Kill 12 Insurgents; Afghan Border Unit Scores Drug Bust
WASHINGTON, May 22, 2005 - U.S. warplanes killed 12 insurgents after the individuals attacked a coalition patrol east of Gayan, in Afghanistan's Paktika province, late May 21. One U.S. soldier was wounded during the incident.
The incident started when a group of four insurgents crossed the border into Afghanistan from Pakistan and attacked a U.S. patrol with small arms near the eastern city of Gayan. The unit returned fire, and the insurgents fled the area. They met up with a group of eight other individuals a short distance later.
U.S. warplanes responded to the attack and, in coordination with soldiers on the ground, reported killing all 12 insurgents.
The one U.S. soldier reported wounded during the attack received medical treatment at the site and returned to duty.
In other news from Afghanistan, the 6th Brigade Transitional Afghan Border Security Forces stopped a shipment of drugs being smuggled across the Afghanistan-Iran border May 19.
This is the third time in just over a month that the border unit has thwarted such smuggling. TABSF added 144 kilograms (317 pounds) to the drug count with the most recent operation, bringing the total to 644 kilos (1,417 pounds) confiscated at the border to date.
Bags of hashish and opium were stuffed in the trunk of a white Toyota Corolla that was headed through the district of Ghoryan for Iran. TABSF acted on "credible information" in stopping the car, U.S. officials said.
The hashish amounted to 65 kilos (143 pounds) and was hidden in 64 Maxwell House coffee wrappers. Seventy-nine kilos (174 pounds) of opium were also concealed in 24 other bags and labeled with the recipients' names written on pieces of paper taped on the bags.
Two men in the vehicle were arrested and were to be handed over to the counternarcotics police of Herat. Two other men on motorcycles fled from the scene. The drugs were also handed over to the counternarcotics police of Herat May 21.
"Before I came, there were so much drugs, smuggling and corruption," said Afghan Col. Safe Aube, the border unit's commander. "We are sending all the soldiers to the academy for training and to teach them to serve their country right. We have pride in our country and what we do."
The first bust April 19 uncovered 480 kilos of heroin, and the second about a week ago brought up 20 kilos more of opium. - noticias.info
|
What are UK troops REALLY being sent for?
|
Secret UK troops plan for Afghan crisis
DEFENCE chiefs are planning to rush thousands of British troops to Afghanistan in a bid to stop the country sliding towards civil war,
Ministers have been warned they face a "complete strategic failure" of the effort to rebuild Afghanistan and that 5,500 extra troops will be needed within months if the situation continues to deteriorate.
An explosive cocktail of feuding tribal warlords, insurgents, the remnants of the Taliban, and under-performing Afghan institutions has left the fledgling democracy on the verge of disintegration, according to analysts and senior officers.
The looming crisis in Afghanistan is a serious setback for the US-led 'War on Terror' and its bid to promote western democratic values around the world.
Defence analysts say UK forces are already so over-stretched that any operation to restore order in Afghanistan can only succeed if substantial numbers of troops are redeployed from Iraq, itself in the grip of insurgency.
The UK contribution to the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan presently stands at fewer than 500, compared with the contribution of 8,000 troops to the Coalition presence in Iraq.
Planners at the UK military's Northolt headquarters have drawn up emergency proposals to send up to 5,500 troops to Afghanistan to help avert a descent into more widespread bloodshed.
As well as increasing the British presence in Afghanistan 10-fold, it would require additional funding of almost £500m. - BRIAN BRADY - Scotsman
|
Narco-trafficking as politically useful geo-strategic power play
Flashback: 1993 WTC bombing
The World Trade Center bombing is the legacy of the CIA's disastrous policy
of arming the mujahedeen in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not only have Afghan
war veterans been implicated in the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history,
but mujahedeen warlords also have become the world's biggest heroin
producers, according to experts in the international drug trade.
The CIA's arms shipments and training program for the mujahedeen became one
of its most massive covert operations, costing at least $2 billion, far
surpassing U.S. support for the Nicaraguan contras. If anything, the battle
for Afghanistan motivated the CIA more than the war against the
Sandinistas. In Nicaragua, the CIA fought Soviet proxies. In Afghanistan,
the enemy was the Soviet army, which invaded Afghanistan in December 1979.
Support for Nicaraguan and Afghani "freedom fighters" became the
cornerstone of the so-called Reagan Doctrine-an attempt not just to contain
Communism but to roll it back. While the contras were mostly a collection
of former dictator Anastasio Somoza's street thugs, in Afghanistan the
rebels were Islamic extremists and narco-terrorists who hated America as
much as they despised the Godless Russians.
Billions of dollars of CIA money, matched by billions from Saudi Arabia (a
quid pro quo for receiving AWAC surveillance planes over the adamant
protests of the pro-Israel lobby), were passed through the Bank of Credit
and Commerce International to the Afghan rebels. The bank was also used to
channel funds to the contras. But no matter how much money the Afghan
rebels received it never seemed to be enough. In order to augment their
funds, rebel chieftains began to grow poppies, refine opium into heroin,
and sell the drug in the U.S. and Europe. In 1979, Pakistan and Afghanistan
exported virtually no heroin to the West. By 1981, the drug lords, many
high-ranking members of Pakistan's political and military establishment,
controlled 60 per cent of America's heroin market. "Trucks from the
Pakistan army's National Logistics Cell arriving with CIA arms from Karachi
often returned loaded with heroin-protected by ISI [Pakistan's internal
security service] papers from police search," wrote Alfred McCoy in The
Politics of Heroin (Lawrence Hill, 1991).
- THE CIA AND HEROIN FINANCED THE MUJAHEDEEN By Robert I. Friedman
|
|
|
Scott Ritter: US assault on Iran already in Progress
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over-flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using such means as pilotless drones and other more sophisticated capabilities.
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.
President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.
But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.
To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
|
|
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.
The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.
But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.
In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.
No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Persian Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.
A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.
US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.
Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.
Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.
Scott Ritter
|
attacking Iran by proxy?
|
Fears of military action on Iraq-Iran border
By Phil Sands and Jumana Al Tamimi
Muntheria, Iraq/Dubai : Tensions between Iran and Iraq have escalated in recent weeks to the extent that threats of military action have been made, a senior member of Iraq's security forces said.
General Nazim Mohammad, chief of Iraq's Border Police in Muntheria, told Gulf News he had personally told his Iranian counterparts their soldiers would be shot if they strayed too close to Iraqi fortifications.
Speaking during an interview at his headquarters in Muntheria, on the Iraq-Iran frontier, he claimed his forces had come under small arms fire from the Iranians. Iranian troops had also fired mortars which exploded on Iraqi soil, he said.
American officers confirmed there had been mortar strikes, which they said appeared to have hit the no-man's land between Iraqi and Iranian lines.
When contacted, Laith Kubba, spokesman for the Iraqi Government, told Gulf News: "I don't have any information on this. But these could be smuggling groups which are usually armed. This is not the first time it has happened."
Iranian officials and mediamen, however, felt the accusations were not true.
Mosib Nuaimi, Editor-in-Chief of Al Wesaq newspaper, told Gulf News from Iran: "How can mortar shells fall without anyone seeing them? After the recent explosions in the Iranian city of Ahvaz, security has been boosted. But I haven't heard of any tension on the border."
According to Gen Nazim, he and other Iraqi officials were sent by the Ministry of Interior to a meeting with Iranian authorities recently.
"I told the Iranians: ‘Mortars from the Iranian side are often being fired on the Iraqi side ... I have ordered my soldiers, if Iranian soldiers come close to us, we will open fire directly. If I capture your soldiers, I will parade them on TV in front of the entire world'."
Gen Nazim, who is well respected by US forces for his tough approach to security, also said his men had arrested several Iranians involved in sabotage.
"We captured three men and there is proof they blew up oil pipelines near Nuft Khaneh under the orders of Iranian intelligence officers," he said. "They had people working with them in Baquba too." -
Gulf News
IMCUK - attacking Iran by Proxy
|
Vote recount? deja vu??? another set-up...?
|
Vote recount in Iran after rigging accusations
By Paul Hughes - TEHRAN (Reuters) - Electoral authorities on Monday ordered a partial recount of Iran's inconclusive presidential election after reformists accused military organizations of rigging the vote in favor of a hard-line candidate. The recount comes four days before an unpredictable second round run-off between the top two candidates in Friday's poll -- pragmatic former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-line mayor of Tehran. Friday's run-off, forced after none of the original seven candidates won an absolute majority, is likely to have a major impact on Iran's relations with the world and the future of fragile reforms in the Islamic Republic.
Rafsanjani, 70, bidding to regain the post he held from 1989 to 1997, rebranded himself as a liberal for the campaign, saying the time was right to open a new chapter in Iran-U.S. ties and indicating he would increase social and political freedoms. His surprise rival Ahmadinejad, 49, who would be Iran's first non-cleric president for 24 years, ran a far more modest campaign focusing on the need to tackle poverty and revive the ideals of the 1979 Islamic revolution. But reformists, some of whom accuse state military organizations like the Basij militia of supporting Ahmadinejad, say he is part of an ultra-conservative totalitarian plan.
"If he wins (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei will really rule everything," said Mohammad Reza Khatami, head of Iran's largest reform party. "We will not have free elections and opposition voices won't be tolerated," he told Reuters.
Islamic hard-liners, many of them former Revolutionary Guards members, won control of many city councils and Iran's parliament in 2003 and 2004 elections which were marred by low turnout. Iran's hard-line Guardian Council, which has the final word on election results, said it would recount votes from 100 ballot boxes in four cities on Monday to allay the rigging fears. There have been no popular protests about the vote results.
VOTES PAID FOR?
Just two million votes separated first from fifth place and pundits were stunned by Ahmadinejad's strong showing after opinion polls had shown him trailing well down the field. Third-placed reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi, who asked for the partial recount, said some Ahmadinejad votes were paid for.
Two newspapers which printed his charges in a daringly critical letter to Khamenei were closed by the judiciary. Rafsanjani, alluding to "organized interference" in the vote, urged Iranians to help him defeat Ahmadinejad.
"I seek your help and ask you to be present in the second round of the election so that we can prevent all extremism," he said in a statement published in several newspapers.
Many political analysts, while surprised by Ahmadinejad's strong showing in the first round, said reformists had provided no concrete evidence of vote rigging and had underestimated the mayor's strong support among Iran's large mass of pious poor.
"Ahmadinejad sold himself as a Robin Hood -- hardworking, honest, a man of the people," said an analyst who declined to be named. "He represents the resentment of people toward those who are doing better, driving fancy cars and so on."
Mohsen Faraji, 25, member of the Basiji militia who enforce social restrictions such as Islamic dress codes for women, said a win for Ahmadinejad, who outlawed billboards of English soccer star David Beckham in Tehran, would herald a new era for Iran.
"History will remember this election," he said. "A wave of change is coming. People want Ahmadinejad as he's one of them."
Despite reformist distaste for Rafsanjani, who many accuse of lacking true democratic credentials, he was the lesser of two evils, Khatami said.
"Although we may not agree with all Rafsanjani's programs we have to support him."
The largest pro-reform students organization, which boycotted Friday's election, also said it would actively campaign for a Rafsanjani win. Formal campaigning can only start on Tuesday and must end 24 hours before the run-off giving the candidates just two days to canvass more support.
(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi, Edmund Blair, Amir Paivar and Christian Oliver)
Reuters
|
Bush caught out
|
Bush's barbs on Iran backfire
By BRIAN MURPHY - The Associated Press
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's spy chief used just two words to respond to White House ridicule of last week's presidential election: "Thank you." His sarcasm was barely hidden. The backfire on Washington, D.C., was more evident.
The sharp barbs from President Bush were widely seen in Iran as damaging to pro-reform groups because the comments appeared to have boosted turnout among hard-liners in Friday's election - with the result being that an ultraconservative is in a two-way showdown for the presidency.
"I say to Bush: 'Thank you,' " quipped Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi. "He motivated people to vote in retaliation."
Bush's comments - blasting the ruling clerics for blocking "basic requirements of democracy" - became a lively sideshow in Iran's closest election since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. And they highlighted again the United States' often crossed-wire efforts to isolate Iran.
Bush described the election as an exercise in futility because Iran's real power rests with the nonelected Islamic clerics, who can override the president and parliament. Many agree with that description of a regime that allowed just eight presidential candidates from more than 1,000 hopefuls.
Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the election shows that the country is out of step with democratic reforms in the Middle East. "I just don't see the Iranian elections as being a serious attempt to move Iran closer to a democratic future," she said on ABC's "This Week."
But the harder the United States pushes, even with the best of intentions, the more ground it seems to lose among mainstream Iranians, who represent possible key allies against the Islamic establishment, say some analysts of Iranian politics.
"Unknowingly, [Bush] pushed Iranians to vote so that they can prove their loyalty to the regime - even if they are in disagreement with it," said Hamed al-Abdullah, a political-science professor at Kuwait University.
In 2002, most Iranians were indignant when Bush placed their nation in an "axis of evil" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Since then, U.S.-led pressure over Iran's nuclear program has put even liberal Iranians on the defensive. Bush's pre-election denunciations seemed to do the same. Iranian authorities claim Bush energized undecided voters to go to the polls and undercut a boycott drive led by liberal dissidents opposed to the Islamic system.
The unexpectedly strong turnout - nearly 63 percent - produced a true surprise in the No. 2 finish of hard-line Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He will face the top finisher, moderate statesman Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, in a Friday runoff. Rafsanjani, Iran's president in 1989-1997, has said he is open to greater dialogue with the United States. But Ahmadinejad offered no such opening after the vote was tallied Saturday, and he could take a harsher stance toward the United States and its concerns - especially accusations that Iran is secretly seeking nuclear arms. Iran denies the charges and puts them down to U.S. anger with the clerical regime.
"You only have to look at the comments" by Bush to understand that he "seeks hostility" against Iran, Ahmadinejad said.
The conservative hard-line Iranian newspaper Kayhan wrote: "People crushed the U.S. comments and wishes under their feet." But even many opponents of the Islamic establishment objected to Bush's tone and timing. The president's words sounded too much like the prewar rhetoric against Saddam, and many on-the-fence voters were shocked into action, said Abdollah Momeni, a political-affairs expert at Tehran University.
"People faced a dilemma," Momeni said. "In people's minds it became a choice between voting or giving Bush an excuse to attack."
Another political commentator, Davoud Hermidas Bavand, believed the fallout from Bush's statements went beyond the election by destroying lingering hopes that Washington, D.C., policy-makers finally would accept Iran's regime. The United States broke ties with Iran after the revolution when militants seized the U.S. Embassy and held 52 hostages for 444 days.
[webmasters note; see 'Iran Contra' - the US did a deal with Iran - to keep the hostages until Carter lost the presidency]
Iran's foreign minister Kamel Kharrazi said yesterday that Bush "should apologize to the people of Iran for his comments." He also extended another wry "thank you." "Bush's statements brought out voters who didn't want to participate in the elections," Kharrazi said. "We have to thank him for this."
Across the Middle East, Bush's blast hit a fault line. The president is trying to firm up the United States' pro-democracy credentials by encouraging gradual reforms in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. But at the same time, the White House often is seen as having double standards with the occupation of Iraq and alleged abuses of Muslim detainees at Guantánamo Bay. The Bush comments are an example of "the kind of American intervention" that often boomerangs in the region, said Egyptian political analyst Salama Ahmed Salama.
"Bush meant to discourage the hard-liners," he said, "but instead he mobilized their supporters."
Meanwhile, Rafsanjani sought to rally moderates yesterday by warning that his hard-line opponent would run a totalitarian regime. The statement from the campaign manager for Rafsanjani came amid suspicions the powerful Revolutionary Guard would rig the runoff vote for conservatives. Rafsanjani's campaign manager, Mohammed Baghir Nowbakht, said Friday's runoff was crucial because hard-liners would not tolerate differences of opinions if elected and would run a "totalitarian" regime.
"They would never let other groups participate in the government," he said.
One losing candidate already has accused the Revolutionary Guard and its vigilante supporters of fixing votes during the first round of balloting. None of the seven candidates received the necessary 51 percent to win outright, forcing the runoff. Former Parliament speaker Mahdi Karroubi, who finished behind Ahmadinejad by less than two-tenths of a percentage point, has written to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei demanding he guarantee that the Revolutionary Guard will not manipulate the Friday runoff. The letter also asked for an investigation into charges the Revolutionary Guard and vigilante groups pressured voters in four provinces. Khamenei heads the Islamic theocracy and can overrule the president or parliament.
Associated Press reporters Kathy Gannon, Maamoun Youssef and Diana Elias contributed to this report.
|
|
No foreign policy change with Iran new pres.'
LONDON, June 20 (IranMania) - Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi stressed that the principles of Iran's foreign policy will not be affected by the new president.
"The nuclear programs will not undergo any change. We favor detente and cooperation with the international communityand insist on our principles," he told reporters at a press conference. Kharrazi regretted that the secret information provided by Iran to the IAEA has been leaked to the mass media, maintaining that this showed the IAEA was under the influence of certain countries.
"As already predicted, elections held on Saturday shamed the Americans and proved that they were neither good politicians not fortune-tellers," he said, referring to the high turnout in the 9th presidential election held on June 17, IRNA reported. Out of the 29,317,042 votes cast on Friday across the country, Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were the top vote-getters and are to head for runoff election on June 24.
"The Iranian people said a 'big no' to the US in the elections. We hope that the Americans will wake up and revise their stances toward Iran before it is too late," he said.
Kharrazi also said the Americans acted hastily by supporting some saboteurs, stressing that the Americans should apologize to the Iranian nation for their mistakes. He said the election will send new signals to the international community that it should regard Iran as a powerful state in the region.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran will proceed with religious-based democracy and continue to exercise its influence on the region," he said.
Kharrazi rejected the American style of democracy which is in contrast with Iranian culture and attitude. "We call for a democracy based on Islamic vigilance. We are pleased with the vigilance in the region and that the regional people do not like American democracy," he said. - iranmania
|
More Iran Psyops
July 2, 2005-As part of the propaganda pretext towards a full-scale US military attack on Iran (covert operations and military preparations have have been ongoing for months) the Bush administration, the Associated Press, and a handful of former US hostages (all former CIA and US military officers) have accused Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of being one of the 1979 hostage-takers.
The former hostages, Chuck Scott, William Daugherty, Don Sharer and David Roeder declared to the AP that they have "no doubt" that Ahmadinejad was a hostage-takers after seeing the Iranian president-elect on TV. Scott, a former US Army Colonel, declared: "This is the guy. There's no question about it. You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him." Daughtery was a CIA officer, Sharer was a US Navy attaché, and Roeder was a deputy Air Force attaché. Two other ex-hostages, William Gallegos and Kevin Hermening, reached the same conclusion after looking at photos.
Larry Chin - onlinejournal.com
The original assertion fron Neocon Friendly Benador Associates
|
Hostage-taker in photo not Iran leader, ex-spy says
July 3, 2005 BY ALI AKBAR DAREINI
TEHRAN, Iran -- A top Iranian former secret agent said Saturday the hostage-taker in a 1979 photograph that has come under intense scrutiny is not President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but a former militant who committed suicide in jail.
Saeed Hajjarian, a top adviser to outgoing President Mohammad Khatami, also denied an Austrian newspaper report and claims by Iranian dissidents that Ahmadinejad had a role in the 1989 slaying of an Iranian opposition Kurdish leader and two associates in Vienna. - sun times
Report on Ahmadinejad's role in hostage siege false
|
|
Not Just A Last Resort? A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option
By William Arkin - Sunday, May 15, 2005; B01
Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.
Two months later, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport (La.) Times. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes." Carlson said his forces were the U.S. Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and could execute an attack "in half a day or less."
In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.
The official U.S. position on the use of nuclear weapons has not changed. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has taken steps to de-emphasize the importance of its nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has said it remains committed to reducing our nuclear stockpile while keeping a credible deterrent against other nuclear powers. Administration and military officials have stressed this continuity in testimony over the past several years before various congressional committees.
But a confluence of events, beginning with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the president's forthright commitment to the idea of preemptive action to prevent future attacks, has set in motion a process that has led to a fundamental change in how the U.S. military might respond to certain possible threats. Understanding how we got to this point, and what it might mean for U.S. policy, is particularly important now -- with the renewed focus last week on Iran's nuclear intentions and on speculation that North Korea is ready to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon.
Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."
This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02.
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. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)
CONPLAN 8022 anticipates two different scenarios. The first is a response to a specific and imminent nuclear threat, say in North Korea. A quick-reaction, highly choreographed strike would combine pinpoint bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to disable a North Korean response, with commandos operating deep in enemy territory, perhaps even to take possession of the nuclear device.
The second scenario involves a more generic attack on an adversary's WMD infrastructure. Assume, for argument's sake, that Iran announces it is mounting a crash program to build a nuclear weapon. A multidimensional bombing (kinetic) and cyberwarfare (non-kinetic) attack might seek to destroy Iran's program, and special forces would be deployed to disable or isolate underground facilities.
By employing all of the tricks in the U.S. arsenal to immobilize an enemy country -- turning off the electricity, jamming and spoofing radars and communications, penetrating computer networks and garbling electronic commands -- global strike magnifies the impact of bombing by eliminating the need to physically destroy targets that have been disabled by other means.
The inclusion, therefore, of a nuclear weapons option in CONPLAN 8022 -- a specially configured earth-penetrating bomb to destroy deeply buried facilities, if any exist -- is particularly disconcerting. The global strike plan holds the nuclear option in reserve if intelligence suggests an "imminent" launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets.
It is difficult to imagine a U.S. president ordering a nuclear attack on Iran or North Korea under any circumstance. Yet as global strike contingency planning has moved forward, so has the nuclear option.
Global strike finds its origins in pre-Bush administration Air Force thinking about a way to harness American precision and stealth to "kick down the door" of defended territory, making it easier for (perhaps even avoiding the need for) follow-on ground operations.
The events of 9/11 shifted the focus of planning. There was no war plan for Afghanistan on the shelf, not even a generic one. In Afghanistan, the synergy of conventional bombing and special operations surprised everyone. But most important, weapons of mass destruction became the American government focus. It is not surprising, then, that barely three months after that earth-shattering event, the Pentagon's quadrennial Nuclear Posture Review assigned the military and Stratcom the task of providing greater flexibility in nuclear attack options against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and China.
The Air Force's global strike concept was taken over by Stratcom and made into something new. This was partly in response to the realization that the military had no plans for certain situations. The possibility that some nations would acquire the ability to attack the United States directly with a WMD, for example, had clearly fallen between the command structure's cracks. For example, the Pacific Command in Hawaii had loads of war plans on its shelf to respond to a North Korean attack on South Korea, including some with nuclear options. But if North Korea attacked the United States directly -- or, more to the point, if the U.S. intelligence network detected evidence of preparations for such an attack, Pacific Command didn't have a war plan in place.
In May 2002, Rumsfeld issued an updated Defense Planning Guidance that directed the military to develop an ability to undertake "unwarned strikes . . . [to] swiftly defeat from a position of forward deterrence." The post-9/11 National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, codified preemption, stating that the United States must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies."
"We cannot let our enemies strike first," President Bush declared in the National Security Strategy document.
Stratcom established an interim global strike division to turn the new preemption policy into an operational reality. In December 2002, Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., then Stratcom's head, told an Omaha business group that his command had been charged with developing the capability to strike anywhere in the world within minutes of detecting a target.
Ellis posed the following question to his audience: "If you can find that time-critical, key terrorist target or that weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpile, and you have minutes rather than hours or days to deal with it, how do you reach out and negate that threat to our nation half a world away?"
CONPLAN 8022-02 was completed in November 2003, putting in place for the first time a preemptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and North Korea. In January 2004, Ellis certified Stratcom's readiness for global strike to the defense secretary and the president.
At Ellis's retirement ceremony in July, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an Omaha audience that "the president charged you to 'be ready to strike at any moment's notice in any dark corner of the world' [and] that's exactly what you've done."
As U.S. military forces have gotten bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, the attractiveness of global strike planning has increased in the minds of many in the military. Stratcom planners, recognizing that U.S. ground forces are already overcommitted, say that global strike must be able to be implemented "without resort to large numbers of general purpose forces."
When one combines the doctrine of preemption with a "homeland security" aesthetic that concludes that only hyper-vigilance and readiness stand in the way of another 9/11, it is pretty clear how global strike ended up where it is. The 9/11 attacks caught the country unaware and the natural reaction of contingency planners is to try to eliminate surprise in the future. The Nuclear Posture Review and Rumsfeld's classified Defense Planning Guidance both demanded more flexible nuclear options.
Global strike thinkers may believe that they have found a way to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle; but they are also having to cater to a belief on the part of those in government's inner circle who have convinced themselves that the gravity of the threats demands that the United States not engage in any protracted debate, that it prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Though the official Washington mantra has always been "we don't discuss war plans," here is a real life predicament that cries out for debate: In classic terms, military strength and contingency planning can dissuade an attacker from mounting hostile actions by either threatening punishment or demonstrating through preparedness that an attacker's objectives could not possibly be achieved. The existence of a nuclear capability, and a secure retaliatory force, moreover, could help to deter an attack -- that is, if the threat is credible in the mind of the adversary.
But the global strike contingency plan cannot be a credible threat if it is not publicly known. And though CONPLAN 8022 suggests a clean, short-duration strike intended to protect American security, a preemptive surprise attack (let alone one involving a nuclear weapon option) would unleash a multitude of additional and unanticipated consequences. So, on both counts, why aren't we talking about it? - washington post
2002 -
Iran in the crosshairs Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
|
|
The offers
The significant EU incentives appear to be:
1. Granting access to "the international nuclear technologies market where contracts are awarded on the basis of open competitive tendering" to which Iran has hitherto been barred and allowing Iran to export nuclear technology under certain controls.
2. A draft EU/Iran Trade and Cooperation agreement and Political Dialogue Agreement.
3. An assured supply of nuclear fuel for Iranian reactors from Russia, based on a unspecified framework to be negotiated.
4. Unspecified support for the development of Iran's civil nuclear programme, and negotiations on an agreement between Iran and EURATOM.
5. A general commitment to work with Iran to develop regional security arrangements and confidence-building measures, which could prove of value to Iran.
6. Continued support for Iranian accession to the WTO.
|
The demands
In contrast, the demands made of Iran are a great deal more clear and specific:
1. That Iran makes "a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities other than the construction and operation of light water power and research reactors." This means no uranium conversion, or enrichment, no fuel reprocessing and the closure of the heavy water reactor at Arak. The EU3 clearly recognises that this implies the shut-down of major facilities including Natanz and Isfahan, and the loss of a substantial capital investment, so promises to "establish a group to identify alternative uses for the equipment, installations, facilities and materials".
2. Resolution of all questions raised under Iran's Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and continued cooperation with the IAEA, with all facilities under safeguards under all circumstances.
3. Ratify the NPT Additional Protocol by the end of 2005, and in the meantime to fully implement it.
4. Agree to arrangements for the supply of nuclear fuel elements from outside Iran and their return to the supplier after their use in the reactor.
5. Strict national export controls under UNSCR 1540 based on international norms, with assistance from EU officials in setting up procedures.
6. A legally-binding commitment not to leave the NPT.
|
|
Defiant Iran Prepares To Resume Nuclear Work
Tehran, Iran (AFP) Aug 02, 2005 - Iran on Monday defiantly took the first steps towards a resumption of sensitive nuclear work which risks plunging talks with the European Union into crisis and exposing Tehran to UN Security Council action.
Iran handed over a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agencythat formally notified the UN watchdog of the imminent resumption of uranium ore conversion, the precursor to enrichment in the nuclear fuel cycle. It then announced that in coordination with inspectors from the IAEA it was making the initial preparations to remove the seals placed on a plant in the city of Isfahan and then resume conversion activities after a nine month suspension.
The Islamic republic has yet to announce that production has started - something it had originally said would take place Monday - but emphasised the initial steps were mere formalities and there was no going back. "Inspectors from the IAEA are working, controlling (surveillance) cameras and making their own controls so that the seals can be removed," nuclear negotiator Ali Agha Mohammadi said on state television. "When their work is completed this will mean that the (uranium conversion) plant at Isfahan will restart. It is routine and practical work but from our point of view Isfahan is already back online."
Tehran's decision, which jeopardises months of tortuous talks with European Union countries aimed at saving Iran from UN Security Council sanctions, immediately aroused expressions of grave concern from the international community.
"If Iran does not go back on its choice we will then have to demand an exceptional meeting of the IAEA council of governors," said French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste Blazy. "If despite this Iran carries on we will need to go to the Security Council," he added.
The United States, which accuses Iran of seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, lost no time in reaffirming its threat to go to the Security Council. "If they're not going to abide by their agreement and obligations, then we would have to look to the Security Council," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei urged Iran to halt its unilateral move, which comes just three days before hardline president Mahmood Ahmadinejad takes office, calling on Tehran "to continue the negotiation process."
A letter from Iran given to the IAEA in Vienna complained that Europe has dallied too long in coming up with concrete proposals for a nuclear cooperation deal, adding that it had reason to believe that the eventual offer would be "totally unacceptable".
Iranian politicians have for once united in support of their country's right to nuclear power, which has become an issue of national pride and compared to the nationalisation of the oil industry by prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. Both conversion and enrichment activity were suspended by Iran last November for the duration of talks with the European Union on providing guarantees that its nuclear programme is exclusively civil.
In Berlin, a foreign ministry spokesman said the European Union would be making its offer in the next days. "In this context, a resumption of uranium conversion would be a completely unnecessary step ... But now it is up to Iran not to miscalculate." Iran had warned on Sunday that it would resume conversion work if the EU failed by Monday to come up with its package of trade and security incentives, a timetable which the European countries said never existed. However, the letter handed over by Iran did not close the door on further talks and pledged to maintain its current suspension of uranium enrichment.
"Iran wants to ensure that no effort is spared in order to reach a negotiated resumption of its enrichment activities. It is therefore, prepared to continue in good faith and in an expeditious and result-oriented manner."
Iran has always insisted that conversion - the process by which uranium ore is converted into a gas for use as a feedstock for enrichment - is separate and less sensitive than the latter process. But the European Union had made clear that it regards all parts of fuel cycle as equally sensitive.
An IAEA spokesman said it would take at least 72 hours to convene a session of the agency's 35-nation board of governors, which could then send the Iranian dossier to the Security Council. - spacewar
|
|
Bush suspicious of Iran's nuclear ambitions
09/08/2005 - 18:44:35 - US President George Bush said today he's deeply suspicious about Iran's nuclear ambitions, but that the country's new leader has indicated a willingness to negotiate. Bush said he got word today that the newly elected president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said he is willing to negotiate with other nations amid concerns that his country is developing nuclear weapons.
"Just as I was walking here, I received word that the new president said he was willing to get back to the table," Bush told reporters at a brief question-and-answer session at his Texas ranch.
Bush said that if Iran does not co-operate, United Nations sanctions are "a potential consequence."
"We'll work with our friends on steps forward, on ways to deal with the Iranians if they so choose to ignore the demands of the world," he said.
Bush's comments came a day after Iran restarted some uranium conversion activities at its nuclear plant at the central Iranian city of Isfahan.
Britain, France and Germany have been trying to persuade Iran to drop its uranium enrichment program and related activities in return for incentives. Tehran rejected their latest offer last weekend.
"We're very deeply suspicious of their desires and call upon our friends in Europe ... to lead the diplomatic effort to convince the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions," Bush said after a meeting with his economic advisers at his private ranch.
Tehran, which had agreed to suspend nuclear activities in November, insists its nuclear programme is peaceful, but Washington accuses it of covertly trying to build a weapon.
Iran had pledged to stop building centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium to levels high enough to fuel a nuclear weapon. Centrifuges also can be used for the peaceful generation of nuclear energy; uranium enriched to lower levels is used to produce electricity. - IOL
|
|
History repeats as Bush says, Bring on Iran
August 10 2005 and President Bush is expressing renewed concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions one day after Tehran resumed nuclear fuel-related activities.
The president has long expressed doubts over Iranian assurances that its nuclear program is designed solely for peaceful energy purposes. Speaking with reporters at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush said Iran's recent actions provide additional cause for concern.
"We are very deeply suspicious of their [nuclear] desires and call upon our friends in Europe, the EU-3 -- Germany, France and Great Britain to lead the diplomatic effort to convince the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions," he said.
The president was interrupting an annual five-week vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, one of a number of vacations he takes at his ranch each year, to speak about Iran.
No doubt the president's suspicions will arouse Republican supporters, Fox News commentators, retired generals, and other consultants for the military-industrial complex, defense contractors such as Bechtel and Halliburton, the Israeli lobby, Tony Blair, and John Howard to name a few.
The rest of the world though, undoubtedly, will be raising eyebrows as it sees history about to repeat itself.
Flashback to the same day three years ago, August 10 2002.
The U.S. president, again vacationing at Crawford was chatting to reporters before a round of golf at Ridgewood Country Club.
" Anybody got anything?" the president asked.
Q Do you, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: "Well, I do. I'm in close consultations with my senior staff on a variety of subjects. As I said yesterday, I have no timetable for any of our policies as regards to Iraq. That -- yesterday I spent time with my principal advisors on that subject, as well as others."
Q Mr. President, yesterday in an interview I guess with Scott, you described Iraq as the enemy.
THE PRESIDENT: "I described them as the axis of evil once. I described them as an enemy until proven otherwise. They obviously, you know, desire weapons of mass destruction. I presume that he still views us as an enemy. I have constantly said that we owe it to our children and our children's children to free the world from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of those who hate freedom. This is a man who has poisoned his own people, I mean he's had a history of tyranny."
Q I'm sorry, if I could follow up. Are you surprised that you haven't been able to build more support within the region and within Europe for taking action?
THE PRESIDENT: "Well, Stretch, I think most people understand he is a danger. But as I've said in speech after speech, I've got a lot of tools at my disposal. And I've also said I am a deliberate person. And so I'm -- we're in the process of consulting not only with Congress, like I said I do the other day, but with our friends and allies. And the consultation process is a positive part of really allowing people to fully understand our deep concerns about this man, his regime and his desires to have weapons of mass destruction."
"Last question, and then I've got to go chip and putt for a birdie." (Laughter.) "It was a good drive."
Q Do you think the American people are prepared for casualties in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: "Well, I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable. What I do believe the American people understand is that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein are very dangerous for ourselves, our allies. They understand the concept of blackmail. They know that when we speak of making the world more safe, we do so not only in the context of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, but nations that have proven themselves to be bad neighbors and bad actors.
Thank you. Have fun today."
Twice the president said Saddam Hussein 'desired' weapons of mass destruction. He didn't say he had them.
He did have a concern that Saddam had gassed his own people, notwithstanding this was when 5,000 people were gassed in 1987, some eighteen years ago.
A week later with the president's vacation in full swing he bantered with reporters again on August 16 2002 at Crawford Community Center, the script intact.
The first question was unusual in the manner in which it was framed.
Q Mr. President, not all Republicans seem sold on your intention to deal with dictators who gas their own people. What are you going to do to make that case more persuasively? Are you consulting with them? And, what is your obligation of getting approval, not just consultation, with Congress?
THE PRESIDENT: "Yes, I appreciate that question. First of all, I am aware that some very intelligent people are expressing their opinions about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I listen carefully to what they have to say."
"There should be no doubt in anybody's mind this man is thumbing his nose at the world, that he has gassed his own people, that he is trouble in his neighborhood, that he desires weapons of mass destruction. I will use all the latest intelligence to make informed decisions about how best to keep the world at peace, how best to defend freedom for the long run."
When the president went back to work in September 2002 things began to heat up. By the 26th of that month, the pressure was on. Speaking to Congressional leaders in the Rose Garden the president had this to say:
"The Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced."
"The danger to our country is grave," he continued. "The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
Bush added, "The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year."
So, what was that you were saying about Iran, George?
- Big news network
|
|
|
|
