Citizen G'kar: Musings on Earth

January 04, 2006

Nuclear War against Iran?

I'm not sure what to make of Globalresearch.ca. They do seem willing to say the most alarmist things. Here is a good example:
Choking the Internet: How much longer will your favorite sites be on line?
There are also many cases of Google’s search engine failing to list and link to certain information. According to a number of web site administrators who carry anti-Bush political content, this situation has become more pronounced in the last month. In addition, many web site administrators are reporting a dramatic drop-off in hits to their sites, according to their web statistic analyzers. Adding to their woes is the frequency at which spam viruses are being spoofed as coming from their web site addresses. Government disruption of the political side of the web can easily be hidden amid hyped mainstream news media reports of the latest "boutique" viruses and worms, reports that have more to do with the sales of anti-virus software and services than actual long-term disruption of banks, utilities, or airlines.

I've not had any trouble finding what I want. And I can't believe my site could avoid being censored if that was Google's intent. Clearly, my site is not. Enter "Doublethink Dubya" and my site is first on the page. Now enter site:www.globalresearch.ca Global Research in Google and you will see some of their most controversial titles. They make no mention of the sites that are not listed by Google, but clearly their site is listed and page ranked high.
So keep this all in mind when reading the excerpt or full article I'm citing. I don't believe nuclear war is imminent with Iran, but they clearly do. They are a pacifist advocacy site, intent on scaring anyone who will listen. I do believe Cheney has been preparing contingency plans for just this sort of war. There has been plenty of warning over the past year that the US is using a black ops approach and considering something more. So, consider the article a reasonable description of Cheney's contingency plans for war with Iran. Even though I don't believe the writing is on the wall yet, it could happen. At this point, I simply don't believe the EU has acquiesed, nor is NATO involved. Turkey appears to be facing a carrot and stick diplomatic approach from the US seeking "permission" to allow US strategic projection of force, but I seriously doubt the Turks have already agreed to US use of Turkish air bases and air space. I do believe EU tacit support and Turkey's acting support would be necessary would be necessary for Cheney's plan to go forward. I think the likelihood of that kind of support is remote unless Iran starts looking very menacing.
Dejerejian sees only a 10-15% chance of an air strike on Iran by Q1 2007. President of the Eurasia Group Ian Bremmer thinks the chances are more like 60% and rising. I think there maybe a 30% chance but it would most likely be Israel who might act for political reasons at home. A new government in Israel given today's news might do anything. Bombing without ground forces is unlikely to do anything but delay the threat.
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.


[...]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 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.

No comments: