Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak?
Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.

 http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/09/07/01751.html

Critically exploring whether or not there was a covert attempt to
instigate a catastrophic nuclear war against Iran is illuminated
through an introduction using the recent B-52 Incident. On August 30,
a B-52 bomber armed with five nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise missiles
travelled from Minot Air Force base, North Dakota, to Barksdale Air
Force base, Louisiana, in the United States. Each missile had an
adjustable yield between five and 150 kilotons of TNT which is at the
lower end of the destructive capacities of U.S. nuclear weapons. For
example, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 13
kilotons, while the Bravo Hydrogen bomb test of 1954 had a yield of
15,000 kilotons. The B-52 story was first covered in the Army Times on
5 September after the nuclear armed aircraft was discovered by Airmen.
LINK

What made this a very significant event was that it was a violation of
U.S. Air Force regulations concerning the transportation of nuclear
weapons by air. Nuclear weapons are normally transported by air in
specially constructed planes designed to prevent radioactive pollution
in case of a crash. Such transport planes are not equipped to launch
the nuclear weapons they routinely carry around the U.S. and the world
for servicing or positioning.

The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was, according to Hans
Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American
Scientists, the first time in 40 years that a nuclear armed plane had
been allowed to fly in the U.S. LINK. Since 1968, after a SAC bomber
crashed in Greenland, all nuclear armed aircraft have been grounded
but were kept on a constant state of alert. After the end of the Cold
War, President George H. Bush ordered in 1991 that nuclear weapons
were to be removed from all aircraft and stored in nearby facilities.

Recently, the Air Force began decommissioning its stockpile of
Advanced Cruise missiles. The five nuclear weapons on the B-52 were to
be decommissioned, and were to be taken to another Air Force base. An
Air Force press statement issued on 6 September 2007, claimed that
there "was an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled
transfer of weapons between two bases."

Furthermore, the statement declared: "The Air Force maintains the
highest standards of safety and precision so any deviation from these
well established munitions procedures is considered very serious." The
issue concerning how a nuclear armed B-52 bomber was allowed to take
off and fly in U.S. air space after an 'error' in a routine transfer
process, is now subject to an official Air Force inquiry which is due
to be completed by September 14.

Three key questions emerge over the B-52 incident. First, did Air
Force personnel at Minot AFB not spot the 'error' earlier given the
elaborate security procedures in place to prevent such mistakes from
occurring? Many military analysts have commented on the stringent
security procedures in place to prevent this sort of mistake from
occurring. Multiple officers are routinely involved in the
transportation and loading of nuclear weapons to prevent the kind of
'error' that allegedly occurred in the B-52 incident.

According to the U.S. Air Force statement, the commanding officer in
charge of military munitions personnel and additional munitions airmen
were relieved of duties pending the completion of the investigation.
According to Kristensen, the error could not have come from confusing
the Advanced Cruise Missile with a conventional weapons since no
conventional form exists. So the munitions Airmen should have been
easily able to spot the mistake. Other routine procedures were
violated which suggests a rather obvious explanation for the error.
The military munitions personnel were acting under direct orders,
though not through the regular chain of military command. This takes
me to the second question

Who was in Charge of the B-52 Incident?

Who ordered the loading of Advanced Cruise missiles on to a B-52 in
violation of Air Force regulations? The quick reaction of the Air
Force and the issuing of a public statement describing the seriousness
of the issue and the launch of an immediate investigation, suggests
that whatever occurred, was outside the regular chain of military
command. If the regular chain of command was violated, then we have to
inquire as to whether the B-52 incident was part of a covert project
whose classification level exceeded that held by officers in charge of
nuclear weapons at Minot AFB.

The most obvious governmental entity that may have ordered the nuclear
arming of the B-52 outside the regular chain of military command is
the last remaining bastion of neo-conservative activism in the Bush
administration.

Vice President Cheney has taken a very prominent role in covert
military operations and training exercises designed for the "seamless
integration" of different national security and military authorities
to possible terrorist attacks. On May 8, 2001, President Bush placed
Mr. Cheney in charge of "[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons
of mass destruction, consequence management within the Departments of
Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies". LINK.
Mr. Cheney subsequently played a direct role in supervising training
exercises that simultaneously occurred during the 911 attacks.

According to former Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Ruppelt, Mr.
Cheney had a parallel chain of command that he used to override Air
Force objections to stand down orders that grounded the USAF during
the 911 attacks, LINK.

Mr. Ruppelt learned that the Secret Service had the authority to
directly communicate presidential and vice presidential orders to
fighter pilots in the air thereby circumventing the normal chain of
command. (Crossing the Rubicon, pp. 428 - 429). Furthermore: "It is
the Secret Service who has the legal mandate to take supreme command
in case of a scheduled major event - or an unplanned major emergency -
on American soil; these are designated "National Special Security
Events".LINK.

Mr. Ruppelt and others have subsequently claimed that 911 was an
"inside job;" and alleges Mr. Cheney through the Secret Service,
played a direct leadership role in what occurred over 911.
Consequently, it is very possible that Mr. Cheney could have played a
similar role in circumventing the regular chain of military command in
ordering the B-52 incident. The B-52 incident could be part of a
contrived "National Special Security Event" directly controlled by
Cheney by virtue of the alleged authority granted to him by President
Bush, and through the Secret Service which at least theoretically, has
the technological means to by pass the regular chain of military
command. I now move to my third key question.

Why was the nuclear armed B-52 sent to Barksdale AFB?

If initial reports that the weapons were being decommissioned, but
were mistakenly transported by a B-52 bomber, then the weapons should
have been taken to Kirtland Air Force Base. According to Kristensen,
this is "where the warheads are separated from the rest of the weapon
and shipped to the Energy Department's Pantex dismantlement facility
near Amarillo, Texas". LINK.

However, it has been revealed that Barksdale AFB is used as a staging
base for operations in the Middle East, LINK.

This is circumstantial evidence that the weapons were being deployed
for possible use in the Middle East.

There has been recent speculation concerning a possible attack against
Iran given reports that the Pentagon has completed plans for a three
day bombing blitz of Iran according to a Sunday Times report, LINK.
The Report claims that 1200 targets have been selected and this will
destroy much of Iran's military infrastructure. Such an attack will
devastate Iran's economy, create greater political instability in the
region, and stop the oil supply. A disruption of the oil supply from
the Persian Gulf could trigger a global economic recession and lead to
the collapse of financial markets.

In a rather disturbing synchronistic development, there have been
reports of billion dollar investments in high risk stock options in
both Europe and the U.S. that would only be profitable if a dramatic
collapse of the stock market were to occur before September 21.
Similar stock options were purchased weeks before the 911 attack in
2001, and investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for
possible insider trading. The combination of the Sunday Times report
and the Stock market option purchases is circumstantial evidence that
plans for a concerted military attack against Iran have been secretly
approved and covert operations have begun, LINK.

Seymour Hersh in May 2006 reported the opposition of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace,
achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence
that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a
nuclear device to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz,
nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. .. "Bush and Cheney were
dead serious about the nuclear planning," the former senior
intelligence official told me. "And Pace stood up to them.

Then the world came back: 'O.K., the nuclear option is politically
unacceptable. ' LINK.

Given earlier opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is likely
that the present attack plans for Iraq drawn up by the Pentagon don't
involve the use of nuclear weapons. In order to circumvent the regular
chain of command, opposed to a nuclear attack, it is very likely that
Vice President Cheney contrived a "National Special Security Event"
that involved a nuclear armed B-52. This would have given him the
legal authority to place orders directly through the Secret Service to
the Air Force officers responsible for the B-52 incident.

Conclusion: Exposing those Responsible for the B-52 Incident

Consequently, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to argue
that the nuclear armed B-52 was part of an apparent covert operation,
outside the regular chain of constitutional military command. The
alleged authority responsible for this was Vice President Cheney. He
very likely used the Secret Service to take charge of a contrived
National Special Security Event involving a nuclear armed B-52 that
would be flown from Minot AFB. The B-52 was directed to Barksdale Air
Force base where it would have conducted a covert mission to the
Middle East involving the detonation of one or more nuclear weapons
most likely in or in the vicinity of Iran. This could either have
occurred during a conventional military strike against Iran, or a
False Flag operation in the Persian Gulf region.

Apparently, the leaking and discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 at
Barksdale was not part of the script. According to a confidential
source of Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official from the
State Department and CIA, the discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was
leaked. Johnson concludes: "Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly
warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes
for Iran? I don't know, but it is a question worth asking." LINK.

While the general public is likely to be given a watered down
declassified report by the Air Force over the B-52 incident on
September 14, the real investigation will reveal that it was part of a
covert operation that intended to bypass the regular chain of command
in using nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This will likely result
in a furious backlash by key figures in the regular military chain of
Command such as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Commander
of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, who have direct
responsibility for the conduct of military operations in the Middle
East. The US. Air Force, the Secretary of Defense and Commander of
Central Command, is now aware of what was likely going to be the true
use of the B-52 and the responsibility of the Office of the Vice
President.

It is very likely that the exposure of the B-52 incident will lead to
an indefinite hold on plans to attack Iran given uncertainty whether
other nuclear weapons have been covertly positioned for use in the
Middle East. Significantly, public officials briefed about the true
circumstances of the B-52 incident will almost certainly place
enormous pressure on Vice President Cheney to immediately resign if it
is found that he played the role identified above. It is therefore
anticipated that in a very short time, the public will learn that
Cheney has resigned for health resigns.

The forthcoming September 14 U.S. Air Force report will likely
describe the B-52 incident as an "error" and an "isolated incident" as
foreshadowed in the September 6 Press Statement. This will create some
difficulty in exposing the actual role played by Cheney and any other
government figures that supported him. There will be a need for
continued public awareness of the true events behind the B-52 incident
in order to expose the actual role of Mr. Cheney. Only in that way can
Cheney be held accountable for his actions, and other government
figures that supported his neo-conservative agenda be exposed.
Regardless of whether Cheney's role as the prime architect of the B-52
incident is exposed to the public, the official backlash against his
covert operation should force his resignation. In either case, a very
dangerous public official would be removed from a powerful position of
influence. More importantly, the world has been spared a devastating
nuclear war by courageous American airmen who revealed the true
contents of an otherwise routine B-52 landing at Barksdale, AFB headed
for a covert nuclear mission to the Middle East.

About the author:

Michael E. Salla, M.A. Ph.D., is a former Assistant Professor in the
School of International Service, American University, Washington D.C.