Skip to content or view screen version

US Armada En Route to Persian Gulf:"Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

Michel Chossudovsky | 13.08.2008 21:11 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Terror War | London | World

US sponsored war games have foreseen the possible intervention of Russia and China in the Middle East. World War III has been on the lips of NeoCon architects of US foreign policy from the outset of the Bush regime.

There is a tacit public acceptance of a diabolical and criminal military agenda, which in a very sense threatens "the community of nations" and life on this planet.


Brazil's Frigate Greenhalgh dispatched to participate in US War Games
Brazil's Frigate Greenhalgh dispatched to participate in US War Games

USS Abraham Lincoln
USS Abraham Lincoln

USS Peleliu
USS Peleliu

CENTCOM Commander General Petraeus favors an all out war on Iran
CENTCOM Commander General Petraeus favors an all out war on Iran

Canada's HMC Iroquois, involved in Maritime Security. Canada cur. leads CTF 150
Canada's HMC Iroquois, involved in Maritime Security. Canada cur. leads CTF 150

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)

[Image 1: 9817.jpg]

The World it at a very dangerous crossroads. America in alliance with NATO and
Israel has embarked upon a military adventure.

The Bush administration has launched with the approval of the US Congress a
naval blockade against Iran, which could be a first step towards an all out

Military sources report a massive deployment of US and allied naval power in
the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea directed against Iran.

There has been a virtual media blackout regarding this naval deployment. The
Western media, including the printed press and network TV have failed to
meaningfully address these war preparations.

While war plans directed against are casually acknowledged, the broader
implications of a war on Iran are rarely analyzed.

The US media has become a unconditional mouthpiece of the Pentagon. The
Islamic republic is relentlessly accused, without a evidence and
substantiation, of developing nuclear weapons, as well as working hand in
glove with Al Qaeda.

The emerging political consensus among America's allies, including France,
Germany and Italy is that a war on Iran is warranted as a means to enhancing
global security.

This consensus is formulated while carefully disregarding the fact that even a
limited "punitive" aerial attack on Iran, would immediately result in
escalation, engulfing the entire Middle East Central Asian region from the
Eastern Mediterranean to China's western frontier into an extended war zone.
There are at present three distinct war theater in the region: Afghanistan,
Iraq and Palestine. An attack on Iran could potentially engulf a large number
of countries into a much broader conflict.


[Image 2: menewzz.bmp]

A war on Iran would engulf the entire region from the tip of the Arabian
to the Caspian Sea and from the Syrian-Lebanese-Israeli Medterranean coastline
China's Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Three existing war theaters:


would be transformed and integrated into a single war zone,
leading to escalation within and beyond the region.


War Preparations

This massive naval deployment in the Persian Gulf is the culmination of more
than five years of active war preparations.

In July 2003, in the immediate wake of the Iraq invasion, the Pentagon
launched Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT) [1] , as an early phase in military
planning in which various war scenarios were scrutinized. In this context,
several thousand targets inside Iran had been identified as part of a set of
war scenarios:

"Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining
both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects
of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces
through postwar stability operations after regime change." (William Arkin,
Washington Post, April 16, 2006)

The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has served as a pretext and a justification
to wage America's theater wars in the Middle East. GWOT is a central component
of US National Security doctrine. It is also the keystone of the media
disinformation campaign, which portrays "Islamic terrorists" threatening the
Homeland. Meanwhile, the strategic and economic objectives underlying
America's Middle East war.

The US led coalition is in an advanced state of readiness. The war plans are
at an operational stage.

While the stated objective of this massive naval deployment is to obstruct
trade through the straight of Hormuz and enforce a blockade on Iran in the
Persian Gulf, an all out war scenario involving air bombardments is also

Congressional Approval

The war on Iran is a bipartisan project, which has been fully endorsed by the
Democrats. The naval blockade is being carried out, pursuant to act of the US

In May 2008, the US Congress passed legislation (H.CON. RES 362) that called
for the enforcement of an all out economic blockade, including the
encroachment of trade and the freeze of monetary transactions with the Islamic

"The President [shall] initiate an international effort to immediately and
dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran
.... prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products;
imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships,
planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the
international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating
the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

"[H. CON. RES. 362] urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to
immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on the Central Bank
of Iran, ... international banks which continue to conduct financial
transactions with proscribed Iranian banks; ... energy companies that have
invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in
any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and all
companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps." (See full text of H.CON RES 362) [2] (emphasis added)

Whether an actual attack will be implemented is a matter for careful

What is significant, however, is that the ongoing concentration of naval power
as well as the level of threat are unprecedented.

Moreover, this naval deployment also involves the active participation of
several coalition countries under US command. (for details see below).

While there have been several similar naval deployments and war games in the
Persian Gulf over the last two years, what is now occurring is unprecedented
in terms of the size of the naval strike force.

Concurrent Military Operations: War in the Caucasus

This massive deployment of naval strength occurs at the very outset of an
unfolding crisis in the Caucasus, marked by the Georgian air and ground
attacks on South Ossetia and Russia's counterattack. The timing and chronology
of these related and concurrent military operations is crucial.

We are not dealing with separate and unrelated military events. The war in
Georgia is an integral part of US-NATO-Israeli war preparations in relation to

Georgia does not act militarily without the assent of Washington. The Georgian
head of State is a US proxy and Georgia is a de facto US protectorate.

The attack on South Ossetia was launched by Georgia on the orders of the US
and NATO. US military advisers and trainers were actively involved in the
planning of Georgia's attacks on the South Ossetia capital. (For further
details see Michel Chossudovsky, War in the Caucasus, Towards a Broader
Russia-US Military Confrontation, Global Research, August 10, 2008 [3] )

Russia is an ally of Iran.

Russia is currently caught up in a military confrontation with Georgia. The
Georgian attack on South Ossetia constitutes an act of provocation directed
against Russia. It creates an aura of instability in the Caucasus, marked by
heavy civilian casualties. It serves to distract Russia from playing a
meaningful diplomatic and military role, which might undermine or obstruct the
US-led war plans directed against Iran.

Both Russia and China have bilateral military cooperation agreements with
Iran. Russia supplies the Islamic Republic with military hardware and
technical expertise in relation to Iran's air defense system and missile

Since 2005, Iran has an observer member status in the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO). In turn, the SCO has ties to the Collective Security
Treaty Organization (CSTO), an overlapping military cooperation agreement
between Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic,

The structure and strength of military alliances is crucial. In the context of
US war plans directed against Iran, the US is intent upon weakening Iran's
allies, namely Russia and China. In the case of China, Washington is seeking
to disrupt Beijing's bilateral ties with Tehran as well as Iran's
rapprochement with the SCO, which has its headquarters in Beijing.

The Georgian attack on South Ossetia seeks to undermine Russia, which
constitutes a significant countervailing military power and ally of Iran.

The ultimate objective is to isolate Iran, cut it off from its powerful
allies: China and Russia.

In Washington's mindset, the events in Georgia coupled with media propaganda,
can be usefully applied to discredit and weaken Russia prior to the
enforcement of a naval blockade on Iran in the Persian Gulf, which could lead
into an all out war on Iran.

This somewhat crude line of reasoning tends, however, to overlook America's
own military setbacks and weaknesses as well as the enormous risks to America
and the World which could result from a continued and sustained confrontation
with Russia, let alone an attack on Iran.

In view of the evolving situation in Georgia and Moscow's military commitments
in the Caucasus, military analysts believe that Russia will not protect Iran
and encroach upon a US led operation directed against Iran, which would be
preceded by a naval blockade.

In other words, Washington believes that Moscow is unlikely to get actively
involved in a showdown with US and allied forces in the Persian Gulf.

"Operation Brimstone": North Atlantic Ocean War Games

Leading up to this naval build up in the Persian Gulf, US and allied forces
have recently completed large scale war games off the US North Atlantic

Stating the purpose of a war game and identifying the real "foreign enemy" by
name is not the normal practice, unless there is a decision to send an
unequivocal message to the enemy.

Invariably, in war games the foreign enemy is given a fictitious country name:
Irmingham, Nemazee, Rubeck and Churia stand for Iran, North Korea, Russia and
China (codes used in the Vigilant Shield 07 War Games' Scenario opposing the
US to four fictitious enemies. (See William Arkin, The Vigilant Shield 07 War
Games: Scenario opposing the US to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea,
Washington Post, February 10, 2007 [4])

In the case of Operation Brimstone, the stated military purpose of the naval
exercise is crystal clear: the North Atlantic war games are carried out with a
view "to practice enforcing an eventual blockade on Iran". These naval
exercises are intended to display US and allied "combat capabilities as a
warning to Iran." They are tantamount to a declaration of war.

"The drill is aimed at training for operation in shallow coastal waters such
as the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz."

Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 08-4 'Operation Brimstone' commenced on July
21 in North Carolina and off the Eastern US Atlantic coast from Virginia to
Florida. Of significance was the participation of British, French, Brazilian
and Italian naval forces as part of a multinational US naval exercise directed
against Iran.

More than a dozen ships participated in the naval exercise including the USS
Theodore Roosevelt and its Carrier Strike Group Two, the expeditionary Strike
Group Iwo Jima, the French submarine Amethyste, Britain's HMS Illustrious
Carrier Strike Group, Brazil's navy frigate Greenhalgh and Italy's ITS
Salvatore Todaro (S 526) submarine. (See Middle East Times, August 11, 2008
[5] and, July 28, 2008 [6] and

The USS Theodore Roosevelt equipped with 80-plus combat planes, was carrying
an additional load of French Naval Rafale fighter jets from the French carrier
Charles de Gaulle. (Ibid). France's E2C Hawkeye early warning aircraft was
"assigned to the 4th Squadron began flight operations with Carrier Air Wing
(CVW) 8 aboard Roosevelt, marking the first integrated U.S. and French carrier
qualifications aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier. French Rafale fighter aircraft
assigned to the 12th Squadron also joined.", July 24, 2008 [7]

Anglo-US war games are a routine practice, consequence of a Anglo-American
military axis. What is significant in these large scale naval manoeuvres is
the active participation of France, Brazil and Italy in war games which are
explicitly directed against Iran.

The participation of these countries in extensive war games points a to broad
military consensus. It also suggests that the participating nations have
accepted (in political and military terms) to participate in a US-led military
operation directed against Iran. The active participation of France and to a
lesser extent Italy also suggests that the European Union is firmly behind the
US initiative:

"Operations with our friends and allies are the cornerstone of the U.S. Navy's
current maritime strategy," said Capt. Ladd Wheeler, Roosevelt's commanding
officer. "These combined operations will certainly pay dividends into the
future as our navies continue to work together to increase global
security.", July 24, 2008 [7]

Another important precedent has been set. Brazil's President Luis Ignacio da
Silva has ordered the dispatch of the Greenhalgh marking the first time that a
Brazilian warship (under a government which claims to be "socialist") has
operated as part of a US. strike group against a foreign country. We have not
been able to confirm whether the Brazilian frigate has sailed to the Persian
Gulf together with USS Roosevelt, to which it was attached during Operation

According to the Greenhalgh's Commander Claudio Mello, "It allows us to be one
more asset in an international operation." (Pilot, July 28, 2008

[Image 3: Greenhalgh_Class_Greenhalgh_F46.jpg]

En Route to the Persian Gulf

Of significance is that immediately upon completing the North Atlantic war
games, on July 31st, the Operation Brimstone Joint Task Force headed for the
Persian Gulf, to join up with three other carrier strike groups and a
constellation of US, British and French war ships. In other words, Operation
Brimstone was a dress rehearsal of an actual naval blockade.

According to military sources, the following naval forces, which are already
deployed in the Persian Gulf consists of

-the nuclear powered USS Ronald Reagan Carrier and its Strike Group Seven;

-the USS Iwo Jima,

- the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal

-several French warships, including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine

Also positioned in the region are the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea
and the USS Peleliu [9] which is currently in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

[Image 4: linconln.gif]

Unprecedented Deployment of Naval Power

This is the largest concentration of US and allied naval power since the
onslaught of the Iraq war in March 2003.

Once the Brimstone joint task force naval force arrives in the Gulf region, it
will be joining two other U.S. naval battle groups already on site: the USS
Abraham Lincoln [10] and the USS Peleliu.

[Image 5: peleliu.jpg]

Four US aircraft carriers and strike forces will be positioned in the Persian
Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea.

USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Ronald Reagan. USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Peleliu
Strike Group. The US is also sending to the Middle East the Iwo Jima
Expeditionary Strike Group

With accompanying frigates and submarines, some 40 war ships will be in a
state of readiness, in the region and/or or directly off the Iranian

In addition to these 40 war ships, there are some 36 US and allied war vessels
operating under USCentcom as part of a Combined Maritime Force (CMF) involved
in Maritime Security

In an August 11 article published by Global Research, the nature of this Naval
Strike force is specified and enumerated as follows:

"The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:

Carrier Strike Group Nine

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air
Wing Two Destroyer Squadron Nine: [11]

USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group

USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assault ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assault ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer

Carrier Strike Group Two

USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier
Air Wing Eight [Set sail for the Gulf on August 5]

Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer

USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group [Set sail for the Gulf]

USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier with its Amphibious Squadron
Four and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer

USS Hartford (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

Carrier Strike Group Seven

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air
Wing 14 Destroyer Squadron 7

USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship

Also likely to join the battle armada:

UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile
destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships

French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and
perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the
USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock,
and assorted surface warships

The USS Iwo Jima and USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Groups have USMC Harrier
jump jets and an assortment of assault and attack helicopters. The
Expeditionary Strike Groups have powerful USMC Expeditionary Units with
amphibious armor and ground forces trained for operating in shallow waters and
in seizures of land assets, such as Qeshm Island (a 50 mile long island off of
Bandar Abbas in the Gulf of Hormuz and headquarters off the Iranian Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps)."

(See Earl of Sterling, Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran, Global Research
[12], August 2008

"Maritime Security": Thirty-six More Vessels

US Central Command (CENTCOM) under the helm of General Petraeus, coordinates
out of Bahrain so-called Maritime Security Operations (MSO) [20] in Middle
East waters ( Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Red Sea and Indian

[Image 6: petreus.jpeg]

This MSO initiative is conducted by the Combined Maritime Force (CMF) with a
powerful armada of 36 warships.

Established at the outset of the Iraq war, CMF involves the participation of
the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Pakistan.

There are several combined task forces responsible for maritime security
(including CTF 150, CTF 152 and the CTF 158 North Arabian Gulf (NAG))

The mandate of the Combined Task Forces "aims to establish security and
stability by countering terrorism in the Middle Eastern maritime environment
and allowing legitimate mariners to operate safely in the area..." (see
Canadian Navy, News [13]), In the present context, the multinational
alliance, will be used to encroach upon maritime trade with Iran as well as
play an active role in the implementing the proposed economic blockade of

Canada has recently deployed three war ships to the Arabian sea, including HMC
Iroquois along with HMC Calgary and HMC Protecteur which will be operating
under CTF 150, which is responsible for MSO in the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of
Oman, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

[Image 7: iroquois.jpg]

Among the 36 war vessels involved in so-called Maritime Security Operations,

RBNS Sabha (FFG 90) - The Bahraini flagship of CTF 152 conducting Maritime
Security Operations (MSO) in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf.

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - The U.S. flagship of CTF 50, conducting MSO in
the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf, as well as supports Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

FS Guepratte (F 714) - French Navy ship operating as part of CTF 150 in the
North Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.

USCGC Wrangell (WPB 1332) - One of several USCG 110' patrol boats conducting
MSO in the North Arabian Gulf.

HMAS Arunta (F 151) - Australian Navy ship conducting MSO as part of CTF 158 .

PNS Tippu Sultan (D 186) - Pakistan Navy ship conducting MSO as part of CTF

RFA Cardigan Bay (L 3009) - British Royal Navy auxiliary ship operating with
CTF 158.

USS Port Royal (CG 73) - US Navy guided-missile cruiser deployed with USS
Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Group.

Source: US Naval forces, Central Command, Fifth fleet, Combined Maritime
Forces [14]

[Image 8: truman2.jpg]

Naval Blockade

For Iran, a naval blockade enforced by some 80 war ships stationed in Middle
East waters and off the Iranian coastline is tantamount to a declaration of

Meanwhile, war preparations are also being undertaken by Israel and NATO in
the Eastern Mediterranean. German war ships are stationed off the Syrian
coastline. Turkey which constitutes a major military actor within NATO is a
major partner of the US led coalition. It has an extended bilateral military
cooperation agreement with Israel. Turkey has borders with both Iran and
Syria. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, "Triple Alliance": The
US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, [15] Global Research, August 6,

Pre-emptive Nuclear War

A diabolical and related consensus is emerging at the political level,
pointing to the pre-emptive first strike use of nuclear weapons in the Middle
East war theater, more concretely against Iran:

"In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against
Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration
and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass

To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional
Component Command Space and Global Strike [16] , or JFCCSGS was created.

JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in
accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress
in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only
against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia."Michel Chossudovsky
[17], Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 2006)

More recently, a December 2007 NATO sponsored report entitled "Towards a Grand
Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership" [18]. calls
for a first strike preemptive use of nuclear weapons. The NATO doctrine in
this report is a virtual copy and paste version of America's post 9/11 nuclear
weapons doctrine as initially formulated in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review

(for details, see Michel Chossudovsky, The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear
Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way
of Life", Global Research, January 2008) [19]

The preemptive use of nukes as formulated by NATO would be used to undermine
an "increasingly brutal World" (e.g. Iran) as well as a means to prevent rogue
enemies to use weapons of mass destruction. [19]

Under this NATO framework, which is what is explicitly envisaged in relation
to Iran, US and allied forces including Israel would "resort to a pre-emptive
nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons, "
(quoted in Paul Dibb, Sidney Morning Herald, 11 February 2008). [19]

"They [the authors of the report] consider that nuclear war might soon become
possible in an increasingly brutal world. They propose the first use of
nuclear weapons must remain "in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate
instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction". (Paul Dibb, op
cit) [19]

In terms of the ongoing threats directed against Iran, a pre-emptive nuclear
attack using tactical nuclear weapons, which are according to the Pentagon is
"harmless to the surrounding civilian population" could be carried out in
relation to Iran, even if Iran does not possess nuclear weapons
capabilities, as confirmed by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear
weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6
times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the
explosion is underground. [19]

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of
"authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an
instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared
for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of the
Middle East war (Iran) alongside conventional weapons:

Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a
credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is
that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a
full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not
consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield
nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That
would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By
Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to
building peace and preventing "collateral damage".

The NATO sponsored report --which broadly reflects a growing consensus--
insists that the option of a nuclear first strike is indispensable, "since
there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world." (Report, p.

"Nuclear weapons are the ultimate instrument of an asymmetric response - and
at the same time the ultimate tool of escalation"

The US-NATO doctrine to use nukes on a pre-emptive basis against Iran, with a
view to "saving the Western World's way of life", is not challenged in any
meaningful way by the antiwar movement.

The mainstream media has a strong grip on the public's perception and
understanding of the Middle East war. The dangers of nuclear war in the Post
cold War era are barely mentioned and when they are, the use of nuclear
weapons are justified as a preemptive military option to ensure the security
of Western World.

The truth is twisted and turned upside down.

Media disinformation instills within the consciousness of Americans and
Europeans that somehow the war on Iran is a necessity, that Iran is a threat
to the Homeland and that the Islamic Republic is supporting Islamic
terrorists, who are planning a Second 9/11. And that a pre-emptive nuclear
attack is the answer.

In contrast, the powerful economic interests behind the war economy, the
Anglo-American oil giants military, the defense contractors, Wall Street are
rarely the object of media coverage. The real economic and strategic
objectives behind this war are carefully obfuscated.

9/11 is a justification for waging war is crucial, despite the fact that there
is mounting evidence of cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush

Despite the evidence, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran have been portrayed as
the "State sponsors of terrorism" and a threat to the Homeland, thereby
justifying the various stages of the Middle East military roadmap. The Project
for a New American Century, had already described in a 2000 document the
nature of this road map or "long war". What is envisaged is a global war
without borders:

fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars (PNAC,
September 2000)

At present US and coalition forces including NATO and Israel are in an
advanced state of readiness to launch an attack on Iran. Leaders of the US led
coalition including France, Germany and Italy, should understand that such an
action could result in a World War III scenario.

Escalation scenarios have already been envisaged and analyzed by the Pentagon.

US sponsored war games have foreseen the possible intervention of Russia and
China in the Middle East. World War III has been on the lips of NeoCon
architects of US foreign policy from the outset of the Bush regime.

In response to Operation Brimstone and the Naval deployment, Iran's Foreign
Ministry said that "Tehran will give a 'maximum response' to the slightest
threat against the country's national security."

War propaganda, through media disinformation consists in galvanizing US
citizens not only in favor of "the war on terrorism", but in support of a
social order which repeals the Rule of Law, derogates fundamental civil
liberties, upholds the use of torture and establishes a modern police state
apparatus as a means to "preserving Western democracy".

There is a tacit public acceptance of a diabolical and criminal military
agenda, which in a very sense threatens "the community of nations" and life on
this planet.


In the course of the last four years, Global Research has documented in detail
the various war plans directed against Iran. Operation TIRANNT (Theater Iran
Near Term) was initially formulated in July 2003, in the wake of the US led
Iraq invasion.

We have done our utmost to reverse the tide of media disinformation, to inform
our readers and the broader public on the impending dangers underlying the US
military adventure.

This is the most serious crisis in modern history which in a very real sense
threatens the future of humanity.

We refer our readers to an extensive archive of articles and documents. See
our War on Iran Dossier [20]


Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international bestseller America's
"War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005. [21]


Michel Chossudovsky
- Homepage: http://


Display the following 2 comments

  1. "From Tbilisi to Teheran" Heightens Suspicions of Motive in Georgian Crisis — Limiting Russia's Response to Attack on Iran
  2. you have excelled the schoolyard with your trumpcards. — harry potter