PDA

View Full Version : 'Gun's Of August': Cheney's Plan to Use Tactical Nuclear Weapons In Iran



Nbadan
08-13-2005, 04:37 AM
Backlash Builds Against
Cheney's `Guns of August'
by Jeffrey Steinberg


As millions of copies of Lyndon LaRouche's July 27 "Cheney's Guns of August" statement circulate worldwide (see www.larouchepac.com), a Washington policy brawl has erupted into public view, over the Bush Administration's now-confirmed contingency plans to stage a pre-emptive military strike against Iran—possibly using nuclear weapons. The report that Vice President Dick Cheney had tasked the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to develop military contingencies for a massive aerial bombardment campaign against Iran, in the event of a new 9/11 attack, was first revealed in The American Conservative magazine's Aug. 1 edition. The story highlighted the likely use of nuclear weapons, and the widespread military opposition to the pre-emptive nuclear war scheme.

Since that initial story by former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, this news service has confirmed the accuracy of the report from a significant number of horrified U.S. government officials—from Senators on both sides of the aisle, to military officers, diplomats, and spies. One former U.S. ambassador in the Persian Gulf reported that he had received angry reports from officials of the Central Command (CENTCOM), who have been tasked as part of the contingency planning.

Another military source suggested that there are probably pre-positioned tactical nuclear weapons at the U.S. military base at Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, under the new military reorganization, which created a "Global Strike" plan for rapid, massive assaults anywhere on the planet.

The bottom line: Vice President Cheney, the architect of the pre-emptive nuclear attack plan, has gone stark raving mad, and is prepared to bring the world to the brink of chaos, before he is driven from power. Democratic Party figure Lyndon LaRouche describes Cheney's state of mind as "like Hitler in the bunker."

White House De Facto Confirms

In response to a question from EIR's White House correspondent Bill Jones, Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan let the cat out of the bag on July 28. Asked by Jones about the American Conservative report on the bombing contingencies, McClellan pointedly chose not to deny the charges, and instead, after telling Jones he "appreciated the question," went into a discussion of Iran's alleged secret nuclear program, threatening United Nations sanctions and other actions, should Iran fail to shut down its nuclear reprocessing efforts.

In response to a follow-up question by CBS reporter John Roberts about whether an attack on Iran might fall under the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action against "terror states," given the new Iranian President's former position in the Revolutionary Guard, McClellan again refused to reject the possibility, reminding the press that the Administration still considered Iran a "state sponsor of terrorism."

It should be recalled that on Jan. 20, 2005, the day of the Bush-Cheney second inauguration, the Vice President appeared on the Don Imus show on MSNBC cable TV, to target Iran. Using language identical to his earlier lies about Iraq, Cheney accused Iran of pursuing "a fairly robust nuclear program" and of sponsoring terrorism. "That combination is of great concern," he declared, warning that Israel could be expected to launch preventive bombing attacks on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons sites, if the Iranians don't abandon those supposed nuclear efforts.

NIE Leaked

One of the most dramatic signs of the ferocious behind-the-scenes fight was the Aug. 2 lead story of the Washington Post, which leaked a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluding that, far from being on the verge of achieving a nuclear bomb, Iran was at least ten years away from such a capability. The story, by staff writer Dafna Linzer, noted that "the carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal."

The last time an NIE was prepared on Iran, it was estimated that Iran was five years away from obtaining a nuclear bomb, and that was in 2002. When Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited President Bush at his Crawford, Texas ranch this past April, his top military aide, Gen. Yoav Galant, presented an Israeli assessment that Iran had a "very advanced" nuclear weapons program, could have a bomb within 12-18 months, and was near to reaching a "point of no return," when "it could not be any longer stopped."

The leak of the NIE, which was carefully prepared over a six-month period, beginning in January of this year, was widely hailed as a direct factional move, from high-level intelligence community circles, against the Cheney madness. One former Cabinet official noted that the mass circulation of LaRouche's "Guns of August" statement had created the necessary political conditions for the leak to occur, seriously undermining Cheney and the neo-conservatives' race to a new confrontation with Tehran.

The National Intelligence Council, the coordinating body of the 15 agencies that comprise the U.S. intelligence community as a whole, is now housed in the office of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. Just days before the leak to the Washington Post, Negroponte's deputy, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, had testified before the House Intelligence Committee about the overhaul of the NIE process, to assure that there would be no repetition of the horrid mistakes made in the October 2002 Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That rushed October 2002 NIE vastly overstated and misrepresented Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, particularly its purported nuclear weapons program, and was a large contributing factor to the U.S. Congress's capitulation to Bush and Cheney, in sanctioning the Iraq pre-emptive invasion—even as United Nations weapons inspectors were continuing their inspections with minimal interference from the Saddam Hussein regime, and were stating that no nuclear weapons production was to be found.

Hayden emphasized that the Estimates would now reflect the views of all the relevant intelligence agencies, would be much more "nuanced," and would not be released without a thorough review process, including an assessment of the quality of the sources of key intelligence findings. According to the New York Times's Douglas Jehl, "Other government officials said the standard had already been applied, to a recent highly classified intelligence report on Iran."


The Usual Suspects

In further probing of the Cheney-led drive for a pretext to bomb Iran, EIR has confirmed that the same cast of neo-con characters who led the disinformation campaign against Iraq, in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion, have been tasked to carry out the same effort, this time targetting the regime in Tehran. Furthermore, while some media have portrayed the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month as President of Iran as the trigger for the new war push, the truth is that the campaign was launched, in earnest, within days of the November 2004 dubious re-election of Bush and Cheney.

In November 2004, Dr. Jerome Corsi, a leading player in the Karl Rove-inspired dirty-tricks apparatus known as Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, suddenly emerged as the new head of the Iran Freedom Foundation (IFF), promoting regime change in Tehran. Corsi was touted by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) as being the driving force behind the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005, which calls for $10 million in funds to be handed out to Iranian dissident groups. Corsi had co-authored the Rove-inspired propaganda book Unfit To Serve, smearing Bush's Democratic Presidential rival John F. Kerry over his military service in Vietnam. In March 2005, Corsi published another propaganda book, Atomic Iran, peddling scare stories about Iran's imminent possession of nuclear bombs.

From May 15 to May 18, Dr. Corsi led an "Iran Freedom Walk" from Philadelphia to Washington, where a rally was addressed by neo-con Richard Perle, and where Corsi was congratulated, in a written statement, by Dick Cheney.

In April 2005, Regnery Publishing, Inc. released another fractured-fairy-tale propaganda piece, promoting pre-emptive war on Iran, this one by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.). Sources familiar with the book report that Weldon was snookered by ex-CIA Director and leading neo-con war party operative James Woolsey, and self-proclaimed "universal fascist" Michael Ledeen, into buying fake intelligence, pushed through a former Iranian minister under the Shah, who has more recently been a business partner of discredited Iran-Contra gun dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. Representative Weldon concealed the identity of his high-level "source," referring to him only as "Ali." But "Ali" was soon identified as Fereidoun Mahdavi, a former commerce minister, who fled Iran shortly after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and never looked back.

In an interview with The American Prospect's Laura Rozan, Mahdavi professed shock and outrage that his "information" had formed the basis for Weldon's shrill book. He confirmed that all of the information he passed on to the Congressman had, in fact, originated with Ghorbanifar, a notorious disinformationist, and Iran-Contra ally of the Washington neo-cons. Weldon's saga with "Ali," as recounted in his book, Countdown to Terror—The Top-Secret Information That Could Prevent the Next Terrorist Attack on America ... And How the CIA Has Ignored It, began in March 2003, at the very moment that the Bush-Cheney regime was about to launch its Iraq invasion.

In late June of this year, Kenneth Timmerman, a propagandist for the neo-cons and for right-wing Israeli circles around former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, published another book, Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran, which makes a string of preposterous claims, all based on information provided by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, an Iranian exile group on the U.S. State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Timmerman asserted that: Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks; Iran is safehousing Osama bin Laden inside the country; and Iran has all of the elements to produce nuclear weapons, and possibly provide them to terrorist cells already infiltrated into American cities.

When the Timmerman book was published, the Washington Times ran three days of excerpts, along with an editorial touting the book and calling for action against Iran.

If all of this sounds remarkably similar to the propaganda run-up to the Iraq invasion of March 2003, that's because it is. The same Michael Ledeen/Richard Perle/Dick Cheney circles that brought you Operation Iraqi Freedom, are aggressively pushing war against Iran. But this time, with 170,000 American troops bogged down in Iraq, Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, et al. are now pushing their decade-old plan to conduct pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

Executive Intelligence Review (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3232vs_cheney_war.html)

Nbadan
08-13-2005, 05:06 AM
Here is another great article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak01.html) on this topic by Michael Schwartz OF Asia Times Online. Schwartz argues that the U.S. failure to hold the peace in Iraq has emboldened Iranian leaders and has led to a strategic geo-potilical merger between China and Iran leaders...


On the other hand, as military analyst Michael Klare reports, the Bush administration has never ceased its search for an on-the-cheap, few-boots-on-the-ground military solution to its Iranian dilemma. While the US military (like any modern military) develops contingency plans for all manner of battles and campaigns, and while most such plans are never executed, their existence and persistence give credence to the claims that an attack on Iran is still possible.

Most of the extant contingency plans evidently take into account the "immense stress now being placed on US ground forces in Iraq" and therefore seek "some combination of airstrikes and the use of proxy [non-American ground] forces". One plan, for example, evidently envisions several brigades of American-trained Iranian exiles entering Iran from Afghanistan. Other plans involve simultaneous land and sea assaults, coordinated with precision bombing of various military sites currently being charted by manned and unmanned aerial invasions of Iranian airspace.

Ominously, the Bush administration appears to recognize that these sorts of assaults would not even fully destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, no less topple the Iranian regime itself, and that an added ingredient might be needed. Since 2004, therefore, contingency plans authorized by the Department of Defense have mandated that the use of nuclear weapons be an integral part of the overall strategy. Washington Post reporter William Arkin, citing the already adopted CONPLAN 8022, mentions "a nuclear weapons option" specifically tailored for use against underground Iranian nuclear plants: "A specially configured earth-penetrating bomb to destroy deeply buried facilities." Such a nuclear attack would - at least on paper - be coordinated with a variety of other measures to ensure that the Iranian government was replaced with one acceptable to the Bush administration.

Recently, former Central Intelligence Agency official Philip Giraldi asserted in the American Conservative magazine that, as of late summer 2005, the Pentagon, "under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office" was "drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan mandates a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons ... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

The breadth and depth of the assault, according to Giraldi's Air Force sources, would be quite striking: "Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option." Since many targets are in populated areas, the havoc and destruction following such an attack would, in all likelihood, be unrivaled by anything since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After escaping the Cold War specter of nuclear holocaust, it seems unimaginable that the world would be forced to endure the horror of nuclear war in a regional dispute. However, the record of Bush administration belligerence makes it difficult to imagine America's top leadership giving up the ambition of toppling the Islamic regime in Iran. And yet, given that the conquest of Iraq led the administration unexpectedly down strange Iranian paths, who knows where future Washington plans and dreams are likely to lead - perhaps to destruction, certainly to bitter ironies of every sort.

Vashner
08-13-2005, 05:33 AM
Cheney's plan? .. Have you ever been to the Pentagon? They have plans for nuke, bio, chem, conventional etc for EVERY COUNTRY.

If anything Iran is about to be tactical nuked... not Fallujah.

Nbadan
08-13-2005, 02:09 PM
This post is about the U.S. considering using tactical Nuclear weapons in Iran (read the update) and no, its never been put into action in a regional conflict. Anyway, a statement by the Germans today says they want to take a immediate military confrontation off the table...


German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has rejected the threat of military force against Iran, hours after US President George Bush said he would consider it as a last resort to press Tehran to give up its nuclear program.

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant last Monday after rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear program.

Mr Schroeder, one of the most prominent European opponents of the US-led war in Iraq, told an election rally in his home city of Hanover that the threat of force was not acceptable.

"This morning I read that military options are now on the table. My answer to that is: 'Dear friends in Europe and America, let us work out a strong negotiating position. But let's take the military option off the table. We have seen it doesn't work'," he said.

ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1437072.htm)

The Chinese aren't likely to approve sanctions or any other type of embargo againt Iran and now the Germans want to take the military option off the table.

Dos
08-13-2005, 04:14 PM
I wonder what as a last resort means....

I am sure the germans and the french have been supplying military arms to the iranians....

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-13-2005, 06:35 PM
Another military source suggested that there are probably pre-positioned tactical nuclear weapons at the U.S. military base at Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, under the new military reorganization, which created a "Global Strike" plan for rapid, massive assaults anywhere on the planet.

You realize for the entirety of the Cold War our pilots sat on runways on standby with nuclear weapons strapped on their planes ready to go to war, right? This isn't any different.

Damn you're dumb.

And gee, the threat of force has never been used before by a US president in foreign policy matters :lol

Nbadan
08-14-2005, 05:19 AM
YOUR arguing FOR using nuclear weapons against a regional power that is STILL years from developing nuclear weapons, who's the dumb one?

http://www.allhatnocattle.net.nyud.net:8090/englehart5505.gif

Clandestino
08-14-2005, 08:45 AM
we have subs in the ocean 24/7 that several nukes, all more powerful than the 2 we dropped on japan...

MannyIsGod
08-14-2005, 10:32 AM
Bush and Cheney aren't going to nuke anybody. Give me a break.

Hook Dem
08-14-2005, 10:58 AM
Just Dan spewing his political bullshit again....nothing new! :lol

Cant_Be_Faded
08-14-2005, 01:00 PM
political bullshit



If bush/cheney even invade iran, i see no way they wont go down as the most horrible duo of this era

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-14-2005, 04:32 PM
YOUR arguing FOR using nuclear weapons against a regional power that is STILL years from developing nuclear weapons, who's the dumb one?

Hey dumbfuck, show me where I said to use nukes on Iran.

All I said (seeings you're a friggin' idiot) was:

1. We had nukes on standby for the entirety of the Cold War, and nothing has changed.

2. We've used the threat of force before in doing foreign relations (just to name on example - a Democrat, JFK, and Cuba).

ChumpDumper
08-14-2005, 05:04 PM
Air strikes, cruise missles and nukes are about all we have available right now militarily.

Nbadan
08-14-2005, 05:14 PM
nlzkhihiohkdUsiULSUIFSDdddd98osoISHHHHHSKduSISUIUI S:Sufyuuudduikuisu