Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Phony intelligence was created and fed into the news chain with a view to justif
ying the invasion of Iraq.
The balance-sheet of lies and fabricated intelligence presented in this selectio
n of articles provides detailed and overwhelming evidence.
We have included news reports dating back to 2002, background analysis, commenta
ry, leaked intelligence documents and transcripts, secret memos and the reports
by weapons inspectors.
The collection which is intended to provide key references, also addresses a num
ber of important issues, which have been shoved under the carpet, including the
circumstances of David Kelly's death, plagiarism in the drafting of intelligence
documents, the fabricated biochemical terror threats, etc.
War Criminal in High Office
The implications are far-reaching: those in high office who ordered "the intelli
gence and facts [to be] fixed around the policy" are responsible for war crimes
under national and international law.
Despite the public outcry, particularly in Britain, there has been no visible sh
ift in the war and national security agendas. Quite the opposite: both President
Bush and Prime Minister Blair have been re-elected to high office under the sta
mp of parliamentary democracy. The war agenda has remained unscathed, with more
than 400 billion dollars allocated in the US to defense. Moreover, the United Na
tions is directly collaborating with the US-led occupation of Iraq and Afghanist
an, in blatant violation of its own charter.
In fact, most of the major political actors, behind the fake intelligence dossie
r, including George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Jack S
traw, John Negroponte, Condoleeza Rice, etc. are still in high office.
Critical Juncture in Our History
We are at a critical juncture in our history. Duly elected war criminals legitim
ately occupy positions of authority which enable them to decide "who are the cri
minals", when in fact they are the criminals.
This fake legitimacy gives them carte blanche. It enables them to proceed withou
t encroachment to the next phase of the war in the Middle East.
It also provides them with a mandate to redefine the contours of the judicial sy
stem and the process of law enforcement under the guise of Homeland Security.
In other words, what we are dealing with is the criminalization of the State and
its various institutions including the criminalization of Justice.
The truth is twisted and turned upside down. State propaganda builds a consensus
within the Executive, the US Congress and the Military. This consensus is then
ratified by the Judicial, through a process of outright legal manipulation.
Putting the War Criminal behind Bars
The evidence detailed in this collection of articles and documents would be suff
icient to put the war criminals behind bars.
Yet in the eyes of a large section of US public opinion, the issue of fake intel
ligence is casually dismissed: "it was all for a good cause", which consisted in
fighting the "war on terrorism" and ensuring the security of Americans.
Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions". Military occupation an
d the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping". In the US, a de fac
to consensus in favor of war crimes permeates the US Congress and the Judicial.
The consensus is also endorsed by the corporate establishment.
In turn, supported by the mainstream media, war crimes are no longer recognized
as such. They have been re-categorized as a means to fighting "evil terrorists"
in what is described as a "clash of civilizations". Western public opinion has t
hus become accustomed to dismissing the lies and war crimes as inconsequential.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into su
pporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being".
War is given a humanitarian mandate. Media disinformation has instilled within t
he consciousness of Americans, that somehow the lies are acceptable and that the
issue of phony intelligence regarding WMD can be disregarded.
The use of torture, the existence of concentration camps, extra judicial assassi
nations, all of which are happening, are no longer being concealed. Quite the op
posite they are presented as "acceptable" and perfectly "legit" in the context o
f an effective war on "Islamic terrorists".
Under these circumstances, war criminals in high office within the State and the
Military no longer need to camouflage their crimes.
Realities are turned upside down. The derogation of civil liberties --in the con
text of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"-- is portrayed as a means to
providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" and "Weapons of Mas
s Destruction" statements, which continue to circulate profusely in the news cha
in, are upheld as the basis for an understanding of World events.
In other words, the legitimacy of the war criminals is no longer questioned. A s
ense of righteousness prevails.
America's global war agenda is firmly established, beyond the premises of the pr
e-emptive war doctrine as a means to spreading democracy and the "free market".
New National Defense Strategy: From "Rogue States" to "Unstable Nations"
In March 2005, the Pentagon released a major document, entitled "The National De
fense Strategy of the United States of America" which broadly sketches Washingto
n's agenda for global military domination. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar20
05/d20050318nds2.pdf
While the NDS follows in the footsteps of the administration's "preemptive" war
doctrine as outlined in the Project of the New American Century (PNAC), it goes
much further in setting the contours of Washington's global military agenda.
Whereas the preemptive war doctrine envisages military action as a means of "sel
f defense" against countries categorized as "hostile" to the US, the new Pentago
n doctrine has gone one step further. It now envisages the possibility of milita
ry intervention against countries, which do not visibly constitute a threat to t
he security of the American homeland.
It calls for a more "proactive" approach to warfare, beyond the weaker notion of
"preemptive" and "defensive" actions, where military operations are launched ag
ainst a "declared enemy" with a view to "preserving the peace" and "defending Am
erica". The document explicitly acknowledges America's global military mandate,
beyond regional war theaters. This mandate also includes military operations dir
ected against so-called "failed states" or "unstable nations", which are not hos
tile to the US. Needless to say, that in the case of an unstable nation, fake in
telligence on WMD will no longer be required to demonstrate that a country const
itutes a threat. A military operation can be launched if the country is categori
zed by Washington as an "unstable nation. And already, a list of 25 unstable nat
ions or failed states has been drawn up by the newly created Office of Reconstru
ction and Stabilisation .
The 2005 National Defense Strategy (NDS) consists in "enhancing U.S. influence a
round the world", through increased troop deployments and a massive buildup of A
merica's advanced weapons systems. From a broad military and foreign policy pers
pective, it constitutes an imperial design, which supports US corporate interest
s Worldwide.
The Next Phase of the War
The existence of fake intelligence to justify US-UK war plans, has not weakened
the war agenda. Nor does it ensure that disinformation will not used by politici
ans to justify the next phase of the war.
In fact, fake intelligence has already been created and fed into the news chain
to justify the bombing of Iran which is slated to be implemented as a joint US-I
sraeli operation.
Meanwhile, in the US, Britain and Canada, the Homeland Security apparatus is bei
ng further developed, leading to the militarisation of civilian institutions and
the derogation of Constitutional government.
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens t
he future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no
means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of
a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the C
old War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, whic
h in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to
mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely
associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
Reversing the Tide of War
High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and t
he US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.
One can therefore expect that war criminals in high office will repress any form
of dissent which questions the legitimacy of the war in Iraq and/or its extensi
on into Iran. In this regard, the anti terrorist legislation is eventually inten
ded to be used in a cohesive way against the anti-war and civil rights movements
.
Reversing the tide of war cannot be achieved through a narrow process of regime
change in America.
It is not sufficient to unseat elected politicians and elect a new government. T
hose in the seat of political authority are instruments, they are power brokers,
on behalf of the oil companies, the military industrial complex and the Wall St
reet financial establishment, which ultimately call the shots on US foreign poli
cy.
Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. What is required is a grass r
oots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challe
nges not only the legitimacy of the main military and political actors, but the
broad structures of the New World Order.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine
(namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped and the burg
eoning police state must be dismantled.
The corporate sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the
oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corp
orate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.
Michel Chossudovsky, 22 May 2005.
I PHONY INTELLIGENCE ON
IRAQ'S "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"
20 Lies about the War, Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker,
Falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make the case
for war.
More lies are being used in the aftermath
Cheney under pressure to quit over false war evidence, Andrew Buncombe and Marie
Woolf,
The White House admitted that the claim that Iraq was seeking "significant quant
ities of uranium from Africa" - based on faked documents provided by the Italian
intelligence services - should not have been included in President Bush's speec
h two months prior to the war
Where is Iraq War Instigator, Richard Perle? William Hughes,
"The shifty Perle, the Mother of all Neocons, also predicted, like former Defens
e Department official, Ken Adelman, that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be a 'cak
ewalk!' .."
Phony Intelligence: Like Iraq, CIA also Exaggerated Soviet Nuclear Threat during
Cold War, Jason Leopold,
Two years ago the Central Intelligence Agency released reams of intelligence doc
uments on the former Soviet Union that had been classified for nearly 30 years.
The findings were damning: the CIA for more than 10 years greatly exaggerated th
e nuclear threat the communist country posed to the world.
The faltering WMD Casus Belli: ''Mobile lies" , Imad Khadduri,
As the swelter of anger bubbles from the machination of misinformation that led
to the faltering WMD casus belli for invading Iraq, the retreat and half-baked e
xcuses of Bush, Blair, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Powell further expose the sharp edg
e of their deceit
Powell Denies Intelligence Failure In Buildup To War, But Evidence Doesn’t Hold Up
, Jason Leopold,
it turns out that a bulk of the intelligence contained in the reports was just p
lain wrong, suggesting that either the intelligence was doctored to make a case
for war or, even worse, that a massive intelligence failure is rampant inside th
e CIA and other U.S. government agencies.
The Iraq War was always based on Shaky Evidence and Phony Intelligence, Jason Le
opold,
Prior to the war, nearly every major media outlet warned, based on reports from
the Pentagon, that Iraq’s cache of chemical and biological weapons could be used o
n U.S. and British troops sent in to Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Forged for heat of Iraq battle: Pentagon sent the man at the heart of a ‘fake docu
ments’ scandal to Iraq, Solomon Hughes,
None of these newspapers nor his Congressional supporters revealed that, seven y
ears previously, the IAEA concluded that documents linked to Hamza were crude fa
csimiles made by altering genuine Iraqi papers.
According to the IAEA: “The documents reveal errors in construction, suggesting po
or adaptation of authentic Iraqi documents”.
White House Silenced Experts who Questioned Iraq Intel Info Six Months before Wa
r, Jason Leopold,
Six months before the United States was dead-set on invading Iraq to rid the cou
ntry of its alleged weapons of mass destruction, experts in the field of nuclear
science warned officials in the Bush administration that intelligence reports s
howing Iraq was stockpiling chemical and biological weapons was unreliable and t
hat the country did not pose an imminent threat to its neighbors in the Middle E
ast or the U.S.
But the dissenters were told to keep quiet by high-level administration official
s in the White House because the Bush administration had already decided that mi
litary force would be used to overthrow the regime of Iraq’s President Saddam Huss
ein, interviews and documents have revealed
Blair s Mass Deception John Pilger
Tony Blair ordered an unprovoked invasion of another country on a totally false
pretext, and that lies and deceptions manufactured in London and Washington caus
ed the deaths of up to 55,000 Iraqis, including 9,600 civilians.
Consider for a moment those who have paid the price for Blair s and Bush s actio
ns, who are rarely mentioned in the current media coverage. Deaths and injury of
young children from unexploded British and American cluster bombs are put at 1,
000 a month. The effect of uranium weapons used by Anglo-American forces - a wea
pon of mass destruction - is such that readings taken from Iraqi tanks destroyed
by the British are so high that a British Army survey team wore white, full-bod
y radiation suits, face masks and gloves. Iraqi children play on and around thes
e tanks. British troops, says the Ministry of Defence, "will have access to biol
ogical monitoring".
WeaponsGate: The Coming Downfall of Lying Regimes? Wayne Madsen,
Historians and scholars, who will look back on what turned the tide for a suppos
edly "popular" war president, will point to the self-described "cabal" whose lie
s brought about a credibility gap unseen in the United States since the days of
Watergate. In fact, Bush s "Weaponsgate" will be viewed as a more serious scanda
l than Watergate because 1) U.S. and allied military personnel were killed and i
njured as a result of the caper; 2) Innocent Iraqi civilians, including women an
d children, died in a needless military adventure; and 3) the political effects
of the scandal extended far beyond U.S. shores to the United Kingdom, Australia,
Spain, and other countries.
Eleventh hour lies mount as war approaches by Larry Chin
So unsavory is the Bush administration’s "intelligence" that Senator Jay Rockefell
er, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is calling for the FB
I to investigate forged documents that the administration has used to justify wa
r on Iraq.
A growing number of former CIA agents are coming forward to accuse the Bush admi
nistration of cooking the intelligence books... to support its case for war with
Iraq.
Will Tony Blair be forced to resign? Intelligence Fall-out over Iraq dossier, Ri
chard M. Barnett,
The accusations run in parallel with a growing belief among some expert observer
s that Britain and the United States had made the decision to invade Iraq more t
han a year ago and that everything emanating from both The White House and Downi
ng Street since then has been designed purely to hide that fact from the media a
nd to hoodwink the voters on both sides of the Atlantic.
Wolfowitz Admits Iraq War Planned Two Days After 9/11, Jason Leopold,
On September13, 2001, during a meeting at Camp David with President Bush, Rumsfe
ld and others in the Bush administration, Wolfowitz said he discussed with Presi
dent Bush the prospects of launching an attack against Iraq, for no apparent rea
son other than a “gut feeling” Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, and there
was a debate “about what place if any Iraq should have in a counter terrorist str
ategy.”
Chasing phantoms? The supposed reason why Iraq was invaded, Glen Rangwala,
General Tommy Franks, the war s commander, declared: "There is no doubt that the
regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." Tony Blair exp
ressed the same certainty in his first major press conference of the war: "We ha
ve absolutely no doubt at all that these weapons of mass destruction exist." He
told Parliament during the debate that led to a vote for war that the idea that
Iraq had disarmed was "palpably absurd."
Over three weeks into the war, and with most of Iraq captured by Anglo-American
forces, the only reliable signs of illicit weapons in Iraq are the cluster bombs
that have been dropped from US jets.
The Mirage of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, Imad Khadduri,
Even then one could discern that the sustained use of misinformation to support
the invasion of Iraq showed that the President s claims were not based on any fa
cts. I, having worked with Iraq s nuclear program for thirty years, reacted with
a series of articles expounding on the fact that Iraq had ceased its nuclear we
apon program at the start of the 1991 war. I refuted the claims and evidence mos
t famously, or infamously, branded by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Sec
urity Council in February 2003 in which Powell argued that Iraq had rejuvenated
its nuclear weapon program after the Gulf War.
Criminal Case against Blair et al. for Crimes committed in the Invasion of Iraq,
James B. Thring
Therefore a criminal case is being brought by the Barrister Dr Abdul-Haq Al-Ani
against Blair et al. for crimes committed in the invasion of Iraq. It will begin
with a Judicial Review of the Attorney General’s refusal to consent, leading to h
is potential indictment
Colin Powell s accusations at the UN: Who is behind the "Terrorist Network" in N
orthern Iraq, Baghdad or Washington ? Michel Chossudovsky,
Secretary of State Powell in his February 5 address to the United Nations Securi
ty Council accused Saddam Hussein of collaborating with Osama bin Laden s Al Qae
da. Powell accused Baghdad of supporting Ansar al-Islam, a "deadly terrorist net
work" based in the ethnic Kurd controlled region of Northern Iraq.
Why Bush Wants to Ban UN Arms Inspectors from Iraq Steve Moore
Saddam Hussein co-operated with the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq far more than
President George Bush is prepared to do. Apparently Hussein had nothing to hide
in the last round of inspections, but this raises the question: What does Bush h
ave to hide?
Where are all those WMDs that were the pretense for this war? Michael Moore spea
ks out against the War
The real purpose of this war was to say to the rest of the world, "Don t Mess wi
th Texas - If You Got What We Want, We re Coming to Get It!" This is not the tim
e for the majority of us who believe in a peaceful America to be quiet. Make you
r voices heard. Despite what they have pulled off, it is still our country.
The Road to Coverup is the Road to Ruin, Letter of Senator Robert Byrd to Presid
ent Bush,
These are the President s words. He said that Saddam Hussein is "seeking a nucle
ar bomb." Have we found any evidence to date of this chilling allegation? No.
II OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND SECRET MEMOS
Document: Secret Downing Street Memorandum; Invasion of Iraq: Secret UK Governme
nt Memo Reveals that "the Intelligence and Facts were fixed"
C [Head of MI-6] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a percept
ible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted
to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terro
rism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing mat
erial on the Iraqi regime s record. There was little discussion in Washington of
the aftermath after military action.
Secret British Memo Shows Bush Tampered with Iraq Intelligence Juan Cole
[C head of MI-6] Dearlove s report makes it clear that Bush had already decided
absolutely on a war already the previous month, and that he had managed to give
British intelligence the firm impression that he intended to shape the intellige
nce to support such a war.
Why would it even be necessary to turn the intelligence analysts into "weasels"
who would have to tell Bush what he wanted to hear?
It was necessary because the "justification" of the "conjunction" of Weapons of
Mass Destruction and terrorism was virtually non-existent.
Intelligence Fiasco: Text of Memorandum to President Bush by former US Intellige
nce Officials,
We write to express deep concern over the growing mistrust and cynicism with whi
ch many, including veteran intelligence professionals inside and outside our mov
ement, regard the intelligence cited by you and your chief advisers to justify t
he war against Iraq.
Proof Bush Fixed The Facts, Ray McGovern
Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and w
hite—and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intel
ligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its Br
itish counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries leaders to "fix facts"
to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greet
ed with stares of incredulity.
Blair Planned Iraq War from Start Michael Smith
Inside Downing Street Tony Blair had gathered some of his senior ministers and a
dvisers for a pivotal meeting in the build-up to the Iraq war. It was 9am on Jul
y 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion began and long before the public wa
s told war was inevitable. The discussion that morning was highly confidential.
As minutes of the proceedings, headed “Secret and strictly personal — UK eyes only”, s
tate: “This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It sh
ould be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.”
Secret Document: Report of Britain s Attorney General confirms that the War on I
raq was Illegal
if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likel
y to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". Th
e legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next
week or so, eg, the discussions on the draft second resolution. If we fail to a
chieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at
that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the
time.
Official Transcript: Dr David Kay s Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Commi
ttee US Senate,
Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself
here.
Senator Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occ
asions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen
was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction.
(...)
It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most d
isturbing.
(...)
I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficie
ntly intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of depl
oyed militarized chemical and biological weapons there.
CIA Intelligence Reported Seven Months Before 9/11: Iraq posed No Threat to US,
Jason Leopold,
Seven months before September 11, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet, testified bef
ore Congress that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to othe
r countries in the Middle East
NSA Memorandum: Dirty Tricks, Text of "Secret" NSA Memorandum to "mount a surge.
..directed at UNSC members (minus US and GBR of course)"
"The Agency [National Security Agency] is mounting a surge particularly directed
at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course)... [the
Agency envisages] "a QRC [Quick Reaction Capability] surge effort to revive/ cre
ate efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea"
CIA/MI6 Coverup, Analysis of "Sensitive" document: The interview with Hussein Ka
mel, Glen Rangwala, 28 Feb
Kamel s statement casts into new light the claims made by the Iraqi government t
hat it destroyed its non-conventional weapons in the period immediately after th
e end of the Gulf War.
This topic remains highly potent, with Hans Blix declaring that
"[o]ne of three important questions before us today is how much might remain und
eclared and intact from before 1991" (statement of 27 January 2003 to the Securi
ty Council).
If Kamel is to be taken as seriously as the UK and US administrations have previ
ously held him to be, then his claim that "[a]ll weapons - biological, chemical,
missile, nuclear were destroyed" should be taken seriously.
FBI called to investigate forged documents used to justify war on Iraq: Eleventh
Hour Lies mount as War approaches, Larry Chin
So unsavory is the Bush administration’s "intelligence" that Senator Jay Rockefell
er, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is calling for the FB
I to investigate forged documents that the administration has used to justify wa
r on Iraq.
Document: Full text of UN Weapons Inspector s briefing to the UN Security Counc
il, 14 Feb 2003, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix,
Document: Consult original UNSCOM/IAEA "Sensitive" Document
III THE NIGER INTELLIGENCE STING
The Niger Uranium Intelligence Sting , IRNA,
A British professor of theoretical physics suggested Tuesday that the raging con
troversy over intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium ore f
rom Niger is meaningless.
Wolfowitz Instructed White House to Use Iraq/Uranium Reference in President s St
ate of the Union Address, Jason Leopold
A Pentagon committee led by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, adv
ised President Bush to include a reference in his January State of the Union add
ress about Iraq trying to purchase 500 tons of uranium from Niger to bolster the
case for war in Iraq, despite the fact that the CIA warned Wolfowitz’s committee
that the information was unreliable, according to a CIA intelligence official an
d four members of the Senate’s intelligence committee who have been investigating
the issue.
Niger and Iraq: the War s biggest Lie? Neil McKay,
Some time after the Iraqi ambassador s trip to Niger, the Italian intelligence s
ervice came into possession of forged documents claiming Saddam was after Niger
uranium. We now know these documents were passed to MI6 and then handed by the B
ritish to the office of US Vice-President Dick Cheney . The forgeries were then
used by Bush and Blair to scare the British and Americans and to box both Congre
ss and Parliament into supporting war
Italian Spy Discusses Own Role in Iraq-Niger Traffic Hoax , Interview with Itali
an former SID Defense Intelligence Service agent Rocco Martino
The hoax began one day when a Nigerian (as published) Embassy source who had pro
ven to be reliable on previous occasions and who had contacts also with the coll
aborator of a SISMI (Intelligence and Military Security Service) aide, passed on
to me a whole lot of information.
IV THE PLAGIARIZED INTELLIGENCE REPORT
British Intelligence Iraq Dossier Relied on Recycled Academic Articles, Glen Ran
gwala, 11 Feb.
A close textual analysis suggests that the UK authors had little access to first
-hand intelligence sources and instead based their work on academic papers, whic
h they selectively distorted. Some of the papers used were considerably out of d
ate. This leads the reader to wonder about the reliability and veracity of the D
owning Street document
Point by point Refutation of Sec.Colin Powell s Presentation Concerning Iraq, Gl
en Rangwala,
Part of Colin Powell s Address to UN was plagiarized. It was copied and pasted f
rom a website!
The government s carefully coordinated propaganda offensive took an embarrassing
hit after Downing Street was accused of plagiarism.
WMDs and Osama: Colin Powell s Mea Culpa
Transcript of Colin Powell s Presentation to the UN Security Council, 5 Feb 2003
Author s note: Dear Global Research Readers, kindly forward this text far and wi
de to friends and family, on internet forums, within the workplace, in your neig
hborhood, nationally and internationally, with a view to reversing the tide of w
ar. Spread the Word!
Related articles
Targeting Iran: Is the US Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2010-08-09
Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2010-08-01
Global Military Agenda: U.S. Expands Asian NATO To Contain And Confront China
- by Rick Rozoff - 2010-08-07
Israel’s Insane War on Iran Must Be Prevented
- by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach - 2010-07-31
Part III
Reversing the Tide of War. Criminalizing War (forthcoming)
Towards a World War III Scenario? The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on
Iran
Part II The Military Road Map
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, August 13, 2010
To consult Part I of this essay click below
Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran
Part I: Global Warfare
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2010-08-01
The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran
started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From th
e outset, these war plans were led by the US, in liaison with NATO and Israel.
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and
Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. US military sources intimated tha
t an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to
the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
"American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli
attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening
days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.(See Globalsecurity )
"Theater Iran Near Term"
Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, "Theater Iran Near Term", simulat
ions of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 "when modelers and intellig
ence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning larg
e-scale) scenario analysis for Iran." ( (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 Apri
l 2006).
The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a "Shoc
k and Awe" Blitzkrieg:
"The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "Theater Iran Near Term," was coupled with a
mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missil
e force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the s
ame time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strik
e war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of thi
s will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against
Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form.
... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining bo
th 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 pos
twar stability operations after regime change." (William Arkin, Washington Post,
16 April 2006)
Different "theater scenarios" for an all out attack on Iran had been contemplate
d: "The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and
spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Ad
miral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerized pla
ns under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term)." (New Statesman, February 19
, 2007)
In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Di
ck Cheney instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a "contingency plan" of a large scale
military operation directed against Iran "to be employed in response to another
9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States" on the presumption that the go
vernment in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre
-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state:
"The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional
and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strateg
ic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sit
es. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be ta
ken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Ira
q, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of
terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers
involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what th
ey are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one i
s prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." (Philip Giraldi, Deep
Background,The American Conservative August 2005)
The Military Road Map: "First Iraq, then Iran"
The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of mil
itary planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clinton
administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater pl
ans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the state
d strategic objective:
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President
s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman s National Military Strateg
y (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command s theater strat
egy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rog
ue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interes
ts, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment i
s designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on e
ither Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-fo
cused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the
United States vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied
access to Gulf oil." (USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/
chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy, link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.c
om/37gafu9)
The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations. Accor
ding to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon s military ro
ad-map consisted of a sequence of countries: "[The] Five-year campaign plan [inc
ludes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon,
Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan." In "Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General Cla
rk states the following:
"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior militar
y staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going agai
nst Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a fiv
e-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginn
ing with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. (See Secret
2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon, Global Research, July 23, 2006)
The Role of Israel
There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack
against Iran.
Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does no
t have a separate and distinct military agenda.
Israel is integrated into the "war plan for major combat operations" against Ira
n formulated in 2006 by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). In the context of lar
ge scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one
coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost
an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel wou
ld require a "green light" from Washington.
An attack by Israel could, however, be used as "the trigger mechanism" which wou
ld unleash an all out war against Iran, as well retaliation by Iran directed aga
inst Israel.
In this regard, there are indications that Washington might envisage the option
of an initial (US backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright US-led milita
ry operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack --although led in close l
iaison with the Pentagon and NATO-- would be presented to public opinion as a un
ilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then be used by Washington to justify, i
n the eyes of World opinion, a military intervention of the US and NATO with a v
iew to "defending Israel", rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military c
ooperation agreements, both the US and NATO would be "obligated" to "defend Isra
el" against Iran and Syria.
It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush s second term, (f
ormer) Vice President Dick Cheney hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "
right at the top of the list" of the "rogue enemies" of America, and that Israel
would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvem
ent and without us putting pressure on them "to do it" (See Michel Chossudovsky,
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005): According to
Cheney:
"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked.
.. Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the dest
ruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest
of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (Dick Che
ney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005)
Commenting the Vice President s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbig
niew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: C
heney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America s behalf and "do it" f
or us:
"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; i
t s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange paralle
l statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it an
d in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encourageme
nt for the Israelis to do it."
What we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israel military operation to bomb Ir
an, which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Def
ense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their
Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets in
side Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be pl
anned and coordinated at the highest levels of the US led coalition.
An attack by Israel would also require coordinated US-NATO logistical support, p
articularly with regard to Israel s air defense system, which since January 2009
is fully integrated into that of the US and NATO. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Unu
sually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the US and Israel Planning a B
roader Middle East War? Global Research, January 11,2009)
Israel s X band radar system established in early 2009 with US technical support
has "integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-b
ased] detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterra
nean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors."
(Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009,)
What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The US rather tha
n Israel controls the air defense system: This is and will remain a U.S. rada
r system, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. So this is not something we a
re giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely requir
e U.S. personnel on-site to operate. " (Quoted in Israel National News, January
9, 2009).
The US military oversees Israel s Air Defense system, which is integrated into t
he Pentagon s global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against
Iran without Washington s consent. Hence the importance of the so-called "Green
Light" legislation in the US Congress sponsored by the Republican party under Ho
use Resolution 1553, which explicitly supports an Israeli attakc on Iran:
"The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleag
ues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of m
ilitary force.” ... “We’ve got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israe
l. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult are
a.”’ (See Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mulle
n Threatens Iran; US-Israel Vs. Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global R
esearch, August 10, 2010)
In practice, the proposed legislation is a "Green Light" to the White House and
the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a US sponso
red war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also s
erves as a justification to wage war with a view to defending Israel.
In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in respons
e to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on
the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to understand is that a minor
"incident" could be used as a pretext to spark off a major military operation a
gainst Iran.
Known to US military planners, Israel (rather than the USA) would be the first t
arget of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking, Israelis would be the v
ictims of the machinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, i
n this regard, absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by
the Netanyahu government to attack Iran.
Global Warfare: The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
Global military operations are coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquart
ers (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with the r
egional commands of the unified combatant commands (e.g.. US Central Command in
Florida, which is responsible for the Middle East-Central Asian region, See map
below) as well as coalition command units in Israel, Turkey, the Persian Gulf an
d the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. Military planning and deci
sion making at a country level by individual allies of US-NATO as well as "partn
er nations" is integrated into a global military design including the weaponizat
ion of space.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global
strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military ja
rgon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the mis
sions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; G
lobal Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global S
trike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "
USSTRATCOM s responsibilities include: "leading, planning, & executing strategic
deterrence operations" at a global level, "synchronizing global missile defense
plans and operations", "synchronizing regional combat plans", etc. USSTRATCOM i
s the lead agency in the coordination of modern warfare.
In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed
against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integ
ration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass dest
ruction." (Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, Janua
ry 3, 2006).
What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, includ
ing the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Ce
ntral Asian region would be coordinated by USSTRATCOM.
Map: US Central Command s Area of Jurisdiction
Tactical Nuclear Weapons directed against Iran
Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the US and
Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.
S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capab
ility for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventiona
l weapons. This announcement was made after the conduct of military simulations
pertaining to a US led nuclear attack against a fictional country. (David Ruppe,
Preemptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global St
rike Capability, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005)
Continuity in relation to the Bush-Cheney era: President Obama has largely endor
sed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previou
s administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administratio
n confirmed "that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran"
for its non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nucl
ear weapons program. (U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threa
t - IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010). The Obama administration has also intimate
d that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attac
k on Iran. (Ibid). Israel has also drawn up its own "secret plans" to bomb Iran
with tactical nuclear weapons:
"Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enoug
h to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have b
een built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tippe
d bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and i
f the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said."(Revealed: Israe
l plans nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online, January 7, 2007)
Obama s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea ar
e consistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the us
e of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative"
nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a me
ans to combating "Islamic terrorism" and instating Western style "democracy" in
Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for "battlefield use". They are slat
ed to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America s "war on Terr
orism" alongside conventional weapons.
"Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a c
redible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic i
s 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 weapon
s are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them mor
e effective as a deterrent." (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Researc
h Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapon
s (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (e.g. B61.
11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb.
The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. or Guided Bo
mb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker
buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO
112C.html, see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris
) . While the US does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons
against Iran, Israel s nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bom
bs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel s Jeric
ho‐III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be
within reach.
Conventional bunker buster Guided Bomb Unit GBU-27