US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, September 27, 2007
Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to
spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle
East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.
In late August, reported by the Military Times, a US Air Force B-52
bomber flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air
Force Base in Louisiana with six AGM advanced cruise missiles, each of
which was armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead. "... Missiles were
mounted on the pylons under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a
yield of up to 150 kilotons, more than ten times as powerful as the US
bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the close of the Second World War." (See
Bill Van Auken, Global Research September 2007)
The Military Times byline was "B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard".
The issue was casually acknowledged by The Washington Post and the New
York Times. The reports quoted a US Air force spokesman. The matter was
offhandedly brushed aside. The incident represented an isolated
mistake and that at no time was there a threat to public safety. (Ibid) :
"As far as is known, the incident marked the first time that a US plane
has taken off armed with nuclear weapons in nearly 40 years. ...
... The transport of weapons from one base to another, however, is
normally carried out in the holds of C-17 and C-130 cargo planes, not
fixed to the wings of combat bombers.
Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. The
question is whether it was a local Air Force commandereither by mistake
or deliberatelyor whether the order came from higher up.
B-52s from Barksdale have been used repeatedly to strike targets in
Iraq, firing cruise missiles at Iraqi targets in 1996 and 1998, and in
the shock and awe campaign that preceded the 2003 invasion, carrying
out some 150 bombing runs that devastated much of the southern half of
the country.
Moreover, the weapon that was fixed to the wings of the B-52 flying from
Minot air base was designed for use against hardened targets, such as
underground bunkers.
Given the ratcheting up of the threats against Iran and the previous
reports of plans for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against
Iranian nuclear installations, there is a very real possibility that the
flight to Barksdale was part of covert preparations for a nuclear strike
against Iran.
If this is indeed the case, the claims about a mistake by a munitions
officer and a few airmen in North Dakota may well be merely a cover
story aimed at concealing the fact that the government in Washington is
preparing a criminal act of world historic proportions by
orderingwithout provocationthe first use of nuclear weapons since the
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than sixty years ago. (Bill van
Auken, op. cit).
In recent developments, Wayne Madsen (September 27) has suggested, based
on US and foreign intelligence sources, that the B-52 carrying the
advanced cruise missiles with bunker buster nuclear warheads was in fact
destined for the Middle East.
Is the B-52 Barksdale incident in any way related to US plans to use
nuclear weapons against Iran?
Madsen suggests, in this regard, that the operation of shipping the
nuclear warheads was aborted "due to internal opposition within the Air
Force and U.S. Intelligence Community", which was opposed to a planned
US attack on Iran using nuclear warheads.
Without downplaying the significance of the Barksdale incident, if
Washington were to decide to use nuclear weapons against Iran, they
could be launched at short notice from a number of military bases in
Western Europe and the Middle East, from Diego Garcia in the Indian
Ocean, from a submarine or from a US Aircraft carrier. Turkey has some
90 B61 nuclear weapons which are fully deployed. (See details below). It
should be noted that, with regard to the Barksdale incident, the 150 kt.
W-80-1 nuclear warheads mounted on the B-52s are not the type of nuclear
weapon contemplated by the US military for use in the Middle East
conventional war theater.
To grasp the seriousness of the "Barksdale incident", it is important to
understand the broader context of nuclear weapons deployment
respectively by the US, NATO and Israel.
We are not dealing with a single aborted operation of deployment of
nuclear weapons to the Middle East.
There are indications that a large number of US made nuclear weapons are
currently deployed in Western Europe and the Middle East including Israel.
Coordinated Military Operation
We are dealing with a coordinated military operation in which US
Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) plays a central role. The main coalition
partners are the US, NATO and Israel.
There are four interrelated "building blocks" pertaining to the
preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater:
1. CONPLAN 8022 formulated in 2004. CONPLAN integrates the use of
conventional and nuclear weapons.
2. National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear
Weapons Deployment Authorization issued in May 2004
3. The deployment of Israeli nuclear weapons directed against targets in
the Middle East
4. Deployment of Nuclear Weapons by NATO/EU countries, directed against
targets in the Middle East
1. CONPLAN 8022
CONPLAN 8022 under the jurisdiction of USSTRATCOM sets the stage. It
envisages the integration of conventional and nuclear weapons and the
use of nukes on a preemptive basis in the conventional war theater. It
is described as "a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear,
conventional, or information warfare capabilities to
destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in
the world." CONPLAN became operational in early 2004. "As a result, the
Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range
bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)." (Robert S. Norris and Hans
M. Kristensen, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)
CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022 now consists of "an actual plan that the
Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their
submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005,
For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran,
op. cit.).
"CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned
strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'"
2. Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization: NSPD 35 (2004)
National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear
Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued in May 2004.
The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully
guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media
nor even in Congressional debates. While its contents remains
classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment
of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance
with CONPLAN 8022.
There are unconfirmed reports that B61-11 type tactical nuclear weapons
have been deployed to the Middle East following NSPD 35. According to a
report published in the Turkish press, the B-61s could be used against
Iran, if Iran were to retaliate with conventional weapons to a US or
Israeli attack (See Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear
Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in
BBC Monitoring Europe).
In this regard, NSPD-17 of December 2002 entitled National Strategy to
Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, quoted in the Washington Times
(January 31, 2003) points to possible use of nuclear weapons in
retaliation, if US or allied forces are attacked:
"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the
right to respond with overwhelming force including potentially nuclear
weapons to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United
States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." (emphasis added,
this section quoted by the WT pertains to the classified version of NSPD-17)
3. Israeli Nukes
Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major
role in case the planned attacks on Iran were to be carried out. (For
details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003,
Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the
deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear
warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer,
12 October 2003) . Coinciding with the 2005 preparations to wage air
strikes against Iran, Israel took delivery of two new German produced
submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a
"second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI
Data Base)
The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on
the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since
October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush.
Currently it is touted in the form of a necessity of nuclear strikes.
The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about
such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite
feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to stop Iran. (General
Leonid Ivashov, Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack, Global
Research, January 2007)
At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped
a bombshell. He 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
involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it".
"Rather than a direct American nuclear strike against Irans hard
targets, Israel has been given the assignment of launching a coordinated
cluster of nuclear strikes aimed at targets that are the nuclear
installations in the Iranian cities: Natanz, Isfahan and Arak.(Michael
Carmichael, Global research, January 2007)
Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to
attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National
Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed
with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants [former] Prime Ariel Sharon to
act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:
..."And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel
statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do
it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even
an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."
Beneath the rhetoric, what we are dealing with is a joint
US-NATO-Israeli military operation directed against Iran and Syria,
which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. US advisers in
the Pentagon have been working assiduously with their Israeli military
and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran
( Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )
In recent developments, at the September 2007 meetings of the Vienna
based IAEA, a critical resolution, implicitly aimed at Israel, was put
forth which would put Israel's nuclear program "under international
purview." The resolution was adopted with the US and Israel voting
against it.
4. NATO Nukes. Nuclear Weapons Deployment by Five Non-nuclear States
Several Western European countries, officially considered as
"non-nuclear states", possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them
by Washington.
The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear
NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and
Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. These weapons are
ready for delivery to "known military targets".
Source: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm
See Details and Map of Nuclear Facilities located in 5 European
Non-Nuclear States
As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the
US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90
thermonuclear B61 bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National
Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005).
Consistent with US nuclear policy, the deployment of B61 nuclear weapons
in Western Europe, which dates back to the Cold war era, is also
intended for targets in the Middle East. Confirmed by "NATO strike
plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the
"non-nuclear States") could be launched "against targets in Russia or
countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran" ( quoted in
National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February
2005)
Confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the U.S.
Freedom of Information Act):
"... The approximately 480 nuclear bombs [now 350] in Europe are
intended for use in accordance with NATO nuclear strike plans, the
report asserts, against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle
East such as Iran and Syria.
The report shows for the first time how many U.S. nuclear bombs are
earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear NATO countries. In times of war,
under certain circumstances, up to 180 of the 480 nuclear bombs would be
handed over to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey for
delivery by their national air forces. No other nuclear power or
military alliance has nuclear weapons earmarked for delivery by
non-nuclear countries."
(quoted in http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm emphasis added)
In the post-Cold War era, the procedures governing the use of these
EU/NATO nuclear weapons were redefined. The U.S. military made
arrangements in the mid-1990s for the use of these nukes outside the
area of jurisdiction of European Command (EURCOM). For EURCOM, this
would mean responsibility for delivery of nukes within CENTCOM's
(Central Command) area of jurisdiction, meaning that nuclear attacks on
Iran and Syria could be launched from military bases in these
non-nuclear EU/NATO countries:
The report also documents that the U.S. military in 1994 made
arrangements for nuclear targeting and use of nuclear weapons in Europe
outside European Command's (EUCOM) area of responsibility. For EUCOM,
this means CENTCOM (Central Command) which incorporates Iran and Syria
.. It is unclear whether [the] parliaments [of EU/NATO countries] are
aware of arrangements to target and potentially strike Middle Eastern
countries with nuclear weapons based in Europe.
(http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm
It is worth noting, based on recent information published by the
National Resources Defense Council (August 2007), that the number of B61
nuclear bombs in Europe has been reduced from 480 to 350, following the
removal of 130 bombs from the Ramstein airbase in Germany.
Source: http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm
Nuclear Weapons' Double Standards. Where is the Nuclear Threat?
While these "non-nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing
nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have
capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran
and Syria. To say that this is a clear case of "double standards" in the
process of identifying the threat of nuclear weapons is a gross
understatement.
France's President Nicolas Sarkozy Endorses Bush's Pre-emptive Nuclear
War Doctrine
France accuses Tehran of developing nuclear weapons against mountains of
evidence that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.
The Sarkozy government favors a military operation directed against
Iran. Ironically, these threats by President Sarkozy and his Foreign
Minister Bernard Kouchner were formulated immediately following the
release of the IAEA Report. The latter confirms unequivocally the
civilian nature of Iran's nuclear program.
According to President Sarkozy in his September 26, 2007 address to the
UN General Assembly:
"There will be no peace in the world if the international community
falters in the face of nuclear arms proliferation Weakness and
renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war,"
France has also confirmed that it could use its own nuclear warheads
estimated at between 200 and 300, on a preemptive basis. In January
2006, (former) President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in
France's nuclear weapons policy.
Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be
used in the form of "more focused attacks" against countries, which were
"considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be
used in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US and
NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of
nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week January 26, 2006).
Chirac's successor, Nicolas Sarkozy has embraced the US sponsored "War
on Terrorism".
France supports the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the
conventional war theater, broadly following the principles formulated in
the Bush Administration's nuclear doctrine, which allows the use of
nukes (against Iran or Syria) for purposes of "self-defense".
A Note of Caution
The existence of war plans, which are currently in an advanced state of
readiness, does not imply that war will occur.
But at the same time, these war plans and their consequences must be
forcefully addressed. An all out war, which would engulf the entire
Middle East Central Asian region, cannot be excluded.
Moreover, a political consensus in favor of a war directed against Iran
is building up in the US. This war agenda is now supported by several of
America's European allies including Britain, France and Germany.
Public opinion is not informed due to a media blackout. The war on Iran
using nuclear weapons is not front page news.
The legitimacy of the war criminals in high office remains intact. There
is visibly no mass movement against this war as occured in the months
leading up to the Iraq invasion. Moreover, concurrent with the
development of the war agenda, the Western countries are developing
their "Homeland Security" apparatus with a view to to curbing public
protest against the war.
In the months ahead, we can expect the media propaganda war against Iran
to go into high gear with a view to galvanising public opinion in
support of a military intervention.
It is absolutely essential that people in America and around the World
take a firm position against a war, which in a very real sense threatens
the future of humanity.
Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to
spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle
East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.
No comments:
Post a Comment