Kamangir (Archer)
An Iranian looking at Iran as a foreigner…
Did you know that Kamangir turns four tomorrow? See the classic "Hello World" dated October 17, 2008!
Iranian Missile Drill: Pictures do not Lie!
Kamangir | July 9, 2008 | Category Features, Iran, Islamic Republic, Lead Story
Maybe all the worries about the new missile drill by the Islamic Republic are just overreaction. What would you think when you realize that neither Fars News, nor Mehr News or ISNA published any picture of the event. Add to that the fact that one of the pictures the state-run IRIB published actually looks too much like a picture taken at a drill which happened two years ago.
Presumably taken recently, published by the IRIB.
Published two years ago. Compare the clouds, the layout and the trail at the bottom right.
Maybe this is just another bluff. Not a good timing of course.
Related:
Reader's Comments
Comment
Salam (Hi) - سلام
Welcome to Kamangir. This is the personal blog of Arash Abadpour (Abad Pour), an Iranian student in Canada (more)
Contact: arash@kamangir.net
Other places around here: Persian Blog, Academic Background, Photography Blog,
Photoblog, and Azadeh (My Wife)
Options
-
July 9, 2008 -
Features, Iran, Islamic Republic, Lead Story -
44 comments
-
Comments RSS -
Del.ico.us
-
Digg!
Picks
Categories
- Blogging (25)
- Children (13)
- Didish (10)
- Features (40)
- Good Reads (22)
- Human Rights (158)
- Humour (115)
- International Bloggers (10)
- Iran (1575)
- Islam (131)
- Islamic Republic (306)
- Israel (23)
- KiBeKi (7)
- Lead Story (32)
- media (18)
- News (1)
- Personal (28)
- Picture of the Day (14)
- Profiler (1)
- Regular Posts (9)
- Russia (1)
- UK (1)
- US (34)
- Video of the Day (18)
- War (8)
- Women (24)
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
I suggest you change ur name from Archer to Holmes :))
and isn’t it funny that no one condemned Israel for its military manouver lats month but now all these peacelovers US, UK, Italy and France are calling Iran test a provocative action.
Well done, Arash! Good eyes on that man. May I link to this, borrowing a pic. to assist? Thanks for all you do, my friend!
Kamangir: You are more than welcome. :)
Before Desert Storm, the western media told us that neither the M1 Abrams tank nor the Bradley fighting vehicle would work in the desert.
On the other hand, we were told that the battle-hardened Iraqis had simple, brutally effective weapons and equipment that would allow them to mop the earth with our technologically superior but soft troops.
Before Operation Enduring Freedom we were told that the Taliban were hardy fighters who could fight barefoot in the snow, eating only rats and discarded rubber tires, while our technologically superior but soft troops would flounder, fail, collapse, etc.
Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, we were told by the media etc. etc. etc.
Now, the media boasts about the Great Persian War machine, which appears to not even exist.
Strategypage has an article that says the Israelis have retrained and re-equipped their troops to deal with the Hezbollah missile threat by using ground forces this time, as well as antimissile missiles.
I have no doubt that if we do have to fight Iran, it’ll be another of these amazingly lopsided victories. For one thing, we’ll be under pressure to end it as soon as possible, which means we–and probably the Israelis–will hit them as hard as we can.
Let’s hope the Iranians follow the example of the Romanians and overthrow the mullahs on their own. The Romanians were willing to make the sacrifice.
Are the Iranians?
[...] forgeries. Like this one, for example: It’s dead, Jim. For more details: LGF, Suitably Flip, Kamangir. permalink · Fact-checking · Comments (0) · Trackbacks (0) · digg this [...]
The pictures are indeed from the same event, the top one just being a second (or split-second) later, slightly less blurry, and better contrast (post-processing, most likely). It’s a little cropped on the edges compared to the bottom one, but it’s still the exact same angle - which most likely means the exact same camera as well.
Heck, you can even play a game of Spot The Rocks on the ground… they’re all the same ones.
As for your comparison, Mani, it could be because Nuclear Program + ICBM Development and Testing + Threats of “Erasure” = Panic. Particularly when your president just can’t keep that mouth of his shut about issues which he knows will cause further worldwide suspicion and panic. An air-force military drill in a country you can spit across (a military jet can fly across the entire country in ten to fifteen minutes) doesn’t quite measure up to that. And as much as I like foreign reports on the drill (notably the conflicting ones coming from the US Foreign Office and the Pentagon, showing just how much low-key public servants like to talk to the press - completely irrelevant of them actually *knowing* anything), nothing will make it seem more threatening than a country with a somewhat unbalanced leadership that has a nuclear project on the one hand and that is building ICBMs on the other.
Because, you see, people have this bad association with ICBMs coming together with suspicious nuclear projects. The step from that to equipping said ICBMs with nuclear warheads is too small, and Iran’s current political leadership makes people wonder just what a nuclear Iran will bring to the world. It doesn’t look quite promising.
And before you comment about Israel’s nuclear weapons (which it most likely holds), here are two major issues for you to swallow.
One, Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Iran is, and Iran broke it by developing its nuclear program *in secret*, which has raised alarm bells worldwide - because, you see, when you hide something… it pretty much means you have something to hide. And when you break a very important worldwide treaty while doing so, well… expect people to not be amused.
Two, Israel is seen as a generally “safe” nuclear power, one that doesn’t threaten to erase whole countries, and most certainly not at the push of a doomsday button. Israel’s political leadership is by far stabler and saner than Iran’s, and it is only ever expected to use its nuclear weapons when its faced with total destruction, which is why so many people call it the Samson Option - as in, “If I die, I’m going to take you all with me”.
[...] the digitally enhanced Iranian missiles in an image distributed by Agence France-Press. See also: Kamangir, Blackfive, Pat Dollard, EU Referendum, Ace, Jim Hoft, Suitably [...]
[...] the digitally enhanced Iranian missiles in an image distributed by Agence France-Press. See also: Kamangir, Blackfive, Pat Dollard, EU Referendum, Ace, Jim Hoft, Suitably [...]
[...] RickB It appears that a photo of the Iranian missile tests is not only photoshopped but an old picture. The work of the Revolutionary Guard media outfit Sepah News, that others have not reprinted- [...]
[...] bloggers like Gateway Pundit, Kamangir, Suitably Flip, and Little Green Footballs noticed something fishy about the picture Iran released [...]
I’m not an expert in Photoshop, but I think I could have done a better job.
[...] an Iranian blogger, points out thata photograph published of the recent missile tests in Iran is from the same test that was [...]
[...] an Iranian blogger, points out thata photograph published of the recent missile tests in Iran is from the same test that was [...]
[...] the digitally enhanced Iranian missiles in an image distributed by Agence France-Press. See also: Kamangir, Blackfive, Pat Dollard, EU Referendum, Ace, Jim Hoft, Suitably [...]
Allah works in mysterious ways….that’s why the clouds were exactly the same.
And I am ALWAYS right.
[...] ???????? Kamnagir, ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????????? [...]
[...] kamangir.net [...]
Close observation shows that the pattern of high altitude clouds is the same in the two (supposedly taken years apart) photos. Nature cannot do that.
[...] You cannot believe everything you read or see anymore. Look at these two shots of a “supposedly recent Iranian Missile Launch.” One was alleged to have occurred this week, and the other is pre-Saddam [...]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6792
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America’s “War on Terrorism” Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.
I am glad that there are Canadian like this guy who has not been fooled like you by the American war machine.
Quoting official sources, the Western media is now confirming, rather belatedly, that the Bush Administration’s war plans directed against Iran are “for real” and should be taken seriously.
According to official statements, “punitive bombings” directed against Tehran could be launched within the next few months.
The diplomatic mode has been switched off: The Pentagon is said to be “taking steps to ensure military confrontation with Iran” because diplomatic initiatives have allegedly failed to reach a solution.
These diabolical statements come within barely a couple of weeks following the release of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report. The later confirms unequivocally that Iran’s nuclear program is of a civilian nature and that Iran has neither the intention nor the capabilities to develop nuclear weapons:
Article IV (1): These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency [meaning IAEA] confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran’s past nuclear program and activities.
Article IV (3): The Agency’s delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran’s nuclear activities.
Article IV (4): The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use. (IAEA Report, italics added)
At the same token, the IAEA report is a slap in the face for Washington. It confirms the lack of legitimacy and criminal nature of US foreign policy as well as Washington’s resolve to violate international law:
“The Bush administration’s abrupt dismissal of last Thursday’s IAEA report is one more sign that Washington has no interest in a diplomatic resolution to its confrontation with Tehran. Following Bush’s bellicose denunciations of Iran last week, the US has reiterated its intention to push for tougher UN sanctions against Tehran this month.” (Peter Symond, Global Research, September 2007)
No Public Outcry
Despite the overtly aggressive nature of US statements, these war plans directed against Iran, which in a real sense threaten the future of humanity, are not the object of public concern or debate. A US sponsored pre-emptive war, using thermonuclear weapons, which according to “authoritative” scientific opinion (on contract to the Pentagon), are “harmless to the surrounding civilian population” is simply not front page news in relation to any other trivial topic.
The dangers of a broader Middle East war are downplayed or ignored by the main anti-war coalitions. The proposed use of nuclear weapons in a conventional war theater is not a matter for debate.
Moreover, the planned attacks on Iran and their various devastating consequences are not being addressed by “progressive” civil society organizations including the “Left”, which tacitly considers The Islamic Republic as a real threat to human rights. According to Jean Bricmont:
“All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American “left”. The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not according to our views — but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, especially on the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.” (Jean Bricmont, Global Research, September 2007)
Background of War Planning
For the last three years, in several carefully documented articles, Global Research has been reporting in detail on US sponsored war plans directed against Iran. These war plans include the preemptive use of thermonuclear weapons against Iran in retaliation for Tehran’s alleged non-compliance with the demands of the “international community”.
War plans in relation to Iran have been an advanced stage of readiness since mid 2005. Israel, Britain and NATO are part of the US led coalition and are slated to play an active role in the military operation.
The first phase of these war plans was formulated initially in mid-2003, under a Pentagon scenario entitled TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near Term). The military build-up has occurred over a period of more than three years.
In Summer 2006 as well as earlier this year, extensive war games were conducted in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Israeli bombing of Lebanon in July 2006 was an integral part of the broader military agenda. In recent developments, Israel has conducted bombing raids inside Syrian territory visibly in an act of provocation.
Recent official statements by Washington confirm the broad nature of these war plans:
“Senior American intelligence and defense officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, …
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, …
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
The intelligence officer said that the US military has “two major contingency plans” for air strikes on Iran.
“One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets.” (quoted in The Sunday Telegraph, 16 September 2007)
US-NATO naval deployments are taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
In recent developments, it is reported that two aircraft carrier strike groups (USS Nimitz and USS Truman) are en route to the Persian Gulf to join up with the USS Enterprise, which means that there will be, by late September, three carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf.
According to military sources, the USS Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group took up position in late August opposite the Lebanese coastline.
The attacks on Iran are now officially supported by America’s European allies including France and Germany. France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has called upon France to support the US war on Iran:
“We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war,” Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio. Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue “right to the end”, but an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose “a real danger for the whole world” .(quoted by BBC, 16 September 2007)
Britain is closely involved, despite denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. NATO is formally involved in liaison with Israel, with which it signed a military framework agreement in November 2004.
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main military actors, a number of other countries in the region, allies of the US, including Georgia and Azerbaijan have been enlisted.
There are indications from several media sources that Israel is also in an advanced stage of military preparedness and would be involved in carrying out part of the aerial bombardments. Syria and most probably Lebanon would also be targeted.
Already in 2005, the Israeli Air Force had reached a state of preparedness. Israeli air attacks of Iran’s nuclear facility at Bushehr had been contemplated using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack was planned to be carried out in three separate waves “with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area”.
(See W Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html
Escalation Scenarios
If this military operation were to be launched, the entire Middle East Central Asian region would flare up.
The war would encompass an area extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Western frontier.
In this regard, US military planners have analyzed various “escalation scenarios”.
In fact, they expect the war to escalate. In other words, escalation, namely retaliation by Iran is a desired objective. It is part of the military agenda.
“A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq….
Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and even its armed forces. (Sunday Telegraph, op cit)
Iran Retaliates
The nature of Iran’s retaliation should be understood. General David Petraeus, who is responsible for managing the Iraq war theater, has voiced his opposition to an attack on Iran.
“Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush’s senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian “proxy war” in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.” (Sunday Telegraph, op cit)
General Petraeus is fully aware of the underlying implications for the Iraq war theater. A war on Iran would immediately spill over into Iraq:
Iran is the third largest importer of Russian weapons systems after India and China. In the course of the last five years, Russia has supported Iran’s ballistic missile technology, in negotiations reached initially in 2001 under the presidency of Mohammed Khatami.
Iran tested three new types of land-to-sea and sea-to-sea missiles in the context of its “Great Prophet II” military exercises last November. These tests were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert, “the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess.”
Tehran has the ability to retaliate and wage ballistic missile attacks against US and coalition facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf states. Israel could also be a potential target, if Israel were to be an active partner in the bombing campaign.
Iranian ground troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran’s forces total about 350,000 active military personnel as well 350,000 reserve forces (Jane’s Iran Profile). The Iranian Army disposes of some 2200 tanks. With these capabilities, in terms of military personnel and hardware, Iran could potentially inflict significant losses to US and coalition troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush-Cheney Military Appointments
Several key military appointments were made in recent months which tend to reinforce Bush-Cheney control over the Military. Specifically, these appointments pertain to the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commanders respectively of USCENTCOM, USSTRATCOM and US Pacific Command. All three commanders recently relinquished their respective positions.
These new appointments are crucial because USSTRATCOM, USCENTCOM and US Pacific Command are slated to play key roles in the coordination and implementation of the Iran military operation, in liaison with Israel and NATO.
1. Joint Chiefs of Staff
In May, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) General Peter Pace was fired (”non-renewal”). General Pace, in recent months, had indicated his disagreement with the Administration regarding both Iraq and the proposed attacks on Iran. General Pace stated (February 2007) that he saw no firm evidence of Tehran supplying weapons to Shiite militias inside Iraq, which was being heralded by the Bush administration as a justification for waging war on Iran:
“[M]aybe that’s why he’s the outgoing chairman. Maybe that’s why they’re not renewing him. Because …He has seen no evidence that Iran is fomenting unrest in Iraq that’s causing Americans lives… ” (Fox News’ Alan Colmes, ox News, June, 13, 2007),
General Peter Pace’s term as Chairman of the JCS ends at the end of September. Defense Secretary Gates’ chosen successor Admiral Michael Mullen, formerly U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, is slated to replace General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff.
Mullen’s discourse is in marked contrast to that of General Peter Pace. Mullen, who was in charge of coordinating 2006-2007 naval war games off the Iranian coastline, has expressed an unbending commitment to “waging” and “winning asymmetric wars”, while also “protecting the United States”:
“we must ensure we have the Battle Force, the people, and the combat readiness we need to win our nation’s wars…
Our Navy is fighting the Global War on Terror while at the same time providing a Strategic Reserve worldwide for the President and our Unified and Combatant Commanders…. Simply reacting to change is no longer an acceptable course of action if our Navy is to successfully wage asymmetric warfare and simultaneously deter regional and transnational threats (Statement, Senate Armed Services Committee, 7 May 2007)
Admiral Mullen’s stance is in line with that of the Bush Administration’s key Neo-conservative ideologues. With regard to Iran, echoing almost verbatim the stance of the White House, Admiral Mullen considers that it is “unacceptable that Iran is providing U.S. enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan with capabilities that are hurting and killing U.S. troops.” (Inside the Pentagon, June 21, 2007). But on the issue of Iran, the Democrats are on board. There is a bipartisan consensus, expressed by Senator Jo Lieberman:
“I want to make clear I’m not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran,… [but a] strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers” (AP, June 11, 2007)
In June, Secretary of Defense Gates appoints the Commander of USSTRATCOM, General Cartwright to the position of Vice-Chairman of the JCS. Together with the appointment of Admiral Mullen, who is slated to take on his position of Chairman of JCS in October, these two new appointments imply a significant overhaul in the power structure of the JCS
In the meantime, USSTRATCOM is headed, pending Senate confirmation of a new commander, on an interim basis, by Air Force Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler
2. CENTCOM
Admiral. William J. Fallon, was appointed Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in March by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
Admiral Fallon is fully compliant with the Bush administration’s war plans in relation to Iran. He replaces Gen. John P. Abizaid, who was pushed into retirement, following apparent disagreements with Rumsfeld’s successor, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. While Abizaid recognized both the failures and the weaknesses of the US military in Iraq, Admiral Fallon is closely aligned with Vice President Dick Cheney. He is also firmly committed to the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT). CENTCOM would coordinate an attack on Iran from the Middle East war theater.
Moreover, the appointment of an Admiral is indicative of a shift in emphasis of USCENTCOM’s functions in the war theater. The “near term” emphasis is Iran rather than Iraq, requiring the coordination of naval and air force operations in the Persian Gulf.
3. Pacific Command
Another major military appointment was implemented, which has a direct bearing on war preparations in relation to Iran. Admiral Timothy J. Keating Commander of US NORTHCOM was appointed in March, to head US Pacific Command, which includes both the 5th and the 7th fleets. The 7th Fleet Pacific Command is the largest U.S. combatant command. Keating, who takes over from Admiral Fallon is also an unbending supporter of the “war on terrorism”. Pacific Command would be playing a key role in the context of a military operation directed against Iran.(http://www.pacom.mil/about/pacom.shtml)
Of significance, Admiral Keating was also involved in the 2003 attack on Iraq as commander of US Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet.
It should be understood that these new military appointments tend to consolidate the power of Bush-Cheney in the military, overriding potential dissent or opposition to the Iran war agenda from within the upper echelons of the US military.
It is, however, unlikely that a major military operation would be launched immediately following Mullen’s instatement as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and prior to the confirmation of a new USSTRATCOM Commander by the US Senate.
USSTRATCOM’s Central Role in Coordinating the Attacks
USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation directed against Iran. (For details, Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM’s mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.” To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike , or JFCCSGS was created.
Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations “using nuclear or conventional weapons” in compliance with the Bush administration’s new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a “joint strike operation” under unified Command and Control.
According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,
“The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today’s adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044…. This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies….
One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, 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. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. 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).”
The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which 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.’
‘It’s specifically focused on these new types of threats — Iran, North Korea — proliferators and potentially terrorists too,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing that says that they can’t use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.’ (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)
USSTRATCOM would play a central decision making and coordinating role in the eventuality of a war on Iran. The administration has demanded USSTRATCOM to elaborate centralized war plans directed against Iran. CENTCOM would largely be involved in carrying out these war plans in the Middle East war theater.
USSTRATCOM’s is described “a global integrator charged with the missions of full-spectrum global strike”.
USSTRATCOM is in charge of the coordination of command structures under global C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). “Day-to-day planning and execution [by STRATCOM] for the primary mission areas is done by five Joint Functional Component Commands or JFCCs and three other functional components:”
If Iran Retaliates, the US Could Use Nuclear Weapons
US, NATO and Israeli military planners are fully aware that the aerial “punitive bombings” could lead coalition forces into a ground war scenario in which they may have to confront Iranian and Syrian forces in the battlefield.
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel as well as against US military facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Syria.
If Iran were to retaliate in a forceful way, which is contemplated by US military planners, the US could then retaliate with tactical nuclear weapons.
This scenario of using nuclear weapons against Iran has been in the pipeline since 2004. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a “contingency plan”, which “includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.” (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).
In relation to current war plans, Cheney has confirmed his intention to strike Iran with nuclear weapons.
“The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.
Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.” (Sunday Telegraph, op cit)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.
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.
Tactical nuclear weapons directed against Iran have also been deployed at military bases in several NATO non-nuclear states including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey.
It should be understood that even without the use of nukes, the proposed US aerial bombardments of Iran’s nuclear facilities could result in a nuclear Chernobyl type disaster on a significnatly larger scale.
World War III Scenario
While the war on Iran is acknowledged by the Western media, it is not front page news.
The broad implications of an impending catastrophe are simply not addressed.
Escalation could lead us into a World War III scenario.
Through media disinformation, the seriousness of a US-led war on Iran allegedly in retaliation for Iran’s defiance of the “international community” is downplayed . The objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led military operation, which would inevitably lead to escalation.
War propaganda consists in “fabricating an enemy” while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.
“Make the World safer”, “prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists”, “implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace”. “Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states”…
Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a “Just War”. The “Just war” theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
What can be done?
The antiwar movement is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military agenda. In the US, United for Peace and Justice tacitly supports US foreign policy. It fails to recognize the existence of an Iraqi resistance movement. Moreover, these same antiwar organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran. More generally the antiwar movement fails to address the existence of a broader Middle East military agenda, a long-war. Its actions are piecemeal, focusing on Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine without addressing the relationship between these various war theaters.
To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates quite explicitly the use of thermonuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: As confirmed by the IAEA report, Iran is not the threat.
Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.
The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.
For the past two years, Washington has been waging a “diplomatic arm twisting” exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military agenda.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
This article includes a few selected excerpts from my previous writings on US war plans in relation to Iran. For a review of US war plans in relation to Iran, see Global Research’s Iran dossier.
Duh, its so easy to see, i can tell by the pixels
Not only is it two pictures of the same launch with the most recent picture published being taken a split second later, but the other launch picture that had PhotoShopped a fourth missle may have been taken at the same launch site. Compare closely the berm, the road, and the topography of the land. The vegetation is a little different, but in two years that can change a lot.
Arash,
Take a look at the USA Today article that the photo has been doctored. One of the four malfunctioned, and they doctored the photo to show that all of them launched. They cannot be trusted with anything …
“The photo on the Sepah News site was replaced Thursday with an image showing three missiles — which appear to be the same as the earlier photo. In place of the fourth missile, however, the photo showed one still on the ground in its launch position and what appears to be a vehicle nearby.” (USA Today)
[...] is warning that Iran, home of possibly real, as well as most assuredly recycled and photoshopped missile tests, should not be attacked by the US or Israel. Prices would go [...]
[...] is warning that Iran, home of possibly real, as well as most assuredly recycled and photoshopped missile tests, should not be attacked by the US or Israel. Prices would go [...]
[...] the digitally enhanced Iranian missiles in an image distributed by Agence France-Press. See also: Kamangir, Blackfive, Pat Dollard, EU Referendum, Ace, Jim Hoft, Suitably [...]
Act strong when you’re weak, act weak when you’re strong.
So at the very moment that Iran should be proving that they are not a threat, they openly make threats.
That seems like a weird plan. The kindest and cruelest thing you can do to someone is take them seriously.
If Iran claims to be a grave threat to America, maybe we should be polite and listen. And treat them as such.
[...] Kamangir also reveals that some of the photos released are actually TWO YEARS old! [...]
i just wanted to congratulate Mani on his extensive newspaper searches to come up with his rambling and Obama like essay he wrote… his ignorance shines like the sun on a clear day! Kudos buddy
Mani, I won’t get into a critique of your book (the second, incredibly long posting) as I don’t have to read a novel right now, but as to the first…. Iran is testing (and we have proof, the pictures..!!!) an offensive weapon, capable of carrying a small nuke warhead. There is no credible dispute (the IAEA is not credible) that Iran is working toward nuclear weapons. Its president has called for the destruction of a UN member state. It’s demonstrations are worthy of criticism. Israel was demonstrating its ability and willingness to prevent an attack on itself. Fundamental difference, and if you did not see the world through the cracked lens of Islam this would make sense. Churchill and Adams were right about that cult
NeoCon-1
Imagine a country which was under threat by the largest military power, sanctions and imposed war for three decades. They decide to go for a secret nuclear weapon not to attack any country but just to use it as a defence like what happended for India and Pakistan. Did tehy use their weapons soon after they created them? no. Is Iran stupid to use any nuclear weapon against Israael which is wellknown for its 200-400 nuclear rockets. Of course not.
What is then all this fuss about.
Well Iranian regime knows that if they link their nuclear program with Israel they probabely can get more support from the region including Arab countrieas otherwise all Arab nations also will go against its power.
Because they know that any way you selfish ignorant Western countries won;t let any other country to get powerful and will stop them. Europian countries started their interference when Khatami was in power and there was no Israel-Ahamadinejad-Wiping off issue. So who cares. We know that this is a power game and jungle rule. Eat or be eaten?
Did Ahmadinejad mentioned any formal war threat to Israel? no. He just quated a sentence from Khomeini? Didn’t he try to correct himself and say I didn’t say there was no holocaust and I don’t support any military action against Jwish people? Yes he said clearly several times and also in Colombia University. Also this clip can clarify the fact that he is anti-zionism and not anti-Jewish.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q&feature=related
So why Western media keep repeating this shit? They don’t want to have a strong country in the region becasue they know that Iran won’t use its nuclear weapons (even if they create one later on) unless being attacked by US or Israel.
So if Ahmadinejad comment about the Israeili regime is equal to a war threat like the one Shaol Mufaz just released , then it is US government that started this war game because for three decades they are talking about regime change, overthrown of the regime, etc etc .
So don’t try to show Iran as a therat or war starter. These are your selfish , arrogant and ignorant politicians who think can manupulate the world by their miliotary power, by bringing their gigantic naveis to the Persian gulf (and intimidating other nations who should be blamed and questioned.It is called “Persian gulf ” so what the fuck ur navy are doing here. Get the fuck out of here and lets people live their lives. How come u can do military manouver in the Persian gulf but we can’t do it in our own land.
Mani - keep up your delusions if you wish. But that pygmy genocidal maniac of yours is a dangerous psychopath belonging to an apocalyptic cult and a state the main export of which is terrorism. What does this mean, then?
Hmmm… lemme see… country exporting mostly terrorism… ruled by an apocalyptic cult that seeks to start Armageddon to hasten the Mahdi’s return… with a history of brutally oppressing their own populations…. not to mention using all and any means in wars… not to mention issuing special fatwas for use of nuclear weapons, destruction of Jerusalem and killing Muslims to kill Jews…oh, and it’s falling apart socially and economically, too, after decades of neglect and abuse…
Just the state you’d want to have nuclear weapons, right?
And if you were Israel - with a very fresh memory of the Holocaust the aforementioned unshaved and insane midget denies along with his government - you’d surely take this lying down. You’d say “no, it’s OK, really, the Aryans with the Nazi government can have nuclear weapons, constantly and repeatedly threaten genocide on us, attack us through Hamas and Hizballah, brainwash their own people and anyone else they can to raving antisemitism… we’re sure they don’t mean it, and the secret nukes are surely just for self-defense!”
Right? Am I getting you straight here? :)
I grieve for the people of Koresh. Really, I do. This descent into barbarism is terribly unseemly.
It’s all so murky. Someone is trying to start a war or deter one…
Mani, We Iranians some 30 years ago created the animosity toward Israel when we confiscated their land which they had legal ownership (Israeli embassy in Tehran) and transfered it to a thief like Yaser Arafat and kicked all Israeli diplomats out of Iran some. Ever since millions of Iranians have been chanting “Death to Israel” every single day. You claim Ahmadneedsajob is not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist well in that case how come we have never seen a creed from any leader in charge of Iran changing that infamous chant to “Death to Zionism” and on the same token “Death to Government of America” instead of you know what.
I never was and certainly don’t want to be insensitive to the plight of Palestinians but quite frankly I don’t find their problems to be mine problem and I personally think the Iranian leaders are insane for putting Iranian lives in grave danger because they want to help Palestinians and annihilate Zionism. We don’t have to like Israelis and be friends or allies but we don’t have to be enemies either.
The meme of Israelis are out to kill Iranians are getting tiresome when we all know we are the ones initiated this animosity to a point where we are one step away from totally unnecessary armed conflict.
While it’s certainly possible, and even reasonable, that photographers at events two years apart are taken from the same “safe” location, and it’s not improbable that the middle of the Iranian desert might appear unchanged (at least at the resolution of these photos) over a two-year gap, there’s no way that the clouds behind the missiles would be identical. These two pictures were definitely taken within seconds of each other.
Unless, of course, both pictures are photoshopped fakes, using the same sky background.
They are of the same event — while you might be able to argue that everything else might have stayed the same, even to time of day, the clouds couldn’t possibly be the same two years later. The clouds are the same in the two photos.
The Regime uses ‘US to attack US’, while Iranians are silenced… If anything is clear, we have Iranian American immigrants who are ‘bright and free’ to reach their potential…
And not taken as those easily fooled by ‘faux tactics’…
[...] the digitally enhanced Iranian missiles in an image distributed by Agence France-Press. See also: Kamangir, Blackfive, Pat Dollard, EU Referendum, Ace, Jim Hoft, Suitably [...]
[...] Nasongadin'i Kamnagir, mpamaham-bolongana Iraniana, fa sary nalaina nandritra ny fanandramana tahaka ity 2 taona lasa izay ny sary navoaka lazaina ho fanandramana fandefasana balafomanga notontosaina vao teo iny. Raha te-hamaky bebe kokoa ianao dia vakio ao amin'nyView From Iran (fijery avy aty iran) sy New Yrok Times blog. [...]
[...] Republic of Iran Broadcasting), purportedly of Iran’s recent missile test, is apparently two years old. I wish Archer had a link for the old photo, but I know who I believe. (Via [...]
not only one picture is doctored, but both; in the original two years old picture, there are only three missiles in the air, one is still on the ground and there is a truck in front of them. maybe your name is “DR.” archer
The US administration is overstating the Iranian threat. Apparantly the Iranians are not even capable of launching missiles without the help of photoshop. Iran is in no position to attack Israel or any other country. Any preemptive attack on Iran is unjustified.
[...] Y no solo una simple modificiacion sino que otra de las fotos pertenecia a un ejercicio militar de hace dos años: [...]
Mani: The former president of Iran, Rafsanjani, a so-called “moderate,” was quoted as saying that Iran should attack Israel with nukes. His reasoning? Israel would be destroyed, while Iran would suffer heavy damage but would survive. Quite the fanatic, wouldn’t you agree? And if you were the prime minister of Israel and you read that, and then you read about Ahamdinejad’s statements and knew that Iran was developing ICBMs on the one hand and enriching uranium on the other, wouldn’t you have the responsibility to take some sort of action???
If you have any doubt, here is the Iran Press Service report from 2001:
TEHRAN 14 Dec. 2001 (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them “damages only”.
“If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world”, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.
“It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well”, observed one Iranian commentator.
kamangir,
What is your source for the original photo? That is the only thing I can see someone using to discredit this obviously outstanding bit of rebuttal. Make it iron-clad. Thank you for blogging!
Kamangir: It had been published by the state-run Mehr News. Thanks.