United States: Arming Their Allies in the Region to the Teeth
Western military exercises simulating an attack on Iran are still common. In 2004, U.S. and British forces conducted military exercises at Fort Belvoir, Va. In 2006, another set of military exercises of U.S troops happened on the coast of Iran. In 2007, again off the coast of Iran, the largest ever U.S. deployment of naval forces undertook another set of military exercises: several aircraft carriers, 200 warplanes and 10,000 soldiers. In 2008, once again, the Israelis conducted military exercises in the Mediterranean. Again in 2009, the Israelis had another set of military exercises in Gibraltar. And also in 2009, the largest military exercises ever conducted in the world took place, provided by the United States and Israel, fit with the latest weaponry. Big moves are announced for 2012.
The greatest danger of war so far occurred in the summer of 2010, when a large fleet from the U.S. military was positioned in the Persian Gulf off the Iranian coast to monitor ships coming in and out of Iran, based on U.N. agreements.
The United States is arming “friendly” countries in the area to the teeth. In 2008, they pledged $13 million of military aid to Egypt, $30 million to Israel and $20 million to Saudi Arabia. [Michel Chossudovsky wrote for the Centre for Research on Globalization that]”In turn, large scale weapons transfers have been undertaken under the banner of U.S. ‘military aid’ to selected countries, including a $5 billion arms deal with India which is intended to build India’s capabilities directed against China.”
Also in 2008, Israel decided to buy 25 U.S. F-35 fighter jets for $15.2 million. This was to ensure their air superiority over any other country in the Middle East. In addition, Saudi Arabia has given a broker path in its airspace so to allow Israelis to bomb Iran, according to The Times.
“The U.S. is arming the Gulf States (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) with land-based interceptor missiles, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) as well as sea-based Standard Missile-3 interceptors installed on Aegis class warships in the Persian Gulf,” [Chossudovsky wrote]. On Nov. 11, The Wall Street Journal revealed that the White House will supply the UAE with “thousands of advanced ’bunker-buster’ bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.” In 2010 it signed the largest arms sales agreement in history. With a total of $60 million, the United States is selling planes, ships and military technology to Saudi Arabia.
Towards a Third World War?
The Iran attack plans were made prior to the attack on Iraq; so certified The “Washington Post” intelligence analyst William Arkin.
In August 2010, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs of the Armed Forces of the United States said that this plan existed: “Yes we have it … attacking Iran is an important option, and one that is well understood.”
Just 24 hours later in ‘The Washington Times,’ Rowan Scarborough confirmed: “The missiles, fired from surface ships, submarines and B-52 bombers, would take out air defenses and nuclear-related facilities. The B-2s would drop tons of bombs, including ground penetrators, onto fortified and buried sites where Tehran is suspected of enriching uranium to fuel the weapons and working on warheads.” The use of B-2 bomber is not accidental; they are the only ones that can carry nuclear warheads. The New Yorker makes clear that U.S. plans consider an attack on Iran with nuclear weapons.
The economic crisis of capitalism is making the system more aggressive. Today, the international policies of the United States are made of guns. The Cold War that has dominated the world stage in recent decades is so distant. The United States can now only maintain its economic and strategic interests via military pressure, to ensure the capitalist system doesn’t collapse and to also keep the lead over its European and Asian competitors. One of the reasons for the withdrawal of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may be the need to concentrate troops for an attack on Iran.
The war against Iran is not an isolated event, but part of a five-year plan of wars to strengthen American presence, especially against China. It also includes Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan, [writes Chossudovsky wrote]. The current offensive by the West, Gulf countries and Turkey against Syria tries to leave Iran without allies in the Middle East. This means that after Syria, the next step of imperialism will be to attack Iran.
The Iranian army has a million members, including the Revolutionary Guard, which are 500,000. The Iranian authorities are to provide for the mobilization of 20 million people (total population: 71 million inhabitants). We cannot predict the outcome of a war against Iran, but what I can say is that the U.S. has an army before them larger and better armed than they have ever faced.
Iranian planes and helicopters are similar in performance to the Americans F-5E and F-14. In addition, Iran is acquiring Russian fighter-bombers and other military equipment of the last generation. The Shahab-3 missile can carry nuclear warheads and reach Israel and U.S. bases in all the Middle East. They have also been testing long range missiles in recent military maneuvers, reaching goals difficult to detect.
The downing of a U.S. spy plane of the latest generation in December is a sign that Iranian technology has nothing to envy from the United States. The plane was not shot with a missile, but using information technology. The Iranians came to control the software spy plane and landed it safely. Additionally, these aircrafts have a system of self-destruction that the Iranians also neutralized. Remember that the Iranians had successfully intercepted six spy planes, some being Israeli.
It has been repeated several times in Western media that plans of U.S. aggression contemplate the destruction of 10,000 targets within hours. This list includes civilian targets, as the magazine Military Review (a U.S. Army magazine) wrote in July 2010: “This kind of military action is akin to sanction — causing ‘pain’ in order to change behaviour, albeit by much more powerful means.” It also leaves no doubt with John Pike, military analyst who heads the Global Security firm, noted in the Washington Times in 2010: “Most of them have co-located staff housing. Bomb the housing, kill the staff, set back the program by a generation.”
The United States would use mini-nukes that are six times more powerful than Hiroshima. The unbelievable part of this cynicism is that these bombs are humane for the West, while Iranian nuclear weapons, which do not exist, are terrorism, pure and simple. The use of nuclear weapons is “justified” because many goals are underground and can only be destroyed with the weapons.
The dangers of global war are clear. On one side, hundreds of Russian technicians would die working on Iranian nuclear facilities, to which Russia could not stand idly by. According to Chossudovsky: “Were Iran to be the object of a “pre-emptive” aerial attack by allied forces, the entire region, from the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan, would flare up, leading us potentially into a World War III scenario. The war would also extend into Lebanon and Syria. It is highly unlikely that the bombings, if they were to be implemented, would be circumscribed to Iran’s nuclear facilities as claimed by US-NATO official statements. What is more probable is an all out air attack on both military and civilian infrastructure, transport systems, factories, public buildings.
“The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by US-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large area of the broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region.” As an example, a few years ago Burma moved its capital Rangoon to Pyinmana, because it believed that the effects of nuclear radiation caused by an attack on Iran would be less there.
Radiation and nuclear winter could have uncontrollable consequences for humans. Put plainly, the survival of the human race would be put at stake if the U.S. attacks Iran.
For the world economy, it would be catastrophic. The Strait of Hormuz can remain closed in a few minutes, which would block 40 percent of global oil production. Oil could have an exorbitant price.
CIA ex-analysts Ray McGovern and Elizabeth Murray have recently spoken out regarding the consequences of an attack on Iran. They say that it could cause the end of the world economy and benefit only arms dealers.
In recent times, the idea that the onset of an attack on Iran would be made by Israel has taken shape. Thus, the Western media might say that the United States and NATO will enter a war against Iran to support its Israeli ally. In this sense, we have seen in the press for some time now statements such as those by Shaul Mofaz, Israeli Defense Minister: “If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective…. Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable.”
Editor’s note: This is the final part in a three-part translation of Miguel Giribets’ “If US Attacks Iran, Human Survival May Be at Risk.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.