Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?

[Annie]

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Irish 9/11 Truth Movement" <info@911truth.ie>
Reply-To: <info@911truth.ie>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:16:36 -0800

"An attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of
significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might
well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which
would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian
agents."

===============================

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The
Globalization of Poverty" published in eleven languages. He is
Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center
for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca. He is also a
contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is
entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.

===============================

Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?
by Michel Chossudovsky
February 22, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=200602 22&articleId=2032

--- EXTRACT --- ONLINE ARTICLE IS HYPERLINKED.

Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack

The pretext for waging war on Iran essentially rests on two
fundamental premises, which are part of the Bush administration's National
Security doctrine.

1. Iran's alleged possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD),
more specifically its nuclear enrichment program.

2. Iran's alleged support to "Islamic terrorists".

These are two interrelated statements which are an integral part of the
propaganda and media disinformation campaign.

The "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)" statement is used to justify
the "pre-emptive war" against the "State sponsors of terror", --i.e.
countries such as Iran and North Korea which allegedly possess WMD. Iran is
identified as a State sponsor of so-called "non-State terrorist
organizations". The latter also possess WMDs and potentially constitute a
nuclear threat. Terrorist non-state organizations are presented as a
"nuclear power".

"The enemies in this [long] war are not traditional conventional
military forces but rather dispersed, global terrorist networks that exploit
Islam to advance radical political aims. These enemies have the avowed
aim of acquiring and using nuclear and biological weapons to murder
hundreds of thousands of Americans and others around the world." (2006
Quadrennial Defense Review ),

In contrast, Germany and Israel which produce and possess nuclear
warheads are not considered "nuclear powers".

In recent months, the pretext for war, building on this WMD-Islamic
terrorist nexus, has been highlighted ad nauseam, on a daily basis by the
Western media.

In a testimony to the US Senate Budget Committee, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice accused Iran and Syria of destabilizing the Middle East
and providing support to militant Islamic groups. She described Iran as
the "a central banker for terrorism", not withstanding the fact amply
documented that Al Qaeda has been supported and financed from its
inception in the early 1980s by none other than the CIA. (See Michel
Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, Global Research 2001).

"It's not just Iran's nuclear program but also their support for
terrorism around the world. They are, in effect, the central banker for
terrorism," (Statement to the Senate Budget Committee, 16 February 2006)

"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN
Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have
instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in
response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This
"contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11"
which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation
against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in
anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of
readiness".

What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests
on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not
yet occurred:

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 strategic targets, including numerous suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are
deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons,
hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not
conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism
directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved
in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what
they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear
attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
(Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American
Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for
a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran,
which is currently in a "state of readiness"?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a
Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran
would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would
immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the
same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in
retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11
terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of
Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points
out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are
recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of
legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that
treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification
system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

Keefer concludes that "an attack on Iran, which would presumably
involve the use of significant numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating
nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the
United States, which would be represented in the media as having been
carried out by Iranian agents" (Keefer, February 2006 )