-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 12, 2007 1:07:28 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Focus of U.S. Plans for War with Iran: Seizure (or
Destruction) of Iran's OIL
British academics detail U.S.
“shock and awe” attack on Iran
Their paper notes the existence of standing US war plans to seize
the province of Khurzestan where the bulk of Iran's oil production
occurs
By Peter Symonds
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=166&a=3484
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:04:00
An 80-page study written by two British security analysts and
released on August 28 makes a chilling estimation of the
overwhelming force that the US would use in the event of any attack
on Iran.
“The US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD,
nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic
infrastructure within days, if not hours, of President George W.
Bush giving the order,” the paper declared.
The authors, Dr Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher, concluded on the
basis of publicly available sources that “US bombers and long range
missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets within Iran in a
few hours. US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf,
Iraq and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and
the state at short notice.”
Both Plesch and Butcher have written extensively on security and
international relations. Plesch is director of the Centre for
International Studies and Diplomacy at the prestigious School of
Oriental and African Studies. The study, entitled “Considering a
war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East” made
no estimate of Iran’s nuclear programs—the nominal pretext for a US
war—and reached no definitive conclusion as to the likelihood of an
attack. But it did outline the Pentagon’s extensive preparations
and examined probable US military strategies.
Plesch and Butcher assessed that any US military attack would not
be limited to Iran’s nuclear facilities, but would aim to eliminate
its ability to strike back by destroying its military capacities
and economic infrastructure. “Any attack is likely to be on a
massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks
focussed on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory
options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too
little force and leave the regime intact,” they stated.
The paper examined the Pentagon’s Global Strike plans developed
under the Bush administration to enable the US military to strike
anywhere around the world at short notice. Since 2001 in
particular, the role of the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM),
previously a nuclear deterrent against the Soviet Union, has been
modified to “enable the seamless delivery of tailored effects,
anywhere and anytime, across the globe.... The US has strategic
forces prepared to launch massive strikes on Iran within hours of
the order being given.”
Plesch and Butcher analysed the available types of US bombers and
conventional bombs and calculated that 100 strategic bombers, each
with 100 “smart” bombs, would be enough to hit 10,000 individual
targets. “This strike power alone is sufficient to destroy all
major Iranian political, military, economic and transport
capabilities,” the authors conclude. “Such a strike would take
‘shock and awe’ to a new level and leave Iran with few if any
conventional military capabilities to block the straits of Hormuz
or provide conventional military support to insurgents in Iraq.”
The study all but ruled out the US use of nuclear weapons,
declaring that “the human, political and environmental effects
would be devastating, while their military value is limited.” But
the authors did acknowledge “clear evidence that nuclear weapons
use [against Iran] is being given serious political consideration”
in the US. And while stating that a US or British nuclear attack on
Iran was “most unlikely,” Plesch and Butcher did not think it
impossible. They calculated that nearly three million “prompt
deaths” would occur in the event that 300 kilotonne nuclear bombs
were dropped on just 11 suspected Iranian WMD sites.
A substantial portion of the paper dealt with the various US
options, using military forces already in place within the region,
to counter Iranian responses to a US attack. “Iran has a weak
airforce and anti-aircraft capability, almost all of it is 20-30
years old and it lacks modern integrated communications. Not only
will these forces be rapidly destroyed by US air power, but Iranian
ground and air forces will have to fight without protection from
air attack,” the authors stated.
The paper noted the existence of standing US war plans to counter
any blockade of the strategic straits of Hormuz in the Persian
Gulf, and to seize the western Iranian province of Khurzestan,
where the bulk of the country’s oil production occurs. It detailed
the ability of the US military in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan
to devastate forces and bases inside Iran hundreds of kilometres
from the border without a ground invasion. It cited a variety of
sources pointing to covert US operations already taking place
inside Iran to identify targets and foment armed rebellion among
ethnic and religious minorities.
Considering the question “how likely is an attack?” the authors
pointed out: “The [US] administration has steadfastly refused to
remove the military option from the table, and has continued to
prepare to go to war. Congress rejected a proposal to require the
president to consult it before going to war with Iran.” The study
cited a number of menacing comments by senior Bush officials this
year, as well as belligerent anti-Iranian statements by Republican
and Democrat presidential candidates. It also noted Congressional
moves for tougher measures against Tehran.
The authors rebutted many of the arguments commonly advanced as
reasons why the US would NOT launch an attack on Iran.
They assessed the likelihood of a compromise over Iran’s nuclear
programs as “extremely remote” as “the United States refuses to
offer any form of security guarantee to Iran, and indeed is
actively engaged in attempts to undermine Iranian authorities.” As
to the European Union’s attempts to broker a deal, “privately, and
not so privately, senior US officials ... deride the EU’s efforts
as futile.”
Responding to those who point out the US military is bogged down in
Iraq and lacks troops, the study stated: “Army overstretch from
long-term deployments in Iraq is a significant problem, but
providing forces for a short duration war (following the pattern of
the initial invasion of Iraq) would be much less of a problem. Iran
has little ability for conventional military attack outside its own
territory, allowing the US considerable scope to sit back and await
internal developments after the type of attacks described in this
paper.”
The paper also considers Iran’s capacity to retaliate in other
ways, either directly against US allies like Israel and US bases or
indirectly by encouraging unrest among Iraqi Shiites. The authors
regarded such arguments as strengthening the military case for an
overwhelming, rather than limited, US attack. They pointed out that
Iran retained some options for counter-missile strikes and had
closely observed US military operations around its borders. “At the
same time, the US armed forces have been preparing for this
contingency for many years and it would be hard to be the military
commander telling President Bush that Iran is just not ‘doable.’”
Plesch and Butcher did not make any predictions about a war, but
they did note that the lack of publicity surrounding US military
preparations was no guarantee against a US attack. “US military, if
not political, readiness for a war using minimum ground forces
indicates that the current seeming inaction surrounding Iran is
misleading. The United States retains the ability—despite
difficulties in Iraq—to undertake major military operations against
Iran. Whether the political will exists to follow such a course of
action is known only to a few senior figures in the Bush
administration.”
Plesch and Butcher made no attempt to analyse the underlying
economic and strategic reasons for a US attack on Iran or to
consider in detail the potential for it triggering a broader war.
Their study in no way challenged the escalating US propaganda
campaign concerning Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons programs. The
real motivation for a reckless, new US war on Iran lies in the Bush
administration’s attempts to establish unfettered American
dominance in the resource-rich regions of the Middle East and
Central Asia. Any outcome that allows America’s European and Asian
rivals to strengthen their influence in these key regions is simply
intolerable to the US ruling elite.
The rather limited scope of the study only makes its conclusion all
the more disturbing: the military preparations that would allow the
Bush administration to reduce much of Iran to rubble at short
notice have already been completed.
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om