http://theunitedstatesofmonsters.blogspot.com/2006/08/united-states-of-monsters-special_27.html
By: The UNITED STATES of MONSTERS
Special Report (Apollon) on: 27.08.2006
The US-UK-Israeli position
According to the US government's official story Iran is an ultra-aggressive military camp under disguise of a country, controlled by religious fundamentalist and war-mongering hard-liners, determined to start a nuclear war anytime capable - unless prevented from this in the near future by the US Govt and its allies (especially Israel) with a preventive war and a regime change.
However accurate this might be as a self-portrait of the US Government itself, we take no interest in this, and rather reveal what is the so-called 'Iran Nuclear Crisis' all about.
Officially, the US claims that its goal is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon (often called "the bomb" by US operatives and those near them) and thus "protect the US" (and Israel, of course) from otherwise as evident as imminent Iran nuclear attack against the US (and/or Israeli) soil.
This, as known by anyone informed enough to read this report, is rot, of course: for example, in August, the Washington Post reported that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate by CIA predicted Iran being a decade away from being a military nuclear powe. This of course, rises the question "why is the US so concerned just now?"
The Iranian leadership has the sound view in the matter, considering the "bomb" useless, and sticking to peaceful nature Iran's nuclear program. There's absolutely no ground to suspect either of these claims as the only imaginable reason for the Iranians to ever consider getting the "bomb" would be her desire to retaliate in case of perhaps not too far-fetched possibility of a US nuclear attack.
Behind the scenes, the central question dealt for some time on both in UN and IAEA (the UN nuclear watchdog) is not the bomb, but whether Iran can be "let" to proceed with its plans to enrich uranium for its peaceful nuclear program, i.e. producing nuclear fuel for its nuclear power plant(s) through enrichment of uranium ore.
According to an IAEA official the negotiations have been stuck to the point where "there's nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe them. It's a dead end."
In the ongoing summer, the US forced through a UN Security Council resolution requiring Iran to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment by August 31 or risk possible sanctions. This resolution was rejected by Iranians as illogical with a sound argument: according to the present international standards, countries do have (undeniable) right to develop a peaceful nuclear program, as shown by the existence of such programs e.g. in Canada and in Sweden.
Despite the Iran's response on 22nd August, the US wants the UN to impose penalties on Iran for refusing to suspend its enrichment of uranium in next September. As sanctions are classified as acts of war according to the international law and such desire can be seen as taking the first step towards a war against Iran despite the fact that both Russia and China (with veto in UNSC) are now opposed to it.
REALLY, what's wrong with the peaceful Iranian nuclear program
The answer to what is the "Nuclear Crisis" all about is hidden in a report by Seymor Hersh, who writes: "Israeli officials have emphasized that their "redline" is the moment Iran masters the nuclear fuel cycle, acquiring the technical ability to produce weapons-grade uranium."
It is here that we have to stop and consider the real content of Hersh's words: this is usually taken as referring to Iran's Hiroshima-styled nuclear bombs, which makes no sense, as the truth is that after a country masters the nuclear fuel cycle, it takes years (a decade or so), before it is able to produce nuclear bombs, which leaves the US hurry just now wholly unexplained.
There's but one conclusion: the "weapons-grade uranium" referred by the Israelis must be something different. Immediately, it's clear what is actually meant: the issue is that when enriched uranium is used to energy production, the by-product, the so-called "nuclear waste" is in turn also known as "depleted uranium" (DU), when used by US military (and its allies UK, Israel), but "dirty bombs" in connection with their supposed "enemies".
The US Govt point of "view" on "Iran Nuclear Crisis"
This is what the 'Iran Nuclear Crisis' is all about:
I. By making Depleted Uranium (Oxide) their weapon of choice, the US, UK and Israel have reverted the definition of "peaceful nuclear program" as non-existent: Any country possessing a peaceful nuclear program is basically able to produce DU ammunitions, shells, bombs and missiles that is simply by casting these from nuclear waste at their disposal. Thus
II. Any "target country" (belonging to "axis of evil" at the present, that is) having a nuclear program would break the present US, UK, Israeli monopoly of "2nd generation nuclear war (using DU)", making the victory of "war on terror" immensely more difficult to achieve for the aggressors.
III. Any country (read: Iran) possessing just an adequate supply of DU anti-tank rounds would most certainly be able to break an US armored assault towards Tehran or the Iranian oil fields (or both), thus preventing any such attempt in the future.
IV. Not to even mention how bad this would be to the global arms industry, unable to assault Iran from ground the US would lose the southern Iraqi Shia oil fields permanently, as these will rather sooner than later find a new ally from Tehran to replace their present US "friendship".
V. Any future Israeli mulling to strike a hostile country (read: Iran) would be in vain, as Iran - after having stockpiled DU rounds enough - could load its long-distance missiles with DU just as the US and its allies have done and thus neutralize the Israeli threat.
VI. All this, however immense it already looks like, would be just a beginning: needless to say, even the factors mentioned would permanently flaw the entire US ZioCons plan for the conquest of the Middle East - and that of the world right after. The "war on terror" would be over and lost forever.
In this sense, one doesn't wonder that even Henry Kissinger appeared on Charlie Rose's show saying that the United States has a sovereign obligation to prevent Iran from consummating its nuclear-weapon enterprise.
Related points of importance:
I. The Lessons of war in Lebanon:
Beyond said above, there are some recent developments and factors which cannot be left without mention:
The US-Israeli Lebanon War "Redux" was - among others - meant as an Iran war demo(nstration) of the possibilities of US-styled "aerial war" (this being the sole option available as the US Armed Forces are hopelessly jammed in Iraq and kept as a kind of hostages by the Iraqi Resistance and thus not "available" for Iran campaign.)
Instead, it be Hizballah demo that DU rounds and missiles are not necessary to crumble a US-styled armored assault: conventional weapons mostly of Russian and/or Chinese origin, used by Hizballah and Iran will do the job - also if the US dares to attempt a major armored raid against Iran.
This means that the US Govt policy of preventing Iran from getting DU has lost its innate sense (taken that you may use the word "sense" in connection with the US Govt, of course): the US ground assault will fail whether Iran has a peaceful nuclear program or not: Hizballah has shown that the strategy US boasts with, that is to 1. route the enemy (by bombardment), 2. pursue it (by mechanized divisions) 3. destroy it (by all means) fails if the enemy does not flee and hits the "pursuers" right to their noses.
The point(s) we've made here are of course known in all the best military circles around the world, and one wonders could these facts not effect the US future attitude towards the "solution" of "Iran Nuclear Crisis" (read: "US-UK-Israeli DU Crisis".)
II. In our earlier The US of Monsters Special Report we explained how the basic strategic presumption of the US-UK-Israeli "2nd generation nuclear war" is flawed:
a. If the invader deploys troops enough (say 500,000) to have a chance of success in the occupation, and these are armed with DU, the country takes more casualties it can bear, as shown by the first Gulf war vets having all become "friendly fire" DU casualties.
b. If the invader deploys troops less (say 150,000) than a major war (such as the one in Iraq) requires, the occupation will last considerably longer, defeating the ever-growing resistance becomes impossible, the "friendly fire" DU casualties amount as large as those described under "option a)", and finally, the entire occupation fails.
These actual developments show how the new Wunderwaffe of the US, UK and Israel, depleted uranium (oxide) is a failure, as it does not promote achieving a victory in a major war, but on the opposite makes the casualty figures of all involved astronomical.
In this sense the US Policymakers' obsession of sticking in to their monopoly of 2nd generation nuclear war on depleted uranium makes no sense: any occupation based on all-out use of depleted uranium munitions receives a penalty of losing the entire personnel of its occupation army as casualties to depleted uranium oxide.
All this makes to wonder one and only thing: who took the DU trash out and sold it out to those claiming to represent the American people?
--
Some Related Literature:
a. The outstanding coverage of "Iran Nuclear Crisis" by Xinhua (click this to find a good supply of articles.)
LINK: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/ylhwq/index.htm
b. Articles by Seymor Hersh:
LAST STAND: The military's problem with the President's Iran policy.
LINK: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
LINK: http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact
c. Raw story coverage on US Govt framing Iran by Larisa Alexandrovna:
Spurious attempt to tie Iran, Iraq to nuclear arms plot bypassed U.S. intelligence channels
LINK: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backchannels_used_to_bypass_U.S._government_0111.html
Cheney has tapped Iranian expatriate, arms dealer to surveil discussions with Iran, officials say
LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Cheney_has_tapped_Iranian_expatriate_arms_0420.html
US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike
LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_military_seen_ready_for_Iran_0511.html
Pentagon confirms Iranian directorate as officials raise new concerns about war
LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_confirms_Iranian_directorate_as_intelligence_0615.html
Intelligence officials doubt Iran uranium claims, say Cheney receiving suspect briefings
LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Intelligence_officials_doubt_Iran_uranium_claims_0818.html
d. The US NeoCons' (ZioNazis') Intentions (read War):
Is Lebanon the Trigger for U.S. War With Iran?
LINK: http://www.alternet.org/story/40042
Bush Wants Wider War
LINK: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PAR20060809&articleId=2934
By: The UNITED STATES of MONSTERS
Special Report (Apollon) on: 27.08.2006
The US-UK-Israeli position
According to the US government's official story Iran is an ultra-aggressive military camp under disguise of a country, controlled by religious fundamentalist and war-mongering hard-liners, determined to start a nuclear war anytime capable - unless prevented from this in the near future by the US Govt and its allies (especially Israel) with a preventive war and a regime change.
However accurate this might be as a self-portrait of the US Government itself, we take no interest in this, and rather reveal what is the so-called 'Iran Nuclear Crisis' all about.
Officially, the US claims that its goal is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon (often called "the bomb" by US operatives and those near them) and thus "protect the US" (and Israel, of course) from otherwise as evident as imminent Iran nuclear attack against the US (and/or Israeli) soil.
This, as known by anyone informed enough to read this report, is rot, of course: for example, in August, the Washington Post reported that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate by CIA predicted Iran being a decade away from being a military nuclear powe. This of course, rises the question "why is the US so concerned just now?"
The Iranian leadership has the sound view in the matter, considering the "bomb" useless, and sticking to peaceful nature Iran's nuclear program. There's absolutely no ground to suspect either of these claims as the only imaginable reason for the Iranians to ever consider getting the "bomb" would be her desire to retaliate in case of perhaps not too far-fetched possibility of a US nuclear attack.
Behind the scenes, the central question dealt for some time on both in UN and IAEA (the UN nuclear watchdog) is not the bomb, but whether Iran can be "let" to proceed with its plans to enrich uranium for its peaceful nuclear program, i.e. producing nuclear fuel for its nuclear power plant(s) through enrichment of uranium ore.
According to an IAEA official the negotiations have been stuck to the point where "there's nothing the Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe them. It's a dead end."
In the ongoing summer, the US forced through a UN Security Council resolution requiring Iran to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment by August 31 or risk possible sanctions. This resolution was rejected by Iranians as illogical with a sound argument: according to the present international standards, countries do have (undeniable) right to develop a peaceful nuclear program, as shown by the existence of such programs e.g. in Canada and in Sweden.
Despite the Iran's response on 22nd August, the US wants the UN to impose penalties on Iran for refusing to suspend its enrichment of uranium in next September. As sanctions are classified as acts of war according to the international law and such desire can be seen as taking the first step towards a war against Iran despite the fact that both Russia and China (with veto in UNSC) are now opposed to it.
REALLY, what's wrong with the peaceful Iranian nuclear program
The answer to what is the "Nuclear Crisis" all about is hidden in a report by Seymor Hersh, who writes: "Israeli officials have emphasized that their "redline" is the moment Iran masters the nuclear fuel cycle, acquiring the technical ability to produce weapons-grade uranium."
It is here that we have to stop and consider the real content of Hersh's words: this is usually taken as referring to Iran's Hiroshima-styled nuclear bombs, which makes no sense, as the truth is that after a country masters the nuclear fuel cycle, it takes years (a decade or so), before it is able to produce nuclear bombs, which leaves the US hurry just now wholly unexplained.
There's but one conclusion: the "weapons-grade uranium" referred by the Israelis must be something different. Immediately, it's clear what is actually meant: the issue is that when enriched uranium is used to energy production, the by-product, the so-called "nuclear waste" is in turn also known as "depleted uranium" (DU), when used by US military (and its allies UK, Israel), but "dirty bombs" in connection with their supposed "enemies".
The US Govt point of "view" on "Iran Nuclear Crisis"
This is what the 'Iran Nuclear Crisis' is all about:
I. By making Depleted Uranium (Oxide) their weapon of choice, the US, UK and Israel have reverted the definition of "peaceful nuclear program" as non-existent: Any country possessing a peaceful nuclear program is basically able to produce DU ammunitions, shells, bombs and missiles that is simply by casting these from nuclear waste at their disposal. Thus
II. Any "target country" (belonging to "axis of evil" at the present, that is) having a nuclear program would break the present US, UK, Israeli monopoly of "2nd generation nuclear war (using DU)", making the victory of "war on terror" immensely more difficult to achieve for the aggressors.
III. Any country (read: Iran) possessing just an adequate supply of DU anti-tank rounds would most certainly be able to break an US armored assault towards Tehran or the Iranian oil fields (or both), thus preventing any such attempt in the future.
IV. Not to even mention how bad this would be to the global arms industry, unable to assault Iran from ground the US would lose the southern Iraqi Shia oil fields permanently, as these will rather sooner than later find a new ally from Tehran to replace their present US "friendship".
V. Any future Israeli mulling to strike a hostile country (read: Iran) would be in vain, as Iran - after having stockpiled DU rounds enough - could load its long-distance missiles with DU just as the US and its allies have done and thus neutralize the Israeli threat.
VI. All this, however immense it already looks like, would be just a beginning: needless to say, even the factors mentioned would permanently flaw the entire US ZioCons plan for the conquest of the Middle East - and that of the world right after. The "war on terror" would be over and lost forever.
In this sense, one doesn't wonder that even Henry Kissinger appeared on Charlie Rose's show saying that the United States has a sovereign obligation to prevent Iran from consummating its nuclear-weapon enterprise.
Related points of importance:
I. The Lessons of war in Lebanon:
Beyond said above, there are some recent developments and factors which cannot be left without mention:
The US-Israeli Lebanon War "Redux" was - among others - meant as an Iran war demo(nstration) of the possibilities of US-styled "aerial war" (this being the sole option available as the US Armed Forces are hopelessly jammed in Iraq and kept as a kind of hostages by the Iraqi Resistance and thus not "available" for Iran campaign.)
Instead, it be Hizballah demo that DU rounds and missiles are not necessary to crumble a US-styled armored assault: conventional weapons mostly of Russian and/or Chinese origin, used by Hizballah and Iran will do the job - also if the US dares to attempt a major armored raid against Iran.
This means that the US Govt policy of preventing Iran from getting DU has lost its innate sense (taken that you may use the word "sense" in connection with the US Govt, of course): the US ground assault will fail whether Iran has a peaceful nuclear program or not: Hizballah has shown that the strategy US boasts with, that is to 1. route the enemy (by bombardment), 2. pursue it (by mechanized divisions) 3. destroy it (by all means) fails if the enemy does not flee and hits the "pursuers" right to their noses.
The point(s) we've made here are of course known in all the best military circles around the world, and one wonders could these facts not effect the US future attitude towards the "solution" of "Iran Nuclear Crisis" (read: "US-UK-Israeli DU Crisis".)
II. In our earlier The US of Monsters Special Report we explained how the basic strategic presumption of the US-UK-Israeli "2nd generation nuclear war" is flawed:
a. If the invader deploys troops enough (say 500,000) to have a chance of success in the occupation, and these are armed with DU, the country takes more casualties it can bear, as shown by the first Gulf war vets having all become "friendly fire" DU casualties.
b. If the invader deploys troops less (say 150,000) than a major war (such as the one in Iraq) requires, the occupation will last considerably longer, defeating the ever-growing resistance becomes impossible, the "friendly fire" DU casualties amount as large as those described under "option a)", and finally, the entire occupation fails.
These actual developments show how the new Wunderwaffe of the US, UK and Israel, depleted uranium (oxide) is a failure, as it does not promote achieving a victory in a major war, but on the opposite makes the casualty figures of all involved astronomical.
In this sense the US Policymakers' obsession of sticking in to their monopoly of 2nd generation nuclear war on depleted uranium makes no sense: any occupation based on all-out use of depleted uranium munitions receives a penalty of losing the entire personnel of its occupation army as casualties to depleted uranium oxide.
All this makes to wonder one and only thing: who took the DU trash out and sold it out to those claiming to represent the American people?
--
Some Related Literature:
a. The outstanding coverage of "Iran Nuclear Crisis" by Xinhua (click this to find a good supply of articles.)
LINK: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/ylhwq/index.htm
b. Articles by Seymor Hersh:
LAST STAND: The military's problem with the President's Iran policy.
LINK: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
LINK: http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact
c. Raw story coverage on US Govt framing Iran by Larisa Alexandrovna:
Spurious attempt to tie Iran, Iraq to nuclear arms plot bypassed U.S. intelligence channels
LINK: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backchannels_used_to_bypass_U.S._government_0111.html
Cheney has tapped Iranian expatriate, arms dealer to surveil discussions with Iran, officials say
LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Cheney_has_tapped_Iranian_expatriate_arms_0420.html
US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike
LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_military_seen_ready_for_Iran_0511.html
Pentagon confirms Iranian directorate as officials raise new concerns about war
LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_confirms_Iranian_directorate_as_intelligence_0615.html
Intelligence officials doubt Iran uranium claims, say Cheney receiving suspect briefings
LINK: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Intelligence_officials_doubt_Iran_uranium_claims_0818.html
d. The US NeoCons' (ZioNazis') Intentions (read War):
Is Lebanon the Trigger for U.S. War With Iran?
LINK: http://www.alternet.org/story/40042
Bush Wants Wider War
LINK: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PAR20060809&articleId=2934
