The US has completed major military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf
within a short distance of Iranian territorial waters. This naval
deployment is meant to "send a warning to Tehran" following the adoption
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which imposes major
economic sanctions on Iran in retaliation for its non-compliance with US
demands regarding its uranium enrichment program.


The US war games off the Iranian coastline involved the participation of
two aircraft carriers, the USS John Stennis carrier group and the USS
Eisenhower with some 10,000 navy personnel and more than 100 warplanes.
The USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group, which is part of the US
Fifth Fleet, entered the Persian Gulf on March 27, escorted by
guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54). (see http://www.navy.mil/).

USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) and its air wing,
Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9 is said to have conducted "a dual-carrier
exercise" together with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike
Group (IKE CSG):

" This marks the first time the Stennis and Eisenhower strike groups
have operated together in a joint exercise while deployed to 5th Fleet.
This exercise demonstrates the importance the ability for both strike
groups to plan and conduct dual task force operations as part of the
Navy's commitment to maintaining maritime security and stability in the
region."

The war games were conducted at a time of diplomatic tension and
confrontation following the arrest by Iran of 15 British Royal navy
personnel, who were allegedly patrolling inside Iranian territorial
waters.

The British government, supported by media disinformation, has been
using this incident, with a view to creating a situation of
confrontation with Iran.

The maneuvers coupled with British threats in relation to the unfolding
"Iran Hostage Crisis" constitute an act of provocation on the part of
the Anglo-American military alliance.

TEXT BOX

These war games in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea are the
culmination of a broader process of military planning, which started in
mid-2003, with the launching of Iran Theater Near Term (TIRANNT). The
later contemplated various "scenarios" of US military intervention
directed against Iran In early 2004, the scenarios under TIRANNT were
incorporated into actual plans of aerial bombings of Iran under "Concept
Plan" (CONPLAN) 8022

In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. 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.

In 2005, the US, Turkey and Israel in liaison with NATO were actively
involved in the process of planning this military operation, with the
stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems. Israel would be
actively involved in the military operation.

Since last August, the US has conducted a number of military exercises
in and around the Persian Gulf. From September through December, a
major war games simulation entitled Vigilant Shield O7 was conducted.
The stated enemies are Irmingham (Iran), Churya (Chian), Ruebek (Russia)
and Nemesis (North Korea).

According to the US Navy, this latest round of US military maneuvers
conducted in late March was on a significantly larger scale when
compared to previous deployments. Press reports suggest that these
maneuvers constituted the largest deployment of US naval power since the
March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Almost simultaneously, Iran was also conducting large scale naval
exercises in the Persian Gulf, to the extent that both the US and Iran
are on a war footing.

Critical Crossroads

A recent Russian press report, quoting intelligence sources, has sounded
an alarm. According to a RIA-Novosti report, quoted by the European and
Israeli press (Jerusalem Post), the US is planning to initiate air
attacks on Iran under " Operation Bite", starting on Good friday, April
6th, targeting both military and civilian sites, including Iran's air
defense system:.

"Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of
activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking
security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military
preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the
official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a
final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against
Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees
at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the
first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly
before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical
Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a
massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future"

While the Russian report must be acknowledged, there is, however, no
corroborating evidence, which would enable us to pinpoint the exact
timeline of a military attack on Iran.

Moreover, there are several important factors which suggest, from a
military organizational standpoint, that unless we are dealing with a
case of sheer political madness, the Pentagon is not ready to launch an
attack on Iran.

Key Military Appointments

Several key military appointments were made in the course of the month
of March. Of significance, Admiral. William J. Fallon, was appointed
Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) on March 16 by Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates. It is unlikely that Admiral Fallon would
activate a military operation directed against Iran, within a few weeks
following his appointment as CENTCOM Commander.

Meanwhile, another major military appointment was implemented, which has
a direct bearing on Iran war preparations. Admiral Timothy J. Keating
Commander of US NORTHCOM was appointed on March 26, 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.

While these key appointments point to a consolidation of the
Neoconservative military agenda in the Middle East, they also suggest
that the US military would not launch a new phase of the Middle East war
prior to consolidating these command appointments, particularly those at
the level of US Central Command (CENTCOM), which is the key operational
command unit in charge of the Middle East war theater.

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 **** 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 CENTCOM'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.

US Naval Power in the Region

At present there are two aircraft carrier strike groups in the Persian
Gulf region, including the Eisenhower and the Stennis.

In comparison, the deployment of naval power prior to the March 2003
blitzkrieg against Iraq was on a significantly larger scale.

In the early months of 2003, there were five US aircraft carriers within
striking distance of Iraq plus one British aircraft carrier. In the
2003 campaign, three carrier strike groups were present in the Persian
Gulf (Lincoln, Constellation and Kitty Hawk) and two other US carrier
groups (Roosevelt and Truman) were involved in coordinating the bombing
sorties from the Mediterranean.

The USS Nimitz nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and its accompanying
battle group is currently on its way to the Persian Gulf., which would
bring the number of aircraft carriers up to three.

It is unlikely that military action would commence before a third
aircraft carrier is positioned in the war theater. (Official statements,
however, have indicated that the Nimitz would take over from USS
Eisenhower and that only two carrier strike groups would be present in
the Persian Gulf Arabian Sea region
Moreover, US weaknesses in the Iraq war theater, Iran's capabilities to
retaliate and inflict significant damage on US forces inside Iraq, as
well as mounting opposition to the US presidency, have a direct bearing
on the timing of a military operation directed against Iran.

Iran is Politically Isolated

Iran is politically isolated. Unilateralism prevails within the
corridors of the UN as well as within the Middle East war theater.

The US sponsored resolution in the United Nations Security Council
received unanimous support. Proposed amendments to the draft resolution
were discarded, following US pressures. The text of the resolution was
adopted unanimously.

Neither Russia nor China, which have extensive military cooperation
agreements with Iran, exercised their veto, nor did they abstain.

This UN Security Council "consensus" was reached following crucial
shadow diplomacy by Washington to secure the unanimous support of the
entire Council including its five permanent members plus Germany, which
participated in the formulation of the draft resolution in separate
consultations.

The UN resolution has totally isolated Iran: China and Russia have been
drawn into an alliance of stealth with the US.

What is crucial in the Security Council Resolution is that neither China
nor Russia will intervene on Iran's side, if Iran is attacked. Moreover,
while Russia and China are diplomatic partners of the US in the UN
sponsored economic sanctions regime, they are the object of US military
threats as confirmed by Operation Vigilant Shield 07. The latter are war
game scenarios conducted from September to December 2006, which
explicitly target not only Nemesis (North Korea) and Irmingham (Iran)
but also Ruebek (Russia) and Churia (China),

One would expect that separate "deals" were reached respectively with
China and Russia, where certain commitments were met in bilateral
discussions by Washington. Both Beijing and Moscow, which are partners
in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are in an overtly
ambiguous situation of turning a blind eye to US military threats, while
also supporting the Iranian military in building its air and ground
defense systems in the eventuality of US-NATO-Israeli attacks on Iran,
which has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO).

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
in 2001 under the presidency of Mohammed Khatami.

Ironically, coinciding with the UN Security Council decision in late
March, the Russian press confirmed that the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) is actually considering an enlargement, which could
consist in granting full membership to countries in the SCO (e.g. Iran)
which have currently the status of observers.

Meanwhile, the US Congress is at war with the president regarding
America's Iraq war strategy, but not a word is muttered on an impending
war againsat Iran, as if it were totally irrelevant.

The threats are real, an incident could trigger a war.

The war criminals in high office desperately need this war to stay in
power.

The US Congress is unlikely to be able in a minimum way to reverse the
decision to go to war with Iran, despite the fact that this would lead
to a worldwide catastrophe, an escalation of the war, with an impending
police state in America to support the militarization of civilian
institutions

The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)

The Neocons in the Bush administration are in control of key military
appointments: specifically those pertaining to Central Command
(USCENTCOM), US Stratregic Command (USSTRATCOM) and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.

New military appointments have recently been implemented. The newly
appointed commander of USCENTCOM, Admiral Fallon will play a key role in
overseeing the military operation in the Middle East War theater.

USSTRATCOM headed by General James E. Cartwright, with headquarters at
the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, 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.

It is worth recalling that in 2004, vice President **** Cheney had
demanded that USSTRATCOM draw up a contingency plan directed against
Iran "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack
on the United States" on the presumption that the government in Tehran
would be behind the terrorist plot. The contingency plan included a
large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical
nuclear weapons.

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:"

TEXT BOX

Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) is undergoing several important
organizational changes, which have a direct bearing on implementing war
plans in relation to Iran . According to USSTRATCOM commander General
Cartwright, USSTRATCOM is developing “new functionally aligned
organizations designed to improve our operational speed and progress” (
statement to the strategic forces subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee). “We’ve moved from the old triad construct of the
bombers, the submarines and the (intercontinental ballistic missiles) to
one that is more integrated and offers the country a broader range of
activities that can deter and assure our allies,”

" According to Cartwright’s statement, the functional components for
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; network warfare; global
network operations; information operations; integrated missile defense;
and combating weapons of mass destruction are at or nearing full
operational capability.

In addition, STRATCOM is constructing an organizational system “that can
be joint from the start, can move to combined or allied type of
configuration … so that we don’t have to build those in a time of
crisis,” Cartwright said.

“Having a balanced … defense infrastructure underpinned by command and
control and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is
critical to the strategy,” he said." (U.S. Strategic Command Refines,
Fields New Capabilities Mar 9, 2007 – By John J. Kruzel, American Forces
Press Service)



* Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the
Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research
articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For
publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms
including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
making such material available to our readers under the provisions of
"fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political,
economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted
material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission
from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007

The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070401&articleId=5247

Ok- now IRAN- is an issue. However, if this information is true, then
whomever leaked some of this stuff should be executed for incompetence
bordering on treason.


So, I'm going to presume a lot of it is deliberate misinformation that
you always see when dealing with these kinds of events. You NEVER let
your enemy see all your cards. And the media is like an annoying 10 year
old at a poker game, running around the table asking dumb questions. We
can't just hit them and make them go away, like many of our enemies can,
so we make stuff up to confuse them and at least reduce the damage they
do.

Interestingly, the 3rd carrier group is due to arrive on station in the
Persian Gulf within the next 2 weeks - officially to "releive" the
Eisenhower.

Also, please dont post a full length cut & paste of a web page.
Summarize it for us, give quotes and comments, and the URL, but not the
whole thing plz.

Good point mike.

I can click and read.

One thing I noticed about this situation is the UN resolution. Unlike
the one pertaining to Iraq just prior to the current invasion it was
unanimous.

China and Russia have never had a problem in the past with using their
veto or abstain.

Neither country has ever shown a propensity to back down on a subject
they felt strongly about no matter what the pressure. I must conclude
therefore that they agreed to this resolution.

Good point on the resolution votes. Didn't even think of that. And
you're absolutely right. Then again, in all fairness, no one in the
"atomic powers" club likes the idea of more competition.


I don't like the idea of nukes in general. But I can understand why
Iran feels threatened enough to try and acquire the capability. A
unanimous UN vote is a very, very unfriendly sign.

if usa attack to ıran a lıke iraq ıt will be same potıtıon we dont want
to have war anymore ın thıs world

If everyone agreed that there should be no war, there would be no war.
But that's a work in progress going back to when the first two cave men
chucked rocks at each other. And even before, to the first
micro-organism that ate another.

Make war no more...

Such a good idea.

to bad we can't convince our leaders of that.