"Weapons of Mass Destruction": Building a Pretext for
Waging War on Iran?

by Michel Chossudovsky

November 1, 2006
GlobalResearch. ca

http://globalresear ch.ca/index. php?context= viewArticle& code=20061101& articleId= 3657

The US navy has conducted military exercises (30th of
October) 20 miles outside Iranian territorial waters
in the Persian Gulf. The war games were perceived by
Tehran as an act of provocation. Iranian patrol boats
came very close to US and coalition warships in the
Persian Gulf.

The large scale naval display of US military hardware
consisted in intercepting and searching vessels
"suspected of trafficking" in "weapons of mass
destruction" . The exercise was conducted under the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). It consisted
in developing "procedures for intercepting smugglers
of unconventional weapons". (NYT, 30 October 2006).

According to William T. Munroe, US ambassador to
Bahrain, the objective was to send "a clear message"
to so-called WMD "proliferators" . More specifically,
it was allegedly designed to "block North Korean
missile and nuclear shipments to such clients as Iran
and Syria".

Australia, Britain, France, Italy deployed war vessels
as part of the US led PSI operation. Bahrain, which
hosts the US Fifth Fleet, contributed three warships
to the exercise. Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and
South Korea sent military observers.

Ironically, the only real visible WMD activity in the
Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea was marked by the
massive display of US and coalition naval power
including aircraft carriers, submarines, guided
missile destroyers and frigates (for further details
see Chossudovsky, Oct 2006, Nazemroaya, Oct 2006)

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman underscored its
concern in a statement released a day prior to the PSI
exercises (29 October):

"We do not consider this exercise appropriate. ... [US
actions] go in the direction of more adventurism, not
of stability and security,”

Iran's military officials have "declared their
vigilance and total control over any moves in the
southern waters of the country and warned against any
threats by US warships." (Statement of Iran's Navy
Commander, 31 October, 2006)

The legality of the PSI "interdictions" has also been
questioned. The evidence would suggest that the US
sponsored "interdictions" carried out in internaional
waters constitute a violation of international law::

"International law forbids the interdiction of vessels
on the high seas and in international airspace, and
interdiction generally only takes place when vessels
are unflagged and deemed pirates, according to Foreign
Policy in Focus (FPIF). However, Washington believes
that UNSC Resolution 1718, which was passed earlier
this month to control suspect shipments to North
Korea, makes PSI interdictions legal. But, as always,
it is a matter of interpretation. (ISN Security Watch,
op cit)

US Central Asian PSI War Games

According to the Swiss based ISN Security Watch (31
Oct), the PSI games are also slated to be conducted
at a subsequent date in Central Asia with several
members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO):

"[T]he Bush administration has successfully courted
Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan [
to participate in the games], though Kyrgyzstan has
remained non-committal. The US believes that these
territories could be used by Iran and North Korea as
refueling stops for air shipments of nuclear or other
weapons materials."

If these war games with China and Russia's Central
Asian allies were to proceed, this would contribute to
creating divisions within the SCO. Iran is an
observer member of the SCO together with India. (See
below)

Indian Ocean War Games

In parallel with the PSI exercises in the Persian
Gulf, US-India naval exercises are also being
conducted off the Malabar coast of India. They involve
several US war ships including the USS Boxer carrier,
the USS Bunker Hill guided missile battle cruiser, the
guided missile destroyer USS Howard and the USS
Benfold, the nuclear attack submarine Providence and
the Canadian guided missile frigate HMCS
Ottawa."(Debka, op cit). The Indian contingent
includes a fleet of destroyers, frigates and a
submarine. (Hindustan Times, 30 Oct 2006)

"India-Defence reported Oct. 27 that Indian and U.S.
warships and submarines are participating in joint
drills, which include a "simulated war at sea," off
the country's western coast. Exercises slated for
Malabar-'06 include anti-submarine operations, search
and boarding drills and search and rescue operations.

An Indian Navy statement stated that the exercise ...
[also] includes air operations, sea control missions
to prevent piracy and terrorism at sea and a
"simulated war at sea."

The 10-day exercise includes over 6,500 U.S. Navy
personnel from the USS Boxer Expeditionary Strike
Group operating in tandem with warships of the Indian
Navy's Western Fleet.

In the capital New Delhi the U.S. Embassy said in a
statement: "The purpose of the multi-national
exercise, which focuses on a number of naval mission
areas, is to strengthen ties between American,
Canadian and Indian forces as well as enhance the
cooperative security relationship between the nations
involved." (UPI, 31 Oct 2006)

Several of the US warships involved in Malabar 06,
together with Canadian frigate HMCS Ottawa, were also
involved in the Persian Gulf PSI exercises, which
overlapped with the US-India war games.

While India is not an ally of the US led coalition
directed against Iran, these war games are,
nonetheless, of utmost significance. They confirm the
tacit acceptance of the US led military initiative on
the part of the Congress government of Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh.

India is an observer member of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) together with Iran.
India's participation in these war games at this
particular juncture suggests that there are major
divisions within the Indian government and military
pertaining to Washington's military agenda in the
Middle East.

The timing of the exercises is crucial. They were
carried out concurrently with the "Leading Edge" PSI
exercise in the Persian Gulf.

Pretext for Waging War on Iran

Naval deployment under the "global war on terrorism"
is occurring on several fronts: in the Eastern
Mediterranean (NATO and Israel) along the
Syrian-Lebanese coast, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian
Sea and the Indian Ocean (US and allies) and Red Sea
(Saudi Arabia).

"These armadas are being built-up concurrently. The
Eastern Mediterranean build-up is essentially
characterized by Israeli and NATO naval and ground
forces. In the Persian Gulf, the naval armada is
largely American with the participation of the
British, Australia, and Canada. In this extensive land
mass between the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian
Gulf, various military movements on the ground are
occurring, including Northern Iraq and Georgia.

The broader war theater would extend far beyond,
northwards to the Caspian Sea Basin and eastwards to
Pakistan and China's Western frontier. What we are
dealing with is a chessboard for another Middle
Eastern war, which could potentially engulf a much
broader region." (Nazemroaya, Oct 2006)

These ongoing naval deployments under the "global war
on terrorism" seek to create a legitimacy for waging
war on Iran and Syria, which are the alleged "state
sponsors" of al Qaeda.

According to Debka, the Israeli intelligence think
tank, the objective of the deployment of US warships
is "to prepare for a US-led military strike against
Iran .... [as well as implement] measures to fend off
palpable al Qaeda threats to oil targets."

According to Debka, there have been warnings of
"impending al Qaeda attacks on the oil fields, oil
ports, oil tankers and oil fields of Saudi Arabia and
the Arabian oil emirates." These alleged Al Qaeda
attacks on oil facilities in the Persian Gulf are part
of the disinformation process. Known and documented,
Al Qaeda is a US intelligence asset. What the Debka
report suggests is that if such a terrorist attack
were to occur, this would provide a pretext to the US
to wage war on Iran, on the grounds that the Tehran
government is allegedly protecting the Al Qaeda
network.

Cheney's Contigency Plan

The ongoing naval deployments under the "global war on
terrorism" are part of a far-reaching military plan
"to fight terrorism around the World".

In the month following last year's 7/7 London
bombings, 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". Implied in the
contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be
behind these terrorist attacks.

Leaked military documents to the Washington Post
suggest that these Pentagon plans are predicated on
the possibility of "a major terrorist attack" and
the need to retaliate in self-defense if and when the
US or its allies are attacked:

"A third plan sets out how the military can both
disrupt and respond to another major terrorist strike
on the United States. It includes lengthy annexes that
offer a menu of options for the military to retaliate
quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals
or state sponsors depending on who is believed to be
behind an attack. , WP 23 April 2006)

This "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "another
9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States" to
prepare for a major military operation against Iran,
while pressure is also exerted on Tehran in relation
to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice
President is that the justification presented by
Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's presumed
involvement in a hypothetical 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, British and Israeli
military planners are waiting in limbo for "the
opportunity" of a terrorist attack, which would then
provide "the justification" for the launching of a
military operation directed against Syria and Iran? In
the words of the Pentagon, quoted verbatim in the
Washington Post (23 April 2006):

"Another [terrorist] attack could create both a
justification and an opportunity that is lacking today
to retaliate against some known targets, according to
current and former defense officials familiar with the
plan." (quoted in the Washington Post, 23 April,
2006, emphasis added)

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international
best America’s "War on Terrorism" Second Edition,
Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at
the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center
for Research on Globalization.

To order Chossudovsky' s book America's "War on
Terrorism", click here:

http://globalresear ch.ca/globaloutl ook/truth911. html

Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article
with a view to spreading the word and warning people
of the dangers of a broader Middle East war. Please
indicate the source and copyright note.

media inquiries crgeditor@yahoo. com

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 Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
www.globalresearch. ca grants permission to cross-post
original Global Research articles in their entirety,
or any portions thereof, on community internet sites,
as long as the text & title are not modified. The
source must be acknowledged and an active URL
hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be
indicated. The author's copyright note 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, GlobalResearch. ca,
2006

The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch. ca/index. php?context= viewArticle& code=20061101& articleId= 3657

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Expose the Truths - http://911Review. Com