• Secret Service director gives bizarre reason why an agent wasn't on the roof where gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks opened fire on Trump as she rejects calls to resign
    14:52 BST 16 Jul 2024, updated 17:42 BST 16 Jul 2024 By Geoff Earle, Deputy U.S. Political Editor For Dailymail.Com In Milwaukee, Wisconsin

    Secret Service head Kimberly Cheatle has finally given an interview
    'That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point,' she said
    Embattled Secret Service head Kimberly Cheatle has revealed the fateful and bizarre reason why her agency failed to put an agent on the roof gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks used to carry out an assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

    Cheatle, who is facing calls to resign over the massive security failure, said Secret Service officials planning security for Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania considered the warehouse 147 yards away from where Trump spoke to be a risky position for stationing an agent.

    Chilling new details have revealed that a team of local police snipers were inside the building when the 20-year-old Crooks opened fire, shot Trump in the ear and killed a member of the rally crowd.

    Crooks managed to evade cops and Secret Service three times, even though he had been deemed 'suspicious' and could have been on the roof for up to 30 minutes before he pulled the trigger.

    Witnesses also begged law enforcement to act when they saw him clamber onto the roof with his AR-style rifle, but the lapse in security meant he was able to carry out his bid to take the 45th president's life.

    The mistakes that led to Trump being inches away from being killed sparked calls for Cheatle to step down, but she has refused and has now given a baffling explanation as to why there wasn't a presence on the roof that had a clear line of sight to Trump.

    Secret Service Kimberly Cheatle has come forward with her first interview since the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, blaming a sloped roof as the reason to try to secure the building from the inside
    Secret Service Kimberly Cheatle has come forward with her first interview since the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, blaming a sloped roof as the reason to try to secure the building from the inside
    'That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,' she told ABC News in an interview Tuesday.

    'And so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside.'

    What transpired instead was a security nightmare: Thomas Matthew Crooks was able to scale the building and secure his own position, while law enforcement struggled to locate him even amid pressing warnings from members of the Trump crowd. But there wasn't sufficient time to act on the tips, she explained.

    'The shooter was actually identified as a potential person of suspicion,' Cheatle said. 'Unfortunately, with the rapid succession of how things unfolded, by the time that individual was eventually located, they were on the rooftop and were able to fire off at the former president.'

    She was referencing claims by witnesses that they alerted law enforcement about the threat, but agents weren't able to eliminate the threat in time. Officials have pointed to the initial responding officer, who lifted himself up on the roof only to lower himself back when his own life was threatened.

    A government sniper positioned behind Trump while he was speaking took out the would-be assassin, but only after he began firing.

    Cheatle told ABC News her first reaction to the shooting was 'shock.'

    She also said the Secret Service was aware of the security vulnerabilities presented by the building Crooks took a sniper's position on to aim at Trump. However, a decision was made not to place any personnel on the roof – even though security experts have said a primary responsibility of law enforcement would be to secure elevated areas near a high level protectee.

    She also continues to resist calls that she step down over the incident, even while taking responsibility for her agency.

    'The buck stops with me,' she said.

    'It was unacceptable,' she told ABC. 'And it's something that shouldn't happen again.'


    Watch events unfold during assassination attempt on Donald Trump




    Cheatle is already facing calls to step down amid what some are calling a 'massive security failure'
    Cheatle is already facing calls to step down amid what some are calling a 'massive security failure'

    Donald Trump supporters alert police about gunman

    Read More

    Ex-President enters RNC with beefed-up 15-strong troupe of bodyguards


    article image
    Ex-FBI special agent Kenneth Gray told DailyMail.com on Monday that the Secret Service 'really screwed up' at the rally on Saturday and that efforts to hire more women in field roles may well have played a role.

    Republican officials gathering in Milwaukee have been calling for tough scrutiny of the agency even as the feds are implementing tighter security measures around Trump and other protectees.

    ‘Somebody, somewhere has a really, really a lot of serious questions to have to answer,’ House Judiciary and ‘Weaponization’ committee member Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota told DailyMail.com.

    Cheatle's decision to avoid questions until now has also drawn astonishment. She was not present at the initial press conference headed by the FBI.

    The probe set up by President Joe Biden after the incident is being overseen by the Justice Department, not Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

    'That speaks volumes,’ former House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz told DailyMail.com.

    President Biden was asked by NBC Monday whether he has confidence in the Secret Service.

    'I feel safe with the Secret Service. But look ... what we did see was the Secret Service who responded risked their lives responding. They were ready to give their lives for the president. The question is should they have anticipated what happened. Should they have done what they needed to do to prevent this from happening? That's the question that's an open question.'

    He didn't respond directly when NBC's Lester Holt asked him if the agency suffered a 'massive security failure.'

    Republicans preparing to grill Cheatle have already focused on her own background. Before being appointed by President Biden in 2022, she worked for PepsiCo as senior director in Global Security. She worked for 25 years in the agency and in the Vice Presidential Protective Division.

    Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Ky.) on Fox News has called her a 'diversity hire.'

    'You know she was working at Pepsi before this. I know she was a former CIA Secret Service agent, but still, this is what happens when you don’t put the best players in,' he said.

    Cheatle came in to steady an agency that has been rocked by a series of scandals.

    'Somebody really dropped the ball. You’ve got a DEI person, a DEI initiative person who heads up our Secret Service,' he said, using the abbreviation for diversity, equity and inclusion.

    On Monday night it was revealed a local team of police snipers team saw Crooks scouting their command post three times in the minutes before the shooting began.

    Thomas Matthew Crooks, seen here in a 2021 photo, was identified by the FBI as the shooter involved the assassination attempt
    Thomas Matthew Crooks, seen here in a 2021 photo, was identified by the FBI as the shooter involved the assassination attempt
    Three police marksmen from Beaver County were using the single-story AGR International building as their watch-post when the would-be assassin chose it as his place to shoot from, CBS reported.

    A law enforcement official told the channel said that no action was taken after one of the snipers first spotted Crooks looking up at the roof of the building in Butler, Pennsylvania , just 130 yards from where the president would speak.

    The sniper then radioed to a command post after seeing Crooks take out a rangefinder.

    But no further action was taken before Crooks reappeared a third time, this time wearing a backpack and disappearing from sight as he walked to the back of the building.

    A further radio report relaying the information was submitted by the sniper team who did not realize that Crooks was now scaling their building.

    Bullets fired from a manufacturing building roof, right, into the rally, seen left, show just how close Crooks had managed to get the former president
    Bullets fired from a manufacturing building roof, right, into the rally, seen left, show just how close Crooks had managed to get the former president
    A chance turn of Trump¿s head, not the swift response of those snipers, is what made the difference between a grazing glance of the bullet Crooks fired and a fatal shot
    A chance turn of Trump¿s head, not the swift response of those snipers, is what made the difference between a grazing glance of the bullet Crooks fired and a fatal shot
    Eight members of the Beaver County Police Department had been tasked with securing the outer perimeter of the rally, while the Secret Service concentrated on the rally itself.

    Pittsburgh's WPXI reported that a Beaver officer took a photo after seeing Crooks on the roof at 5.45pm, by which time he had already been photographed on the ground by a colleague.

    The final radio report by the three-strong sniper team prompted State police to send reinforcements to the building but it was not until 6.11pm that one climbed onto the roof and saw Crooks with his rifle.

    The officer from Butler County was forced to retreat when Crooks aimed his AR-style weapon at him, and it was seconds later that the killer unleashed up to eight shots, killing Pennsylvania fire chief Corey Comperatore, critically injuring two others and hitting Trump in the right ear.

    It is not clear whether Crooks had the rifle on him when he was first seen outside the AGR International factory building, or if he stayed on the roof for the whole time.

    Extraordinary photos and video obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com show just how breathtakingly close Crooks, got to his target.

    Crooks, 20, came within inches of killing President Trump Saturday, as the former president addressed supporters during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

    Chillingly some images show a ladder, hidden by dense shrubbery, propped against the side of the AGR building, leading directly to the rooftop across which witnesses later told law enforcement they saw Crooks scramble.

    The images of the strategically placed ladder have emerged as Secret Service admit they did not sweep the building where the shooter took his position, but instead entrusted that role to local law enforcement officers.

    Now, these compelling images hammer home the handful of yards – barely 150 - that stood between the former president and his would-be assassin.

    Crooks had parked his vehicle near the rally site in Butler on Saturday before he scaled the roof of a nearby industrial manufacturing building.


    If you're looking for the link to the quote from Secret Service director Kim Cheatle, making bizarre excuses for why that roof was left completely uncovered, it's here:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13639613/Secret-Service-director-wasnt-roof-gunman.html

    And the relevant quote is: 'That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,' she told ABC News in an interview Tuesday. 'And so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside.'

    Sounds like a cover story. I think Cheatle was in on the assassination. This was an INSIDE JOB. Cheatle should RESIGN immediately and then be criminally investigated.
    Secret Service director gives bizarre reason why an agent wasn't on the roof where gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks opened fire on Trump as she rejects calls to resign 14:52 BST 16 Jul 2024, updated 17:42 BST 16 Jul 2024 By Geoff Earle, Deputy U.S. Political Editor For Dailymail.Com In Milwaukee, Wisconsin Secret Service head Kimberly Cheatle has finally given an interview 'That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point,' she said Embattled Secret Service head Kimberly Cheatle has revealed the fateful and bizarre reason why her agency failed to put an agent on the roof gunman Thomas Matthew Crooks used to carry out an assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Cheatle, who is facing calls to resign over the massive security failure, said Secret Service officials planning security for Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania considered the warehouse 147 yards away from where Trump spoke to be a risky position for stationing an agent. Chilling new details have revealed that a team of local police snipers were inside the building when the 20-year-old Crooks opened fire, shot Trump in the ear and killed a member of the rally crowd. Crooks managed to evade cops and Secret Service three times, even though he had been deemed 'suspicious' and could have been on the roof for up to 30 minutes before he pulled the trigger. Witnesses also begged law enforcement to act when they saw him clamber onto the roof with his AR-style rifle, but the lapse in security meant he was able to carry out his bid to take the 45th president's life. The mistakes that led to Trump being inches away from being killed sparked calls for Cheatle to step down, but she has refused and has now given a baffling explanation as to why there wasn't a presence on the roof that had a clear line of sight to Trump. Secret Service Kimberly Cheatle has come forward with her first interview since the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, blaming a sloped roof as the reason to try to secure the building from the inside Secret Service Kimberly Cheatle has come forward with her first interview since the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, blaming a sloped roof as the reason to try to secure the building from the inside 'That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,' she told ABC News in an interview Tuesday. 'And so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside.' What transpired instead was a security nightmare: Thomas Matthew Crooks was able to scale the building and secure his own position, while law enforcement struggled to locate him even amid pressing warnings from members of the Trump crowd. But there wasn't sufficient time to act on the tips, she explained. 'The shooter was actually identified as a potential person of suspicion,' Cheatle said. 'Unfortunately, with the rapid succession of how things unfolded, by the time that individual was eventually located, they were on the rooftop and were able to fire off at the former president.' She was referencing claims by witnesses that they alerted law enforcement about the threat, but agents weren't able to eliminate the threat in time. Officials have pointed to the initial responding officer, who lifted himself up on the roof only to lower himself back when his own life was threatened. A government sniper positioned behind Trump while he was speaking took out the would-be assassin, but only after he began firing. Cheatle told ABC News her first reaction to the shooting was 'shock.' She also said the Secret Service was aware of the security vulnerabilities presented by the building Crooks took a sniper's position on to aim at Trump. However, a decision was made not to place any personnel on the roof – even though security experts have said a primary responsibility of law enforcement would be to secure elevated areas near a high level protectee. She also continues to resist calls that she step down over the incident, even while taking responsibility for her agency. 'The buck stops with me,' she said. 'It was unacceptable,' she told ABC. 'And it's something that shouldn't happen again.' Watch events unfold during assassination attempt on Donald Trump Cheatle is already facing calls to step down amid what some are calling a 'massive security failure' Cheatle is already facing calls to step down amid what some are calling a 'massive security failure' Donald Trump supporters alert police about gunman Read More Ex-President enters RNC with beefed-up 15-strong troupe of bodyguards article image Ex-FBI special agent Kenneth Gray told DailyMail.com on Monday that the Secret Service 'really screwed up' at the rally on Saturday and that efforts to hire more women in field roles may well have played a role. Republican officials gathering in Milwaukee have been calling for tough scrutiny of the agency even as the feds are implementing tighter security measures around Trump and other protectees. ‘Somebody, somewhere has a really, really a lot of serious questions to have to answer,’ House Judiciary and ‘Weaponization’ committee member Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota told DailyMail.com. Cheatle's decision to avoid questions until now has also drawn astonishment. She was not present at the initial press conference headed by the FBI. The probe set up by President Joe Biden after the incident is being overseen by the Justice Department, not Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service. 'That speaks volumes,’ former House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz told DailyMail.com. President Biden was asked by NBC Monday whether he has confidence in the Secret Service. 'I feel safe with the Secret Service. But look ... what we did see was the Secret Service who responded risked their lives responding. They were ready to give their lives for the president. The question is should they have anticipated what happened. Should they have done what they needed to do to prevent this from happening? That's the question that's an open question.' He didn't respond directly when NBC's Lester Holt asked him if the agency suffered a 'massive security failure.' Republicans preparing to grill Cheatle have already focused on her own background. Before being appointed by President Biden in 2022, she worked for PepsiCo as senior director in Global Security. She worked for 25 years in the agency and in the Vice Presidential Protective Division. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Ky.) on Fox News has called her a 'diversity hire.' 'You know she was working at Pepsi before this. I know she was a former CIA Secret Service agent, but still, this is what happens when you don’t put the best players in,' he said. Cheatle came in to steady an agency that has been rocked by a series of scandals. 'Somebody really dropped the ball. You’ve got a DEI person, a DEI initiative person who heads up our Secret Service,' he said, using the abbreviation for diversity, equity and inclusion. On Monday night it was revealed a local team of police snipers team saw Crooks scouting their command post three times in the minutes before the shooting began. Thomas Matthew Crooks, seen here in a 2021 photo, was identified by the FBI as the shooter involved the assassination attempt Thomas Matthew Crooks, seen here in a 2021 photo, was identified by the FBI as the shooter involved the assassination attempt Three police marksmen from Beaver County were using the single-story AGR International building as their watch-post when the would-be assassin chose it as his place to shoot from, CBS reported. A law enforcement official told the channel said that no action was taken after one of the snipers first spotted Crooks looking up at the roof of the building in Butler, Pennsylvania , just 130 yards from where the president would speak. The sniper then radioed to a command post after seeing Crooks take out a rangefinder. But no further action was taken before Crooks reappeared a third time, this time wearing a backpack and disappearing from sight as he walked to the back of the building. A further radio report relaying the information was submitted by the sniper team who did not realize that Crooks was now scaling their building. Bullets fired from a manufacturing building roof, right, into the rally, seen left, show just how close Crooks had managed to get the former president Bullets fired from a manufacturing building roof, right, into the rally, seen left, show just how close Crooks had managed to get the former president A chance turn of Trump¿s head, not the swift response of those snipers, is what made the difference between a grazing glance of the bullet Crooks fired and a fatal shot A chance turn of Trump¿s head, not the swift response of those snipers, is what made the difference between a grazing glance of the bullet Crooks fired and a fatal shot Eight members of the Beaver County Police Department had been tasked with securing the outer perimeter of the rally, while the Secret Service concentrated on the rally itself. Pittsburgh's WPXI reported that a Beaver officer took a photo after seeing Crooks on the roof at 5.45pm, by which time he had already been photographed on the ground by a colleague. The final radio report by the three-strong sniper team prompted State police to send reinforcements to the building but it was not until 6.11pm that one climbed onto the roof and saw Crooks with his rifle. The officer from Butler County was forced to retreat when Crooks aimed his AR-style weapon at him, and it was seconds later that the killer unleashed up to eight shots, killing Pennsylvania fire chief Corey Comperatore, critically injuring two others and hitting Trump in the right ear. It is not clear whether Crooks had the rifle on him when he was first seen outside the AGR International factory building, or if he stayed on the roof for the whole time. Extraordinary photos and video obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com show just how breathtakingly close Crooks, got to his target. Crooks, 20, came within inches of killing President Trump Saturday, as the former president addressed supporters during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Chillingly some images show a ladder, hidden by dense shrubbery, propped against the side of the AGR building, leading directly to the rooftop across which witnesses later told law enforcement they saw Crooks scramble. The images of the strategically placed ladder have emerged as Secret Service admit they did not sweep the building where the shooter took his position, but instead entrusted that role to local law enforcement officers. Now, these compelling images hammer home the handful of yards – barely 150 - that stood between the former president and his would-be assassin. Crooks had parked his vehicle near the rally site in Butler on Saturday before he scaled the roof of a nearby industrial manufacturing building. If you're looking for the link to the quote from Secret Service director Kim Cheatle, making bizarre excuses for why that roof was left completely uncovered, it's here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13639613/Secret-Service-director-wasnt-roof-gunman.html And the relevant quote is: 'That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point. And so, you know, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof,' she told ABC News in an interview Tuesday. 'And so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside.' Sounds like a cover story. I think Cheatle was in on the assassination. This was an INSIDE JOB. Cheatle should RESIGN immediately and then be criminally investigated.
    WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK
    Secret Service boss cites hazard of putting agent on 'sloped roof'
    Embattled Secret Service head Kimberly Cheatle said in an interview the 'buck stops' with her, and said a decision was made not to post an agent on a 'sloped roof' that a shooter used to fire on Trump.
    Haha
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1523 Views
  • Pre-emptive Nuclear War: The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran
    Chapter III of "The Globalization of War" by Michel Chossudovsky


    Firmly All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

    To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

    Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    Author’s Introduction and Update

    In a recent article entitled “A Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran is Contemplated” I focussed on how Israel’s criminal attack on the People of Palestine could evolve towards an extended Middle East War.

    At the time of writing, US-NATO war ships –including two aircraft carriers, combat planes, not to mention a nuclear submarine– are deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea, all of which are intended to confront what both Western politicians and the media casually describe as “Palestine’s Aggression against the Jewish State”.

    “Israel ranks” as “the 4th strongest military” after Russia, the U.S and China. Ask yourself: Why on earth would Israel need the support of U.S. aircraft carriers to lead a genocide against the Palestinians who are fighting for their lives with limited military capabilities.

    Is the U.S. intent upon triggering a broader war?

    “U.S. Warns Hezbollah, Iran. It Will intervene if they Escalate”

    Who is “Escalating”? The Pentagon has already intimated that it will attack Iran and Lebanon, “If they Escalate”. Is the Pentagon Seeking to Trigger one or more “False Flags”?



    Times of Israel, November 9, 2023

    Also of significance (less than 4 months prior to October 7, 2023) is the adoption on June 27, 2023 of the US Congress Resolution (H. RES. 559) which Accuses Iran of Possessing Nuclear Weapons. H.RES 559 allows the use of force against Iran, intimating that Iran has Nuclear Weapons.

    Whereas Iran is tagged (without a shred of evidence) as a Nuclear Power by the U.S. Congress, Washington fails to acknowledge that Israel is an undeclared nuclear power.





    The article below was first published in my book entitled “The Globalization of War. America’s Long War against Humanity” (2015).

    I remain indebted to the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad who took the initiative of launching my book in Kuala Lumpur. (image right).

    Firmly committed to “the criminalization of war”, Tun Mahathir is a powerful voice in support of Palestine.

    The article below (Chapter III of “Globalization of War”) provides analysis in a historical perspective of U.S. war plans directed against Iran.

    Numerous “war theater scenarios” for an all-out attack on Iran have been contemplated.

    Dangerous Crossroads in our History

    The current and ongoing US-NATO military deployment in The Middle East — casually presented by the media as a means to coming to the rescue of Israel– is the pinnacle of U.S. war preparations extending over a period of more than 20 years.

    Contemplated by the Pentagon in 2005 was a scenario whereby an attack by Israel would be conducted on behalf of Washington:

    “An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger mechanism” which would unleash an all-out war against Iran, as well as retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.” (quoted from text below)

    At the outset of Bush’s second term

    “Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the “rogue enemies” of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us” (Ibid)

    The article also focusses on the dangers of a US-Israel nuclear attack against Iran which has been contemplated by the Pentagon since 2004.

    The US Israel “Partnership”: “Signed” Military Agreement

    Amply documented, the U.S. Military and Intelligence apparatus is firmly behind Israel’s genocide. In the words of Lt General Richard Clark:

    Americans Troops are “prepared to die for the Jewish State”.

    What should be understood by this statement is that the US and Israel have a longstanding Military “Partnership” as well as (Jerusalem Post) a “Signed” Military Agreement (classified) regarding Israel’s attack on Gaza.

    Lt. General Richard Clark is U.S. Third Air Force Commander, among the highest-ranking military officers in the U.S. Armed Forces. While he refers to Juniper Cobra, “a joint military exercise that has been conducted for almost a decade”, his statement points to a much broader “signed” military-intelligence agreement (classified) with Israel which no doubt includes the extension of the Israeli-US bombing of Gaza to the broader Middle East.

    While this so-called “signed” military agreement remains classified (not in the public domain), it would appear that Biden is obeying the orders of the perpetrators of this diabolical military agenda.

    Does President Biden have the authority (under this “Signed” Agreement with Israel) to save the lives of innocent civilians including the children of Palestine:

    Q (Inaudible) Gaza ceasefire, Mr. President?

    THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me?

    Q What are the chances of a Gaza ceasefire?

    THE PRESIDENT: None. No possibility.

    White House Press Conference, November 9, 2023

    Lt. General Clark confirms that:

    “U.S. troops could be put under Israeli commanders in the battlefield”, which suggests that the genocide is implemented by Netanyahu on behalf of the United States.

    Everything indicates that the US military and intelligence apparatus are behind Israel’s criminal bombing and invasion of Gaza.

    We stand firmly in Solidarity with Palestine and the People of the Middle East.

    It is my intent and sincere hope that my writings (including the text below) will contribute to “Revealing the Truth” as well “Reversing the Tide of Global Warfare”.

    Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 17, 2023, March 10, 2024

    Pre-emptive Nuclear War:

    The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran

    by

    Michel Chossudovsky



    Introduction

    While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality.

    The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.”

    The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the U.S. in liaison with NATO and Israel.

    Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. U.S. military sources intimated at the time that an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the U.S. “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

    American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.1

    “Theater Iran Near Term” (TIRANNT)

    Code named by U.S. military planners as TIRANNT, “Theater Iran Near Term”, simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 “when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran.”2

    The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg:

    The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “Theater Iran Near Term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations” against Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form.

    … Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.3

    Different “theater scenarios” for an all-out attack on Iran had been contemplated:

    The U.S. army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for “Operation Iranian Freedom”. Admiral Fallon, the new head of U.S. Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).4

    In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Dick Cheney instructed U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) to draw up a “contingency plan” of a large scale military operation 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 plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state:

    The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than four hundred fifty major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program develop- ment 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 ter- rorism 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 dam- age his career by posing any objections.5

    The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran”

    The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of military planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clinton administration (1995), U.S. Central Command (U.S.CENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategic objective:

    The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. U.S.CENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.6

    The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries:

    [The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.6 (For further details, see Chapter I)

    The Role of Israel

    There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack against Iran.

    Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does not have a separate and distinct military agenda.

    Israel is integrated into the “war plan for major combat operations” against Iran formulated in 2006 by U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM). In the context of large scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require a “green light” from Washington.

    An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger mechanism” which would unleash an all-out war against Iran, as well as retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.

    In this regard, there are indications going back to the Bush administration that Washington had indeed contemplated the option of an initial (U.S. backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright U.S.-led military operation directed against Iran.

    The Israeli attack –although led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO– would have been presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then have been used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World opinion, a military intervention of the U.S. and NATO with a view to “defending Israel”, rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military cooperation agreements, both the U.S. and NATO would be “obligated” to “defend Israel” against Iran and Syria.

    It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush’s second term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the “rogue enemies” of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without U.S. military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it.”8

    According to Cheney:

    One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked. …Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.9

    Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America’s behalf and “do it” for us:

    Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.10

    What we are dealing with is a process of joint U.S.-NATO-Israel military planning. An operation to bomb Iran has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be planned and coordinated at the highest levels of the U.S. led coalition.

    Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice President Dick Cheney discuss a vision of peace for Israel and Palestine as they conduct a press briefing in Jerusalem, Israel, March 19, 2002.

    Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice President Dick Cheney discuss a vision of peace for Israel and Palestine as they conduct a press briefing in Jerusalem, Israel, March 19, 2002. “It is our hope that the current violence and terrorism will be replaced by reconciliation and the rebuilding of mutual trust,” said the Vice President. (Source)

    An attack by Israel against Iran would also require coordinated U.S.-NATO logistical support, particularly with regard to Israel’s air defense system, which since January 2009 is fully integrated into that of the U.S. and NATO.11

    Israel’s X band radar system established in early 2009 with U.S. technical support has “integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-based] detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.”12

    What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The U.S. rather than Israel controls the air defense system:

    This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

    ‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.13

    The U.S. military oversees Israel’s Air Defense system, which is integrated into the Pentagon’s global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington’s consent. Hence the importance of the so-called “Green Light” legislation in the U.S. Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, which explicitly supported an Israeli attack on Iran:

    The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force.” … “We’ve got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area”.14

    In practice, the proposed legislation serves as a “Green Light” to the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a U.S. sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also serves as a justification to wage war with a view to defending Israel.

    In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in response to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to understand is that a minor “incident” could be used as a pretext to spark off a major military operation against Iran.

    Known to U.S. military planners, Israel (rather than the U.S.A) would be the first target of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking, Israelis would be the victims of the machinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, in this regard, absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran.

    Global Warfare: The Role of U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM)

    In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed against Iran, U.S.STRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”15 What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, including the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Central Asian region would be coordinated by U.S.STRATCOM. (See Chapter I).

    Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the U.S. and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. This announcement was made after the conduct of military simulations pertaining to a U.S. led nuclear attack against a fictional country.16

    Continuity in Relation to the Bush-Cheney Era

    President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed “that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran” for its non-compliance with U.S. demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program.17 The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran. Israel has also drawn up its own “secret plans” to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons:

    Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.18

    Obama’s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea are consistent with post-9/11 U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.

    Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating “Islamic terrorism” and instating Western style “democracy” in Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for “battlefield use”. They are slated to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America’s “War on Terrorism” alongside conventional weapons:

    Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent.19

    The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (for example, B61-11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb.

    The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. or Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb.20 While the U.S. does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel’s Jericho III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach.

    Radioactive Fallout

    The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by U.S.-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large area of the broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region.

    In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas those of the U.S. and Israel are instruments of peace “harmless to the surrounding civilian population.”

    “The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran?

    Of military significance within the U.S. conventional weapons arsenal is the 21,500-pound “monster weapon” nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” The GBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized “as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed” with the the largest yield in the U.S. conventional arsenal. The MOAB was tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq war theater. According to U.S. military sources, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had advised the government of Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003 that the “mother of all bombs” was to be used against Iraq. (There were unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq).

    The U.S. Department of Defense already confirmed in 2009 that it intends to use the “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB is said to be ”ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran”21. The truth of the matter is that the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in significant civilian casualties. It is a conventional “killing machine” with a nuclear type mushroom cloud.



    The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the hefty cost of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount includes the costs of development and testing as well as integration of the MOAB bombs onto B-2 stealth bombers. This procurement is directly linked to war preparations in relation to Iran. The notification was contained in a ninety-three-page “reprograming memo” which included the following instructions:

    “The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOAB [Mother of All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need].” It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).23

    The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran’s infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive capacity.

    The MOP is described as “a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb–longer than eleven persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder or more than twenty feet base to nose”.24

    These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden objective of the MOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to casually describe the MOAB (“Mother of all Bombs”), is “mass destruction” and mass civilian casualties with a view to instilling fear and despair.

    State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies”

    The process of U.S. military decision making in relation to Iran is supported by Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications and information systems. Given the advances in military technology and the development of new weapons systems, an attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms of the mix of weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitzkrieg launched against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanced weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new weapons systems will be tested.

    The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the U.S. military in terms of large scale theater wars, to be waged simultaneously in different regions of the World: “Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”. (See Chapter I)



    This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a single imperial superpower.

    The PNAC document also called for the transformation of U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”, namely the implementation of “war made possible through new technologies”.25 The latter consists in developing and perfecting a state of the art global killing machine based on an arsenal of sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replace the existing paradigms.

    Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs –tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example– that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come.26

    The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial break-point, with new space-based weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an enemy which has significant conventional military capabilities including more than half a million ground forces.

    Electromagnetic Weapons

    Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran’s communications systems, disable electric power generation, undermine and destabilize command and control, government infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc. Within the same family of weapons, environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare) developed under the HAARP program could also be applied.27 These weapons systems are fully operational. In this context, the U.S. Air Force document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledged the military applications of weather modification technologies:

    Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally. … It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in U.S., or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power.28

    Electromagnetic radiation enabling “remote health impairment” might also be envisaged in the war theater.29 In turn, new uses of biological weapons by the U.S. military might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: “[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”30

    Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long-range Missiles

    Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States. Hence the emphasis by the U.S.-NATO Israel alliance on the use of nuclear weapons, which are slated to be used either pre-emptively or in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack.

    In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles two were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert, “the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess.”31 Israel acknowledged that “the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach”.32

    According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel’s anti-ballistic missile program, “the intensity of the military exercise was unprecedented… It was meant to make an impression – and it made an impression.”33

    The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the U.S. and Israel, did not in any way modify U.S.-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage war on Iran.

    Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it is attacked. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile attacks as confirmed by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel’s air defense system is therefore crucial. U.S. and allied military facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq could also be targeted by Iran.

    Iran’s Ground Forces

    While Iran is encircled by U.S. and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic has significant military capabilities. What is important to acknowledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, navy, air force) when compared to U.S. and NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Confronted with a well-organized insurgency, coalition forces are already overstretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces be able to cope if Iranian ground forces were to enter the existing battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the Resistance movement to U.S. and allied occupation would inevitably be affected.

    Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists.34 There are 18,000 personnel in Iran’s Navy and 52,000 in the Air Force. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special Forces).”

    According to the CISS, Iran’s Basij paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Revolu- tionary Guards “has an estimated 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be”35, In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and several million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside Iraq.

    U.S. Military and Allied Facilities Surrounding Iran

    For several years now, Iran has been conducting its own war drills and exercises. While its Air Force has weaknesses, its intermediate and long-range missiles are fully operational. Iran’s military is in a state of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are currently within a few kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, and within proximity of Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf within proximity of U.S. and allied military facilities in the United Arab Emirates.

    It is worth noting that in response to Iran’s military build-up, the U.S. has been transferring large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

    While Iran’s advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the U.S. and NATO, Iranian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial losses to coalition forces in a conventional war theater, on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops and tanks in December 2009 crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or challenged by allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the East Maysan oil field.

    Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran’s military facilities, its communications systems etc., through massive aerial bombing, using cruise missiles, conventional bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons, a war with Iran, once initiated, could eventually lead into a ground war. This is something which U.S. military planners have no doubt contemplated in their simulated war scenarios.

    An operation of this nature would result in significant military and civilian casualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used.

    Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan.

    In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into a World War III scenario, extending beyond the Middle-East – Central Asian region.

    In a very real sense, this military project, which has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board for more than ten years, threatens the future of humanity.

    Our focus in this chapter has been on war preparations. The fact that war preparations are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply that these war plans will be carried out.

    The U.S.-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that the enemy has significant capabilities to respond and retaliate. This factor in itself has been crucial in the decision by the U.S. and its allies to postpone an attack on Iran.

    Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances. Whereas NATO has become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which constitutes an alliance between Russia and China and a number of former Soviet Republics has been significantly weakened.

    The ongoing U.S. military threats directed against China and Russia are intended to weaken the SCO and discourage any form of military action on the part of Iran’s allies in the case of a U.S. NATO Israeli attack.

    Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux

    November 2023 Interview

    Notes

    1. See Target Iran – Air Strikes, Globalsecurity.org, undated.

    2. William Arkin, Washington Post, April 16, 2006.

    3. Ibid.

    4. New Statesman, February 19, 2007.

    5. Philip Giraldi, Deep Background,The American Conservative August 2005.

    6. U.S.CENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#U.S.Policy, link no longer active,

    archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9.

    7. General Wesley Clark, for further details see Chapter I.

    8. See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned U.S.-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005.

    9. Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005.

    10. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    11. Michel Chossudovsky, Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the U.S. and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War? Global Research, January 11, 2009.

    12. Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009.

    13. Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009.

    14. Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen Threatens Iran; U.S.-Israel versus Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global Research, August 10, 2010.

    15. Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006.

    16. David Ruppe, Pre-emptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Ca- pability, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005.

    17. U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat – IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010.

    18. Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran – Times Online, January 7, 2007.

    19. Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds, Defense News, November 29, 2004.

    20. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Tactical Nuclear Weapons” against Afghanistan?, Global Research, December 5, 2001. See also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris.

    21. Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009.

    22. Ibid.

    23. ABC News, op cit, emphasis added. To consult the reprogramming request (pdf) click here.

    24. See Edwin Black, “Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Use Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs”, Cutting Edge, September 21, 2009.

    25. See Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf.

    26. Ibid, emphasis added.

    27. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004. 28. Air
    Force 2025 Final Report, See also U.S. Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, AF2025
    v3c15-1.

    29. See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004.

    30. Project for a New American Century, op cit., p. 60.

    31. See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran’s “Power of Deterrence” Global Research, November 5, 2006.

    32. Debka, November 5, 2006.

    33. www.cnsnews.com November 3, 2006.

    34. See Islamic Republic of Iran Army – Wikipedia.

    Featured image is from The Libertarian Institute

    The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

    Michel Chossudovsky

    The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

    ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-0-9

    Year: 2015
    Pages: 240 Pages
    Price: $9.40

    Click here to order.
    Related Articles from our Archives


    https://www.globalresearch.ca/pre-emptive-nuclear-war-the-role-of-israel-in-triggering-an-attack-on-iran/5840256


    https://telegra.ph/Nuclear-war-03-10
    Pre-emptive Nuclear War: The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran Chapter III of "The Globalization of War" by Michel Chossudovsky Firmly All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name. To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. Author’s Introduction and Update In a recent article entitled “A Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran is Contemplated” I focussed on how Israel’s criminal attack on the People of Palestine could evolve towards an extended Middle East War. At the time of writing, US-NATO war ships –including two aircraft carriers, combat planes, not to mention a nuclear submarine– are deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea, all of which are intended to confront what both Western politicians and the media casually describe as “Palestine’s Aggression against the Jewish State”. “Israel ranks” as “the 4th strongest military” after Russia, the U.S and China. Ask yourself: Why on earth would Israel need the support of U.S. aircraft carriers to lead a genocide against the Palestinians who are fighting for their lives with limited military capabilities. Is the U.S. intent upon triggering a broader war? “U.S. Warns Hezbollah, Iran. It Will intervene if they Escalate” Who is “Escalating”? The Pentagon has already intimated that it will attack Iran and Lebanon, “If they Escalate”. Is the Pentagon Seeking to Trigger one or more “False Flags”? Times of Israel, November 9, 2023 Also of significance (less than 4 months prior to October 7, 2023) is the adoption on June 27, 2023 of the US Congress Resolution (H. RES. 559) which Accuses Iran of Possessing Nuclear Weapons. H.RES 559 allows the use of force against Iran, intimating that Iran has Nuclear Weapons. Whereas Iran is tagged (without a shred of evidence) as a Nuclear Power by the U.S. Congress, Washington fails to acknowledge that Israel is an undeclared nuclear power. The article below was first published in my book entitled “The Globalization of War. America’s Long War against Humanity” (2015). I remain indebted to the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad who took the initiative of launching my book in Kuala Lumpur. (image right). Firmly committed to “the criminalization of war”, Tun Mahathir is a powerful voice in support of Palestine. The article below (Chapter III of “Globalization of War”) provides analysis in a historical perspective of U.S. war plans directed against Iran. Numerous “war theater scenarios” for an all-out attack on Iran have been contemplated. Dangerous Crossroads in our History The current and ongoing US-NATO military deployment in The Middle East — casually presented by the media as a means to coming to the rescue of Israel– is the pinnacle of U.S. war preparations extending over a period of more than 20 years. Contemplated by the Pentagon in 2005 was a scenario whereby an attack by Israel would be conducted on behalf of Washington: “An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger mechanism” which would unleash an all-out war against Iran, as well as retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.” (quoted from text below) At the outset of Bush’s second term “Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the “rogue enemies” of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us” (Ibid) The article also focusses on the dangers of a US-Israel nuclear attack against Iran which has been contemplated by the Pentagon since 2004. The US Israel “Partnership”: “Signed” Military Agreement Amply documented, the U.S. Military and Intelligence apparatus is firmly behind Israel’s genocide. In the words of Lt General Richard Clark: Americans Troops are “prepared to die for the Jewish State”. What should be understood by this statement is that the US and Israel have a longstanding Military “Partnership” as well as (Jerusalem Post) a “Signed” Military Agreement (classified) regarding Israel’s attack on Gaza. Lt. General Richard Clark is U.S. Third Air Force Commander, among the highest-ranking military officers in the U.S. Armed Forces. While he refers to Juniper Cobra, “a joint military exercise that has been conducted for almost a decade”, his statement points to a much broader “signed” military-intelligence agreement (classified) with Israel which no doubt includes the extension of the Israeli-US bombing of Gaza to the broader Middle East. While this so-called “signed” military agreement remains classified (not in the public domain), it would appear that Biden is obeying the orders of the perpetrators of this diabolical military agenda. Does President Biden have the authority (under this “Signed” Agreement with Israel) to save the lives of innocent civilians including the children of Palestine: Q (Inaudible) Gaza ceasefire, Mr. President? THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me? Q What are the chances of a Gaza ceasefire? THE PRESIDENT: None. No possibility. White House Press Conference, November 9, 2023 Lt. General Clark confirms that: “U.S. troops could be put under Israeli commanders in the battlefield”, which suggests that the genocide is implemented by Netanyahu on behalf of the United States. Everything indicates that the US military and intelligence apparatus are behind Israel’s criminal bombing and invasion of Gaza. We stand firmly in Solidarity with Palestine and the People of the Middle East. It is my intent and sincere hope that my writings (including the text below) will contribute to “Revealing the Truth” as well “Reversing the Tide of Global Warfare”. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 17, 2023, March 10, 2024 Pre-emptive Nuclear War: The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran by Michel Chossudovsky Introduction While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.” The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the U.S. in liaison with NATO and Israel. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. U.S. military sources intimated at the time that an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the U.S. “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003: American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.1 “Theater Iran Near Term” (TIRANNT) Code named by U.S. military planners as TIRANNT, “Theater Iran Near Term”, simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 “when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran.”2 The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg: The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “Theater Iran Near Term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations” against Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form. … Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.3 Different “theater scenarios” for an all-out attack on Iran had been contemplated: The U.S. army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for “Operation Iranian Freedom”. Admiral Fallon, the new head of U.S. Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).4 In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Dick Cheney instructed U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) to draw up a “contingency plan” of a large scale military operation 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 plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state: The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than four hundred fifty major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program develop- ment 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 ter- rorism 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 dam- age his career by posing any objections.5 The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran” The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of military planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clinton administration (1995), U.S. Central Command (U.S.CENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategic objective: The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. U.S.CENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.6 The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries: [The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.6 (For further details, see Chapter I) The Role of Israel There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack against Iran. Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does not have a separate and distinct military agenda. Israel is integrated into the “war plan for major combat operations” against Iran formulated in 2006 by U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM). In the context of large scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require a “green light” from Washington. An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger mechanism” which would unleash an all-out war against Iran, as well as retaliation by Iran directed against Israel. In this regard, there are indications going back to the Bush administration that Washington had indeed contemplated the option of an initial (U.S. backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright U.S.-led military operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack –although led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO– would have been presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then have been used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World opinion, a military intervention of the U.S. and NATO with a view to “defending Israel”, rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military cooperation agreements, both the U.S. and NATO would be “obligated” to “defend Israel” against Iran and Syria. It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush’s second term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the “rogue enemies” of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without U.S. military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it.”8 According to Cheney: One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked. …Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.9 Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America’s behalf and “do it” for us: Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.10 What we are dealing with is a process of joint U.S.-NATO-Israel military planning. An operation to bomb Iran has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be planned and coordinated at the highest levels of the U.S. led coalition. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice President Dick Cheney discuss a vision of peace for Israel and Palestine as they conduct a press briefing in Jerusalem, Israel, March 19, 2002. Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice President Dick Cheney discuss a vision of peace for Israel and Palestine as they conduct a press briefing in Jerusalem, Israel, March 19, 2002. “It is our hope that the current violence and terrorism will be replaced by reconciliation and the rebuilding of mutual trust,” said the Vice President. (Source) An attack by Israel against Iran would also require coordinated U.S.-NATO logistical support, particularly with regard to Israel’s air defense system, which since January 2009 is fully integrated into that of the U.S. and NATO.11 Israel’s X band radar system established in early 2009 with U.S. technical support has “integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-based] detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.”12 What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The U.S. rather than Israel controls the air defense system: This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. ‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.13 The U.S. military oversees Israel’s Air Defense system, which is integrated into the Pentagon’s global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington’s consent. Hence the importance of the so-called “Green Light” legislation in the U.S. Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, which explicitly supported an Israeli attack on Iran: The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force.” … “We’ve got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area”.14 In practice, the proposed legislation serves as a “Green Light” to the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a U.S. sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also serves as a justification to wage war with a view to defending Israel. In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in response to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to understand is that a minor “incident” could be used as a pretext to spark off a major military operation against Iran. Known to U.S. military planners, Israel (rather than the U.S.A) would be the first target of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking, Israelis would be the victims of the machinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, in this regard, absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran. Global Warfare: The Role of U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed against Iran, U.S.STRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”15 What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, including the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Central Asian region would be coordinated by U.S.STRATCOM. (See Chapter I). Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the U.S. and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. This announcement was made after the conduct of military simulations pertaining to a U.S. led nuclear attack against a fictional country.16 Continuity in Relation to the Bush-Cheney Era President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed “that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran” for its non-compliance with U.S. demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program.17 The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran. Israel has also drawn up its own “secret plans” to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons: Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.18 Obama’s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea are consistent with post-9/11 U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater. Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating “Islamic terrorism” and instating Western style “democracy” in Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for “battlefield use”. They are slated to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America’s “War on Terrorism” alongside conventional weapons: Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent.19 The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (for example, B61-11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. or Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb.20 While the U.S. does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel’s Jericho III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach. Radioactive Fallout The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by U.S.-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large area of the broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region. In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas those of the U.S. and Israel are instruments of peace “harmless to the surrounding civilian population.” “The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran? Of military significance within the U.S. conventional weapons arsenal is the 21,500-pound “monster weapon” nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” The GBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized “as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed” with the the largest yield in the U.S. conventional arsenal. The MOAB was tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq war theater. According to U.S. military sources, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had advised the government of Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003 that the “mother of all bombs” was to be used against Iraq. (There were unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq). The U.S. Department of Defense already confirmed in 2009 that it intends to use the “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB is said to be ”ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran”21. The truth of the matter is that the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in significant civilian casualties. It is a conventional “killing machine” with a nuclear type mushroom cloud. The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the hefty cost of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount includes the costs of development and testing as well as integration of the MOAB bombs onto B-2 stealth bombers. This procurement is directly linked to war preparations in relation to Iran. The notification was contained in a ninety-three-page “reprograming memo” which included the following instructions: “The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOAB [Mother of All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need].” It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).23 The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran’s infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive capacity. The MOP is described as “a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb–longer than eleven persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder or more than twenty feet base to nose”.24 These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden objective of the MOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to casually describe the MOAB (“Mother of all Bombs”), is “mass destruction” and mass civilian casualties with a view to instilling fear and despair. State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies” The process of U.S. military decision making in relation to Iran is supported by Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications and information systems. Given the advances in military technology and the development of new weapons systems, an attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms of the mix of weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitzkrieg launched against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanced weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new weapons systems will be tested. The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the U.S. military in terms of large scale theater wars, to be waged simultaneously in different regions of the World: “Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”. (See Chapter I) This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a single imperial superpower. The PNAC document also called for the transformation of U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”, namely the implementation of “war made possible through new technologies”.25 The latter consists in developing and perfecting a state of the art global killing machine based on an arsenal of sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replace the existing paradigms. Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs –tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example– that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come.26 The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial break-point, with new space-based weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an enemy which has significant conventional military capabilities including more than half a million ground forces. Electromagnetic Weapons Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran’s communications systems, disable electric power generation, undermine and destabilize command and control, government infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc. Within the same family of weapons, environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare) developed under the HAARP program could also be applied.27 These weapons systems are fully operational. In this context, the U.S. Air Force document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledged the military applications of weather modification technologies: Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally. … It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in U.S., or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power.28 Electromagnetic radiation enabling “remote health impairment” might also be envisaged in the war theater.29 In turn, new uses of biological weapons by the U.S. military might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: “[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”30 Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long-range Missiles Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States. Hence the emphasis by the U.S.-NATO Israel alliance on the use of nuclear weapons, which are slated to be used either pre-emptively or in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack. In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles two were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert, “the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess.”31 Israel acknowledged that “the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach”.32 According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel’s anti-ballistic missile program, “the intensity of the military exercise was unprecedented… It was meant to make an impression – and it made an impression.”33 The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the U.S. and Israel, did not in any way modify U.S.-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage war on Iran. Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it is attacked. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile attacks as confirmed by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel’s air defense system is therefore crucial. U.S. and allied military facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq could also be targeted by Iran. Iran’s Ground Forces While Iran is encircled by U.S. and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic has significant military capabilities. What is important to acknowledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, navy, air force) when compared to U.S. and NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Confronted with a well-organized insurgency, coalition forces are already overstretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces be able to cope if Iranian ground forces were to enter the existing battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the Resistance movement to U.S. and allied occupation would inevitably be affected. Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists.34 There are 18,000 personnel in Iran’s Navy and 52,000 in the Air Force. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special Forces).” According to the CISS, Iran’s Basij paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Revolu- tionary Guards “has an estimated 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be”35, In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and several million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside Iraq. U.S. Military and Allied Facilities Surrounding Iran For several years now, Iran has been conducting its own war drills and exercises. While its Air Force has weaknesses, its intermediate and long-range missiles are fully operational. Iran’s military is in a state of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are currently within a few kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, and within proximity of Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf within proximity of U.S. and allied military facilities in the United Arab Emirates. It is worth noting that in response to Iran’s military build-up, the U.S. has been transferring large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. While Iran’s advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the U.S. and NATO, Iranian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial losses to coalition forces in a conventional war theater, on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops and tanks in December 2009 crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or challenged by allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the East Maysan oil field. Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran’s military facilities, its communications systems etc., through massive aerial bombing, using cruise missiles, conventional bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons, a war with Iran, once initiated, could eventually lead into a ground war. This is something which U.S. military planners have no doubt contemplated in their simulated war scenarios. An operation of this nature would result in significant military and civilian casualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used. Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan. In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into a World War III scenario, extending beyond the Middle-East – Central Asian region. In a very real sense, this military project, which has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board for more than ten years, threatens the future of humanity. Our focus in this chapter has been on war preparations. The fact that war preparations are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply that these war plans will be carried out. The U.S.-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that the enemy has significant capabilities to respond and retaliate. This factor in itself has been crucial in the decision by the U.S. and its allies to postpone an attack on Iran. Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances. Whereas NATO has become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which constitutes an alliance between Russia and China and a number of former Soviet Republics has been significantly weakened. The ongoing U.S. military threats directed against China and Russia are intended to weaken the SCO and discourage any form of military action on the part of Iran’s allies in the case of a U.S. NATO Israeli attack. Video Interview: Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux November 2023 Interview Notes 1. See Target Iran – Air Strikes, Globalsecurity.org, undated. 2. William Arkin, Washington Post, April 16, 2006. 3. Ibid. 4. New Statesman, February 19, 2007. 5. Philip Giraldi, Deep Background,The American Conservative August 2005. 6. U.S.CENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#U.S.Policy, link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9. 7. General Wesley Clark, for further details see Chapter I. 8. See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned U.S.-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005. 9. Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005. 10. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski. 11. Michel Chossudovsky, Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the U.S. and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War? Global Research, January 11, 2009. 12. Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009. 13. Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009. 14. Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen Threatens Iran; U.S.-Israel versus Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global Research, August 10, 2010. 15. Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006. 16. David Ruppe, Pre-emptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Ca- pability, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005. 17. U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat – IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010. 18. Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran – Times Online, January 7, 2007. 19. Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds, Defense News, November 29, 2004. 20. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Tactical Nuclear Weapons” against Afghanistan?, Global Research, December 5, 2001. See also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris. 21. Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009. 22. Ibid. 23. ABC News, op cit, emphasis added. To consult the reprogramming request (pdf) click here. 24. See Edwin Black, “Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Use Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs”, Cutting Edge, September 21, 2009. 25. See Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf. 26. Ibid, emphasis added. 27. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004. 28. Air Force 2025 Final Report, See also U.S. Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, AF2025 v3c15-1. 29. See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004. 30. Project for a New American Century, op cit., p. 60. 31. See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran’s “Power of Deterrence” Global Research, November 5, 2006. 32. Debka, November 5, 2006. 33. www.cnsnews.com November 3, 2006. 34. See Islamic Republic of Iran Army – Wikipedia. Featured image is from The Libertarian Institute The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity Michel Chossudovsky The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states. ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-0-9 Year: 2015 Pages: 240 Pages Price: $9.40 Click here to order. Related Articles from our Archives https://www.globalresearch.ca/pre-emptive-nuclear-war-the-role-of-israel-in-triggering-an-attack-on-iran/5840256 https://telegra.ph/Nuclear-war-03-10
    WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA
    Pre-emptive Nuclear War: The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran
    Firmly All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name. To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and …
    Love
    Angry
    2
    0 Comments 0 Shares 95706 Views
  • Explore this fully customizable succession planning roadmap PowerPoint template to provide a framework for human resource leaders. It helps to create a succession plan that aligns talent management with the company vision and guarantees the employees that the company will provide them with development opportunities to get success in the future.
    Download: https://bit.ly/3BTTrXH
    Watch Now: https://youtu.be/EHM_QZu06lM
    #SuccessionPlanning #successionplan #roadmap #powerpointtemplate #PowerPointslides #powerpointpresentation #powerpointtemplates #Powerpointdesign #Pptslides #pptdesign #pptpresentation #presentation #presentationdesign #kridhagraphics
    Explore this fully customizable succession planning roadmap PowerPoint template to provide a framework for human resource leaders. It helps to create a succession plan that aligns talent management with the company vision and guarantees the employees that the company will provide them with development opportunities to get success in the future. Download: https://bit.ly/3BTTrXH Watch Now: https://youtu.be/EHM_QZu06lM #SuccessionPlanning #successionplan #roadmap #powerpointtemplate #PowerPointslides #powerpointpresentation #powerpointtemplates #Powerpointdesign #Pptslides #pptdesign #pptpresentation #presentation #presentationdesign #kridhagraphics
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2736 Views
  • Use this fully customizable succession planning timelines PowerPoint template to make a strategic plan for identifying and developing future leaders at your company. You can also use this PPT template to identify employees with unique abilities and skills to move them to higher executive roles.
    Download: https://bit.ly/3E5iwla
    Watch Now: https://youtu.be/GxMmgal6lOQ
    #successionplan #SuccessionPlanning #Timeline #kridhagraphics #timelines #powerpointtemplate #PowerPointslides #powerpointtemplates #powerpointpresentation #slides #PPT #Pptslides #pptpresentation #kridhagraphics #presentation #presentationdesign
    Use this fully customizable succession planning timelines PowerPoint template to make a strategic plan for identifying and developing future leaders at your company. You can also use this PPT template to identify employees with unique abilities and skills to move them to higher executive roles. Download: https://bit.ly/3E5iwla Watch Now: https://youtu.be/GxMmgal6lOQ #successionplan #SuccessionPlanning #Timeline #kridhagraphics #timelines #powerpointtemplate #PowerPointslides #powerpointtemplates #powerpointpresentation #slides #PPT #Pptslides #pptpresentation #kridhagraphics #presentation #presentationdesign
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2342 Views
  • Alexander Dugin: My Vision For The New World Order, And Gaza War – Alexander Dugin
    Kolozeg27/10/2023
    Posted on : 09/11/2023
    Alexander Dugin: My Vision For The New World Order, And Gaza War – Alexander Dugin
    New civilisations are on the rise, including Chinese, Islamic, Indian, African, and Latin American. Russia sees them as potential allies and partners in a genuine and equitable multipolar order, says Aleksandr Dugin.

    The current global order appears to be in a state of transition. What we are witnessing is a shift away from a unipolar world, which emerged following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Soviet bloc, towards a multipolar world.

    The foundations of this multipolar world are becoming increasingly evident, with key players including Russia, China, the Islamic world, India, and potentially Africa and Latin America. These entities represent distinct civilisations, many of which are united within the BRICS group.

    Notably, after the 2023 Johannesburg summit, this group expanded to include significant countries from the Islamic world, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt, as well as Ethiopia, bolstering the African perspective, and Argentina, further solidifying the presence of South American nations.



    Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud attends a meeting during the 2023 BRICS Summit at the Sandton Convention Centre in Johannesburg Thursday, Aug. 24, 2023.

    This expansion underscores the growing influence of the multipolar world order while signalling a weakening of Western hegemony.

    The US and the West’s determination to preserve unilateral dominance

    The United States and Western powers are resolutely clinging to the concept of unilateralism. At the forefront of global leadership, the United States, in particular, is determined to maintain its dominance across military, political, economic, cultural, and ideological realms. This ongoing pursuit of unipolarity stands as the central contradiction of our era, marked by the intensifying struggle between unipolarity and multipolarity.

    Within this context, it is imperative to examine the key conflicts and developments in global politics, notably the efforts to undermine Russia as it reasserts its sovereignty and presence as an independent pole. This dynamic helps elucidate the persistent conflict in Ukraine.

    The Western world’s support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is driven, in large part, by the desire to prevent Russia from reemerging as an autonomous global actor—an aspiration championed by President Vladimir Putin throughout his tenure.

    Putin has bolstered the political sovereignty of the Russian Federation and progressively emphasised Russia’s status as an independent civilisation that not only opposes Western hegemony but also rejects its value system.

    Russia has unambiguously affirmed its commitment to traditional values while firmly rebuffing Western liberalism, including its promotion of the gay rights agenda and other Western ideological standards, which Russia perceives as aberrations and deviations.

    In response, the West actively supported the 2014 coup in Kyiv, provided extensive military aid to Ukraine, fostered the dissemination of neo-Nazi ideology within the country, and provoked Russia into initiating an extraordinary military operation.

    Without Putin’s intervention, Kyiv would likely have taken similar actions independently, leading to the opening of the first front in the fierce struggle between multipolarity and unipolarity in Ukraine.

    Simultaneously, Russia, under Putin’s leadership, recognises that it cannot be one of just two poles in this world, as was the case during the Soviet Union era.

    New civilisations are on the rise, including Chinese, Islamic, Indian, African, and Latin American. Russia sees them as potential allies and partners in a genuine and equitable multipolar order—a perspective not yet widely acknowledged by the rest of the world.



    Burkina Faso’s Capt. Ibrahim Traore, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands before an official ceremony to welcome the leaders of delegations to the Russia Africa Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, July 27, 2023

    However, there is a gradual and strengthening awareness of the concept of multipolarity, exemplified by the situation regarding Taiwan, which has been spared from becoming the next flashpoint in the confrontation between unipolarity and multipolarity, particularly in the Pacific region.

    New civilisations are on the rise, including Chinese, Islamic, Indian, African, and Latin American. Russia sees them as potential allies and partners in a genuine and equitable multipolar order—a perspective not yet widely acknowledged by the rest of the world.

    Israel’s war on Gaza points to broader confrontation

    The events in Israel and the Gaza Strip are closely linked to this issue. Two tragic incidents occurred in rapid succession. Firstly, there was a Hamas attack on Israel, resulting in a significant number of civilian casualties and the abduction of hostages.

    Subsequently, Israel launched retaliatory strikes on the Gaza Strip, characterised by a high degree of brutality and a substantial number of civilian casualties, especially among women and children. These actions unequivocally constitute violations of human rights and crimes against humanity, and they lack any justifiable rationale.

    But at the same time, Israel’s application of the principles of “lex talionis” (a principle that developed at the beginning of Babylonian law and stipulated that a punishment inflicted should correspond in degree and kind to the offence of the wrongdoer, as an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) resulted in what is described as a widespread genocide and brutal living conditions for Gaza residents.

    Both Hamas’s attack and Israel’s response are characterised as actions outside the framework of accepted humanitarian methods to resolve political conflicts.

    Subsequently, the geopolitical landscape comes into play, and while the magnitude of Israel’s actions is significantly larger, the evaluation of the situation in the Gaza Strip is not solely contingent on that; rather, it hinges on underlying geopolitical trends.

    The events in Israel, including the Hamas attack and Israel’s response, have led to a broader confrontation between the West and the Islamic world. This confrontation stems from what is seen as unconditional and unilateral support for Israel despite the explicit nature of the crimes committed against the civilian population in Gaza.

    The Islamic world is portrayed as a distinct pole facing Israel’s actions in Gaza and the broader Palestinian territories while considering the injustices faced by Palestinians who were displaced from their land to live in poor and isolated areas.



    People gather around a huge Palestinian flag during a protest against Israel in Istanbul on October 20, 2023.

    The unity of the Islamic world has become undeniable, with the Palestinian issue serving as a unifying force that brings together Sunnis, Shiites, Turks, and Iranians, as well as factions involved in internal conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Libya.

    This matter holds direct relevance for countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh.

    Furthermore, Muslims residing in the United States of America, Europe, Russia, and Africa cannot remain indifferent. Notably, despite their political disparities, Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and the Jordan River region are joined in a collective effort to safeguard their dignity.

    The unity of the Islamic world has become undeniable, with the Palestinian issue serving as a unifying force that brings together Sunnis, Shiites, Turks, and Iranians, as well as factions involved in internal conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Libya.

    The Palestinian cause and the United States

    In recent decades, the United States has been successful in preventing Muslims from uniting around the Palestinian issue and encouraging them to normalise relations with Israel.

    But such attempts are no longer successful. All these efforts have proven futile in recent weeks as the unequivocal support for Israel continues. Israel’s mass slaughter of civilians in Gaza, witnessed by the entire global community, is compelling the Islamic world to set aside internal differences and contemplate direct confrontation with the West.

    Israel, much like Ukraine, serves as nothing more than an instrument of the overbearing and ruthless Western hegemony. It does not shy away from criminal deeds or racist rhetoric and actions.

    However, the root of the problem lies not in Israel itself but rather in its role as a geopolitical tool within the framework of a unipolar world. This aligns precisely with what President Vladimir Putin recently articulated when he referred to the web of hostility and conflicts being woven by “spiders,” a metaphor for globalists employing colonialist tactics based on the “divide and rule” principle.

    To effectively counter those desperately striving to preserve the unipolar world and Western dominance, it is crucial to comprehend the essence of their strategy. Armed with this understanding, we can consciously construct an alternative model to confront this agenda, move forward confidently and unite towards establishing a multipolar world.

    The ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip and Palestine as a whole poses a direct challenge not only to specific groups or even Arabs in general but to the entire Islamic world and Islamic civilisation. It’s increasingly evident that the West has engaged in a confrontation with Islam itself, a reality now acknowledged by many.

    Collective need to defend Muslim nations from mistreatement

    From nations such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan to regions spanning Tunisia to Bahrain, from Salafists to Sunnis and Sufis, and encompassing various political factions within Palestine, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, as well as the division between Shiites and Sunnis, there is a collective need to defend the dignity of Islamic civilisation. It asserts itself as a sovereign, independent civilisation that rejects any mistreatment.

    Erdogan’s mention of jihad as a response to the conflict serves as a reminder of the historical Crusades, yet this analogy doesn’t fully capture the essence of the present situation. Modern Western globalisation has diverged significantly from Christian civilisation, having severed many connections with Christian culture in favour of materialism, atheism, and individualism.

    Christianity has little to do with the material sciences or the socio-economic system primarily driven by profit, and it certainly doesn’t endorse the legalisation of deviations or the embrace of pathology as the norm, nor the inclination towards a post-human existence—a concept enthusiastically promoted by Israeli post-humanist philosopher Yuval Harari.

    The West, in its contemporary form, represents an anti-Christian phenomenon, lacking any connection to the values of Christianity or the embrace of the Christian cross. It’s essential to recognise that when the Islamic world clashes with the West, it is not engaging in a conflict with the civilisation of Christ but rather with an anti-Christian civilisation, which can be termed the civilisation of the Antichrist.

    Russia, as a significant global player, is actively engaged in a war with the West on the soil of Ukraine.



    Russian recruits take a train at a railway station in Prudboi, in Russia’s Volgograd region, Thursday, Sept. 29, 2022. President Vladimir Putin announced a partial mobilization, the first since World War II, amid the war in Ukraine.

    Unfortunately, due to the influence of Western propaganda, many Islamic countries have not fully grasped the underlying reasons, objectives, and nature of this conflict, often perceiving it as a mere regional dispute. However, as globalisation directly impacts Muslims worldwide, Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine takes on a vastly different significance.

    Ultimately, it signifies a clash between a multipolar world and a unipolar one, i.e., this war serves the interests not only of Russia as a global pole but indirectly, or even directly, of all such poles. China is well-equipped to comprehend this, and within the Islamic world, Iran is among those that can grasp this perspective.

    Notably, geopolitical awareness has been rapidly on the rise in other Islamic societies, including in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia. This has led to initiatives like the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran and Turkey’s pursuit of a sovereign policy.

    Israel’s mass slaughter of civilians in Gaza, witnessed by the entire global community, is compelling the Islamic world to set aside internal differences and contemplate direct confrontation with the West.

    Russian motives and spectre of WWIII

    As the Islamic world increasingly recognises itself as a prominent pole and a unified civilisation, the motives behind Russian actions become more apparent and understandable.

    President Vladimir Putin has already gained international renown and enjoys significant popularity worldwide, particularly in non-Western countries. This popularity lends precise meaning and clear justification to his strategic decisions.

    In essence, Russia is vigorously combating unipolarity, which translates to a broader struggle against globalisation and the Western hegemonic influence. Today, we witness the West, often seen as operating through its proxy, Israel, targeting the Islamic world and subjecting Palestinians to genocide.



    A Palestinian carries the body of a child killed in an Israeli raid on the Jabalia Palestinian refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, on November 1.

    This means that the moment of Islam is coming amid this war between Muslims and Western hegemony that could erupt at any moment. Drawing from my knowledge of the Israelis, there is no doubt that they will not stop until they eliminate the Palestinians.

    “The war now appears to be truly comprehensive on a board scale.” In this case, first and foremost, the Islamic world has objective allies, such as Russia as well as China, which has the Taiwan problem to solve soon. Additional fronts will probably gradually emerge over time.

    The question that arises here is whether this could lead to the outbreak of a third world war. It appears highly likely, and in a sense, it is already underway.

    For the war to escalate globally, a critical mass of unresolved contradictions necessitating military resolution is imperative. This condition has been met. The Western powers exhibit no inclination to surrender their dominion voluntarily, and the new poles, emerging independent civilisations, and extensive regions no longer wish to accept this dominance and tolerate it.

    Moreover, the failure of the United States and the broader collective West to be the leaders of humanity without abandoning policies that incite and fuel new conflicts and wars has been proven.

    The inevitable war must be won.

    Today, we witness the West, often seen as operating through its proxy, Israel, targeting the Islamic world and subjecting Palestinian Arabs to genocide. This means that the moment of Islam is coming, amid this war between Muslims and Western hegemony that could erupt at any moment.

    Trump v Biden

    Ultimately, what role does former US President Donald Trump play in the escalating confrontations between Islam and the West? President Joe Biden staunchly advocates for globalisation, opposes Russia, and fervently supports unipolarity.

    This precisely explains his unwavering backing of the new Nazi regime in Kyiv and his complete exoneration of Israel from its actions, including direct genocide.

    Trump’s position, however, is different. He embodies a classic nationalist perspective, prioritising the interests of the United States as a nation over hasty plans for global dominance.

    Concerning relations with Russia, Trump displays indifference, focusing more on matters of trade and economic competition with China. Nonetheless, he is concurrently subject to and wholly influenced by the potent Zionist lobby within the United States.



    Trump and Biden

    Therefore, the imminent war between the West and Islam should not be met with complacency, not only from the Western perspective but also from Republicans at large.

    In this context, if Trump were to reassume the presidency, it could potentially diminish support for Ukraine, a crucial concern for Russia. However, he might adopt an even more stringent approach towards Muslims and Palestinians, conceivably surpassing the severity of Biden’s policies.

    Realism is imperative, and we must prepare for a challenging, serious, and protracted conflict on the horizon.

    It is important to realise that this is not a religious conflict but rather a materialistic, atheistic imposter’s war against all traditional religions. This means that the moment for the ultimate battle might be upon us.

    Biden staunchly advocates for globalisation, opposes Russia, and fervently supports unipolarity. Trump’s position, however, is different. He embodies a classic nationalist perspective, prioritising the interests of the United States as a nation over hasty plans for global dominance.

    Spectre of nuclear war and death of unipolar system

    Is the imminent conflict moving toward a nuclear war? This prospect cannot be dismissed, especially considering the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons.

    It is improbable that nations possessing strategic nuclear capabilities, such as Russia and NATO countries, would resort to their use, given the catastrophic implications for humanity.

    However, considering the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, Pakistan, and possibly Iran, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they could be utilised in localised contexts.

    What will the configuration of the world order during this impending confrontation be like?

    There is no ready answer to such a question. However, one thing can be definitively ruled out, and that is the establishment of a robust, stable, and unipolar global system — a concept fervently championed by proponents of globalisation.

    Regardless of the specific circumstances, a unipolar world is an impossibility. The world will either be multipolar or non-existent. The stronger the West’s resolve to uphold its dominance, the fiercer the ensuing battle is likely to be, potentially escalating into a third world war.

    Multipolarity will not transpire spontaneously. Now, there is a crucial process of reassembly underway within the Islamic world. If Muslims can unify against a shared formidable adversary, the rise of an Islamic power pole becomes viable.

    In my view, the reinstatement of Baghdad and its pivotal role in Iraq could present an ideal resolution. Iraq serves as the convergence point for various major strands of Islamic civilisation, including Arabs, Sunnis, Shiites, Sufis, Salafis, Indo-Europeans, Kurds, and Turks. Baghdad, in particular, has historically been a hub where sciences, religious education, philosophy, and spiritual movements thrived.

    Nevertheless, this proposition remains speculative. Nonetheless, it is evident that the Islamic world will require a unifying foundation or common ground.

    Baghdad could potentially serve as this platform or as the balance point. However, for this vision to materialise, Iraq must first be liberated from the presence of American forces.



    US soldiers play American football before leaving Camp Adder on the outskirts of the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah on December 17, 2011, marking the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

    It appears that each power pole must affirm its right to existence through conflict. Russia, upon securing victory in Ukraine, will become a fully sovereign pole. Similarly, once the Taiwan issue is resolved, China will establish itself as a significant pole.

    The Islamic world, meanwhile, insists on a fair resolution to the Palestinian problem.

    The developments will not halt there; eventually, the roles of India, Africa, and Latin America, which are currently increasingly facing the new forces of colonisation, will also become significant.

    Consequently, all the poles in the multipolar world will have to navigate their unique challenges and trials.

    Eventually, the roles of India, Africa, and Latin America, which are currently increasingly facing the new forces of colonisation, will also become significant. Consequently, all the poles in the multipolar world will have to navigate their unique challenges and trials.

    Multipolarism is probable

    Afterwards, we may witness a partial return to the global order that prevailed before Christopher Columbus, where various empires coexisted alongside Western Europe.

    These empires included the Chinese, Indian, Russian, Ottoman, and Persian, along with robust independent states in South Asia, Africa, Latin America, and even Oceania. Each of these entities had its distinct political and social systems, which Europeans later equated with barbarism and savagery.

    Consequently, multipolarism is entirely plausible, which was the case for humanity before the emergence of Western global imperial politics in the modern era.

    This does not imply an immediate establishment of global peace; however, such a multipolar world system would inherently be more just and balanced.

    All conflicts would be approached based on a fair and collective stance, in which humanity would be protected from racial injustices akin to those witnessed in Nazi Germany, contemporary Israel, or the aggressive dominance of the global West.

    Source: https://en.majalla.com

    *Translated and coordinated by Ramia Yahia

    Read More
    Alexander Dugin: My Vision For The New World Order, And Gaza War – Alexander Dugin Kolozeg27/10/2023 Posted on : 09/11/2023 Alexander Dugin: My Vision For The New World Order, And Gaza War – Alexander Dugin New civilisations are on the rise, including Chinese, Islamic, Indian, African, and Latin American. Russia sees them as potential allies and partners in a genuine and equitable multipolar order, says Aleksandr Dugin. The current global order appears to be in a state of transition. What we are witnessing is a shift away from a unipolar world, which emerged following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Soviet bloc, towards a multipolar world. The foundations of this multipolar world are becoming increasingly evident, with key players including Russia, China, the Islamic world, India, and potentially Africa and Latin America. These entities represent distinct civilisations, many of which are united within the BRICS group. Notably, after the 2023 Johannesburg summit, this group expanded to include significant countries from the Islamic world, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt, as well as Ethiopia, bolstering the African perspective, and Argentina, further solidifying the presence of South American nations. Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud attends a meeting during the 2023 BRICS Summit at the Sandton Convention Centre in Johannesburg Thursday, Aug. 24, 2023. This expansion underscores the growing influence of the multipolar world order while signalling a weakening of Western hegemony. The US and the West’s determination to preserve unilateral dominance The United States and Western powers are resolutely clinging to the concept of unilateralism. At the forefront of global leadership, the United States, in particular, is determined to maintain its dominance across military, political, economic, cultural, and ideological realms. This ongoing pursuit of unipolarity stands as the central contradiction of our era, marked by the intensifying struggle between unipolarity and multipolarity. Within this context, it is imperative to examine the key conflicts and developments in global politics, notably the efforts to undermine Russia as it reasserts its sovereignty and presence as an independent pole. This dynamic helps elucidate the persistent conflict in Ukraine. The Western world’s support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is driven, in large part, by the desire to prevent Russia from reemerging as an autonomous global actor—an aspiration championed by President Vladimir Putin throughout his tenure. Putin has bolstered the political sovereignty of the Russian Federation and progressively emphasised Russia’s status as an independent civilisation that not only opposes Western hegemony but also rejects its value system. Russia has unambiguously affirmed its commitment to traditional values while firmly rebuffing Western liberalism, including its promotion of the gay rights agenda and other Western ideological standards, which Russia perceives as aberrations and deviations. In response, the West actively supported the 2014 coup in Kyiv, provided extensive military aid to Ukraine, fostered the dissemination of neo-Nazi ideology within the country, and provoked Russia into initiating an extraordinary military operation. Without Putin’s intervention, Kyiv would likely have taken similar actions independently, leading to the opening of the first front in the fierce struggle between multipolarity and unipolarity in Ukraine. Simultaneously, Russia, under Putin’s leadership, recognises that it cannot be one of just two poles in this world, as was the case during the Soviet Union era. New civilisations are on the rise, including Chinese, Islamic, Indian, African, and Latin American. Russia sees them as potential allies and partners in a genuine and equitable multipolar order—a perspective not yet widely acknowledged by the rest of the world. Burkina Faso’s Capt. Ibrahim Traore, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands before an official ceremony to welcome the leaders of delegations to the Russia Africa Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, July 27, 2023 However, there is a gradual and strengthening awareness of the concept of multipolarity, exemplified by the situation regarding Taiwan, which has been spared from becoming the next flashpoint in the confrontation between unipolarity and multipolarity, particularly in the Pacific region. New civilisations are on the rise, including Chinese, Islamic, Indian, African, and Latin American. Russia sees them as potential allies and partners in a genuine and equitable multipolar order—a perspective not yet widely acknowledged by the rest of the world. Israel’s war on Gaza points to broader confrontation The events in Israel and the Gaza Strip are closely linked to this issue. Two tragic incidents occurred in rapid succession. Firstly, there was a Hamas attack on Israel, resulting in a significant number of civilian casualties and the abduction of hostages. Subsequently, Israel launched retaliatory strikes on the Gaza Strip, characterised by a high degree of brutality and a substantial number of civilian casualties, especially among women and children. These actions unequivocally constitute violations of human rights and crimes against humanity, and they lack any justifiable rationale. But at the same time, Israel’s application of the principles of “lex talionis” (a principle that developed at the beginning of Babylonian law and stipulated that a punishment inflicted should correspond in degree and kind to the offence of the wrongdoer, as an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) resulted in what is described as a widespread genocide and brutal living conditions for Gaza residents. Both Hamas’s attack and Israel’s response are characterised as actions outside the framework of accepted humanitarian methods to resolve political conflicts. Subsequently, the geopolitical landscape comes into play, and while the magnitude of Israel’s actions is significantly larger, the evaluation of the situation in the Gaza Strip is not solely contingent on that; rather, it hinges on underlying geopolitical trends. The events in Israel, including the Hamas attack and Israel’s response, have led to a broader confrontation between the West and the Islamic world. This confrontation stems from what is seen as unconditional and unilateral support for Israel despite the explicit nature of the crimes committed against the civilian population in Gaza. The Islamic world is portrayed as a distinct pole facing Israel’s actions in Gaza and the broader Palestinian territories while considering the injustices faced by Palestinians who were displaced from their land to live in poor and isolated areas. People gather around a huge Palestinian flag during a protest against Israel in Istanbul on October 20, 2023. The unity of the Islamic world has become undeniable, with the Palestinian issue serving as a unifying force that brings together Sunnis, Shiites, Turks, and Iranians, as well as factions involved in internal conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Libya. This matter holds direct relevance for countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh. Furthermore, Muslims residing in the United States of America, Europe, Russia, and Africa cannot remain indifferent. Notably, despite their political disparities, Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and the Jordan River region are joined in a collective effort to safeguard their dignity. The unity of the Islamic world has become undeniable, with the Palestinian issue serving as a unifying force that brings together Sunnis, Shiites, Turks, and Iranians, as well as factions involved in internal conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Libya. The Palestinian cause and the United States In recent decades, the United States has been successful in preventing Muslims from uniting around the Palestinian issue and encouraging them to normalise relations with Israel. But such attempts are no longer successful. All these efforts have proven futile in recent weeks as the unequivocal support for Israel continues. Israel’s mass slaughter of civilians in Gaza, witnessed by the entire global community, is compelling the Islamic world to set aside internal differences and contemplate direct confrontation with the West. Israel, much like Ukraine, serves as nothing more than an instrument of the overbearing and ruthless Western hegemony. It does not shy away from criminal deeds or racist rhetoric and actions. However, the root of the problem lies not in Israel itself but rather in its role as a geopolitical tool within the framework of a unipolar world. This aligns precisely with what President Vladimir Putin recently articulated when he referred to the web of hostility and conflicts being woven by “spiders,” a metaphor for globalists employing colonialist tactics based on the “divide and rule” principle. To effectively counter those desperately striving to preserve the unipolar world and Western dominance, it is crucial to comprehend the essence of their strategy. Armed with this understanding, we can consciously construct an alternative model to confront this agenda, move forward confidently and unite towards establishing a multipolar world. The ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip and Palestine as a whole poses a direct challenge not only to specific groups or even Arabs in general but to the entire Islamic world and Islamic civilisation. It’s increasingly evident that the West has engaged in a confrontation with Islam itself, a reality now acknowledged by many. Collective need to defend Muslim nations from mistreatement From nations such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan to regions spanning Tunisia to Bahrain, from Salafists to Sunnis and Sufis, and encompassing various political factions within Palestine, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, as well as the division between Shiites and Sunnis, there is a collective need to defend the dignity of Islamic civilisation. It asserts itself as a sovereign, independent civilisation that rejects any mistreatment. Erdogan’s mention of jihad as a response to the conflict serves as a reminder of the historical Crusades, yet this analogy doesn’t fully capture the essence of the present situation. Modern Western globalisation has diverged significantly from Christian civilisation, having severed many connections with Christian culture in favour of materialism, atheism, and individualism. Christianity has little to do with the material sciences or the socio-economic system primarily driven by profit, and it certainly doesn’t endorse the legalisation of deviations or the embrace of pathology as the norm, nor the inclination towards a post-human existence—a concept enthusiastically promoted by Israeli post-humanist philosopher Yuval Harari. The West, in its contemporary form, represents an anti-Christian phenomenon, lacking any connection to the values of Christianity or the embrace of the Christian cross. It’s essential to recognise that when the Islamic world clashes with the West, it is not engaging in a conflict with the civilisation of Christ but rather with an anti-Christian civilisation, which can be termed the civilisation of the Antichrist. Russia, as a significant global player, is actively engaged in a war with the West on the soil of Ukraine. Russian recruits take a train at a railway station in Prudboi, in Russia’s Volgograd region, Thursday, Sept. 29, 2022. President Vladimir Putin announced a partial mobilization, the first since World War II, amid the war in Ukraine. Unfortunately, due to the influence of Western propaganda, many Islamic countries have not fully grasped the underlying reasons, objectives, and nature of this conflict, often perceiving it as a mere regional dispute. However, as globalisation directly impacts Muslims worldwide, Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine takes on a vastly different significance. Ultimately, it signifies a clash between a multipolar world and a unipolar one, i.e., this war serves the interests not only of Russia as a global pole but indirectly, or even directly, of all such poles. China is well-equipped to comprehend this, and within the Islamic world, Iran is among those that can grasp this perspective. Notably, geopolitical awareness has been rapidly on the rise in other Islamic societies, including in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia. This has led to initiatives like the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran and Turkey’s pursuit of a sovereign policy. Israel’s mass slaughter of civilians in Gaza, witnessed by the entire global community, is compelling the Islamic world to set aside internal differences and contemplate direct confrontation with the West. Russian motives and spectre of WWIII As the Islamic world increasingly recognises itself as a prominent pole and a unified civilisation, the motives behind Russian actions become more apparent and understandable. President Vladimir Putin has already gained international renown and enjoys significant popularity worldwide, particularly in non-Western countries. This popularity lends precise meaning and clear justification to his strategic decisions. In essence, Russia is vigorously combating unipolarity, which translates to a broader struggle against globalisation and the Western hegemonic influence. Today, we witness the West, often seen as operating through its proxy, Israel, targeting the Islamic world and subjecting Palestinians to genocide. A Palestinian carries the body of a child killed in an Israeli raid on the Jabalia Palestinian refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, on November 1. This means that the moment of Islam is coming amid this war between Muslims and Western hegemony that could erupt at any moment. Drawing from my knowledge of the Israelis, there is no doubt that they will not stop until they eliminate the Palestinians. “The war now appears to be truly comprehensive on a board scale.” In this case, first and foremost, the Islamic world has objective allies, such as Russia as well as China, which has the Taiwan problem to solve soon. Additional fronts will probably gradually emerge over time. The question that arises here is whether this could lead to the outbreak of a third world war. It appears highly likely, and in a sense, it is already underway. For the war to escalate globally, a critical mass of unresolved contradictions necessitating military resolution is imperative. This condition has been met. The Western powers exhibit no inclination to surrender their dominion voluntarily, and the new poles, emerging independent civilisations, and extensive regions no longer wish to accept this dominance and tolerate it. Moreover, the failure of the United States and the broader collective West to be the leaders of humanity without abandoning policies that incite and fuel new conflicts and wars has been proven. The inevitable war must be won. Today, we witness the West, often seen as operating through its proxy, Israel, targeting the Islamic world and subjecting Palestinian Arabs to genocide. This means that the moment of Islam is coming, amid this war between Muslims and Western hegemony that could erupt at any moment. Trump v Biden Ultimately, what role does former US President Donald Trump play in the escalating confrontations between Islam and the West? President Joe Biden staunchly advocates for globalisation, opposes Russia, and fervently supports unipolarity. This precisely explains his unwavering backing of the new Nazi regime in Kyiv and his complete exoneration of Israel from its actions, including direct genocide. Trump’s position, however, is different. He embodies a classic nationalist perspective, prioritising the interests of the United States as a nation over hasty plans for global dominance. Concerning relations with Russia, Trump displays indifference, focusing more on matters of trade and economic competition with China. Nonetheless, he is concurrently subject to and wholly influenced by the potent Zionist lobby within the United States. Trump and Biden Therefore, the imminent war between the West and Islam should not be met with complacency, not only from the Western perspective but also from Republicans at large. In this context, if Trump were to reassume the presidency, it could potentially diminish support for Ukraine, a crucial concern for Russia. However, he might adopt an even more stringent approach towards Muslims and Palestinians, conceivably surpassing the severity of Biden’s policies. Realism is imperative, and we must prepare for a challenging, serious, and protracted conflict on the horizon. It is important to realise that this is not a religious conflict but rather a materialistic, atheistic imposter’s war against all traditional religions. This means that the moment for the ultimate battle might be upon us. Biden staunchly advocates for globalisation, opposes Russia, and fervently supports unipolarity. Trump’s position, however, is different. He embodies a classic nationalist perspective, prioritising the interests of the United States as a nation over hasty plans for global dominance. Spectre of nuclear war and death of unipolar system Is the imminent conflict moving toward a nuclear war? This prospect cannot be dismissed, especially considering the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons. It is improbable that nations possessing strategic nuclear capabilities, such as Russia and NATO countries, would resort to their use, given the catastrophic implications for humanity. However, considering the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, Pakistan, and possibly Iran, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they could be utilised in localised contexts. What will the configuration of the world order during this impending confrontation be like? There is no ready answer to such a question. However, one thing can be definitively ruled out, and that is the establishment of a robust, stable, and unipolar global system — a concept fervently championed by proponents of globalisation. Regardless of the specific circumstances, a unipolar world is an impossibility. The world will either be multipolar or non-existent. The stronger the West’s resolve to uphold its dominance, the fiercer the ensuing battle is likely to be, potentially escalating into a third world war. Multipolarity will not transpire spontaneously. Now, there is a crucial process of reassembly underway within the Islamic world. If Muslims can unify against a shared formidable adversary, the rise of an Islamic power pole becomes viable. In my view, the reinstatement of Baghdad and its pivotal role in Iraq could present an ideal resolution. Iraq serves as the convergence point for various major strands of Islamic civilisation, including Arabs, Sunnis, Shiites, Sufis, Salafis, Indo-Europeans, Kurds, and Turks. Baghdad, in particular, has historically been a hub where sciences, religious education, philosophy, and spiritual movements thrived. Nevertheless, this proposition remains speculative. Nonetheless, it is evident that the Islamic world will require a unifying foundation or common ground. Baghdad could potentially serve as this platform or as the balance point. However, for this vision to materialise, Iraq must first be liberated from the presence of American forces. US soldiers play American football before leaving Camp Adder on the outskirts of the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah on December 17, 2011, marking the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It appears that each power pole must affirm its right to existence through conflict. Russia, upon securing victory in Ukraine, will become a fully sovereign pole. Similarly, once the Taiwan issue is resolved, China will establish itself as a significant pole. The Islamic world, meanwhile, insists on a fair resolution to the Palestinian problem. The developments will not halt there; eventually, the roles of India, Africa, and Latin America, which are currently increasingly facing the new forces of colonisation, will also become significant. Consequently, all the poles in the multipolar world will have to navigate their unique challenges and trials. Eventually, the roles of India, Africa, and Latin America, which are currently increasingly facing the new forces of colonisation, will also become significant. Consequently, all the poles in the multipolar world will have to navigate their unique challenges and trials. Multipolarism is probable Afterwards, we may witness a partial return to the global order that prevailed before Christopher Columbus, where various empires coexisted alongside Western Europe. These empires included the Chinese, Indian, Russian, Ottoman, and Persian, along with robust independent states in South Asia, Africa, Latin America, and even Oceania. Each of these entities had its distinct political and social systems, which Europeans later equated with barbarism and savagery. Consequently, multipolarism is entirely plausible, which was the case for humanity before the emergence of Western global imperial politics in the modern era. This does not imply an immediate establishment of global peace; however, such a multipolar world system would inherently be more just and balanced. All conflicts would be approached based on a fair and collective stance, in which humanity would be protected from racial injustices akin to those witnessed in Nazi Germany, contemporary Israel, or the aggressive dominance of the global West. Source: https://en.majalla.com *Translated and coordinated by Ramia Yahia Read More
    0 Comments 0 Shares 20989 Views
  • Good morning!

    The most important are the little steps one takes to achieve the final goal.

    ""For the great doesn't happen through impulse alone, and is a succession of little things that are brought together." -Vincent Van Gogh
    Good morning! The most important are the little steps one takes to achieve the final goal. ""For the great doesn't happen through impulse alone, and is a succession of little things that are brought together." -Vincent Van Gogh
    Like
    6
    0 Comments 0 Shares 726 Views
  • Wildfires that spread without planning, supervision or control over wooded or wild areas, affecting plant life that is flammable, as well as other wildlife. Although the immediate causes of forest fires can be very diverse, they are all essentially the same, namely the presence of large masses of vegetation that occur simultaneously with more or less long periods of succession. Plants dehydrate as a result of solar heat loss and replace the loss
    Photo: Mike Newbry
    Wildfires that spread without planning, supervision or control over wooded or wild areas, affecting plant life that is flammable, as well as other wildlife. Although the immediate causes of forest fires can be very diverse, they are all essentially the same, namely the presence of large masses of vegetation that occur simultaneously with more or less long periods of succession. Plants dehydrate as a result of solar heat loss and replace the loss Photo: Mike Newbry
    Like
    Love
    15
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1514 Views
  • A success plan is the heart of the industry. It helps an organization support the customers and understand their needs. Without proper execution of a succession plan, you can't help out the customers. Explore this fully customizable one-page success plan PowerPoint template to create an impactful success plan.
    Watch Now: https://youtu.be/3nJTtcUX4g4
    Download: https://bit.ly/3P1v4gb
    #onepage #successplan #powerpointtemplate #powerpointpresentation #powerpointtemplates #powerpointdesign
    A success plan is the heart of the industry. It helps an organization support the customers and understand their needs. Without proper execution of a succession plan, you can't help out the customers. Explore this fully customizable one-page success plan PowerPoint template to create an impactful success plan. Watch Now: https://youtu.be/3nJTtcUX4g4 Download: https://bit.ly/3P1v4gb #onepage #successplan #powerpointtemplate #powerpointpresentation #powerpointtemplates #powerpointdesign
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1864 Views
  • The most famous celebration of my town takes place every December 28. No one knows exactly how or when it started, however, that hasn't stopped the celebration and festivities on that day. a succession of #folkloric groups interpret the same song with different lyrics from 10 am. the rhythm is so sticky that it encourages dancing, which is very simple, just line up pulling and pushing your partner in front.

    Last year was a good year, hope this will be even better. #venezuela #photography #hive-engine
    The most famous celebration of my town takes place every December 28. No one knows exactly how or when it started, however, that hasn't stopped the celebration and festivities on that day. a succession of #folkloric groups interpret the same song with different lyrics from 10 am. the rhythm is so sticky that it encourages dancing, which is very simple, just line up pulling and pushing your partner in front. Last year was a good year, hope this will be even better. #venezuela #photography #hive-engine
    Like
    3
    2 Comments 0 Shares 2948 Views
  • Reading cases about Wills and Succession is like traveling back time when jurisprudence at that time are apparently influenced by the interpretation of American courts. One thing is still relevant up to this day, property is sacred but it can be devastating as it can burn bridges.
    Reading cases about Wills and Succession is like traveling back time when jurisprudence at that time are apparently influenced by the interpretation of American courts. One thing is still relevant up to this day, property is sacred but it can be devastating as it can burn bridges.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 634 Views
  • The direction by which the media puts out bogus news and brings things up, it's no surprise, that the general public acknowledge wild frauds. That's the realistic succession of being fabricated continually. But that doesn't suggest the fraud is credible, however, it does suggest that something is most probably afoot.
    The Power That Be are getting on to hurl as much at us as they can at us because their tactics aren't functioning as it is supposed to. This is somewhat why they are stacking fear upon fear and problem upon problem. They will attempt another SHAMdemic but it will fall flat. Their best wager would be a Comprehensive Cyber Attack.
    The greater fraction of the planet has turned fully nasty and hostile. They give no pity, only verdict. I feel sad for these societies because what goes around comes around. And when it comes around, it usually comes around much more harshly. Definitely, we all harvest what we plant.
    The direction by which the media puts out bogus news and brings things up, it's no surprise, that the general public acknowledge wild frauds. That's the realistic succession of being fabricated continually. But that doesn't suggest the fraud is credible, however, it does suggest that something is most probably afoot. The Power That Be are getting on to hurl as much at us as they can at us because their tactics aren't functioning as it is supposed to. This is somewhat why they are stacking fear upon fear and problem upon problem. They will attempt another SHAMdemic but it will fall flat. Their best wager would be a Comprehensive Cyber Attack. The greater fraction of the planet has turned fully nasty and hostile. They give no pity, only verdict. I feel sad for these societies because what goes around comes around. And when it comes around, it usually comes around much more harshly. Definitely, we all harvest what we plant.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 872 Views