Does America Plan to Use Nukes against Iran?

Does America Plan to Use Nukes against Iran?




Documented in Michel Chossudovsky’s recently released book,Towards a World War III Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War, the U.S. has steadily loosened the restrictions on the use of its nuclear weapons in time of war.


Based on the fallacious notion advanced by the Pentagon that
“mini-nukes” are not dangerous to civilians, Congress in 2002 gave the
Pentagon a green light to use them in “conventional war theaters”
alongside traditional weapons. In fact, the so-called mini-nukes may
have up to six times the blast power of the atomic bomb that leveled
Hiroshima on August 6, 1945!

The Pentagon’s official Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of 2001 was
risky enough. That document created “contingency plans” for an actual
offensive “first strike use” of nuclear weapons against Iran and North
Korea as well as against Russia and China. These were adopted without
real public debate. The very notion that the U.S. would so much as
consider a “first strike” nuclear attack on another country likely would
be rejected overwhelmingly by an American public staunchly opposed to
starting any war of aggression, much less a nuclear holocaust.

The adoption by Congress of the NPR late the following year
legitimized the Pentagon’s illegal (under international law) preemptive
nuclear war doctrine both in terms of military planning as well as
defense procurement and production. Congress not only rolled back its
prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons, it also funded them. In so
doing, it expanded what had been an exclusive presidential prerogative
to instead confer decision-making powers on battlefield commanders as
well. Thus, a general in charge of a regional war zone, say, covering
Central Asia or the Middle East could order the use of tactical nuclear
weapons without getting a green light from the President and Commander
in Chief.



In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered U.S. Strategic Command
(USSTRATCOM) to draft a “contingency plan” that included “a large-scale
air assault on Iran employing both conventional and nuclear weapons.”
The scheme identified more than 450 targets in Iran, not just suspected
nuclear sites, and was, incredibly, drawn up in the event of a second 9/11-type attack backed by Iran!

Today, President Obama has largely endorsed the same doctrine of
pre-emptive, that is to say, first strike, nuclear attack, first
formulated by the Bush Administration. Obama has even intimated he would
use nukes in the event Iran fights back if attacked by Israel. One
ludicrous aspect of the propaganda driving a confrontation is that
Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program, is labeled a threat to
global security while the U.S. calls its own nuclear weapons
“humanitarian.”

In sum, at no point since the nuclear bombings of Japan in 1945 has
humanity been closer to the unthinkable — a nuclear holocaust which
could potentially spread radioactive fallout over a large part of the
Middle East and possibly across Europe, Asia, and Africa as well. At the
very least, the American people need to know the Pentagon and
Military-Industrial Complex are pushing the nation towards the use of
nuclear weapons in the event of war.

“The US has embarked on a military
adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO
weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace.
Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian
population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian
undertaking”.

“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.

Nuclear war has become a multibillion
dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors.
What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.

The Pentagon’s global military design
is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is
occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

Central to an understanding of war,
is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public
opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war
are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled.

Breaking the “big lie”, which upholds
war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of
global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding
force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and
transforms people into unconscious zombies.

The object of this book is to
forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high
office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Towards a World War III Scenario, Global Research, Montreal, 2012)




Source:-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/chossudovsky-does-america-plan-to-use-nukes-against-iran/