Turkey, a member of NATO, will not give the Alliance territory for a military strike on Iran, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, RIA Novosti reports.

The official added that Turkey has been agitating NATO to avoid attacks on neighbors of Turkey and would continue the efforts. He concluded that the borders between Iran and turkey have been borders of peace and will remain that way.

We already knew that Turkey won’t allow their territory to be used against Iraq, and I guess this means they won’t allow it to be used against Syria either.

What could go wrong?

via Israel Matzav: Turkey won’t let NATO use its territory to attack Iran.

Turkey has recently launched the early warning radar station, a part of NATO’s missile system, which the USA has been building near Russia’s borders. The radar station will be controlled from Germany. The station is located in the town of Malatya, which is 500 kilometers to the south-east of Ankara and some 700 kilometers from the border with Iran. Turkish and US servicemen will serve at the station.

Turkey agreed to deploy the radar station on its territory in September 2011. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan stated back then that the deployment of the radar in Turkey would be an important step for the whole region.

Data from the station will be transferred to command posts in the United States and to the ships equipped with the AEGIS system (a sea-based missile defense system). NATO officials stated that the radar station was deployed in Turkey in connection with the growing threat for Iran to use small and medium range missiles in the Middle East.

Several local politicians stood up against the deployment of the elements of NATO’s missile defense system in Turkey. They believe that the West would thus get Turkey involved in a possible conflict with Teheran.

Needless to say, Iran was strongly against the deployment of the missile defense system in Turkey. Iranian officials claimed that such a move could only exacerbate tension in the region. Turkish officials responded with saying that the deployment of the missile defense system elements was not aimed against any other country.

The deployment of the radar station raised concerns among other countries of the region indeed. The distance from the station to Syria, for example, is a bit more than 200 kilometers. Syrian President Bashar Assad pays a lot of attention to his missile potential. His generals are certain that hundreds of Syrian short-range missiles would guarantee no aggression against Syria. Syrian officials earlier stated that their country would shower Turkey and Israel with missiles in the case of aggression.

Moreover, many Syrian analysts say that the deployment of the radar station in Turkey proves the preservation of the military alliance between Ankara and Tel Aviv. Israel will also be receiving data from the Turkish radar.

Russia was not thrilled with the news either. NATO invited Russia to take part in the project, but the talks came to a standstill. Russia also tried to obtain legal guarantees saying that the system would not be aimed against her, but the US refused to do it.

NATO’s Secretary General Rasmussen set out a hope that an adequate political agreement with Moscow could be achieved before the Russia-NATO summit, which is to take place in Chicago in the spring of the current year. However, chances for that are slim, because Russia will only be able to play the role of a silent observer. NATO can only offer Russia to sit and watch its strength growing.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated in November 2011 that Russia would take a complex of measures in response to the deployment of the missile defense system in Europe. However, Konstantin Sivkov, the first vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, told Pravda.Ru that Russia had practically nothing to respond to the threat from NATO.

“As for Iskander systems, they can be used against the objects of missile defense in Poland. Iskanders would have to be deployed either in Russia’s Kaliningrad region or in Belarus. However, it will be impossible to hit the targets in Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. The radius of Iskander complexes is 280 kilometers. In addition, the Americans believe that they will be able to neutralize this virtual threat with the help of ATACMS missile complexes.

“Russia will not be able to use nuclear weapons in this situation. We have our aviation, but I seriously doubt that Russian combat aviation will be able to win a battle just because of the enemy’s considerable superiority in the air.

“We can use cruise missiles. However, Russia does not have enough vessels to patrol NATO’s coasts. There are also strategic aircraft that can launch cruise missiles and remain invulnerable to the enemy. However, the Russian arsenal of cruise missiles is not enough either. Our missiles can not be compared to the Tomahawks that can strike targets at distances of up to 2,500 kilometers,” the expert said.

Sergei Balmasov

via The 4th Media » DANGEROUS CROSSROADS: NATO launches radar in Turkey to target Russia, Iran and Syria.

ANKARA — Turkey has reported the installation of an advanced U.S.-origin radar for NATO’s ballistic missile defense shield.

Officials said NATO oversaw the installation of the AN/TPY-2 X-band radar at a military facility in the Turkish province of Malatya, about 620 kilometers southeast of Ankara. They said the radar was being operated by both U.S. and Turkish military personnel.

“The missile defense radar has begun operations,” an official said.

Early warning radar device X-band, AN/TPY-2.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry has confirmed the installation of the X-band radar, meant to monitor ballistic missile launches in neighboring Iran. The Teheran regime has warned that the BMD platform would be deemed a target in any war between the West and Iran.

On Jan. 17, the Turkish daily Zaman reported that Turkish intelligence determined an Iranian plot to attack the U.S. embassy and consulates throughout the country in retaliation for the NATO radar. Zaman said the warning of a strike by either Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or the Lebanese-based Hizbullah was relayed to police in all 81 districts and called on authorities to monitor the arrival of foreigners.

The sources said AN/TPY-2, produced by the U.S. company Raytheon, began operations on Jan. 1, 2012. They said Turkey has imposed strict limitations on the use of data from the radar, including a ban on non-NATO members such as Israel.

Turkey has demanded U.S. compensation for the deployment of the X-band radar. The sources said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has requested U.S. military aid as well as the sale of the Reaper combat unmanned aerial vehicle, a platform long denied by Washington.

One U.S. Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said Turkey was moving away from its commitment to NATO. Perry said Ankara was being ruled by “what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.”

“Turkey joined NATO while the governor was still two years old,” the Turkish Foreign Ministry said on Jan. 17. “It is a member that has made important contributions to the trans-Atlantic alliance’s conflict-full history. It is among countries that are at the front lines in the fight against terrorism.”

via NATO installs X-band radar in Turkey to monitor Iran missile launches | World Tribune.

Turkey’s foreign ministry condemned Texas Gov. Rick Perry Tuesday for saying that Turkey was a “country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.”

Perry made the statement during a spirited debated between Republican presidential candidates in South Carolina Monday night.

Most of Turkey was fast asleep during the live broadcast, and Turkish newspapers had already gone to print by the time Perry declared that Turkey had moved “far away from the country I lived in back in the 1970s United States Air Force. That was our ally that worked with us, but today we don’t see that.”

The Texas governor also argued that it was time for Washington to cut foreign aid to Ankara.

A spokesman for Turkey’s foreign ministry fired back Tuesday, accusing Perry of making “baseless and improper claims.”

In a statement e-mailed to CNN, Selcuk Unal said presidential candidates should “be more informed about the world and be more careful their statements.”

“The unfortunate views of Perry are not shared in any case by Republican party supporters, considering the weak support he has received in public polls and primary elections,” Unal concluded.

Top Turkish government officials were unavailable for comment Tuesday, with many of them in Northern Cyprus for the funeral of veteran Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas, but the country’s largely-tabloid press wasted no time in responding to the comments on websites early Tuesday morning.

“The debate that the Republican candidate Rick Perry attended on American Fox TV turned into a scandal that contained very ugly statements about Turkey,” announced TRT state television.

“Rick Perry: what an idiot,” tweeted Mustafa Akyol, a columnist with the English-language Hurriyet Daily news. The Hurriyet newspaper also posted a video on its website of Perry drawing a blank in the middle of a prior debate, forgetting in mid-sentence which was the third of three government departments he would cut if elected president.

Perry’s remarks came on the same day a Turkish foreign ministry spokesman announced that a new NATO radar station, manned by Turkish and American military personnel, went online this month in the Turkish province of Malatya. The radar station is part of a controversial U.S.-led missile defense shield that both Russia and Iran have publicly opposed.

For more than 50 years, Turkey has been the only Muslim member of the NATO military alliance.

Ankara’s relationship with Washington has been turbulent over the last decade, with sharp divisions emerging after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

But that relationship has improved dramatically over the last several years. Turkey has commanded the NATO mission in Afghanistan four times over the last decade, and the United States shares real-time intelligence from aerial drones for the Turkish military’s ongoing war with rebels from the Kurdistan Workers Party, who operate along the mountainous border between Turkey and Iraq.

via Turkey responds to Perry remarks – CNN Security Clearance – CNN.com Blogs.

Updated at 4:20 p.m. CET

For Turkey, busy riding an economic boom and preoccupied with soccer scandals and revolutionary shifts across its borders, the race for the U.S. Republican nomination hasn’t exactly been a box office draw.  Until Tuesday, that is …

Late Monday, Texas governor and presidential hopeful Rick Perry said that Turkey was governed by “what many perceive to be Islamic terrorists,” and suggested the country should be booted out of NATO.

The governor’s remarks, made during the Fox News Channel and Wall Street Journal GOP debate in South Carolina, came in response to a question from the moderator over whether Turkey still belonged in NATO amid international concern over media reports of declining press freedoms, deteriorating relations with Israel and a rising murder rate of women.

“Obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then … not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it,” Mr. Perry said.

In Turkey, a long-time ally of Washington and NATO’s only majority-Muslim member, the comments were too late to make the Turkish dailies, but early Tuesday, news websites and Twitter feeds here were abuzz with Turks’ angry and confused reaction. Turkish daily Milliyet ran a banner on its website calling the comments “scandalous.” Hurriyet said the governor’s words were “offensive.”

Readers comments were a little less diplomatic. “America really must be a land of opportunity if this man has managed to become governor,” one reader commented on the website of Vatan newspaper.

A Turkish government spokesman said: “I’m not going to comment, but I think you can imagine what my comment would be,” adding that the Turkish embassy in Washington would be studying the remarks to formulate a response.

Turkey’s foreign affairs ministry said in a statement that the remarks were “untrue” and “inappropriate,” and stressed that presidential candidates should be “more careful when they are making statements.”

“Turkey has been a NATO member since Perry was 2 years old,” the statement said.

Mr. Perry’s campaign, which has faltered in recent months after entering the race as favorite in August, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Some voters and international observers have been unnerved by the policies of Turkey’s Islamically-influenced AK Party government, as the country appeared to reorient toward the Middle East and clamp down on press freedoms. But the ruling party, under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, remains popular, successfully presiding over rapid economic growth and expanding diplomatic clout while maintaining good relations with NATO allies.

Analysts said Mr. Perry’s musings were all the more curious since Washington and Ankara’s alliance has been bolstered in recent months by Turkey’s strong backing of pro-democracy movements during Arab Spring uprisings.

“Ankara and Washington are now walking in lockstep… The essence of the new relationship is one where Turkey is more empowered, and more crucial to the U.S. because of its leverage,” said Atilla Yesilada, of Istanbul Analytics, an Istanbul-based political risk consultancy.

Turkish and U.S. diplomats say they cannot remember a time when cooperation between Ankara and Washington was closer, citing that President Barack Obama called Turkey’s prime minister more than any other leader except Britain’s prime minister in 2011.

What analysts call an increasing symmetry of Washington and Ankara’s policies has formed after a period of significant strain in 2009-2010, when Turkey moved closer to Iran and tensions with Israel were at boiling point over the killing of seven Turkish nationals by Israeli commandos on the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara flotilla.

In a crucial shift, Turkey agreed last fall to host a North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile-defense system, which was designed by the U.S. to contain Iran.

Turkish media outlets on Tuesday were keen to claim that Mr. Perry’s infamous “oops” moment, when he failed at a November campaign debate to recall the name of a government department he would ax if elected U.S. president, undercut the credibility of his comments.

Mr. Perry’s campaign will likely consider Monday’s comments as significantly less of a stumble, unless the Texan is planning a visit to Istanbul.

January 16, 2012 — Updated 2234 GMT (0634 HKT)

Protesters in Turkey demonstrate against the deployment of a NATO early warning radar system in October.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

An early warning radar station is now operational in Malatya, Turkey, the foreign ministry says

Turkey is one of five countries that have agreed to deploy parts of NATO’s defense system

Russia and NATO remain at odds over the system

Istanbul, Turkey (CNN) — An early warning radar station that is part of NATO’s controversial missile defense system in Europe is now operational in Turkey, a foreign ministry spokesman said Monday.

The station is located in the city of Malatya, about 400 miles southeast of the capital Ankara, and is manned by both Turkish and U.S. personnel, the spokesman said.

Turkey is one of five countries that have agreed to deploy parts of the U.S.-designed defense system. Portugal, Poland, Romania and Spain have also agreed to participate.

NATO asked Russia to participate in the system but negotiations have been deadlocked over Russia’s demand for a legally binding treaty guaranteeing the shield would not be used as a deterrent to Moscow’s own systems. The United States and its European allies have insisted the system is directed toward countering ballistic missile threats from such Middle East countries as Iran.

Iran — Turkey’s eastern neighbor — has publicly objected to the NATO system. Ali Larijani, Iran’s speaker of parliament, repeated his opposition to it during a visit to Turkey last week.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said he hopes a political agreement with Moscow can be reached before a summit between NATO and Russia in Chicago this spring. That is when NATO is expected to declare an interim operational capability of the defense system.

The only Muslim-majority country in the NATO alliance, Turkey is a critical ally to the United States, both in the region and globally.

“The fact that they are willing to accept a defense radar system, I think it’s important for us to work closely with Turkey at this critical time because they can be an important ally and an important influence on the direction in the Middle East,” U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last month during a visit to the Middle East.

CNN’s Ivan Watson and Elise Labott contributed to this report.

via Part of NATO missile defense system goes live in Turkey – CNN.com.

Introduction

While the possibility of a war with Iran is acknowledged in US news reports, its regional and global implications are barely analyzed.

Very few people in America are aware or informed regarding the devastation and massive loss of life which would occur in the case of a US-Israeli sponsored attack on Iran.

The media is involved in a deliberate process of camouflage and distortion.

War preparations under a “Global Strike” Concept, centralized and coordinated by US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) are not front page news in comparison to the most insignificant issues of public concern, including the local level crime scene or the tabloid gossip reports on Hollywood celebrities. 

The “Globalization of War” involving the hegemonic deployment of a formidable US-NATO military force in all major regions of the World is inconsequential in the eyes of the Western media.  

The broader implications of this war are either trivialized or not mentioned. People are led to believe that war is part of a “humanitarian mandate” and that both Iran as well as Iran’s allies, namely China and Russia, constitute an unrelenting  threat to global security and “Western democracy”. 

While the most advanced weapons system are used, America’s wars are never presented as “killing operations” resulting in extensive civilian casualties. 

While the incidence of “collateral damage” is acknowledged, US-led wars are heralded as an unquestionable instrument of “peace-making” and “democratization”.

This twisted notion that waging war is “a worthy cause”, becomes entrenched in the inner consciousness of millions of people. A  framework of “good versus evil” overshadows an understanding of the causes and devastating consequences of  war.

Within this mindset, realities as well as concepts are turned upside down. War becomes peace. The lie becomes the truth. The humanitarian mandate of the Pentagon and NATO cannot be challenged.

When “going after the bad guys”, in the words of president Obama, “no options can be taken off the table”.  An inquisitorial doctrine similar to that of the Spanish Inquisition, prevails. People are no longer allowed to think. 

Iran is a country of close to 80 million people. It constitutes a major and significant regional military and economic power. It has ten percent of global oil and gas reserves, more than five times those of the United States of America.

The conquest of Iran’s oil riches is the driving force behind America’s military agenda. Iran’s oil and gas industry is the unspoken trophy of  the US led war, which  has been on the active drawing board of the Pentagon for the last nine years.

While the US is on a war footing, Iran has  –for more than ten years– been actively developing its military capabilities in the eventuality of a US sponsored attack.

If hostilities were to break out between Iran and the Western military alliance, this could trigger a regional war extending from the Mediterranean to the Chinese border, potentially leading humanity into the realm of a World War III scenario.

The Russian government, in a recent statement, has warned the US and NATO  that “should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security.” What this signifies is that Russia is Iran’s military ally and that Russia will act militarily if Iran is attacked. 

Military Deployment

Iran is the target of US-Israel-NATO war plans.

Advanced weapons systems have been deployed.

US and allied Special Forces as well as intelligence operatives are already on the ground inside Iran. US military drones are involved in spying and reconnaissance activities.

Bunker buster B61 tactical nuclear weapons are slated to be used against Iran in retaliation for its alleged nuclear weapons program. Ironically, in the words of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Iran does not possess a nuclear weapons program. “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”

The risk of armed hostilities between the US-Israel led coalition and Iran is, according to Israeli military analysts “dangerously close”.

There has been a massive deployment of troops which have been dispatched to the Middle East, not to mention the redeployment of US and allied troops previously stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nine thousand US troops have been dispatched to Israel to participate in what is described by the Israeli press as the largest joint air defense war exercise in Israeli history, The drill, called “Austere Challenge 12,” is scheduled to take place within the next few weeks Its stated purpose “is to test multiple Israeli and US air defense systems, especially the “Arrow” system, which the country specifically developed with help from the US to intercept Iranian missiles.”

Reports also suggest a substantial increase in the number of reservists who are being deployed to the Middle East. Reports confirm that reservist US Air Force personnel have been dispatched to military bases in South West Asia (Persian Gulf). From Minnesota more than 120 Airmen including pilots, navigators, mechanics, etc. departed for the Middle East on January 8.  Reservist US air force personnel from bases in North Carolina and Georgia ”expect to deploy with their units in coming months“. (See fayobserver.com December 18, 2011)

Reserve units from the US Coastguard have also been dispatched to the Middle East.(Coast Guard Reservists Head to Middle East military.com, January 5, 2012)

From these local reports, however, it is impossible to establish the overall (net) increase of US reservists from different divisions of the US military, who have been assigned to “operation Iran war”.

Army reservists from the UK are also been sent to the Middle East.

US Troops to Israel and the Persian Gulf

Israel has become a de facto US military outpost. US and Israeli command structures are being integrated, with close consultations between the Pentagon and Israel’s Ministry of Defense.

A large number of US troops will be stationed in Israel once the war games are completed.  The assumption of this military deployment is the staging of a joint US-Israeli air attack on Iran. Military escalation towards a regional war is part of the military scenario:

Thousands of US troops began descending on Israel this week. … many would be staying up to the end of the year as part of the US-IDF deployment in readiness for a military engagement with Iran and its possible escalation into a regional conflict. They will be joined by a US aircraft carrier. The warplanes on its decks will fly missions with Israeli Air Force jets. The 9,000 US servicemen gathering in Israel in the coming weeks are mostly airmen, missile interceptor teams, marines, seamen, technicians and intelligence officers.

…

Tehran too is walking a taut tightrope. It is staging military’s maneuvers every few days to assuring the Iranian people that its leaders are fully prepared to defend the country against an American or Israeli strike on its national nuclear program. By this stratagem, Iran’s ground, sea and air forces are maintained constantly at top war readiness to thwart any surprise attack.

The joint US-Israeli drill will test multiple Israeli and US air defense systems against incoming missiles and rockets, according to the official communiqué. (DEBKAfile, January 6, 2012)

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has dispatched some 15,000 US troops in Kuwait. These consist of two Army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit. Moreover, the US Navy is retaining two aircraft carriers with their respective strike groups on standby in the Arabian sea, the USS Carl Vinson and the USS John Stennis. (Debka, January 13, 2012).

An impressive deployment of troops and advanced military hardware is unfolding.

In recent developments, a third aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is heading towards the Arabian Sea. Britain’s Royal Navy has dispatched her newest and most advanced warship, Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring, “which has a “stealth” design to help avoid detection by radar”. France has sent its Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.

The Western media has barely mentioned these deployments of troops and military hardware: “The latest deployment [of US troops to Kuwait], which was ushered in without much presentation to the public, adds a huge number of troops aligned with America’s arsenal that are now surrounding Iran on literally every front” (Russia Today, US Stations 15,000 troops to Kuwait, January 13, 2012, emphasis added).

Is this massive deployment of US troops to Israel and the Gulf States related to the withdrawal and redeployment of US troops previously stationed in Iraq? The troops stationed in Kuwait will operate under the auspices of US Central Command.

War Games

US-Israel Missile defense and naval war games are being conducted simultaneously.

Meanwhile, Iran has announced that it will be conducting its own war games in the Persian Gulf in February.

Meanwhile, The Islamic Republic of Iran is also on a war footing. Iran’s Armed Forces is in an advanced stage of preparedness to defend the country’s borders as well as retaliate against a US-Israel led attack. Iran has completed a 10-day naval exercise near the Strait of Hormuz in December. It has now announced  that it is planning new naval drills codenamed “The Great Prophet”, which are slated to take place in February.

Iran’s December war games involved the test firing of two long range missiles systems, including the Qadar (a powerful sea-to-shore missile) and the Nour surface-to-surface missile. “According to Iranian state news, the Nour is an ‘advanced radar-evading, target-seeking, guided and controlled missile’.” (See The Pentagon to Send US Troops to Israel. Iran is the Unspoken Target, Global Research, January 4, 20122 

“Additionally, the Iranian military reportedly test-fired numerous other short, medium and long-range missiles…. Iranian authorities reported that they test-fired the medium-range, surface-to-air, radar-evading Mehrab missile.” (Ibid)

War Games

US-Israel Missile defense and naval war games are being conducted simultaneously.

Meanwhile, Iran has announced that it will be conducting its own war games in the Persian Gulf in February.

Meanwhile, The Islamic Republic of Iran is also on a war footing. Iran’s Armed Forces is in an advanced stage of preparedness to defend the country’s borders as well as retaliate against a US-Israel led attack. Iran has completed a 10-day naval exercise near the Strait of Hormuz in December. It has now announced  that it is planning new naval drills codenamed “The Great Prophet”, which are slated to take place in February.

Iran’s December war games involved the test firing of two long range missiles systems, including the Qadar (a powerful sea-to-shore missile) and the Nour surface-to-surface missile. “According to Iranian state news, the Nour is an ‘advanced radar-evading, target-seeking, guided and controlled missile’.” (See The Pentagon to Send US Troops to Israel. Iran is the Unspoken Target, Global Research, January 4, 20122 

“Additionally, the Iranian military reportedly test-fired numerous other short, medium and long-range missiles…. Iranian authorities reported that they test-fired the medium-range, surface-to-air, radar-evading Mehrab missile.” (Ibid)

Iranian Missile Tests

The crucial question: Is the Pentagon seeking to deliberately trigger a military confrontation in the Persian Gulf with a view to providing a pretext and a justification to waging an all out war on the Islamic Republic of Iran?

US military strategists admit that the US Navy would be at disadvantage in relation to Iranian forces in the narrow corridor of the Strait of Hormuz:

“Despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against U.S. naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. Figuratively speaking, the aircraft carriers and warships of the U.S. are confined to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf. … Even the Pentagon’s own war simulations have shown that a war in the Persian Gulf with Iran would spell disaster for the United States and its military. (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?, Global Research,  January 8, 2012)

Triggering a War Pretext Incident: Provoking Iran to “Throw the First Punch”

Is the Obama administration prepared to sacrifice one or more vessels of the Fifth Fleet, resulting in extensive casualties among soldiers and sailors, with a view to mustering public support for a war on Iran on the grounds of self-defense?

As documented by Richard Sanders, the strategy of triggering a war pretext incident has been used throughout American military history.

“Throughout history, war planners have used various forms of deception to trick their enemies. Because public support is so crucial to the process of initiating and waging war, the home population is also subject to deceitful stratagems. The creation of false excuses to justify going to war is a major first step in constructing public support for such deadly ventures. Perhaps the most common pretext for war is an apparently unprovoked enemy attack. Such attacks, however, are often fabricated, incited or deliberately allowed to occur. They are then exploited to arouse widespread public sympathy for the victims, demonize the attackers and build mass support for military “retaliation.”

Like schoolyard bullies who shout ‘He hit me first!’, war planners know that it is irrelevant whether the opponent really did ‘throw the first punch.’ As long as it can be made to appear that the attack was unprovoked, the bully receives license to ‘respond’ with force. Bullies and war planners are experts at taunting, teasing and threatening their opponents. If the enemy cannot be goaded into ‘firing the first shot,’ it is easy enough to lie about what happened. Sometimes, that is sufficient to rationalize a schoolyard beating or a genocidal war.

Such trickery has probably been employed by every military power throughout history. During the Roman empire, “the cause for war” — casus belli — was often invented to conceal the real reasons for war. Over the millennia, although weapons and battle strategies have changed greatly, the deceitful strategem of using pretext incidents to ignite war has remained remarkably consistent. (See How to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents. Global research, January 9, 2012)

Pearl Harbor stands out as the casus belli, the pretext and justification for America’s entry into World War II.

President Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked by Japan and did nothing to prevent it. At a November 25 1941 meeting of FDR’s war council, “Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s notes speak of the prevailing consensus:  ‘The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into … firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.’” (See Patrick Buchanan,  Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor? Global Research, December 7, 2011).

In the wake of the attack, America was beating the drums of war, while also concealing the fact that “the FDR administration knew, but failed to act”.

“A massive cover-up followed Pearl Harbor a few days later, … when the Chief of Staff ordered a lid put on the affair. ‘Gentlemen,’ he told half a dozen officers, ‘this goes to the grave with us.’” (John Toland,Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath, Doubleday, 1982, p. 321). 

According to Professor Francis Boyle with reference to the ongoing showdown between the US Navy and Iran in the Persian Gulf: ”Once again, it looks to me like what FDR did in 1941 when he sacrificed the Pacific Fleet and its men at Pearl Harbor—except for the carriers—in order to get the USA into World War II despite the fervent desire of the American People and Congress to stay out. Déjà vu all over again. Back to the Future “ (Francis Boyle, January 13, 2011, email communication to author)

In contrast to the events of November 1941, the US Congress in 2012 is broadly supportive of waging a war on Iran and the American people are, as a result of media disinformation, largely unaware of the devastating implications of a US-Israeli attack.  .

Thematic Justifications: Demonizing the Enemy

Apart from the “incident” whereby the enemy is incited to “throw the first punch”, “thematic justifications” are used to demonize the enemy and justify a casus belli. WMD and regime change in the case of Iraq (2003), support to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks in the case of Afghanistan (2001), “regime change” and “democratization” as in the cases of Yugoslavia (1999) and Libya (2011).

The thematic justifications to wage war on Iran include the following:

1. Iran is accused of developing a nuclear weapons program, 

2. Iran is a “Rogue State” which defies the “international community” and constitutes a threat to the Western World,

3. Iran wants “to wipe Israel off the map”,

4. Iran is responsible for supporting and abetting the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 

5. Iran is an authoritarian and undemocratic country thereby justifying a “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) intervention with a view to instating democracy.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States

In case of a war with Iran, NATO member states as well as NATO partners of the “Mediterranean Dialogue” including the Five GCC Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan would be involved.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have a formidable weapons arsenal  of F-15 combat planes, patriot missiles, Apache helicopters and warships (Made in America), which would be used against Iran on behalf of the US led coalition. (see The Gulf  Military Balance in 2010: An Overview | Center for Strategic and International Studies)

The US has more than 30 military bases and facilities including its naval base in Bahrain, US Central command (CENTCOM) headquarters in Qatar, not to mention its military installations in Pakistan, Turkey and Afghanistan (see maps)

* US military base or facility surrounding Iran

From Washington’s standpoint, Saudi Arabia’s Royal Air Force is meant to act as a proxy for the USAF, operating on the principle of “interoperability”.

Saudi Arabia’s Air Force is equipped with the most advanced combat planes including (among others) the Eurofighter Typhoons, Tornado IDS, F-15 and F-15E Eagle fighters.

In October 2010, Washington announced its largest arms sale in US history, a $60.5 billion purchase by Saudi Arabia. These weapons although acquired by Saudi Arabia are de facto part of a US sponsored weapons arsenal, which is to be used in close coordination and consultation with the Pentagon. Large arms sales were also negotiated in 2010 with the Gulf States.

It should, nonetheless, be emphasised that there is reluctance within the ruling Saudi and Gulf States elites, to actively participating in a regional war, which would inevitably lead to Iranian retaliatory aerial attacks.

Escalation: Towards a Broader Regional War

If aerial attacks were to be launched, Iran would retaliate with missile attacks directed against Israel as well as against US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran has an advanced Russian S 300 air defense system. It is equipped with medium and long range missile capabilities: The Shahab 3 and Sejjil missiles have a range of  approximately 2,000 km, enabling them to strike targets in Israel. The Ghadr 1 has a range of 1,800 km. (See Haaretz, September 28, 2009)

The war with Iran would not be limited to aerial bombardments. A land war could follow with Turkey playing a strategic military role on behalf of the US-Israel led coalition.

Turkey’s ground forces are of the order of 500,000. Iran’s are of a similar order of magnitude: 465,000 regular forces. Turkish forces would be deployed in border areas with Iran as well as in Northern Syria.

Iran’s Air Force and Navy personnel are respectively of the order of 52,000 and 28,000. (see Table below)

The Revolutionary Guards, which constitute Iran’s elite forces, are of the order of 120,000. Moreover, Iran has a significant paramilitary force of several million men and women called the Basij.

The war would also overflow into Syria (which is an ally of Iran), Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan involving the participation of  Syrian ground forces as well as Hezbollah, which effectively repealed Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon. In recent developments, Iran has increased its military aid to Syria and Lebanon.

In turn, Russia has a naval base in Southern Syria and military cooperation agreements with both Syria and Iran, involving the presence of Russian military advisers.

Russia is deploying warships out of its naval base in Tartus including aircraft carrying missile cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov. “The deployment … follows the US move to station the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group” off the Syrian coastline. (See M. K. Badrakumar, Russia deploying warships in Syria – Indian Punchline, November 21, 2011)

UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (June 2010) had imposed a sanctions regime on Iran which was conducive to a temporary freeze in military cooperation between Iran and Russia, as well as with China. In recent developments, it would appear that military cooperation has de facto resumed following the rebuff by both China and Russia of the December 31, 2011 economic sanctions regime imposed by Washington.

In a scenario of military escalation, Iranian troops and/or Special Forces would cross the border into Afghanistan and Iraq.

From the three existing war theaters: Afghanistan -Pakistan (Af-Pak), Iraq, Palestine, the onslaught of a war on Iran would lead to an integrated regional war.

The entire Middle East-Central Asian region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan would flare up, from the tip of the Arabian Peninsula to the Caspian Sea basin.

The Caucasus and Central Asia: Competing Military Alliances

What would be the involvement of America’s “partners” in the Caucasus, namely Georgia and Azerbaijan? (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Iran War Theater’s “Northern Front”: Azerbaijan and the US Sponsored War on Iran, Global Research, April 9, 2007).

In Azerbaijan, the government has recently distanced itself from Washington, and has turned down its participation in joint military exercises with the US.

The bilateral US-Azerbaijan strategic agreement is said to be stagnating:

“Baku’s desire to not to anger Moscow would seem to preclude any possibility of Azerbaijan hosting a US military facility….” (Azerbaijan: US Military Ties with Baku Are Stagnating – Experts | EurasiaNet.org, April 25, 2011).

In contrast, the Georgian government is directly supporting America’s war effort against Iran. In recent developments, the Pentagon is sponsoring the construction of makeshift US military hospitals in Georgia to be used in the eventuality of a war with Iran. ( Readies for War On Iran: US Builds Military Hospitals in Georgia, Global Research, January 10, 2012)

“These are 20-bed hospitals…It’s an American project. A big war between the US and Iran is beginning in the Persian Gulf. $5 billion was allocated for the construction of these 20-bed military hospitals,” Javelidze said in an interview with Georgian paper Kviris Kronika (News of the Week) … The construction is mainly paid from the American pocket. In addition, airports are being briskly built in Georgia… (Ibid)

What the military hospitals project conveys is that the Pentagon has already established detailed logistics pertaining to the transfer of wounded US servicemen from the Iran battlefield to nearby military hospitals in Georgia. These advanced preparations suggest that war plans are at a very advanced stage and that scenarios pertaining to military casualties have been established.

Military Alliances: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the CSTO

The countervailing military alliance to the US-NATO-Israel axis  is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as well as the overlapping Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The SCO includes Kazakhstan, the People’s Republic of China, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan. The SCO includes seven former Soviet republics including Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.  Iran has observer status in the SCO.

Uzbekistan withdrew from the NATO sponsored GUUAM military cooperation agreement. In 2005, it formally evicted the US from the Karshi-Khanabad air base, known as K2 (U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan, Washington Post, July 30, 2005).

Of significance, in the Kyrgyz Republic, the new elected President Almazbek Atambayev (November 2011) stated that he intends to close down the US military base at Manas when the lease expires. (Kyrgyzstan Says United States’ Manas Air Base Will Close – NYTimes.com, November, 1, 2011)

What these developments suggest is that the former Soviet republics of Central Asia have reaffirmed their relationship to Moscow, which in turn has led the consolidation of the SCO-CSTO military bloc.

Global US Military Hegemony. Russia and China

The participation of Russia and China on the side of Iran is already de facto in view of prevailing military cooperation agreements. the transfer of weapons systems and technology to Iran, as well as the presence of Russian military advisers, training personnel, in both Iran and Syria. Moreover, Iran has Observer status in the SCO

Russia and China are fully aware that a war on Iran is a stepping stone towards a broader war. Both countries are targeted by the US and NATO. Russia is threatened on its border with the European Union, with US-NATO AMD targetted at major Russian cities. With the exception of its Northern frontier, China is surrounded by US military bases, from the Korean peninsula to the South China Sea.

Both China and Russia are perceived by Washington as a “Global Threat”. China has been the target of veiled threats by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The recent National Defense Review announced by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, envisages an expanded defense budget, with a view to containing Russia and China.

In recent development, Russia newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin has warned Washington and Brussels that “Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,”

Spiralling US Defense Spending: The  Pentagon’s “Big Dog” Ideology

Washington’s objective  is to establish global military dominance. While the “war on terrorism” and the containment of “rogue states” still constitute the official justification and driving force, China and Russia have been tagged in US military and National Security documents as potential enemies:

“… the U.S. military … is seeking to dissuade rising powers, such as China, from challenging U.S. military dominance.” (See Greg Jaffe, Rumsfeld details big military shift in new document, The Wall Street Journal, 11 March 2005)

How does Washington intend to reach its goal of global military hegemony?

Through spiralling defense spending and the continued growth of the US weapons industry, requiring a massive compression of all categories of government expenditure.

Implemented at   the crossroads of the most serious economic crisis in American history, the ongoing increase in defense spending feeds this new undeclared arms race with China and Russia, with vast amounts of tax dollars channelled to America’s defense contractors.

“The stated objective is to make the process of developing advanced weapons systems “so expensive”, that no other power on earth including China and Russia will able to compete or challenge “the Big Dog”, without jeopardizing its civilian economy” Michel Chossudovsky, New Undeclared Arms Race:, Global Research, March 17, 2005)

This “Big Dog” ideology, a term coined by the Pentagon, is a precondition for the “Globalization of War”. It is a diabolical agenda of enhancing America’s killing machine by dismantling social programs and impoverishing people across the US.

“[A]t the core of this strategy is the belief that the US must maintain such a large lead in crucial [military] technologies that growing powers [ Russia, China, Iran] will conclude that it is too expensive for these countries to even think about trying to run with the big dog. They will realize that it is not worth sacrificing their economic growth, said one defense consultant who was hired to draft sections of the document.” (Greg Jaffe, Rumsfeld details big military shift in new document, The Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2005)

The Globalization of War: The “Military Roadmap” to World War III ONLINE INTERACTIVE READER - by Michel Chossudovsky, Finian Cunningham – 2012-01-31 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.

When War Games Go Live. Preparing to Attack Iran. “Simulating World War III” - by Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-01-08 With ongoing war games on both sides, armed hostilities between the US-Israel led coalition and Iran are, according to Israeli military analysts, “dangerously close”.

SYRIA: British Special Forces, CIA and MI6 Supporting Armed Insurgency. NATO Intervention Contemplated - by Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-01-07

THE WAR ON IRAN: The Deployment of Thousands of US Troops to Israel, The Integration of US-Israeli Command Structures - by Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-01-04

ANNEX

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: MILITARY CAPABILITIES

Total Population: 77,891,220 [2011]

Available Manpower: 46,247,556 [2011]

Fit for Military Service: 39,556,497 [2011]

Of Military Age: 1,392,483 [2011]

Active Military: 545,000 [2011]

Active Reserve: 650,000 [2011]

LAND ARMY

Total Land Weapons: 12,393

Tanks: 1,793 [2011]

Armoured Personnel Carrier/Infantry Fighting Vehicles (APC/IFV): 1,560 [2011]

Towed Artillery: 1,575 [2011]

SPGs: 865 [2011]

MLRSs: 200 [2011]

Mortars: 5,000 [2011]

Anti Tank (AT) Weapons: 1,400 [2011]

Anti-Aerial (AA) Weapons: 1,701 [2011]

Logistical Vehicles: 12,000

AIR POWER

Total Aircraft: 1,030 [2011]

Helicopters: 357 [2011]

Serviceable Airports: 319 [2011]

NAVAL POWER

Total Navy Ships: 261

Merchant Marine Strength: 74 [2011]

Major Ports & Terminals: 3 Aircraft Carriers: 0 [2011]

Destroyers: 3 [2011]

Submarines: 19 [2011]

Frigates: 5 [2011]

Patrol Craft: 198 [2011]

Mine Warfare Craft: 7 [2011]

Amphibious Assault Craft: 26 [2011]

SOURCES:

http://www.iraniandefence.com/iran-army/

and http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Iran

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism”(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He has taught as Visiting Professor at universities in Western Europe, South East Asia, Latin America and the Pacific. He has acted as an adviser to governments of developing countries and has worked as a consultant for the several international organizations. Prof. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.

BRUSSELS

Demonstrators protest the arrest of journalists. Lengthy detention periods are a significant problem despite measures taken to prevent them, a draft EU report says. DAILY NEWS photo, Emrah GÜREL

The European Union has prepared to release a judiciary report on Turkey this week criticizing the justice system, particularly the unreasonable periods of detention.

The EU Council’s report was prepared upon the visit of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg to Turkey in October.

“There are some functional problems that have continued for a long time and have affected the system negatively,” said the report, according to daily Hürriyet. The report also cites the problem of presumption of innocence not being used in court decisions when arresting suspects.

Problems in independence of judges and prosecutors

There are also problems in impartiality and independence of judges and prosecutors, said the report, which also criticized the prolonged periods of detentions and prosecutions. The report urged officials to use “release on bail” as an option instead of detention.

The European Court of Human Rights has made over 2,200 decisions against Turkey between 1995 and 2010.

Almost 700 of these decisions were about violating the right to a fair trial. More than 500 of the cases were about freedom and security of the people. The judicial reform strategy that started in 2009 to adjust the laws within the EU norms should be put into action, the report said.

Lengthy detention periods were still a significant problem despite measures taken to prevent them. The lack of compensation for the duration of detention or lack of access to a mechanism to fasten the prosecution also increases the judiciary problem, the report said.

via POLITICS – European Union to pressure Turkey on its judicial system.

With EYP – the European Youth Parliament

Masha from France:

I’d like to know if Muslim extremism is a real issue in Europe.

Michaël Privot, Director of the European Network Against Racism, responds:

Reports from Europol on terrorism threats since 2006 show that, out of roughly 2,150 attacks in Europe, half of one percent were carried out by Muslim extremists, which is to say precisely 10. It’s important, in relation to that, to see the resources devoted to controlling this threat.

In reality, 50% of Europe’s counter-terrorism resources have been used just for the 0.5 percent of terrorism called ‘Islamic’.

So, how can this outright disproportion between the real threat and the means used be justified? You have to look at the political context. Since the attacks in London and Madrid especially, politicians have lived with a dread that an attack might take place in their voting area and therefore they do not scrimp on means, in order to show that they are taking things in hand.

And then there’s the economic context today. Counter-terrorism, especially against Islamic terrorism, involves hundreds of thousands of jobs in Europe, whether it’s in the public sectors of law and order, security services — but also smaller private offices that draw ample benefit from this — all, obviously, in a context where the Muslim is seen as the absolutely different ‘other’, as the threat for our civilisation and our values.

What we are especially interested in now is to see the impact on communities. Today we can say that minorities, Muslims in particular, are victims of this situation in three ways.

Firstly because they are singled out as the scapegoat within the social majority — these minorities all the problems come through. The second thing is that with such a disproportionate attribution of means Muslims, notably young men, are often the victims of extra sharp scrutiny by the forces of order. And thirdly, given that the forces of order concentrate half their personnel on the fight against the Islamist terrorist who represents almost nothing, they do not take care of the much worse threats such as the terrorism of the extreme right such as we see in Germany, or recently in Italy, where there are certainly Muslim communities who are victims, along with black people, Roma and Jewish communities.

Here I think it’s time we might learn some lessons from this, and return to our common sense and change radically, if we can say that, the policy being followed at European level and in the EU member states.

Video: http://www.euronews.net/2012/01/06/should-europe-fear-islamic-extremists/

Ed Pilkington in New York and Richard Norton-Taylor

Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen. More than 200 of his staff have been exposed by Anonymous 'hacktivists'. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA

Thousands of British email addresses and encrypted passwords, including those of defence, intelligence and police officials as well as politicians and Nato advisers, have been revealed on the internet following a security breach by hackers.

Among the huge database of private information exposed by self-styled “hacktivists” are the details of 221 British military officials and 242 Nato staff. Civil servants working at the heart of the UK government – including several in the Cabinet Office as well as advisers to the Joint Intelligence Organisation, which acts as the prime minister’s eyes and ears on sensitive information – have also been exposed.

The hackers, who are believed to be part of the Anonymous group, gained unauthorised access over Christmas to the account information of Stratfor, a consultancy based in Texas that specialises in foreign affairs and security issues. The database had recorded in spreadsheets the user IDs – usually email addresses – and encrypted passwords of about 850,000 individuals who had subscribed to Stratfor’s website.

Some 75,000 paying subscribers also had their credit card numbers and addresses exposed, including 462 UK accounts.

John Bumgarner, an expert in cyber-security at the US Cyber Consequences Unit, a research body in Washington, has analysed the Stratfor breach for the Guardian. He has identified within the data posted by the hackers the details of hundreds of UK government officials, some of whom work in sensitive areas.

Many of the email addresses are not routinely made public, and the passwords are all encrypted in code that can quickly be cracked using off-the-shelf software.

Among the leaked email addresses are those of 221 Ministry of Defence officials identified by Bumgarner, including army and air force personnel. Details of a much larger group of US military personnel were leaked. The database has some 19,000 email addresses ending in the .mil domain of the US military.

In the US case, Bumgarner has found, 173 individuals deployed in Afghanistan and 170 in Iraq can be identified. Personal data from former vice-president Dan Quayle and former secretary of state Henry Kissinger were also released.

Other UK government departments have been affected: seven officials in the Cabinet Office have had their details exposed, 45 Foreign Office officials, 14 from the Home Office, 67 Scotland Yard and other police officials, and two employees with the royal household.

There are also 23 people listed who work in the houses of parliament, including Jeremy Corbyn, Labour MP for Islington North, Lady Nicholson and Lord Roper. Corbyn said he had been unaware of the breach, adding that although his email address was public he was disturbed by the idea that his password could be cracked and used to delete or write emails in a way that “could be very damaging”.

Nicholson, speaking on a phone from Iraq, said she had no idea that her personal information had been hacked. She said she was very unhappy that private individuals had had their fundamental right to privacy violated. “To expose civil servants is monstrously unfair,” she said. “Officials in sensitive areas like defence and the military could even be exposed to threats. Guarding data like this is extremely difficult, but it’s not impossible, and we should do a great deal more.”

The hacking has had a big impact because Stratfor offers expert analysis of international affairs, including security issues, and attracts subscribers from sensitive government departments.

The British victims include officials with the Joint Intelligence Organisation (JIO) responsible for assessing intelligence from all sources, including MI6 secret agents.

A former deputy head of Whitehall’s strategic horizons unit is listed. The unit is part of the JIO based in the Cabinet Officeand was set up four years ago to give early warning of potential serious problems that might have an impact on Britain’s security or environment.

The extent of the security risk posed by the breach is not known. Bumgarner said officials who did not take extra precautions in securing passwords through dual authentication or other protection systems could find email and other databases they use being compromised. “Any foreign intelligence service targeting Britain could find these emails useful in identifying individuals connected to sensitive government activities,” he said.

British officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they were aware of the hacking but it did not pose a risk to national security. Passwords for their communications within Whitehall would be different from any used to access the Stratfor sites. Whitehall communications would also be protected by extra security walls, officials said.

However, they added that their personal communications could be at risk if individuals used the same password as they used to access Stratfor for their bank accounts and other personal communications.

A government spokesman said: “We are aware that subscriber details for the Stratfor website have been published in the public domain. At present, there is no indication of any threat to UK government systems. Advice and guidance on such threats is issued to government departments through the Government Computer Emergency Response Team.”

Stratfor has taken down its website while it investigates the security breach. The company says it is “working diligently to prevent it from ever happening again”.

This is just the latest action to hit the headlines by hackers associated with Anonymous. The group, whose loose collection of members are scattered around the world and linked through internet chatrooms, has previously targeted Visa, MasterCard and PayPal in protest at the companies’ refusal to accept donations for the WikiLeaks website.

www.guardian.co.uk, 8 January 2012