War Against Iran, April 2006: Biological Threat and Executive Order 13292

[Guest guest]

A

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:36:26 -0700

Subject:

 

 

 

http://antiwar.com/hirsch/

 

 

April 1, 2006

 

War Against Iran, April 2006

Biological Threat and Executive Order 13292

by Jorge Hirsch

 

H istory repeats itself, but always with new twists. We are back to

the good old days when a Declaration of War preceded the start of a

war. Such declaration occurred on March 16th, 2006. Reversing the old

order, we are now in the " Sitzkrieg " , to be followed shortly by an

aerial " Blitzkrieg " in the coming days.

 

In the old days, Congress declared war, and directed the Executive to

take action. In the new millenium, the Executive declared war last

March 16th, then Congress will pass H.R. 282, " To hold the current

regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support

a transition to democracy in Iran. " This bill and previous ones like

it are in direct violation of the legally binding Algiers Accords[pdf]

signed by the United States and Iran on January 19, 1981, that states

" The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the

policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly,

politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs " ; however, this

is clearly of no interest to the 353 policymakers sponsoring the bill.

 

The US promised Russia and China that the UN Security Council

statement just approved will not be a trigger for military action

after 30 days; true to its promise, the US will attack before the

30-day deadline imposed by the UNSC for Iran to stop its nuclear

enrichment activity, i.e. before the end of April. The " justification "

is likely to be an alleged threat of imminent biological attack with

Iran's involvement.

 

The Declaration of War against Iran

 

I n the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the Congressional Declaration of

December 8, 1941 stated: " Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan

has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the

people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by

the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the

United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been

thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the

president is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval

and military forces of the United States and the resources of the

Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan. "

 

Similarly, the formal war declaration against Iran, the National

Security Strategy of March 16, 2006, stated:

 

* " We may face no greater challenge from a single country than

from Iran. "

* " The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks

to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies

the aspirations of its people for freedom. "

* " [T]he first duty of the United States Government remains what

it always has been: to protect the American people and American

interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty

obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all

elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. "

* " The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction –

and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to

defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place

of the enemy's attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist

attack with WMD. "

* " To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries,

the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. "

* " When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so

devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers

materialize. "

* " [T]here will always be some uncertainty about the status of

hidden programs. "

* " Advances in biotechnology provide greater opportunities for

state and non-state actors to obtain dangerous pathogens and equipment. "

* " Biological weapons also pose a grave WMD threat because of the

risks of contagion that would spread disease across large populations

and around the globe. "

* " Countering the spread of biological weapons .... will also

enhance our Nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health

threats, such as avian influenza. "

 

This has to be combined with the 2005 U.S. State Department " FINDING.

The United States judges that, based on all available information,

Iran has an offensive biological weapons program in violation of the BWC. "

In addition, the March 16 declaration makes it clear that the US will

use nuclear weapons in the war against Iran:

 

* . " ..using all elements of national power... "

* " Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a

critical role. We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New

Triad composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved

conventional capabilities). "

 

and this is further reinforced by the just released " National Military

Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction " [pdf] that states

" Offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and

nuclear) and/or non-kinetic options (e.g. information operations) to

deter or defeat a WMD threat or subsequent use of WMD. "

 

There is of course also the claim that Iran is a threat because it

intends to develop nuclear weapons. The sole purpose of that claim,

which flies in the face of all available evidence, is to generate a

diplomatic stalemate at the UN that will allow Bush to state that

other nations share the US concern but not the resolve to act. However

the actual trigger for the bombing to begin will not be the long-term

and by now discredited nuclear threat, rather it is likely to be the

threat of an imminent biological attack.

 

Casus Belli

 

There is no casus belli against Iran based on its nuclear program. The

IAEA has found no evidence that in the 20 years of its development

there has been any diversion of nuclear material to military

applications. The Bush administration now officially acknowledges that

the issue with Iran arises from a " loophole " in the Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty, that allows non-nuclear countries to pursue

uranium enrichment. However it is not a loophole, the right to a full

civilian nuclear program is an integral part of the compromise, that

made non-nuclear countries agree to it. For the US to call it a

loophole means to abrogate the treaty unilaterally and propose a

different treaty that non-nuclear countries will have no motivation to

agree to.

 

The Bush administration declares that a civilian nuclear program that

gives Iran " knowledge " or " capability " to build a nuclear weapon is

unacceptable. It could apply exactly the same logic to biotechnology.

The State Department says that " Iran is expanding its biotechnology

and biomedical industries by building large, state-of-the-art research

and pharmaceutical production facilities. These industries could

easily hide pilot to industrial-scale production capabilities for a

potential BW program, and could mask procurement of BW-related process

equipment. " Why isn't the US demanding that Iran stops its

biotechnology research and development, and that it transfers all

biotech related activities to Russia?

 

The key lies in Executive Order 13292, which made information on

" weapons of mass destruction " and on " defense against transnational

terrorism " classified. If concrete details about Iran's alleged

biological weapons programs were made public, they would be subject to

public scrutiny and they would be discredited, as the allegations on

Iran's " nuclear weapons program " have been. The US is likely to have

" assembled " classified information on Iran's biological weapons

programs and shared it with selected individuals, including members of

Congress, under the constraint that classified information cannot be

made public. For example, at the June 25, 2004 House subcommittee

" MEMBERS ONLY CLASSIFIED BRIEFING on Iran, Middle East Proliferation

and Terrorist Capabilities. " The unclassified portion of that briefing

states " It is time for Iran to declare its biological weapons program

and make arrangements for its dismantlement. "

 

There is likely to be a team of " experts " lined up by the

administration that will support its claims that Iran had a biological

weapons program representing an imminent threat. There is always room

in science for differing opinions, and if an open scientific debate is

not possible because information is classified, any outlandish claim

can find some supporters in the scientific community. The most likely

biological threat to be invoked, because it has a natural time element

associated with it, is the threat of a bird flu pandemic caused by a

deliberately mutated H5N1 virus carried by migrating wild birds.

 

The Biological Threat

 

C onsider for example Dr. Ward Casscells, a renowned cardiologist that

has of late become an " expert " in bioterrorism. Even more recently,

Dr. Casscells joined the Army as a colonel . According to the US

Defense Department, " his years of research on now-spreading avian flu

are now deemed cutting edge. " However, I know of no independent

credible scientific body that makes the same assessment: Dr. Casscells

has written a total of four papers on the effect of influenza on

cardiac disease which have been cited by no other scientists. His

paper " Influenza as a bioweapon " has a grand total of 5 citations,

meaning a mere 5 other papers refer to it; " cutting edge " scientific

papers have hundreds or thousands of citations. His only other paper

on the subject, " Influenza as a bioterror threat: the need for global

vaccination " has zero citations.

 

Nonetheless, Dr. Casscells' outstanding credentials as a scientist

will be invoked by the administration if he vouches for the

credibility of " intelligence " indicating that a dangerous mutated bird

flu virus has been developed in an Iranian underground bioweapons

laboratory. Dr. Casscells has been surveilling the Middle East to

" scope out the possibility for a widespread outbreak " of bird flu.

Because he has been advocating the view that " Bird flu is poised to be

an explosive problem " and has predicted the use of influenza as a

bioweapon, he is likely to be inclined to believe such claims.

Similarly his scientific colleagues at the " Defense of Houston "

committee, that work on anticipating bioterrorism threats and are

highly lauded by the administration and very well funded by Army grants.

 

The Bush administration has spent vast sums of money in combating

bioterrorism threats, reportedly over $7 billion per year, without any

evidence or precedent for bioterrorism attacks. Nevertheless there

will always be plenty of scientists that will flock to where the grant

money is and devote efforts to validate conclusions that are valued by

the organizations giving the grants, and news media duly publicize the

hyped threat of bioterrorism. Still, last year over 700 scientists

including 2 Nobel laureates signed a petition objecting to the

diversion of funds from projects of high public-health importance to

biodefense, calling it a " misdirection " of priorities. Dr. Richard H.

Ebright, a renowned molecular biologist, states that " A majority of

the nation's top microbiologists – the very group that the Bush

administration is counting on to carry out its biodefense research

agenda – dispute the premises and implementation of the biodefense

spending. "

 

On the supposed threat of bird flu, while it is continuously being

hyped by the administration [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], expert opinion is

that it is not a serious threat [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and is

politically motivated. The blaming of bird flu spread on wild birds is

also highly questionable [1], [2].

 

On March 15th, right before the disclosure of the new National

Security Strategy, I suggested the bird flu casus belli against Iran,

that would " necessitate " bombing of Iranian facilities before the bird

migration season begins in the Spring. Several elements emphasized in

the March 16 NSS appear to support that scenario, as discussed above.

In a March 20 press conference concerning federal preparedness for

avian flu, Secretary Michael Leavitt (who also warned a few weeks ago

to store tuna and milk under the bed to prepare for bird flu ) stated

" Think of the world if you will as a vast forest that is susceptible

to fire. A spark if allowed to burn will emerge as an uncontainable

fire. That's a pandemic. If we are there when the spark happens, it

can be squelched. But if allowed to burn for a time it begins to

spread uncontrollably. " An aerial attack on Iranian installations may

be touted as the " squelching " of the bird flu pandemic spark.

 

Does Bush need congressional authorization to bomb Iran?

 

The answer is contained in the Statement by the president of October

16, 2002, in signing into law the congressional authorization to use

force against Iraq. It states

 

" ...I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to

use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I

appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my

signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the

long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the

president's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent,

or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the

constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. "

 

In other words: " I appreciate Congress' authorization but didn't need

it and will not need it next time with Iran. "

 

The War Powers Resolution encourages the president to consult with

Congress " in every possible instance " , yet allows the president to

introduce Armed Forces into hostilities without Congressional

authorization; it simply compels him to terminate hostilities within

60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes an extension. Plenty time enough.

 

The Attack

 

I t is unlikely that there will be a public announcement of the

impending attack before it starts, since it would generate opposition.

Allies do not want to be implicated and will deny any knowledge. Who

will be officially notified that an attack is about to take place?

Most likely, Iran itself.

 

Direct conversations between the US and Iran are about to start,

nominally on the subject of Iraq only. They will also provide the only

direct conduit for the US to communicate with Iran without

intermediaries. An " ultimatum " unacceptable to Iran, as was delivered

publicly to Iraq on March 17th, 2003, could be delivered privately to

Iran through that route.

 

The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the

cause just.

 

The initial US attack on Iranian facilities is likely to be

" measured " : a highly accurate strike on selected facilities

" suspected " of bioweapons work, with cruise missiles launched from

submarines or ships in the Persian Gulf. That is a component of the

CONPLAN 8022 Global Strike mission, which recently became operational

and also includes nuclear preemptive strikes.

 

The " clear " reasons and " just " cause for the administration to attack

can be stated as follows: if a bird flu pandemic can cause 150 million

deaths and there is even a one percent probability that the

" intelligence " is right, i.e. even if there is a 99% " uncertainty

about the status of hidden programs " , the expected number of deaths

that would be prevented by bombing the Iranian facilities is the

product of those two numbers, i.e. 1.5 million, vastly larger than the

few thousand Iranian casualties due to " collateral damage. "

 

Any military reaction by Iran to the attack, perhaps even a verbal

reaction, will be construed as " aggression " by Iran towards the US and

Israel, and result in large scale bombing of Iranian missile, nuclear

and other facilities. Does that sound absurd? Recall that the US and

Britain bombed Iraq's no-fly zones well before the Iraq invasion, and

Iraqi response was labeled " aggression toward planes of the coalition

forces. "

 

Nuclear earth penetrating weapons may be used in the initial attack,

and certainly will be used in the large scale attack that will follow.

 

Why will this happen? Because it was " pencilled in " a long time ago.

The actions of the US against Iran in recent years have been clearly

directed towards a confrontation, to suppress the rise of Iran as a

strong regional power that does not conform to US interests.

 

Can it be Prevented?

 

A small group of thugs is about to lead America across a line of no

return. On the other side of this line there is no nuclear taboo, no

restraint on preemptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear nations, and no

incentive for non-nuclear nations to remain non-nuclear. A global

nuclear war and the destruction of humanity will be a distinct

possibility.

 

Americans are largely unaware of what is about to happen. Half a

million people go to the streets on immigration law, yet nobody is

demonstrating against the Iran war that will radically change the life

of Americans for generations to come. The more informed sectors of

society, scientists, arms control organizations, the media, the

political establishment, the military, are not taking a strong stand

against the impending war. Congress is silent.

 

Only people in the know can stop this. Resigning from the job is not

good enough [1], [2], [3]. People in the know have to come forward

with information that brings the impending attack to the forefront of

attention of Congress and the American public and thwarts it. Not

doing so is being complicit in a plan that will bring tragic

consequences to America and the world.

 

Else, all that will be left is to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Danton, Robespierre, Mussolini, Petain, Ribbentrop, Goering, Ceausescu

also occupied positions of power and prominence at some point in their

careers.