Deja vu…

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

Cheney’s Contigency Plan
The ongoing naval deployments under the “global war on terrorism” are part of a far-reaching military plan “to fight terrorism around the World”.
In the month following last year’s 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States”. Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind these terrorist attacks.
Leaked military documents to the Washington Post suggest that these Pentagon plans are predicated on the possibility of “a major terrorist attack” and the need to retaliate in self-defense if and when the US or its allies are attacked:

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

This “contingency plan” uses the pretext of a “another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States” to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure is also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.
What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran’s presumed involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:.

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. … Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US, British and Israeli military planners are waiting in limbo for “the opportunity” of a terrorist attack, which would then provide “the justification” for the launching of a military operation directed against Syria and Iran? In the words of the Pentagon, quoted verbatim in the Washington Post (23 April 2006):

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