Massive Aerial Attacks Currently Planed By The United States of Nation-Less Corporations Against Iran.

The United States of Nation-Less Corporations, CEO had already ordered the Pentagon to be prepared to launch massive aerial attacks against Iran. The CEO / President had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June 2005 for such massive aerial attacks against Iran.

Iran already has thousands of tons of uranium (235) and highly enriched uranium (HEU 238), the so-called yellow cake, throughout the eighteen nuclear sites all over Iran. Therefore if the United States of Nation-Less Corporations Air Force attacks Iran's military installations and nuclear facilities using their Democracy, Freedom And Human Rights inducing 20,000 Lbs., and 10,000 Lbs., Bombs, Daisy-Cutters, Laser Guided Missiles, Cruise Missiles armed with Depleted Uranium, huge parts of Iranian landscape will be transformed into an uninhabitable nuclear wasteland for millions of years to come. And catastrophic civilian casualty caused by The United States of Nation-Less Corporations Democracy, Freedom And Human Rights inducing Depleted Uranium shall produce Dirty Atomic Bomb effect, which will keep on killing for generations to come.

But I am sure The United States of Nation-Less Corporations OIL companies have enough hazmat suits to safely extract Iranian's OIL and GAS for exports to their markets. Who cares about the Iranian people!

We the Iranians must care! We must unite immediately and organize to take our country back from the barbaric murderous mullahs before our beloved country and people are doomed to suffer an even worse fait and hellish destiny than the Iraqi people. We should start with our family and friends, soon after move on to invite our neighbors to join together and unite.

See how to build a grass-root political community movement.

Time is running out!

What is a - Dirty Atomic Bomb -?

We all have heard about the possibility of terrorists attacking American and European cities with - Dirty Atomic Bomb - and its long-term devastating harmful effects. Nuclear power and weapons production is a complex series of manufacturing operations that generates large quantities of nuclear and chemical wastes. The nuclear and chemical wastes are solids or liquids or both, that are highly radioactive and extremely hazardous.

Dirty Atomic Bomb, also known as a radiological weapon, is a conventional explosive such as dynamite packaged with radioactive material, which will spread out when the bomb goes off. A Dirty Atomic Bomb kills and injures through the initial blast of the conventional explosive but the main devastation, killing the public silently is made possible by the airborne radiation and radioactive contamination, consequently making the environment uninhabitable for humankind. Such bombs could be miniature devices or as big as a truck bomb. Not much expertise is required to make Dirty Atomic Bomb it is very similar to making a conventional bomb. No special assembly is necessary; the regular explosive would simply disperse the radioactive material packed into the bomb. The hard part is acquiring the radioactive material, not building the bomb. In January 2003, British officials found documents in the Afghan city of Herat that led them to conclude that Al-Qaeda had successfully built a small dirty bomb.

The relative ease of constructing such weapons makes them a particularly worrisome threat. Dirty Atomic Bomb is a weapon of mass destruction and a nuclear weapon; with less devastating killing power of his bastard brother. Many types of radioactive materials with military, industrial, or medical applications could be used in making a Dirty Atomic Bomb. Weapons-grade plutonium or uranium, as well as freshly spent nuclear fuel, would be the most deadly, but these are also the most difficult to obtain and handle.

Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran

- By Scott Ritter

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:15 AM GMT

Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.

There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going. The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.

When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbor to the east, in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear program.

Why June 2005, I asked. 'The Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment program up and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date.'

To be clear, the source did not say that President Bush had approved plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, as has been widely reported. The President had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the President ordered.

But when Secretary of State Condi Rice told America's European allies in February 2005, in response to press reports about a pending June 2005 American attack against Iran, she said that 'the question [of a military strike] is simply not on the agenda at this point -- we have diplomatic means to do this.'

President Bush himself followed up on Rice's statement by stating that 'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.' He quickly added, 'Having said that, all options are on the table.'

There is always the unspoken 'twist': what if the United States does not fully support European diplomatic initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA inspections work in short, both the President and the Secretary of State were being honest, and disingenuous, at the same time.

Truth to be told, there is no American military strike on the agenda; that is, until June 2005.

It was curious that no one in the American media took it upon themselves to confront the President or his Secretary of State about the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004 review by the President of military plans to attack Iran in June 2005.

The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with Iran with all of the incompetence and lack of integrity that it displayed during a similar path trodden during the buildup to our current war with Iraq.

On the surface, there is nothing extraordinary about the news that the President of the United States would order the Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes on Iran in June 2005. Iran has been a target of the Bush administration's ideologues is no secret: the President himself placed Iran in the 'axis of evil' back in 2002, and has said that the world would be a better place with the current Iranian government relegated to the trash bin of history.

The Bush administration has also expressed its concern about Iran's nuclear programs concerns shared by Israel and the European Union, although to different degrees.

In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency's call for closing down its nuclear fuel production program (which many in the United States and Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons program).

Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well as US military installations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

The Iranian response triggered a serious re-examination of policy by both Israel and the United States. The Israeli policy review was driven in part by the Iranian actions, and in part by Israel's own intelligence assessment regarding the Iranian nuclear program, made in August 2004.

This assessment held that Iran was 'less than a year' away from completing its uranium enrichment program. If Iran was allowed to reach this benchmark, the assessment went on to say, then it had reached the 'point of no return' for a nuclear weapons program. The date set for this 'point of no return' was June 2005.

Israel's Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz, declared that 'under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession'.

Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear facilities, including the nuclear reactor facility in Busher (scheduled to become active in 2005).

These plans were constantly being updated, something that did not escape the attention of the Bush White House. The Israeli policy toward Iran, when it comes to stopping the Iranian nuclear program, has always been for the US to lead the way.

'The way to stop Iran', a senior Israeli official has said, 'is by the leadership of the US, supported by European countries and taking this issue to the UN, and using the diplomatic channel with sanctions as a tool and a very deep inspection regime and full transparency.'

It seems that Tel Aviv and Washington, DC aren't too far removed on their Iranian policy objectives, except that there is always the unspoken 'twist': what if the United States does not fully support European diplomatic initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA inspections work, and envisions UN sanctions as a permanent means of containment until regime change is accomplished in Tehran, as opposed to a tool designed to compel Iran to cooperate on eliminating its nuclear program?

Because the fact is, despite recent warm remarks by President Bush and Condi Rice, the US does not fully embrace the EU's Iran diplomacy, viewing it as a program 'doomed to fail'.

The IAEA has come out with an official report, after extensive inspections of declared Iranian nuclear facilities in November 2004, that says there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program; the Bush administration responded by trying to oust the IAEA's lead inspector, Mohammed al-Baradei.

And the Bush Administration's push for UN sanctions shows every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long lasting.

Curiously, the date for the Bush administration's move to call for UN sanctions against Iran is June 2005. According to a US position paper circulated in Vienna at the end of last month, the US will give the EU-Iran discussions until June 2005 to resolve the Iranian standoff.

'Ultimately only the full cessation and dismantling of Iran's fissile material production efforts can give us any confidence that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions,' the US draft position paper said.

Iran has called such thinking 'hallucinations' on the part of the Bush administration.

The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with Iran Economic sanctions and military attacks are not one and the same. Unless, of course, the architect of America's Iran policy never intends to give sanctions a chance.

John Bolton, who, as the former US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security for the Bush administration, is responsible for drafting the current US policy towards Iran. In February 2004, Bolton threw down the gauntlet by stating that Iran had a 'secret nuclear weapons program' that was unknown to the IAEA. 'There is no doubt that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons production program', Bolton said, without providing any source to back up his assertions.

This is the same John Bolton who had in the past accused Cuba of having an offensive biological weapons program, a claim even Bush administration hardliners had to distance themselves from. John Bolton is the Bush official who declared the European Union's engagement with Iran 'doomed to fail'. He is the Bush administration official who led the charge to remove Muhammad al-Baradai from the IAEA.

And he is the one who, in drafting the US strategy to get the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions against Iran, asked the Pentagon to be prepared to launch 'robust' military attacks against Iran should the UN fail to agree on sanctions.

Bolton understands better than most the slim chances any US-brokered sanctions regime against Iran has in getting through the Security Council. The main obstacle is Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council who not only possesses a veto, but also is Iran's main supporter (and supplier) when it comes to its nuclear power program.

Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear facilities John Bolton has made a career out of alienating the Russians. Bolton was one of the key figures who helped negotiate a May 2002 arms reduction treaty signed by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

This treaty was designed to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both America and Russia by two-thirds over a 10 year period. But that treaty - to Russia's immense displeasure - now appears to have been made mute thanks to a Bolton-inspired legal loophole that the Bush administration had built into the treaty language.

John Bolton knows Russia will not go along with UN sanctions against Iran, which makes the military planning being conducted by the Pentagon all the more relevant. John Bolton's nomination as the next US Ambassador to the United Nations is as curious as it is worrying. This is the man who, before a panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association in 1994, said 'There is no such thing as the United Nations.'

For the United States to submit to the will of the Security Council, Bolton wrote in a 1999 Weekly Standard article, would mean that 'its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future.'

But John Bolton does not let treaty obligations, such as those incurred by the United States when it signed and ratified the UN Charter get in the way. 'Treaties are law only for US domestic purposes', he wrote in a 17 November 1997 Wall Street Journal Op Ed. 'In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations.'

John Bolton believes that Iran should be isolated by United Nations sanctions and, if Iran will not back down from its nuclear program, confronted with the threat of military action.

And as the Bush administration has noted in the past, particularly in the case of Iraq, such threat must be real and meaningful, and backed by the will and determination to use it.

And the Bush administration's push for UN sanctions shows every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting. John Bolton and others in the Bush administration contend that, despite the lack of proof, Iran's nuclear intentions are obvious.

In response, the IAEA's Muhammad al-Baradai has pointed out the lack of a 'smoking gun', which would prove Iran's involvement in a nuclear weapons program. 'We are not God', he said. 'We cannot read intentions.'

But, based upon history, precedent, and personalities, the intent of the United States regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush administration intends to bomb Iran.

Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the Pentagon has been instructed to be ready, or at a later date, once all other preparations have been made, is really the only question that remains to be answered.

That, and whether the journalists who populate the mainstream American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East.

Scott Ritter former UN Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998 author of 'Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy', published by I.B.

Also read - U.S. Conducting Covert Operations in Iran For Possible Military Strike -