Will Congress STOP Bush from attacking Iran, or stand guilty of crimes against humanity?

I know what the answer had damned well better be. Just accpeting this presidents word isn'y good enough. He has made it very clear that he cannot be trusted; not by the people and not by our other elected offficials.

He and Cheney have made this abundantly clear from day one.

Congress has the power to stop him and they had better damn well act now.

If Bush uses nukes, it will not only be a crime against humanity and a war crime of the highest magnitude;, it will also destroy this nation. I am not talking years from now, but very quickly.

Published on Saturday, January 20, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

How Congress Can Stop the Iran Attack - Or be Complicit in Nuclear War Crimes

by Jorge Hirsch

President Bush is invoking his "commander in chief" authority to escalate the war in Iraq, and he will likely also invoke it to launch an aerial attack against Iran. Congress has long ago abdicated and delegated to the President its constitutional responsibility to initiate wars. Yet Congress still has one surefire way to influence events: it has the constitutional authority to make the "nuclear option" against Iran illegal. In so doing, it would stop the relentless drive to war against Iran dead in its tracks.

Notwithstanding Joe Biden's threat of a "constitutional confrontation" if Bush attacks Iran without Congressional authorization, the fact is that such an attack would be perfectly legal: the War Powers Act gives the US President legal authority to wage war against any country for 60 days. It would also be legal for Bush to order nuclear strikes against Iran: under NSC-30 of 1948, "the decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of war is to be made by the Chief Executive". Neither Congressional "resolutions" nor votes to withold funding will have any effect on preventing such events.

However, Congress could pass a law making a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation in the absence of Congressional authorization illegal. In so doing, Congress would effectively be preventing Bush from launching any attack against Iran without its authorization, thus reclaiming its broader constitutionally assigned duties. Because Bush will not dare putting 150,000 American lives in Iraq at risk of Iranian retaliation without having the nuclear option on the table. By removing the nuclear option from the Bush toolkit, Congress would be forcefully imposing its will and that of the American people on an administration gone mad.
If Congress chooses not to face the fact that US military action against Iran is likely to lead to the first US use of nuclear weapons since Nagasaki, each one of its members will share responsibility for the nefarious chain of events that is likely to follow, and should be preparing to face his/her very own nuclear Nuremberg trial.
Preparations for the Iran attack

The following recent events have led to widespread suspicions that a US/ Israeli attack on Iran is imminent:

• Additional aircraft carriers deployed to the Persian Gulf.
  
• US Patriot missiles just deployed to the Persian Gulf.
  
• F16 fighter planes just deployed to the Incirlik base in Turkey.
  
• Increased number of US nuclear submarines in Persian Gulf.
  
• Admiral Fallon named Centcom commander.
  
• Israeli pilots training for Iran bombing mission.
  
• Increased rethoric and provocations against Iran. The F-16's can deliver B61-11 nuclear
• bunker busters, and there may be such bombs at Incirlik.
  

A conventional aerial attack against Iran will not destroy the underground facilities that Israel and the US have set their sight on. And it will provoke a violent Iranian response, with missiles targeting US forces in Iraq and Israeli cities. The US administration will argue that these missiles could potentially carry chemical or biological warheads as "justification" for nuclear strikes on Iran, as anticipated in the new US nuclear weapons policies, to achieve "rapid and favorable war termination on US terms".


How Congress can act?

Congress can pass a law that will have a real, immediate and historic effect: outlaw the US use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states . Article I, Sect. 8, Clause 14 of the US constitution empowers Congress to regulate the Armed Forces. Congress cannot micromanage the conduct of war, that is up to the President, the Commander in Chief. But Congress can outlaw broad war practices, such as torture, or the use of nuclear weapons in any or all circumstances, by regulating what US Armed Forces can and cannot do. An example of such a bill, vetted by prominent constitutional law experts, is given here.

Critics will say that nuclear weapons may be necessary against countries on the verge of acquiring them. The law can allow for it: it should specify that Congress has the authority to designate any country it chooses as a "nuclear weapon state", not subject to this restriction.

Congress could even outlaw the US "first use of nuclear weapons" against anybody without "the prior, explicit authorization of Congress". Such legislation was considered and voted down by the US Senate in 1972, and it was considered again in hearings in the House of Representatives in 1976: "First use of nuclear weapons: preserving responsible control". We are suggesting here a much milder restriction on presidential authority.

Would the passage of such a law implicitly condone a conventional attack on Iran?

In no way. On the contrary, it would instantly bring the drive to attack Iran to a screeching halt, because Bush will not dare attacking Iran without having his "nuclear option" on the table. Such a law will absolutely constrain the choices the President has. No matter how much "Commander in Chief" power President Bush thinks he has, he would not be able to ignore such a law without committing an impeachable offense. If Congress decides that attacking Iran is a good idea, Congress can vote to declare that Iran is a nuclear-weapon state, subject to US nuclear attack, putting the nuclear option back on the table (and by showing its determination, making the "nuclear option" a more credible "deterrent"). The President, however, would be forced to bring his case to Congress.

Would the passing of such a law "embolden" Iran?

Not likely. Iran has not been deterred from continuing enrichment by US threats, UN sanctions, nor statements that the "nuclear option" is on the table. A forceful statement by the US that it will use overwhelming conventional force against Iran if necessary, and reserving the right to declare Iran a nuclear country subject to US nuclear attack at any time, should be more than enough to keep Iran in check.

Such a bill would put the momentous decision to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states in the hands of Congress, closer to the American people, where it belongs, rather than at the sole discretion of an Executive gone mad. More sweeping measures such as "abolishing nuclear weapons" are unrealistic and have no chance of succeeding, hence they are counterproductive.
Majority vote of both chambers, then overturning the presidential veto: a mere 2/3 of Congress willing to avert a course of action that would bring humanity to the brink, is all that's needed. Which Congressperson will have the courage to step up to the plate and get the ball rolling? Dennis Kucinich? Ron Paul? Robert Byrd? Chuck Hagel? Russ Feingold? John Murtha? Jim Webb?

Or, Congressmembers can choose to continue the posturing, make lofty speeches, write letters to the President, pass "sense of Congress" resolutions, even cut funding, all the while balancing their individual aspirations for 2008. None of it will stop this administration.
US nuclear weapons use

This column and others have been exposing for many months the evidence that this administration has been carrying out a deliberate plan to set up the conditions that will lead to the US use of nuclear weapons against Iran, and its motivations for it [1], [2], [3].

Congress is on notice and cannot claim ignorance.

The President has publicly refused to take the "nuclear option" against Iran off the table. US nuclear weapons policies have undergone sweeping changes in the last 6 years, laying the doctrinal foundations that invite US nuclear strikes against non-nuclear adversaries under a variety of easily satisfied conditions. Military command structure and Pentagon guidelines have been "transformed" by Rumsfeld for that purpose. The B61-11 nuclear bunker busters are in the stockpile, ready to be used. The President has sole full authority to order their use, Congress has no say.

Congress knows full well what this President is capable of doing. By not acting, Congress is condoning this state of affairs, effectively putting its seal of approval on what is about to happen. America will hold each member of Congress fully responsible for it.

The German Reichstag in 1933 formally voted to transfer its powers to the Executive, thus avoiding being complicit in the impending war crimes. The US Congress has not had such good sense, even while abdicating its powers in practice, and it will face the consequences of its inaction. Time is running out.

Crimes against humanity

Using nuclear weapons against Iran, even just destroying one Iranian underground facility with nuclear bunker busters, with minimal "collateral damage", is a crime against humanity because:
It will break the 60-year old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons. Once a nuclear weapon is used again, it will invite use by others. There is no sharp line dividing small from large nuclear weapons, nor between nuclear weapons targeting facilities and those targeting humans, civilians or military.

Iran is years away from the capability of acquiring nuclear weapons by any estimate, hence it is a "non-nuclear-weapon state" (NNWS).

A US or Israeli use of a nuclear weapon against a NNWS will instantly destroy the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and lead to widespread nuclear proliferation.

" Weight for weight, the energy produced by a nuclear explosion is millions of times more powerful than a conventional explosion". So is the number of people it kills.

With no NPT and many more nuclear countries the potential for escalating nuclear war will be exponentially enhanced.

Nuclear war can lead to hundreds of millions of deaths, to the destruction of civilization and to the destruction of all life on earth.

The American Physical Society, representing the community of scientists that brought nuclear weapons into existence, has recently for the first time in its history issued a statement of deep concern about "the possible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states" and its consequences for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and some of America's most eminent scientists recently wrote to President Bush that such action would be "gravely irresponsible" and lead to "disastrous consequences".

Does Iran share responsibility?

Iran is pursuing a civilian nuclear program, allowed under the NPT. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, only "suspicions". It is always possible to interpret any action by Iran in a negative way. If Iran slows down its enrichment activity, the press reports that "diplomats in Vienna began to worry that there was so little activity at Iran's main nuclear site that perhaps work had started on a secret site elsewhere in the country". (Of course no mention on who those "diplomats in Vienna" are). If Iran accelerates its enrichment activity, "Iran heightened international concerns by announcing April 11 that it had enriched uranium with 164 centrifuges".

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Saddam Hussein "chose war" by not being able to allay "concerns" that he didn't have the weapons he didn't have.

Vice-President Cheney stated last Sunday on national TV "There's no reason in the world why Iran needs to continue to pursue nuclear weapons". This is the same Vice-President that stated in 2002 "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." His statements then were as categorical and as unsubstantiated as his statements today, and the 2002 statements were proven categorically false.

Why doesn't Congress demand that Cheney substantiate his statements today or else shut up or else step down? Isn't lying on matters of national security an impeachable offense?

Iran bears no responsibility for the rising tensions. When Cheney states "Iran's a problem in a much larger sense. At the same time, of course, they're pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons. They are in a position where they sit astride the Straits of Hormuz, where over 20 percent of the world's supply of oil transits every single day, over 18 million barrels a day. So the threat that Iran represents is growing, it's multi- dimensional, and it is, in fact, of concern to everybody in the region" he is candidly stating the Bush administration agenda, just as he did in 2002.

And Fox news' Chris Wallace is happy to spell it out: "In fact, it was the basis of the Bush doctrine: You will not allow the world's most dangerous powers to get access to the world's most dangerous weapons. Can you pledge that, before you and the president leave office, you will take care of the threat of Iran?" Cheney's ominous answer: "I think we're working right now, today, as we speak, on key elements of that problem", as America is massing up its military power in the Persian Gulf, just like it did at this same time of the year in 2003.

On March 6, 2003, when asked whether or not the US would attack Iraq, President Bush answered "we're days away from resolving this issue at the Security Council", and "we're working with Security Council members to resolve this issue at the Security Council". 14 days later the US attacked Iraq, without Security Council's approval. Watch for a similar script in the weeks ahead.

Congress' guilt

Each member of Congress knows that the US President has full legal authority today to launch a nuclear attack against any country in the world. Each member of Congress knows that the Constitution assigns Congress the responsibility to regulate the Armed Forces, and that Congress has the authority to regulate the use of nuclear weapons. Each member of Congress knows the sweeping changes in US nuclear weapons policies and planning undertaken during this administration.

Any private assurances that Bush may have given to members of Congress that he will not order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran without congressional authorization are worthless. He can legally do it, and he will.

Any arguments the administration may put forth that legislating over nuclear weapons use will have a detrimental effect on the diplomatic effort vis-a-vis Iran will be as disingenuous as the arguments in September 2002 that Congress should authorize the use of force against Iraq so that diplomacy could succeed: "I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace"; "If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about."

Crimes of omission are punishable under international [1] and US domestic law. Principle VII of the Nuremberg tribunal stated "Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."

If Congress doesn't legislate on the US use of nuclear weapons, and President Bush orders the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, he will be doing it in the name of each and every member of the 110th Congress.

The United States will have instantly offered the world 535 new defendants for future war crimes tribunals. Nuclear weapons are million-times more powerful than conventional weapons. If 535 million people die in ensuing nuclear conflicts, each member of the 110th Congress will have 1 million human lives on his/her own personal account.

Saddam Hussein and Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti went to the gallows for a mere 148.

Jorge Hirsch is a Professor of Physics at the University of California at San Diego and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He recently organized of a recent petition, circulated among leading physicists, opposing the new nuclear weapons policies adopted by the US in t
he past 5 years. He is a frequent commentator on Iran and nuclear weapons.

Oh My God. They really Are Quite Insane!

Part I of this text was published as a separate article entitled: The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear WarNew Pentagon Doctrine: Mini-Nukes are "Safe for the Surrounding Civilian Population"
by Michel Chossudovsky

We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.... This weapon is to be used against Japan ... [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. ... The target will be a purely military one... It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful." (President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)

"The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.." (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945). [Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman's radio speech to the Nation](Listen to Excerpt of his speech, Hiroshima audio video)

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.
All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defense".

The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.
As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population".

Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).

It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" , -i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be "part of the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the war theater. (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its coalition partners).

The stated objective is to:
"ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations p. JP 3-12-13)
The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and realities upside down. It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use in the battlefield will ensure "minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation". The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as "safe for civilians" constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant "green light" criteria to geographical commanders in the war theater.

"Defensive" and "Offensive" Actions

While the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review sets the stage for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, specifically against Iran (see also the main PNAC document Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century )
The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations goes one step further in blurring the distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" military actions:

"The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems ..." (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)

The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of "self-defense", it calls for "anticipatory action" using nuclear weapons against a "rogue enemy" which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:
Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1, italics added)

Nukes would serve to prevent a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:
"The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." ... (NSPD 17)
"Integration" of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.

The DJNO states that the:
"use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible"
(DJNO, p 47 italics added, italics added, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )

The implications of this "integration" are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval. In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as "flexible and allow for changes in the situation":

"Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements. All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..

Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans. Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are inappropriate.

...Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms." Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine (italics added)

Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)

While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. ( Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine )

We are no longer dealing with "the risk" associated with "an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch" as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief down to the geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.

Moreover, because these "smaller" tactical nuclear weapons have been "reclassified" by the Pentagon as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", thereby "minimizing the risk of collateral damage", there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War , Global Research, February 2006) .

Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with theater commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used. Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become "part of the tool box", used in conventional war theaters.

Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran

An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which "includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details, Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM's mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike , or JFCCSGS was created.

Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations "using nuclear or conventional weapons" in compliance with the Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a "joint strike operation" under unified Command and Control.
According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,


"The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today's adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044.... This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies....

One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."

The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, op. cit.).

CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.' (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization

The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.

The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in Congressional debates. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:
"deploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities". (Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).

This deployment in Iraq appears to be pursuant to NSPD 35 ,

What the Yenbi Safak report suggests is that conventional weapons would be used in the first instance, and if Iran were to retaliate in response to US-Israeli aerial attacks, tactical thermonuclear B61 weapons could then be launched This retaliation using tactical nuclear weapons would be consistent with the guidelines contained in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NSPD 17 (see above).

Israel's Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons

Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005). The GBU-28 is described as "a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead." It was used in the Iraqi war theater:

The Pentagon [stated] that ... the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." .

Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel's arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. "Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs," Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)

The report does not confirm whether Israel has stockpiled and deployed the thermonuclear version of the bunker buster bomb. Nor does it indicate whether the Israeli made bunker buster bombs are equipped with nuclear warheads. It is worth noting that this stock piling of bunker buster bombs occurred within a few months after the Release of the NPSD 35¸ Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization (May 2004).

Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads .

In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines." (The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide with the preparations of strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of two new German produced submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See also CDI Data Base)

Israel's tactical nuclear weapons capabilities are not known
I
srael's participation in the aerial attacks will also act as a political bombshell throughout the Middle East. It would contribute to escalation, with a war zone which could extend initially into Lebanon and Syria. The entire region from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia and Afghanistan's Western frontier would be affected..

The Role of Western Europe

Several Western European countries, officially considered as "non-nuclear states", possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them by Washington.

The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear NATO countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, and one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watch, the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe.
As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Consistent with US nuclear policy, the stockpiling and deployment of B61 in Western Europe are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with "NATO strike plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the "non-nuclear States") could be launched "against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran" ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)

Moreover, confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act):
"arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow the use of U.S. nuclear forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command (EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM now supports CENTCOM nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, potentially, against Iran and Syria"
(quoted in http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm italics added)

With the exception of the US, no other nuclear power "has nuclear weapons earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear countries." (National Resources Defense Council, op cit)
While these "non-nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran. To say that this is a clear case of "double standards" by the IAEA and the "international community" is a understatement.

Germany: De Facto Nuclear Power

Among the five "non-nuclear states" "Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs" (Ibid). In accordance with "NATO strike plans" (mentioned above) these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East.
While Germany is not officially a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons. The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company - EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe's second largest military producer, supplying .France's M51 nuclear missile.
France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine

In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in France's nuclear policy.

Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be used in the form of "more focused attacks" against countries, which were "considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week January 26, 2006).

The French president seems to have embraced the US sponsored "War on Terrorism". He presented nuclear weapons as a means to build a safer World and combat terrorism:
Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used against "fanatical terrorists," nevertheless "the leaders of states which used terrorist means against us, as well as those who considered using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they are exposing themselves to a firm, appropriate response on our side...".(Ibid)

Although Chirac made no reference to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, his statement broadly replicates the premises of the Bush administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review , which calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ''rogue states" and "terrorist non-state organizations".

Click to See Details and Map of Nuclear Facilities located in 5 European Non-Nuclear StatesThe stockpiled weapons are B61 thermonuclear bombs. All the weapons are gravity bombs of the B61-3, -4, and -10 types.2 .
Those estimates were based on private and public statements by a number of government sources and assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each base.(National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)