Perang Dunia III: Konfrontasi Diciptakan di Berbagai Medan Perang
[World War 3: Confrontation Builds On Multiple Fronts]
http://www.akhirzaman.info/menukonspirasi/tataduniabaru/1936-perang-dunia-iii-konfrontasi-diciptakan-di-berbagai-medan-perang.html
Oleh: Webster G. Tarpley
On July 21, the present writer offered the evaluation that an attack on Iran by the United States and Israel was now emphatically back on the agenda after a two-year hiatus.1
More than two weeks after issuing that warning, it is possible to offer
a second installment of evidence to buttress the original finding. The
author considers that this evidence is now sufficient to confirm the
July 21 analysis. The contours of the coming conflagration are becoming
somewhat more distinct, and give us reason to fear not just a Middle
East regional war, but possibly even a world war, with increasing danger
that nuclear weapons will come into play.
Fidel Castro Convokes Parliament, Issues Dramatic War Warning
The most dramatic and outspoken
confirmation of the views expressed here on July 21 comes from Fidel
Castro, the first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party, and the de
facto head of state of Cuba. During the spring and summer of 2010,
Castro has referred several times to the growing war danger among the
United States, Israel, and Iran. On August 8, Castro took the unusual
step of convening a special session of the Cuban parliament to discuss
the nuclear war danger threatening the peace of the world. Essentially,
Castro called for the worldwide mobilization of peace-loving forces to
avoid the worst, and included a special personal appeal to Obama.
Castro: Hundreds Of Millions Of Deaths
According to the Cuban News Agency,
this war avoidance agenda ‘was the purpose of the Cuban Revolution
leader’s address to the Cuban parliament summoned for an extraordinary
session in Havana, due to the urgency of mobilizing the world, faced
with the danger of a nuclear war that would be triggered by a US-Israeli
led aggression on Iran.’ Castro said that Obama, ‘in the instant he
gives the order, which is the only one he could give due to the power,
speed and countless number of missiles accumulated in an absurd
competition between powers, he would be ordering the instant death not
only of hundreds of millions of people, including, an immeasurable
number of inhabitants of his own country, but also the crews of all US
ships in the seas near Iran.” “Simultaneously, the war would break out
in the Near and Far East and across Eurasia,” said Fidel. Otherwise, if
the war breaks out, the current social order will abruptly vanish and
the price will be much higher, Fidel warned.’2
Whatever one may think of Castro
personally and politically, he is unquestionably one of the
longest-serving national leaders in today’s world, and brings to the
table his experience during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962.
Castro knows, in short, what a nuclear confrontation looks like from the
inside. The American public would do well to put aside the arrogance
and impudence of the US mass media and pay attention to why this sick
old man is putting so much of his flagging energy into an attempt to
alert the world to a danger which is being widely ignored.
US Media Blackout On War News Like Summer 1914
Not surprisingly, the controlled Wall
Street news media in the United States did everything possible to
trivialize, denigrate and ridicule this dramatic warning. Frivolity and
inanity rule US news coverage this summer. The National Socialists had a
word for this – Nachrichtensperre, the embargo of real news.
To the extent they noticed Castro at all, the US networks focused on the
state of Castro’s health, and on the soap opera rivalry between Fidel
and his brother Raul, who had replaced him in the presidency several
years ago. The account posted on CNN, in particular, avoided any direct
reference to the questionable looming nuclear war until an oblique
allusion in the final paragraph. The Time magazine article gave
the war issue half a sentence, with no elaboration and no explanation.
Many newspapers relied on the Associated Press wire account, which did
everything possible to downplay the urgency of Castro’s theme. This
policy was typical of the attitude assumed by the US media starting
several months earlier, which was to assiduously avoid the troubling
hard news being generated in the Middle East in favor of an exclusive
focus on domestic social wedge issues, including the New York City
mosque, gay marriage, and the Arizona immigration law. The result is
that the American people, somewhat like many Europeans of August 1914,
are essentially living in a dream world, even as the momentum for global
tragedy builds up in many corners of the globe. When the shooting
started in August 1914, many in Europe were surprised, having thought
that the Sarajevo incident of several weeks earlier was no longer a
current concern. For those Europeans, the shock of reality came in the
form of declarations of war and mobilization decrees. For today’s world,
the shock may be even more abrupt.
A Flurry Of Incidents Along The Main Fronts
The clash which is materializing pits a
group of countries including most probably the United States, Israel,
the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and perhaps
some others against a rival coalition including the government of
Lebanon, the Hezbollah organization, Iran, and Syria, joined by
guerrilla forces in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
elsewhere. During the past two to three weeks, unusual military
incidents have occurred at the main flash-points where these rival
coalitions are likely to collide
Israel-Lebanon Border Shootings: A Warning From Hezbollah?
The tense border between Israel and
Lebanon is clearly one of these flashpoints. Here the Israeli forces
confront a combination of the Lebanese national army along with
independent units of heavily armed Hezbollah fighters. On August 3, this
border was the scene of the most serious shooting incident since the
Israel-Lebanon war of four years ago. A firefight started after the
Israeli army began pruning a tree along the border. An Israeli
lieutenant colonel was killed, an Israeli major severely wounded, and
several Lebanese soldiers and a journalist killed. The casualties among
Israeli officers suggest that this incident was a warning delivered by
Hezbollah against the Israelis in the general context of rising tension.
According to the Chinese news agency, ‘Israeli Defense Minister Ehud
Barak on Wednesday said the “unplanned” border clash on Tuesday between
Lebanese Army Forces (LAF) and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers
would not widen into a real crisis. An Israel Defense Forces (IDF)
officer and four Lebanese were killed on Tuesday during a border clash,
the fiercest one since the fighting between Israel and the Lebanon-based
Shiite group Hezbollah four years ago.’
According to press accounts,
the United States quickly intervened to prevent the Israelis from
making this clash the detonator for military operations against Lebanon
and possibly Syria on a larger scale: ‘The United States … voiced
“greatest concern” over the deadly military clashes along the
Israel-Lebanon border, urging both the Israeli and Lebanese sides to
exercise “maximum restraint.” “We deeply regret the loss of life; we
urge both sides to exercise maximum restraint to avoid an escalation and
maintain the cease-fire that is now in place,” State Department
spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters at the daily press briefing.’3
The shooting may have been connected to the imminent delivery of a
United Nations report on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime
Minister Rafik Hariri, which is expected to accuse Hezbollah. In a sign
of continuing tension, Israel on August 8 fired warning shots at a
Lebanese fishing boat in the eastern Mediterranean.
Japanese Tanker Attacked In Hormuz
A second front in the looming war is of course the Persian/Arabian Gulf and especially the critical choke-point of the straits of Hormuz, where Iran, if attacked, can be expected to retaliate against oil tanker traffic. The Straits of Hormuz
also lend themselves to the creation of a war provocation by the US-led
side, quite possibly in the form of a new Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Political observers were therefore alarmed on July 28, when an explosion
damaged the hull of a Japanese supertanker transiting Hormuz. According to a wire dispatch,
‘a damaged Japanese oil tanker … headed back to the United Arab
Emirates where officials hope to determine what caused an onboard
explosion. Japan’s transport ministry said the M. Star was passing through the Strait of Hormuz
… with about two million barrels of crude oil when the crew reported a
blast. Japan’s Mitsui O.S.K. Lines said that despite the explosion, the
ship’s tanks did not rupture and that no oil is leaking.’4
Within a few days, the UAE authorities were claiming
that this was indeed a suicide attack by al Qaeda-liked terrorists
using a small boat loaded with homemade explosive: ‘The United Arab
Emirates said Friday that a Japanese oil tanker was hit by an
explosives-laden dinghy in the Persian Gulf in what would be the first
attack in the strategic waterway where millions of barrels of oil are
transported each day. The report — which came days after an
al-Qaida-linked group claimed responsibility for attacking the vessel —
raised fears about the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz,
a vital shipping lane for many petroleum exporting countries. … But if
the UAE report is confirmed, the July 28 incident would be the first
militant attack in the strait, a narrow chokepoint between Oman and
Iran…. A group known as the Abdullah Azzam Brigades said it had carried
out a suicide attack against the tanker to avenge the plunder of Muslim
wealth and to destabilize international markets. The statement was
issued by al-Qaida’s communications wing, the al-Fajr Media Center and
posted on militant websites.’5 A collateral effect of the
damage to the tanker was to begin pushing the world price of oil up
above $80 per barrel, anticipating on a small scale the massive price
increase which the Wall Street financial interests would like to occur
as part of their desperate strategy to save the US dollar in extremis.
Hamas Rockets Fired From Egyptian Sinai
Another front where Israeli forces are
facing a pro-Iranian guerrilla movement is the Gaza Strip, which is
under the political control of the Hamas movement. An incident on August
2, the day before the shooting started on the Israel-Lebanon border,
suggested that Hamas had acquired the ability to operate not just out of
Gaza, but also in other parts of the Egyptian territory of the Sinai
Peninsula. It was in August 2 that four or five Grad rockets were
apparently fired from Egyptian territory against the Israeli city of
Eilat and the Jordanian port of Aqaba. It should be recalled that the
scene of the shooting is one of the most sensitive points in the entire
Middle East, where Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia come together
at the Gulf of Aqaba, the northeastern end of the Red Sea. One
Jordanian was killed, and damage was otherwise slight, but Israel was
alarmed enough to send the head of its Shin Beth intelligence agency to
meet with his Egyptian counterpart.
Within a few days, Egypt confirmed that Palestinians from Gaza, quite possibly Hamas, had launched the rockets:
‘Egypt, contradicting its initial denials, has acknowledged that Gaza
militants operating in the country’s Sinai Peninsula launched the deadly
rocket attacks on Israel and Jordan earlier this week. At least five
rockets hit the Red Sea border area Monday, killing one Jordanian and
wounding at least three others. Egypt’s state news agency … blamed
Palestinian factions from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, operating in the
neighboring Sinai Peninsula, for the rocket volley. This is the second
attack believed to originate from the Sinai in four months, highlighting
Egypt’s ongoing internal security problems in the largely lawless,
desert frontier.’6 Any increase in the military potential of Hamas is a very ominous sign for the Israelis.
Mullen Admits US War Plan Is Ready — Thanks To Petraeus
On Sunday, August 1, US Admiral Mike
Mullen, the chairman of the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, shifted
decidedly away from his personal brand of conciliatory rhetoric and
towards the language of naked threats against Iran. Mullen stressed that
the United States does indeed possess a war plan against Iran. According to one summary,
‘Barack Obama’s main military adviser said today the US does have a
plan to attack Iran should it become needed as a means of stopping the
Tehran regime from acquiring nuclear weapons….Admiral
Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the country’s
highest ranking officer, was asked by Meet the Press on NBC whether the
military had a plan to attack Iran. “We do,” he replied…. He said it was
unacceptable for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, but he said that
equally he would be “extremely concerned” about the prospect of a
military engagement…. Striking Iran could have “unintended consequences
that are difficult to predict in what is an incredibly unstable part of
the world”…. As Mullen put it: “I hope we don’t get to that, but it’s an
important option and it’s one that’s well understood.”’7
The war plan in question would have been
drawn up by the US Central Command, mainly during the time that it was
run by General David Petraeus, the neocon leader who has now emerged as
the virtual military czar of the hapless Obama regime. If war comes,
Petraeus will gain immeasurably in power, with the obvious temptation to
decree martial law.
Iranian Defense Minister: Mullen’s Threats ‘Fascistic’
Mullen’s threats were quickly answered by a chorus of bellicose replies from the Iranian side.
‘The official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Revolutionary Guard
deputy chief Yadollah Javani as saying …that security in the Persian
Gulf would be jeopardized “if Americans commit the slightest mistake.”’8
Speaking from Moscow, Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki also rejected
Mullen’s threats in vehement terms: ‘”In case of an attack against Iran,
their destiny will be worse than their pitiable destiny in Iraq and
Afghanistan,”…Mottaki hoped that better sense would prevail in
Washington, saying “they said they would go to some places and they
went.” “But we have seen what happened to them. We think there are still
rational people in America… who will not put the American dignity on
sale.” … Foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast also dismissed
Mullen’s remarks. “We witness such inappropriate remarks by these
American military officials,” he told reporters at his weekly news
conference in Tehran. “We think the reason behind it stems from the
consecutive (US) defeats in the region and its military adventurism
which has resulted in deaths of innocent citizens and of their own
forces.”’
Iran’s Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi ‘described
Mullen’s comments as “fascistic.” “Such remarks are in contradiction to
their claims of change that they are after dialogue and peace,” Vahidi
was quoted as saying by state news agency IRNA. “They show that they are
unable to stand against the will of Iran. Having plans to attack an
independent nation… in the third millennium is a clear violation of the
UN charter.”’9 These were eminently newsworthy exchanges, but
so far as is known none of the Iranian replies made it onto the Wall
Street-controlled US television evening news.
Obama The War Options Monster
In the meantime, Obama is revealing
himself more and more as the most extreme warmonger among major US
politicians, a niche which he seized in 2007 during the presidential
campaign, although many pathetic left liberals still cannot grasp the
aggressive designs of which Obama is the bearer. Back during the regime
of Bush the younger, the standard White House jargon for issuing a
threat against Iran was the mantra that “all options are on the table.”
Over the past two years, Obama has been increasingly speaking this
language more and more. Obama told Newsweek on May 17, 2009, in advance of a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
“I’ve been very clear that I don’t take any options off the table with
respect to Iran. I don’t take options off the table when it comes to US
security, period.”’10
About a year later, on May 4, 2010, in
the wake of reports that Iran and Syria were furnishing Hezbollah with
new and more effective ballistic missiles, an antiwar blogger noted: ‘“The continued presence of all options on the table” — this is the disappointing message which a Nobel Peace Prize laureate dispatches internationally, in his latest interview with CBS news….’11 Most recently, Obama told Israeli television
on July 7: ‘we are going to continue to keep the door open for a
diplomatic resolution of this challenge. But I assure you that I have
not taken options off the table.”12 In response to this, Netanyahu expressed cautious optimism
that he had the current tenant of the White House in his pocket in the
same way that he was able to dominate Bush: “But I am saying that the
president’s position that all options are on the table might actually
have the only real effect on Iran, if they think it’s true,” commented
Netanyahu.13
Achmadinejad: US Will Strike Two Countries In The Next Three Months
Even before the volley of threats from Admiral Mullen, Iranian President Achmadinejad had issued his forecast
of a US attack, probably involving his country. Achmadinejad said that
the United States and Israel had ‘decided to attack at least two
countries in the region in the next three months…” Ahmadinejad said Iran
had “very precise information that the Americans have hatched a plot,
according to which they are to wage a psychological war against Iran”.
He also criticized the US-led drive for global sanctions to pressure
Tehran over the nuclear issue. “The logic that they can persuade us to
negotiate through sanctions is just a failure,” Ahmadinejad said.’14
Iranian Defense Minister Vahidi Warns Israel
One day earlier, Iranian Defense Minister Vahidi had issued a separate warning of his own addressed to Israel. Vahidi stated
that ‘”any injudicious action” will lead to the annihilation of the
Israeli regime. “Any injudicious action of Israel will trigger the
countdown of its destruction….Israel is facing many setbacks in
resolving its domestic, regional and international problems. Therefore,
it is trying to get rid of this heavy burden through putting the blame
on others,” he added. The Iranian defense minister reiterated that
public pressure on Israeli officials has prompted them to have some
“false illusions” in their minds,’ a Syrian news service reported.15
The Devine Plan
As noted in the essay of July 21, the
current deployment of US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq may well
represent a grave weakness in the US military position in the region,
since these fragmented forces are liable to be cut off and encircled by
regular and a regular Iranian and pro-Iranian forces in case of general
war. An awareness of this threat in US ruling circles is giving rise to
more frequent calls to ratchet the Afghanistan adventure down to a more
manageable level, so as not to give the Iranians such an opportunity.
One of the clearest calls of this type has come from Jack Devine,
the former deputy director of the CIA and head of the clandestine
service. In an op-ed, Devine advocated getting US Army and Marine land
forces largely out of Afghanistan, while perpetuating chaos there
through a policy of predator drones for assassinations combined with
special forces in small numbers and especially CIA negotiations with the
principal warlords and druglords. This kind of the strategy has worked
before, and it would work again, Devine argued: ‘In the ’80s we
essentially ended the Cold War with a well-funded and broadly supported
covert action program. In 2001, under similar political circumstances, a
small band of CIA operators restored old ties to Afghan tribal leaders,
teamed up with U.S. Special Forces and, backed with U.S. air power,
toppled the Taliban in a matter of weeks.’ … A smart covert action
program should rest on worst-case scenarios. Afghanistan will likely
enter a period of heightened instability leading up to and following our
planned 2012 departure, so we should figure out now which tribal
leaders—and, under specially negotiated arrangements, which Taliban
factions—we could establish productive relationships with. We must also
consider the possibility that our departure could precipitate the
eventual collapse of the Karzai government. Thus we should cultivate
relationships with leaders inside and outside the current regime who are
most likely to fill the power vacuum.’16 Not mentioned was
the tremendous advantage that would accrue to the CIA by controlling the
totality of the Afghanistan opium, heroin, and morphine production,
which would put the agency in a position to vastly increase its
influence over American government and society for decades to come.
Wikileaks And Assange: Part Of The War Buildup
Against the backdrop of these confused
alarms of war, a group of intelligence community provocateurs calling
themselves Wikileaks saw fit to publish a document dump of more than
90,000 low level specimens of US cable traffic from Afghanistan,
primarily of the secret and sub-secret classifications. No scandals
against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Obama, Biden, Gates, or
any other top officials were contained among these dispatches. Instead,
the documents tend to support the CIA’s thesis that ‘Osama bin Laden’
is an actual living person and a powerful enemy of the United States– a
manifest absurdity. Assange is also on record as saying that he finds challenges to the US official story of September 11, 2001 an annoyance.17
Assange’s actions are evidently inspired by some combination of George
Soros, Cass Sunstein, and Samantha Power of the Obama National Security
Council. A separate essay on this important theme will be forthcoming
shortly.
For the moment it is enough to note that
the mental strategic map which emerges from the Wikileaks document dump
faithfully mirrors the intentions of some of the most dangerous
factions in the US intelligence community. The interpretations of the
document dump which were conveniently trumpeted by such ruling class
news organs as the New York Times, the London Guardian, and Der Spiegel
of Germany conveniently stress that the Afghanistan war is futile,
while the real enemies of the United States and the Western world in
general are the treacherous backstabbers of Pakistan who support the
Taliban and kill American soldiers, and of course the Iranians, who do
everything possible to defeat the US presence in the areas of western
Afghanistan closest to their borders. In short, anyone creating an
imperialist policy on the basis of the lessons of the Wikileaks document
dump would tend to converge on something like the Devine plan, along
with vigorous measures against both Pakistan and Iran. The much-touted
document dump, which has been abundantly publicized by the controlled
media of the world, is thus revealed as a CIA mind control operation in
the tradition of Daniel Ellsberg and the 1971 Pentagon papers, which was
a similar limited hang out of self-serving disinformation by the spook
community, designed to manipulate public opinion.
British Prime Minister Cameron: Nuclear Klutz
British Prime Minister David Cameron
appears to have a mind like a rag bag: lacking in mental discipline and
astuteness, he appears to blurt out either total nonsense or fragments
of the secret briefings he has been given. This means that important
state secrets can sometimes be gleaned from what otherwise seemed to be
his idiotic malapropisms. An example is Cameron’s early August charge
that Iran already possesses nuclear weapons. Had Cameron’s Downing
Street handlers jumped the gun, prepping him in advance for the war
speech he might have to give a few weeks down the line? The BBC
commented: ‘Labour has accused David Cameron of committing a gaffe by
mistakenly claiming Iran has a nuclear weapon. Asked why he was backing
Turkey to join the EU, he said it could help solve the world’s problems,
“like the Middle East peace process, like the fact that Iran has got a
nuclear weapon”. A No 10 source said the PM “misspoke”, later adding he
had been talking about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. But Labour
said he was becoming a “foreign policy klutz.”’18 In reality, Cameron had tipped his hand too much.
Hariri Probe Targets Hezbollah
There is every indication that the
United Nations commission investigating the February 2005 murder of
former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri will attempt to frame
Hezbollah for this crime, while ignoring strong circumstantial evidence
implicating the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel, to name
just a few. Hezbollah leaders have gotten out in front of the
commission’s findings with a preventive condemnation of the likely fixed
verdict. As a new mania news source reports, ‘Lebanon’s Hezbollah
Resistance Movement warns against falsely accusing its members of
involvement in the assassination of Lebanon’s former premier Rafik
Hariri. A top Hezbollah official, Sheikh Nabil Qaouq, … warned about the
dire consequences of trying to link the resistance movement to the
assassination and called such accusations “dangerous.” Qaouq said the
indictment of Hezbollah members was part of a US and Israeli conspiracy
and called for the trial of the individuals, who testified in the case
of Hariri’s assassination and whom Hezbollah regards as false witnesses,
a Press TV correspondent reported….
“We will continue confronting this conspiracy … and we will consider
any indictment against the resistance an Israeli-American fabrication
executed through local or international means,” he added.’19
Part of the US-led strategy appears to be the attempt to drive a wedge
between Syria and Iran over these Lebanese events. Whether this crude
stratagem can succeed or not is uncertain.
Shapiro: New 9/11 Or New Oklahoma City Needed To Save Obama
A blunt and cynical appraisal of the
crisis of the Obama regime and of Obama’s need for a wag the dog crisis
to shore up his cratering poll numbers comes from Rob Shapiro,
co-founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank close to
the right wing Democrats of the Democratic Leadership Council. A
Bilderberger activist, Shapiro served as a top official during the
Clinton administration. An article in the London Financial Times about Obama’s alarming weakness contains this revealing assessment
by Shapiro of how Obama might restore his authority: ‘“The bottom line
here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,”
says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official and a supporter of Mr
Obama. “He has to find some way between now and November of
demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short
of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he
could do that.”’20
Barak And Barack
The last week in July saw the Washington
visit of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who came close on the
heels of Prime Minister Netanyahu. According to Time magazine,
Barak’s party line was that the economic sanctions imposed on Iran by
the United Nations Security Council in early June are only a temporary
expedient, and must be quickly followed by war. As the magazine reported,
‘Barak arrived in Washington this week with the message that not even
the far-reaching sanctions adopted by the U.S. and its allies against
Iran are likely to change Iran’s behavior. “It’s still time for
sanctions,” he told the Washington Post in an interview. But “probably, at a certain point, we should realize that sanctions cannot work.” In an interview with the Washington Post, Barak stressed joint US-Israeli efforts in the area of anti-ballistic missile
defense, noting that Israel is ‘now developing, together with the
United States, the Super Arrow, a kind of a space-age kind of
interceptor that protects us against incoming missiles from places like
deep into Syria or from Iran.”21
Time identified Obama advisor
Dennis Ross as a leading member of the US war party, suggesting that
Ross is one of the handlers feeding Obama his belligerent “options”
rhetoric and keeping the war option on the front burner. The magazine wrote:
‘Obama has … insisted that a military option remains “on the table.”
That insistence could be consistent with the perspective of his key
adviser on Iran, Dennis Ross, who wrote two years ago, “When we say we
are not taking force off the table, that must be more than a slogan. It
is essential that the Iranians continue to believe that they may well be
playing with fire if they persist in their pursuit of nuclear weapons.”
Regardless of whether force is ever used, Ross was arguing, the only
way Tehran will back down is if it’s convinced it will face U.S.
military action if it doesn’t.’22
H. R. 1355: House Republicans Demand Aggressive War
The reactionary Republicans of the US
House of Representatives claimed their part of the looming tragedy with a
jingoistic draft resolution of genocidal intent, directed against Iran.
As one commentator noted, ‘Republicans in the House or Representatives
have unveiled House Resolution 1553, a resolution providing explicit
support for an Israeli bombing campaign against Iran. The measure,
introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and forty-six of his
colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran
“including the use of military force.” “We have got to act,” Gohmert has
said in regard to the measure. “We’ve got to get this done. We need to
show our support for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this
critical ally in such a difficult area.”’
As this commentator pointed out,
‘Gohemert’s resolution may be an unprecedented development — Congress
has never endorsed pre-emptive military strikes by a foreign country. In
fact, this measure is no small part of a neoconservative agenda to go
to war with Iran. The green light resolution is precisely what John
Bolton called for two weeks ago in a Wall Street Journal piece that reads as a playbook for dragging the US into military conflict with Iran.’23
Such statements violate the Nonproliferation Treaty, since they
represent direct military threats by a nuclear state against Iran, a
non-nuclear state under that treaty.
Venezuela Threatened By The US Via Colombia
The notion that coming hostilities involving Iran could also be extended to the Latin American continent is plausibly argued by Russian analyst Nil Nikandrov
of the Moscow Strategic Culture Foundation, the think tank associated
with General Leonid Ivashov. Nikandrov points to the increasingly close
relations between Iran and Venezuela to suggest that the conflagration
may well be extended to this latter country as well. Here a likely
scenario involves the US playing off Columbia against Venezuela in a
classic exercise of the imperialist buck-passing favored by the
Brzezinski faction. As Nikandrov argues, ‘Under B. Obama, the US started
to actively reinforce the existing and set up new military bases along
the borders of Venezuela. The US maintains 10 military bases in Columbia
alone, though on top of that the Pentagon enjoys unrestricted access to
the de facto occupied country’s own military infrastructures. US army
and navy bases have also been promptly built in Costa Rica and Panama.
Experts believe the list of potential targets of the forces deployed at
the bases includes both Venezuela and its regional allies – Cuba,
Nicaragua, and Ecuador. US military advisers are dispatched in
increasing numbers to Guatemala, Honduras, and Salvador. Chavez speaks
frequently about the threat posed by the US. This July, he mentioned
several times the warnings about the higher than ever threat of the US
aggression he received from a well-informed “secret friend” in
Washington. Washington is waging a permanent smear campaign against
Venezuela. Reports are circulated that Chavez hosts ETA terrorists or
guerrillas from Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon and helps them to penetrate
the US. The disinformation, easily disproved by Venezuela, will
certainly reemerge when the US and Israeli forces hit Iran’s “nuclear
infrastructures”, airports, and army bases. Ignoring Washington’s ire,
Chavez openly sides with Iran. He visited Tehran on a number of
occasions and keeps inviting the Iranian leaders to Caracas. Chavez
pledges not to abandon Iran in trouble. The US is keenly aware what the
signals sent by Chavez mean: against the backdrop of the war in
Afghanistan and the coming war in Iran, Venezuela’s taking its barrels
offline would send the oil prices skyrocketing up to $200 per barrel and
thus reanimate the global economic crisis.’24
Unfortunately, increasing the price of oil is currently an enticement,
rather than a deterrent, to the Anglo-American financiers.
A World War?
If things actually play out in this way,
the resulting conflict, stretching from the Middle East to Latin
America would indeed qualify as a new world war. One of the few bright
spots in the present world intelligence picture is represented by the
peace overtures to Chavez launched by the new Colombian President Manuel
Santos in his inaugural address on August 6. Santos signaled a possible
break with the reckless policies of his predecessor, Alvaro Uribe, who
had acted as a provocateur under the direction of the United States. As the Voice of America was forced to concede,
‘The presidents of Colombia and Venezuela are set to meet … in an
effort to repair a diplomatic break due to Venezuela’s alleged support
of leftist rebels in Colombia. The security and trade partnership
between the two countries has suffered during the past two years. The
meeting in Santa Marta, Colombia, comes only three days after Juan
Manuel Santos took the oath of office as Colombia’s president. The
former defense minister used his inauguration speech on Saturday to try
to set a new tone with Venezuela. He said that as president, he will
seek peace with Colombia’s neighbors. He offered a frank and direct
dialogue with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as soon as possible. In
Caracas, Mr. Chavez welcomed the offer and said he would go to the
meeting with an open heart and an extended hand.’25
US Gambits To Antagonize China
At the same time that the exhausted and
overstretched US military is preparing actions across a fast arc of
countries stretching from Lebanon and Syria in the west to Pakistan in
the east, the Obama regime is also assuming a decidedly bellicose
demeanor in regard to China. Obama and company are evidently encouraged
by their success in browbeating and blackmailing China into giving at
least verbal assent to the latest round of UN Security Council economic
sanctions against Iran. They are intent on creating diversions on the
Chinese flanks to keep the Middle Kingdom tied down as much as possible
in the moment that war might break out in the Middle East. Needless to
say, this approach only underlines the inherent adventurism of the line
currently dominant in Washington.
Hillary Meddles In The South China Sea
On the one hand, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
has announced her intention to begin meddling on a grand scale in the
already difficult disputes about islands and oil in the South China Sea,
parts of which are claimed by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines,
Indonesia, and so forth. As the New York Times sums up Mrs. Clinton’s demarche: ‘Opening a new source of potential friction with China, the Obama administration
is stepping into a tangled dispute between China and its smaller Asian
neighbors over a string of strategically significant islands in the
South China Sea. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking at
an Asian regional security meeting in Vietnam, stressed that the United
States remained neutral on which regional countries had stronger
territorial claims to the islands. But she said that the United States
had an interest in preserving free shipping in the area and that it
would be willing to facilitate multilateral talks on the issue. Though
presented as an offer to help ease tensions, the stance amounts to a
sharp rebuke to China. Beijing has insisted for years that all the
islands belong to China and that any disputes should be resolved by
China. In March, senior Chinese officials pointedly warned their
American counterparts that they would brook no interference in the South
China Sea, which they called part of the “core interest” of
sovereignty.’26
US Nuclear Deal With Vietnam Directed Against China
Another prong of this attempt to keep
the Chinese tied down in conflicts with hostile neighbors close to home
is represented by the fast-moving negotiations between Washington and
Hanoi for a nuclear technology sharing deal. This ploy obviously intends
to scare the Chinese with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Vietnam,
acting as a cat’s paw for the United States in the same way that the US
is trying to use India. As the Wall Street Journal reported, ‘the Obama administration
is in advanced negotiations to share nuclear fuel and technology with
Vietnam in a deal that would allow Hanoi to enrich its own uranium—terms
that critics on Capitol Hill say would undercut the more stringent
demands the U.S. has been making of its partners in the Middle East. The
State Department-led negotiations could unsettle China, which shares
hundreds of miles of border with Vietnam. It is the latest example of
the U.S.’s renewed assertiveness in South and Southeast Asia, as
Washington strengthens ties with nations that have grown increasingly
wary of Beijing’s growing regional might. U.S. officials familiar with
the matter say negotiators have given a full nuclear-cooperation
proposal to the communist country and former Cold War foe, and have
started briefing House and Senate foreign-relations committees. A top
U.S. official briefed on the negotiation said China hadn’t been
consulted on the talks. “It doesn’t involve China,” the official said.’27
In the first three months of this year, we experienced a phase of
growing US-Chinese hostility centering on the refusal of Google to obey
relevant Chinese law regarding the Internet. After that, we had a short
interval of relative calm, with the Chinese allowing their renminbi
currency to float upwards to a limited and symbolic extent, and also
voting for the UN sanctions against Iran demanded by the US. Now,
tensions have abruptly begun to rise rapidly again in the Far East.
China’s Dong Feng 21 D, The Carrier Killer
But the Chinese are growing tired of
being threatened and bullied by the United States. One part of their
response is the development of a new and powerful anti-ship missile,
explicitly designed to sink US attack carriers. As the Associated Press
reported, ‘U.S. naval planners are scrambling to deal with what analysts
say is a game-changing weapon being developed by China — an
unprecedented carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D that
could be launched from land with enough accuracy to penetrate the
defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance
of more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).’28 The last US
aircraft carrier to be sunk by enemy action was the USS Princeton, which
was lost to Japanese attacks during the Battle of Leyte Gulf off the
Philippines in 1944.
CIA Veterans Urge Obama To Desist From Aggression
On August 3, the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), an association of retired intelligence
officials, appealed to Obama to turn away from war while there was still
time. This appeal was signed by Phil Giraldi, Larry Johnson, Ray
McGovern, W. Patrick Lang, Coleen Rowley, and Ann Wright. This appeal states:
‘We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran
as early as this month [August 2010]. This would likely lead to a wider
war. This can be stopped, but only if you move quickly to pre-empt an
Israeli attack by publicly condemning such a move before it happens. …
as we hope your advisers have told you, regime change, not Iranian
nuclear weapons, is Israel’s primary concern.’29
A New National Intelligence Estimate On Iran Is Pending
The VIPS cite, among the motivations for
Israel to launch a quick preemptive attack and drag the United States
into war, the possibility that the new National Intelligence Estimate on
the Iranian nuclear weapons situation will reinforce the conclusion of
the earlier NIE of December 2007 that there is no Iranian and nuclear
weapons program. But this diagnosis appears to be overly optimistic, and
does not take into account the growing power of the neocon faction at
the expense of the Brzezinskyites which is reflected in the ascendancy
of the neocon warlord Petraeus, as well as in Obamas own increasingly
desperate and bellicose rhetoric. There is no doubt that the entire
neocon faction is now fully mobilized with the overriding goal of
concocting a new NIE which brands Iran as a de facto nuclear weapons
state, thus making a direct US attack mandatory.
Among the reflections of this neocon
agitation in the press, we can cite the article by Edward Jay Epstein in
which the author, just as predicted in the present writer’s essay of
July 21, attempts to use the recent Amiri affair to concoct a plausible
explanation for why the December 2007 NIE was so adamant that there was
no Iranian nuclear weapons program. This is the same Edward Jay Epstein
who is otherwise notorious for his attacks on New Orleans District
Attorney Jim Garrison and on filmmaker Oliver Stone, attacks carried out
in defense of the discredited Warren Commission report on the 1963
Kennedy assassination.
Epstein had this to say about the
connection between the Amiri affair and the December 2007 NIE: ‘One
Iranian agent who supplied information to the CIA is Shahram Amiri, who
defected to the U.S. last year and re-defected back to Iran this month.
He reportedly provided details about the termination of Project 111 [the
alleged nuclear weapons program] that presumably dovetailed with other
information we got from the CIA’s compromised network. Iran now claims
Mr. Amiri was a double agent all along. Whether Iran controlled his
secret reports to the CIA will be hotly debated for years to come. But
willful blindness on our part should not be ignored. There were
high-level people in the newly reorganized U.S. intelligence community
who wanted to believe Iran was ending its quest for the bomb, and
messages to the CIA from agents inside the country that diplomatic
pressure was accomplishing this task fell on receptive ears. Whether the
erroneous conclusions in the 2007 NIE proceeded from Iranian deception
or American self-deception, they undercut the case for taking more
drastic action against Tehran. To the degree that other countries
believed Iran had ended its nuclear program, they had little incentive
to join us in imposing further sanctions.’30 The neocons intend to roll back all that as soon as possible.
Krauthammer: Relentlessly Visit Ruin Upon Iran
Most American newspapers never reported
Achmadinejad’s statement about the US getting ready to attack two
countries within the next three months. Ironically, the only way this
news crept into the Washington Post was by way of a belligerent
opinion screed by neocon Charles Krauthammer. For Krauthammer, the
alliance of Iran and Hezbollah assumed almost apocalyptic significance.
Krauthammer comments that ‘for all his clownishness, Ahmadinejad is
nonetheless calculating and dangerous. What “two countries” was he
talking about? They seem logically to be Lebanon and Syria. Hezbollah in
Lebanon has armed itself with 50,000 rockets and made clear that it is
in a position to start a war at any time. Fighting on this scale would
immediately bring in Syria, which would in turn invite Iranian
intervention in defense of its major Arab clients — and of the first
Persian beachhead on the Mediterranean in 1,400 years.’
True to the neocon party line, Krauthammer demands that Obama stay the course
towards Middle East conflagration: ‘after 18 months of failed
engagement, the administration is hardening itld be enough to rattle a
regime already unsteady and shorn of domestic legitimacy. Hence
Achmadinejad’s otherwise inscrutable warning about an Israeli attack on
two countries. (Said Defense Minister Ehud Barak to Fox News: “Who is
the second one?”) It is a pointed reminder to the world of Iran’s
capacity to trigger, through Hezbollah and Syria, a regional
conflagration. This is the kind of brinkmanship you get when leaders of a
rogue regime are under growing pressure. The only hope to get them to
reverse course is to relentlessly increase their feeling that, if they
don’t, the Arab states, Israel, the Europeans and America will, one way
or another, ensure that ruin is visited upon them.’31 William
Kristol, another of the neocon dogs of war, offered Obama a column full
of friendly political advice, concluding inevitably with a call for
‘military action military action against the Iranian nuclear program—and
you’ll have a real shot at a successful presidency.”32
Still No Iraq Government
Before starting the Iran war, the Obama
regime would like to finally set up a puppet regime in Iraq which would
be as anti-Iranian as can be managed under the current situation. The
chosen agent of influence to head such a government would be Ayad
Allawi. But the Iraqi politicians have been bickering about a new
government since the March 7 parliamentary elections, so far with no
success. Vice President Biden has made four trips to Iraq in the hope of
installing Allawi, but so far he has failed. The most recent meetings
between Allawi and the pro-Iranian Maliki have also brought no results. As UPI reported,
‘A meeting between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his rival
Iyad Allawi produced no political breakthroughs, secular leaders said.
Allawi met in Baghdad with Maliki following talks in Damascus with
anti-American cleric Moqtada Sadr. Hayder al-Mullah, a representative
from Allawi’s Iraqiya slate, told the Voices of Iraq new agency
Wednesday that Allawi expressed his determination to form a new
government.’33 If the US strikes Iran, it is inevitable that
the civil war inside Iraq will resume on a scale even more serious than
what was observed in 2006-2007.
Obama Wants Iran To Release Three Us Hikers
Obama has also been calling for Iran to
release three alleged US hikers who supposedly went for a walk in Iraqi
Kurdistan and suddenly found themselves on the Iranian side of the
border, where they were arrested. The case is suspicious because of CIA covert operations among Kurds, Arabs, Azeris, Turkmen, Baluchis, and other minority nationalities of the Islamic Republic. As Politico reported,
‘President Barack Obama called on Iran Friday to free three American
hikers it detained one year ago. He also said that Sarah Shourd, Shane
Bauer and Josh Fattal never worked for the U.S. government
and were people who have demonstrated open-mindedness and a desire for
social justice. Iran recently charged the three young University of
California Berkeley graduates with having improperly crossed the border,
while it continues to carry out an investigation. But it did not charge
them with espionage, as it had previously threatened. Obama also called
on Iran to provide information in the case of former FBI agent Robert
Levinson, who went missing after a 2007 meeting on Kish Island.’34
———————————————-
1 Webster G. Tarpley, “Obama is Preparing to Bomb Iran,” July 21, 2010, http://tarpley.net/2010/07/22/obama-preparing-to-bomb-iran/
2 http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2010/0807fidel-calls-on-the-world-to-persuade-obama-not-to-unleash-war.htm
In the original: “Mas, en ese mismo instante en que diera la orden, que
es además la única que podría dar debido al poder, la velocidad y el
incontable número de proyectiles nucleares acumulados en una absurda
competencia entre las potencias, estaría ordenando la muerte instantánea
no sólo de cientos de millones de personas, entre ellas, un
incalculable número de habitantes de su propia Patria, sino también de
los tripulantes de todos los navíos de la flota de Estados Unidos en los
mares en torno a Irán. Simultáneamente, la conflagración estallaría en
el Cercano y el Lejano Oriente, y en toda Eurasia.” (Granma)
5 Michael Casey, ‘UAE: Japanese tanker attacked in Persian Gulf,’ AP, August 6, 2010, at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijprLX5wJOPvJeITBt9isdD-Ml6wD9HE6LDG1
6 There was speculation
about the possible role of Bedouin tribesmen as enablers of Hamas:
‘Restive Bedouin communities populating the mountainous desert area have
long been at odds with the Egyptian government. Bedouins complain of
state discrimination, lack of access to government resources, and
racism. Now there are growing Israeli concerns that Hamas, an offshoot
of Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood, has tapped into Bedouin
discontent. Bedouins are believed to have at least provided space for
militants to operate, if not directly assisted them, in both the latest
rocket attack, and a similar one in April.’ http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0805/Egypt-Gaza-militants-actually-did-launch-Monday-s-rocket-attacks-from-Sinai
7 Ed Pilkington, “US has plan to attack Iran if needed, military chief admits,” Guardian, August 1, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/01/us-iran-attack-plan-mullen
9 http://www.france24.com/en/20100803-iran-officals-slam-us-admirals-attack-plan-remarks?quicktabs_1=1
10 Yitzhak Benhorin, “Obama on Iran: All options on table,” Ynet News, May 17, 2009, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3716807,00.html
11 Kourosh Ziabari,’Obama Threatens Iran With “All Options” Again, OpEd News, May 7, 2010, Opednews.com/articles/Obama-Threatens-Iran-With-by-Kourosh-Ziabari-100504-671.html
12 Obama’s interview with Yonit Levi, Israeli TV, Conducted July 7, 2010, http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0710/Obamas_interview_with_Israeli_TV.html
13 Fox News Sunday interview with Israeli PM Netanyahu, 11 Jul 2010, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2010/Fox_News_interview_PM_Netanyahu_11-Jul-2010.htm
14 ‘Ahmadinejad sure US will strike Middle East in 3 months,’ Reuters, Jul 28, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Ahmadinejad-sure-US-will-strike-Middle-East-in-3-months/articleshow/6225072.cms
15 ‘Vahidi: any Israeli injudicious action will trigger the countdown of its destruction,’ Jouhina News, July 27, 2010, at http://www.jpnews-sy.com/en/news.php?id=1552
16 Jack Devine, ‘The CIA
Solution for Afghanistan: There’s no ‘victory’ to be had there. But we
can prevent it from becoming a haven for al Qaeda with a covert strategy
based on Predator drones and alliances with local leaders,’ Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2010, at http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704201604575373253893718806.html
17 “Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is ‘annoyed’ by 9/11 truth,” Infowars, http://www.infowars.com/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-is-annoyed-by-911-truth
18 David Cameron accused by Labour of Iran nuclear ‘gaffe’, BBC, 5 August 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10886435
19 Hezbollah warns against ‘false charges.’ PRESSTV, Wed, 28 Jul 2010, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=136570§ionid=351020203
20 Edward Luce, “Obama faces growing credibility crisis,” Financial Times, July 13, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/01/us-iran-attack-plan-mullen
22 Tony Karon, ‘Iran War Rhetoric: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?’, Time, July 29, 2010, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007246,00.html
24 Nil Nikandrov, ‘The US
is Synchronously Preparing to Launch Aggressions Against Iran and
Venezuela,’ RIA Novosti, July 29, 2010, http://www.en.rian.ru/international_affairs/20100729/159994768.html
25 ‘Colombia’s Santos to Host Meeting with Venezuela’s Chavez,’ VOA, August 9, 2010, http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/americas/Colombias-Santos-to-Host-Meeting-with-Venezuelas-Chavez-100307519.html
26 Mark Landler, ‘Offering to Aid Talks, U.S. Challenges China on Disputed Islands,’ New York Times, July 23, 2010, at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/world/asia/24diplo.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
27 Jay Solomon, ‘U.S.,
Hanoi in Nuclear Talks; Vietnam Plan to Enrich Uranium May Undercut
Nonproliferation Efforts, Rile China,’, Wall Street Journal, August 3,
2010, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704741904575409261840078780.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
28 “Chinese missile could shift Pacific power balance,” Eric Talmadge, Associated Press, Aug. 5, 2010
29 Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, “Obama Warned Israel May Bomb Iran,” August 3, 2010, http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/080310c.html
30 Edward Jay Epstein, ‘How
the CIA Got It Wrong on Iran’s Nukes: In 2007, U.S. intelligence said
Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program. Analyst policy bias and
disinformation from Iranian double agents may explain the mistake,’ Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2010.
31 Charles Krauthammer, ‘Iran starts feeling heat,’ Washington Post, July 30, 2010, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072904901.html
32 Washington Examiner, August 2, 2010, p. 9.
33 Maliki, Allawi talks go nowhere, UPI, July 21, 2010, at http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/07/21/Maliki-Allawi-talks-go-nowhere/UPI-55031279725288/
34 ‘Obama to Iran: Free the hikers,’ Politico, July 30, 2010, at http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0710/Obama_to_Iran_Free_the_hikers.html
Sumber: TARPLEY.net
Rusia Serahkan Bukti Forensik Penggunaan Senjata Kimia Gerilyawan Suriah
Guardian ..http://www.republika.co.id/berita/internasional/timur-tengah/13/07/10/mpoxqu-bom-guncang-benteng-hizbullah-di-hari-pertama-ramadhan
REPUBLIKA.CO.ID,JAKARTA--Sehari setelah Pemerintah Suriah
mengundang penyelidik senjata kimia PBB ke pembicaraan di Damaskus,
Rusia, pada Selasa (9/7), menyatakan Moskow memiliki bukti bahwa
gerilyawan telah menggunakan gas sarin 'mematikan'.
Rusia menyatakan telah menyerahkan buktinya kepada tim penyelidik PBB. Wakil Tetap Rusia untuk PBB, Vitaly Churkin, memberi tahu wartawan ia mengajukan satu analisis, "yang disahkan oleh organisasi senjata kimia", dalam "80 halaman gambar, formula dan grafik" kepada Sekretaris Jenderal PBB Ban Ki-moon.
Churkin mengatakan gas sarin --cairan tanpa warna dan bau yang mempengaruhi sistem syaraf-- ada di dalam proyektil yang ditembakkan oleh oposisi ke dalam Wilayah Khan Al-Asal di Aleppo pada 19 Maret. Sebanyak 200 orang tewas dalam serangan tersebut.
Suriah telah menyampaikan keluhan ke PBB dan meminta dilakukannya pemeriksaan. Tak lama setelah itu, Amerika Serikat, Inggris dan Prancis menyatakan "ada petunjuk" Pemerintah Suriah telah "menggunakan senjata kimia" terhadap pasukan oposisi. Namun, ketiga sekutu itu mengakui mereka "kekurangan rantai pengawasan" yang diperlukan bagi bukti forensik.
Ban mengatakan semua tuduhan akan diperiksa dan satu tim penyelidik telah dibentuk. Tapi, Suriah menarik diri dari pemeriksaan terbuka semacam itu.
Rusia menyatakan telah menyerahkan buktinya kepada tim penyelidik PBB. Wakil Tetap Rusia untuk PBB, Vitaly Churkin, memberi tahu wartawan ia mengajukan satu analisis, "yang disahkan oleh organisasi senjata kimia", dalam "80 halaman gambar, formula dan grafik" kepada Sekretaris Jenderal PBB Ban Ki-moon.
Churkin mengatakan gas sarin --cairan tanpa warna dan bau yang mempengaruhi sistem syaraf-- ada di dalam proyektil yang ditembakkan oleh oposisi ke dalam Wilayah Khan Al-Asal di Aleppo pada 19 Maret. Sebanyak 200 orang tewas dalam serangan tersebut.
Suriah telah menyampaikan keluhan ke PBB dan meminta dilakukannya pemeriksaan. Tak lama setelah itu, Amerika Serikat, Inggris dan Prancis menyatakan "ada petunjuk" Pemerintah Suriah telah "menggunakan senjata kimia" terhadap pasukan oposisi. Namun, ketiga sekutu itu mengakui mereka "kekurangan rantai pengawasan" yang diperlukan bagi bukti forensik.
Ban mengatakan semua tuduhan akan diperiksa dan satu tim penyelidik telah dibentuk. Tapi, Suriah menarik diri dari pemeriksaan terbuka semacam itu.
Redaktur : Taufik Rachman |
Sumber : antara |
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar