The U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet is headquartered in the Gulf State of
Bahrain which is responsible for patrolling the Persian Gulf,
Arabian Sea, Suez Canal and parts of the Indian Ocean. The Fifth
Fleet currently comprises a carrier group and two helicopter
carrier ships. Its size peaked at five aircraft carrier groups
and six helicopter carriers in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq.
Presently, it is led by the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the first
nuclear powered aircraft carrier commissioned in 1961. It is the
oldest of the Navy’s nuclear powered class carriers and
scheduled to be decommissioned in 2015 when the first of the new
Ford Class carriers enters service. The Enterprise has over 5000
Navy personnel, and on November 2, began participating in a
Naval exercise in the Persian Gulf.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL02134242 .
The
Fifth Fleet is part of Central Command which is responsible for
military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia,
including the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Central Command is led by Admiral William Fallon, the first
naval officer to head Central Command. His appointment reflected
widespread opinion that Naval forces would be central in the
evolution of missions and goals in the Persian Gulf region.
Robert Gates, the U.S. Secretary of Defense explained: “As you
look at the range of options available to the United States, the
use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for
all those reasons for Fallon to have the job.”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1212/ It
would be Central Command and the Fifth Fleet that would be
directly responsible for carrying out a new war against Iran. As
a result, it would be the Fifth Fleet that would be most
vulnerable of all U.S. military assets to Iran’s arsenal of
anti-ship cruise missiles.
The Fifth Fleet’s base in Bahrain, is only 150 miles away from
the Iranian coast, and would itself be in range of Iran’s new
generation of anti-ship cruise missiles. Also, any Naval ships
in the confined terrain of the Persian Gulf would have
difficulty in maneuvering and would be within range of Iran’s
rugged coastline which extends all along the Persian Gulf to the
Arabian sea.
Iran began purchasing advanced military technology from Russia
soon after the latter pulled out in 2000 from the
Gore-Chernomyrdin Protocol, which limited Russia’s sales of
military equipment to Iran.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/03-12-2005/9334-iran-0
. Russia subsequently began selling Iran military technology
that could be used in any military conflict with the U.S. This
included air defense systems and anti-ship cruise missiles in
which Russia specialized to offset the U.S. large naval
superiority. One researcher of Russia’s missile technology
explains its focus on anti-ship technologies:
Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US
Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The
Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US
spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada.
They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic
defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively
inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets
succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles,
one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most
lethal missile in the world today."
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
The SS-N-22 or ‘Sunburn” has a speed of Mach 2.5 or 1500 miles
an hour, uses stealth technology and has a range up to 130
miles. It contains a conventional warhead of 750 lbs that can
destroy most ships. Of even greater concern is Russia’s SSN-X-26
or ‘Yakhonts’ cruise missile which has a range of 185 miles
which makes all US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable to
attack.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm .
More importantly the Yakhonts has been specifically developed
for use against Carrier groups, and has been sold by Russia on
the international arms trade.
Both the Yakhonts and the Sunburn missiles are designed to
defeat the Aegis radar defense currently used on U.S. Navy ships
by using stealth technology and low ground hugging flying
maneuvers. In their final approaches these missiles take evasive
maneuvers to defeat anti-ship missile defenses. The best defense
the Navy has against Sunburn and Yakhonts cruise missiles has
been the Sea-RAM (Rolling Actionframe Missile system) anti-ship
missile defense system which is a modified form of the Phalanx
20 mm cannon gun . The Sea-RAM has been tested with a 95%
success rate against the ‘Vandal’ supersonic missile capable of
Mach 2.5 speeds but does not have the radar evading and final
flight maneuvers of Russian anti-ship missiles.
http://www.navybuddies.com/launcher/ram.htm Naval ships are
having their anti-ship missile defense fitted with the new
Sea-RAM
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20060412.aspx.
However, the Sea-RAM has not yet been tested in actual battle
conditions nor against the Sunburn or Yakhonts missiles which
out-perform the Vandal. The Vandal is currently scheduled for
replacement by the ‘Coyote’ which replicates many of the evasive
maneuvers of the Russia anti-ship missiles necessary for
developing an effective defense.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gqm-163.htm
.
So great is the threat posed by the Sunburn, Yakhonts and other
advanced anti-ship missiles being developed by Russia and sold
to China, Iran and other countries, that the Pentagon’s weapons
testing office in 2007 moved to halt production on further
aircraft carriers until an effective defense was developed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5LkaU0wj714&refer=home
. Iran has purchased sufficient quantities of both the Sunbeam
and Yakhonts to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet anywhere
in the Persian Gulf from its mountainous coastal terrain.
In 2000, the Government Accountability Office (formerly General
Accounting Office – GAO) conducted a study on the US Navy’s
preparedness for anti-ship cruise missiles
http://fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-00-149.htm . Subtitled,
Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Ship Cruise Missile
Defense, the study pointed out that the “threat to surface
ships from sophisticated anti-ship cruise missiles is
increasing. Nearly 70 nations have deployed sea- and
land-launched cruise missiles, and 20 nations have air-launched
cruise missiles.” The study found that although “the Navy has
made some progress in improving surface ship self-defense
capabilities, most ships continue to have only limited
capabilities against cruise missile threats.” A subsequent
military study in 2003 found that only 27 Naval ships were
fitted with the Sea-RAM anti-missile defense which had performed
well in tests.
http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documents/jca_cca_awsp/Cruise_Missile_Defense_Final.doc
. The GAO study found that while “Navy leaders express concern
about the vulnerability of surface ships, that concern may not
be reflected in the budget [1997-2005] for ship self-defense
programs.” Most importantly, the GAO study found that Navy
assessments “overstates the actual and projected capabilities of
surface ships to protect themselves from cruise missiles.” The
GAO study’s criticism of the Navy’s capacity to satisfactorily
deal with cruise missile threats was vividly illustrated in the
Millennium Challenge wargames held in the summer of 2002.
The “Millennium Challenge” was one of the largest wargames ever
conducted and wargames involved 13,500 troops spread out at over
17 locations. The wargames involved heavy usage of computer
simulations, extended over a three week period and cost $250
million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Millennium Challenge involved asymmetrical warfare between the
U.S military forces, led by General William Kernan, and an
unnamed state in the Persian Gulf. According to General Kernan,
the wargames “would test a series of new war-fighting concepts
recently developed by the Pentagon.”
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm . Using a range of
asymmetrical attack strategies using disguised civilian boats
for launching attacks, planes in Kamikaze attacks, and Silkworm
cruise missiles, much of the Fifth Fleet was sunk. The games
revealed how asymmetrical strategies could exploit the Fifth
Fleet’s vulnerability against anti-ship cruise missiles in the
confined waters of the Persian Gulf.
In a controversial decision, the Pentagon decided to simply
‘refloat’ the Fifth Fleet to continue the exercise which led to
the eventual defeat of the Persian Gulf state. The sinking of
the Fifth Fleet was ignored and the wargames declared a success
for the “new war-fighting concepts” adopted by Gen. Kernan. This
led to Lt General Paul Van Riper, the commander of the mythical
Gulf State, calling the official results “empty sloganeering”.
In a later television interview, General Riper elaborated
further:
"There were accusations that Millennium Challenge was rigged. I
can tell you it was not. It started out as a free-play exercise,
in which both Red and Blue had the opportunity to win the game.
However, about the third or fourth day, when the concepts that
the command was testing failed to live up to their expectations,
the command at that point began to script the exercise in order
to prove these concepts. This was my critical complaint.”
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm
Most significant was General Riper’s claims of the effectiveness
of the older Cruise missile technology, the Silkworm missile
which were used to sink an aircraft carrier and two
helicopter-carriers loaded with marines in the total of 16 ships
sunk. When asked to confirm Riper’s claims, General Kernar
replied: “Well, I don’t know. To be honest with you. I haven’t
had an opportunity to assess what happened. But that’s a
possibility… The specifics of the cruise-missile piece… I really
can’t answer that question. We’ll have to get back to you”
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm
The Millennium Challenge wargames clearly demonstrated the
vulnerability of the US Fifth Fleet to Silkworm cruise missile
attacks. This replicated the experience of the British during
the 1980 Falklands war where two ships were sunk by three Exocet
missiles. Both the Exocet and Silkworm cruise missiles were an
older generation of anti-ship missile technology that were far
surpassed by the Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. If the
Millennium Challenge was a guide to an asymmetrical war with
Iran, much of the U.S Fifth Fleet would be destroyed. It is not
surprising Millennium Challenge was eventually scripted so that
this embarrassing fact was hidden. To date, there has been
little public awareness of the vulnerability of the US Fifth
Fleet while stationed in the Persian Gulf. It appears that the
Bush administration had scripted an outcome to the wargames that
would promote its neoconservative agenda for the Middle East.
The Neo-Conservative Strategy to
Attack Iran
Neoconservatives share a political philosophy that US dominance
of the international system as the world’s sole superpower needs
to be extended indefinitely into the 21st century.
Part of the neoconservative agenda is to identify and overthrow
states that are opposed to the current U.S. dominated
international system. After the 911 attacks, rogue states viewed
as supporters of international terrorism were elevated into what
President Bush called in his 2002 State of the Union speech the
“Axis of Evil” .
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html
These originally included Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Neoconservatives view forceful diplomacy backed by military
intervention as the price to pay for reigning in rogue states
that support terrorism. Up until the 2003 invasion, Iraq had
been the principal rogue state that was a targeted by
neoconservatives. Subsequent to the US overthrow of Saddam
Hussein and forceful multilateral diplomacy on North Korea,
neo-conservative attention has firmly shifted to Iran.
In early 2006 neoconservatives within the Bush administration
began vigorously promoting a new war against Iran due to the
alleged threat posed by its nuclear development program. Iran
has consistently maintained that its nuclear development is
lawful and in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
Article IV.1 of the NPT states: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be
interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the
Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes…”
http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html . The only
constraint on this “inalienable right” is that states must agree
not to pursue a nuclear weapons program as identified in
Articles I and II of the NPT. Since 2004, The Bush
administration has been citing intelligence data that Iran is
secretly developing nuclear weapons and must under no
circumstances be allowed to do this.
Much of Iran’s nuclear development has occurred in underground
facilities built at a depth of 70 feet with hardened concrete
overhead that protect them from any known conventional attack.
This led to the Bush administration arguing in early 2006 that
tactical nuclear weapons would need to be used to take out
Iran’s nuclear facilities.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact
This culminated in a fierce debate between leading
neo-conservatives such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, with
the Joint Chiefs of Staff which remained adamantly opposed.
Seymour Hersh in May 2006, reported the opposition of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace,
achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its
insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the
possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran's
uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles
south of Tehran. …. "Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the
nuclear planning," the former senior intelligence official told
me. "And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: 'O.K.,
the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.'
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact .
.
Subsequent efforts by the neo-conservatives to justify a
conventional military attack have been handicapped by widespread
public skepticism by the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program,
and Iran’s compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty. The
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has stated that Iran
is complying with its inspection requirements. In a statement on
October 8, 2007, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA,
dismissed the main argument used by the Bush administration when
he said "I have not received any information that there is a
concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now."
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20071028-114627-4645r
. ElBaradei went on to cite U.S. military assessments that Iran
is a few years away from developing weapons grade nuclear fuel
that could be used for nuclear weapons. The Bush administration,
frustrated by the determined opposition both within the U.S
bureaucracy, military and the international community to its
plans has adopted a three pronged track strategy for its goal of
‘taking out’ Iran.
First Attack Strategy
The first strategy is to drive up public perceptions of an
international security crisis by warning of a Third World War if
Iran’s nuclear program is not stopped. In a Press Conference
speech on October 17, President Bush declared:
I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World
War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing
them [Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a
nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon
very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations
about the seriousness of this threat. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html
Bush’s startling rhetoric was followed soon after by Vice
President Cheney on October 23 who warned in a speech before the
Washington Institute for Near East Studies: ''Our country, and
the entire international community, cannot stand by as a
terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions.”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/21/cheney.iran.ap/ Cheney
went on to allude in his speech to military action where the US
and its allies were "prepared to impose serious consequences."
He then declared: “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear
weapon.''
Bush’s and Cheney’s alarming rhetoric provides political cover
for Israel, which is also adamantly opposed to Iran’s nuclear
developments plans, to bomb its nuclear facilities. On September
6, 2007 an elite Israeli Air Force Squadron launched a daring
air raid and destroyed a secret Syrian facility that had
allegedly received nuclear material from North Korea. According
to a Sunday Times report, the “Israelis proved they could
penetrate the Syrian air defense system, which is stronger than
the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece
The Syrian raid was a test run for what Israel could do against
Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Bush administration has been
encouraging a covert Israeli military strike against Iran given
determined opposition to a U.S. led military strike. An earlier
Sunday Times report from January 2007 exposed Israeli plans for
airstrikes against Iran using nuclear armed bunker busting
weapons in the event the U.S. did not move forward:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece
. However, the U.S. military is also opposed to a unilateral
attack by Israel which would result in a furious Iranian
retaliation against American forces.
There were unconfirmed reports that the U.S. denied Israel the
flight codes to fly over Iraqi airspace for an early 2007 air
raid sanctioned by neoconservatives within the Bush
administration. Currently, Admiral Fallon, the Commander of
Central Command, is opposed to U.S. military strikes against
Iran. During his confirmation hearing in February 2007, Fallon
privately confided that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my
watch”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1212/ . It is
highly likely that Fallon would veto any Israeli attack on Iran,
and deny it the flight codes it requires for flying over Iraqi
airspace.
Second Attack Strategy
The second strategy has been shift emphasis from removing Iran’s
nuclear facilities, to emphasizing its support for terrorism.
Given widespread military and political opposition to attacks on
Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Bush administration is now
depicting Iran as a supporter of terrorism in Iraq. Seymour
Hersh described the shift as follows:
“Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary
Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the
Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on
Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a
counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as
counterterrorism.”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh
.
The change in strategy was given a powerful boost by the passage
of the Kyle-Lieberman amendment by the U.S. Senate on September
26 which designated “the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a
foreign terrorist organization”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP3017: . This
would enable the Bush administration to authorize strikes
against Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities inside Iran on
the basis that they are supporting Iraqi terrorist groups
targeting U.S. military forces. According to Hersh the shift in
strategy is gaining support from among the American military.
While Admiral William Fallon has privately expressed opposition
to military action against Iran, the commander of U.S. forces
inside Iraq, General Petraeus, supports the Bush
administration’s Iran policies. Petraeus has declared: “None of
us, earlier this year, appreciated the extent of Iranian
involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders
all now have greater concern”.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=2
Petraeus went on to claim that Iran was fighting “a proxy war
against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.”
Consequently, limited surgical strikes against Revolutionary
Guards facilities might be authorized by the Bush
administration.
Third Attack Strategy
The third and most dangerous strategy used by the Bush
administration is to sanction a covert mission that would create
the necessary political environment for a war against Iran. This
is arguably best evidenced in the infamous B-52 ‘Bent Spear’
incident on August 30, 2007 where five (later changed to six)
nuclear armed cruise missiles were found en route to the Middle
East for a covert mission.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__071020_the_b_52_incident__96_.htm
The nuclear warheads had adjustable yields of between 5 to 150
kilotons, and would have been ideal for use against Iran’s
underground nuclear facilities or in a false flag operation that
would be blamed on Iran. According to confidential sources, the
covert mission involving the B-52 was to coincide with Israel’s
September 6 military strike against a Syrian military facility
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_wayne_ma_070928_news_of_b_52_nukes_l.htm
. However, Air Force personnel stood down ‘illegal’ orders that
most likely came from the White House, and averted what could
have been the detonation of one or more nuclear devices in the
Persian Gulf region. There is much evidence to believe that
ultimate responsibility for the B-52 incident can be traced to
the office of the Vice President.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__070907_was_a_covert_attempt.htm
Due to the Bush administration’s authority directly order
military units to participate in covert missions regardless of
their legality, the possibility that a covert mission will be
used to provoke a war with Iran remains high.
Consequences of Iran being
Attacked
In an effort to intimidate Iran, the Bush administration has
regularly placed two aircraft carrier group formations in the
Persian Gulf
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ss_gulf_11_04.asp
. In the naval exercises that began on Novembers 2, the USS
Enterprise (CVN 65) and a helicopter carrier, the USS Kearsarge
(LHD 3), are in the Persian Gulf simulating “a quick response to
possible crises”
http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/articles/2007/228.html . The size
and timing of possible U.S. military attacks on Iran’s nuclear
and/or military facilities, will influence the speed and scale
of an Iranian response. Iran’s response will predictably result
in a military escalation that culminates in Iran using its
arsenal of anti-ship cruise missiles on the U.S. Fifth Fleet and
closing off the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping. Iran’s ability
to hide and launch cruise missiles from mountainous positions
all along the Persian Gulf will make all Fifth Fleet ships in
the Persian Gulf vulnerable. The Fifth Fleet would be trapped
and unable to escape to safer waters. The Millennium Challenge
wargames in 2002 witnessed the sinking of most of the Fifth
fleet. Less advanced Silkworm cruise missiles, when compared to
Iran’s stock of Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles, were used in a
simulated asymmetric warfare that would resemble what would
occur if Iran and the U.S. went to war. The sunk ships included
an aircraft carrier, two helicopter carriers in the total of 16
ships that were ‘refloated’ in the exercise to produce a
scripted outcome.
If an attack on Iran were to occur before the end of 2007, it
would lead to the destruction of the USS Enterprise with its
complement of 5000 personnel on board. Further losses in terms
of support ships and other Fifth Fleet naval forces in the
Persian Gulf would be catastrophic. An Iranian cruise missile
attack would replicate losses at Pearl Harbor where the sinking
of five ships, destruction of 188 aircraft and deaths of 2,333
quickly led to a declaration of total war against Imperial Japan
by the U.S. Congress.
The declaration of total war against Iran by the U.S. Congress
would lead to a sustained bombing campaign and eventual military
invasion to bring about regime change in Iran. Military
conscription would occur in order to provide personnel for the
invasion of Iran, and to support U.S. troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan that would come under greater pressure. Tensions
would rapidly escalate with other major powers such as Russia
and China who have supplied Iran with sophisticated weapons
systems that could be used against U.S. military assets. The
closing of the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping and total war
conditions in the U.S. would lead to a collapse of the world
economy, and further erosion of civil liberties in a U.S.
engaged in total war.
Conclusions
The above scenario is very plausible given the military
capacities of Iran’s anti-ship cruise missiles and the U.S.
Navy’s vulnerability to these while operating in the Persian
Gulf. The Bush administration has hidden from the American
public the full extent of the Fifth Fleet’s vulnerability, and
how it could be trapped and destroyed in a full scale conflict
with Iran. This is best evidenced by the controversial decision
to downplay the real results of the Millennium Challenge
wargames and the dissenting views of Lt. General Van Riper over
the lessons to be learned. The Bush administration is also
downplaying the significance of the 2000 GAO report on US Navy
vulnerability to cruise missile attacks.
Neo-conservatives within the Bush administration are fully aware
of the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet, yet have at times tried
to place up to three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf which
would only augment U.S. losses in any war with Iran. Yet the
Bush administration has still attempted to move forward with
plans for nuclear, conventional and/or covert attacks on Iran
which would precipitate much of the terrible scenario described
above.
A reasonable conclusion to draw is that neoconservatives within
the Bush administration are willing to sacrifice much or all of
the U.S. Fifth Fleet by militarily provoking Iran to launch its
anti-ship cruise missile arsenal in order to justify ‘total war’
against Iran, and force regime change. An immediate solution is
to expose the neo-conservative agenda to sacrifice the Fifth
Fleet and to make accountable all those responsible for it.
On April 24, 2007 Congressman Dennis Kucinich began circulating
articles for impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick
Cheney which included among his “high crimes and misdemeanors”
his advocacy of aggression against Iran.
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf . The
relevant section in the Kucinich bill states:
“With respect to Article III, that in his conduct while vice
president of the United States, Richard Cheney openly threatened
aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat
to the United States, and has done so with the United States's
proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining
the national security interests of the United States.”.
After gaining additional support from 21 members of Congress as
co-sponsors, Kucinich introduce his articles of impeachment as a
privileged resolution on November 6 to force a vote in the
House of Representatives.
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=77985
. His privileged resolution was voted on and referred to the
House Judiciary Committee for further study.
In addition to Vice President Cheney, President Bush also is
culpable for the neo-conservative agenda to sacrifice the Fifth
Fleet by militarily provoking Iran into launching hostilities
that culminates in total war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Impeachment proceedings also need to be launched against
President Bush for “high crimes and misdemeanors” for approving
neoconservative plan to sacrifice the U.S. Fifth Fleet through
an unnecessary military provocation of Iran. A new Pearl Harbor
can be averted by making accountable Bush administration
officials willing to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet in pursuit of a
neoconservative agenda.
***
About the Author
Dr.
Michael Salla is an internationally recognized scholar in
international politics, conflict resolution, US foreign policy
and the new field of 'exopolitics'. He is author/editor of five
books; and held academic appointments in the School of
International Service& the Center for Global Peace, American
University, Washington DC (1996-2004); the Department of
Political Science, Australian National University, Canberra,
Australia (1994-96); and the Elliott School of International
Affairs, George Washington University, Washington D.C., (2002).
He has a Ph.D in Government from the University of Queensland,
Australia, and an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of
Melbourne, Australia. He has conducted research and fieldwork in
the ethnic conflicts in East Timor, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Sri
Lanka, and organized peacemaking initiatives involving mid to
high level participants from these conflicts.
Website:
www.americasherojourney.com
Recommended Reading
Governmental Accountability Office, “Defense Acquisitions:
Comprehensive Strategy Needed to Improve Ship Cruise Missile
Defense.” Letter Report, 07/11/2000, GAO/NSIAD-00-149. http://fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-00-149.htm
Mark Gaffney, “The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship
Missile The Weapon That Could Defeat The US In The Gulf”
.jpg)
