the Bush Administration Planning
A Nuclear Holocaust?
By Michel Chossudovsky
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-defence".
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
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 theatre". (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 theatre".
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)
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)
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
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)
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
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'
Theater Nuclear Operations
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
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
Planned Aerial Attacks
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.
U.S. 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
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' )[http://www.globalresearch.ca].
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
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
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
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).
CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall
umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving
'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
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'
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:
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).
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
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
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)
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. Although Chirac has 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".
Building a Pretext
for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack
The pretext for waging war
on Iran essentially rests on two fundamental premises, which are part
of the Bush administration's National Security doctrine.
1. Iran's alleged possession
of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD), more specifically
its nuclear enrichment program.
2. Iran's alleged support
to "Islamic terrorists".
These are two interrelated
statements which are an integral part of the propaganda and media disinformation
The "Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD)" statement is used to justify the "pre-emptive
war" against the "State sponsors of terror", i.e. countries
such as Iran which allegedly possess WMD.
Cheney's "Contingency Plan"
While the "threat"
of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council,
Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM
to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another
9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency
plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11"
which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation
The contingency plan, which
is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible
aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".
What is diabolical is that
the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in
a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:
The plan includes a large-scale
air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear
weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets,
including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites.
Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not
be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in
the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being
involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.
Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly
appalled at the implications of what they are doing — that Iran
is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is
prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi,
'Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War' , The American Conservative,
2 August 2005)
Are we to understand that
US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch
a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a
"state of readiness"?
Cheney's proposed "contingency
plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan
is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second
9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior
to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks
on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role
of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth
noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned
well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive
"At a deeper level,
it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized
in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing
wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by
the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.…"
(Keefer, February 2006 )
Keefer concludes that "an
attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant
numbers of extremely ‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear bombs,
might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States,
which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by
Iranian agents" (Keefer, February 2006 )
The Battle for Oil
The Anglo-American oil companies
are indelibly behind Cheney's "contingency plan" to wage war
on Iran. The latter is geared towards territorial and corporate control
over oil and gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.
There is continuity in US
Middle East war plans, from the Democrats to the Republicans. The essential
features of Neoconservative discourse were already in place under the
Clinton administration. US Central Command's (USCENTCOM) "theater"
strategy in the mid-1990s was geared towards securing, from an economic
and military standpoint, control over Middle East oil.
"The broad national
security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National
Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy
(NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater
strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment
of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a
threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their
own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of
power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's
theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of
U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States'
vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access
to Gulf oil.
Iran possesses 10 percent
of global oil and gas reserves, The US is the first and foremost military
and nuclear power in the World, but it possesses less than 3 percent
of global oil and gas reserves.
On the other hand, the countries
inhabited by Muslims, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central
Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, possess
approximately 80 percent of the World's oil and gas reserves.
The "war on terrorism"
and the hate campaign directed against Muslims, which has gained impetus
in recent months, bears a direct relationship to the "Battle for
Middle East Oil". How best to conquer these vast oil reserves located
in countries inhabited by Muslims? Build a political consensus against
Muslim countries, describe them as "uncivilized", denigrate
their culture and religion, implement ethnic profiling against Muslims
in Western countries, foster hatred and racism against the inhabitants
of the oil producing countries.
The values of Islam are said
to be tied into "Islamic terrorism". Western governments are
now accusing Iran of "exporting terrorism to the West" In
the reactionary words of Prime Minister Tony Blair:
"There is a virus of
extremism which comes out of the cocktail of religious fanaticism and
political repression in the Middle East which is now being exported
to the rest of the world. "We will only secure our future if we
are dealing with every single aspect of that problem. Our future security
depends on sorting out the stability of that region… You can never
say never in any of these situations." (quoted in the Mirror, 7
Muslims are demonized (reminiscent
of demonization against the Jews under the Nazi Germany propaganda machine
during World War II), casually identified with "Islamic terrorists",
who are also described as constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the
terrorists are supported by Iran, an Islamic Republic which threatens
the "civilized World" with deadly nuclear weapons (which it
does not possess). In contrast, America's humanitarian "nuclear
weapons will be accurate, safe and reliable."
The World is at a
Implications of Iran as an
ally of Russia and China
It is not Iran which is a
threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
In recent developments, Western
European governments --including the so-called "non-nuclear states"
which possess nuclear weapons-- have joined the bandwagon. In chorus,
Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance (NATO)
have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.
The Pentagon's planned aerial
attacks on Iran involve "scenarios" using both nuclear and
conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use of nuclear weapons,
the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must, nonetheless,
be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar movement,
particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.
It should also be understood
that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran, supplying them
with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated missile defence
system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a passive
position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.
The new preemptive nuclear
doctrine calls for the "integration" of "defensive"
and "offensive" operations. Moreover, the important distinction
between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..
From a military standpoint,
the US and its coalition partners including Israel and Turkey are in
"a state of readiness."
Through media disinformation,
the objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a
US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran's defiance of the international
War propaganda consists in
"fabricating an enemy" while conveying the illusion that the
Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly
supported by the Tehran government.
"Make the World safer",
"prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists",
"implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace".
"Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states"...
Supported by the Western
mass-media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed
against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which
provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld
as a "Just War". The "Just war" theory serves to
camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face
to the invaders.
Resistance to the
Neo-fascist objectives of neo-conservative elites
The "anti-war movement"
is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military
agenda. Several non-governmental organizations have placed the blame
on Iran, for not complying with the "reasonable demands" of
the "international community". These same organizations, which
are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the
proposed US bombing of Iran.
To reverse the tide requires
a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across
the land, nationally and internationally, in neighbourhoods, workplaces,
parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a
US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The
message should be loud and clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without
the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation,
ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.
Debate and discussion must
also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly
with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors
of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high
office must be challenged.
The corporate media also
bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes.
It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the
Middle East war.
For the past year, Washington
has been waging a "diplomatic arm twisting" exercise with
a view to enlisting countries into supporting of its military agenda.
It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle
East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the
US military agenda.
Condoleezza Rice has trekked
across the Middle East, "expressing concern over Iran's nuclear
program", seeking the unequivocal endorsement of the governments
of the region against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration has
allocated funds in support of Iranian dissident groups within Iran.
What is needed is to break
the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront
the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments
which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland
Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police
Humanity is at the crossroads
of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on
a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future
of humanity. It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront
of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe.
Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take
a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must
take a stance individually and collectively against war.
is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization
of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of
Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for
Research on Globalization, [www.globalresearch.ca] . He is also a contributor
to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s
"War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
Copyright © 2005 The
Share Your Insights