Saddam and Iran Prepare WMD

Saddam cannot win a war with the US, if the US has the will to win. However, if he attacks first and achieves military control over much of the middle east, he can reach a position of strength to negotiate from and may not only maintain his power but extend it.

Iraq invited chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix to visit Baghdad for technical talks on Aug. 1. However, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told Iraq, by formal letter, that it must accept the U.N. Security Council's terms for the return of weapons inspectors before such talks take place.

On August 10, 2002, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan told Abu Dhabi Television that Baghdad was willing to discuss the return of inspectors -as long as there were no conditions to the discussions:

"Iraq is ready to discuss the return of the U.N. weapons inspectors, provided that any dialogue with the United Nations takes place with no preconditions."

"To say, as the United States does, that Iraq possesses prohibited weapons is pure invention. The teams of inspectors finished their work," Information Minister Mohammad Said al-Sahhaf told a Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite television channel from Baghdad.

"The work of the United Nations according to Chapter C of resolution 687 on the so-called prohibited arms has been accomplished." he said.

The August 10 Ramadan interview was not aired in full until today, August 15, 2002, (although it was widely reported on August 10th). Even the supposedly accurate Associated Press has been confused by this disinformation campaign as they reported Ramadan's August 10 remarks as "...appear(ing) to back down from his strong opposition to the return of inspectors," in an article dated August 15, 2002 titled Iraq Ready for Return of Inspectors .

Are you confused now? Don't be - Saddam is just using disinformation to stall as he prepares to launch an attack into Jordan and Israel on his way to Middle Eastern hegemony.

That story, being virtually ignored by news outlets like the AP, is very clear, and very, very serious.

One article, not picked up by the wire services, was written by Bill Gertz for The Washington Times. - Iraqi Germ Plant Active. Research by efreedomnews has expanded on Mr. Gertz's report.

US and Israeli satellites have picked up large convoys of trucks leaving the Taji Single Cell Protein Plant, 6 miles northwest of Baghdad. The destination: The Zagros Mountains - 12,000 to 15,000 feet high and nearly impassable. The convoys stop at two sites 20 to 30 kilometers inside the Iranian border in Kermanshah Province near the suburbs of Khorram-Abad and the other in the Harour Hills in the Khorram Abad region.

The plant was converted by the Iraqis into a biological-weapons production facility and subsequently bombed during the 1991 Persian Gulf war. After the war, U.N. weapons inspectors uncovered evidence that Iraq had used the site to fill Scud-missile warheads with deadly VX nerve agent. The Taji plant produced hundreds of gallons of Botulinum toxin during the late 1980s and had a spore drier capable of producing up to a kilogram of weaponized dried spores a day for Botulinum and anthrax.

The Taji plant was the planned location for a centrifuge uranium-enrichment program for nuclear weapons production. The program was believed to have been halted after 1991, but Iraq has since purchased equipment for centrifuge enrichment.

Since 1997 Saddam has fully rebuilt the plant and protected it with Republican Guard tank divisions.

So clearly, convoys of trucks leaving Taji would be transporting WMD weapons or the equipment to make WMD weapons. Saddam would like to keep this state of the art WMD factory intact. The two destination sites in the Zagros are tunnels built in the mid-1970's by the Shah of Iran. After his fall in 1979 when Jimmy Carter abandoned him, a Revolutionary Guard (Pazdaran) force was permanently stationed at the tunnels site. In early 1998 the tunnels were modernized and greatly strengthened against air attacks.

This preservation of WMD capability is so important to Saddam that he has put his son and probable heir Qusay in command of the project. Bagher Zolghadr, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the Iran-Iraq border, heads up the Iranian end of the operation.

DEBKAfile reports: Iran’s ulterior motive in providing safekeeping for Saddam’s WMD resources is simple. According to our intelligence sources, Iran commands nothing nearly as advanced as Iraq in the way of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons-making equipment. Helping Saddam will lend Iran’s experts free access to Iraq’s state of the art equipment and a chance to copy and assimilate technology that cost Iraq billions of dollars to develop.

Other reports indicate that Baghdad is developing rail cars that could be used to develop or transport biological weapons agents. "They're buying dual-use capability," SecDef Rumsfeld said during a visit to a military base in Suffolk, Va. "A biological laboratory can be on wheels in a trailer and make a lot of bad stuff, and it's movable, and it looks like most any other trailer."

The most worrisome aspect of safeguarding the WMD manufacturing equipment movement is that Saddam feels comfortable with his current stocks of WMD materials and deployment.

There are unsubstantiated reports that Saddam has up to 20 "dirty bombs" and 6 to 10 active nuclear weapons that can be launched by missile or jet aircraft.

Saddam continues to prepare for immediate preemptive WMD strikes against US troops already in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, as well as those located at the Jordanian air bases at Ar Ruwayshid in the east, Wadi el-Murbah to the north and al-Mafraq in the west. The Turkish air base at Incirlik is also high on the Iraqi target list.

“The forces of evil [United States] will carry their coffins on their backs, to die in disgraceful failure, taking their schemes back with them, or to dig their own graves after they bring death to themselves on all Arab or Muslim soil against which they perpetrate aggression, including Iraq, the land of Jihad and the banner.”

“Charge on, charge on, charge on…the beloved chant is raised, as though our men are circumambulating the Qa’ba or returning to the place from which the Prophet Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah, ascended to God on that Blessed Night, after they cleanse the land of Palestine of Zionist desecration.” [Israel]

Of course Israel is a prime target for Saddam. Yesterday, civilian residents of Jerusalem were distributed iodine tablets to be taken in the event of a nuclear attack and 100,000 smallpox vaccinations were initiated, given to "first responders" - military, medical and rescue team personnel.

Companion, synchronous massed Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel, coordinated by Yasser Arafat, and WMD attacks on New York and Washington by pre-positioned sleeper terrorist cells are integral to Saddam's plan.

After the initial WMD attacks, Saddam's plan is to launch an all out invasion of Jordan. He has met with Syrian President Assad and attempted to persuade him to join the pan-Arabic war and attack Israel from the Golan Heights.

To elucidate the reality of this Iraqi scenario, 4000 US troops arrived at Jordan’s Aqaba port on the Red Sea Monday, August 12 with loads of Bradley fighting vehicles and helicopters on ships hastily chartered by the US Navy. [DOD Briefing, Straitstimes, Navy Leases Transports]

SecDef Rumsfeld claimed this was for a long scheduled "exercise" with Jordan's armed forces.

Jordan's closure of the local branch of Al-Jazeera television last week will result in minimal Arab news coverage of these troop movements.

Most likely, the real reason for the deployment is to protect Jordan’s main highways between the port of Aqaba, Amman and the northern air bases as well as highways directly into Israel to the west; to protect against the Iraqi invasion of Jordan, and Israel.

This may all be saber rattling by Saddam, but the escalating troop and equipment movement on both sides, the Israeli precautions and the activity around Taji portends Saddam may not be willing to wait for the US to rain bombs on him and systematically take Iraq apart before he responds. His first attack has to be lethal - he knows he will not get a second chance.

What is not understood is that there is a convergence of disparate elements within the Middle East that heretofore was considered unlikely. For instance, ten years ago it would be considered beyond the pale of logic for a Stalinst secular leader like Saddam to make common cause with ghost dancing Jihadist nutjobs with Saudi money and Wahabbi nonsense stuffed in their ears.

I can understand the trepidation among some regarding an attack on Iraq. Getting there is going to be remarkably easy. Hanging around is going to be like Fort Apache.

No you are not thinking clearly...

You said: "You miss the point, Iraq and Iran are preparing to WMD American troops and Israel. After a few nukes on our troops there will not be the force necessary to stop troop movements."

To which I responded...

After a few magic Iraqi/Iranian nukes [That do not exist] being launched, all of Persia and the Euphrates valley would become uninhabitable as a result of the response.

I can appreciate you being in Israel but that has nothing to do with your original statment or my response to it.

Please address that before moving on or sharing something else.

Nice job laying out the realities.

All Iran has are aging Silkworms and Sidewinders. They haven't even gone beyond initial test firings of their medium-range missles. Iran is more concerned maintaining their idiotic revolution in the face of increasing opposition.

The only concern I have is afterward. How large will an occupying force be, and for how long are they going to stay? Actually toppling Saddam brings up the legitmate fears of 1991, which was we could well do without another Afghanistan. A break-up with pro-Iranian Shias in the south, Kurds probably fighting the Turks and Iranians in the north and a potential humanitarian disaster in Baghdad is well within possibility. It is obvious the Saudis are useless, and other than the UK, there isn't anyone around willing to help out with the heavy lifting required of creating a post-Saddam regime.

However, it always seems God looks after us Americans, so probably all this will turn out well in the end. I mean that sincerely.

Iraq and Iran are preparing to WMD American troops and Israel. After a few nukes on our troops there will not be the force necessary to stop troop movements.

I have to disagree with you there, friend. Israel has neutron bombs that would neutralize even the most massive of enemy troop movements with the greatest of ease. So even if Iran/Iraq succesfully WMD'd Israel's many armored divisions (a scenario that is most unlikely, imo), they'd be absolutely annihilated in return. And don't forget about Israel's 200 to 400 hydrogen bombs. If suicide is what the Jihadists want, then suicide is what they'll get.

"First I do not see the existance of nukes for Sadam as magic, just money."

From everything I've read, the consensus of opinion in western intelligence agencies is that Iraq does not presently have nukes. But they have everything they need to make the bomb except the enriched uranium. In effect, they have the guns, but not the bullets to put in the guns. Estimates of when they will have the needed enriched uranium range from 1-5 years. Check the section on Iraq/Saddam Hussein at www.newsmax.com

Thank you for reading my article and your comments. IMHO I have not compared myself to any of the men you mentioned and do not seek to elevate myself to their level of knowlege or expertise. I happen to disagree with Scocroft that Saddam can be contained. Remember that Scocroft was Bush Sr.'s National Security Advisor - and probably advised not finishing the job against Saddam back in '91. I have not read that Schwartzkopf is against invading Iraq - I have not read anything by him on the subject. If you have a reference please let me know.

You are absolutely correct that I support a military operation to remove Saddam Hussein and his regimen from the face of the earth. You apparantly disagree and you are welcome to your opinion. Please post it.

The article was written looking at the situation from Saddam's military point of view. In general, as several other commentators have said, Sadam has no chance straight up against the US armed forces. I believe he will not back down and therefore has few options. The scenario I posted is one option.

One last item - there is very little regard for DEBKAfile out there, but I still think their take on why Iran would be involved is not, IMHO, far fetched. Iran has been trying to go nuclear and has a relatively advanced missile program operating out of Khorramabad. See
http://www..fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/khorramabad.htm and http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:yNUR3ddf3AsC:cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/64/db64.pdf+KhorramAbad+nuclear&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8

I don't disagree that rolling into Jordan would expose Saddam's armor to US air power. I didnt say he would be able to do it - just that he might try it anyway. He already moved forces to the Jordanian border. In April Iraqi troop movements were noted along the Jordanian border. Four Republican Guard Divisions are stationed across a 300-sq.km area including four major Iraqi bases: H-3 Main, H-3 Southwest and H-3 Northwest – 350 km. west of Baghdad - and the al Baghdadi ground and air base west of the town of Rutbah.

We do not know the extent of Sadam's Scud's and if the Iranians add their missile (with a 3000 kilometer range) using WMD we might only have air power left to effectively counterattack.

DEBKA does report some wild things, but the reference I used was not "out in left field" - the Iranians are trying to develope WMD and have strong political and economic ties to Iraq.

What else would you like me to comment on?

ABC news reported a poll showing just what you said - over 60% approval of attacking Saddam - but they then started asking the same question using ever iuncreasing casualty figures and with American casualties in the thousands, the poll showed only a 42% approval rating.

I for one despise ABC and assume the poll was biased, but HoChiMinh showed us all how to lose a war militarily and win it politically. That is why my article begins :"Saddam cannot win a war with the US, if the US has the will to win" ---emphasis on will.

So, what do you think Saddam will do?
Again, the only way Saddam comes out of this alive is to defeat the will of the US to fight. However, I think he is a madman and will use whatever he's got to do as much damage as possible, including WMD's.

The Saddam/Assad meeting was later confirmed (military source) so I left it in.

Although we can take a mountain we can't necessarily take it before the men and/or equipment are removed. Read Hackworth's review of the 10th Mountain's problems in Afghanistan.

Lastly, I have not cornered the classified information market - based on available information (public and from military sources) the scenario has to be considered. That is why we just moved 4000 troops to Jordan.

Do you think Israel would begin a systematic vaporization of Iraq only to invite her own destruction by Iraqi WMD scuds, or sue for peace and try to arrange some type of peace treaty like she did with Egypt? After all, we are talking about Israel's existence here. They couldn't stop every inbound scud in 1991, and they won't be able to stop them this time either. Makes for truly interesting thought, hey?

Not really.

Israel is generally acknowledged to be number 6 on the nuclear arsenal list with 4 - 6 hundred nuclear weapons. Israel has at least 3 nuclear submarines, 2 of which are always at sea, plus other conventional submarines. These submarines are generally acknowledged to be armed with nuclear weapons and the submarines locations are undetectable by the Arab world. I seriously doubt there would be any inbound Scuds if Israel launchs nuclear weapons first. One thing is for certain the entire Arab world understands Israel is the only nation in the Middle East with second strike capabilities and Israel will not hesitate to make the second strike against the entire Arab world.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate your attention enlightened response.

As for Norman Schwartzkopf's opinion, check this link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-387997,00.html. It is believed that Schwartzkopf is speaking not only for his self but for the senior military leadership in the Pentagon who cannot speak out.

And I also appreciate your humbleness. But I believe Scocroft is correct that any WMD that Hussein were to export would have "Baghdad as a return address". Absent any other apparent substantial evidence that Hussein is an imminent threat, this act alone would provide all that is needed to take out Hussein and do it with just about unanimous consent of the world and the nation. As Scocroft points out, Hussein is a survivor first.

I do not oppose military action to remove Hussein. I do oppose a unilateral approach. People have banded together since the beginning of time for mutual aid and support. Attacking Iraq without the support of the rest of the world would make the U.S. appear to be "rogue" to the rest of the world. We don't need that from not only a political but an economic perspective.

As much as many people do not like it, reality is that we are interdependent on the rest of the world in order to maintain our standard of living and to secure peace for ourselves and our friends. We need to demand immediate access for U.N. inspectors and complete transparency in Iraq. Once Iraq fails to comply we should push hard for a U.N. resolution supporting force against Iraq. Then its "Katy, bar the door!"

. One more thing, I read somewhere that the cost of Gulf I was upwards of $600 million in 1991. An operation against Iraq today would likely exceed $1 billion. In 1991 most of the tab was picked up by our allies. Today that's a $1 billion hit that we're going to absorb alone. Why not a little patience here? Do the smart thing by getting international support and spreading the cost around. After all, if terrorists would fly a plane into the WTC, why not the Eiffel Tower or any other Euro landmark. Islamic terrorists have no love for Europe either. Our allies would have as much to gain as we do from removing Hussein. Why pay for it ourselves?

Who would you suggest Russia sign trade pacts with?

I don't care what countries Russia signs trade pacts with as a matter of trade competition with the US. If Russia is signing a pact with Iraq either Russia is getting it's money up front, Russia knows something that you and I don't know, or Russia is just trying to get up in our face.

Maybe the US should recognize and open relations with Chechenya.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.