Ray

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Confed999

Then I bet they'd really be mad if they knew there were plans to invade [insert name of ME country here] too...

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

The original articles

Despite Denials, U.S. Plans for Iran War

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has been conducting theater campaign analysis for a full scale war with Iran since at least May 2003, responding to Pentagon directions to prepare for potential operations in the "near term."

The campaign analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," posits an Iraq-like maneuver war between U.S. and Iranian ground forces and incorporates lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In addition to the TIRANNT effort and the Marine Corps Karona invasion scenario I discussed yesterday, the military has also completed an analysis of Iran's missile force (the "BMD-I" study), the Defense Intelligence Agency has updated "threat data" for Iranian forces, and Air Force planners have modeled attacks against "real world" Iranian air defenses and targets to establish new metrics. What is more, the United States and Britain have been conducting war games and contingency planning under a Caspian Sea scenario that could also pave the way for northern operations against Iran.

After new reports of intensified planning for Iran began to circulate over the weekend, the President dismissed the news as "wild speculation."

On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld similarly called media speculation about Iran war planning as "fantasyland."

Asked at a Pentagon new conference whether he had in recent days, weeks or month, asked the Joint Staff or CENTCOM to "update, refine, [or] modify the contingencies for possible military options against Iran," Rumsfeld said: "We have I don't know how many various contingency plans in this department. And the last thing I'm going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan, and why. It just isn't useful."

I beg to differ, Mr. Secretary.

World pressure and American diplomacy would be mightily enhanced if Iran understood that the United States was indeed so serious about it acquiring nuclear weapons it was willing to go to war over it. What is more, the American public needs to know that this is a possibility.

Think the U.S. military isn't serious about war with Iran?

Since at least 2003, in response to a number of directives from Secretary Rumsfeld and then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, the military services and Pentagon intelligence agencies have been newly working on a number of "near term" and "near-year" Iranian contingency studies in support of CENTCOM war planning efforts.

These studies, war games, and modeling efforts have been the first step in shifting the bulk of planning from almost exclusive focus on Iraq to Iran. At CENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, at Army and Air Force CENTCOM support headquarters in Georgia and South Carolina, and at service analysis and operations research organizations like the Center for Army Analysis at Fort Belvoir (thanks readers for correcting me), a monumental effort has been underway to "build" an Iran country baseline for war planning.

Under the TIRANNT campaign analysis program, Army organizations, together with CENTCOM headquarters planners, have been examining both near term and "out year" scenarios for war with Iran, covering all aspects of a major combat operation from mobilization and deployment of forces through post-war "stability" operations after regime change.

The core TIRANNT effort itself began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data sets needed for theater level (large scale) scenario analysis in support of updated war plans. Successive iterations of TIRANTT efforts have updated "blue," (United States), "green," (coalition), and "threat" databases with post-Iraq war information.

The follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis (TIRANNT-CA), which began in October 2003, has calculated the results of different campaign scenarios against Iran to provide options for "courses of action" analysis. According to military sources close to the planning process, in 2002-2003, the CENTCOM commander, Gen. John Abizaid was directed to develop a new "strategic concept" for Iran war planning and potential courses of action for Secretary of Defense and Presidential review.

Parallel with the TIRANNT and TIRANNT-CA analysis, Army and CENTCOM planners have also been undertaking the "TOY study." TOY stands for TIRANNT Out-Year, and posits a U.S.-Iran war in the year 2011. Under the TOY modeling effort, Army division-sized formations as currently organized are sent up against real world models of Iranian ground units. The results are compared to the same engagements when fought by newly reorganized Army brigade combat teams who fight independent of a strict divisional hierarchy. The product gauges not only the impact of military "transformation" efforts in the Army but also the most propitious timing for war.

Under a separate "BMD-I study," for ballistic missile defense - Iran, the Army Concepts Analysis Agency has modeled the performance of U.S. and Iranian weapon systems to determine the number of missiles expected to "leak through" a coalition missile defense in the 2005 (current) time frame. The BMD-I study has not only looked at U.S. Patriot surface-to-air missile performance and optimum placement to protect U.S. and coalition forces, but also the results of combined air, cyber warfare and missile defense operations to disable Iranian command and control capabilities and missiles on the ground before Iran can fire them.

In July 2004, U.S. and British Army planners also met at Fort Belvoir to play the Hotspur 2004 war game, a 2015 timeframe Caspian Sea scenario examining deployment of forces, movement to "contact" with the enemy, and "decisive" operations. A U.K. medium weight brigade operated subordinate to U.S. forces and the game included an assessment of lessons learned in U.S.-British interoperability during similar operations in southern Iraq.

The extremely complex Caspian Sea scenario has become the standard non-Asian platform for education, training and force development in the Army. The current 2005 "high resolution" version model provides analysts with the ability to manipulate thousands of entities using tens of thousands of combat orders to simulate all aspects of major combat operations. The scenario not only has variable "physical battlespace" including urban terrain, but an adaptive enemy, allowing analysis of not just standard military operations but also complex counter-insurgency activity.

In February 2005, after a similar flurry of news reporting on U.S. military options for Iran, the Deputy Commander of CENTCOM Lt. Gen. Lance Smith was asked at a Pentagon briefing if the Tampa based command was in any kind of heightened state of planning when it comes to Iran.

"We plan everything," Smith responded. "We have a requirement on a regular basis to update plans. We try to keep them current, particularly if -- you know, if our region is active. But I haven't been called into any late-night meetings at, you know, 8:00 at night, saying, 'Holy cow, we got to sit down and go plan for Iran.'"

Throughout mid-2002, when a similar public debate about an Iraq war plan swirled in the news, Secretary Rumsfeld, Myers, and then CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks insisted that there were no "war plans," that they hadn't been asked to prepare a war plan, that no decisions had been made, that no war plan sat on the President's desk.

It would take a doctoral dissertation to wade through the chronology of statements and actions to sort out the specifics of the truth, but here is the reality: Iraq war planning consumed the government inner circle all through this period and the government made a knee jerk decision -- never really thoughtfully reviewed -- not to speak about it. "We don't discuss war plans," the mantra goes. And it is dead wrong.

Maybe history will show that the Bush administration was so hell bent on war in 2002-2003, nothing that Saddam Hussein could have done would have prevented it. Still the world went through the motions of U.N. inspections and the Security Council and the U.S. Congress made decisions based upon the allusion that war could still be averted, that all diplomatic options would be exhausted before the decision to go to war was made.

We now also know that the Iraqis themselves didn't quite believe that the United States was serious about regime change and that it would go all the way. Perhaps though, had the United States candidly stated its intentions rather than spending so much time denying reality, Baghdad would have gotten the message and war would have been averted, perhaps in another time and place.

It seems today we face a similar problem with Iran. The President of the United States insists that all options are on the table while the Secretary of Defense insists it "isn't useful" to discuss American options.

I think this sends the wrong message to Tehran. Contingency planning for a full fledged war with Iran may seem incredible right now, and Iran isn't Iraq. But Iran needs to understand that the United States isn't hamstrung by a lack of options, Iran needs to know that it can't just stonewall and evade international inspections, that it can't burrow further underground in hopes of "winning" because war is messy.

As I've said before in these pages, I don't believe that the United States is planning to imminently attack Iran, and I specifically don't think so because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and it hasn't lashed out militarily against anyone.

But the United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking.

It is not in our interests to have Tehran not understand this. The military options currently on the table might not be good ones, but Iran shouldn't make decisions based upon a false view. Two so-called "experts" are quoted in The Washington Post today saying that there are no options, that there is no Plan B, that the United States will just live with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. They are fundamentally wrong about the options, and misunderstand the Bush administration as well.

But most important, this constant drum beat in the newspapers and the media sends the wrong message to Iran. This is why Secretary Rumsfeld should be saying that the U.S. is preparing war plans for Iran, and that the United States views the situation so seriously that it would be willing to risk war if Iran acquired nuclear weapons or lashed out against the U.S. or its friends. The war planning moreover, Rumsfeld needs to add, is not just routine, it is not just what military's do all the time. It is specifically related to Iran, to its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, to its meddling in Iraq and support for international terrorism.

Iran needs to know the facts and the American public need to know the facts. But most important, the American public needs to hear the facts about American war plans, military options and preparedness from the government so that they can understand where we are and decide whether they think the threat from Iran justifies the risks of another war.





Iran: Send in the Marines?

Less than three weeks after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in central Baghdad in April 2003, the U.S. military finished campaign planning to invade Iran.

Of course, the word finished is a bit misleading.

The contingency planning process never really begins or ends.

As crises emerge and recede, as diplomats talk and international emissaries meet, as the media swirls with speculation, military strategists and logisticians constantly toil away at the hard work of planning war.

Operations research specialists, as they are called in the military, calculate and model war assumptions constantly to incorporate new technologies, innovations, and evolving enemies. War itself demands an examination of assumptions: Did weapons work as advertised? How much ammunition and fuel was consumed? Were movement rates as predicted? What about the ratio of coalition to enemy forces?

Contrary to all the speculation this week that all U.S. contingency planning for Iran is about quick, surgical action short of war, both the Army and Marine Corps are newly looking at full scale war scenarios.

In the case of the Marines, Iran is a thinly veiled country called Karona.

In April 2003, the Marine Corps finished the first stage of campaign analysis to move forces ashore against a determined enemy without establishing a beachhead. According to the Marine Corps report describing its campaign analysis and "Concept of Operations" for this new maneuver, here is how war unfolds:

In 2005, a Karonan reformist president is voted out in a fraudulent and hotly contested election. And riots and unrest broke out throughout the country. The conservatives eventually emerged victorious, but Karonan society split. By 2010, the military had been purged of those who supported the earlier reformists. But the military had also suffered under the new government and was not, in the words of the Marine Corps "a truly modern force."

By 2010, "radical" Karona was not only asserting itself in the region, but resisting any U.S. presence. Oil prices dropped in 2013 -- who writes these things? -- and Karona decides to boost its revenues by taking control of the waters off its coast, including international waters, charging a tariff on all products, particularly oil, passing through.

In 2014, the United Nations passes a resolution denouncing Karona’s actions as a violation of the freedom of the seas, but the Security Council stops short of approving any action. The American President directs CENTCOM to open international waters along the coast, and the Marine Corps springs in action.

Karona -- read Iran -- with its Soviet made Kilo class diesel submarines, with its Revolutionary Guards, with its Chinese and North Korean made surface-to-surface and cruise missiles, is just not a nice country. According to the Marine Corps background material for its 2015 war:

"The commemoration of Karbala permeates all of Karona’s culture and finds expression in poetry, music, and the pessimistic view of the world. All religious ceremonies refer to Karbala, and no month passes without at least one day of mourning. None of the efforts of the monarchy, such as the annual festivals of art and the encouragement of musicians and native craftsmen, changes the basic attitude that finds laughter and joy undesirable and, in some circles, even sinful."

The play war with Iran (Karona) takes place in the winter of 2015. According to the scenario:

"US forces deploy to international waters in the Sea of Karona in conjunction with coalition forces. The U.S. seeks to assure allies and coalition partners during these operations. Concurrently, forces track anti-access assets and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) … assets…. Centers of gravity identified by the regional combatant commander include:

* Karonan government leadership and their lines of communication and control across the country to terrorist groups and sympathetic organizations.
* Karonan strategic economic resources and assets (e.g., oil production/refining facilities).
* Karonan WMD … assets and resources.
* Karonan major combat forces.

At the onset of hostilities, US forces defend the territorial integrity of the coalition states and the freedom of international waters and prevent Karonan forces from gaining control of the straits. Phase I objectives are as follows:

*

Deter Karona from initiating hostile actions.
* Deploy forces into theater as rapidly as possible as the situation warrants.
* Protect forces from surprise attack.
* Increase threat condition and force protection measures for possible special operations attacks.
* Locate and target Karona’s WMD sites. Prepare operational plans to neutralize or destroy WMD sites and resources. Execute covert operations against WMD sites and resources if directed."

So what are we to make of this scenario and the predictable Marine Corps centric response?

According to the 30 April 2003 draft "Concept of Operations (CONOPS)" document for the Karonan campaign:

"The scenario was derived from an Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)-sponsored scenario, which is being further developed into a Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) scenario. The scenario addresses general and specific situations, assumptions, area of operations, strategic settings, and enemy situation. In the scenario, the forces are built, they flow into theater, and a concept of operations is developed that projects the forces ashore."

In other words, the Karonan campaign is based upon a "scenario" approved and directed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for fighting future war. The Karona campaign does give some insight into how the American military sees a real Iran war. The "centers of gravity" seem realistic and the "Phase I" objectives seem logical and sound.

In the world of "campaign planning," this kind of broad brush gaming built to gauge assumptions and needs goes on all the time in the background. According to the Marine Corps, building such a detailed scenario, even against a nominal enemy, "serves to answer the questions of how much, how far, by what means, and in what configuration will we project a force ashore if conducting a STOM [Ship-to-Objective Maneuver] operation."

In the real world though, Karona easily morphs into Iran. Like the early 1990's nuclear war planning I discussed yesterday, the danger with the Karonan scenario is that in the U.S. military, the political scenario and over-the-top characterization of the enemy begins to look like reality.

For Iranians looking in, the certain assumption on the part of the Americans of an aggressive and reckless Iran feeds a picture of American military preparedness that could be seen not just as prudent but also as a harbinger of a pre-ordained clash.

__________________
Chimo

Ray

Ray

citanon

Then Pentagon is now openly planning to strike.

Ironduke

First you post a line of bullsh-t, then you post an article that doesn't even corroborate your argument. "No attacks are imminent..."

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

citanon

What I meant was they are now openly declaring that they are preparing attack plans. You can plan. Doesn't mean you will attack.

However, the fact that you disclose you are doing planning is significant. As we can see from earlier articles in this thread, planning has been going on for decades. Disclosure and confirmation happened some time around April 29, 2008, along with disclosure that the State Department is drafting an ultimatum. This was CBS News, and there was no official denial. That's significant.

lwarmonger

The time to strike is before President Bush leaves office... that is for sure.

Zemco

Nope, it appears you missed the whole HUMINT vs ELINT argument a decade ago. Anyone with half a brain can conduct operations and avoid satellites.

The US is not so much dependent on oil as it is dependent on that oil being sold in US$ and being under free market operations.

The US does not want exactly what is happening now, which is countries selling oil in Yen, Rubles, Euros or Yuan, and countries like China negotiating "first service" contracts with Saudi Arabia.

Contingency plans for Iran have existed since 1978. Those who were training then aren't impressed.

Zemco

You just might want to go back and review Operation El Dorado Canyon:

Obviously you aren't military, otherwise you would know it's standard policy "to neither confirm nor deny" information pertaining to on-going plans and operations.

The fact that there was no official denial means nothing.