Thread: Endgame in Iran?

Shortly following Iran passing through Obama's January nuke negotiation deadline, SECDEF wrote a memo to NSC advisor Gen. James Jones itemizing the incomplete development of policy responses to various Iranian scenarios-

Gates Says U.S. Lacks A Policy To Thwart Iran-NYT April 18, 2010

A range of concerns emerged from the memo-

"Mr. Gates wrote of a variety of concerns, including the absence of an effective strategy should Iran choose the course that many government and outside analysts consider likely: Iran could assemble all the major parts it needs for a nuclear weapon — fuel, designs and detonators — but stop just short of assembling a fully operational weapon.

In that case, Iran could remain a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty while becoming what strategists call a “virtual” nuclear weapons state.

According to several officials, the memorandum also calls for new thinking about how the United States might contain Iran’s power if it decided to produce a weapon, and how to deal with the possibility that fuel or weapons could be obtained by one of the terrorist groups Iran has supported, which officials said they considered to be a less-likely possibility."

WRT the possibility of Iran going "virtual", Gates has recently said-

“If their policy is to go to the threshold but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled? I don’t actually know how you would verify that.”

If our SECDEF doesn't, it's quite likely nobody else knows either.

Additionally the CJCS, Adm. Mike Mullen, issued a chairman's guidance to his staff-

"... in December conveying a sense of urgency about contingency planning. He cautioned that a military attack would have 'limited results,' but he did not convey any warnings about policy shortcomings."

This is worrisome. "Limited results" would be a function, IMV, of a limited attack plan and is in line with Cordesman's recent paper on Iranian attack options. If in for a penny, in for a pound WRT to attacking Iran. I assure this audience that Iran's response will encompass the full gamut of possibilities regardless. We need to be thinking about an air campaign of sufficient intensity and duration to capture the complete attention of the mullahs and impress upon them our unfettered ability and seriousness of purpose.

The administration has testified that a full range of options are under consideration. So too General Jones-the nat'l security advisor-

"'The president has made it clear from the beginning of this administration that we need to be prepared for every possible contingency...That is what we have done from day one, while successfully building a coalition of nations to isolate Iran and pressure it to live up to its obligations.'”

I'm thoroughly unconvinced about America's success assembling this coalition of nations prepared to isolate and pressure Iran. In that regard, we're engaged in corraling cats.

Originally Posted by S-2

I'm thoroughly unconvinced about America's success assembling this coalition of nations prepared to isolate and pressure Iran. In that regard, we're engaged in corraling cats.

Western Europe will jump with us, thier economic survival depends on it. Russia and China will cry but do little more unless the PLAN sends mine warfare units to the Gulf to assist in forcing open the Strait of Hormuz. India will cry as well, they are close to Iran and this will pull in Brazil and lock up BRIC, but cryign is all they will do.

The Gulf Arabs will jump with us, if we go and fail, they fail as states so they have no choice. Plus if we attack Iran, Iran attacks them. They actually have some really nice air forces and littoral combat fleets that add a significant amount of combat power inside the Gulf.

Iraq will explode and it will be fort Apache time, I think Israel will suck it up, or based on recent reports, break out the carving knives and go after PoG and Syria not Iran if Assad is stupid enough to follow Iran down the wide road to Hell. Hopefully, they suck it up, it makes our job easier if the Jewish State does an impersonation of a church mouse.

Iran itself is screwed sooner or later. The American way of waging war is not something they truly understand. They've spent decades building up a force to try and take us on while keeping the heart of the regime and its most prized projects safe. However with the exception of a mine barrage and ballsitic missile campaign that manages to strangle gulf oil (which also hurts Iran) they lack the ability to carry the war to our homeland on a large scale.

The US however has the ability to do so and a history of doing it.* Currently the USN has 10 carrier groups of which 5-7 can probably be surged plus 2-3 Ohio class SSGN's at sea or able to put to sea at any one time. That force represents over 1500 cruise missiles and 400+ combat aircraft. This force can operate far enough our to sea to pulverize anything Iranian near the Straight of Hormuz, yet remain nearly invulnerable to Iran's small boat swarms. The attached DDG/CG's with SeaRAM, SM2 and SM-3 represent the state of the art in anti-missile technology. They should be able to easily deal with any Iranian missiles that do get fired as the Iranian missiles are subsonic and will lack mid course correction data. I think Iran is banking too much on the anti-ship missiles. Once transit lanes are opened and kept under friendly skies I think the USN can pass heavily protected convoys through the area with relative ease.

The Iranian air force is a joke with less than 60 all weather fighters (F-14/F-4) and somewhat more day fighters (F-5, Mig 29). Iran's only real hope is a mine barrage of sufficient strength and guarded by enough assets that it takes us and our allies longer to break it, than our economies can bear the lack of oil. This is where I think Iran made a huge blunder. As part and parcel of the Cold War, the USN concentrated on big surface and submarine assets and left the NATO navies to build up supporting forces. Western European navies are plumb full of mine warfare assets. Several European fleets have mine warfare capabilities that rival or exceed the USN in terms of hulls.

By threatening the oil, they force Europe to side with us if war breaks out. Economically they have no choice.

* While the Navy's mission will be opening the Straight, USAF assets will be striking deep.Not just the usual suspects- targets linked to transportation and communication. No this time, for the first time since 1945 the US will be going after an industrialized enemy. Iran has a real aerospace, automotive, and electronics industrial base, these will be destroyed. Iran has a network of research university (lbs) and a super computer- these to will be gone. Anythign remotely duel use is a target. The combination of traditional targets, plus a true strategic bombing campaign will kill and destroy. But more importantly it will throw people out of work just as the social supports they depend on get severed. As we saw in June, Iran is a wired country now. How many of us could lose our ability to instantly communicate and not go mad after just a few days?

Ripping away the modernity of Iran, isn't knocking them into the stone age, its worse (for the regime), its knocking them into the pre-digital age. Iranians are rightfully proud of where they've come since 1979. Bu the regime doesn't seem to realize war with the US gives the chance to do it all over again.

Z,

I really think the article and Gen. Jones' closing comments to my post refer to sanctions. I expect that we'll have extreme difficulty creating a sanctions climate that's robust and effective-not just technically so (leakers, etc.) but moving us toward our end-goal of inspections, compliance, and meaningful negotiation in an adequate time-frame to pre-empt Iranian weapon ambitions.

I wouldn't disagree with any of your postulated points WRT combat operations. None. We are generally on the same page where Iranian targets are concerned.

Europe, indeed, possesses significant naval mine warfare assets and it's in their interest to use them to keep the oil flowing. Frankly, though, without those assets pre-positioned and politically prepared to participate, their use will quite possibly come after-the-fact. Gulf shipping would be temporarily disrupted. I don't envision ship owners allowing their vessels to sail even in escorted convoys until hostilities cease. Mine clearance operations would only be effected, I believe, to permit U.S./participating N.A.T.O. and G.C.C. naval forces freedom of action within their assigned patrol areas.

"The combination of traditional targets, plus a true strategic bombing campaign will kill and destroy."

I have a concern here. I agree with you about a strategic bombing campaign but refer you to the comment by Mullen about an attack generating only "limited results". This is disheartening as I believe we possess the combat power, if applied, to achieve decisive results. IMV, that calls for a comprehensive target list attacked in a sustained fashion over an undetermined period of time. Mullen may disagree that it's possible, desired or both.

How he'd reach the conclusion of "limited results" is beyond me but I fear this offers insight to his vision for combat operations on a limited scale falling short of what, IMV, is required to achieve Iranian acquiescence.

Originally Posted by S-2

I don't envision ship owners allowing their vessels to sail even in escorted convoys until hostilities cease. Mine clearance operations would only be effected, I believe, to permit U.S./participating N.A.T.O. and G.C.C. naval forces freedom of action within their assigned patrol areas.

S-2, WWI,WWII and the Tanker War all showed that war means higher insurance rates, not a lack of ships willing to sail.

I have a concern here. I agree with you about a strategic bombing campaign but refer you to the comment by Mullen about an attack generating only "limited results". This is disheartening as I believe we possess the combat power, if applied, to achieve decisive results. IMV, that calls for a comprehensive target list attacked in a sustained fashion over an undetermined period of time. Mullen may disagree that it's possible, desired or both.

We may start with a penny ante, but we will end up all in.

Originally Posted by S-2

Z,
I have a concern here. I agree with you about a strategic bombing campaign but refer you to the comment by Mullen about an attack generating only "limited results". This is disheartening as I believe we possess the combat power, if applied, to achieve decisive results. IMV, that calls for a comprehensive target list attacked in a sustained fashion over an undetermined period of time. Mullen may disagree that it's possible, desired or both.

How he'd reach the conclusion of "limited results" is beyond me but I fear this offers insight to his vision for combat operations on a limited scale falling short of what, IMV, is required to achieve Iranian acquiescence.

S-2,

I'm not sure what Mullen says can be taken at face value. One of Mullen's stated aims while Centcom commander was to maximize his own unpredictability to opponents and his trustworthiness to allies. He knows that what he says will be scrutinized from all quarters.

Suppose that his vision of an eventual attack on Iran matches what you and Zraver are thinking. If he gives hints towards that direction, he would:

1. Tip off the Iranians.
2. Create high expectations of effective and immediate results from the American public.
3. Alert US domestic opposition to the true direction of US military strategy, thereby generating early resistance.
4. Weaken his own political base and trustworthiness in the eyes of the Democratic political class.

On the other hand, by repeatedly choosing to portray the limitations of military power, he can

1. Mislead the iranians
2. Innoculate the American public against expectations of quick success
3. When the time is ripe, introduce, behind closed doors, the more expansive military options as the only way to successfully prosecute the fight (after arguing public against the alternative of _limited_ military action).

And when he does so, his private and public statements will be perfectly self-consistent. Even if he is for wider action, he will, in any case have to argue against limited strikes. Thus, he may be choosing to show one side of that coin now, while saving the other side for later.

Citanon,

Nice analysis.

"He knows that what he says will be scrutinized from all quarters."

The scrutiny from WABBITville suggests a great deal of B.S. in Mullen's dissembling.)

Z,

"S-2, WWI,WWII and the Tanker War all showed that war means higher insurance rates, not a lack of ships willing to sail."

You could be correct but I see significant differences here from any of your mentioned examples.

According to the London Times Pentagon correspondent, an anonymous former U.S. senior official is suggesting we might be too late to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon-

It May Be Too Late To Stop Iran Getting The Bomb, Says Former U.S. Defense Official-London Times April 19, 2010

I find this anonymous source fascinating in light of the unclassified report being sent to Congress suggesting today that Iran may be able to field an ICBM capable of reaching America by 2015.

1+1=BOOM!

Originally Posted by S-2

You could be correct but I see significant differences here from any of your mentioned examples.

On what points?

"On what points?"

WRT W.W.I & W.W.II, the spread of traffic mitigated risk except on specific routes and duration of the war compelled accomodation to new realities.

WRT to the tanker war, the limited extent and intensity of the conflict may have had some impact. I expect an Iranian reaction to any American attack to be more extensive and their effort to impact gulf shipping to be more concerted.

VIENNA (AP) - Iran has agreed to give the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency greater inspection and monitoring rights to a sensitive site where it is enriching uranium to higher levels, diplomats said Friday.

The move - indirectly confirmed by a senior Iranian envoy - comes as Tehran mounts a diplomatic offensive meant to stave off new U.N. sanctions for its defiance of Security Council demands that it curb nuclear activities that could be used to make weapons.

Iran began enriching uranium to near 20 percent two months ago and says it will be turned into fuel rods for a research reactors that manufacture medical isotopes for cancer patients. It says it was forced to take this step because the big powers refused to meet it half way on a moribund plan that would have supplied the rods from abroad.

The International Atomic Energy Agency had pushed in vain for greater access to the enrichment operation since the start of the project, seeking to realign monitoring cameras already set up to oversee Iran's long-standing enrichment plant that is churning out much-lower-level uranium. It has also been asking for more frequent inspections, said the diplomats, who asked for anonymity because their information is confidential.

They said Iran agreed in principle earlier this month to give the IAEA the greater overview it sought, but the increased access and monitoring still had to be put in place.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the chief Iranian envoy to the IAEA, indirectly confirmed agreement, saying the two sides had "constructive talks" on the issue.

Iran last year rejected a U.N.-backed plan that offered nuclear fuel rods in exchange for Iran's stock of lower-level enriched uranium. That swap would have curbed Tehran's capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

Six world powers - the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany - endorsed the confidence-building proposal. Backed by the IAEA, the deal foresaw shipping 2,420 pounds (1,100 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium from Iran to Russia to be enriched to 20 percent, then to France for processing into fuel rods for the research reactor that makes nuclear isotopes needed for medical purposes.

Beyond meeting Iran's needs, the U.S. and its allies saw the proposal as delaying Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon by stripping it of much of the enriched uranium it would need for such a project. Tehran denies seeking such arms, insisting it is enriching only for an envisaged network of power-generating nuclear reactors.

Though Iran initially rejected the proposal, its leaders have tried to keep the offer on the table, proposing variations without accepting the Vienna-based IAEA's terms. The main stumbling block has been Tehran's refusal to ship the bulk of its low-enriched uranium abroad - a condition insisted upon by the West as key to slowing Iran's accumulation of enriched uranium and thereby any bomb-making capacities.

In the meantime, Iran has pushed ahead with further enriching uranium to 20 percent on its own, announcing this week that it has produced five kilograms (11 pounds) of the material, though it is not clear if it is able to take the next step of turning them into fuel rods for the reactor.

Any success in enriching up to that level brings Iran closer to quickly being able to make weapons grade uranium that serves as the core of nuclear warheads.

The Iranian concession comes just before the weekend visit of Iran's foreign minister to Austria on the first stop of an international campaign aimed at weakening a U.S.-backed push for new U.N. sanctions.

Manouchehr Mottaki will meet Austrian counterpart Michael Spindelegger on Sunday, Austria's Foreign Ministry said.

Austria is a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which is preparing to consider a fourth round of sanctions on Tehran for its nuclear defiance.

Before his trip, Mottaki said Iran wants to talk with all council members except the U.S about a nuclear fuel deal that was originally touted as a possible way to ease the international standoff over Iran's nuclear program but has since hit a dead end.

*Still trying to head off sanctions and possibly military action headed in their direction. I think its a bit late. They know whats coming on the horizion and its not going to be good. The UNSC has had enough of the foot dragging and the rhetoric from Iran.

More weaseling to escape the inevitable.

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran is trying to provoke a war between Israel and Syria.

Netanyahu says Iran is trying to convince Syria that an Israeli attack is imminent, which he says is a "lie."

Tensions have been high recently between Israel and Syria. The sides have traded threats, and last week Israel accused Syria of smuggling powerful rockets to the Lebanese guerillas of Hezbollah. Syria denied the charge.

Speaking in an interview Thursday with Israel's Channel 2 TV, Netanyahu repeated the charge that Syria and Iran are arming Hezbollah.

The Israeli leader also called on the U.S. to impose sanctions to block Iran's nuclear program.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

More weaseling to escape the inevitable.
Netanyahu says Iran is trying to convince Syria that an Israeli attack is imminent, which he says is a "lie."

If Assad believes that, then he is truly and officially an idiot. What kind of a leader does not learn from a history that is hardly half a century away.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

*Still trying to head off sanctions and possibly military action headed in their direction. I think its a bit late. They know whats coming on the horizion and its not going to be good. The UNSC has had enough of the foot dragging and the rhetoric from Iran.

The regime is on panic mode running around all over the world like crazy chicken. I think Ad'jad is in Zimbabwe now and then to Uganda for 'help'. They have run out of ideas.

Originally Posted by Zinja

If Assad believes that, then he is truly and officially an idiot. What kind of a leader does not learn from a history that is hardly half a century away.

*Assad is after one thing and one thing only. The Golan Heights. Israel wont give up that strategic location no matter the cost. Syria has wanted it very desperately for a long time since losing it. They would have to destroy Israel first and thats not going to happen and Syria knows it.

Assads regime helps support the actions Iran finances. Its been known for a long time. He's a fence sitter, make him an offer he cant refuse such as Iran financing with NK's help building the reactor that the Israeli's destroyed and nobody wanted to acknowledge it was leveled. The Isotope samples taken pointed to NK's (specific) reactor program. And the satellite footage of the NK ships suppling materials cannot be denied.

The US had every right to sink those ships via violation of sanctions but did not.

Assad is no friend until he stops supporting the Iranian lackies and they know exactly which ones we speak of. In other words, he wont be straight so he's untrustworthy. He states one thing while doing other things via the back door.

Senetor Kerry ( *******) states they want peace, their peace comes at a price that Israel isint willing to pay. Aergo the Golan. And IMO, I cant blame the Israeli's one ioda.