William Arkin of the Washington Post has the best sources within the Pentagon. While everyone else is talking about the revolt of the Generals, Arkin is talking about the war plan for Iran.
In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “theater Iran near term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations” against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form.
TIRRANT is a clever name, don’t you think? Below the fold, Arkin describes the planning and editorializes a bit.
Pentagon
Arkin is letting us know that war with Iran is likely. And far from trying to dissuade the military from taking such risky action, Arkin seems intent on reassuring us that such a war can be managed.
Iran needs to know — and even more important, the American public needs to know — that no matter how many experts talk about difficult-to-find targets or the catastrophe that could unfold if war comes, military planners are already working hard to minimize the risks of any military operation. This is the very essence of contingency planning.
Even though we might think an attack on Iran is insane, Arkin thinks it can be done effectively.
Contingency planning for a bolt-out-of-the-blue attack, let alone full-fledged war, against Iran may seem incredible right now. But in the secretive world of military commands and war planners, it is an everyday and unfortunate reality. Iran needs to understand that the United States isn’t hamstrung by a lack of options. It needs to realize that it can’t just stonewall and evade its international obligations, that it can’t burrow further underground in hopes that it will “win” merely because war is messy.
As Arkin reflects back on his career reporting on the Pentagon, his biggest regret is that he didn’t report more of the Iraq war plan. Now he hopes to start an open debate about the planning for war in Iran.
I’ve been tracking U.S. war planning, maintaining friends and contacts in that closed world, for more than 20 years. My one regret in writing about this secret subject, especially because the government always claims that revealing anything could harm U.S. forces, is not delving deeply enough into the details of the war plan for Iraq. Now, with Iran, it’s once again difficult but essential to piece together the facts.
And, how would we justify an attack on Iran? Arkin has an answer for that too.
It is specifically a response to that country’s illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons, its meddling in Iraq and its support for international terrorism.
Iran needs to know that the administration is dead serious.
And then there is the kicker.
…we all need to know that even absent an Iranian nuke or an Iranian attack of any kind, there is still another catastrophic scenario that could lead to war.
In a world of ready war plans and post-9/11 jitters, there is an ever greater demand for intelligence on the enemy. That means ever greater risks taken in collecting that intelligence. Meanwhile, war plans demand that forces be ready in certain places and on alert, while the potential for WMD necessitates shorter and shorter lead times for strikes against an enemy. So the greater danger now is of an inadvertent conflict, caused by something like the shooting down of a U.S. spy plane, by the capturing of a Special Operations or CIA team, or by nervous U.S. and Iranian forces coming into contact and starting to shoot at one another.
The war planning process is hardly neutral. It has subtle effects. As militaries stage mock attacks, potential adversaries become presumed enemies. Over time, contingency planning transforms yesterday’s question marks into today’s seeming certainty.
So, there we have it. Virtually anything can trigger war with Iran. The war will be justified by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, their meddling in Iraq, and their connections to international terrorism. And the administration is ‘dead serious’.
Despite Arkin’s heavy lifting here, it appears that the Generals are not enamored with the idea of attacking Iran. I’m not enamored with the idea either.
