Pentagon Preps for Iran (WaPo)

[katty]

cont'd: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12754.htm

The Pentagon Preps for Iran

By William M. Arkin

04/16/06 "Washington Post" -- -- Does the United States have a war plan for stopping Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons?

Last week, President Bush dismissed news reports that his administration has been working on contingency plans for war -- particularly talk of the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran -- as "wild speculation." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld chimed in, calling it "fantasyland." He declared to reporters that "it just isn't useful" to talk about contingency planning.

But the secretary is wrong.

It's important to talk about war planning that's real. And it is 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 de struction. 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.

None of this activity has been disclosed by the U.S. military, and when I wrote about Iran contingency planning last week on The Washington Post Web site, the Pentagon stuck to its dogged position that "we don't discuss war plans." But it should.

The diplomatic effort directed at Iran would be mightily enhanced if that country understood that the United States is so serious about deterring the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons that it would be willing to go to war to stop that quest from reaching fruition.

[endarkenment]

1. "The diplomatic effort directed at Iran would be mightily enhanced "

If we actually had diplomatic relations with Iran, which we don't. We can't be bothered to actually negotiate directly with the Iranians.

"U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time." Huh? How do we get our navy in there, fly it in?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspian.html&h=370&w=434&sz=90&tbnid=DLmBHiZPYSMJ:&tbnh=104&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcaspian%2Bsea%2Bmap%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&start=3&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=3

[katty]

4. yes, and Condi, et al prefer saber rattling

[Sinti]

2. This is the they won't take us seriously without a gun to their head phase

This is how we got the Iraq fiasco through Congress.

It would be extremely untidy to go in with ground troops, though, especially when we have tactical nukes we're just dying to test out. We've already spread enough depleted uranium around the place to last for decades, what's a little more radiation at this point. If they bomb heavily enough, it will be damn difficult for the Iranians (who actually have an army and air force) to retaliate in any meaningful way.

I think I'll go beat my head against a wall now, just until I stop thinking. :banghead:

[katty]

3. precisely