Busily Planning Away on Iran

Gregory Djerejian, in this post for his site The Belgravia Dispatch, compares prewar quotes on Iraq and Iran, and argues that, basically, we shouldn't believe one word the Administration says regarding a lack of attack plans on Iran, or dismissing use of tactical nuclear weapons as "wild speculation." This deliberate deception would be one thing if it was aimed at an Iranian audience; in other words, "playing poker" about whether or not to attack to keep the Iranians off guard (of course, this only makes sense if Iran is already viewed as the enemy and not a diplomatic partner). But Iran is not the audience for these denials. They know exactly what's likely to be in store for them. That's why they've been ratcheting up the rhetoric and test-firing missiles for the last several weeks (Although, on the rhetorical front, it may be more of a case of Ahmadinejad aggrandizing power, which is angering the mullahs). Iran is under no illusions, and how can they be? To their left and to their right they can see the consequences of war with the United States.

These denials, these demurrals as "fantasy land" any speculation about war with Iran are designed for an American audience, particularly those that read headlines and don't go very in-depth. The plan is to deny any plans for attack right up until diplomacy fails, which it of course will considering the US is remaining on the sidelines in the diplomacy efforts, and Iran won't agree to anything without assurances from the US. Then the Administration will come out and say "Iran will not listen to reason, our only choice is to attack." We've seen this before; that's how it worked in Iraq. In the meantime the plans are made (only for the invasion or the air strike, not the post-attack period).

I think these assurances are also designed to provide cover for our allies, many of whom are on the record against attack. This buys the Administration time to convince the Coalition of the Willing Pt. II that military options are the only hope against Iran going nuclear.

But Djerejian is right to acknowledge that we must assume that war plans are underway, regardless of the denials. These reports, which have shown up in many international papers, suggest that there have been war plans on Iran since at least 2003, buttressed by this op-ed from William Arkin, a former US intelligence analyst:

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.

I do disagree with that. Iran does know. It's the American public which is being kept in the dark. There's nothing wrong with the Pentagon making plans; it's their entire reason for being. There's plenty wrong with denying it.