It
is not exactly a closely guarded military secret
when the announcement appears as a dispatch in USA
Today, a national newspaper that appears on every
street corner, indeed, virtually every hotel in
the land. The message this week: the National
Strategic Gaming Center of the National Defense
University (NDU) will conduct a "war gaming"
exercise on July 18 involving Iran's nuclear
program.
The United States' premier
university for the education and training of its
senior military officers, NDU is at Fort McNair in
Washington, DC. War-gaming is a tabletop or even larger
exercise simulating crisis
management. Such exercises have become a standard
business of the US military and the militaries of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries.
The purpose is to "game" various options,
political and military, and their implications.
Such exercises now involve civilians,
including even members of Congress, so it is
important to recognize that going to war is
treated as an option of last resort in such
exercises, very much unlike what the Bush
administration did in a "real-world situation",
namely Iraq.
This particular "war game" is
the fifth in a series that has also included
exercises related to a purported avian-influenza
pandemic and a crisis in Pakistan. Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld started these exercises in
2002 to help the legislative and executive
branches discuss policy options.
Considering the fact that interagency
coordination has become such an enormously
critical aspect of the US way of warfighting,
representatives of various national-security and
other relevant agencies are always present to
provide their "real world" input in such
exercises. Top military commanders pay close
attention to the civilian input.
However,
that should not be taken as a source of comfort.
Uniformed members of the armed forces will not
take part in this particular "game", since purely
military exercises on issues of such importance
are never publicized. Military exercises are
focused on developing various military courses of
action, and then thoroughly discussing the
feasibility of those options. In the final phase,
these exercises conclude with a rigorous
discussion of "lessons learned".
The
significance of the NDU exercise involving Iran
stems from the fact that President George W Bush
has stated many times, most recently this Tuesday,
that "all options are on the table". The Defense
Department has taken elaborate measures to
publicize the specifics of those options. They
include arming submarine-launched Trident missiles
with conventional explosives; placing hardened
tips on existing missiles to enhance their
penetrability in hardened silos; and "setting off
a huge explosion to gather data for efforts to
improve bunker-busting bombs".
The Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is a
combat-support agency, is expected to conduct such
a test by setting off 700 tons of explosives in
the Nevada desert in the coming weeks. DTRA's head
has already stated that the purpose of that test
is to help solve problems related to the hardened
weapons sites in North Korea and Iran.
What is the meaning of all these
developments? Is the United States
considering attacking Iran? If the answer to this
question is yes, then why is it doing so much to
trumpet its intent, even providing details of the
kinds of weapons it plans to use?
It is
sheer folly to dismiss the public posturing of the
Bush administration as bluster and saber-rattling.
This administration has an established record of
invading two Muslim countries, where it maintains
occupation forces to this day. No one should
dismiss what Bush has stated in his National Security
Strategy, issued last month, about Iran:
We may face no greater challenge
from a single country than from Iran. For almost
20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key
nuclear efforts from the international
community. Yet the regime continues to claim
that it does not seek to develop nuclear
weapons. The Iranian regime's true intentions
are clearly revealed by the regime's refusal to
negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come
into compliance with its international
obligations by providing the International
Atomic Energy Agency access to nuclear sites and
resolving troubling questions; and the
aggressive statements of its president calling
for Israel to "be wiped off the face of the
Earth".
A similar type of hyperbolic
rhetoric was used against Iraq, especially about
its supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). At
least in the case of Iran, its continued desire to
sustain an independent uranium-enrichment program
provides ample substance to the United States'
contentious rhetoric, even though Iran insists it
has no intentions of developing nuclear weapons.
However, the Bush administration not only
dismisses Iran's assurances as lies, it is
consistently ratcheting up its threatening
rhetoric. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
repeating her inflammatory words about Iraq's
non-existent WMD, is at it again. This time, her
crusade is focused on trying to persuade Russia
and China to apply specific and very stringent
sanctions against Iran, never mind that Bush
failed to extract any promise of cooperation when
Chinese President Hu Jintao visited him on
Thursday.
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is
becoming a perfect foil for fulfilling the
aspirations of the Bush administration to tighten
screws on Iran. He is turning into the classic
"villain" by intermittently threatening to "wipe
out" Israel, by ridiculing the Holocaust and by
raising Iran's profile of support for the
Palestinian intifada at a time when no Arab state
cares to get very far ahead of the Palestinians.
One wonders who is advising Ahmadinejad,
and why is he so intent on using such strident
rhetoric against Israel, knowing that Iran is no
match for Israel's military prowess. Besides, by
using highly contentious language about the Jewish
state, he has created ample ill-will not only in
Europe but also in other parts of the world, save
North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela.
Given that the Bush administration is not
willing to engage Iran directly on the nuclear
issue, the best option for Iran is to lower its
reckless rhetoric and consider cooperating with
the International Atomic Energy Agency.
As
to the question of whether the Bush administration
would take military actions against Iran, the
chances are pretty high that it would. A number of
analysts maintain that US forces are under so much
stress because of commitments in Iraq and
Afghanistan that military action against Iran is
not feasible. They also argue that the American
people have no stomach for another military
invasion.
While those are valid points,
there is also the possibility that precisely
because of those reasons the current
administration would take the option of preemptive
air attacks on the Iranian facilities. Militarily
speaking, such an action carries minimal risks,
even though politically it would be explosive. But
Bush already has a proven record for taking
politically explosive actions.
At least
for now, by so elaborately publicizing its
military options, the United States is sending
clear signals to Iran to abandon its
uranium-enrichment program forthwith.
Ehsan Ahrari is the CEO of
Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, Virginia-based
defense consultancy. He can be reached ateahrari@cox.netorstratparadigms@yahoo.com
. His columns appear
regularly in Asia Times Online. His website:
www.ehsanahrari.com.
(Copyright 2006
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
.)
Deadly serious war
games
