Interesting stuff in The Sunday Times:
The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
The expert in question is the Nixon Center’s director of terroism and national security, Alexis Debat. The article doesn’t cite his sources, but presumably he knows a person or two within the military establishment.
If he’s supporting such a measure rather than just noting it, he’s taken a rather interesting interpretation of his institution’s “enlightened pursuit of the national interest”. But then the Center’s “specific goal… is to explore ways of enhancing American security and prosperity while taking into account the legitimate perspectives of other nations”. Note the word “legitimate”; it’s a handy escape clause in case of controversy.
This supposed strategy against Iran sounds an awful lot like the “shock and awe” tactics employed in Iraq, although that rapid dominance strategy was a lead-in to a ground invasion and occupation. There’s no indication here that the US is preparing to attempt this in Iran (it doesn’t have the manpower, anyway).
From the scant detail in the Times article, it’s impossible to say if this is more sabre rattling or prelude to an offensive. If it’s the latter, the Pentagon has done a piss-poor job of keeping its plans secret — unless it wants Iran to feel the pressure. But then you have to wonder if what Debat mentioned is the actual strategy, and not a smokescreen or case of misdirection.
The story comes shortly after George W Bush stepped up the rhetoric, saying Iran had put the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”:
Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.
At least his speech writer had the good sense to insert “economic sanctions” before “confront”. Bush seems to be favouring diplomacy, which would indicate that the attack plan outlined by Debat is a fall-back should the US feel Iran is close to, or has developed nuclear weapons. (We must also be aware that he was addressing a veterean’ organisation, so strong military talk should be expected.)
As a strategy, wiping out the enemy’s military in a brief time is sound. However, it depends on knowing exactly where every piece of equipment is at any given time and also that the defending forces keep their materiel in the same place over three days. Leaking the strategy only gives Iran a chance to redeploy its military. Satellites and other technology are no substitute for on the ground intelligence.
It is logical for the US to be drawing up such plans. Most militaries would have an array of strategies for any number of scenarios; it’s their job after all. Presumably Iran has a strategy in place should it be attacked.
Plans, however, are merely ideas committed to paper. They have a nasty habit of not working as intended; the Schlieffen Plan springs to mind, along with the German invasion of Russia.
I’m sure you can think of many, many more.