* Chossudovsky: Details of Iran invasion plan *


Richard Moore

        The presumption of this military document, is that a Second
        911 attack "which is lacking today" would usefully create
        both a "justification and an opportunity" to wage war on
        "some known targets [Iran and Syria]".

Original source URL:

"Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRANNT)

By Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 21, 2007

DUBAI, UAE, 21 February 2007. (revised 23 Feb 2007). Code named by US military 
planners as TIRANNT,  "Theater Iran Near Term" has identified several thousand 
targets inside Iran as part of a "Shock and Awe" Blitzkrieg, which is now in its
final planning stages.

According to the Kuwait-based Arab Times, an attack on Iran under TIRANNT could 
occur any time between late February and the end of April. This assessment, 
however, does not take into account the disarray of US ground forces in Iraq as 
well as the untimely withdrawal of several thousand British troops from the Iraq
war theater, many of whom were stationed in Southern Iraq on the immediate 
border with Iran.

        Revealed last April by William Arkin, a former US
        intelligence analyst, writing in the Washington Post,
        TIRANNT was first established in May 2003, following the
        invasion of Iraq.  "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. [This contingency plan entitled CONPLAN 8022
        would be activated in the eventuality of a Second 9/11, on
        the presumption that Iran would be behind it]

        ... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners
        have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios
        for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat
        operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces
        through postwar stability operations after regime change."
        (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006) First Iraq,
        then Iran

The 2003 decision to target Iran under TIRANNT should come as no surprise. It is
part of the broader military roadmap. Already during the Clinton administration,
US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated in 1995  "in war theater plans" to
invade first Iraq and then Iran.

        "The broad national security interests and objectives
        expressed in the President's National Security Strategy
        (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS)
        form the foundation of the United States Central Command's
        theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a
        strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and
        Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S.
        interests, to other states in the region, and to their own
        citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the
        balance of power in the region without depending on either
        Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based
        and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as
        espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital
        interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied
        access to Gulf oil."



        emphasis  added)

Consistent with CENTCOM's 1995 "sequencing" of theater operations, the plans to 
target Iran were activated under TIRANNT in the immediate wake of the 2003 
invasion of Iraq. Confirmed by Arkin, the active component of the Iran military 
agenda was launched in May 2003 "when modelers and intelligence specialists 
pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario
analysis for Iran." (Arkin, op cit). In October 2003, different theater 
scenarios for an Iran war were contemplated:

        "The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared
        battle plans and spent four years building bases and
        training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon,
        the new head of US Central Command, has inherited
        computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near
        Term)." (New Statesman, 19 Feb 2007)

Concurrently, the various parallel components of TIRANNT were put in place 
including the Marines "Concept of Operations":

        "The Marines, meanwhile, have not only been involved in
        CENTCOM's war planning, but have been focused on their own
        specialty, "forcible entry." In April 2003, the Corps
        published its "Concept of Operations" for a maneuver against
        a mock country that explores the possibility of moving
        forces from ship to shore against a determined enemy without
        establishing a beachhead first. Though the Marine Corps
        enemy is described only as a deeply religious revolutionary
        country named Karona, it is -- with its Revolutionary
        Guards, WMD and oil wealth -- unmistakably meant to be Iran.

        Various scenarios involving Iran's missile force have also
        been examined in another study, initiated in 2004 and known
        as BMD-I (ballistic missile defense -- Iran). In this study,
        the Center for Army Analysis modeled the performance of U.S.
        and Iranian weapons systems to determine the number of
        Iranian missiles expected to leak through a coalition

        The day-to-day planning for dealing with Iran's missile
        force falls to the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha. In June
        2004, Rumsfeld alerted the command to be prepared to
        implement CONPLAN 8022, a global strike plan that includes
        Iran. CONPLAN 8022 calls for bombers and missiles to be able
        to act within 12 hours of a presidential order. The new task
        force, sources have told me, mostly worries that if it were
        called upon to deliver "prompt" global strikes against
        certain targets in Iran under some emergency circumstances,
        the president might have to be told that the only option is
        a nuclear one. (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April

"Shock and Awe"

US military planning  includes specific roles to be performed by NATO and Israel
in the event of an attack on Iran. The German navy is deployed formally under a 
UN mandate in the Eastern Mediterranean. NATO bases in Europe would also be 

Documented by Global Research, extensive war games were conducted since last 
Summer by Iran and its allies of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,  
including Russia and China. In turn, the US has conducted war games off the 
Iranian coastline.

The Pentagon's Second 9/11

What is now being contemplated by Washington is an overwhelming use of military 
force in retaliation to Iran's alleged non-compliance. This of course is the 
pretext, the justification for waging war. The Pentagon has also contemplated 
retaliating against Iran in the case of a second 9/11 attack:

        "A third plan sets out how the military can both disrupt and
        respond to another major terrorist strike on the United
        States. It includes lengthy annexes that offer a menu of
        options for the military to retaliate quickly against
        specific terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors
        depending on who is believed to be behind an attack. Another
        attack could create both a justification and an opportunity
        that is lacking today to retaliate against some known
        targets, according to current and former defense officials
        familiar with the plan.

        This plan details "what terrorists or bad guys we would hit
        if the gloves came off. The gloves are not off," said one
        official, who asked not to be identified because of the
        sensitivity of the subject. (emphasis added, WP 23 April

2006) The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack 
"which is lacking today" would usefully create both a "justification and an 
opportunity" to wage war on "some known targets [Iran and Syria]".

Civilian Targets

Press reports in the Middle East confirm that the planned air strikes are by no 
means limited to Iran's nuclear facilities. Central Command Headquarters in 
Florida (CENTCOM) has already selected a comprehensive list of  military and 
civilian targets. Industrial sites, civilian infrastructure including roads, 
water systems, bridges,  electric power plants telecommunications towers, 
government buildings are part of the assumptions underlying the Blitzkrieg.  "A 
single raid could result in 10,000 targets being hit with warplanes flying from 
the US and Diego Garcia" (Gulf News, 21 Feb 2007, emphasis added)

Meanwhile, the US has been mustering support for its agenda following the 
holding of a regional Security Conference in the UAE.

Nuclear War

Military planners are said to favor the use of conventional weapons. The use of 
tactical nuclear weapons, which are now part of the Middle East war theater 
arsenal, are not explicitly contemplated, at least in the first round of the US 
sponsored Blitzkrieg. However, the fact that nuclear weapons are acknowledged as
a possible choice in the conventional war theater is indicative that their use 
is an integral part of military planning.

In November 2004, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global 
strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated 
attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy" 
[Iran]. Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command 
declared an advanced state of readiness.

In this context, CONPLAN is the operational plan pursuant to the Global Strike 
Plan. It is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force 
translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,'

        CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the
        pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

        'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats --
        Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially
        terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that
        they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against
        Russian and Chinese targets.' (According to Hans Kristensen,
        of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese
        economic News Wire, op cit)

The use of tactical nuclear weapons is contemplated under CONPLAN 8022 alongside
conventional  weapons, as part of the Bush administration's preemptive war 
doctrine. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains 
classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of 
tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with 

(For further details on the US nuclear option, see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear 
War against Iran, January 2006, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, 
February 2006, Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust , 
February 2006)

Israel in a State of Readiness

War preparations in Israel have been ongoing since late 2004. The Israeli Air 
Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli 
produced bunker buster bombs. The attacks are slated to be carried out in three 
separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming protection being 
provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W 
Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html

The bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The 
B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be 
delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel 
Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also 
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .

According to a recent report in the London's Sunday Times (7 January 2007): "Two
Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using 
low-yield nuclear ³bunker-busters², according to several Israeli military 

If Iran were to respond to US-Israeli attacks in the form of targeted strikes on
US military facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf States, the war would 
escalate to the entire region. In this case, the US could retaliate in the form 
of "pre-emptive" nuclear attacks on Iran using bunker buster tactical nuclear 
war heads.

The most likely scenario is that Iran, in the logic of its own military 
planning, would indeed respond to the US sponsored attacks as well as deploy 
ground forces inside occupied Iraq.

Naval Deployment

Three strike groups including the Stennis, the Eisenhower and the Nimitz are 
being deployed in the Persian Gulf. According to Gulf News, "The Stennis strike 
group...  is now strengthening a high level of US Navy presence in the Gulf. The
Stennis and the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, already in the region, will soon 
be joined by the carrier Nimitz. (Gulf News,  21 Feb 2007). According to British
military sources, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's 

Redeployment of US Troops

Confirmed by military sources, some 8500 of US troops are being redeployed from 
US military facilities in Germany and Italy to Afghanistan and Iraq, both of 
which border on Iran. One assumes that they are being dispatched to the Middle 
East war theater in the eventuality that the air strikes will lead into a ground
war with Iran.

The Pentagon, contradicting its own statements, has dismissed as "ludicrous" the
press reports that the US is planning an all out attack on Iran in the "near 

Meanwhile, Iran has launched a three days war games entitled Eghtedar or 
Grandeur. These exercises which involve naval, air and ground forces are larger 
than those conducted last Summer. They are slated to take place in 16 out of 
Iran's 30 provinces. The stated objective is to establish a state of readiness 
to defend Iran in the eventuality of a US attack.

Vigilant Shield 07 War Games

From September through December 2006, the US conducted a New Cold War scenario 
of all out war directed against Iran and its Cold war era enemies: Entitled 
Vigilant Shield 07, the war games are not limited to a single Middle East war 
theater (e.g. Iran), they also include Russia, China and North Korea.

The details of the Vigilant Shield 07 exercise scenario, is contained in a U.S. 
Northern Command (NORTHCOM) briefing dated August 2006 (revealed by William 
Arkin in a WP article) .

The enemies are Irmingham [Iran], Nemazee [North Korea], Ruebek [Russia], Churya

Details and Sequencing:

"€ Road to Conflict (RTC): 11 Sep ­ 15 Oct 06
 ­ Initial Irmingham Enrichment I&W [indications and warning]
 ­ Initial Ruebeki & Irmingham Involvement
 ­ Ruebek I&W, PACFLT [U.S. Pacific Fleet] Sub Deployments
 ­ Initial Nemazee ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] I&W
 ­ Initial MHLD [homeland defense?] I&W

­ Strategic IO [information operations (cyber warfare)] operations (Ruebek & 

 ­ Ruebek & Irmingham Conduct Joint AD [air defense] Exercise
€ Phase 1 / Deployment: 4 ­ 8 Dec 06

­ Rogue LRA [Russian long-range aviation] w/CALCM [conventional air launched 
cruise missile] Launch

 ­ Continue Monitoring Strategic Situation
 ­ Continue Monitoring Nemazee Situation
  € Possible Nuclear Testing
  € Probable ICBM Preparation

 ­ Continue Monitoring MHLD Situation

  € Five VOIs [vessels of interest]

€ Churya Flagged VOI into Dutch Harbor Supports BMDS [ballistic missile defense 
system] Threat to Ft Greely

 ­ Continue Monitoring IO Activities
 ­ Nemazee Conducts SLV [space launch vehicle] Launch ­ 8 Dec 06
€ Phase 2 Minus 42 Days:
 € Additional Nemazee ICBM Shipments to Launch Facilities

 € RMOB [Russian main operating bases] Acft Conduct LR Navigation Flights

 € AS-15 [nuclear armed cruise missile] Handling at RMOBs
 ­ Minus 41 Days:
  € Additional Nemazee ICBM Preps at Launch Pad # 2
 ­ Minus 40 Days:
  € Activity at Nemazee Nuclear Test Facilities
 ­ Minus 35 Days:
  € DOS [Department of State] Travel Warning
 ­ Minus 30 Days:
  € Ruebek LRA Deploys Acft to Anadyr & Vorkuta
€ Phase 2 Minus 30 Days:
 € Growing International Condemnation of Ruebek
 € Ruebek Deploys Submarines
 ­ Minus 20 Days:
  € Nemazee Recalls Reservists
 ­ Minus 14 Days:
  € DOS Draw-down Sequencing
 ­ Minus 13 Days:
  € Ruebek Closes US Embassy in Washington DC
 ­ Minus 11 Days:
  € Nemazee Conducts Fueling of Additional ICBMs
  € Ruebeki Presidential Statement on Possible US Attack
€ Phase 2 Minus 10 Days:
 € POTUS Addresses Congress on War Powers Act
 ­ Minus 6 Days:
  € Ruebek President Calls ³Situation Grave²
 ­ Minus 5 Days:
  € CALCM Activity at Anadyr, Vorkuta, and Tiksi

€ Ruebeki SS-25 [nuclear armed mobile ICBMs] Conduct out of Garrison Deployments

  € Nemazee Assembling ICBM for Probable Launch
 ­ Minus 4 Days:
  € Ruebek Closes US Embassy in Washington DC

  € Ruebek Acft Conduct Outer ADIZ [air defense identification zone] Pentrations

  € Mid-Air Collison w/NORAD Acft During ADIZ Penetration
€ Phase 2 Minus 4 Days:
 € Nemazee ICBM Launch Azimuth Threatens US
 ­ Minus 3 Days:
 € NATO Diplomatic Efforts Fail to Diffuse Crisis
 € USAMB to Ruebek Recalled for Consultation
 € POTUS Addresses Nation
 ­ Minus 2 Days:
 € Nemazee Leadership Movement
 ­ Minus 1 Day:
 € Ruebek Expels US Mission
€ Phase 2 / Execution: 10 ­ 14 Dec 06
 ­ Pre-Attack I & W

­ Imminent Terrorist Attack on Pentagon Suggests Pentagon COOP [continuity of 
operations plan]

 ­ Nemazee Conducts 2 x ICBM Combat Launches Against United States
 ­ Ruebek Conducts Limited Strategic Attack on United States
  € Wave 1 ­ 8 x Bear H Defense Suppression w/CALCM
  € Wave 2 ­ Limited ICBM & SLBM Attack

 ­ 2 x ICBM Launched (1 impacts CMOC [Cheyenne Mountain], 1 malfunctions)

­ 2 x SLBM Launched Pierside (1 impacts SITE-R ["Raven Rock" bunker on the 
Maryland-Pennsylvania border], 1 malfunctions)

 ­ 3 x Bear H from Dispersal Bases w/ALCM (Eielson AFB, CANR, Cold Lake)

 ­ US Conducts Limited Retaliatory Attack on Ruebek
  € 1 x ICBM C2 Facility
  € 1 x ICBM Against ICBM Launch Location
  € Phase 2 / Execution:
 ­ Ruebek Prepares Additional Attack on United States
  € Wave 3 ­ Prepares for Additional Strategic Attacks
  ­ 1 x ICBM Movement, NO Launch
  ­ 3 x SLBM PACFLT Pierside Missile Handling Activity (NO Launch)

­ 6 x BEAR H (launch & RTB [return to base]) w/6 x ALCM (NO launch)"  [source 
Northern Command and William Arkin]

Complacency of Western Public Opinion

The complacency of Western public opinion (including the US anti-war movement) 
is disturbing. No concern has been expressed at the political level as to the 
likely consequences of  these attacks, which could evolve towards a World War 
III scenario, with Russia and China siding with Iran.

With the exception of the Middle East, the war on Iran and the dangers of 
escalation are not considered "front page news."  All of which contributes to 
the real possibility that the war could be carried out, leading to the 
unthinkable: a nuclear holocaust over a large part of the Middle East. It should
be noted that a nuclear nighmare would occur even if nuclear weapons are not 
used. The bombing of Iran's nuclear facitlities using conventional weapons would
contribute to unleashing a Chernobyl type disaster with extensive radioactive 


Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America¹s "War on 
Terrorism"  Second Edition, Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics 
at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on 

To order Chossudovsky's book  America's "War on Terrorism", click here

Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading 
the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East war. Please 
indicate the source and copyright note.

media inquiries •••@••.•••

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of 
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on 

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on 
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The 
source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global 
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, 
contact: •••@••.•••

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not 
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such 
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an 
effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social 
issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair 
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: •••@••.•••

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007

The url address of this article is: 

© Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005

Escaping the Matrix website        http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website               http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
subscribe cyberjournal list        mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives                   http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/