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:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070221&articleId=4888
"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."
(USCENTCOM,
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy
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
defense.
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
2006)
"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
involved.
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
CONPLAN 8022.
(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
sources."
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
notice.
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
term".
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
[China]
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 &
Churya)
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
fallout.
------------
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
Globalization.
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
Globalization.
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:
www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=4888
© 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/
