Sam Gardiner, 8 April 2008

He, Cheney, wanted to explore the "reaction that society has toward people who want to create freedom and a better life…but have to do it in such a way that shocks people sometimes.”

Victor David Hanson describing a meeting with Vice President Cheney

We’ve heard talk of a military strike for the last two years.  Nothing happened.  Why now?

The answer has been in the press.  The first firebreak to the strike option came in the spring of 2006.  The White House made a great deal of what was to be the “summer of diplomacy.”  Secretary Rice announced that if Iran suspended enrichment the United States would open dialogue.  The summer ended with no diplomacy.

The second delay in the strike option was to give covert operations a chance to work.  From press reports, this seems to have involved covert operations inside Iran as well as the funding of groups to take on Hezbollah.

Finally, some argued sanctions had to be given a chance.  It took longer than expected to get approval by the UN Security Council, but now the Administration has the third sanctions package from the UN.

Have we achieved anything with Iran over the past four years?

One can imagine this is the exact question the Vice President asks.  He listened to the arguments about diplomacy, and sanctions and then covert operations.  From the beginning he was skeptical of these alternatives.  It seems he was right.

Iran has continued enriching.  From recent reports, Iran may have installed more sophisticated centrifuges at the Natanz facility.  Iran continues to support and rearm Hezbollah.  Iran continues to send arms into Iraq and may be increasing arms shipments to Afghanistan.

Bottom line, Iran’s influence and capabilities have grown despite all the Administration’s efforts.  I can almost hear the Vice President’s argument.

What starts the military strike on Iran?

We know the pattern.  We’ve seen it before.  Before the invasion of Iraq, the United States had two separate efforts to create the impression Iraq started the war.

In General Frank’s plan for the invasion, a set of Iraq action triggers was formulated.  These were actions that Saddam Hussein might take that could trigger a US response.  The cover of this paper is the declassified TOP SECRET POLO STEP slide that was used to describe these triggers in General Frank’s famous slide shows.  On the trigger list were some very minor acts, like Iraq shooting down a drone.

In addition to the triggers, the United States had prepared an elaborate covert operation to make it appear as if Iraq started the war.  The operation was part of the ANABASIS Project.  A group of our Iraqis were to be inserted into a base in southern Iraq.  When Saddam Hussein’s forces came to engage, the United States would respond.  Iraq would have violated the No-Fly Zone.  Iraq would have started the war.  The covert operation was never used.

The pattern has been established.  We would expect the White House to search for a way to make it appear as if Iran started it.  

In the current environment, there are numerous situations that could be turned into an incident.  In January, we witnessed the encounter between Iranian speedboats and US Navy ships.  Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, this could easily be turned into a reason to strike Iranian terrorist targets.

How could the President justify a strike on Iran?

Actually, a strike on Iran is easier to justify than was the attack against Iraq.  The basic argument will be that it was done to protect US troops.  This kind of military action is provided for in a variety of Congressional authorizations.

President Clinton used the argument to strike the “chemical plant” in Sudan.  He used the argument to strike the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

As for international justification, the Iran has already attacked US troops in Iraq.  We hear that daily from Baghdad.  That means a strike on Iran is even justified under the self-defense provisions of the UN Charter.

How does the White House generate public support for a strike?

We know the pattern.  We’ve seen it before. The White House has a very well established and fairly disciplined strategic communication apparatus.  It was at its best in the spin up to the invasion of Iraq.  It is fairly simple strategy.  Saturate the media with a strong story line.  In 2002, it was Iraq supports terrorists.

We saw the same kind of effort before the 2004 elections.  The story then focused on terrorism.  The United States was under serious threat from terrorists.  President Bush was the man to handle the situation.  The use of the messaging effort is obvious.  It can even be shown on a graph.

What about the messaging in preparation for operations against Iran?  There are subtexts, but the main line is that Iran is killing US troops in Iraq.

The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program adds a special twist to this campaign.  The White House must shed doubt on the conclusion, as it is clearly working to do now.

We’ve seen evidence in recent statements:

Iran has "declared" it was pursuing nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel. - President Bush Iran and Syria are working to torpedo the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. - Vice President Cheney

Iran’s influence is on the rise. - Senator McCain

Speaking of the fighting in Basra, “This is an effort by Iran to destabilize Iraq.”  - Senator Lindsey Graham

 "Obviously, they're also heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade levels,"  - Vice President Cheney

 "The need for missile defense in Europe is real and it is urgent. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles of increasing range that could deliver them.”  - President Bush in Bucharest

 “Petraeus is going to go very hard on Iran as the source of attacks on the American effort in Iraq," – A British Official

Why does anyone believe a strike on Iran would change Tehran’s behavior?

In December 1998, the United States conducted a four-day bombing operation against Iraq.  Analysts have written that this operation, called DESERT FOX, had a profound impact on Saddam Hussein, an impact we only learned later.  The argument is we could have the same impact on Iran.

The Vice President has argued over the past seven years since 9/11 that terrorists and terrorist-sponsoring states will only change their behavior when we use force against them.

We know the pattern.  We’ve seen it before.

What would a strike look like?

It would be a short affair like DESERT FOX.  It would be primarily an air operation – stealth bombers, cruise missiles and some strike aircraft.  It would involve 1000 to 1500 target points.

From press reports, we know that early planning focused on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  The planning seems to have evolved now to be more about terrorist targets to include Revolutionary Guard divisions.

One of the reasons it is not a difficult recommendation for the Vice President is that there is a low likelihood of US casualties.  This operation will also have a low CNN-value.  It will come with little or no warning.  Most missions will be at night.  The targets are in places where the Government of Iran is unlikely to permit press.

Is a US strike on Iran inevitable?

No.  And, a decision to execute the operation has probably not been made, but I can envision three futures.  

The White House could decide to quietly turn the problem of Iran over to the next President.

The President could decide, as we have heard from some reports, that he believes he is the only one who can deal with Iran.  The next President won’t.  We know the Vice President has been arguing that sanctions and diplomacy won’t work to get Iran to change its behavior.  The supporting story builds; there is an incident followed by a strike.

The President could decide to build the story of the threat of Iran but not pull the trigger on the strike.  In this future, the White House deals with Iran the way it handled terrorism before the 2004 elections, making it the important story.  The story supports the Republican presidential candidate as well as Republican candidates for the Congress.

Quietly turning Iran over to the next President already does not seem to be in the cards.  Iran will become a major issue over the next few months.

It seems to be the Vice President’s turn.

Memo to the Office of the Vice President of the United States
Sensitive – Access Limited

(NB - This is Fictitious)

April 2, 2008

Memo for File

Subject:  Dealing with Iran

This memo outlines the strategy for dealing with the increasing threat from Iran.  It is to be held very closely.  Access is restricted to individuals authorized by separate memo.

Strategic Communications Strategy Objectives

To generate support for Republican Presidential and Congressional elections
To create receptivity with the US and global publics for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities prior to the end of the Administration

Components of the Strategic Communications Campaign

Build the volume of the Iran story as we did with terrorism prior to the 2004 Elections.

Although the objectives of this campaign will be held very closely within the White House, individuals in the Intelligence Community and Department of Defense will be asked to make the case in order to “pressure Iran.  The themes will be Iran is:
o Working toward having a nuclear weapons
o Killing US soldiers in Iraq
o Interfering with the peace process in the Middle East
o Supporting terrorism

In order to support the general theme that the Republican Party is the party of national security:
o RNC will issue talking points highlighting the threat from Iran
o Speakers will be available to talk shows to make the case that Iran will be a major threat for a new Administration
o Gingrich’s speech, “Sleepwalking into a Nightmare” is the kind of presentation we want Republicans to make


The pressure-Iran effort will involved providing information to press outlets outside the United States:
o To target audiences outside the United States
o To produce an echo with the US press

Take maximum advantage of supportive organizations like the American Enterprise Institute and the Committee on the Present Danger where issue discussion is actually support of Republican candidates.

Taking Advantage of the Strategic Communication Strategy

Preemption is a declared US strategy and Iran has attacked US soldiers.

Beyond the election component of the strategy, the campaign will prepare the publics for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities prior to the end of the Administration.

The objective is to find a strategic event that will be the final justification for a strike such as:  
o A confrontation with a US ship in the Gulf.
o A significant US casualty event in Iraq with Iranian DNA.
o The capture of Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers in Iraq.
o An Iranian aircraft crossing the border with Iraq.

 The objective of the strike is to punish Iran for supporting terrorism and strikes against US forces in Iran.
o The strike will be on 1000 to 1500 aim points.
o It will last three or four nights and will have very little CNN-like visual quality.
o US and collateral casualties inside Iran will be very low.
o The operation can be initiated with 24 hours notice.

 Not only will the strike set back the Iranian nuclear program but will have the second order consequence of strengthening the Republican candidates.

Sensitive – Access Limited
This is Fictitious

Sam Gardiner is a retired Air Force Colonel who has taught strategy and
military operations at the US National War College in Washington. He is the author of Truth from These Podia : Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II, 2003