|
Post by Rick Warder on Dec 31, 2005 20:09:17 GMT -5
OOC: This is for the Senate only.
President Rick Warder invited Senate leaders to the Oval Office for a confidential briefing on the Iran situation. At his desk, leaned forward over charts, graphs and documents, he began to outline the administration's plan:
"Senators Shea and Swift, thank you for coming. Likewise, Senators Williams, Uxbridge and Harding. Secretary of Defense Adams, thank you for being here. As you know, following the Iranian nuclear detonations, the situation has deteriorated rapidly. And we have reason to believe that the Iranians are stowing nuclear weapons in Syria in anticipation of blowing up an Israeli city, probably by smuggling it over the border. The threat has become too great to simply stand by, and I am looking at all options to cripple the Iranian regime's ability to build nuclear weapons and deploy them against us and our allies.
"In talks with my Secretary of Defense, I have outlined the following strategy for regime change in Iran.
"We have several options, requiring different force deployments. There is the option of the minimum effort, which would equal bombing raids to destroy Iranian strategic assets, but which would leave the regime and the country largely intact. In this event, I fear that Iran will commence measures to retaliate against us for our actions, chiefly through increased terrorism.
"A second option would be to produce a moderately sustained effort, requiring fewer forces but relying more heavily on chance, opportunity and the possibility that Iranian dissidents would assist our effort.
"The final option is, of course, all out war. This would ultimately lead to the toppling of the Iranian regime and to the establishment of a friendly country, such as Iraq, in the Middle East. Before I make these decisions, I wished to consult with both Democrats and Republicans. I trust that Democrats and Republicans alike will take their solemn oath to the United States seriously and not use their knowledge to the detriment of this great Republic, neither leaking it to the enemy nor using it in the upcoming election. As an American, I want you all to put partisanship aside and focus on the issue at hand, which is the preservation of our security and our way of life.
"Secretary of Defense Adams, if you could, I'm sure we would be all greatly appreciative of your expertise and knowledge if you were to lay out our options in greater detail."
|
|
|
Post by Avery Adams on Dec 31, 2005 22:41:49 GMT -5
Thank you Mr. President.
As you stated there are a number of options before us. The “Stealth/Limited/Sudden Strike” option would rely largely on forces already in the area, as well as some surged units, particularly the F-22A Raptor Wing out of Langley AFB, Virginia, and the Stealth Fighters from New Mexico, along with Bomber flying from Diego Garcia, Guam, and the United Kingdom [UK force depends on decision regarding Syria]. Naval assets and supporting units would be moved into the region in the event of retaliation or rescue efforts, but the primary thrust will be strikes focused on a few key WMD facilities, as well as protecting air fields and defenses. Preparations would require about two weeks.
The “Minimal Sustained Effort” would rely more heavily on “non-stealth” forces and take about a month to deploy. Here the focus would be to degrade Iranian air defenses and ground forces over time, as well as terror camps along the Iraqi border, after some first strike against WMD facilities. Special Forces would conduct limited operations inside Iran and Expeditionary strike groups would attack disputed island and coastal facilities to prevent retaliation against tankers. A few additional forces would be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent retaliations. Limited British air and naval support can be expected.
“Maximum sustained effort” is designed to provide a full range of options and would take a month and a half to two months to prepare. In addition to an initial strike, as outlined in the first option, massive air and naval, and moderate ground forces, would be surged to the area. Operations would include occupying islands in the Persian Gulf, which are disputed by allied claims, by the Marine Corps, massive strikes against naval and air bases, Pasadran (Islamic Revolutionary Guard) forces, and terror-support facilities. Special Forces will deploy extensively and a full effort will be made to support opposition groups and turn regular Iranian Army units against the Islamism government. Two Heavy Divisions, as well as two Stryker, two Airborne, one Heavy, and one Light Brigades (plus 2 regiments of Marines), with more available (Light/Airborne most likely), would be positioned (half are now in place) to defend Iraq or Afghanistan, or conduct operations into Iran. Substancial British contribution is likely. For efforts against Syria we may wish to deploy limited additional ground forces to western Iraq to support the Marine Division and one Stryker Brigade there now, both to deter retaliation and for possible offensive action should the President authorize ground operations. The primary effort we suggest is to allow Israel to conduct an air campaign against Syrian forces and terrorist camps. What is proposed it that the United States initiates such actions with air and missile strikes against key airfields and WMD/missile facilities and units. This would require a composite bomber squadron and a nuclear powered guided missile submarine, as well as some Israeli fighters for escort and suppression of enemy air defenses. Following this initial strike the Israelis would take over, striking enemy air defenses, defeating the remaining air forces, and attacking relevant ground targets. Because of Syria’s proximity to Israel, anything less that a full effort may result in conventional, WMD, or terrorist retaliation against Israel.
This is a general overview of the options proposed. The use of Israeli airpower against Iran was considered, but distance and Syria, along with regional politics, disuaded us from persuing that options. As it is, the Gulf states will largely allow us to operate from their territory, but will only committ to defensive operations for their own forces. I can take any questions you gentlemen might have.
|
|
|
Post by Cody Shea on Dec 31, 2005 22:54:47 GMT -5
"I just don't see how, in any scenario, we're going to prevent a nuclear detonation against friendly forces. Either they launch a tactical nuke at our invading forces, smuggle out a suitcase nuke to set off in Israel, or worse case scenario just turn it all over to the fundamentalists and tell them to 'strike back at the Crusader infidels' anywhere they choose. Could be London, could be Rome, hell it could be HERE!"
"What assurances can you give Congress that ANY military action wouldn't result in some sort of nuclear strike in the middle east or abroad?"
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 1, 2006 5:57:55 GMT -5
OOC: "Witness my new droid army..." ;D IC: President Warder nodded, and then glanced to the Secretary of Defense. Warder: "I think that the risk of nuclear attack is greater if we do not attack. The Iranians will not seek open conflict but they may well slip a nuclear weapon into terrorist hands for use against an American or allied city. This could happen at any time, anywhere, without any warning. We cannot plug all the holes in every nation's nuclear arsenal, thereby ensuring that no nuclear weapons find their way into enemy hands, but we can at the very least take nuclear weapons out of the hands of such regimes as we know are actively seeking to destroy us."
|
|
|
Post by Avery Adams on Jan 1, 2006 8:14:56 GMT -5
President Warder nodded, and then glanced to the Secretary of Defense. Warder: "I think that the risk of nuclear attack is greater if we do not attack. The Iranians will not seek open conflict but they may well slip a nuclear weapon into terrorist hands for use against an American or allied city. This could happen at any time, anywhere, without any warning. We cannot plug all the holes in every nation's nuclear arsenal, thereby ensuring that no nuclear weapons find their way into enemy hands, but we can at the very least take nuclear weapons out of the hands of such regimes as we know are actively seeking to destroy us." Exactly sir; and it is not just nuclear war we have to worry about. As we have seen, Iran is using it's claim of nuclear weapons as a shield to allow terrorist to operate against Israel without fear of retaliation. They could just as easily and openly do the same to our forces and allies in Iraq and throughout the region, or demand tribute, or close the strait of Hormuz, or that we leave the region entirely. Have no doubt, if we and Israel cave in now, future threats and demands will be much more serious. In many ways, this is exactly why you do not seriously negotiate or give in to hostage takers or terrorists. Iran has no interest in maintaining the status quo, as is clear from their supposed tests and stepped up support of Syria and terrorism, not to mention rhetoric. The problem is if we give in now, where do we stop? The consequences would likely be be far greater if we wait and allow Iran to develop as a more potent threat to leverage against us at a later time. Senator, there is no guarantee in military action against an active and dangerous enemy; but we would do our best through missile defense, intelligence and covert actions to prevent the scenarios you outlined. Those potentials are exactly why action should be taken sooner, rather than later. We can either sit on our hands and let the danger grow, or we can "nip it in the bud" now. If any of those events were to occur, the question would be "why did we not act before the threat developed". If we wait then Iran has already deterred us and won; not only will their power, influence, and use of terror grow, but it would likely trigger a wave of proliferation and nuclear arms development throughout the Mid-East. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Turkey would likely move quickly toward such capabilities. And because we failed to act they would not trust in our extended deterrence to protect them. Our friends and allies in the region would no longer trust us and we would increasingly become "nuclear hostages".
|
|
|
Post by Cody Shea on Jan 1, 2006 12:03:21 GMT -5
"I'm not hearing any real answers from you people, just the same administration rhetoric. If I wanted to hear that played back at me I'd turn on FOX News. I'm talking about American lives, ones that you're putting in IMMEDIATE danger as opposed to all this theoretical domino effect. Everyone in this room knows that the United States has no proven anti-ballistic missile defense system. Our intelligence apparatus, well, we've witnessed its failures first hand."
"What you keep throwing at me are possibilites and speculation, but if we do openly attack Iran then I have no doubt they will CERTAINLY retaliate in a nuclear fashion. How am I going to tell the people back home that I sent their sons and daughters to be incinerated in nuclear flames when they didn't have to be? The United States has contained hostile nuclear powers before, I refuse to believe the only option we have is immediate military force."
"Until you can PROVE to me that the dangers we MIGHT face are as real as the dangers we WILL face on the battlefield, I don't see how I can reasonbly support anything past the Stealth Strike option."
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 1, 2006 12:12:33 GMT -5
President Warder grabbed his forehead about mid-way into Senator Shea's speech. He splayed two fingers apart and stared at Shea from behind his hand. "Look, Senator, I didn't call you all here so that I could be yelled at. To paraphase you, if I want to hear your rhetoric, I can turn on C-SPAN. If you are so opposed to everything I am doing to try and prevent Iran from going nuclear on us and our allies, why don't you throw out a suggestion instead of just accusations?"
|
|
|
Post by Cody Shea on Jan 1, 2006 12:30:51 GMT -5
Senator Shea threw back a stern look at the President, then nodded, "Well, it just so happens that I do have an alternative suggestion; containment. I say we totally isolate Iran economically and militarily. Keep in mind we do just as much business with the PRC as they do, more even, if we make those commies choose they aren't going to put their full faith and credit behind the mullahs. Without China's support in the UN, we can get through resolutions to limit trade, essentially cutting them off the rest of the world."
"Then we go to Saudi Arabia and give his Highness there a wake-up call, a nuclear attack against a Western country will be met with immediate nuclear retaliation, which will destory the entire Mideast. He'll make sure the jihadis get the message, hell they do all their fundraising in his country. No martyr wants to go paradise and have to tell Mohommad that he caused the nuclear destruction of Mecca."
"Next, we take the blinders off our eyes and go back to Jerusalem and get the peace process back on track. We reinstate the 1967 borders and get the Palestinian state up and operating. We built the Iraqi democracy, didn't we? Building another one in a country not even a third of the size should be a cakewalk. If we can bring even the illusion of stability to that part of the region we'll have dealt a greater blow to Al-Queda, Islamic Jihad, whoever then they've ever done to us with all their bombs, or all their decapitations."
"By engaging in active military force, especially with the Israelis in tow, that I believe will be what strengthens the resolve of fundamentalist Islam. It will confirm for the entire Mideast that we are everything they saw we are. Iran will not go down without a fight, and as I said it will be a fight that WILL involve a nuclear component. I say we contain them, let them continue to rot from within until the people there make the change. It can be done, we've done it before."
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 1, 2006 12:46:10 GMT -5
OOC: Oswald, if you want to pitch in, feel free - I forgot to add you to the 'invitees list'. But you're certainly invited. Now back IC.
President Warder nodded, and then leaned back, more relaxed following Shea's change of pace:
"All right. Yes, some of these ideas are good; other ideas, we've seen simply do not work. The Palestinians have repeatedly rejected Israeli offers of peace, which have gone so far as to provide land for a Palestinian state, as well as development aid. The current government, Hamas, is led by Mahmoud Abbas, and he is more moderate; I think the situation between the Israelis and Palestinians is under control, and that our involvement would only heighten tensions. Sometimes, it's best to leave good enough alone. As I see it, the current hot spots are Syria and Iran. We also are looking at a long-term commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan. I didn't start this Middle East situation, but now that I'm the president, I certainly can't turn a blind eye to it and pretend it doesn't exist.
"The 'martyrs' have shown that they have no regard for Moslem casualties. They would probably not mind Mecca being destroyed; your average fundamentalist would embrace that, since it would enrage Arabs and Moslems everywhere. Obviously, I do not intend to anger the Saudi Arabians. Their regime is moderate, their people are not. Any American threats would put additional domestic pressure on the Saudi Arabian regime to join in with the Moslem extremists. Many terrorists come from Saudi Arabia, many rich Saudi Arabians support terror; the government, to the best of my knowledge, does not. I intend to keep it that way.
"Senator Shea, it seems to me you want the U.S.A. to do everything, everywhere for everyone; just as long as we don't get into any wars. But if we extend ourselves diplomatically in many of these areas, without the threat of force behind our words, then we are inviting the terrorists to take advantage of our weakness. We're very lucky that so far, no further attacks have taken place on our territory since 2007. And we're even luckier that these attacks have not been nuclear.
"It seems to me that our success in liberating Iraq has led many Arab reform movements to gain heart. I see where you are coming from and I am by no means a war monger. I would like to see regime change in Iran, but I do not want another Iraq-style occupation. However, we and our military are gaining experience with these matters, and the war against fundamentalism is one of our chief security priorities, whether it is against Islamic fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism which seeks a kind of 'crusading' foreign policy which you rightly criticize. Mr. Adams?"
|
|
|
Post by Avery Adams on Jan 1, 2006 14:00:45 GMT -5
Senator, with all due respect, those are all false options.
First of all, China can use Iran just as they use North Korea, as a pawn against us. The fact is China has been an enabler of both nations. While it is all well and good that they do more business with us, the fact is many of the products they import can be gotten from Europe. Conversely, they have developed a relationship with Iran that allows them to import a great deal of oil they need to fuel economic expansion. They also could threaten our access to the world's largest population market; the fact is China would likely be more willing to curtail trade than we necessarily would be. China has no interest in restricting Iran, as it is a distraction which allows them strengthen. Maybe China would cooperate, if you were willing to renounce all support and defense for the democratic government on Taiwan.
As for forcing Saudi Arabia and Israel to be the ones to change would only encourage fundamentalism, while weakening and turning away allies. Your idea of "building democracy" in Palestine is a nice idea, but tough when all the major political organization are themselves terror groups supported and encouraged by Iran and Syria to fight a proxy war against Israel. Would you suggest deploying American forces to do so, or invite another Lebanon situation? Again, we go back to the "nuclear hostage" situation; your solutions would simply seek to appease for now.
Missile Defense is also much more developed than you portray. No single system is perfect, which is exactly why we have multiple systems in a layered defense. Between forward deployed PAC-3 Patriots and Aegis/SM-3, and the Israeli Arrow system we have a good chance of defending against all but a sustained barrage, which Iran really is not capable of, especially when their missile forces would be a priority target.
|
|
|
Post by Cody Shea on Jan 1, 2006 14:31:03 GMT -5
"Fine, I don't have the answer, I can accept that. But, this administration isn't giving me an alternative I can support. You've yet to show me the benefits of inviting an immediate nuclear attack as opposed to speculation about an uncertain future. Now, if it comes down to it and you're just not going to give me any other choices, I said I'd support limited strikes. If your intelligence is as good as you say that should be enough to cripple Iran's nuclear power and yet minimize the risk to American lives. What it seems you all want is another mideast regime change to mop up another one of our Cold War messes."
At this point the senator turned sharply to the Defense Secretary, "And really, just stop trying to shovel that garbage about missile defense down my throat. I've talked to experts, I've seen the test trials, so unless you've got some ace up your sleeve I've never heard of you need to just admit we don't even have a 50% chance of stopping a missile strike, even less that for a covert suitcase detonation."
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 1, 2006 14:45:06 GMT -5
"Senator Shea, thank you for your words. Even if we disagree, you're always welcome in my office." President Warder grimaced at the attack against his defense secretary, a man in whom Warder had the utmost confidence, but then added: "I am also tending toward a more limited variant vis-a-vis Iran. Mr. Adams, do you think a cruise missile strike against Iran would accomplish our aims, followed by a long-term aerial bombardment of Iranian strategic assets, followed by special forces and secret operations in Iran to support any potential Iranian rebels?"
President Warder folded his hands together, resting them on his stomach, and leaned back, watching the ongoing debate. "It's very important to me to get the Democrats on board for this, Senator Shea. I don't want to seem like a madman doing geopolitical brinksmanship. That is not how I am. I called everyone here to make the gravity of the threat clear, and ask for your support, and to reach a compromise on which we can all agree."
|
|
|
Post by Cody Shea on Jan 1, 2006 14:53:59 GMT -5
The senator nodded and motioned to the President; "Now, see, this is the kind of option I can get behind. If you'd come to me with that plan in the beginning I'd have been behind it 100%. Surgical strikes with guided missiles and covert ops, heavy use of air power, I agree completely with that course of action."
"I admit I've come in here a little hot tempered, and I apologize for that. I don't want you all to think I'm just here to quarrel, but this is probably one of the most serious situations any of us have ever entered into. Anyway, I've talked enough."
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 1, 2006 15:01:19 GMT -5
The president nodded, and then shifted his chair forward, so he was sitting straight. "Senator Shea, that's why we're all sitting here, to hammer out our options and figure out which one is the best. If our tempers get high, that's a small price to pay for doing the right thing. How about some cognac, gentlemen, while the Secretary of Defense gives what we've thought of some consideration?"
President Warder pushed himself up from the desk and then ambled over to the newly installed wet bar, reaching down for a bottle of well aged liquor and pouring it out into a few waiting snifters, which were sitting on a crystal tray. Exchanging the bottle for the tray, he headed back over to the presidential desk and put the drinks in front of everybody, taking a snifter for himself - and a sip or two.
|
|
|
Post by Avery Adams on Jan 1, 2006 16:41:28 GMT -5
Mr. President, there is a lot we can do with cruise missiles; however we can not do everything with them. First of all, though they are generally low-flying, they are slow and can be vulnerable to defenses. Also their main payloads are sub-munitions or 1,000-3,000 lbs. unitary blast warheads (depending on air- or sea/submerged-launch). Though one limited production air-launched version has a 2,000 lbs penetration warhead (12ft. concrete penetration), the buried nature of some Iranian WMD facilities seem more appropriate for shorter range, but heavier penetration precision guided munitions (20ft. concrete penetration).
The question really is what to target in the first strike, and what kind of sustained effort would follow. The fact that Iran’s missiles are liquid-fueled is that they must be fueled before launch and are highly vulnerable, as are their transport-erector-launcher (TEL) vehicles. We believe we know the general operating location of such units, though they are mobile and usually hidden under camouflage netting and tunnels. Airborne Synthetic Aperture Radar and UAV reconnaissance has been able to locate specific target locations and general operating areas.
For sustained air operations we will need to engage Iranian air force, which should not be overly difficult, though suppression/destruction of enemy air defense (SEAD/DEAD) may take a greater effort. Naval bases and anti-ship missile batteries should also be considered important targets. If we seek to encourage and support opposition to the Iranian government we should target the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran), and foster rebellion in the regular army.
Depending on the forces and priorities authorized by the President I will work with the Joint Chiefs and Central Command to work up a more detailed plan (similar to the Syrian one earlier). That does beg the question, what action if any will be taken against Syria, and Israeli participation if so.
I think it goes without saying that the first strike should target both missile units and WMD facilities. But should we widely target conventional forces and terrorist facilities at the same time to prevent retaliation and knock back their capabilities, or wait for Iranian and foreign response? Militarily the "maximum sustainment" option gives the widest options and capabilities, both offensively and defensively (in Iraq and Afghanistan).
|
|