This Week at War: Rules of the Game

What message were U.S. officials trying to send by releasing the results of a CentCom Iran war game?

BY ROBERT HADDICK | MARCH 23, 2012

On March 19, the New York Times described a classified U.S. Central Command war game conducted this month that simulated the outcome of an Israeli attack on Iran. According to U.S. officials who discussed the results with the newspaper, the game "forecasts that the [Israeli] strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead." Marine Gen. James Mattis, commander of Central Command, found the outcome "particularly troubling" because an Israeli first strike would have "dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there."

The article, with its discussion of "dire consequences," is one more indication of the gap between the Israeli government's calculations concerning Iran and those of the U.S. government. Why that analytical gap exists should be of interest to policymakers.   The military's conclusion that U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region could suffer hundreds of deaths following an Israeli strike could be an indication that U.S. commanders and policymakers have not adequately prepared for such a scenario. But perhaps most important, we should examine what goals U.S. officials had in mind when they leaked the results of the supposedly secret war game to the New York Times.

According to the article, the two-week Central Command war game, called Internal Look, was specifically designed to test internal military communications and coordination among battle staffs in the Pentagon, Central Command headquarters in Tampa, and field units in the Persian Gulf. According to the scenario, Iran would conclude that the United States was an Israeli partner and therefore U.S. military forces in the Gulf were complicit in the Israeli first strike. The simulation had Iranian anti-ship missiles strike a U.S. warship killing hundreds of sailors. The United States then retaliated with its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

This simulation appears to differ sharply from Israeli expectations. According to Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting at Bloomberg, Israeli officials believe Iran will not target U.S. ships or facilities in the region because it would hardly be in Iran's interest to bring Central Command's military power into the conflict (a point I made in a recent column). Indeed, according to Goldberg, Israeli policymakers believe that if Israel's strikes are limited to a handful of nuclear targets away from urban areas, Iran might actually downplay the severity or cover up the damage, as Syria did after the 2007 Israeli strike on its nuclear reactor.

Since Internal Look was designed to give U.S. military global command and control systems a workout, it would not help commanders achieve that objective if the scenario didn't escalate up to high-intensity combat action. Requiring the scenario to do that is completely different than having the war game objectively conclude that such escalation is the most likely outcome -- a conclusion Israeli planners presumably don't share. If Internal Look really did make an unbiased and informed prediction of Iranian behavior, it is easy to understand why Mattis is troubled. But if the exercise had to manufacture that Iranian response in order to achieve other exercise goals, it is less easy to understand his anxiety. In any case, he and his staff should consider why their assumptions -- which seem to require irrational Iranian behavior -- differ from Israeli assumptions.

EBRAHIM NOUROZI/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

RESPECTABLE LADY

5:15 PM ET

March 23, 2012

Internal Look

Take an internal look at how the IAEA DG Amano is spinning the story to understand how the public is being hoodwinked again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/22/nuclear-watchdog-iran-iaea

or the REUTERS report on how Iran is NOT an imminent threat:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-iran-usa-nuclear-idUSBRE82M0G020120323

 

SPOOD

10:34 PM ET

March 23, 2012

Iran is bluffing

Same thing I have been saying since day one. The US and Israel know this but acknowledging the bluff makes them look ineffectual. There is not going to be a war. At best there will be some backroom deal and the status quo will remain.

 

SIN NOMBRE

6:34 PM ET

March 23, 2012

Bizarre as hell

Robert Haddick wrote:

"[The leaked results of the American] simulation appears to differ sharply from Israeli expectations. According to Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting at Bloomberg, Israeli officials believe Iran will not target U.S. ships or facilities in the region because it would hardly be in Iran's interest to bring Central Command's military power into the conflict...."

And it's this difference of opinion that essentially forms the launch-point of his entire article here which—self-admittedly being overwhelmingly based on nothing but speculation—takes the U.S. to task on as many grounds as can be imagined. (E.g. questioning the validity of the simulation especially.)

Okay, however, all fair insofar as speculative ponderings go.

But, one wonders, how in the world can it be that Mr. Haddick then doesn't mention the absolute glaring elephant in the living room here which isn't even speculative?

After all, the very core plinth of his piece rests again on what he said are "Israeli expectations [that believe] Iran will not target U.S. ships or facilities in the region because it would hardly be in Iran's interest to bring Central Command's military power into the conflict."

But wait a minute: The Israelis are plumping for an attack on Iran specifically because they say the Iranian's are *ir*-rational. Indeed, *so* irrational that they would use any nuke weapons they had against Israel despite absolutely certain retaliatory obliteration by either Israel *or* the U.S.

And yet Mr. Mattick never says a word about this huge, fundamental, utterly glaring discrepancy and contradiction by the Israelis. Instead he's all about whacking the *U.S.'s* views somehow.

Here he is again, for instance, clearly finger-wagging against us further:

"In any case [U.S. general Mattis] and his staff should consider why their assumptions -- which seem to require irrational Iranian behavior -- differ from Israeli assumptions."

When you think of it Mattick's writing here is then just downright bizarre: He's *criticizing* the U.S. for being hyper-cautious about Iran and not assuming it's going to play by our rules of "rationality" in case it's attacked, which one would think is only smart ...

... and impliedly *supports* Israel saying on the one hand that Iran is so hyper-rational that it wouldn't launch mere conventional attacks on the U.S. out of great fear of some conventional response by the U.S., but on the other hand Iran is so downright insane that it would invite certain obliteration if it ever got The Bomb.

So what's the story here, Mr. Haddick? Israel *itself* has just blown a huge sucking hole in what is its absolutely central argument for war with Iran, and ... it isn't worth mentioning?

It's just ... a springboard to speculate on some *U.S.* issue?

 

UNCLE MIKE

12:40 PM ET

March 24, 2012

Excellent point, Sin Nombre.

Excellent point, Sin Nombre. Iran is supposedly crazy enough to develop nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of committing national suicide, but not crazy enough to invite a conventional attack by the US. This whole idea of Iran as an existential threat to Israel is based on a handful of quotes from one man in the Iranian government that were probably mistranslated to begin with. At least the War Pigs were polite enough to manufacture some photos before the 2003 Iraq invasion. Now apparently, "Because I said so!" is logic enough.

 

PULLER58

2:12 AM ET

March 24, 2012

There are wargames, and just games

My guess is that the US simply wants the Israelis to know they are weighing the odds.

 

BOATSWAIN

10:14 AM ET

March 24, 2012

Best Defense

I'm glad that they called together enough action officers to hold this war game, hope they pulled out a copy of the latest board games over it and rolled the dice.

Personally I think it's another great waste of our money. You can table top anything, but if our own capricious policies have shown anything it's having an agile force package to deliver while a long term strategy built upon the facts on the ground is the way to go.

 

MORI

12:27 PM ET

March 24, 2012

Persian Reply

Does anyone really think that the Israelis do not know that?
Israeli know that and that is exactly what they want to get U.S invoved because they know they have no chance of wining te battele.
The Iranian soldjer are able to cross Iraq,Syria, Lebanon and meet them in South Lebanon and knock on Netanihao door.

 

RFJK

8:29 AM ET

March 25, 2012

CYOA

"...If that is the case, political leaders should have an honest and open discussion with the public, instead of sending a murky message through anonymous leaks to the New York Times...."

I can't think of anything more unlikely.

The generals, admirals, spooks and diplomats of the national security state are simply covering their own asses. Should the idiots in Congress or the White House ignore the admonitions and warnings regarding the military option against Iran, the long suffering career civil servants and uniformed services are making damn certain they won't be hung out to dry the way Bush 43 tried to shift the blame.

 

TARQUINIS

9:15 AM ET

March 26, 2012

Attack Iran, upset the whole world

Being in an election year, and given the vast power of the AIPAC lobbies, I just hope to God that President Obama can prevent us from getting jacked into a new war with consequences most predictable and catastrophic. All the Republican candidates (except for Ron Paul) are crawling and abasing themselves (either truthfully or cynically) to the power of those whose primary loyalty is to Zionism. This is especially lamentable, since all our intelligence services still maintain that Iran discontinued efforts to actually build a bomb in 2003.

L.A Times, "U.S. DOES NOT BELIEVE IRAN IS TRYING TO BUILD A NUCLEAR BOMB", February 23, 2012:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f...

"As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb. A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007".

"Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003. The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so. Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis..."

A war initiated by Israel would spread to our interests in about half an hour. Iran would certainly hit back to the best their abilities. Prices for petroleum would certainly skyrocket to who knows what level, collapsing our fragile economy like a house of cards. Same for the whole world's economy for the same reasons. Mass chaos from Lebanon to Pakistan. Things quickly spiral out of control. Afghanistan explodes. Al-Qaeda claps its hands in glee in Yemen and Somalia. China and Russia get quite hostile. Radioactive clouds drift eastward over India. And of course in this event, Iran would conclude that it must quickly obtain a nuclear WMD capability. Achieving exactly what you claim you want to avoid!

The interests of America are for a peaceful resolution of this conflict, one in compliance with the terms of the NPT. An Israeli attack would slam the whole world into what? Choose your own apocalyptic metaphors.

 

THEODORE RONZONI

5:29 AM ET

April 21, 2012

The U.S. Government Funded the Iranian Terrorist Group

I know that, The people pushing for war against Iran are the same neocons who pushed for war against Iraq. See this and this. (They planned both wars at least 20 years ago.) The IAEA report being trumpted as a casus belli contains no new information, but is based on a re-hashing of old, debunked claims stemming from “laptop documents”. State Department cables released by Wikileaks reveal that the new IAEA head was heavily backed by the U.S., based upon his promises of fealty to the U.S. Indeed, as we’ve seen in the nuclear energy arena, the IAEA is not a neutral, fact-based organization, but a wholly-captured, political agency.