Iranian War Games. Iran held war games in late November, 2009, claiming that these military exercises were preparation to repel a possible Israeli attack. Iran's war games caused a slight increase in world oil prices, as many analysts saw the exercises and the accompanying Iranian propaganda as.
By Haggai Carmon
On Wednesday, President Trump told Fox News that a war with Iran “wouldn’t last very long.” This represents a vast underappreciation of the challenge presented by a military standoff with Iran. In 2002 the US military conducted a war game in the Gulf of Oman to test and display its new military capabilities called Millenium Challenge 2002. Middle East War Games Israel and U.S. Generals Draw Up Theoretical Scenario for Attack on Iran. Article co-written by retired generals James Cartwright and Amos Yadlin states that it would be preferable for the U.S., rather than Israel, to carry out an attack on Iran. Important US War Game Shows An Israeli Attack On Iran Would Be One Huge Mess. 2012-03-20T12:54:00Z The letter F. It indicates the ability to send an email.
Did Brigadier-General Mehdi Moini, who commands Iran’s Islamic Revolution’s Guards Corps (IRGC) in the Iranian West Azerbaijan province, fail to read events through, or was he conducting psychological counter-warfare? Moini was interviewed by the Iranian television channel Press TV, following media reports on the presence of American and Israeli forces in Azerbaijan along the borders of his province in northwest Iran. In that region, Iran has a 550-mile border with Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Moini said that IRGC mobilized its troops in the area and that his forces’ move has frustrated the enemy’s attempts to destabilize the western Iranian province. Moini claimed that while the enemy was damaged in the course of his movements, no Iranian base was compromised. Moini failed to identify the enemy, but claimed, “Certain Western countries” are muddying the water in Azerbaijan “by provoking ethnic and religious strife in the region and inciting terrorist groups, they seek to destabilize our province.”
Ethnic and religious strife? Really?
Is the real reason for the rumored presence of U.S. forces in Azerbaijan, “to destabilize western Iran?” Is General Moini reading his maps correctly? It would be interesting to hear his explanation about the reported concentration of U.S. forces, and its allies’ warships, in the Persian Gulf, near Iran’s southern borders, more than a thousand miles away from his province. Would he call it “a fishing expedition?”
Is General Moini that naive?
King Solomon, the wisest of all men, said in Proverbs 27:22, “Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar with a pestle among groats, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.”
The Jewish Sages offer an interpretation of the verse: Although the fool acknowledges that he’s being ground in the mortar, he claims that the hulled grains around him are the target of the pestle, while he just happens to be there.
Since neither Moini nor his employers are fools, his remarks can be interpreted as a response in-kind to what Iran sees as psychological warfare, rather than a genuine threat.
Whether Iran misreads what the naked eye can see, or says one thing while readying itself for a military clash, if the reports on troop concentration in southern and northwestern Iran are accurate, then they reflect a serious and ominous step toward a potential military confrontation with Iran.
The rapid deterioration of U.S. and NATO relations with Turkey accelerated its pace when news about troops’ concentration in Azerbaijan started developing. Has Azerbaijan’s choice demonstrated the U.S.’s increased concern that Turkey is turning east toward Iran and therefore cannot be relied upon should U.S.-Iran hostilities commence?
There is no doubt that the region is simmering. Recently, there were separate visits to Israel by the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Leon Panetta and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Arab sources claimed that the meetings in Israel focused on Iran’s nuclear program. Did these visits and the concentration of troops imply preparations for an imminent military confrontation with Iran? U.S. government officials routinely deny any current U.S. plans to attack Iran, but should the Iranians believe U.S. declarations or read their own intelligence reports regarding the West’s military presence in the region?
Should the Iranians have a genuine cause for concern? Given the data, you can decide for yourself: There are more than 30 U.S. military installations encircling Iran on all sides, from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in the north, to Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Jordan in the southeast, and Afghanistan and Pakistan in the northeast. Just last month there were extensive naval maneuvers in the Mediterranean Sea of U.S., British, French and other nations’ forces.
French Rafale F3 fighter jets carrying the nuclear-tipped ASMP/A missiles trained ‘touch and go’ landing on the USS Harry S. Truman, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier; U.S. pilots flew French Super Etendard fighter jets, landing them on the French Charles De Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft carrier; French pilots flew U.S. F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, landing them on the USS Harry S. Truman.
The U.S. Navy’s deployment near Iran is significant. It includes USS Nassau, an amphibious assault ship carrying AV-8B Harrier attack planes, AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopters, CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters, CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters and 3,000 U.S. Marines of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit. The U.S. force also includes USS Mesa Verde, carrying 800 U.S. Marines and USS Ashlan. These warships join the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, which includes 12 warships. The U.S. naval force is deployed in the Persian Gulf near Chahbahar, not far from the Iran-Pakistan border where the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s naval base is located. West of this location, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Strike Group is patrolling.
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16283398/92389681.jpg.jpg "Us War Game Foreshadows Israeli Attack On Iranbackuptype")
There were reports that the U.S. was moving 387 bunker-buster bombs, as well as 195 smart Blu-110 bombs and 192 huge 2,000 pound Blu-117 bombs, from California to the U.S. base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, in preparation for a possible attack on Iranian nuclear installations that are deep in the ground and protected by several meters of enforced concrete.
Us War Game Foreshadows Israeli Attack On Iran Backup Type To Speak
There were reports that Greece allowed Israeli jets to train in its air space, which coincidentally – or not – is the same distance from Israel as Iran, a necessary training should Israel target Iranian nuclear reactors. Other Iranian sources report that Israel has concentrated fighter jets in Azerbaijan, and previously there were persistent rumors that Israel maintains military satellite monitoring equipment in Azerbaijan, and is allowed to run listening devices near the Iranian border and on the shores of the Caspian Sea. Last month, Egypt allowed an Israeli Dolphin nuclear submarine to cross the Suez Canal toward the Persian Gulf.
In parallel, there are reports that a significant number of Iranian tanks and antiaircraft artillery were redeployed near the Iranian border with Azerbaijan and took additional preparations should hostilities break.
One unintended consequence of the massive naval force deployment in the Gulf is the surprise cancellation of the Iranian plan to send a ship with aid to Gaza. Under the U.N. Security Council’s recent resolution, all Iranian ships are subject to stop and search. Perhaps the Iranians planned to stock the ship with more than just bags of flour and rice?
There is no doubt that the U.S.’s and allies’ moves are meant to signal to the Iranians that they mean business. Either the Iranians abandon their nuclear armament plans, or the West will destroy their facilities. In such a showdown, reminiscent of the high noon duel in Hollywood Westerns, the parties must remember – before the situation develops into a full-fledged, regional war – the foreshadowing saying attributed to the Russian playwright Anton Chekhov: “If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don’t put it there.”
Israeli Attack On Iran 2010
This op-ed was originally published in The Huffington Post on 7/12/2010
Posted in: An Operative's Perspective
The Institute for National Security Studies held a war game recently in which players representing regional actors simulated the first 48 hours after an IDF strike on the Islamic Republic.The simulation was based on the scenario of a unilateral Israeli strike without US participation, after midnight on November 9.The Tel Aviv University-based institute began the game with the following “announcement”: “Al Jazeera reported that Israeli planes attacked nuclear sites in Iran in three assault waves. Following the reports, Israel officially announced it attacked nuclear sites in Iran, since it had no other choice.”In this scenario, the strike successfully destroyed nuclear sites and set Iran’s nuclear weapons program back by three years.As part of the exercise, Iran responded with full force, firing some 200 Shihab missiles at Israel in two waves, and calling on its proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical organizations, to attack Israel. At first, Iran refrained from striking US targets in the Persian Gulf region in the war game.In the game, Israel, bolstered by a successful strike, attempted to absorb the attacks while trying to de-escalate the situation and reach an end to hostilities as soon as possible.The international community remained paralyzed due to Russia’s attempts to exploit the situation to advance its strategic interests.“After two days, the Iranians, and to a lesser extent, their allies, continue to attack Israel. The crisis did not appear to be approaching a solution,” the INSS concluded at the end of the war game.Within the first 48 hours, Israel carried out a fourth air assault on Iran to complete the destruction of a main nuclear site.“Israel’s strategic aim was to prevent a regional escalation and to strive to reach a level in which incidents were under control, in low intensity, as quickly as possible,” the INSS said.Although the US was not notified in advance, Washington clearly sided with Israel and did not expose divisions, in order to show a united front and decrease the chances of a regional conflagration.The US indicated its willingness to return to the negotiating table with Iran and to ease sanctions in exchange for Iranian restraint and an Iranian announcement that nuclear military activities had ceased.The US stayed out of the fighting, based on a policy that it would only become involved if Iran were to shut off the globally important oil route of the Strait of Hormuz, or if Iran attacked US assets in the Gulf.At first, Tehran shied away from a military confrontation with the US, but, the game’s participants found, “The more Iran was pushed into a corner and its options to act became limited, the more it understood that its principal card is to act against the US in the Gulf and to shut off the Strait of Hormuz,” the INSS said.Iran’s Lebanese Shi’ite proxy Hezbollah found itself in a dilemma in the game. On the one hand, it was under heavy Iranian pressure to fire massive barrages of missiles and rockets at Israel. Tehran told Hezbollah that this was “judgement day” – the very reason Hezbollah had been provided with some 50,000 projectiles.On the other hand, Hezbollah was deterred by the fear of once more causing widespread damage to Lebanon.“Therefore, it chose to partially answer Iran’s demands, firing rockets and missiles at military targets in Israel, mainly airports and active defense systems,” the INSS said.“Israel’s restrained response sharpened Hezbollah’s dilemma and strengthened its decision to fire relatively limited barrages, and to focus on military targets,” it added.The player representing Hamas also chose a middle path in the game, displaying some commitment to Iran, but seeking to avoid giving Israel a reason to launch a large ground offensive in the Gaza Strip.Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf states and Turkey all acted in their own interests, while distancing themselves from the conflict and looking to prevent a regional escalation.The game’s participants all acted “very rationally, activating policies that were driven by essential interests only, and ignored internal and outside constraints,” the INSS noted.The player representing Israel concluded that the Israeli public would be able to absorb an extended conflict, due to the public’s belief that the strike on Iran was justified, and because operational goals were achieved.The player representing the Islamic Republic found himself with limited tools with which to directly attack Israel, relying heavily on proxies.Tehran had more tools to take action against US interests in the Gulf and spike oil prices, but realized that the price of involving the US in the fighting would be immensely high.The INSS said that the game was planned earlier this year, when it seemed that this fall would be a decisive time in resolving the Iranian nuclear question.“Since then, things have calmed down a little, but after the elections, towards the spring, the question of an attack will resurface. It is therefore vital to continue to examine the possible consequences,” it added.Within the INSS, there are two competing schools of thought regarding the outcome of an Israeli strike on Iran. The first foresees a major regional war that could develop beyond the area. The second believes that, due to the presence of restraining mechanisms, Iran’s ability to set the Middle East alight is limited.