The Pentagon has put out the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. The Iran angle is interesting:
Surge – wage two nearly simultaneous conventional campaigns (or one conventional campaign if already engaged in a large-scale, long-duration irregular campaign), while selectively reinforcing deterrence against opportunistic acts of aggression. Be prepared in one of the two campaigns to remove a hostile regime, destroy its military capacity and set conditions for the transition to, or for the restoration of, civil society.
So the Pentagon doesn't seem to think we are helpless to generate land power even while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I noted earlier that we could surge significant ground power to deal with Iran as long as we are willing to fully mobilize.
And when you add to this framework som recent real world developments, we have our case for war pretty fleshed out.
One, the IAEA is admitting that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons:
The U.N. nuclear watchdog Saturday reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council in a resolution expressing concern that Tehran's nuclear program may not be "exclusively for peaceful purposes." Iran retaliated immediately, saying it would resume uranium enrichment at its main plant instead of in Russia.
As a bonus, the Iranians aren't pretending to cooperate and are instead defying the IAEA. We also have Secretary Rumsfeld noting Iran's ties to terrorism and their nuclear ambitions while in Europe to talk to our allies:
"The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism," he said in prepared remarks. "The world does not want, and must work together to prevent, a nuclear Iran."
A lot of people are talking about March as the time when Iran will be better prepared to defend its nuclear facilities, so we'd best strike before then. Me, I don't think that Iran can possibly withstand a full aerial campaign even with those extras. We'll take them apart if we attack before or after March. So I guess that despite reports that Israel considers March an important time, I don't. Maybe for a one-strike attack those new SAMs are important, but not for the type of campaign we'd conduct.
So the real question is whether we think Iran is at a point of no return on their nuclear infrastructure. We could be weeks or months away, it seems.
I will say that the spring gives us the same advantage that the fall gives us--temperatures moderate enough not to require energy for heating or cooling. And outside the summer driving season. Combined with a full Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we'd be in a better position to ride out a temporary gap in Iranian oil exports. Assuming we could take down the mullahs, quickly, of course; or that Iran would resume exports after losing their nuclear card.
I still think a siege is most likely. An aerial attack risky. And a revolution the preferred method. It all depends on what is going on inside Iran, what we think is going on inside Iran, the state of the our allies' thinking, and what we've been doing inside Iran to support our planned actions.
Oh, and let me add links to other QDR stuff.
