A must read post over at the WaPo's Early Warning blog. I'm going to re-read the piece again and come up with some cogent thoughts, but for now I will just say this: I like it. It's a good post. It says a lot, but it also leaves out a lot. And it's infused and based on one gigantic assumption: that Bush would be willing to cut a deal with Iran when nothing in his past (or present) indicates he would ever do so. (I know Mr. Arkin will probably chide me for being one of those crazed left-liberals--which I am not when it comes to matters of national defense--but the evidence is simply iron-clad. This president doesn't do negotiations. He does dictations or delegations.)

Regardless, Arkin writes:

Asked at a Pentagon new conference whether he had in recent days, weeks or month, asked the Joint Staff or CENTCOM to "update, refine, [or] modify the contingencies for possible military options against Iran," Rumsfeld said: "We have I don't know how many various contingency plans in this department. And the last thing I'm going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan, and why. It just isn't useful."

I beg to differ, Mr. Secretary.

Glad to see the media pushing back on this. What the current push on Iran needs right now more than anything is sunlight. Bright, bold sunshine.

More after the jump

Arkin adds:

World pressure and American diplomacy would be mightily enhanced if Iran understood that the United States was indeed so serious about it acquiring nuclear weapons it was willing to go to war over it. What is more, the American public needs to know that this is a possibility.

Well, I was certainly wrong the other day when I wrote that Arkin's post might be his , "underhanded way of saying, 'maybe a nuclear Iran isn't the end of the world?'" Mea culpa.

So, this deserves two responses. One, does Arkin read his own paper? It says Iran is ten years away from acquiring workable nuclear weapons. Is he saying we are willing to go to war over Iranian nukes in the near-term or the long-term? Moreover, I'm simply not willing to say it's in our long term interests to oppose a nuclear Iran. I'm not saying it isn't either. I want more information. Clear?

Next up Arkin writes:

Think the U.S. military isn't serious about war with Iran?

Since at least 2003, in response to a number of directives from Secretary Rumsfeld and then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, the military services and Pentagon intelligence agencies have been newly working on a number of "near term" and "near-year" Iranian contingency studies in support of CENTCOM war planning efforts.

The largest and most glaring of Arkin's most recent work is that he doesn't explain with what army, navy, air force, Marines we are going to do this with. Again, I'm not saying we don't have it. We might have air and naval capabilities, but I seriously doubt we have ground forces available to, as Arkin reports, "[engage in] major combat operation from mobilization and deployment of forces through post-war "stability" operations after regime change (read: occupation ~ spk)."

What we're saying here is the occupation of the entire country. Let that sink in, will ya?

Ok, so, moving on:

The follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis (TIRANNT-CA), which began in October 2003, has calculated the results of different campaign scenarios against Iran to provide options for "courses of action" analysis. According to military sources close to the planning process, in 2002-2003, the CENTCOM commander, Gen. John Abizaid was directed to develop a new "strategic concept" for Iran war planning and potential courses of action for Secretary of Defense and Presidential review.

Why wasn't Abizaid tasked with creating a plan for winning in Iraq at the time, not Iran?!? Am I the only one who sees the problem here? We're too busy preparing for the next war to win the current war. Remind you of a war, way back when, called Afghanistan? The Taliban?

That's all I've got for now, but I want to reiterate the first critique of Arkin's post. The whole thing is based on a gigantic assumption the size of Texas: would Bush cut a deal, when nothing in his past indicates he is capable of such a thing.

Sunlight people, we need lots and lots more sunlight.