Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran: An Iran war TL

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran: An Iran War TL.

I’m a long time lurker on this site and I thought I’d throw my hat in the ring and show off a timeline I’ve been working on. It seems that the US and Israel came very close to going to war with Iran in 2008, and this timeline explores what could have happened. I think this is particularly timely in light of current events. In this timeline, I will explore the political, social, and economic consequences of the war (military technology is not my strong suit, so forgive me if it seems a bit light on the details of the Iranian and US militaries).

As a disclaimer, I am not writing this as a Republican-bashing TL or a Dem-wank. I hope this isn’t too political. This attempt is simply what I think would be the most likely scenario for a war between the US and Iran in the most objective, non-political way possible (though I think some of my political biases will inevitably show through). I have tried to research the issue of a war with Iran the best I can and have tried to get a feel for how the people involved will behave, but I may have made some factual errors here and there. My TL is based on information from articles published in authoritative, mainstream sources (eg., New York Times, The Atlantic), as well as information from several scholarly reports on the subject, as well as the expert opinion of members of this very site (as posted in various threads about a potential war with Iran). Also, I drew inspiration from Phil Giraldi and Jon Perr, both of whom have written brief pieces on what war with Iran would look like.

I am aware there is another timeline on this site about a war with Iran called “Dying a Dream”. While there are some inevitable similarities, I think there are a large enough number of differences to call this an original work.
I’m going to post these in blocks and I probably won’t be able to post another block for a few weeks, so don’t expect to hear from me before then. ;)
 
Part 1


“Free societies are peaceful societies. And by extending liberty to millions who have not known it, we will advance the cause of freedom and we will advance the cause of peace.”

George W. Bush, Undelivered speech planned for May 10, 2005

May 10, 2005

President Bush concludes Mideast trip in Georgia [1].

[1] The country, not the state.

=================================================================================

May 10, 2005 (POD)
BREAKING NEWS: PRESIDENT BUSH FATALLY WOUNDED IN GRENADE ATTACK [1]

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, was killed by an exploding grenade in Tbilisi, Georgia. [2] As the President began to speak, a grenade was thrown by an unknown assassin from the crowd. The grenade landed near the lectern where Bush was speaking and exploded seconds later. While Bush was not close to the grenade, he was fatally wounded by shrapnel from the blast. The President was transported immediately to the hospital, but tragically died a short time later.

Bush was giving a speech in Georgia, the former Soviet republic. The grenade also killed Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, who was closer to the grenade and suffered even more severe injuries than President Bush. It is unclear whether the assassin intended to kill both men.

With President Bush’s death, Dick Cheney will assume the Presidency [3]. President Cheney was sworn in at his residence, the Vice President’s Mansion in Washington, DC [4]. Reports say that Cheney was quickly escorted to a secure location.

[1] Some of you might say it’s distasteful to have Bush be assassinated. Let me make this clear: I would not want this to happen (especially given the possible consequences of a Cheney presidency)!
[2] OTL, the grenade missed. IMHO, it’s the most likely way Cheney could become President.
[3] I know that some of you may be thinking that Cheney was behind this. He was not. ATL, there will be some conspiracy theories that say that Cheney was behind it (much like OTL 9/11, JFK, etc.). This being said, Cheney will take full advantage of the opportunity to be President.
[4] I’m not 100% sure of Cheney’s whereabouts that day, but if I have to retcon this, I’ll just say he was flown to the Vice President’s Mansion from wherever he was at the time of the assassination.

==================================================================================
May 11, 2005

President Cheney speaks to a nation in mourning

President Cheney, who spoke in a nationally televised speech last night, showed a rare bit of emotion when speaking about Bush, whom he referred to as “George”: “George wasn’t just the President, he was my best friend. And I will make sure that his death was not in vain.”

In his address, Cheney called Bush’s assassination “one of America’s greatest tragedies.” Cheney honored Bush by saying that: “He was a man of strength and love. He was a man of great loyalty and kindness. He led this country through a great crisis. The world has lost a great leader.” [1]
Cheney expressed that he will carry on Bush’s policies: “I am committed to continuing the legacy of President Bush. A terrorist’s grenade will not dampen the spirit of the American people. We will persevere during this time of great sorrow.”

Cheney also resolved to hold Bush’s assassin responsible: “We will seek justice for George. We will find out if this act of cowardice was the result of covert action on the part of regional powers. And, if that is the case, it will not go unnoticed or unpunished.” [2]

[1] Loosely based on Cheney’s speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention
[2] Yes, Cheney is hinting that Iran (or possibly Russia) had something to do with this.

=============================================================================
May 13, 2005 [1]
A DAY OF MOURNING

Thousands of dignitaries attended Bush’s funeral in Washington, D.C.
President Bush’s father, former President George H. W. Bush, gave the eulogy for his late son. The funeral was also attended by former presidents Ford, Carter, and Clinton.

The date of the President’s assassination, or 5/10 as some are calling it, brings back memories of 9/11 four years prior. Bush’s assassination, like 9/11, has brought Americans together, despite their political differences. Across the country, thousands of candle-light vigils have been organized in honor of the President. People are flying flags to show their patriotism.
The President will lie in state in the Capitol rotunda until Sunday, when his body will be buried in a cemetery near his summer home in Crawford, Texas.

[1] Coincidentally, it was Friday the 13th

============================================================================
May 16, 2005
Cheney nominates McCain as VP

President Cheney has nominated John McCain (R-AZ) to the office of Vice President [1]. It is thought that Cheney has chosen McCain for his maverick reputation (to assure Congressional Democrats that a far right-wing nominee would not become vice president) and strong stance on national security. As per the 25th Amendment, Vice Presidential nominees must be approved by both houses of Congress [2]. A vote will be held later this summer to confirm McCain’s nomination for the Vice Presidency.
While some would have liked to have seen a more diverse candidate to fill the VP slot (rather than, as Jon Stewart put it, “another old white dude”), many Americans on both sides of the aisle approve of the McCain nomination. According to Gallup Poll, 63% of Americans support Cheney’s choice to nominate Senator McCain.

Since Bush’s assassination, President Cheney’s approval rating has soared to 81%, according to Gallup poll.

[1] See Ford’s nomination of Nelson Rockefeller, which was a similar situation. It took nearly four months for Rockefeller to be confirmed after his nomination.
[2] ATL, the Senate voted 86-12 in favor of McCain on August 2, 2005 and the House voted 274-140 in favor of McCain on August 7, 2005. McCain was sworn in as Vice President on August 8, 2005.

============================================================================
August 10, 2005

Rumsfeld claims insurgent weapons originated in Iran

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claims that weapons recently confiscated in Iraq from insurgents were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran". He added, "And ultimately, it's a problem for Iran." When asked if that was a threat of possible retaliation, Rumsfeld replied, "I don't imply threats. You know that." [1]

[1] He actually said this in OTL.

=============================================================================
October 27, 2005

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for Israel “to be wiped off the map” [1]

[1] As in OTL. Technically, it was a mistranslation by Iranian authorities. He actually said something more like “removed from the pages of time.”

====================================================================================

January 11, 2006

Uranium enrichment restarts at Natanz, Iran after negotiations fail [1].

[1] As OTL.

================================================================================

February 1, 2006

Cheney replaces Fed Chair Greenspan with Martin Feldstein [1]

Feldstein, a so-called inflation hawk, has expressed concern over the burgeoning deficit under the Bush administration.

[1] OTL, Bush appointed Ben Bernanke on this date

====================================================================================

April 14, 2006

Ehud Olmert new Israeli PM

After a long illness, Ariel Sharon resigned as Prime Minister. Ehud Olmert takes his place [1].
[1] As in OTL.

====================================================================================

May 10, 2006

President Cheney visits grave of former President Bush on one-year anniversary of his assassination.

====================================================================================
Washington Post

May 24, 2006 [1]

Israeli PM Olmert gives address to Congress; Gives stern warning to Iran
In his address, Prime Minister Olmert said Iran is “the world's leading sponsor of terror and a notorious violator of fundamental human rights...With pride, he [Ahmedinejad] denies the Jewish Holocaust and speaks brazenly, calling to wipe Israel off the map...” [2]

Prime Minister Olmert stated that “a nuclear-armed Iran is an intolerable threat [that] cannot be permitted to materialize.” [2]

Olmert also said that “If we don't take Iran's bellicose rhetoric seriously now, we will be forced to take its nuclear aggression seriously later.” [2]
Earlier this week, Olmert met with President Cheney at the White House to discuss policy. They agreed that Iran must be prevented from building a nuclear arsenal. Olmert also met with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon to discuss concerns about Iran.

[1] The same day that Olmert spoke to Congress OTL.
[2] Olmert’s exact words from his OTL Congressional address.
==============================================================================

July 31, 2006

UN passes Security Council Resolution 1696, which demands that Iran stop enrichment and reprocessing activity. [1]

[1] As in OTL.

==================================================================================
Aug. 26, 2006
New York Times

Iran Opens Heavy-Water Reactor [1]

Just days before Iran is supposed to suspend enrichment of uranium or face the prospect of sanctions, President Ahmadinejad opened a heavy-water production plant in Arak, 120 miles southwest of Tehran. The reactor may put Iran on the path to obtaining plutonium, a fuel used in nuclear weapons. .

[1] As in OTL.

==================================================================================
September 30, 2006

Senate Passes Iran Freedom and Support Act [1]

The Iran Freedom and Support Act was passed by the Senate with unanimous consent today. The bill previously passed the House on September 28. The intent of the bill, as evidenced by its long title, is to “hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran.”

The bill appropriated $10 million for the purpose of supporting groups that are opposed to the Iranian government. One of the bill’s opponents, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), claimed the bill was a first step towards a US-led invasion of Iran. President Cheney praised Congress "for demonstrating its bipartisan commitment to confronting the Iranian regime's repressive and destabilizing activities." [2] It is expected that President Cheney will sign the bill into law later today.

[1] The exact same bill passed in OTL on the same date

[2] This is exactly what Bush said OTL.

===============================================================================

November 8, 2006

Democrats gain House, Republicans keep Senate in midterm elections

In the Senate, the Republicans kept their majority [1]. The Senate is now composed of 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, who will caucus with the Democrats). The Republicans will keep their majority since Vice President McCain is a Republican and acts as a tiebreaker.

In the House, the Democrats have become the majority party. The House is now composed of 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans [2].

[1] OTL, the Republicans had 49 seats, the Democrats had 49 seats, and two seats were taken by Independents. The Democrats were considered to be the majority party, due to the Independent Senators caucusing with the Democrats. The election that differed from OTL was the Virginia Senate race. There, butterflies have caused George Allen (R) to win over Jim Webb (D). OTL, Webb won in a very close election.
[2] Same as OTL.

===============================================================================
NBCnews.com

November 9, 2006

Cheney reaffirms commitment to Rumsfeld, despite controversy [1]

President Cheney has reaffirmed his commitment to Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. According to NBC News’ military analyst, Bill Arkin, some members of the White House said Rumsfeld should be removed. President Cheney argued that despite recent setbacks in Iraq, Rumsfeld should stay. Both sides agreed that the decision should be made after the election. "Don Rumsfeld has been a superb leader during a time of change," [2] Cheney said, “And that’s why he needs to stay on the job.”

[1] OTL, Bush fired Rumsfeld (over Cheney’s objections) on this date.

[2] Interestingly, Bush said these exact words when announcing Rumsfeld’s retirement.

=====================================================================================

November 14, 2006
New York Times
Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Maintain Tough Front on Iran [1]

President Cheney and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel met to discuss policy toward Iran. This was the second such meeting between the two leaders; the first was in May. Cheney and Olmert met in the Oval Office. A spokesperson said that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Olmert met for nearly two hours [2] in the Oval Office, before going to a working lunch that included some of their top aides. Mr. Olmert’s spokesperson said that ''the Iranian issue was the main issue on the table'' and that Mr. Cheney's tone greatly pleased Mr. Olmert.

In a press conference, Mr. Cheney said his position on Iran had not changed. “The Iranians need to show that they have suspended their enrichment activities.'' Cheney stated that the United States was committed to Israel's "right to defend itself against terrorism and rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel's destruction." [3]

Mr. Olmert was critical of the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ''The fact that the leader of a nation such as Iran can threaten the very existence of another nation, as he does towards Israel is not something that we can tolerate or would ever tolerate.” [4]
At about the same time as the meeting between Mr. Cheney and Mr. Olmert, British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke in a foreign policy address. Mr. Blair said that Iran has a choice between partnership and isolation, but struck a more conciliatory tone than the American and Israeli leaders.

[1] Based on an OTL article in the New York Times about a meeting that same day between Bush and Olmert.

[2] OTL, the meeting was only one hour long. No doubt Olmert and Cheney had more to talk about than Olmert and Bush. It’s reasonable to speculate that at that meeting, Cheney gave Olmert what he needed for an airstrike on Iran (i.e., bunker-buster bombs, advanced refueling technology, and permission to fly over Iraq).

[3] Cheney’s exact words from an OTL meeting with Olmert from 2008.

[4] Olmert’s exact words from his OTL meeting with Bush.

==================================================================================

December 4, 2006:
Rice resigns as Secretary of State; Bolton named as replacement

After two years of service, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced that she has resigned from her position. In 2004, Rice was appointed by former President Bush to replace Colin Powell. Secretary of State Rice announced her resignation yesterday, ending two years of battles with President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over the course of U.S. foreign policy.

Rice and Cheney met at the White House earlier this week. While no details of the meeting were given, White House officials said the secretary was not asked to stay. Cheney issued a statement yesterday praising Rice’s judgment and resolve. Foreign policy experts predict that Rice's resignation could pave the way for a more coherent message from the Cheney administration. Rice and Cheney had disagreed on many issues related to national security and foreign policy. For example, last August, Rice and Cheney disagreed about the issue of acknowledging that the US was holding terrorism suspects in secret prisons overseas. [1]
Administration officials said that Rice will be replaced by UN ambassador John Bolton. Bolton served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs from 2001 to 2005; and as US ambassador to the UN from 2005 to the present. Bolton’s term as U.S. representative to the UN will end on December 9, which is when his recess appointment will expire [2]. His term as Secretary of State will begin on January 1. Bolton, who has been called “Cheney’s man inside State” when he served as Undersecretary [3], has expressed a hard line in the Security Council debates on Iranian sanctions, insisting on tough measures.

[1] According to Rice herself, this happened OTL.
[2] As OTL.
[3] See FRONTLINE “Darkside”


================================================================================

December 21, 2006

New York Times

U.S. and Britain to Add Ships to Persian Gulf in Signal to Iran [1]

Pentagon and military officials say that the United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region. This display of military resolve toward Iran comes as the UN continues to debate possible sanctions against the country.

Officials said that they expected that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2] will approve a request for a second aircraft carrier and its supporting ships to be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran by early next year.

High-ranking military officers said that the increased American presence in the Gulf should not be viewed as preparations for military action against Iran. But in the event of military action, they acknowledged that the ability to strike Iran would be increased. One reason for increased naval power is to show the Iranians that America’s presence in Iraq has not made it lose sight of Iran. The buildup also addresses concerns that Iran could try to block oil shipments from the Gulf in retaliation for UN sanctions or other American-led pressure.

There are plans to increase the number of minesweeping vessels and magnetic “sleds” carried by helicopters to counter Iranian mines that could block oil-shipping lanes. The British Navy is planning to add two mine-hunting vessels to the international coalition patrolling Gulf waters.

The aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower (along with three escort ships and an attack submarine) has been stationed in the Gulf since December 11. Another aircraft carrier, the USS Stennis, will join the Eisenhower in the Gulf in late January [3]. Doubling the number of carriers in the Gulf gives commanders the flexibility of either keeping both strike groups in the Gulf or keeping one near Iran while placing a second carrier group outside the Gulf.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chief of naval operations, has said that the United States should create “a thousand-ship Navy. [3]” Given current budgets, this would be impossible for the US alone, but could be accomplished by adding allied warships to the Persian Gulf. At present, about 15 of the 45 warships currently deployed in the Gulf are supplied by allies, including Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Pakistan and the UK [3].

[1] This article is nearly identical to the one published OTL on this date. I have paraphrased slightly, but have not changed the meaning of the original article.

[2] OTL, it was Robert Gates

[3] As OTL.

=====================================================================================

December 24, 2006

New York Times

The Security Council fails to reach agreement on Iran sanctions [1]

The UN Security Council failed to approve sanctions intended to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The resolution was approved by the US, UK, France, and Germany, but Russia and China voted no. The sanctions would have banned the import and export of materials and technology used in uranium enrichment and reprocessing and in the production of ballistic missiles.

Most of the debate on the measure related to how severe and sweeping the restrictions should be. The resolution met roadblocks from Russia, which has strong economic ties with Iran. Russia’s objections to sanctions were often seconded by China. Throughout negotiations, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton insisted that no compromises would be made [2].

The sanctions were motivated by recent developments in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure earlier this year. On July 31, the UN passed Security Council Resolution 1696, which demanded that Iran stop its enrichment and reprocessing activity. The five permanent Security Council members plus Germany (known as P5+1) offered Iran a package of economic and political incentives to halt its nuclear program. Iran rejected the offer, which set the stage for the August 31 deadline. Iran flouted the Security Council’s call for Iran to suspend its nuclear activities by August 31, which led to talk of sanctions.

While the measure did not pass, there may be another vote in the near future. In order to pass, the resolution must be approved by all members of the Security Council. This would likely require significant modifications on the bill, with concessions to Russia and China.

[1] OTL on this date, the sanctions against Iran were approved unanimously

[2] It’s likely that he received pressure from Cheney to tow a hard line with Iran.

==================================================================================
Thus ends Part 1. More to follow in a short while.
 
Part 2


March 6, 2007
Cheney says he won’t run in ’08, McCain presumptive nominee

================================================================================

March 23, 2007

15 British soldiers captured by Iran [1]

Fifteen members of the British Royal Navy have been seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for reputedly entering Iranian waters.

[1] As OTL.

====================================================================================

April 4, 2007

British soldiers released by Iran

=================================================================================

April 20, 2007
Slate.com
The Bush Boys: McCain sings latest hit, ‘Bomb, bomb Iran’
Vice President McCain has become the Weird Al Yankovic of the right-wing in his parody of a golden oldie from the Beach Boys. During a campaign stop in South Carolina, someone in the crowd suggested that the US should send an “airmail message” to Tehran, McCain said jokingly, “It’s like that old Beach Boys song. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”. [1]
[1] A reference to John McCain’s parody rendition of Barbara Ann on the same date OTL.

=================================================================================
CBSNEWS.com

June 10, 2007

Lieberman: Bomb Iran If It Doesn't Stop

Sen. Joe Lieberman advocates the use of force if Iran continues to help anti-U.S. forces in Iraq.

During an interview on Face the Nation, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said that the U.S. should launch military strikes against Iran if the government in Tehran does not stop supplying anti-American forces in Iraq. Lieberman told Bob Schieffer that "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me, that would include a strike into...Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers." [2]

The Independent former Democrat from Connecticut said that the U.S. should target specific training camps. Lieberman said, "I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air, but they can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans." [2]

Lieberman, who has been one of Congress's most outspoken supporters of the Cheney administration's Iraq war policies, said that continuing the fight in Iraq and confronting Iran are necessary for achieving a wider peace in the Middle East.

Lieberman said that if the U.S. does not take action against Iran, "they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home."

Lieberman said that he has seen evidence that the insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq are being supplied by the Iranians. "By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers."

The Senator said that diplomatic efforts must continue but "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

[1] As OTL.

[2] This interview is almost verbatim from the OTL interview on this date.

===========================================================================

July 15, 2007
Guardian.com
Cheney pushes for action on Iran [1]

[1] OTL headline on this date: Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

=================================================================================
September 26, 2007:

Thinkprogress.org

Lieberman-Kyl’s Amendment Allowing Possible Military Action against Iran Passes [1]

By a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment. The amendment accuses Iran of fighting a proxy war against the US and the Iraqi government. While not intended to be an authorization of military force against Iran, the bill contains language that is highly suggestive.

The most controversial part of the amendment was as follows [2]:

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.

The bill also labels the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a branch of the Iranian military, as a “terrorist organization” [3]

Twenty-two Senators (two of them Republicans) voted against the amendment. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.” [4] Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said “I cannot support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. To do so could give this president a green light to act recklessly and endanger US national security. We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences.'' Other Democrats, like Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), voted in favor of the bill. [5]

While the amendment has no legal force, such resolutions may be interpreted by foreign governments as evidence of shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities.

[1] As OTL.

[2] In OTL, these two paragraphs were removed before the amendment passed.

[3] As OTL.

[4] Webb’s exact words OTL.

[5] As in OTL.

=================================================================================

October 23, 2007:

New York Times

Domestic Terrorism bill passes House [1]

A bill aimed at preventing acts of homegrown terrorism was passed by the House today. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). The bill provides new definitions of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically-based violence. The bill passed by a margin of 404-6.

The bill added provisions to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prevent homegrown terrorism. The bill also establishes a grant program to prevent radicalization, designates a university-based program to study radicalization and homegrown terrorism, and examines strategies used by other countries to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

The bill also defines the terms violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically-based violence. Violent radicalization is defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” Homegrown terrorism is defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Lastly, ideologically based violence is defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.”

Some critics are concerned that the definitions of "force", “homegrown terrorism” and “violent radicalization” are too vague. They take issue with the definition of “Homegrown Terrorism” which reads: “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Such wording, they say, could permit the government to classify civil disobedience as terrorism.

Only six Representatives voted against the bill. Among them was Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who called the bill “unconstitutional” and referred to it as a “thought crime bill” [2]. Republican Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) had a similar reaction to the bill, although he was not present to vote.

[1] OTL, an identical bill passed the House on October 23, 2007 by a margin of 404-6, but died in the Senate.

[2] He said this OTL.

=============================================================================

December 18, 2007

Senate ends “Don’t ask, don’t tell” [1]

Today, the Senate passed a bill ending the policy (known as “don’t ask, don’t tell”) that effectively banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The bill passed by a vote of 58-37 [2]. The bill had support from nearly all Democrats as well as a few Republicans who are loyal to the Cheney administration. However, most Republicans were opposed to the idea of allowing gays to serve openly in the military, including Vice President McCain, who expressed some concerns over the bill [3]. President Cheney, however, has supported the bill and is expected to sign it into law tomorrow.

[1] This may come as a surprise to some people, but OTL, Cheney expressed support of ending this policy as early as February of 2010. I don’t think ending the ban about two years earlier is unrealistic.
[2] OTL vote held Dec. 18, 2010 passed 65-31. The difference is due to the greater number of Republicans in the Senate in 2007 compared to 2010.
[3] OTL, McCain strongly opposed it. ATL, he doesn’t want to rock the boat with Cheney.

=================================================================================

January 3, 2008
Sec State Bolton: To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran [1]
Secretary of State Bolton says strike on Iran is the best option.

In his op-ed, Secretary of State John Bolton said that “Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed...The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.” [1]

Bolton said that “an attack...could set back its program by three to five years.” [1]
[1] This is exactly what Bolton said OTL in a New York Times op-ed in 2015.
===============================================================================
January 15, 2008

Olmert hints at force against Iran [1]

JERUSALEM -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said yesterday that "all options" were open to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, suggesting that Israel was prepared to use military force if it deemed it necessary against Tehran's nuclear program.

At a Jerusalem hotel, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators began preliminary talks on the core issues of a final peace agreement, following a visit by President Bush last week to prod forward negotiations.

Olmert's comment on Iran, stronger than his previous statements on the subject, followed his discussions with Cheney on Tehran's nuclear program, and after a U.S. intelligence estimate last month stated "with high confidence" that Iran had halted nuclear weapons development in 2003. Israeli officials disputed that assessment, and Cheney said last week that Iran remained "a threat to world peace." [1]

"Regarding the threat of nuclear Iran, all options are on the table," an official spokesman quoted Olmert as telling parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, whose meetings are closed. "Israel cannot reconcile itself with a nuclear Iran, and there is no option which we are ruling out in advance." [1]

[1] As OTL on this date

=====================================================================================

January 16, 2008

Naval confrontation between US and Iran in Strait of Hormuz [1]

[1] As OTL on this date

=================================================================================
January 23, 2008
Dennis Kucinich drops out of Democratic primary [1]

[1] Same date as OTL.

==================================================================================
February 5, 2008

Hillary Clinton ‘wins’ Super Tuesday
Clinton: 845 delegates
Obama: 836 delegates

[1] OTL, Obama won slightly more delegates than Clinton (847-834)
===================================================================================

February 19, 2008

Clinton holds onto slight lead in delegate count

===================================================================================
March 12, 2008

New York Times

Mideast Commander Fallon Retires After Irking Bosses [1]


Admiral William J. Fallon announced his retirement today. The early retirement of the commander of American forces in the Middle East comes after a controversial interview with Rolling Stone magazine. In the article, Fallon expressed his opposition to war in Iran, which put him at odds with the Cheney administration.

[1] As OTL.

================================================================================

March 22, 2008

Cheney vows 'unshakable' commitment to Israel on Middle East tour[1]

This weekend, the President will talk with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Cheney says the U.S. is committed to Israel's right to defend itself.

[1] As OTL.
=================================================================================
March 30, 2008:

Tensions rise in Iraq: Is Iran to blame?

Fighting has resumed in Basra, Iraq in what some are calling the “Battle of Basra.” [1] American and British forces have faced increased resistance from Shiite militias. Some have said that the militias are being backed by Iran, who may be giving arms to the militias.

[1] OTL, the Battle of Basra also occurred on March 25.

==============================================================================
April 6, 2008

Israel conducts largest emergency and evacuation drill in its history [1]
The drill, dubbed Turning Point 2, simulates conventional, chemical, and biological attacks from the Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. The drill will last from today until April 10.

[1] As OTL.

=================================================================================

April 22, 2008

ABCnews.com

Clinton, Obama Push for Votes in Pa. Primary

In an interview with ABC's Chris Cuomo, Clinton expressed her toughest stance yet on Iran's nuclear ambitions and the potential threat the country poses to American allies.

"If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel what would our response be?" Clinton said. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. That's what we will do. There is no safe haven. Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," Clinton said. [1]

Senator Obama dismissed Clinton’s remarks as “saber-rattling.” He said that there has been enough “cowboy diplomacy” from Bush and Cheney.
These comments come on the same day as the Pennsylvania primary, a key state in the race. A total of 187 delegates are up for grabs in the swing state. Whoever wins may be the Democratic nominee for President.

[1] As she said OTL.
[2] As he said OTL. This is taken out of context somewhat, but I imagine this soundbite would be perceived quite differently seeing what's coming.

================================================================================

May 2, 2008

Israel launches “surgical strike” on Iranian nuke site [1]

An explosion was reported this morning in Natanz, the site of Iran’s only known uranium enrichment plant. Iranian officials state that a fleet of 46 Israeli jets was sighted over the facility. The jets reportedly dropped several “bunker-busting” bombs over the Iranian uranium facility, partially destroying it. The type of bomb used is thought to be an American-made Guided Bomb Unit-39 (GBU-39), which has a penetration capacity equivalent to a one-ton bomb.

The Natanz facility is reported to have enough floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges. This many centrifuges may provide enough enriched uranium to produce twenty nuclear warheads each year. However, the conventional weapons used by Israel did not destroy the facilities, which are buried under seventy-five feet of rock.

The jets returned to Israel a few hours later. Unfortunately, three of the jets were shot down shortly after the strike.

This is not the first time that Israel has launched an air strike against another nation’s nuclear facilities. In 1981, Israeli fighter jets dropped 16 2,000-pound bombs on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.

Prime Minister Olmert said today that the strike was necessary to protect Israeli national security [2]. Olmert stated that “We chose this moment to prevent another Holocaust in the history of the Jewish people.” [3]
“Sadly, several of our brave soldiers will not return. They were lost over Iranian airspace.”

Vice President McCain stated that he supports Israel’s decision to strike Iran. “The Israelis had to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear issue, they had to go rogue.” [4]

While this aerial attack could set Iran’s program back by several years, some experts disagree.

It is appears that the Israeli jets reached Iran by first flying over Saudi Arabia and then Iraq. According to US sources, the flight was not intercepted as it flew over Iraq. “Aircraft have a limited range. The only way a jet could travel from Israel to Iran and back is if they had sophisticated midair refueling equipment.” It appears that the Israeli jet reached Iran’s major nuclear complex by flying over Iraq twice (once into Iran, once out of Iran). It is unclear whether the Cheney administration approved these flyovers. “If [the Israelis] didn’t get permission to fly over Iraq, the American military would have been obliged to stop it, even if it meant shooting it down,” an expert told us.

Iran responded by saying that the US and Saudi Arabia were complicit in the strike. “This attack could not have happened without approval from American authorities. We consider this an act of war.”

[1] Here is where things really start to diverge from OTL.
[2] OTL, Jonathan Steele of the Guardian (September 25, 2008) said that Olmert considered a strike against Iran in the Spring of 2008, but did not do so because of a lack of US support. He did not get the “green light” from Bush, who had other ideas on how to handle the Iran situation. Based on what I have read in other articles, it’s likely that Cheney would approve such an attack enthusiastically.
[3] Olmert is paraphrasing the words of former Israeli Prime Minister Begin, who said almost the exact same thing after the strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor Osirak in 1981. The wording choice was not coincidental.
[4] Almost identical to a quote from John McCain in 2015, except past tense rather than future tense.

=================================================================================

May 3, 2008:

“They will be burned” says Ayatollah’s aide

Ali Shirazi, a mid-level clerical aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told the Revolutionary Guards that, "The Zionist regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran's first targets and they will be burned."[1]

[1] As quoted by Shirazi on July 8, 2008 OTL.

==================================================================================
May 6, 2008:

Clinton wins big in Indiana, Pennsylvania primaries [1]

Clinton’s wins are attributed to her hawkish stance on Iran, which is favored by voters at the polls. The Iranian crisis has voters concerned about national security. Obama, on the other hand, is viewed as weak on defense. His “saber rattling” comment from two weeks ago hasn’t helped, either.

[1] OTL, she won Indiana by a slight margin and lost Pennsylvania by a large margin
=================================================================================

May 9, 2008
Rocket attacks in northern Israel kill 9

Several dozen rockets landed in northern Israel. It is thought that the short-range rockets were fired from Lebanon by the terrorist group Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a militant group sponsored by Iran responsible for many previous terrorist attacks in Israel.

Israelis have responded by taking cover in underground shelters. In Tel Aviv and Haifa, thousands have left for fear of rocket attacks against those cities.

Israel is preparing a response against Lebanon to reduce the threat of incoming rocket attacks.

=================================================================================
May 11, 2008:

This Week with George Stephanopoulos

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is military action against Iran inevitable?

CHENEY: I have trouble seeing how we're going to achieve our objective short of that. And I doubt very much that the diplomacy will be effective if there's not the prospect that, if diplomacy fails, that we will resort to military force. [1]

[1] This exact exchange happened verbatim between Stephanopolous and Cheney in OTL 2013.

====================================================================================
May 12, 2008

Israeli fighter pilot held in Iran

The pilot was reported to have been aboard one of the three jets shot down over Iran during the recent air strike. He is currently being held by Iranian officials.

Meanwhile, a crowd of 200,000 people marched in Berlin to protest the actions of Israel and expressed their opposition to war against Iran.

===================================================================================

May 12, 2008

Tonight Show with Jay Leno

“In other news, the Germans say they don’t want to go to war with Iran to defend Israel. I know, it’s shocking. I mean, the Germans love Jewish people, am I right?”

===================================================================================

May 13, 2008

Iranian commander threatens to cut off flow of oil through Gulf

The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said that if the United States attacks Iran, it will seal off the Strait of Hormuz to wreak havoc in the oil markets. [1]

The commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet stationed in Bahrain, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, warned that if Iran closed the Strait, the U.S. will not allow Iran to hold nearly a third of the world's oil supply hostage, and such action by Iran would be considered an act of war. [1]

[1] As Jafari and Cosgriff said OTL on June 29, 2008
==================================================================================

May 14, 2008

FOXnews.com

Hezbollah rocket kills 29 in Tel Aviv. Is America next?
=================================================================================

May 15, 2008

President Cheney urges for military action against Iran

In an address to the nation, President Cheney spoke from the White House. Cheney said that “We need to finish the job that Israel started.”
Cheney was firm in his stance toward Iran, saying “We cannot permit Iran to go nuclear in its attacks on Israel. We cannot allow Iran and its proxies in Lebanon to hold hostages any longer. Not just individuals, but entire nations.”

Cheney stated that the US will act unilaterally in Israel’s defense: “Because of the urgency of this crisis, we will not ask for permission from the United Nations. Russia and China have already said they will not support military action against Iran that would remove their nuclear capability. They would likely veto any measure against Iran. Our only true ally on the Security Council [1], Britain, wishes to appease Iran by calling for a diplomatic resolution to the current crisis. Well, Mr. Blair would learn much from reading about a man by the name of Chamberlain who used to occupy his position, and made the same mistake of appeasing a similarly brutal regime [2].”

Cheney warned Iran that “We will not place the whims of the United Nations above Israel’s security. We will act in what is in the best interests of America and Israel.”

In closing his address, Cheney emphasized the urgent nature the crisis: “There is no time left for debate. Either we act or we do not. But if we do not act, we will live to regret it. At least, I hope that we will, in fact, live.”

[1] Basically, Cheney is telling France where to go.
[2] Cheney is referring to British PM Neville Chamberlain, who is infamously known as appeasing Hitler prior to World War II.
=====================================================================================
May 15, 2008

Saudi Arabia pledges neutrality in Iran conflict. [1]

Saudi Arabia claims that it did not notice the Israeli jets that flew over their airspace in a sparsely populated part of the country.

[1] OTL, Saudi Arabia has also shown strong opposition to the Iranian nuclear program.

====================================================================================
I’ll post more in a little bit.
===================================================================================
 
Part 3

==============================================================================
May 16, 2008

FOXnews.com

Cheney draws “red lines” in televised address

In his address, the President warned of the gathering threat posed by Iran.
The President said that “it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.” [1]

The President said “Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government... In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.” [1]

In his speech, President Cheney said that the campaign will involve a limited offensive that is directed against nuclear sites. Cheney said that there will be no attempt to remove the current regime from power if Iran does not retaliate against the US. The President also stated that actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz, attacking US allies (such as Israel and countries on the Arabian Peninsula), attacking American soldiers, launching terrorist attacks, or sinking civilian ships in the Persian Gulf, will be met with “devastating military action.”

President Cheney assured the public that airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets will be “sufficient” and that no ground troops will be used in this operation. Yet, the American public is skeptical. Polls suggest that about 2/3 of Americans are opposed to a military offensive involving ground troops in Iran, but 59% support the use of limited airstrikes.

[1] Taken verbatim from Bush’s 2007 State of the Union speech OTL.
==================================================================================
May 17, 2008

Senate approves ‘use of force’ against Iran

The bill, officially called the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iran [1], narrowly passed the Senate, 69-31. The war bill gives the government to act in support of Israel’s efforts to disarm Iran. The bill leaves open the possibility of a ground invasion, though the President denies this. “Iran is not Iraq. We seek only to remove the threat of nuclear attack from Iran. As it stands, there will be only a limited ground force.”

The bill stated (in part) that “the United States has a vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel, and reaffirms United States support for Israel’s right to self-defense; and urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action [3] in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.” [4]

Republican support of the bill was unanimous. Democrats, however, were split. One of the dissenting voices was Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), who voted no on the bill. Others, like Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) voted yes on the measure. Lieberman said that if the U.S. does not act against Iran, “they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home.” [5] The bill was also supported by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who voted for the bill “to protect Israeli and American security.”

Gallup poll showed that 61% of Americans support some form of military action in Iran. However, only 39% indicated that they support the use of US ground troops.

[1] Based on the OTL Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
[2] The vote was as follows:
House of Representatives:
Republican: 200 Yea, 3 Nay, 2 Nonvoting
Democratic: 61 Yea, 171 Nay, 3 Nonvoting
Total: 261 Yea, 174 Nay, 5 Nonvoting

Senate:
Republican 49 Yea, 0 Nay
Democratic 16 Yea, 33 Nay, 1 Nonvoting
Independent 0 Yea, 1 Nay
Total: 65 Yea, 34 Nay, 1 Nonvoting

Note that these figures are similar to those of the Iraq War resolution.

[3] Note that, at this point, Israel’s strike is not considered “military action” by the US. The bill is intended to show support for Israel’s actions taken in self-defense from an Iranian attack.
[4] Taken verbatim from a bill passed in OTL 2013 called “S.Res.65 - A resolution strongly supporting the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urging the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation.”
[5] Lieberman said this OTL in an interview with Bob Schieffer in 2007.

=================================================================================

May 18, 2008:

UN vote urges “restraint” in Iran conflict [1]
The U.N. Security Council expressed “concern” over the growing crisis in the Middle East and urged for “a peaceful resolution” between Iran, Israel, and the United States.

Vice President McCain said that he was “disappointed” by the lack of support for military action from the UN, and added that this sends “the wrong message” to Iran. He further added that Iran should take the President’s warnings seriously. “The Iranians think that we’re bluffing. It’s time we show them we’re not.”

[1] Based on a similar vote held before the war in Iraq.

==================================================================================

May 18, 2008

US launches strikes against Iranian nuclear targets

The US has launched Operation Darting Fog [1], an aerial campaign against Iranian nuclear targets. Analysts have identified four likely targets: the uranium-enrichment facilities at Natanz (previously targeted by Israeli jets) and Fordow, as well as the heavy-water reactor in Arak, and the uranium conversion plant at Isfahan. Other possible targets include the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, a warhead production facility in Parchin, and strategically important missile bases in Tabriz and near Khorramabad.

[1] Hence my user name. It’s based off of similar names for US military operations like Operation Flaming Dart, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, etc. ATL, comedians will mock it for being a spoonerism for “farting dog”.

===================================================================================

May 18, 2008

BREAKING NEWS: Fordow nuclear facility remains intact after ‘bunker-busters’

At 9:58 EDT, it is reported the Fordow nuclear facility has been hit by American bombs. The Fordow facility is located under hundreds of feet of rock, which makes it impenetrable to smaller bombs. Even after dropping three bombs on the facility, there was no visible damage to anything but the mountain.

=================================================================================

May 19, 2008

Arak heavy-water facility destroyed

Earlier this morning in Iran, U.S. bombers dropped several 15-ton Big BLU bunker-buster bombs on the underground lab. The facility was one of the key sites in Iran’s nuclear program. The site is being monitored for radioactive contamination.

=================================================================================

May 19, 2008

Iran claims nuclear pollution “worse than Chernobyl”

The Iranian government is claiming that massive amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere after American and Israeli bombing of the nuclear facilities at Fordow and Arak. Iranian officials claim that several thousand civilians have been exposed to lethal doses of radiation.
The attacks have been met with condemnation by some members of the UN, including Russia and China, who expressed concern for the civilians of Iran.

===============================================================================

May 19, 2008

Ten ships severely damaged by Iranian missile and speedboat attacks [1]

Ten ships, including three supertankers, were hit by Iranian attacks yesterday. Six of the ships were hit by long-range missiles launched by Iran. The other four tankers were apparently hit in a speedboat attack. The speedboats are said to have been carrying missiles, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenades. The tankers were carrying oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE. Although several ships have been hit, only three of the smaller vessels were sunk. The remaining ships, however, are too heavily damaged to carry oil.

On this news, oil prices soared today to $192 a barrel. The oil markets are concerned that ship owners and captains may refuse to send their ships through the Strait because they are afraid of being attacked.

These missile and speedboat attacks have caused alarm in the shipping community. However, some ship owners, captains and crews may be willing to take the risk now that oil prices have increased.

This is not the first time that tankers have been targeted in the Persian Gulf. During the Iran-Iraq War, the so-called “Tanker War” resulted in the sinking of several large oil tankers. Over the course of the Tanker War, insurance claims reached a total of 2 billion dollars, resulting in massive losses for insurers. Lloyd’s of London has indicated that it will not let history repeat itself and has released a statement to the effect that they will refuse to compensate losses incurred by tankers damaged in the Persian Gulf.

What motivated Iran to attack oil tankers? According to oil industry analysts, Iran is targeting tankers in an attempt to pressure the United States into ending its bombing campaign of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. By disrupting the oil market, the Iranians hope to show they can show that they are still strong despite the recent bombing.

President Cheney said that Iran’s attempt to disrupt world oil markets will not dissuade the United States from removing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and that the bombings would continue. He announced that in the event of a disruption of oil supplies, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will be opened. In addition, he said that tankers traveling through the Gulf will be escorted by US navy ships.

[1] The content of this post is based on a report by the Strauss Center analyzing Iran’s ability to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipping.

===================================================================================

May 20, 2008

American aircraft carrier struck in Iranian attack, 57 dead [1]

A US aircraft carrier and several support vessels were attacked in a coordinated assault by Iran. The aircraft carrier, known as the USS John C. Stennis, was attacked by an Iranian Shahab missile. The missiles hit the starboard side of the ship and exploded, killing 17 crew members and injuring 23 others. The explosion created a 20-foot-wide hole in ship’s hull, but did not sink it [1]. The ship was believed to have been escorting an oil tanker through the Persian Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz.

In addition to the attack on the Stennis, three support vessels accompanying the aircraft carrier were hit in suicide attacks by small craft operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Another 40 crew members are believed to have been killed in those attacks.

On news of the attack, oil prices are now trading at $240 a barrel. Gasoline prices have also spiked, with most stations reporting prices upwards of $6 per gallon.

[1] Similar to the USS Stark Incident in 1987.

===============================================================================

May 21, 2008

Obama drops out of race

Senator Barack Obama declared that he will be withdrawing from the primary race for the Democratic Party nomination. He did so after receiving weak support from primary voters in the Kentucky and Oregon yesterday. At this point in the race, it would be mathematically impossible for Obama to secure the nomination, even with the support of all of the remaining super-delegates. Obama said that he will endorse Hillary Clinton for the party nomination. He thanked his supporters and announced that he will drop out of the race for the nomination.

Pundits are speculating that Clinton’s hawkish stance on Iran has helped her with voters. After the Stennis attack yesterday, it appears Democratic voters are flocking to support Clinton. Obama’s more conciliatory tone on the Iranian issue may have helped him initially, but hurt him after the Iranian crisis began earlier this month.

[1] OTL, Hillary Clinton withdrew on June 7

================================================================================

May 21, 2008

Cheney addresses nation after Stennis attack [1]

"Good evening, my fellow Americans. As I speak, American forces are in the early stages of military operations attack on military targets in Iran, in order to free the Iranian people from tyranny and to defend the world against a dangerous regime. Earlier today, the terrorists employed by the Iranian regime launched a cowardly attack against one of our ships, an attack that took dozens of American lives. Much like the attack at Pearl Harbor and the attack on 9/11, this day will live in infamy.

I became President on another tragic day that has come to be known as 5/10. That, of course, was the day that President George W. Bush was assassinated. But unlike then, where a lone assassin’s grenade took the life of our President, a government has conspired to kill American servicemen and women. And the government responsible is that of the nation of Iran.

As I speak to you tonight, attacks are underway to destroy what is left of the Iranian regime’s potential to build a nuclear weapon. American forces have begun striking military targets that the ruthless Iranian regime has used to launch its attacks against America, Israel, and the Gulf States. We are now witnessing the opening stages of what will be a large-scale campaign to destroy that regime and remove it from power.

For many years, the Iranian regime has thumbed its nose at the rest of the world by pursuing a nuclear program. This nuclear program, in the hands of one of the world’s most important sponsors of terrorism, was a terrible threat to the peace and security of the world. Our ally and friend, Israel, reduced this threat by taking pre-emptive action against one of Iran’s nuclear bomb-making sites. When Israel’s ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure proved insufficient, the United States stepped in to complete the task. The world does not seem to care about Israel’s safety, so if we must, the great nations of Israel and the United States will face the Iranian threat alone.

In my address to the nation last week, I warned the Iranian regime that no effort would be made to remove them from power if they did not retaliate. The Iranian regime cannot deny that they were listening to this message. Yet, they have defied my terms by attacking our allies. They think that we will put up with it, but we will prove them wrong. We are not afraid to fight them.

We waited until now to remove the regime that currently controls Iran. In retrospect, that was a grave mistake. But, as Americans, we wanted to give the Iranian regime one last chance to act peacefully. They squandered that chance. The Iranian regime mistook our mercy for cowardice. While we waited, Iran and its proxies in Lebanon have terrorized the citizens of Israel. Most of those maimed and murdered were innocent men, women, and children. While we waited, the Iranian regime attacked oil tankers and other civilian vessels in the Persian Gulf. While we waited, 57 members of our military perished this morning in a brazen and cowardly attack. We cannot wait any longer.

The United States has now exhausted every means at our disposal to bring this crisis to a peaceful end. The Iranian regime has refused to negotiate, even when they have been given ample opportunity to engage in diplomatic talks. But that is not all. They think that they can get away with violent actions against America and our allies. We will make it clear to them that we will not back down. The people of the United States and Israel will not live at the mercy of a regime that threatens the world with weapons of mass murder.

Twenty-eight years ago, this regime took power in a brutal way. They held innocent people hostage at our embassy in Tehran, threatening them with death. They have executed women who have been raped, gay people, and Christians. While this regime claims to be Islamic, they have brutally murdered hundreds of thousands their fellow Muslims in Iraq. They have tortured and executed several members of Jundallah, a resistance group that is fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has been labeled a terrorist organization [2], is the branch of the Iranian military dedicated to implementing the Iranian regime’s radical agenda by brutal force. The Revolutionary Guard supports terrorists in Lebanon and has provided Iraqi insurgents with weapons used against our troops there.

The band of terrorists that took innocent Americans hostage 28 years ago must be removed from power. We will not allow the Iranian regime to hold Americans hostage for a second time. This illegitimate government that does not represent the Iranian people will be defeated. The Iranian people will again be free. It is my hope that Iran will again be a peaceful and cooperative nation, enhancing the security and stability of the Gulf.

Our soldiers will face an enemy with no morality or regard for military conventions. Our men and women in uniform will show our enemies and the people of Iran that Americans believe in the dignity of human life. The Iranian people we liberate will see our honor and decency. Our operations will be designed to keep innocent civilians from being harmed; unlike the Iranian regime, which does not care if it puts its own people in harm’s way.

Some of you may be asking why we must act now. Perhaps there is a diplomatic solution to the current situation. I will repeat what President Bush said: There is no negotiating with terrorists. So we cannot stand idly by as the Iranian regime conducts acts of terror such as we saw with the attack on the Stennis today. Others have said that we could keep dropping bombs, but that we should leave the Iranian regime in power. If we continue to drop bombs on Iranian military targets, but we leave the regime in place, Iran will simply rebuild its nuclear program. That is why we must have regime change in Iran. It is my hope that the Iranian people can convince their rulers to step down peacefully.

We have great respect for the people of Iran and their culture and their religion. We have no ill will against them. Our problem with Iran is with its government. Their government is illegitimate; it is made up of cabal of criminals who took power violently. The people of Iran are oppressed by this Islamofascist regime, which actively represses their desire for freedom and democratic government. I predict this day will be seen as an important moment in the long history of Iran. It will be one of the last under tyranny and the first day in their history as a free people.

On the homefront, I ask for help from everyday Americans in this effort. First, we want Americans to sign up and join the effort to remove the Iranian regime from power. Second, we need to show a united front against the Iranian regime. Expressions of opposition to the efforts underway to remove the Iranian regime, while guaranteed by the Constitution, send a mixed message to our enemies. We want Americans who support action against Iran, who might otherwise stay silent, to speak up. Hold marches, talk with your friends and family, and call your Representatives and Senators to express your support of our military. We must also be on guard against the Iranian regime’s dirty tactics, including the use of proxies like Hezbollah, to attack Israel. No doubt Iranian-backed sleeper cells wish to cause harm to Americans here and abroad. We must be vigilant against them.

It is greatly distressing to send our sons and daughters into harm’s way. But I have great confidence in them. Our military is the best in the world; a magnificently trained, highly motivated force designed to defend us from evil. Our troops know the reasons why they're in the Middle East fighting terrorism. They are defending our freedom. They are bringing freedom to others. And they will prevail.

To the members of our military, I assure you that your families are praying for you. Americans are praying for your safety. While the road ahead is difficult, I have great confidence in our men and women in uniform. For their sake, I hope that they will return home soon.

Our nation’s finest will meet the greatest threat we have faced since Nazi Germany. The safety of our nation and the world depends on our success. We will accept nothing less than victory. We will achieve victory at any cost.

Good night, and may God bless America.

[1] This speech is based heavily off of Bush’s Iraq invasion speech and Bush Sr.’s Persian Gulf speech. It’s likely that they all had the same speech writers.

[2] Labeled as a terrorist organization by Congress in 2006 (see earlier post).

=================================================================================

May 23, 2008

US strikes Iranian military by air, sea

The American military is hunting for Iranian submarines and surface fleet. Several Iranian ships have already been sunk in the past 24 hours. The US has also been able to strike down a dozen Iranian jet aircraft.

In other news, American bombers struck the Imam Ali Missile Base near Khorramabad. It is believed that many of the missiles that Iran is currently launching over the Persian Gulf were launched from this missile base. Two chemical-production plants have also been targeted.

=================================================================================

May 24, 2008

FOXnews.com

Invasion of Iran Begins [1]

Today, the first boots on the ground set foot on Iranian soil. They crossed over the border from Iraq in this initial stage of invasion. Other soldiers are being sent from American bases on the Arabian Peninsula and will land on the northern coast of the Persian Gulf.

The military has stated that it will do everything it can to avoid population centers, though the Iranians are rumored to have deliberately placed high-value sites in civilian areas so that they will not be destroyed. The latest smart weapons will be used to destroy Iran’s communications centers and command and control facilities. Infrastructure will be targeted to prevent the movement of Iranian troops. Bridges, roads, and power plants have a bomb with their name on it.

Meanwhile, the American people are showing their support for our troops by flying flags and holding “support the troops” marches.

Some Americans, however, have expressed opposition to the war, despite the overwhelming threat posed by Iran. Military experts are concerned about the effect this will have on troop morale. In the Vietnam War, many have attributed the loss of the war to the lack of support of the American people. Hopefully, we will not repeat the same mistakes.

[1] I’m fully aware that there would be strong opposition from some Americans to a third Middle Eastern war, but I think that in a crisis, most Americans would support a war (much like 9/11).

====================================================================================

May 25, 2008

Iran “a tougher nut to crack”, says McCain

One day after the US invades Iran, the Gulf has become a warzone. Iranian and American missiles fly overhead constantly. While the US has been successful in intercepting Iranian missiles, a few missiles still get through. An Iranian missile struck US base in Musandam, with 22 reported dead.
The US has found itself under attack by the Iranian air force. In “dogfight” style attacks not seen since World War II, the US is showing its air superiority. The Iranian air force is made up of antiquated jets such as the F4 Phantom and F14 Tomcat, which are proving to be no match for the American military. The US is reported to have downed 34 Iranian jets. However, despite their disadvantages, the Iranians have still managed to down three American aircraft.

Vice President McCain said he is confident that the Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing campaign, but that “more action may need to be taken than we anticipated”. He added that Iran is a “tougher nut to crack” than was originally thought and that “a new strategy may be needed” to address the Iranian offensive.

==============================================================================

Wall Street Journal

May 25, 2008

Oil tops $400 a barrel

Oil prices spiked to more than $400 per barrel yesterday after recent fighting in the Strait of Hormuz, before closing at $384. Today, gas stations across the country are beginning to report shortages. This shortage has occurred because the refineries are cutting back on their refining of crude oil in anticipation of a shortfall. Drivers face long lines at the pumps. They are running to gas stations to fill up over fears that the gas will run out. Many drivers have reported paying up to $11 a gallon.
The pain at the pump is also being felt on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Index fell by more than 500 points yesterday, which is the culmination of a week that has seen the index plummet by 1200 points.

What caused this oil crisis? After the sinking of several tankers, there has been a halt on all oil tankers passing through the Strait. This is because the tanker companies have been warned by their insurers that they will not be covered in the event of a sinking in the war zone. Rather than face the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars between the cost of the oil and the cost of the ships themselves, the tanker companies are keeping all ships presently in the Gulf at their docks on the Arabian Peninsula, and no tankers are allowed to enter the Gulf. As a result, no oil can get out of the Persian Gulf. About 20% of global oil output is effectively out of reach at the moment.


Some of the oil produced in the Middle East will be sent by pipeline to the Red Sea. However, the carrying capacity of these pipelines is limited, and can only carry a small fraction of production. While the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was opened two days ago, it will take two weeks before that oil reaches the gas pump.

At a gas station outside of Atlanta, we spoke with some of the people waiting in line.

A middle-aged man said “These g-damn Iranians! If I were younger, I’d go over there and fight ‘em myself!” as he stood next to his SUV. “Our boys better beat ‘em right quick.”

His frustration is shared by the American public. According to our own poll [1], 71 percent of Americans support the war in Iran.

In Europe and Japan, who rely even more heavily on Middle Eastern oil than the US, the situation is even more dire. Many gas stations have closed due to the lack of supply. In Italy, gasoline is reported to be selling at more than 5 Euros per liter ($23 per gallon).

[1] Admittedly WSJ is a right-wing publication and their polls will be biased in that direction. Even so, ATL Gallup puts the support for war with Iran at approximately 60%.


===================================================================================
 
.
I think that’s enough for now. I’ll post more in a couple of weeks, so be patient! I think you’ll like what’s coming next! :)
.
 
Please redo this, the POD is intresting but having notes in the middle instead of the end is making it hard to read

I disagree, I find it a suiting place for them.

Anyway, a great POD and much interesting timeline. Will you post some updates concerning international, especially European and Middle East reaction?
 
Venezuela must be laughing that, they're ultra safe and the biggest oil producer in the americas...that will be insane.
 

takerma

Banned
I like this, a lot


US Aircraft carrier would not be "escorting" anything like like a tanker. US Navy is not dumb, in case of war like this carrier will be nowhere near the range of the land based anti shipping missile. Change it to a smaller vessel?

I don't think insurers will stop paying for stuff lost in the gulf, rates will just go up.


Considering how fucked up ME is now, I really wonder if you can make it more fucked and how :)
 
It's not likely that a carrier would be escorting a super-tanker like that, and any anti-ship missiles fired against a carrier would be picked up and attacked by the carriers defending vessels, usually a Ticoderoga, but Perry frigates can also launch SAMs and use CIWS to spray lead in front of any approaching missile.
You'd be better off having a smaller single vessel like a Oliver Hazard Perry frigate be hit, and Iran would have to fire multiple missiles to overwhelm the single frigates defences, or get very lucky.
But a carrier, it's rare they'd travel in a warzone without a ring of anti-air, anti-ship, and anti-submarine defences.

That being said, no defence is unpenetrable, and a carriers missile defence can be overwhelmed if enough missiles are fired at it, that was the whole point of the Soviet SSGNs, fire 24 nuclear missiles at the enemy and hope one of them gets through. Of course, these missiles wouldn't be nuclear because Iran hasn't got the material yet to make a warhead small enough to put on a missile, so whatever does get through will probably hit and damage one of the support vessels rather than the carrier, but it would be enough to do a Stark on a Perry frigate, or temporarily put a Tico out of comission.
Iran would take a helluva beating doing this though, since the attackers would lose the element of surprise as soon as they fired, or indeed as soon as they came within missile range of the carrier task force, if they were in civilian craft then they would be warned away and then sunk if they did not turn back. I'd estimate 78% casualties on the Iranian side for 10-20% on the US side.
Now, the Iranian Kilo submarines, if they actually leave port and don't sink, they could prove to be a real nuisance if they're in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. If Iran is going to hit oil supplies, then using the Kilos to mine shipping routes is a good way to go, although since the Kilos will have to snorkel from time to time they are at risk of being picked up by a P3 Orion and torpedoed...but if they had a good CO, they could make some serious mischief in the meantime.
Of course, resupplying them after they'd spent their munitions and fuel would be a logistical nightmare. Maybe a false flagged merchant could supply them covertly, like how uboats were supplyed by merchantmen in the war in strategic places...but doing this whilst trying to dodge patrolling ASW aircraft would be difficult, but not impossible.
 
Very well researched. I'm impressed. And well written.

Your best move is to set your POD well in advance of the action. That avoids the mistake that almost everyone makes.

The only possible thing I could add as a constructive criticism, is that given that Cheney is considerably more bellicose, there might be small shifts in procurement and military technology emphasis which might facilitate Cheney's war. You wouldn't have huge butterflies from that in three years, given how bellicose Bush already was, but it might tweak things a tiny bit.

As to some of the comments, I completely disagree that insurers would cover Gulf Oil transport under these circumstances. The Iran/Iraq war was not comparable. During the tanker war phase of the Iran/Iraq war, the state of Iraq was almost entirely on the defensive, the Iranian initiative was to try and strangle Iraq's financial lifeline.

Here the Iranian state is literally fighting for its life against an overpoweringly huge and ruthless adversary. It's going to give it everything it's got and employ any option. I don't see how any insurer is going to accept the risks, particularly when the risks are so high and the cargo value is so extreme. Basically, its a one way ticket to bankruptcy. I think that the only possible solution to the insurance issue is for the United States to directly underwrite insurance.

Finally, I'll be quite interested in terms of how the states of the surrounding region are impacted.
 

Faeelin

Banned
I think this is interesting, but grossly overestimates the opposition to a war with Iran in America. Absent a domestic terror attack, with Iraq perceived as a failure, what's the president's rallying cry so far out?

Recall that we had a presidential election in OTL where Iran played a role; Obama, who opposed a hawkish stance, lost.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Are you sure that the UK would be allied with America on this? Because that would tank the Labour Party even worse than OTL...

Yea, I think there's a serious feeling overseas that America's gone insane. Especially since we just triggered a major depression.
 
Yea, I think there's a serious feeling overseas that America's gone insane. Especially since we just triggered a major depression.

I can't begin to fathom the economic shock impact of oil at four hundred dollars a barrel. Even a temporary shock would be incredibly disruptive.

I know enough to realize that the American oil supply is outside the Persian Gulf and mostly locked in - Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Domestic. I assume that there's going to be disruptive price shocking, and possibly state intervention to hold down the shock.

But Japan, Europe, India, China.... These are all core world economies, I don't see India or China as having anything resembling a cushion....

Can I call for the finance and economically minded people out there to give their analysis as to what the oil price shocks and supply bottlenecks are going to look like?
 
Top