Obama's idiocy gave them a weapon to use against us.

Maybe he's a deep cover Islamic secret agent and that was part of the evil master plan...

but how much do you want to pay for gas?

A point which would nt be an issue, had we actually followed through with offshore drilling instead of blocking it as Obama did. Obama's idiocy gave them a weapon to use against us.

Because we have no demonstrated capacity to take out mobile missile launchers. We chased SCUDS all over Iraq in the run-up to the Kuwait war and accomplished just about nothing.

All the Iranians have to do is sink one supertanker in the straits. Insurance will dry up and the oil spigot is closed.

Hundreds of miles of coastline. Thousands of vulnerable ships and tankers within easy reach.

And that's not even getting into Hamas and Hezbollah. Or Iraqi Shiites allied to Iran. Or Iranian mischief in Afghanistan.

The map is against us. The idea that we can secure the flow of oil through the Gulf with air and naval forces alone is a neo-con fantasy. We could have literally years of Iranian's firing missiles at passing ships or sending small craft suicide squads after them.

This is not a fight we want.

Why not?

Iran's Air and Naval Orders of Battle are quite finite and inferior in almost every measure to what we could bring to bear with just 2 Carrier Strike Groups and a handful of submarines.

We don't need to take territory ("...ground forces or the transport or the money or the will to invade Iran"), we only need to destroy their limited power projection capabilities.

In the case of the Iranian Coastal Defense Cruise Missile (CDCM) sites, we've never tried.

Back in the late 80's (Operation Preying Mantis, April 1988), we deliberately avoided taking out these sites for fear of escalating our conflict with Iran. Instead, we shot down those missiles that were launched at our ships and sank or severely damaged their best naval platforms. They were completely at our mercy, but we pulled our punches. The end-game status of the Iran-Iraq War was a big consideration, as I recall.

Back to the problem at hand. We probably have targeted (coordinates known, targeting packages planned) all of their known CDCM sites and supporting equipment. As I'm not overly impressed with their IADS (Integrated Air Defense System), taking this stuff out is not the most severe challenge that we would face in a confrontation with Iran.

Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz? The risk here can be managed (Close the strait for a few days, provide air defense to Gulf arab ports and oil facilities, naval escorts as required), but how much do you want to pay for gas?

It worked out as one might expect given that the British had a 3000 mile supply line it took a month or more to cross, they were fighting an indigenous population and we had the French fleet and components of their army on our side.

The romantic notion of warfare died when French soldiers filled with elan and esprit tried to elan their way past German machine guns in 1914.

It's about power. Narrow gulf, plenty of anti-ship missiles, lots of big slow tankers all of which need to be insured before they can sail. We can't do it with air and seapower alone and we flat out do not have the ground forces or the transport or the money or the will to invade Iran.

Which means we lose unless we are willing to do some very, very harsh things. Unlike most Americans I'm willing to talk about those things, but I'm not going ti support another war based on lame assumptions. Fool me once . . .

Oh, I dunno. Maybe, here.

So Nancy Pelosi (because she wants to prosecute some Bush Administration officials who might have broken the law) is now the same as the mullahs in Iran? No wonder you are so paranoid about Democrats if you believe that nonsense...

You'll recall, perhaps how they got back into line the moment Regan took the oath of office? SOmeone they knew would attack if they didn't, vs Carter who they knew would be kissing their backsides, instead of kicking them.

I see, so the Iranians released the hostages not because they no longer perceived any advantage in holding them, but rather, because they were quaking in their boots because they thought Reagan would blow them away? Wow, that's some interesting logic there...amazing that a few years later they didn't mind doing shady deals with his administration...I guess they lost their fear of him by that point...

LOL... and that's different from the American Revolution, how? What were our armines after all if not guerrillas?

You're confused (yes, I know, hardly surprising)...of course our armies were the guerrillas fighting to push out a foreign aggressor...much like the Iranians might turn to guerrilla warfare if a foreign aggressor tried to invade their country...to paraphrase...how would that work out...

Where would that "elsewhere" be?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe, here.

And the proof of that would be...

Oh, far more than that of "Global warming". History, for one thing.Or at least the threat of it. You'll recall, perhaps how they got back into line the moment Regan took the oath of office? SOmeone they knew would attack if they didn't, vs Carter who they knew would be kissing their backsides, instead of kicking them.

.in the second place, that "little rag tag" was fighting guerrilla warfare to push out a foreign aggressor army.

LOL... and that's different from the American Revolution, how? What were our armines after all if not guerrillas? Certainly, that's how the Brits cast them... You're so convinced they can't beat us, and yet you point to the factor that would make the difference.

(Side note; the use of government power against any opposition. Strikingly similar to something we've seen elsewhere.)

Where would that "elsewhere" be?

Being bombed by Israel, would shake that Iranian belief to its core, and most likely return them to something more closely resembling rationality.

And the proof of that would be...

So too did the Brits, who figured the little rag tag would never be able to defeat the greatest fighting force on the planet.

A faulty comparison...in the first place, there is talk only about airstrikes on Iran, not ground troops...in the second place, that "little rag tag" was fighting guerrilla warfare to push out a foreign aggressor army...much in the same way the Iranians would possibly do if anyone could even find the troops to invade...

I'm not convinced by psychoanalysis. I want to see power and potential.

So too did the Brits, who figured the little rag tag would never be able to defeat the greatest fighting force on the planet.

How'd that work out?

Everything I have read on bombing Iran sounds like less than a sure thing. They have the capabilities of developing hardened concrete. To the best of my knowledge we still do not have our 30,000 pound bunker busters ready, so I doubt Israel has anything of the same magnitude. I mostly read stuff out of the Army War college, but if you have a credible source saying the bombing has a high probability of success, please link.

Add all this up with Israel's aversion to risk (see Gaza), and this wold all be out of character. Bombing , yes. Three part attack, no. Even the bombing is a bit out of character as the Syrian and Iraq attacks were so much closer. Iran is further away and has had much time to prepare, though I am still a bit skeptical about Russian anti-air. I am even less sure about Iran;s air force.

Steve

I'm not convinced by psychoanalysis. I want to see power and potential.

It's pitifully easy for the Iranians to start firing missiles at passing ships in the Gulf.

Of itself, correct, but ignores the idea of retaliation... and the lack of retaliation is exactly why they're acting the way they are thusfar. They think themselves invulnerable. Change that attitude, you change the complexion of the entire area.

Where is Israel going to get the military to do that?

This is not Hitler, for example, getting into a multi-front war,a nd getting his butt kicked. Both the west and the Russians had their own leadership and their own supply lines. Not so those you mention, being led and supplied by Iran.

Ever notice that when Hamas/Hizbolaha is active, Iran itself is quiet? Each on their own is strong, since Iran, who is directing all of this, can concentrate both tactics and finances on one thing or the other. All together? Not so much, I suspect. Iran wouldn't be able to maintain supply lines to all of those. More, I think they know it, and will start calculating more cautiously once a little reality is dropped n their lap

Steve