Good points, Shotgun, and I can't say I disagree with them. I
just hope Adm Fallon (new CENTCOM commander), if he decides to
attack, thinks it over very thoroughly.
I have some concerns, though:
The PAC-3 Patriot is still unproven in battle - there will be
serious repercussions if they don't work. Iran may decide to fire
missiles at every Sunni country in the neighbourhood + at
Israel.
The rebel factions in Iran seem (to me) a way less capable force
than the Northern Alliance or Karzai in Afghanistan. And Iran has
an organised military, far stronger than Taliban. If US is aiming
for 'regime change' Afghan-style, I foresee a lot of
problems.
I agree having a navy man running CENTCOM does not make sense
unless the Pentagon is considering a strike by the USN.
If US is thinking of conducting an air war based mainly on
carrier-based assets, I think the current 2 carriers in the
theatre, even with the support of B-2 (in US) and B-52 (in Diego
Garcia), which do not need air-refuelling, is not enough and may
not be sustainable for long. The NATO strike on Serbia a few years
back, the only successful air-only campaign, was a multi-nation
effort with a lot more aircraft and support. I don't know which
NATO/Arab countries (aside from the Brits) are willing to support a
strike even by just providing use of their bases (at risk of an
iranian backlash), making it difficult to impossible to use USAF
assets in UK, Germany or Italy.
Currently both sides (US/UK vs Iran) don't seem to want to talk to
resolve this quietly, which makes an escalation to use of force
more likely.
