Nice article. I wanted to ask if you think the USA will ever do a land invasion of the of Iran despite it mountainous terrain or keep using air campaigns.
Very difficult to invade Iran under the current administration. Logistics, lack of massed forces, and no borders make it harder. Any land invasion of Iran needs more than just amphibious landing or airdrop.
The best time was when there was a two front land border during the Global War on Terror. Bases, logistics, and built up military force in two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Would've made a very good jump off point. The size of the logistics facilities at Baghram and Baghdad Airport weren't small - and could be used to supply ammo, parts, and food to units in country.
These do not exist now. So operational, logistics, and combat planning would be much hard. Rather than during GWOT when they were staged.
There is indeed much theater to this conflict. However, we should consider that closure of commercial traffic thru Hormuz is a move that targets GCC and maybe EU, with collateral damage to oil importers around the world. It does not target US or Israel.
The analogy I'd consider is how the MSM discusses the possibility of a Taiwan showdown. Paints a picture of soaking wet PLA marines re-enacting D-day. The less fantastical scenario for that Island is a spectrum between civil war, and a selective blockade. Like what Yemen's Ansar Allah kept up in the Red Sea, in the face of decades of USN bravado about being the guarantor of global shipping. In the case of the Persian Gulf, USN already preemptively keeps prized targets out of the Gulf and at a substantial distance when action is imminent.
As for the theater, I have to think in this case it's part of an ongoing escalation process, rather than mere ritual. Think it's pretty well telegraphed by US and Israel that there will be future rounds.
Nice article. I wanted to ask if you think the USA will ever do a land invasion of the of Iran despite it mountainous terrain or keep using air campaigns.
Very difficult to invade Iran under the current administration. Logistics, lack of massed forces, and no borders make it harder. Any land invasion of Iran needs more than just amphibious landing or airdrop.
The best time was when there was a two front land border during the Global War on Terror. Bases, logistics, and built up military force in two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Would've made a very good jump off point. The size of the logistics facilities at Baghram and Baghdad Airport weren't small - and could be used to supply ammo, parts, and food to units in country.
These do not exist now. So operational, logistics, and combat planning would be much hard. Rather than during GWOT when they were staged.
There is indeed much theater to this conflict. However, we should consider that closure of commercial traffic thru Hormuz is a move that targets GCC and maybe EU, with collateral damage to oil importers around the world. It does not target US or Israel.
The analogy I'd consider is how the MSM discusses the possibility of a Taiwan showdown. Paints a picture of soaking wet PLA marines re-enacting D-day. The less fantastical scenario for that Island is a spectrum between civil war, and a selective blockade. Like what Yemen's Ansar Allah kept up in the Red Sea, in the face of decades of USN bravado about being the guarantor of global shipping. In the case of the Persian Gulf, USN already preemptively keeps prized targets out of the Gulf and at a substantial distance when action is imminent.
As for the theater, I have to think in this case it's part of an ongoing escalation process, rather than mere ritual. Think it's pretty well telegraphed by US and Israel that there will be future rounds.