For all of Iran's brave talk, they don't want to face our air power:
The world is applying a record number of economic sanctions on Iran in an effort to halt the Iranian nuclear weapons program. That has led to the realization of some unique air attack opportunities. There are two of these that are particularly crucial. Iran has limited oil refining capability (less than a hundred targets for air attack) and electricity generating capacity (again, fewer than a hundred targets). Add to that air defense system targets and naval bases (where mine laying ships are) and you have a situation where fewer than a thousand smart bombs or missiles would plunge Iran into darkness, create a fuel shortage and cripple their military capabilities (interfering with ship traffic in the Persian Gulf). ...
Iran has lots of bridges and tunnels in its road and railroad network. These targets are easy for smart bombs to destroy and difficult to rebuild. Today’s sensors allow for the detection of stealthy rebuilding efforts (which the Germans used extensively during World War II) and scheduling more smart bomb attacks.
The Iranians are aware of their vulnerability.
I've long said that an air campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities would last weeks and look a lot like war given the need to strike naval, air, and missile targets to blunt an Iranian counter-attack into our across the Persian Gulf, too; as well as the need to strike ground units and command-and-control assets to keep Iran from lashing out at Iraq.
Now I'll add transportation choke points. Possibly those could substitute for attacks on some of the ground force assets.
Because I think that a war with Iran would be aerial (and missiles from the Navy), this is good news.
My questions of ground power center on whether we deploy several Army brigades to Kuwait just in case Iran tries to surge across the Iraq border and turn south; and whether our Marines seize Iranian-held islands in the Persian Gulf. Taking Kharg would be a serious sign we are at war.
Since I doubt that the Obama administration will really want to start a war with Iran just as the tide of war is receding elsewhere (he says), I'll guess that we won't attack the power plants and oil facilities. We'll blockade Iran for the duration of the air offensive and hold the threat over Iran's head of going after civilian infrastructure and the promise of lifting the blockade once the air campaign is over in order to convince Iran to avoid retaliation.
I think that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities should be the start of an effort to change the regime, so I'd hit the civilian targets, too. But I don't think we'll see this as a war. Just a time-limited, scope-limited kinetic action, eh?
Of course, I worry that Iran may have dispersed facilities abroad to avoid our air power. If Iran just sits and takes our attack, will that mean we deterred them with the threat of attacks on civilian infrastructure? Or will it mean Iran figures they absorbed our best and can rebuild without worry of us taking another shot?
