War with Iran?

[Bengalzona]

(06-21-2019, 05:24 AM)Dill Wrote: Hey B! A day after you wrote this it struck me--

There are plenty of "beach locations" on the other side of the Gulf.

There are at least three Army bases in Kuwait.

There is a naval base in Bahrain, with who knows how many ships. Sitting ducks.

In Qatar there is one Army base at As Sayliyah, which, last I heard, still had 800 soldiers and probably some 50 civilians.

And finally, smack in the center of Qatar, is Al Udeid, with 11,000 Airmen and rows of B-1 and B-2 bombers on the runway, not to mention all manner of fighter and transport aircraft.

If a third of their medium-range missiles malfunctioned in a swarm attack, I still doubt these bases would be adequately defended. Four or five impacts at Al Udeid would mean tremendous loss of life and equipment. If there were 10-15, I'm sure casualties would be in the thousands. That's just at Al Udeid.

Wouldn't all these sites be "pre-targeted" as well? No need for recon and surveillance equipment.

That is another possible strategy. But consider this. If you are an Iranian leader and a marine force is moving on your major port, do you want to use the rockets against the bases they came from or against the force itself?

If you had a large force with lots of armor available to affect a massive counterattack, it might be worthwhile to allow the marines on the beach uncontested and use the rockets to target their resupply bases. But I suspect the Iranians would not have much armor left within a day or two of air combat starting.

Another thing is the political considerations of rocket strikes on other nations' soil, even if they are allowing U.S. troops to operate on their soil. This could (and probably would) set off a series of existing alliances against Iran and directly lead to their further supporting U.S. efforts. It's never quite so easy, eh?

This assumes, of course, that nations like Quatar and Kuwait have 1) not already joined a U.S. sponsored alliance against Iran, and 2) they have a agreed to allow us to use bases in their country to launch attacks. I think both of those scenarios are reasonable and likely. But it just goes to show the type of work that has to be done diplomatically to prepare for an invasion on the other side of the globe. It is not something to be taken lightly or taken for granted. And when your country is desperate for assistance at a crucial time, the whole "threaten and bluster" approach which has become so prevalent during the past three years falls completely flat on its face. Bush Sr.'s Admin and diplomatic corps was brilliant at this type of work. The Trump Admin is the worst we have ever seen.