On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:50:44 -0500, Rex
wrote:
snip
The United States can certainly conduct an air campaign against Iran,
but we are reminded of the oldest lesson of air power -- one learned by
the Israeli air force against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006: Air power
is enormously successful in concert with a combined arms operation, but
has severe limitations when applied on its own. The idea that nations
will capitulate because of the pain of an air campaign has little
historical basis. It doesn't usually happen. Unlike Hezbollah, however,
Iran is a real state with real infrastructure, economic interests,
military assets and critical port facilities -- all with known locations
that can be pummeled with air power. The United States might not be able
to impose its will on the ground, but it can certainly impose a great
deal of pain. Of course, an all-out air war would cripple Iran in a way
that would send global oil prices through the roof -- since Iran remains
the world's fourth-largest oil exporter.
snip
Iran has already said it will use "the oil weapon" if attacked.

A large percent of the world's oil passes through the Strait of
Hormuz [Ormuz] which is about 30 miles wide at its narrowest
point.

Iran is known to have purchased a number of Silkworm
anti-shipping missiles from the PRC and it would be like shooting
fish in a barrel to kill oil tankers in this strait.

You do not require purpose built ships to lay mines either. I
don't think that a row boat is up to the job, but a fishing boat
should be ample, possibly with the mine hung underneath and thus
not visible from the air. Long range artillery fire is another
option, particurarly if the mines force the tankers into narrow
shipping lanes near the Iran coast.

Note that it is not be necessary to destroy every tanker as a
loss rate of 1 in 20 to 1 in 10 would be sufficient to cause the
insurance rates to become excessive [compared to how much you can
make carrying oil].

Suicide speedboats packed with a ton or two of explosives are
another option. An inflatable boat packed with explosives nearly
sank one of our [US] destroyers in port.

Iran is also know to have purchased Diesel submarines from
Germany, and possibly more from China or Russia, allowing then to
attack oil tankers anywhere in the world.

Just as the US lacks the forces for a ground operation against
Iran, we do not have the air power for a 24 hour CAP over the
strait not the naval power for escorts for tanker convoys all
over the world.

We could of course nuke Iran "until it glowed," but this is
highly likely to result in every country in the world, other than
possibly Israel, turning against us, especially if this is a
preemptive unilateral strike, raising the question "who is next
on the US hit list?"

Thus the oil loss will be far more than just what Iran produces.
A serious complication is that the oil that would be lost is not
just the oil to the US [we still import considerable oil from
western hemishpere nations AFAIK none from Iran] but is also the
major suplies of oil to Japan, China and India, and the other
Asian countries who are unlikely to passively allow their
economies to be crippled.

It is also unclear when we refer to a "country" in the Middle
East, if we are referring to a geographical area or a nation in
the European sense and (even in Europe this can be a problem e.g.
Belgium, and the UK-England/Scotland). In many cases the
"countries" of the ME exist solely because the administrators of
the defunct Ottoman empire, sat down with a crayola and a map,
drew some lines, and told the local cappos they were now the
Kings, Emirs, etc. and that they should "pacify" their new
states. To be specific, when we refer to Saudi Arabia, are we
talking about an area on a map in a different color, the House of
Saud, or a group of people who regard themselves as a nation?

They told him "cheer-up, things could be worse," so he cheered up
and sure enough things got worse....

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.