[R-G] What if the US military and Iran squared off in a 'limited conflict'?

[CeJ]

What if the US military and Iran squared off in a 'limited conflict'?

I believe that the IDF missile corvette (which was on a fire mission
against the Beirut airport in the Summer 2006 war) that Hezbollah hit
and heavily damaged, was hit with a really low-tech modified c-701,
not the c-802 that a lot of the media claimed. Hezbollah simply don't
have the infrastructure to support c-802 missiles. The IDF only
claimed this to make themselves look less inept for getting one of
their high-priced, high-tech ships wrecked by a cheap missile hit.
They also made dishonest claims about how they had turned off their
anti-missile measures. Rather, it appears the anti-missile measures
didn't work and their radar might have been malfunctioning.

But the point is, in the case of Iran, Iran would have both types of
these missiles, in large numbers. It probably has something like a
hundred upgraded c-802s waiting for the US Navy, and possibly many
hundreds of c-701s. The c-701s I believe could be launched from small
craft and shore emplacements, including the backs of pick up trucks.
They might also move out to islands and set up and fire from shore.
This is why Iran and Britain got so tangled up a little while back.
Iran is most likely running training for how to respond to a US
attack, and Britain was doing military reconnaissance for the US
(spying in uniform).

As for the havoc that would ensue, consider what happened when
Hezbollah attacked the Israeli warship. Most likely, by going on the
attack, the Israel naval forces destroyed merchant ships, such as the
Egyptian and Cambodian ones that were reported as being hit by
Hezbollah (very unlikely). Imagine something like this scenario in the
Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, multiplied by a hundred times
of the small scale naval conflict of the Summer 2006 war in Lebanon.

So even an aerial bombardment designed to go after the alleged
'nuclear facilities', if it evoked a strong response from Iran, would
be a level of brinksmanship that even the Bush-Cheney regime could not
pull off.

Remember, they have as yet not attacked any countries that could
defend themselves.

As for the Democrats, one is reminded, Clinton did indeed attack a
country that could defend itself--rump Yugoslavia, or the Serbian part
of it. US forces simply targetted civilian infrastructure til the
Serbians relented, since US air forces proved ineffective against the
Yugoslav forces deployed, dispersed and entrenched in Kosovo. Not one
Yugoslav tank destroyed after days of dropping bombs and firing off
missiles.

You see, that is the weakness of so much of this over-hyped (but
profitable) high tech weaponry. It might be very effective against a
building--where is a building going to move to to avoid being hit? But
it is bollocks against dispersed, armored, mobile forces (bringing to
mind Russia and China, who probably think that the single best weapon
against the US's military empire is its penchant for spending itself
to bankruptcy on high-tech junk).

Israel tried the same tactic on Lebanon when it became apparent, after
dozens of multi-million dollar Merkeva main battle tanks were smoking
ruins, the IDF's ground troops were not going to be able to destroy
Hezbollah and its key militant Sunni allies in set piece battles or
'anti-insurgency' actions.


CJ

-- 
Japan Higher Education Outlook
http://japanheo.blogspot.com/