"Emboldened by the seizure of the erstwhile Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, after an operation that took months of planning, Trump talked up military intervention against the Iranian regime with no military pre-positioning having taken place. In fact, there has been a drawdown in the last few months, reducing military options further. The US has had no aircraft carriers deployed in the Middle East since October, after two years of near continuous deployment following the Hamas attack on Israel,"
"It means any air or missile strikes against regime targets, and perhaps at the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would probably have to come from or involve US and allied airbases in the Middle East. An alternative would be similar to June's long range B-2 bombing mission against the underground Iranian nuclear site of Fordow, although that sort of attack against an urban site would appear to be dangerous overkill."
US options to influence Iran’s protest movement are extremely limited by force reductions and logistical constraints. A recent drawdown removed aircraft carriers from the Middle East, reducing strike platforms and rapid power projection. Air or missile strikes would likely require use of regional US and allied airbases with host-nation permission and the need to protect those bases and their host countries against retaliation. Long-range bomber missions like the June B-2 strike are possible but risky for urban targets and potentially overkill. Iran retains limited missile capabilities and buried launch sites, complicating targeting and increasing risks of escalation.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]