Iranian Missile Boats on Strategy Page:
The Iranian Navy is the one branch of their armed forces that is always in contact with U.S. forces, and would be the first to engage if things got out of hand. The backbone of this navy is a force of missile-armed patrol craft, the modern equivalent of the PT boats that were so famous during World War II. Missile-armed patrol boats made their mark when two Komar-class boats sank an Israeli destroyer in 1967.If only we had some way to get troops into Iran without needing to make an amphibious landing. Bases and overflight rights for neighboring nations sure would come in handy, but the utter lack of a plan and general cluelessness have left us without an opportunity to attack or even threaten to attack with heavy forces and with no real options regarding Iran.
If only we had thought of this sooner. --cross-posted from Murdoc Online
UPDATE: Okay, Murdoc's sarcasm didn't translate well. First of all, as the Strategy Page post notes, the US Navy isn't going to be stopped by twenty missile boats. Second, and more importantly, we've got a couple of options when it comes to making a move on Iran besides approaching via ship from the Gulf.
We've got them virtually surrounded. Almost like it was on purpose or something.
Read the StrategyPage piece. Don't understand what the problem is here.
Me neither. Sure, you'd need to bother to sink them before performing an amphibious landing, but realistically they're not much of a threat and unlikely to survive an airstrike.
And, er, don't we have pretty comprehensive overflight rights from a nation bordering much of Iran? Not to mention lots of troops on the ground...
I almost feel like I'm reading satire.
Sorry guys. Was in "Murdoc" mode a bit deep, I guess. I added an update.
The sarcasm was kind of funny, and kind of hard not to get if you've been reading WoC.
Cheers
--Fred
Obviously the patrol boats have no bearing on a US amphibious assault of Iran.
But that doesn't change the fact that there is no way in hell there will be an attack on Iran w/ ground troops either amphibious or otherwise.
Geez, talk about wishfull if woefully ill informed thinking!
No, there will not likely be a ground attack on Iran. I think we could do it: just declare that our intent is not to build a democracy in Iran; we're busy next door. That way we could go in, destroy the government and the nuclear programs, and maybe occupy the oil fields and terminals, keeping the revenue in trust for the people of Iran once they had gotten a new government up and running.
I'm not saying that this is the best course, though. A better course would be air strikes, as in the Kosovo war, targetted at killing the nuclear program, the terrorists and training camps, government buildings and employees (we need to stop bombing empty buildings: it's the people who matter more than the facilities), and civilian infrastructure like power, water and transportation (not the oil, though). And just keep that up until the Iranians agree to terms. An even better option would be to halt the Iranian nuclear program with diplomatic means, sanctions and the like. But let's face it, that will not happen, because Iran desperately wants, and believes it needs, nuclear weapons.
The Israelis may provide a deus ex machina, but if they do, it's an indication that we let things go on too long.
Americans will suffer a lot in the name of supporting self government.
The corruption of the Vietnamese government is where support started to go bad in that war.
Some thoughts on finding and attacking the Iranian nuke facilities.