Abu Wabu

Back in January, after the Iranians ditched the Vienna summit, the blogosphere erupted with "what ifs?" I was one of them, contending that if this spat did come to fisticuffs it would come in the form of a Desert Fox style air campaign, not a ground offensive.
In the latest from the Weekly Standard, retired Air Force General and former fighter pilot Tom McInerney envisions a similiar war option. General McInerney asks: What would an effective military response look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft, including B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados, and F-18s. Roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft would be deployed, along with 100 unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used.
The objective would be, first and foremost, to destroy or severely damage Iran's nuclear development and production facilities and put them out of commission for at least five years. Another aim would be to destroy the Iranian air defense system, significantly damage its air force, naval forces, and Shahab-3 offensive missile forces. This would prevent Iran from projecting force outside the country and retaliating militarily. The air campaign would also wipe out or neutralize Iran's command and control capabilities.
This force would give the coalition an enormous destructive capability, since all the bombs in the campaign feature precision guidance, ranging from Joint Direct Attack Munitions (the so-called JDAMS) to laser-guided, electro-optical, or electronically guided High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) for suppression of Iranian surface-to-air missiles. This array of precision weapons and support aircraft would allow the initial attacks to be completed in 36 to 48 hours.
You know, that sounds an awful lot like Operation Desert Fox to me, an idea that I caught some flak for back in January (many readers found it to be too weak and temporary of a solution to the thirty-year Iranian question). It never fails to amaze me that after a century of air power completely changing a millenium's worth of tactics, doctrine, and applying force on the battlefield we still underestimate the destructive capability of air war.
It is because our supremacy in air and space are so well defined that arguments over "nuclear bunker busters" and "OIF II" are completely irrelevant and moot. We can do the job without resorting to our last line of defense, nukes, or committing ground forces needed elsewhere to a new Iranian theatre, something both the West and the Iranians understand.

# posted by Yr. Fthfl. Svnt. @ 1:28 AM