Bush Iran War Plans - 4 Strike Groups in the Persian Gulf

I wouldn't put any carriers in the Med. No point in relying on allies that
have to share a border with Iran

Carrier's don't often enter the Persian Gulf, they prefer not to
transit the Strait of Hormuz choke point and to stay out in the Arabian
Sea. As such, their strike aircraft would have a difficult time getting
to targets in NW Iran, including Tehran.

They would HAVE to have two carriers in the NE Med, with in-flight
refueling over Turkey to cover that area. This is the same thing they
did during the Iraq invasion.

We also have a functioning Air Force base at Kirkuk, Iraq. There is a
squadron of F-16's based there.

Of course, they can conduct a single heavy strike at any time with what
is currently on-station.

In that scenario, the CAWs and F-16 squadron would just provide force
protection (CAP, BARCap, SEAD). The carrier's escorts would conduct
cruise missle strikes with their BGM-109's, in coordination with
AGM-86Cs from B-52s out of Diego Garcia. Then you'd have B-1s and B-2s
conducting precision strikes using GAMs and JDAMs.

This can be done at any time within a couple of day's notice, which is
why those patrol stations are always maintained, it just can't be
sustained without additional assets.

Airyx wrote:


We also have a functioning Air Force base at Kirkuk, Iraq. There is
a squadron of F-16's based there.

Of course, they can conduct a single heavy strike at any time with
what is currently on-station.

In that scenario, the CAWs and F-16 squadron would just provide force
protection (CAP, BARCap, SEAD). The carrier's escorts would conduct
cruise missle strikes with their BGM-109's, in coordination with
AGM-86Cs from B-52s out of Diego Garcia. Then you'd have B-1s and
B-2s conducting precision strikes using GAMs and JDAMs.

This can be done at any time within a couple of day's notice, which
is why those patrol stations are always maintained, it just can't be
sustained without additional assets.


Any strike on Iran from an Iraqi base would simply be politically
suicidal. We would weld the Shiite lunatics into a single anti
American force

"Iran, which President Bush dubbed one of three nations in an "axis of
evil," has become Iraq's closest ally after the United States, and the
countries' new relationship is a dramatic turnabout after decades of
tension, highlighted by the 1980-88 war that resulted in more than a
million casualties. It is a major shift even from the tentative ties
established last year by the U.S.-appointed interim government of Prime
Minister Ayad Allawi, which often charged that Iran was meddling in Iraq."

Iran, Iraq Herald 'New Chapter' in Shiite-Led Alliance
Former Enemies to Forge Closer Ties On Security, Economy, Leaders Say
By Andy Mosher and Robin Wright
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 17, 2005; Page A21

Of course we routinely demonstrate our contempt for our puppet
government in Iraq, but attacking Iran from Iraq would force our puppets
to attack us or flee the country in the last helicopter flying out of
Baghdad

Bush made the Shiite alliance
Now we have to live with it

Vince

Airyx wrote:
I wouldn't put any carriers in the Med. No point in relying on allies that
have to share a border with Iran

Carrier's don't often enter the Persian Gulf, ...

Thay have in fact been doing so on a regular basis since 1990.

MW

Mike Weeks wrote:
Airyx wrote:
I wouldn't put any carriers in the Med. No point in relying on allies that
have to share a border with Iran

Carrier's don't often enter the Persian Gulf, ...

Thay have in fact been doing so on a regular basis since 1990.

I know that they have, but most of the time they stay out in the
Arabian Sea, and in a conflict situation with Iran, transiting the
strait would be asking for trouble, when it isn't necessary.

Airyx wrote:
Mike Weeks wrote:
Airyx wrote:
I wouldn't put any carriers in the Med. No point in relying on allies that
have to share a border with Iran

Carrier's don't often enter the Persian Gulf, ...

Thay have in fact been doing so on a regular basis since 1990.

I know that they have, but most of the time they stay out in the
Arabian Sea,

Only when they shift to lend direct support for OEF (such as what
Enterprise has been doing recently [she's back in the Gulf, having had
a port call at Jebel Ali, departing on Oct. 23]) -- otherwise when they
enter the Fifth Fleet area of operations, they proceed into the Gulf.
It's more a case of occasionally not being in the Gulf.

and in a conflict situation with Iran, transiting the
strait would be asking for trouble, when it isn't necessary.

That depends on the ROEs ... g

and in a conflict situation with Iran, transiting the
strait would be asking for trouble, when it isn't necessary.

That depends on the ROEs ... g

The only ROE which could provide secure passage through the straits for a
carrier in a war with Iran would be one where the Iranian side of the
straits was first bombarded with nukes to maybe a hundred miles inland.
I doubt we'll see that anytime soon.