I was equally upset to hear this view repeated unanimously (and identically) by a variety of people on national TV yesterday, coming from Senators McCain, Schumer, George Allen and John Warner as well as official spokespersons from State and the NSC. It was as if they were all reading from the same artfully crafted briefing sheet handed to them by some staffer who got it straight from either JINSA or the Washington Institute.

Richardson, Bayh, even Howard Dean (!) this morning are trying to position Democrats to the right of the Republicans in unconditional support of Israel. 

To me it looks like the neocons have all but completed a coup.  They have manipulated the Democratic Party into affirming their foreign policy. 

If you oppose your very scary scenerio, you have no major party left to make a case against blundering into a wider war.

My advice to politicians is to forget positioning and framing and such.

My advice is to investigate, think and talk as if you were in office and really had to deal with the problems.  If you are in a public office you are accountable to the public.  I grant no one the excuse that they are not in power.

I have come to the conclusion that all the main players in the Middle East are blind and delusional fools. Olmert. Bush. Blair. Rice. Maybe even Nasrallah too.

In this war of the blind, the only winner will be whoever can see with one eye.

It was this op-ed in Haaretz yesterday that swung me.

It sounds as if the administration is again seeing what it wants to see, a forest when it should be seeing trees.

The blitzkrieg in Lebanon demonstrates an abiding belief in some circles that you can pound your opponents into submission with airstrikes.

The military doesn't believe it, but no-one's listening to them.

Larry, do you pass on your information directly to any members of Congress? Seems like they're not getting the things you tell us.

Larry: Your and your friend's complaint is that the US administration shouldn't divide the whole world into two camps: The very very good (that's us and our friends) and the very very bad (that's everyone else).

Now you're being very demanding, Larry!

2 is a big number, you know. You don't expect us to count to 3, do you?

And yo, Johnson, remember this: Russia is big and so is China.

It is troubling that at the heart of our politicians claim of Syrian and Iranian control of Hizbullah, it is impossible to find any analysis of motives and goals. It is as if they all believe that Syria and Iran are being run by unpredictable madmen, unable to act rationally.

This is certainly not the case, and the advancement this idea that they are insane, coupled with their continued governance, contributes to the perception that Syrians and Iranians are less than human. Dehumanising the enemy is a method for making war palatable.

A recent brief published by The Power and The Interest News Report (PINR) offers some insight into the motivations and goals behind Syrian and Iranian support of Hamas and Hizbullah.

"...Iran's and Syria's support for these militant groups are a result of their policy at preventing an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Both states want to hamper the search for an agreement because such an agreement would be against their current interests. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians means the end of the "Palestinian question," which is the sacred cow of Islamic grievances and Arab nationalism. As a result, the Islamic and Arabs regimes could lose a formidable propaganda instrument.

From a geopolitical point of view, such a peace could be a serious strategic challenge for Syria and Iran. For Syria, it means that its position toward Israel will be weaker than it is now. A weakened position would damage Syria's future negotiations with Israel on the return of the Golan Heights. For Iran, an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement could lead toward a pacification of relations between Israel and the Arab states. This pacification could increase Iran's geostrategic perception of being isolated in the region. Moreover, Iran wants to retain Hezbollah as a potential instrument against other Arab regimes. The Iranian leadership wants to continue to demonstrate Shi'a friendship with the Palestinians since this propaganda weapon assists Iran's search for a prominent role in the Middle East region.

"The Role of Iran and Syria in the Israel-Lebanon Crisis", The Power and The Interest News Report, 20 July 2006

Larry,

There's a lot of accusation of civilian targeting and disproportionality, and no really good substantiation. Do you think it would be feasible and useful for the US to publish, with due regard to system capability, analyzed imagery of both sides of the border, especially bomb damage assessment?

No, I'm not talking about full-resolution KH-12 output. If such platforms were used, it's fair enough to degrade the picture quality. UAVs might be appropriate, especially if low-observability.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Well, they wounded two more UN peacekeepers today. Hard to believe that's random chance.

The Bush administration never really let go its initial judgement that terrorism was a state sponsored enterprise and that the way to deal with terrorism was to combat rogue states.

As nearly as I can tell, there was never any substantive justification for that view. The linkages between terrorist groups and states is sketchy at best, and major 'operations' on behalf of states are much more likely to be conducted by the intelligence and covert operations detachments of those states, rather than by semi-free lance terrorists.

Oddly, the only recent historical example of 'rogue state terrorism' wherein a state supported, maintained and directed an actual terrorist organization would be Reagan's Central American wars, particularly the Nicaraguan Contras, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

It's noteable that many of the people involved in those operations wound up back in the Bush administration in fairly prominent positions.

Projection, perhaps? These guys were up to their elbows in other peoples blood. Maybe they're just assuming that everyone else has to do it that way. Maybe its how they live with themselves and what they did.

In any event, any substantive analysis of Hezbollah, its history, personnel, funding and operations don't go far towards making it anyone's puppet. Rather, it seems to be a grass roots organization, partly self funded, partly funded by outside entities, including Iran and Syria. It appears to have strong ties to both these states, but was adept at playing them off against each other. Bottom line, its a free agent.

PS: I've been away for a while, but correct me. The suggestion that American troops form part/all of the international Lebanese peacekeeping mission... That was by a syphilitic drug addled crack whore suffering from a head injury, wasn't it? No one is insane enough to take that suggestion seriously, are they?

Doubtful a war with Iran is in the offing. Granted U.S. military success would be more likely in Iran than Iraq, yet the entire premise is unlikely.

The U.S. military can and will defeat any standard army. Like Iraq it would likely succeed at pushing the Iranian resistence back into Tehran and other big cities; but also like Iraq its success would likely end there and things would stall.

Complete enemy capitulation is simply not possible unless the U.S. military is allowed to use its entire aresenal of weapons. This, by implication, includes the ability to bomb without discrimination; thus increasing dramatically civilian deaths.

More than likely what we are seeing is a two-pronged hope.

1)U.S. forces will help Iraq stabalize itself in the long term.

2)Israeli forces will help Lebanon stabalize itself in the long term.

A Democratic Iraq and Lebanon, it would seem, would be a good counter to the Iran/Syria influence.

The problem is that this might be wishful thinking though it is absolutely too early too early to tell.

American opinion on the war and American FP re the ME is anything but "clear":

http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm

The Bush administration never really let go its initial judgement...

See, that's where we keep making this huge mistake. Initial judgment? Haven't we learned yet that there is no connection between Bush policy and reality, Cheney motivation and known facts.

Judgment isn't part of their vocabulary. The Administration doesn't comb through intelligence reports looking for truth; it leafs through them through looking for shards of justification and/or who to get rid of within the intelligence agencies if they're not coming up with enough shards.

We're almost six years into Bush & Co. Let's look at what they've actually done as a surefire way of predicting what they're going to do next! Kah-boom.

Oddly, the only recent historical example of 'rogue state terrorism' wherein a state supported, maintained and directed an actual terrorist organization would be Reagan's Central American wars, particularly the Nicaraguan Contras, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

Is it a cheap shot to say I'm wondering whether the US in the first 8 years of the 21st century might qualify as an historical example? I'd call our current leadership very high maintenance rogues.

One of the surprising aspects of the Israeli/Hezbollah war is that a clear majority of Americans support Israel's position.

America's darling and protege, the 51st state, the 'can do' country versus ... a bunch of smelly, swarthy Arabs worshipping a strange god, speaking an unfamiliar language and eating suspect cuisine?

Yes, it certainly is surprising that a majority of Americans support Israel's position, or at least, such of Israel's position as they understand. For the record, let me also note that it is equally surprising that the moon turns out not to be made of cheese and that the sun manages not to fall out of the sky and incinerate us all. We must admit to startlement that dogs bark and fish swim in water, which water amazingly turns out to be wet.

Given the historical narrative of Israel in American culture, as opposed to whatever narrative exists for Hezbollah or Arabs in general, popular support for Israel seems as obvious as falling off a log.

I suspect that anti-Arab racism may also have a bit to do with it. Very few politicians in America ever went too badly wrong betting on the inherent racism of their constituents.

Personally, I'd have to say that a 'progressive war' is a contradiction in terms.

The NVA/VC was not a standard army, nor did they employ standard military tactics. The same, obviously, can be said for Iraqi insurgents.

A fight with North Korea or China would be interesting. If fought on a "battlefield" I do believe U.S. forces could absolutely defeat it. Air power and superiority of artillery would make it a close contest.

In my post, however, I was actually acknowledging that an Iranian invasion would fail. I tried to say that like Iraq our forces would push the Iranian army easily out of the open countryside but would then get bogged down in an urban setting in which no victory could be achieved.

Bush administration never really let go its initial judgement that terrorism was a state sponsored enterprise and that the way to deal with terrorism was to combat rogue states.

This is exactly right.

The Adminstration cannot fathom a foreign policy world of nonstate actors so they make into a world they want - dominated and controlled by state actors where non state actors are puppets.

Iran bankrolls Hezbollah, and supplies it with its missiles and rockets.

Well, Hezbollah has several sources of funding, including Iran, Syria, Shiites in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, local Shiites in Lebanon and itd own business enterprises. We don't know what proportion of funding Iran supplies, we can estimate that it is substantial, it may not be determinative.

There are Iranian Revolutionary Guards (ballistics experts, I'd guess) with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I've seen no current evidence of this (as opposed to ten or twenty years ago). The only evidence or assertions comes from Israel, which is hardly credible on this point.

Doesn't this give Teheran some leverage over Hezbollah?

Some, I would assume.

How much, and just how it plays out, are very hard to ascertain, but my guess would be that the leverage is considerable.

Given that it is not the sole funding source, and perhaps not a crucial funding source, and given the unlikelihood of actual operational ties through personnel... some leverage, but how much and under what circumstances is questionable. They might have substantial influence in peacetime, no influence in war.

There's also the Shiite connection between Iran and Hezbollah.

True.

Sure, no Arab is going to want to be the mere puppet of the Persians, but there are many gradations in between that and independence. Exactly where Hezbollah is located would be important to know,

Agreed.

Iranian C-800 series antiship missiles apparently are based on reverse engineering of the second-generation French Exocet. According to globalsecurity, Iran may be able to make this missile itself.

While there's no question the Exocet has been effective, sinking British ships in the Falklands (1982), and damaging US ships in the nineties, with some of the US damage control based on lessons learned by the British, the Exocet/C-801 is not a first-line antiship missile. It is subsonic like the Harpoon, doesn't have stealth features, and probably can't fly extremely deceptive courses.

The US and Russia have gone in different directions with antiship missiles. Probably the most feared pure antiship missile, launched from a ship, is the supersonic Russian SS-N-22 SUNBURN, closely coupled to the Soveremenyy class destroyers. This class is the most potent antiship destroyer ever built, at the cost of area antiaircraft and more than trivial antisubmarine capability. US destroyers aren't so specialized. The Chinese did buy some Soveremennys from Russia, presumably with SUNBURNs. It is unknown if China has been able to reverse engineer and produce the SUNBURN. If they can't, they certainly aren't going to export a key capability for their ex-Russian destroyers.

As I mentioned, the US has gone in a different direction. Newer destroyers no longer carry the Harpoon, relying on surface-to-surface use of the extremely fast SM-2 ship-launched antiaircraft (and some antimissile) missile, and Norwegian Penguin missiles launched from helicopters flying from US destroyers and cruisers. Harpoon is being modified and enhanced into a weapon for fixed-wing (i.e., carrier or land-based) aircraft, and with improved electronics allowing it to hit land as well as sea targets. Guidance for antiship and land missiles tends to be quite different.

Ballistics is less important here than electronic warfare knowledge, as in Chinese/Iranian counterdetection/counterjamming. If a C-801 is detected, it's within the capabilities of US ship defenses (assuming they are turned on, the problem with one Exocet attack). Especially if the ships are assisted by land- or carrier-based radar planes, the chance of detecting the missile is high.

Should things get nasty in the Persian Gulf, I am far more worried about Iranian submarines, torpedoes, and mines than C-801s. The electronic warfare and self-defense systems of even a US frigate are much more potent than those on smaller Israeli corvettes, presumably of one of the Sa'ar classes. Did anyone hear a specific type identification of the Israeli ship that was hit?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Well, acknowledged. But it's an unsourced anonymous informant, allegedly a diplomat, who seems to be speaking in a very undiplomatic fashion.

Colour me skeptical.

What's interesting is how our supposedly "free" media is acting in lock-step with the Bush cabal and Israel to push this spin that Iran is the cause of the war in Lebanon. Apparently, acting as mere mouthpieces for the old "WMDs in Iraq" spin was not sufficient. Now, read any paper and you're bound to get a dose of the new spin, repeated ad nauseum.

Aside from the old "Yellow Badges for Jews" lie that was cooked by in the Benador Associates spin machine by "middle east expert" Amir Taheri, and then was trumpted by the Murdoch-owned "news" (=propaganda) outlets such as the New York Post (which carried that item on their front pages with 16-point type, even after the story had been discredited) the "regular" media have a way of falling in line.

So, how "free" is our media, really?

Interesting view from a former Iranian official, which our mainstream media and pundits completely ignored (God forbid that the US and Iran start talking and threaten Israel's darling-of-the-Middle-East status!)

Ultimately, the conflict with Lebanon cannot be resolved without some form of political compromise, and Iran has showed in the past that it can play a constructive role in calming the region — as it did in 1993 and again in 1996, in the negotiation of a cease-fire agreement and exchange of prisoners between Lebanon and Israel. In Palestine, Iran can also play a constructive role and help reach a compromise, since other players in that conflict recognize the Islamic Republic as an influential force for stability in the region, while persistent attacks by Israel on the Occupied Territories have in the past merely deteriorated the situation....
Every war ultimately ends with talks. Regional stability serves the interests of Iran, the United States and the rest of the world. Iran is a key player in its region, and can employ its legitimate influence toward calming the situation. Iran and United States have many interests in common, and the two nations can ultimately overcome their differences by emphasizing their common interests.

FROM:
The Forward
http://www.forward.com/articles/8151

Iraq was originally meant to be the staging center for middle east operations, including military aid for Israel, and from what I gather, some of the bases are finished. Your comment made me think that US troops in Iraq don't necessarily mean trouble for Iran. They could mean rescue for Israel, trouble for Syria, etc.

With more troops getting ready to deploy there, it is possible. And after reading about this administration's forgetfulness to tell Blair in Great Britian about US planes full of bombs for Israel, it's not clear what those troops are for.

"It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that chamber." GWB, 4/10/2002

This was a Rovian type of answer because the the NYT poll has 2 questions that go to the heart of US public opinion and Israel and Hezbollah.

What is your overall opinion of Israel? 20% said Very Favorable and 40% said Mostly Favorable. But the next question Should the US government publicly support Israel, or should it say or do nothing?, shows a different result. 39% said Support Israel and 40% said Do Nothing.

"It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that chamber." GWB, 4/10/2002

Well, what a suprise... bona fide Middle East expert declares that Bush Administration has it wrong with respect to Lebanon-Hezbollah-Syria-Iran etc. Big friggin' surprise. Whether the White House baloney is intentional or not, we should already know to handle with immense skepticism everything that Bushco asserts are facts.

But here's another angle for me. Remember how the Neocons tackled the Soviet Union? They presented it, convincingly enough for Reagan, as an "evil empire"... by conflating any vaguely anti-American influence in the world as part of the Kremlin's nefarious network. They saw Soviet fingerprints on every remotely socialist movement anywhere in the world; whether this was true or not, didn't matter. The narrative was key.

Now back at the CIA ranch, you knew that Bill Casey had been taken in by our own black propaganda. The Soviets did meddle abroad, but not as widely or as effectively as Wolfowitz, Perle and co would have us believe. You guys also knew the Soviet Union was collapsing from within. The Red Army was having its ass handed to it in Afghanistan, and no amount of Pravda airbrushing could counter the proliferation of dead sons and husbands. At the same time, nationwide, there were shortages of all essential goods. And not coincidentally, the labor movements in Eastern Europe were gathering steam, and the Communist system was buckling.

You guys at the CIA knew this. You guys knew Gorbachev was brought to the negotiating table not because the Gipper had new arsenal of ICBMs, but because Muscovites were going hungry. You guys knew this. But the Neocons hijacked the narrative and told us that it was their big, swinging dick policies that beat the Russians. And that myth still circulates today.

So how does this relate to the Middle East 2006? Well, now we are being told about Iran's evil empire as underlying the destabilization of the region. Iran has all its glove-puppet jihadists fighting US allies and attacking our interests.

Now what's up with the intelligence agencies this time around? Are they gonna let the Neocons get away with it again? The CIA, DIA, State etc must all know that Iran has given some generous help to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood etc; that they are supportive of the Shiite political movement in Iraq; that they won't disrupt the Taliban insurgency.

But the intelligence agencies must surely know that the leaders of these disparate groups aren't operating at the beck and call of Ayatollah Khomeini - that each movement is multi-faceted in terms of its interests, reflective of the fact it enjoys support from diverse groups. The agencies surely know that Iran, whilst having an interest in keeping these groups effective, doesn't micro-manage their tactics or strategy.

The agencies must surely know that the disparate Shiite Arab groups (like Hezbollah) and Sunni Arab groups (like Hamas) won't take orders from Tehran. They aren't the most natural bedfellows, their association is a matter of convenience rather than loyalty.

But above all else, the agencies must know that Iran is not nearly as powerful as politicians would have us believe. The Ayatollahs and their bagman-president do not exactly have an iron-grip on things at home, and certainly not an all-pervasive influence amongst their Arab neighbors. They are a nuisance, and they aren't easy to deal with (every tried to do business with an Iranian?), but the Iranian rulers can only cause unrest in the region inasfar as conditions permit, only inasfar as the Hezbollah's of this world regard it as in their interest to crank up the violence.

For our part, we gave the extremists the gift of a Iraqi civil war; we had a hand in Palestinian disintegration; and we're pouring petrol on Lebanon. We gave Iran the conditions that have helped the Ayatollahs consolidate power - and they've barely had to lift a finger. My guess has always been that the agencies know this, and now it seems they do.

So let's have more of this Larry. Perhaps a segment called "What the experts know and when they knew it".

Because we sure as heck aren't gonna hear the truth any other way.

If Richad Perle is the Prince of Darkness, then Eliott Abrams is Dr. Evil. Eliott must have suffered a complete loss of self when the USSR tumbled. Lucky for him he has found new and better enemies.

And Ghorbanifar? He's Igor, usually found in the catacombs...eating spiders.

Neoboho

Note that the source is a Turkish newspaper. No US or Iraqi sources were named.

To apply a reality test, I need a good map, as I find at least one possible conflict. The article lists a base in Baghdad (also called Bagdat). Baghdad International Airport was turned over to civilian use, with one of the main purposes of Balad Air Base, 50 miles north of Baghdad, being military air support of Baghdad. Balad, also known as Camp or LSA ANACONDA, is the largest US base in Iraq.

Of the others, without comment on the alleged handover, Nasiriyah is a logical place in SE Iraq, covering Kuwait. Mosul makes sense for Northern Iraq, as it is on the plausible invasion route from Turkey. Kerkuk is also northern, and the center of the northern oil industry.

If this is a legitimate agreement, I'm puzzled why none of the existing air bases in western Iraq, such as H1, H2, and H3, came under the agreement...or some base closer to Syria, even a new one.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yes, H1 through H3 were in oil areas in the west, and were staging bases for SCUDs both fixed and mobile. Without them or an equivalent, the bases don't make sense -- why no forward base against Syria?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Perhaps Syria isn't on our...to do list.

Consider an airmobile operation into Syria. I'm going to cite some general capabilities. Yes, I know they will be affected by air temperature, wind, sling vs. internal load, etc. There may well have been performance tweaks since I looked at the detailed manual; I just have a rather aged Combat Service Support Guide at my fingertips

Especially if there's tanker support, Incirlik is just fine for fixed wing aircraft. The maximum tactical lift distance for a hypothetical CH-47, assuming fuel is prepositioned at the destination, is about 98 miles. If security or ground conditions don't permit ground fuel convoys, you need lots more helicopters shuttling the fuel blivits (flexible fuel bladders) to the next refueling and rearming point.

For smaller helicopters, in combat movements, one handbook recommends keeping tactical movements under 35 miles, presumably establishing temporary support bases every 35 miles or so.

Ideally, if you want to go after a country, and you have air superiority, you put your forward base as close to its border as possible, just outside the range of its long-range weapons -- and if those weapons are significantly inaccurate, you might take a calculated risk.

Your questions make me think you probably understand combat logistics pretty well, but I've found that to be a significant problem in the blogosphere -- people want military actions, but it doesn't even occur to them that the combat forces need fuel, ammunition, food, spare parts, etc., brought constantly to them, and that modern militaries need immense amounts of supplies 24/7. Oh, and don't forget that you have to provide fuel for the fuel trucks and food for the drivers.

*beats head against desk* the logistics for Darfur makes Western Iraq look like the LA freeways, but with no traffic jams.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Tyrannies come in many flavors. This is from an article by Ben McIntyre that originally appeared in the Times of London in 12/05:

With almost all Iran’s reformist newspapers closed down and many editors imprisoned, blogs offer an opportunity for dissent, discussion and dissemination of ideas that is not available in any other forum. There is wistful yearning in many Iranian blogs, and a persistent vein of anger: “I keep a weblog so that I can breath in this suffocating air,” writes one blogger. “I write so as not be lost in despair.” Blogs by Muslim women are particularly moving in their bitter portrayal of life behind the veil.

See http://myotherfellow.blogspot.com/2005/12/mullahs-versus-bloggers.html

Do you really want to argue that the head of an Iranian research institute can publish in an American Jewish newspaper all on his own, and stay out of prison?

The Maleki article is part of an official charm offensive, and its truthfulness -- of lack thereof -- should be judged on that basis.

I believe we should try to reach a grand bargain with Iran, but first we have to understand the regime there.

Larry --

Is this Boston Globe article view an accurate assessment of how Hezbollah operates and what characterizes their "troops."

two Hezbollah fighters described a discipline modeled on the Viet Cong, in which fighters live off the land...and do battle in autonomous groups with little need for command supervision.

[the fighters] credited their devotion to Islam for their success against the Israelis, but they described a meticulous blueprint for guerrilla warfare built around a carefully selected force, whose members begin training at age 14.

strategy of Hezbollah ... the center of the training of the fighter, to make him unafraid of death, so you prefer to die rather than live humiliated."

Hezbollah's tactical goal in the broader war with Israel ... is to inflict maximum casualties on Israelis, and to capture soldiers dead or alive to trade for Hezbollah prisoners held in Israeli jails.

There are qualitative as well as quantitative changes in basing, with several broad programs from the various military services. Some of this comes from increased aircraft range, and also trends that let a lesser number of aircraft or troops do more. Of course, we have to remember, as Rumsfeld sometimes forgets, the most efficient forces can still be only one place at a time.

From the Air Force, we have the philosophy of "Global Reach". All B-2 stealthy heavy bombers are permanently stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. B-1 heavy bombers, which for arms control reasons are at, IIRC, two permanent bases. There's a small number of B-52 bases.

With midair refueling, all these aircraft have intercontinental range. More as a demonstration than anything else, B-52s flew something like a 38-hour mission from US bases to the start of Desert Storm, nonstop back to the US.

In practice, if these bombers have to fly many missions, they may be staged out of a small number of very secure and isolated forward bases, such as Diego Garcia and Guam.

The Navy and Marines' slogan is "From the Sea", with considerable improvement in the flexibility of at-sea task groups. Ampbibious, surface action, and carrier groups are much better integrated than in the past. Again, secure locations such as Guam and Diego Garcia are used to preposition large "warehouse" ships, capable of unloading to a beach as well as ports, that save days of getting to the US.

Realignment of bases in Europe make sense. Many bases in the former West Germany were positioned to fight the Warsaw Pact. There are a few places where Germany is a central location, as for a regional medical center, intelligence centers, etc. As Western European bases close, there is interest in bases in Eastern Europe, closer to potential trouble spots and with a cheaper economy in which to operate.

When one looks at these other approaches, Iraqi bases make less sense, for example, even if a war against Iran were being planned. It's too easy to shut off sealift to Iraq, and ground movements run into the Zagros Mountains. Yes, Iraqi airbases might be useful for targets in northern Iran, but more of the targets are in the south. Southern targets would more likely be hit from seaborne forces, or bases in Kuwait or Qatar.

I will also look for the article about a basing strategy that has both occupied bases as well as bases with everything in place and a light switch ready to be turned on to activate the base when needed.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*