[I've also posted this to a private military mailing list, which includes some of the people that would have to fight. They are a very smart group, mostly senior noncommissioned officers. In most of my career in working with the military, that was with commissioned officers, and it's only been in recent years that I truly understood the non-obvious role of the professional NCO, and the level of knowledge many have. I will try, in this post, to translate some of the military jargon I used in a place where it's understood.]

I am not suggesting any any attack on Iran. If the lunatics in command try it, the less insane course would be air-only. This post is an analysis of the issues if they tried to use ground troops as well.

This morning, the Washington Post reported the Marines are going back to the drawing board for their Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), which is the new name for the replacement for their Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV). Prototype problems appear to have put off production for several years. For those unfamiliar with its role, the EFV is sort of a larger amphibious Bradley (heavy, tracked infantry fighting vehicle [IFV] teamed with tanks) or Stryker (lighter, wheeled IFV more optimized for light or urban fighting, much easier to carry in airplanes), carrying up to a 17 man reinforced squad with a 30mm automatic cannon [a light but potent weapon that can fight infantry, light armored vehicles, and, with luck, older tanks] in its infantry version; there will be a command version in the initial procurement. That procurement is probably deferred by 3 years.

So, if the Marines do go in, they will have to use the 1972-vintage AAAV in this role.

Neither the AAAV or EFV are not as fast in the water as the air-cushion LCAC, but the EFV, especially, has a different role. The LCAC really is ship-to-shore, and can carry 24 troops or an Abrams heavy tank. The EFV goes inland, and is supposed to be as or more mobile than a Bradley. MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor (hybrid helicopter and aircraft that can land vertically) complement the LCAC and EFV on the fast, long-range side, while the LCM (landing craft medium, looking much like its WWII boxy barge predecessors) is the heavy duty, slow, ship-to-shore lifter.

I've been thinking about this with the current saber-rattling at Iran. For an assortment of reasons, mostly engineering, which I'm happy to discuss, I don;t believe Iran is remotely close to a credible nuclear weapons delivery capability. Even if I believed they were, and I wanted to do a preemptive strike, I'd wait until they had installed a LOT more uranium separation centrifuges. The key in attacking a centrifuge array, even assuming they have a better graceful shutdown, is to simultaneously destroy all the electrical power to it (a huge amount, as with gaseous diffusion). At best, if the centrifuges shut down gracefully, they will be clogged with solidified, toxic, varying-degrees-of-radioactive uranium hexafluoride. Generally, it's assumed that if the power just cuts, they will eventually slow down, unbalanced, and catastrophically shake themselves apart; too much power involved for a UPS.

So, as I hope is not done for an assortment of reasons, the most plausible early capability is air strike, probably from B-2's at least in initial waves. Some politicians have alluded to ground invasion, which, with back of the envelope calculations, is nuts -- but I've been thinking about how it could be done.

I've not assumed what a lot of politicians assume "obvious", striking east from Iraq. At the present time, Iraq certainly can't be considered a safe rear area for logistic support, and, before penetrating Iraq near anything of interest, a heavy force would run into the Zagros Mountains and probably have to do an end run.

So what other alternatives exist, and what targets? The Marines have a total of 7 active Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU), which are heavily reinforced battalions: three in the Atlantic and Pacific, and one in Japan. They have some in reserve; normally, of the 3 in an ocean, one is forward-deployed while one is returning/overhaul and one is in CONUS training. Assuming other assets, such as the Maritime Prepositioning Ships, each carrying equipment for a brigade, they could put ashore, especially on undefended coast, somewhere between a division and a light corps. The Iranians significantly outnumber them, but with much of their troops more poorly trained and equipped. Marine doctrine is to land where the coast is undefended.

Where would they hit and where would they go? Landing, I believe, would have to be from the Persian Gulf; amphibious operations in the Strait of Hormuz would be suicidal. Even on the Persian Gulf, they have to figure out how to get continuing supplies; we don't have the WWII Mulberry artificial harbors any more.

I believe the only real alternative would be to move southwest and, with naval and USAF support, attack and capture the port of Bandar Abbas. After Dieppe, I have no reason to believe that direct capture of a port is feasible, although the Airborne and Special Ops may differ -- that would be damned useful if they could, and the Iranian air defense has been suppressed.

Bandar Abbas is a large port and airfield, which dominates the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz. If it could be taken and held quickly, and major damage prevented, it could be a place both to move along the Strait to control it (possibly with a linkup of heavy forces moving southeast from Basra in Iraq), and becoming a support facility that could also land heavy armored forces.

It's still a long, long way from Bandar Abbas to the major cities and nuclear facilities of Iran. As a thought exercise, I wanted to think about how the Poor Bloody Infantry could be used. Overall, I think immediate action against Iran is both insane from a grand strategic standpoint, and, if it included a ground force, potentially suicidal. Given all that, I tried to come up with a scenario that had some chance. I'm sure the Iranians can do the same analysis.