Subject: Re: WHY does Israel have to wait for
It would seem to me to be ill-advised to cross Iraq and attack Kuwait. We would see them coming. It would be a "Highway of Death" all over again. Total massacre.

Perhaps - but it's not entirely clear whether we could or would do that again. Operation Desert Shield (the first phase of the Gulf War) was a six-month deployment of massive amounts of military resources to the Gulf. We sent carriers, multiple aircraft fighter wings, and a host of other assets that were built up over that half a year. We were prepared to annihilate a large ground force, with the full cooperation of nearly all of the other countries of the region to allow us to use their territory for staging and deployment. And we had the full backing of the UN. In other words, we were the Good Guys, leading the Coalition of Nearly Everybody.

The war being described here wouldn't be like that. It's unlikely we would be in that same type of preparedness posture - we're not going to have that type of force arrayed in the Gulf. We're not going to be operating under a UN resolution authorizing us to attack Iran, either - so assembling that type of force in the Gulf is going to be enormously provocative and draw the opposition of a number of countries, who may choose to deploy to that area as well. It's also pretty durn unlikely that the U.S. electorate would support the expense of that kind of overwhelming firepower to go after an Iran that's done nothing more than supply rebels in a civil war we care nothing about.

Plus, as I alluded to above, Iran may also feel that they've got no choice but to uncork a decent-sized attack against Israel. It's a tough call - on the one hand, Israel's got the top military in the region. On the other hand, Iran is much worse off if the other Gulf States support the US in their attacks on Iran, and the only thing that could dissuade them is a reluctance to enter the conflict on the side of Israel.

Though they could use their subs to harass (directly) sea traffic. Diesels are very quiet, and difficult to detect. When we engage in wargames with allied nations, sometimes one of their diesels gets close enough to score a "kill" on one of our supercarriers. They are more than adequate to patrol coastal waters, and the entirety of the Gulf.

Exactly. They can't directly support their infantry, but they can harry the naval resources that the US would rely on to attack their infantry, which helps a little - and make it harder for us to move resources into Kuwait by sea. To say nothing of jeopardizing shipping in the Gulf.

I think the bigger worry would be China getting more of a beachhead in the middle east at Iran's invitation. But that might happen anyway. There's nothing stopping Iran from issuing such an invite tomorrow.

Except it's a big step to cede sovereignty and allow a foreign power to have a military presence in your country - 'cause once they're there, it's really hard to get them out (hi, Guantanamo Bay!). Iran's more allied to China than the US, but it's not like China's been all that kind to their Muslim population, and there are some real issues there. But having your navy slaughtered and your air force decimated might drive you to pledge fealty to any superpower that can protect you. It's these types of exigent circumstances and desperate crises that give rise to those bases getting established. That's how we got our bases in Kuwait and Iraq, after all. Again, it's the unforeseen consequences - we attacked Iraq and that allowed Iran to enter their sphere of influence. It would be ironic if a massive attack on Iran could unlock the region for a greater Chinese footprint.