Originally Posted by citanon

I think the trouble with trying to provoke an Iranian response to justify full blown offensive operations from nearby states is that Iran's response would not only have to be forceful, and obvious, it would also have to be immediate and non-defensive. Unless offensive operations were sustained and effective, Iran could opt not to play that game and instead choose to ramp up insurgent activity in Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation while seeking to strike at US support and escort ships and other targets of opportunity directly related to the striking groups. Israel's fight against Hezbollah last year and past NATO operations against Serbia seems to cast doubt on the ability of a pure air campaign to force Iran into strategic concessions, especially if the Iranians hunkered down and used political means to hamper US operations. In the present political climate, the ultimate duration of such a campaign in the absence of rash Iranian response is also likely to be short.

On the US side, even without explicit permission for offensive operations from their soil, presumably USAF tankers, support craft and defensive combat screens could allow one or two carrier groups positioned outside restricted waters of the Persian Gulf to sustain a higher tempo of offensive operations than they could alone. These could act in conjunction with long ranged bombers flown from outside the Middle East. With aid of the regional Combined Air Operations Center coordinating assets, maybe this could be quite seemless. Would such an operation do enough damage to Iran to force an immediate reaction?

Also, the CAOC is a fixed target at a fixed location. Could the Iranians seek to limit US air operations tempo via political means, then use the opportunity to attack that location with a concentrated ballistic missile strike? (I realize that this is not necessarily consistent with the hunker-down plan.)

Finally, would Israel initiate a new war against Hezbollah in coordination with US action?