@alexbruesewitz What a patronising piece of arse. She is surely entitled to her opinion on this geopolitical mess. If Trump didn’t have the balls to finish the job, he should have stayed out.
If accurate, such an operation would have gone well beyond simply increasing the tempo of the current air campaign. According to CENTCOM, US forces have already struck more than 10,000 targets during months of operations against Iran. Despite that sustained campaign, Iran has retained the ability to launch ballistic missile and drone attacks against US forces, regional partners, and commercial shipping.
Producing a fundamentally different military outcome would likely have required weeks or months of sustained, high intensity, multi domain operations targeting not only missile launchers and air defenses, but also Iran's command & control network, hardened underground facilities, military industrial base, logistics infrastructure, and strategic military assets. In other words, the objective would likely have shifted from degrading Iranian capabilities to systematically dismantling them.
One notable observation, however, is that there has been no publicly visible surge in US combat aircraft, aerial refueling assets, ISR platforms, or logistics aircraft into the CENTCOM theater that would ordinarily be expected to sustain a significantly larger air campaign. Flight tracking has documented routine rotations and localized movements but not the type of sustained buildup typically associated with a major expansion of combat operations, similar to what was seen in the lead up to operations in the Middle East and Caribbean. Unless the initial phase of such a campaign was intended to be generated largely from CONUS based forces or relied on capabilities not readily observable, the visible force posture has not reflected the scale implied by the administration's statement.
The regional consequences also would likely have extended well beyond Iran itself. During the most recent escalation, following US strikes on bridges near Bandar Abbas, Iran expanded its retaliation by targeting infrastructure in Gulf states that supported operations against Iranian territory. A substantially larger US campaign would have increased the likelihood of sustained attacks against US bases, ports, airfields, energy infrastructure, and other strategic facilities across the Gulf.
That has important implications for regional air and missile defense. Even during the recent tit-for-tat attacks, the US and its partners expended significant numbers of Patriot and other interceptor missiles defending military installations and critical infrastructure. A more intense campaign would almost certainly have accelerated interceptor expenditure rates across the region, further straining available inventories.
From the available information, this appears to be more rhetoric than reality. It's unknown whether the conflicting messaging from both sides is intentional misdirection or if it actually reflects reality.
@seifa_zagrosi چرند محض. کناب سفرنامه های اروپایی هایی که توکوه های لرستان سفرکردن یا دنبال آثار باستانی بودن رو بخون تا ببینی تا قبل از رضا شاه کبیر لزستان چه جای ترسناک و فقیزی بود. خیلی از لرها از راه زنی درآمد داشتن. فقر بی سوادی بیماری بیداد می کرد.