Obama administration officials. Unsurprising. Still, certainly worth keeping in mind. I can't imagine that the United States would engage Iran in full-scale war though. Iran would be the most powerful country fought by America since WWII. Iran's terrain, air defense network and myriad other factors would make such a conflict miserable for everyone involved. Even if America engaged Iran in only a limited air campaign, US would still have to contend with Iran's air defenses. Both USAF and USN would have to be prepared to take losses, both in aircraft and warships. This is to say nothing of the losses and expenses involved in a ground war. Even if the "conflict" was extremely limited, after Jimmy Carter every POTUS must be terrified by the prospect of a war with Iran, on some level. Even attacking Iranian forces in only Syria would run a considerable risk of a rapidly widening conflict.krzepice1976 said:
Saudi Arabia is suffering severe financial troubles, resulting in large part from the Saudi war in Yemen. I'm not sure that the Saudi military can fight a two-front war, and I'm not sure that the Saudi economy could sustain both wars, especially if Iran engages in successful interdiction. For Saudi Arabia to lead the effort against Iran would be to risk the collapse of the House of Saud. What's more, Saudi Arabia recently remarked that it desired for America to lead the effort against ISIS, and Iran. I can only conclude that Saudi Arabia would at best play a minor supporting role. Even a minor support role may risk the collapse of the House of Saud, however.krzepice1976 said:
The Russians would like nothing better than for Saudi Arabia to give the Bear a reason to bomb Saudi oil fields.ThunderStealer said:
PeacePlease said:
