Trump in attack mode vis a vis Iran

President Trump has given every indication that he plans to launch limited bombing raids on selected Iranian military targets to encourage the Tehran regime to bow to his wishes. However, based on Iran’s previous responses to US and Israeli military strikes and the determination of the regime to hang on to power, Trump could find himself confronting a larger-scale war with potentially unpredictable consequences, none of which would meet the president’s primary objective – to force Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, to stop the country’s uranium-enrichment programme. As a result of this uncertainty, why is Trump so eager now to resort to military action once again? Does he really think it will be easy, as he claims his top military adviser, General Dan Kaine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested? What are Trump’s mission objectives? It could be argued that the main mission, the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, has already been achieved. Operation Midnight Hammer last June caused severe damage to Iran’s three main nuclear plants. Trump warned at the time he would come back for more if Iran tried to rebuild the facilities. But there is no evidence that any of the targeted plants are being reconstructed, let alone operational. So, an attack on the crippled nuclear sites would be largely symbolic. Far greater a threat are Iran’s ballistic missiles which have multiplied since Operation Midnight Hammer. Missile production plants, targeted in the joint US/Israeli raids in June, were damaged but not beyond repair, and now, according to Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, “our missile power today far surpasses that of the 12-day war [the June attacks]”. Medium and intermediate-range ballistic missile launchers are reported to have been deployed to western and southern coastline positions in readiness for attacks on US forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, and against Israel. If regime-change is on Trump’s list of mission objectives, a limited bombing campaign would not achieve that. Long-lasting regime change requires “boots on the ground”, and Trump is not going to order troops into Iran. Only Israel, with its unique Mossad capabilities embedded in Iran, could attempt a ground-based targeting of regime heads. But even if partially successful, it would not bring about a new-look government in Tehran which would satisfyTrump. Is the US military ready and what difference has it made that the UK has banned bombing flights from British bases? Judging by the massive redeployments of fighter aircraft and bombers in recent weeks, sufficient firepower is now in place for a short-lived attack operation. But the UK government decision and similar restraints imposed by countries in the Middle East (notably Jordan and Qatar) have forced US Central Command – in charge of the planned strikes – to rewrite the mission blueprint. RAF Fairford, RAF Lakenheath and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean had to be crossed off. As a result, a dozen F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, one of America’s most advanced combat jets, flew out of the UK last week and are now based in Israel which, unlike Britain, will be happy to have the aircraft on its territory, either for bombing raids on Iran or to help protect Israeli cities from retaliatory strikes by Iranian ballistic and cruise missiles. Diego Garcia, the key British-owned (still) base for US long-range strategic bombing missions, is currently full of American military aircraft, notably F-16s and a range of air-refuelling tankers, but no B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. The F-16s would be there to protect Diego Garcia from Iranian attack. Six B-2s arrived in Diego Garcia in April last year for attacks on the Houthis in Yemen, after permission was granted by the UK government. This time, as with the Midnight Hammer operation last June, if B-2s are used, they will have to fly from their base in Missouri – a round trip of about 13,700 miles, double the distance from Diego Garcia and back. Why now and what could go wrong? A limited strike, especially if the US is joined by the Israeli air force, would unquestionably cause huge damage to targeted sites in Iran. The US has Tomahawk cruise missiles on board many of the 17 or so warships in the region, as well as the most advanced precision weapons carried by ground-attack aircraft on the two nuclear-powered carriers off Iran and in the eastern Mediterranean. Trump it seems was initially stirred to action by the deaths of thousands of protesters opposing the Tehran regime. But the build-up of US firepower has laid the foundations for a potential historic confrontation between Washington and Tehran. Is this really what Trump wanted, or has the massive show of force taken over the debate and added a momentum too rapid to stop? Prior to war, military commanders give their assessment of likely casualties. The worst-case scenario might be grim reading. In recent confrontations, Iran retaliated in relatively low--profile manner. The deployment of ballistic-missile launchers along the coast suggests Tehran has a mind to answer back with maximum force. American and Israeli lives will be at risk. BUY AGENT REDRUTH, MY SPY THRILLER. AMAZON, ROWANVALE BOOKS, WATERSTONES.