[larnmar]

If casualties are zero, we can laugh it off as an impotent hissy fit by an incompetent adversary.

If casualties are non-zero, the President will be obliged to carry out his “52 targets” threat. This is probably the right move — don’t play tit-for-tat against a less powerful adversary, instead immediately escalate to a level they can’t possibly match.

Unfortunately Iran’s air defences are more potent than anyone the US has bombed recently, so we might be about to find out just how good US technology really is.

What happens next? I’m not sure. I can’t imagine the US committing to a ground invasion of Iran, but it should be possible with an air campaign to reduce Iran to the level of a 2000-era Iraq.

Edit: President Trump’s latest “all is well” tweet, and his intention to hold off on doing a briefing until tomorrow, seems to imply that US casualties were zero after all and that he’s chosen the “laugh it off” response, which is a great relief to me.

[mc32]

Those bases house American, allied/coalition and Iraqi soldiers. The US forces will respond regardless what the casualty count looks like. Something like that even if they missed can’t be ignored.

[dogma1138]

Iranian air defenses are on about the same level as Syria and Israel has been running circles around those.

The US might actually get to use it’s SEAD capabilities for a change....

[larnmar]

You could well be right, maybe Iran’s air defences are on a par with Syria’s.

I’ve suddenly realised something important — I’m commenting on important issues based on nothing but information gleaned from probably equally ignorant comments posted somewhere else. Why the heck am I doing this? I’m no expert on Iranian military capabilities.

Why do we all feel compelled to pollute the Internet with our ill-informed speculation on important issues?

I feel like I should just quit commenting on anything outside the narrow areas in which I’m a proper expert, and so should everyone else.