If Cheney was given the word in May, then it doesn't really explain why the administration were still trying to talk up military action against Iran in late November, a full month after the NIE blew their case out of the water. I confess I saw no diminution in the rhetoric till people started laughing at them.
Iran knows better than to fire missiles in the direction of the "nation in the gulf most armed to the teeth". I can't believe for a minute the Saudis were concerned about that. 'Sides, if it came to a shooting war with the US, the Iranians have got 140,000 hostages up for grabs (literally) 50 miles from their border, why get involved in risky shit with Saudi ?
Still, the northern anbar field point ins well made, but I can't see the Sunni Iraqis giving that up cos it's their only asset. keep to the Fen Causeway
The U.S. 'hostages' were not really in danger of frontal assault or of encirclement. The danger to them was mostly logistical - that is, they - and the local oil-producers - are dependent on ship support. My reading says that the missiles that the Russkies supplied were all about the shipping.
As far as "armed to the teeth", the Saudi army is about as unproven as the army of Costa Rica at present. They haven't picked on anyone other than a few women car-drivers and some token 'terrorists' in a number of decades. As to their air force - appears to be largely fighters - air-to-air mostly - again, untested - how capable against modern SAMS? paul spencer
