Air war question

[Grumbler]

The language you stressed I believe to be true. The potential for action against Iran is not a global confrontation as much as the US wants it to be one. Without straying into current events, the fact is that "mass on mass" military engagements are a thing of the past.

The factors that are key to winning military conflicts today are, IMO, (1) information and intel (and the technology that goes with these), (2) public relations, (3) a strong Gross Domestic Product, and (4) well defined goals to keep the PR campaign focused.

Your points all add up to the indirect approach to winning wars. Avoid strength on strength, because it is wastefull. Attack the enemies weakness, no matter what it is.
The real effect of the allied bombing campaign in the ETO was to break the blitzkrieg by tricking the enemy into removing it's key component, Close Air Support. This was not intentional. Air Forces of that period were still wedded to Douhet's (sp?) theories on Strategic Bombing. Air Superiority is a post WW2 concept. The Technology of that period was not able to support the Douhert concept of breaking the enemies will thru bombing.
Ultimatly ALL warfare is about breaking the enemies will to resist.
That is all the current emphisis on Indirect warfare is. The Will to resist is the 'center of gravity' in modern warfare.
As far as Iran goes, they are ideal for testing to see if Douhert's theory is valid. Another test might be a better way to see it, since Kosovo was the first test to see if semi-modern weapons would do what the 4-engine bomber and iron bombs couldn't. Iran is as modern a third world country as it gets. Their infastructure is as advanced as some European Countries. Plenty of targets there. Let Iran see how they like doing without a power grid, bridges, rail trandport, water treatment stations, etc. Iran can be bombed back to the stone age, which Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't since they were already there. Stealth bombers with PGM's could become the 21st century version of the English Man-o-War that spread 'civilization' (or at least the English version of it) around the world in the 17th and 18th centuries.
One note. While mass on mass in a thing of the past, that does not preclude it from also being the future. American Armies are unbeatable in the field, which is why our enemies are using the indirect approach to attack our will to win. If the US loses it's technical edge, then Mass on Mass will make a comeback. The Indirect approach is as unproven as Douhert's theory. It has worked once against America (Vietnam). Once is NOT a trend, nor a valid statistical sample.
I also disagree with the idea that coalition warfare is neccessary, or desirable in the case of Iran. That, however is a different topic for a different day.