The US will use LACMs, not bombs. Land Attack Cruise missiles. There won't be an invasion, and any idea that the Iranian army would invade Iraq is cuckoo. We already saw what air power does to mechanized troops in the Iraq invasion. But the supply line from Kuwait is indeed a weak link and it is a wonder that it is not more regularly attacked. The trucks never stop coming.

The thinking right now is that the attacks will come before November, to influence the elections.

If the U.S. attacks Iran, Iran may bypass U.S. forces in Iraq entirely and strike out at U.S. allies in the Gulf, particularly Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain. Their main oil production and distribution facilities are on the coast or offshore in the Gulf and are very vulnerable to attack from Iran. Iran also could close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, which would effectively disrupt oil supplies worldwide and cause prices to skyrocket. Despite having the best modern equipment, Gulf militaries are notoriously weak and unreliable, because their rulers don't really want to have them around. While U.S. forces can protect themselves in Iraq, it's absurd to expect them to be able to protect the entire Gulf region. Iran's military is not great, but it's probably more than a match for its neighbors.

I appreciate the substance (if not always the tone) of the critical responses to my imagined military scenario, and I thank everyone for writing. Lacking the time to respond to every letter in detail, let me just say that my 800-word column wasn't intended to set out a complete wargame for Iran, nor to take account of every contingency. But I would like to answer a few points:

The idea that the US cannot "lose" a limited war in the Mideast is a foolish boast that would make the Vietnamese laugh. William F. Buckley Jr. and others have suggested that we are already losing in Iraq. Certainly our troops and officers are dedicated, courageous, well-trained. Indeed, the Bush administration inherited the most powerful armed forces in the world's history, which they have proceeded to abuse and damage. But despite our unrivaled superiority, a Shia uprising in Iraq co would be extremely dangerous to our forces there – and would create severe complications for any conflict with Iran.

I was never among those who predicted that taking Baghdad would lead to thousands of American casualties, because I knew Saddam probably didn't have chemical weapons (and wouldn't dare to use whatever little he might have left over). Moreover, his armed forces were severely weakened and demoralized after a decade of sanctions, as Cheney and Rumsfeld and everyone else knew. That's one reason why Iraq was so easily "doable." Iran is a different matter entirely.

"Yes, they may succeed in cutting a supply line but it wouldn't be for long as hundreds of thousands of pounds of munitions and tank busters etc. (that were developed exactly for that sort of attack) would chew them up," retorts one letter writer.

Yet the possibility that coalition supply lines could be effectively cut is not so farfetched. While air power is often decisive, bombing might serve the purpose of the Iranians in that situation. Why? Because their troops would not be seeking to hold territory, but to destroy roads, bridges, and other facilities used to send supplies northward. (They might try to hold urban areas, where bombing would present different but very serious problems).

Look at a map and you'll see that Iranian troops wouldn't have far to travel to hit those targets. Would we be able to send enough planes to interdict all of them within a few hours, when many of our allies in the region might prohibit us from using their airspace or bases on their territory? Would we be able to prevent Iran's armed allies in Iraq from hitting those same targets?

With Iranians or Iraqis deployed along the highways, bridges, and other transportation lines from the south, our bombing and rocket attacks on them would only accomplish their strategic goal. Our "hundreds of thousands of pounds of munitions and tank busters" would be blowing up those roads and bridges -- leaving them unusable for our convoys.

Again, as I noted twice in the column, this is merely an imagined scenario. Actual events might well occur very differently, and I don't claim to be a military strategist. My only prediction is that like the war in Iraq, an attack on Iran would lead to unforeseen and very grave consequences.

It would appear that the US has declared war on the entire Middle East, and we would no longer be safe at home.

Imagine not being able to walk in the streets of New York at any time without a bomb going off. Imagine three or four of those in major cities, every day. Imagine air strikes as our troops are worn increasingly thin. Our entire infrastructure would collpase as Public Transportation would come to a complete halt. Then there would (have to) be a National Draft...what's frightening is that because of Iraq, we could probably be fighting this on our own...

But, Bush and Cheney have their bunker!

WE NEED TO GET RID OF BUSH AND PUT SOMEONE SENSIBLE IN CHARGE. BUSH NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED - before he places us all in mortal danger.

"The idea that the US cannot "lose" a limited war in the Mideast is a foolish boast that would make the Vietnamese laugh."

Could we "lose" a war in the Middle East? Of course we could, but that's not what your letter was directly addressing. You were stating we'd lose a direct military encounter, and just like in Vietnam, we'd never lose such a direct military engagement.

The problem is that winning wars means more than winning military battles. The United States is exceptional in the ability to win military battles, but we are not that good in winning low intensity wars like are being fought in Iraq at the moment. Our military abilities are geared toward killing the other side, but you can't always just kill everyone you encounter.

When you present scenarios that people with even basic knowldege of US military capabilities see as immpossible, it reduces the weight of your other arguments.

The whole idea of Iran militarily cutting off supply our supply, or that our stopping such an advance would destroy the supplies lines requires an ignorance of how the military operates.

The Iranians could cut oil supplies lines, they could disrupt logistics in the interior of Iraq, they could do all this without ever sending any troops into Iraq, what they can't do is somehow send military forces to capture and hold territory.

Persians are not stupid, their military is not stupid, they know what they can and cannot accomplish, and they will focus on what gives them their best odds of winning and that's not a direct military conflict.

Part of the reason why Iraq is a mess right now is because those who opposed the war presented arguments such as you are advancing right now that showed a lack of military understanding and when such scenarios did not occur, and it was obvious that they wouldn't, the self absorbed lunatics in this administration took that as "Look, see we were right all along."

Obviously the US military would roll over Iraq, and it's just as obvious it would roll over Iran, though it would be a bit harder, what is equally obvious is that this means little to nothing in the long term of winning the war.

Iraq was not going to be won or lost based on who controlled Bagdad, it was going to be won or lost based on how well or poorly the country was run and rebuilt, and we are losing that battle, partly because the critical window of time after Saddam was removed was squandered.

Let's focus less on what the military can acheive and let's focus on the important aspect of what happens after the military battles are won, because that's where any war would be decided.