Michael, it looks like Ralph Peters has an answer to your last question yesterday, asking, ”why we are putting an admiral in charge of the ground war in Iraq[?]“ If he’s right, it’s an answer that should please you, since he says it’s all about Iran. I qualify that by noting that you have not advocated military action against Iran, at least in the first instance. But if Col. Peters is correct, it at least implies we are planning with Iran in mind, which would be welcome news.

Among other things, Peters argues:

Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?
There’s a one-word answer: Iran.
ASSIGNING a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities – if that becomes necessary.
While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran’s quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz – and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.
Only the U.S. Navy – hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us – could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.