Now ladies, you can both be backwards jihadist hellholes.The Saudis' already have nukes; they're the ones in Pakistan. Also, Saudi Arabia is (unlike Iran who gets labeled as such by the US for funding branches of their own military) an actual sponsor of Islamic Terrorism in Western counties.
And nothing of value will be lostLet me tell you exactly how this will play out:
Step 1 - The US starts bombing Iran.
Step 2 - Iran conquers Europe by sending 50 million refugees which then just take over.
Step 3 - London is renamed New Tehran, Britain becomes the central district of the new Islamic Caliphate.
Step 4 - The EU is officially renamed the "Islamic Union". Hungary and Poland are promptly expelled and pacified by force.
Step 5 - The US marches into Tehran largely unoposed and declares victory over Iran.
Fast for the Navy is 2 weeks to the Suez. It isn't exactly fast, especially if they're trying to avoid anti-ship weaponry. We've already got operations in that general area of the world, and outside of a new major ground war, it seems unnecessary.Not how it actually works. They can do that, if they are in deployment. Such an operations tempo however is bad for morale and the US military for all its size is not large enough to have blanket coverage everywhere. In this case Iran (it seems) decided to cause shenanigans during a period when no US carrier was present in the Persian Gulf. Which is why the Lincoln had to go to max speed and get to the area fast. It's an area of routine patrol, but not something we sit on with heavy assets 24/7, 365. And for a country like Iran you need way more then just one marine assault carrier and its escorts. That means grabbing shit from the mainland and moving it out fast.