[Goose]

Establishing an airbase in western Iran sounds like something that would require a lot of troops on the ground.

That is the reason I bring it up. If Israel now intends to expand and maintain its air superiority over essentially all of Iran it is going to be very difficult to accomplish (IMO impossible) operating solely from bases in Israel. It is just too far away. The litany of problems involved in attempting it is very long. While tankers are one part of the problem, aircraft maintenance is ultimately the killer. Pilot fatigue is also a big problem. Flying those 5000 km missions into eastern Iran are not "airline pilot" miles. It is a war zone and the stress is always there. The pilots return to base drained and exhausted even if nothing "out of the ordinary" happens during their mission. The IAF isn't all that large, and many of the pilots are reservists. They are needed at their "day jobs" too.
 
The duration of this air war is also going to become an issue. Most air forces can surge their sortie generation rates for a few days, maybe a week best case. After that, the rate has to drop. The longer the war goes on the less you have "in the tank". I don't see much evidence that Israel had a plan for a long air war. While they have had great success (probably beyond their wildest dreams), Iran is still there and still shooting. Since Israel is also involved in a ground war in Gaza, their troop assets are limited. Building an air base that can support F-16s and F-35s is not a simple task. It would make the most sense to use an Iranian one, but that puts you in contact with Iran on the ground. There is lots of territory out there, but not so much Iran can't organize a massed infantry attack. The air base won't be tenable for very long but may be necessary to continue bombing the rest of the country. The "end game" is going to start pinching very soon, if it isn't already. 

I do imagine a lot of the tankers we are sending to the ME would be used by Israel as well especially if we join in the bombing.

That would help a lot, but there are all kinds of logistics problems in using US tankers to refuel Israeli aircraft. The main one is that we would have to repeatedly violate the airspace of Syria and Iraq (at a minimum) to do it. Normally the US doesn't do that. We respect other nations airspace even when we would much prefer not to do so. A "one off" to meet an "emergency situation" can probably be explained to the affected country. They may not like it, but they can probably tolerate it. Blatant and repeated long duration violations cannot. It will have consequences. There are also operational issues. While Israel is a close ally of the US, they are not NATO. Israel also has some communications systems that intentionally differ from US systems. It can be made to work, but it isn't "ideal". If we lose a tanker due to friendly fire or a midair there will be hell to pay domestically. I don't think we will offer our tankers to this mission.
 
I am guessing that the only mission that "makes sense" and is low risk enough for the administration to participate is a B-2 attack on Iranian underground nuclear facilities. While US carrier aircraft would be a solution to reaching eastern Iran from reasonable ranges I really doubt the administration would tolerate the risk. The US Navy will follow orders but they won't like it. The Persian Gulf and nearby waters are too confining. It also cannot be argued such involvement has anything to do with Iran's nuclear program. Of course, the administration may not agree.

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/18/30000-po...ogram.html Another point of view:

“And then you would never be precisely sure how much of the facility you’ve damaged,” he added, meaning personnel may need to be deployed on the ground. 
“This leads me to believe that for those facilities, Israel will ultimately gain control of the air and then land forces on the ground, force their way into the facility by detonating the doors, and then go and place explosive charges, exfiltrate whatever intelligence they can get, and just detonate it from the inside,” Des Roches told CNBC.

The "force their way into" part could be a challenge. I am sure the place is defended.

[Goose]

Establishing an airbase in western Iran sounds like something that would require a lot of troops on the ground.

That is the reason I bring it up. If Israel now intends to expand and maintain its air superiority over essentially all of Iran it is going to be very difficult to accomplish (IMO impossible) operating solely from bases in Israel. It is just too far away. The litany of problems involved in attempting it is very long. While tankers are one part of the problem, aircraft maintenance is ultimately the killer. Pilot fatigue is also a big problem. Flying those 5000 km missions into eastern Iran are not "airline pilot" miles. It is a war zone and the stress is always there. The pilots return to base drained and exhausted even if nothing "out of the ordinary" happens during their mission. The IAF isn't all that large, and many of the pilots are reservists. They are needed at their "day jobs" too.
 
The duration of this air war is also going to become an issue. Most air forces can surge their sortie generation rates for a few days, maybe a week best case. After that, the rate has to drop. The longer the war goes on the less you have "in the tank". I don't see much evidence that Israel had a plan for a long air war. While they have had great success (probably beyond their wildest dreams), Iran is still there and still shooting. Since Israel is also involved in a ground war in Gaza, their troop assets are limited. Building an air base that can support F-16s and F-35s is not a simple task. It would make the most sense to use an Iranian one, but that puts you in contact with Iran on the ground. There is lots of territory out there, but not so much Iran can't organize a massed infantry attack. The air base won't be tenable for very long but may be necessary to continue bombing the rest of the country. The "end game" is going to start pinching very soon, if it isn't already. 

I do imagine a lot of the tankers we are sending to the ME would be used by Israel as well especially if we join in the bombing.

That would help a lot, but there are all kinds of logistics problems in using US tankers to refuel Israeli aircraft. The main one is that we would have to repeatedly violate the airspace of Syria and Iraq (at a minimum) to do it. Normally the US doesn't do that. We respect other nations airspace even when we would much prefer not to do so. A "one off" to meet an "emergency situation" can probably be explained to the affected country. They may not like it, but they can probably tolerate it. Blatant and repeated long duration violations cannot. It will have consequences. There are also operational issues. While Israel is a close ally of the US, they are not NATO. Israel also has some communications systems that intentionally differ from US systems. It can be made to work, but it isn't "ideal". If we lose a tanker due to friendly fire or a midair there will be hell to pay domestically. I don't think we will offer our tankers to this mission.
 
I am guessing that the only mission that "makes sense" and is low risk enough for the administration to participate is a B-2 attack on Iranian underground nuclear facilities. While US carrier aircraft would be a solution to reaching eastern Iran from reasonable ranges I really doubt the administration would tolerate the risk. The US Navy will follow orders but they won't like it. The Persian Gulf and nearby waters are too confining. It also cannot be argued such involvement has anything to do with Iran's nuclear program. Of course, the administration may not agree.

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/18/30000-po...ogram.html Another point of view:

“And then you would never be precisely sure how much of the facility you’ve damaged,” he added, meaning personnel may need to be deployed on the ground. 
“This leads me to believe that for those facilities, Israel will ultimately gain control of the air and then land forces on the ground, force their way into the facility by detonating the doors, and then go and place explosive charges, exfiltrate whatever intelligence they can get, and just detonate it from the inside,” Des Roches told CNBC.

The "force their way into" part could be a challenge. I am sure the place is defended.