The Middle East War

[Simon Tan]

'There is only one Idiot and his name is Mohammed bin Salman'

 

The Iranians want High Oil. If they can do anything to raise the oil price while looking good, so much the better.

 

Saudis need High Oil. Their strategy is for Low Oil, which is killing them. It would be OK if they weren't bleeding everywhere and going nowhere in the War of Islamic Sects. Combining the two is driving them to ruin.

 

They have of course leaned on their GCC brethren with mixed results. Bahrain is of course a Saudi protectorate and behaves as such.

Kuwait has withdrawn their ambassador but maintains diplomatic relations, albeit reduced.

The UAE has reduced diplomatic staffing but not recalled their ambassador.

Qatar has made noises critical of Iran...and that's pretty much it. They have been slant drilling Iranian waters for years.......

Oman has criticized KSA. The Omanis regard the Saudis as a bunch of idiots on camels.

 

Expanding the conflict is a desperate attempt by Salman and Mohammed to cling to power. When the power structure regards them as being more a burden than a boon, they will go away. Unfortunately the replacements are stuck with very similar problems but with Saudis dying in combat, there is an opportunity to turn on the Wahhabis and tar and feather your opponents along with them.

[Simon Tan]

The Arab Spring is now the long hot Arab Summer.

[glenn239]

ISTR reading about how Israeli tankers experienced on the receiving end of "missiles the size of telephone poles" (i.e., SA-2) as panicked ersatz "ATGMs" in 1973.

 

 

SA-2 against a small moving tank seems a tad optimistic, but SA-5 with active radar homing seeker I wondered about with a big fat stationary metal target on flat ground, say like an oil refinery.

Edited January 6, 2016 by glenn239

[Josh]

I can't imagine that seeker has any sensitivity to single out a tank against the back drop of the ground. I also can't imagine an SA-5 costs a lot less than a tank. SA-2 ground modes I suspect were truly bombardment weapons, not point targets. In Yemen where large ballistic missiles are less common I guess it makes sense; Iran has no such deficit.

[glenn239]

I'd doubt Iran has more than a small capacity for long range precision attacks. I wouldn't say their ballistic missile inventory is totally useless in a conventional war because their CEP and anti-missile countermeasures are unknown. But my guess would be that the CEP is probably shitty and the countermeasures are inadequate.

 

SA-2 is command guidance, no active radar seeker, meaning that it's either inertial guidance like Simon says or the missile gets lobbed on its trajectory by the SAM radar (probably less accurate given that SA-2 radar is shitty). Also pretty sure SA-5 is both obsolete in air-to-air, does not have particularly survivable radars in modern combat, and the SAM rounds themselves are all paid for. So I'm not seeing a strong case for SA-5 battery C3I survivability, nor why firing a few hundred rounds at F-15's and hitting nothing is all that and a bag of chips.

[Gregory]

Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia has logistical capability to invade the other. The only thing that could possibly happen is air combat around the Persian Gulf.

[swerve]

 

 

Nuclear weapons development, nutty leadership, threats to KSA (and Israel just a little earlier), insurgency in Yemen.. it's not so far from the basis of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Might the US form a coalition again and to it to Iran, maybe more like Persian Gulf 1991 style rather than full blown lengthy occupation?

Maybe because Iran hasn't blatantly invaded a neighboring country and would also probably fight real hard if we went to war with them?

But Iraq conducted no invasion leading up to the 2003 military campaign.

 

Iran can fight as hard as they like, but if the US fights a total war but with no long term occupation, Iran can't do much to defend itself.

 

Iraq was held to be in breach of what it had promised after the 1990-91 defeat. So it was a continuation of the response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Iran hasn't provided any equivalent convenient excuse.

 

Iran can't win such a war, but unless confined to air strikes I'd expect it to be much harder than the 2003 invasion of Iraq, even without long-term occupation.

[JasonJ]

 

 

 

Nuclear weapons development, nutty leadership, threats to KSA (and Israel just a little earlier), insurgency in Yemen.. it's not so far from the basis of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Might the US form a coalition again and to it to Iran, maybe more like Persian Gulf 1991 style rather than full blown lengthy occupation?

 

Maybe because Iran hasn't blatantly invaded a neighboring country and would also probably fight real hard if we went to war with them?

But Iraq conducted no invasion leading up to the 2003 military campaign.

Iran can fight as hard as they like, but if the US fights a total war but with no long term occupation, Iran can't do much to defend itself.

Iraq was held to be in breach of what it had promised after the 1990-91 defeat. So it was a continuation of the response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Iran hasn't provided any equivalent convenient excuse.

 

Iran can't win such a war, but unless confined to air strikes I'd expect it to be much harder than the 2003 invasion of Iraq, even without long-term occupation.

Both had a long history of breaking deals. Iraq invaded in 1990 which initiated the war, but surely that as a pillar for the rationale in going in 2003 would be far less. Yet Iran does still have had its fingers in Yemen and of course helps Assad which the US is openly against. WMD claim is much stronger in the case of Iran than Iraq.

 

Instead if 200 dead, maybe 1,000 after it's all done. Forming a coalition would be critical. We'll see.

[swerve]

Iran hasn't invaded anyone. That's held to be in a different category from the sort of meddling it's doing in Syria, Yemen, etc.

 

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was facilitated by Iraq providing an excuse, by playing games with WMD inspectors, but the only reason that was usable as an excuse was because the agreement Bush invoked was the one resulting from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Iran isn't bound by any comparable agreements, because it hasn't invaded anyone. Iran isn't bound by anything breach of which might give other parties the right to invade. Its agreements are in different categories.

 

It's . . . oooh, as if you're a convicted felon, out on parole, & you breach the terms of your parole by doing something which is otherwise legal, e.g. going into a bar. You can be locked up again. But if you haven't been convicted & aren't on parole, you can do the same things as the convicted felon without there being any grounds for locking you up. You can go to a bar & buy a drink. Even if you've promised not to, you can't be sent to prison for it. You're in a different category - & that's Iraq & Iran.

 

The possession of WMD is not, in itself, grounds for invading a country, BTW. Never has been. No international law forbidding it.

[JasonJ]

Iran hasn't invaded anyone. That's held to be in a different category from the sort of meddling it's doing in Syria, Yemen, etc.

 

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was facilitated by Iraq providing an excuse, by playing games with WMD inspectors, but the only reason that was usable as an excuse was because the agreement Bush invoked was the one resulting from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Iran isn't bound by any comparable agreements, because it hasn't invaded anyone. Iran isn't bound by anything breach of which might give other parties the right to invade. Its agreements are in different categories.

 

It's . . . oooh, as if you're a convicted felon, out on parole, & you breach the terms of your parole by doing something which is otherwise legal, e.g. going into a bar. You can be locked up again. But if you haven't been convicted & aren't on parole, you can do the same things as the convicted felon without there being any grounds for locking you up. You can go to a bar & buy a drink. Even if you've promised not to, you can't be sent to prison for it. You're in a different category - & that's Iraq & Iran.

 

The possession of WMD is not, in itself, grounds for invading a country, BTW. Never has been. No international law forbidding it.

 

IDK, maybe so. I just still have the feeling stuff is going to happen in a few years from now.

[bojan]

That would actually be one of the most stupid things west could do. Considering some of choices made in last 15 years however...

[Simon Tan]

It is the unwillingness to accept that KSA has been shafting the West for 45 years. The oligarchs would have much to lose.

 

I expect that KSA will have a coup and possibly civil war this year. The Brilliant Plan of Salman and Son has gone so wrong that is is risking the whole house of Saud.

[Colin]

Iran would make the occupation of Iraq look like a cakewalk, the military won't just fold in their case and even the people who want to get rid of the clerics will likely rise up to defend the country, because it's always has been Persia. the US could do it, but it would be a very tough slog and Russia might freak out as well and start doing some really silly things.

[Simon Tan]

They may hate the Supreme Leader and the Pasdaran but they will hate you more.

[Roman Alymov]

I expect that KSA will have a coup and possibly civil war this year. The Brilliant Plan of Salman and Son has gone so wrong that is is risking the whole house of Saud.

Why? They got reserves to sustain current consumption level for years.

[Josh]

It is the unwillingness to accept that KSA has been shafting the West for 45 years. The oligarchs would have much to lose.

 

I expect that KSA will have a coup and possibly civil war this year. The Brilliant Plan of Salman and Son has gone so wrong that is is risking the whole house of Saud.

One can only hope.

 

EDIT: I rather doubt that outcome. But anything that shakes that place down, even the huge regional instability and massive economic dislocation that would bring, would be a good thing.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Josh

[Simon Tan]

It's not the money, it's the perception of failure everywhere. Yemen, Syria, Iraq.....but mainly Yemen. The Army is traditionally staffed with a fair number of Shia, mainly because they are at the bottom of the social order and soldiering is an undesirable profession. All th Sunnis and the reliable Sunnis are in the Royal Guard and SANG. Neither of which are on the front in Jizan and Najran. The Iranian bogeyman is nuch worse since Salman took the throne and all the pain has been for nothing. Worse, the failure is all blamed on Mohammed....his son.

 

All their money being spent for no result....

[urbanoid]

That would leave Iran as a sole hegemon in the region. I'd still rather have the Sauds in power, in the end they are incompetent and dependent on the West, mainly the US. They buy stuff for billions and spend next billions because are unable to maintain it. There's a degree to which they can be controlled, unlike Iran, which is a much bigger threat to current geopolitical order, which is still favourable for the West.

 

The KSA won't become a regional hegemon, they are, as I said, too incompetent, practically all they have is money. If they can prevent Iran from becoming one, it's already a lot. Also, I hope they can keep the oil price down for the next couple of years, it's a good situation for importers and causes trouble for certain rogue states like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

 

I agree that occupation of Iran would be idiocy. Afghanistan and Vietnam combined, or probably worse. Bombing, well that may solve some things temporarily, but may not even be necessary. Good ole containment is the way to go, just like Russia or PRC should be contained.

Edited January 7, 2016 by urbanoid

[Simon Tan]

Why not EU?

[urbanoid]

By whom?

[Simon Tan]

Why not contain EU? As for KSA implosion...it can be reconstituted as the Federation of Arabia with the Holy Cities managed by the OIC for all Muslims. Eastern Province would be Shia friendly. The Federation could then seize and auction all looted assets. It would be glorious.

[urbanoid]

Because the EU is the West and one simply does not contain the West. It's the other way around.

 

Eastern Province would be Shia-friendly, so de facto ruled by Iran, together with all of the oil, oil that we need. Iranian grip on Iraq would be strengthened. Iran, enemy of the West, ally of Russia, China and various thirdworldist shitty places that ... don't know their place - sole hegemon of the ME. Great fucking idea, indeed.

 

Seriously, I would be all for introducing more liberal government in KSA, but it won't work because in this case their gov reflects their population. And it sucks.

Edited January 7, 2016 by urbanoid

[Simon Tan]

You don't need oil. You can use wind power. Or coal. Or Solar. Why should Shias be oppressed so you can have cheap oil? Is it at all surprising that the Supreme Leader speaks of the evil West and their schemes to impose their will on the region? Western hegemony by way of Sunni proxies is falling apart and fuelling terror but Iran bad. Why should there be a KSA? It is an artificial construct that no longer serves any purpose. It is Frankenstein.

 

Tell me how KSA reflects their population? It does not.

 

Your Polish charm school background is so apparent.

[urbanoid]

Wind and solar is expensive and not really effective, coal is fine but there's not enough of it to fulfill all needs and I won't ride the car on it. So yeah, I do need cheap oil, also to negotiate better terms with other suppliers (which btw. happened a few days ago). KSA may be artificial but it's still useful. Supreme Leader of some idiotic theocracy can say whatever he wants and cry oppresion as much as he wants. If his ilk didn't overthrow the Shah and abandon the Western Way™ his voice would matter quite a bit more. If they didn't piss off US, Israel and various Western allies their voice would matter more. If they didn't try to undermine Western influence in the region their voice would matter more. The difference between Iran and KSA is that the former wants to be a regional hegemon and the latter wants the US to be one and to deny that position to Iran or anyone else. And pays billions. And is not in bed with major powers that want to change favourable international order. That's all that is needed to know, not who oppresses whom. The fact that I'd rather visit Iran than KSA doesn't matter, the KSA is useful and that's all that counts in the end.

 

How does KSA reflect their population? Deeply religious, backward, oppressive, tribal. I have little love for them, but wouldn't throw away the useful tool. And I really, really hope that they keep the oil price down for as long as they can, it will do 'wonders' to Russian budget.

 

'Polish this', 'Polish that', blah blah blah...

[Simon Tan]

Tell me how it is different from putting Reza Shah Pahlavi in to replace Mossadegh? If you look backwards perpeatually, you will stay there. KSA and Wahhabism is toxic construct. It has largely fuelled and formed the condition. Is it any surprise with attitudes expressed that Iraq was lost in 3 years? Iranian regional hegemony was a good thing with Reza Shah but a bad thing with Khameini. Iranian nukes were a good thing under Reza Shah but bad under Khameini. These dogmatic positions are how the Revolution has remained in power despite everything.

It is also why failure is almost inevitable and poor decisions will be made.