How would Saudi Arabia fare in a war against Iran? nt

[burythehatchet]

[rman]

1. For all i know they have a shitload of US weapons

And they're rich enough to hire all the mercenaries on this planet.

[davidinalameda]

2. they'd be overrun in a week

if not sooner

I doubt that Iran would invade because of Saudi Arabia being the home of the holy site in Islam

the Saudis are seen as protectorate

[The Magistrate]

3. Straight Up Between Those Two, Sir, That Is Certainly So

While it is certainly not my expectation the Iranians would invade Saudi Arabia, the regime in Iran does not recognize the Saudis as proper guardians of the shrines, and did in the days of Khomeini use violence in attempts to attack and discredit their stewardship. The most likely way the Iranians would move against the Saudis is fomenting rebellion by that country's Shia minority, which certainly has grievances young men might be moved to violence over.

[AlamoDemoc]

7. Your not so knowledgeable about "those two"..and neither of the 'violence f the shrines'

First off, The Shica are concentrated mainly in the Eastern Provinces, where they make up roughly less than or close to 5 percent of the kingdom's population, mainly in Qatif and Al Ahsa. No doubt, Shica and the Wahhabi Saudi Arabia are inherently strained because the Wahabist consider the rituals of the Shica to be opposite teachings of prophet Mohamed. Secondly, the mention of Khomeini ordering attack on the holly land is complete fabrication....it came from disgruntled Shica nomads who felt marginalized from their own factions. Many conservative ulama and Ikhwan groups in the eastern provinces condemned their tactic, and many Shica groups began to make their criticisms of the gunmen inside the shrine, Shica of Qatif and two other towns in the Eastern Province criticized the gunmen and insisted they surrender....but the Saudi government wanted to show force, and stormed in...Killing many of the gunmen.

[majorjohn]

19. its Shia not Shica - n/t

[Igel]

29. That confused me too.

AD is inconsistent in the symbol.

I finally decided he's using 'c' where many would use a left apostrophe (one that is concave to the right); the usual symbol if the typeface allows it is very similar to a san serif superscript 'c'. It's used to transliterate the Arabic letter 'ayin, a voiced pharyngeal fricative (more commonly pronounced as a pharyngealized glottal stop, the strangly noise that is taken to be characteristic of Arabic). I use an ' to represent the letter/sound in Shi'a. It's also in Sa'udi, 'Iraaq, 'Uman (Iraq, Oman), and a mess of other words.

Standard newspaper transliteration practice is to simply drop it out. In some cases, it's transliterated as an 'a' because the 'ayin is frequently very similar to an 'a' in sound (for very good physiological reasons). Baath, Meshaal, are slightly more properly Ba'th and Mesh'al (or Mesh'aal). One quirky bit of trivia is that it makes many Arab pronunciations of "Iraq" more similar to the stereotypical southern redneck eye-RAAK than to the standard English pronunuciation. :-)

I use ' for 'ayin when it's necessary (for me at least) to identify the Arabic, or when it's between vowels and is needed to make sure that two vowels aren't assumed to form a diphthong or have a glide between them. For example, al-qa'ida has 4 syllables: al, qa, 'i, da; Shi'a has two syllables, shi, 'a, and isn't ever "shee-ya".

Of course, this is "Standard Arabic" and its religious counterpart, not necessarily true for all dialects.

[The Magistrate]

25. That Is Certainly A Low -End Estimate, Sir

The generally employed figure runs about ten percent. The area they inhabit is also where the lions share of the Saudi oil is, and this gives unrest among them a potential effectiveness out of apparent proportion to their number. The area was attached to Saudi rule by conquest, and fairly recent conquest at that: the royal house does not trust them, and resentments linger in the populace.

As for the other, it is of course an article of faith in some quarters that no one hostile to the United States ever does or did anything wrong, but must by virtue of that hostility be regarded as a sterling exemplar of humanity, fit to lie in the line with Ghandi and the Saints in Heaven. That Khomeni's revolution aimed at a unified Shia bloc led by Tehran, and that his agents employed subversion and violence towards that end is fact beyond serious dispute, as is his condemnation of the Saudis as unfit guardians of the shrines.

[Donna Zen]

34. It has been reported

...that the other Sunni states are encouraging the Saudis to enter the fray in Iraq. I don't think this would be just the Saudis, but rather a coalition if the regional war escalated.

From The Washington Note:

"One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region."

Steve Clemons/The Washington Note

I find Clemons very well informed.

[The Magistrate]

41. Proxy Conflict In Iraq, Ma'am, Is A Near Certainty

In a number of important ways, the old Iraq-Iran War of Hussein's day was proxy war of sorts itself, as Saudi and Gulf State financial muscle and diplomatic clout was essential to the Iraqi war effort, which they conceived as very much in their interests against Iran. The Iranians are quite aware of this.

Support for Sunni fighters, both in money and man-power and weaponry, provided by Saudi Arabia in counter to Iranian support in the same terms for Shia fiaghters, is already going on, and will only increase.

The prospect of a wider regional war on sectarian lines, aggravated for some by the ethnic division between Arab and Persian, is a very real danger for the near future in the region.

[xultar]

4. The royals better gas up their 24k gold plane and have it ready.

They'd be totally messed up in a war with Iran.

[burythehatchet]

24. I believe that is the endgame

the real oil prize is Saudi Arabia

[Captain Hilts]

5. Very badly. There just aren't enough Saudis. The census has been secret for decades. nt

[cap]

6. iranians have been through a ten year war...

so they know how to fight. The Saudis dont and their officer corps wont get out of the Air Conditioning.

[jody]

8. Iran does not have military resources to invade Saudi Arabia but it could launch missile/air attacks

The Saudis would launch counter strikes and the affair would eventually become a stalemate.

Of course if you introduce other countries like the U.S. the situation would be unstable increasing the probability that Iran would partially close oil traffic through the Straits of Hormuz. If that happens, oil prices would go up with devastating affect on the world economy.

[burythehatchet]

9. there was an analyst who predicted

that the war would take the form of a proxy war in Iraq. His analysis was quite compelling. His point was that as ethnic cleansing begins in Iraq the Sunnis would be slaughtered unless the US took a side in the struggle. The threat to the Sunni population would force Saud to support the Iraqi Sunnis, thereby creating the conflict with Iran. It doesn't sound good.

[jody]

13. Ironic that U.S. will be forced to defend Sunnis that Bush removed from power in Iraq.

For those with a biblical bent, "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." (Matthew 12:43-45)

Of course Bush being a born-again Christian to whom God ordered to invade Iraq can ignore Jesus' teachings. :shrug:

[Poiuyt]

35. Maybe not - The US seems to be siding with the Shiites

Cheney was just summoned to Saudi by the king who informed him that if the US pulled out of Iraq, the Saudis would move in to protect the Sunnis. Yet after that visit, Bush announced that he will be meeting another Shiite politician, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim in Washington (Maliki is also Shiite). It has been leaked, however, that Bush will meet with a Sunni, but not until January.

[clarquistador]

14. US SHOULD HAVE ONLY 1 GOAL AFTER ALL THIS CRAP IN IRAQ...

to reestablish the balance of power in the Middle East so that no single state (eg. Iran) benefits too much from insecurity in Iraq. The US should indeed leave Iraq, but it should do so leaving behind a framework where no single ethnic and religious group has enough power to dominate the entire country.

Forget about the democracy stuff, that went bye bye long ago. The key word here is stability.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

17. democracy? You mean Reason to Invade Iraq #3576?

surely you jest at the thought of that ever really being a serious rationale.

[clarquistador]

10. Saudi Arabia would lose badly, very badly....

For one thing, Iran can use the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia to stir up trouble. And although Saudis get weaponry from the US, they're not very well-trained. Also there are something like 20,000,000 Saudis and 70,000,000 Iranians.

If the Iran-Iraq War is any indicator, the Iranians will put up a fierce fight and at any cost, they're not known to be the kind that surrender easily.

BUT, that is if the two countries go to war which I think is highly unlikely.

[burythehatchet]

11. see post above

there is a potential for a proxy war in Iraq. If that occurs the vilence will not honor borders, I believe.

[clarquistador]

12. Proxy wars aren't a new phenomenon in Mid East....

it's happened in Lebanon for the past 30 years. Proxy war basically means that two or three opposing powers have an understanding that they will cause mischief in a designated area (in this case, Iraq), so long as that mischief doesn't spill into their own territories.

[burythehatchet]

15. the difference in this one being the convenient

presense of US targets....that shuffles the deck.

[htuttle]

16. Now I'm not saying they wouldn't get their hair mussed,...

...but I am saying no more than 10 to 20 million killed. Tops!

[Poiuyt]

33. Thank you Gen Turgidson

Good one!

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. We must not allow an oil-shaft gap! n/t

[Annces]

18. I think Saudi Arabia would consider us more of an enemy than Iran

We are more "other" to them.

[majorjohn]

20. Not True At All

Saudi Arabia hates Iran so much. Just a few months back, the Saudi government were supporting Israel over Lebanon, because Hezbollah was Iranian-backed.

[majorjohn]

21. If you all remember the Iran-Iraq war

Iran wasn't really just fighting Iraq by itself, it was pretty much fighting the whole world since everyone was supporting Saddam at the time, and considering how they were winning at first, and sustained fierce fighting for over ten years, I'd say that's one hell of a strong nation they got there.

Saudi Arabia's advantage would be the exact same support given to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. In reality Iran would be stronger if its to go to war with Saudi alone, but with a whole lot backing of other countries, it could be difficult.

As for the bottom line, I don't think a war between Iran and Saudi will ever take place, it just doesn't make any sense even with the whole Sunni/Shiite issues, it just doesn't work that way.

[burythehatchet]

23. do you serve?

[Nikia]

22. They would be easily defeated unless the U.S. military intervened

I believe that American soldiers probably would be assigned to defending Saudi Arabia and/or bombing of Iran.

[Nimrod2005]

26. They would last about 10 hours or so, just enough time to pack and

leave, just like the stupid Kuwaitis did when Saddam invaded them.

[Autonomy]

Iran would crush Saudi Arabia

and anyone else in the ME, except for Israel.

[Autonomy]

27. Iran would crush Saudi Arabia

and anyone else in the ME, except for Israel.

[majorjohn]

45. and why not Israel as well? n/t

[jmowreader]

28. They would get stomped. Badly.

Saudi Arabia's major problem in any armed conflict is that it has a hobby army. It's not large and it's full of rich kids who join up because shooting big guns and cruising around the desert in fast four-wheel-drives is lots of fun. (The Royal Saudi Armed Forces are the only military in the world who buys its field cars from Lamborghini--and no, Lamborghini doesn't have a long history of excellence in the production of tactical vehicles. OTOH, if you want a hydraulic pump or an airplane with no wings on it, Lamborghini will fix you right up.) They hire foreign nationals like Pakistanis to do all the lowly admin bullshit like cleaning guns.

You take two countries and throw them into war against each other. If one country has an army full of people who signed up because they pay you to go camping, and the other country has a good army, it's not hard to figure out who will win.

[atomicdawg38]

32. I agree with jmowreader....

I believe mass desertion is likely among Saudi ground forces. However, I believe the Saudis will establish air supremacy fairly quickly in any conflict. This will mean mass casualties on the Iranian side. However, air power alone may not be enough to blunt an Iranian attack.

[atomicdawg38]

30. Saudi Arabia

spends twice as much on defense as Iran and possesses state of the art weapons. One advanced main battle tank can equal many, many old MBT. You get what you pay for. The Saudis also possess F-16 fighter jets with American trained pilots as well as over the horizon air to air missiles. On the downside, the Saudi Army has a high AWOL rate and I would consider them unprofessional by our standards.

[AngryAmish]

31. This is a Superman v. Batman discussion

Utterly juvenile.

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. Are you saying Batman would be on the side of the Iranians? nt

[AngryAmish]

44. or the Flash

[Yukari Yakumo]

36. Iran, easily... sort of.

It's all a matter of getting there...

One - Invade Iraq and/or Kuwait en route to SA. They'd have to wait for the US to leave first.

Two - Fellow Shi'a Muslims in southern Iraq allow them to pass through Iraq en route to SA. Again, they'd have to wait for the US to leave.

Three - If they have the transports, ferry their army across the Gulf.

According to Wikipedia, the Iranian army out number the Saudis; 350,000 v. 200,000. And from what I gather, Iran is far better armed and trained than the Saudis.

And we are in no position to do anything. Currently, we're pinned down in Iraq with barely enough manpower even to sustain that, and we do not have the will to fight Iran and deal with Iraq at the same time.

The Russians and the Chinese would like do nothing to stop Iran. In fact, I'd expect the both of them to establish a major economic power bloc amongst themselves.

[jpak]

37. They would mutually destroy their oil infrastructure in missile (Iran) and air (Saudi) attacks

They would block their opponent's oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz - which draw the US and NATO into the fray.

Guess which side we would take?????

There would be lots of naval and aerial combat, but no invasion of either country - neither country has the ground forces to successfully attack and occupy the other.

But guess what the price of gasoline would be after all that???

[burythehatchet]

38. I might disagree

While the US and particularly the Texan families appear to be very great friends of the House of Saud, history should inform you about what happens to friends of the BFEE; especially ones with whom they have been in business (Hussein, Noriega et al). The Saudi oil fields are the prize. The House of Saud will not be able to withstand fundamentalist pressures within its own borders and the family risks being overthrown if it allows more violence to occur without any intervention.

[devilgrrl]

39. They'd lose BIG

Let me tell you. Nobody, arab or muslim, can stand the Saudi's. Especially Iranians!

[burythehatchet]

40. well I don't think its the Saudis, per se, that they can't stand

its the House of Saud. How the fuck does a family get to control the country's wealth. Look what they've done with it. They could easily have solved many mid-east issues if the money had been spent on things other than gold plated Mercedes'

[oblivious]

46. Saudi Arabia would subcontract it.