How likely is a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia? If this did happen, what would be the result?
71 Answers
If the US stayed out of it?
Saudi Arabia would lose.
Badly.
Why?
The above is all speculation of course, as it is not in US interests to allow a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia to occur. If diplomatic options failed, it's clear that the US would support Saudi Arabia and that support would be enough to either defeat Iran or to limit the scope of the conflict.
References:
Here's How The Saudi National Guard Maintains The Royal Family's Authoritarian Grip On Power
The Two Faces of Islam
Why war with Iran would spell disaster
Saudi Arabia and Oil: What You Need to Know
Iran Population 2015
Saudi Arabia Has a Shiite Problem
Saudi Arabia would lose.
Badly.
Why?
- Saudi Arabia intentionally keeps its military weaker than it should be - A strong military in Saudi Arabia would almost certainly tire of the machinations of the Saudi royal family and it would overthrow them. This is why the upper echelons of the military are filled with royal members and hangers-on and that's why Iran would have a significant advantage over Saudi Arabia.
- Iran has purchased numerous anti-ship missiles - So many in fact that any time they want to end vessel traffic out of the Persian Gulf, they could do so. While Saudi Arabia does have a pipeline to offload oil located on its western shore, the pipeline couldn't carry the same amounts of petroleum that ships leaving the Persian Gulf do. Iran could easily strangle Saudi's petroleum if it so chose.
- The bulk of Saudi's petrochemical industry is within flying distance and missile range of Iran's southern military bases - Iran, in addition to sinking vessels laden with Saudi crude, could devastate the bulk of the Saudi petroleum industry in a few hours to days.
- Iran has a deeper bench than Saudi does - There are 75 million Iranians and less than 30 million Saudis. And most of the people in Saudi Arabia are not themselves Saudi citizens which brings up the ticklish question of loyalty during a crisis.
- Saudi Arabia's large and restive Sh'ia population - Saudi Arabia has a Sh'ia population which may encompass as much as 15%. This minority has been severely oppressed by the Saudi government and clergy (the overwhelming majority of whom are Sunni Muslim) and there has been little done to salve the hurt feelings caused by this repression. Iran (being majority Sh'ia) could easily find purchase (and probably has) among the disaffected members of Saudi's Sh'ia community and use those members as a "fifth column." Or, even better for Iran, it could be presumed by the Saudi's that they couldn't trust their Sh'ia and additional forces would need to be deployed just to prevent a possible Sh'ia uprising. This would take needed troops away from the battle with Iran.
The above is all speculation of course, as it is not in US interests to allow a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia to occur. If diplomatic options failed, it's clear that the US would support Saudi Arabia and that support would be enough to either defeat Iran or to limit the scope of the conflict.
References:
Here's How The Saudi National Guard Maintains The Royal Family's Authoritarian Grip On Power
The Two Faces of Islam
Why war with Iran would spell disaster
Saudi Arabia and Oil: What You Need to Know
Iran Population 2015
Saudi Arabia Has a Shiite Problem
This is one of those questions like 'Superman or Terminator' that ignore political and logistical limitations.
Saudi Arabia does not have a border with Iran. Any land war would be fought overKuwait which has a significant US military presence and Iraq, which no longer does. Sea action would involve the Persian/Arabian Gulf and would also involve Qatar, theUAE, and most of the world's petroleum transportation infrastructure. The US would have no choice but to bring the Fifth Fleet, stationed in Bahrain, to bear.
Let's put it this way. Iran would likely win the first battle in a surprise invasion of Iraq on the way to Saudi. Subsequent conventional military action would have to deal with the logistical issues of invading a country with highly mobilized, experienced insurgency; the US Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines and the unreserved military support of the rest of the world (most of the world's petroleum transportation infrastructure, natch). A conventional invasion of Saudi would also mobilize the majority of Muslim political opinion against Iran. A nuclear attack would have massive regional implications, but would almost certainly result in the end of the Iranian nation-state.
The current status quo is not ideal, but military action in any direction by Iran is a commitment they really can't afford. They would be decisively defeated, which is why their current military action is through intermediaries and the support of other rogue states like North Korea.
Added 10 April, 2011
The recent intervention by Saudi in Bahrain brings to light an ongoing cold war that has been going on for decades between Shia (Iran) and Sunni (Saudi) countries in the Middle East. There is a very interesting analysis of the regional view of the conflict on The Gulf Blog. This supports my conclusion previously, that Saudi and Iran are both largely acting through proxies, and analysis of conflicts in the region need to take into account this cold war.
http://thegulfblog.com/20
Saudi Arabia does not have a border with Iran. Any land war would be fought overKuwait which has a significant US military presence and Iraq, which no longer does. Sea action would involve the Persian/Arabian Gulf and would also involve Qatar, theUAE, and most of the world's petroleum transportation infrastructure. The US would have no choice but to bring the Fifth Fleet, stationed in Bahrain, to bear.
Let's put it this way. Iran would likely win the first battle in a surprise invasion of Iraq on the way to Saudi. Subsequent conventional military action would have to deal with the logistical issues of invading a country with highly mobilized, experienced insurgency; the US Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines and the unreserved military support of the rest of the world (most of the world's petroleum transportation infrastructure, natch). A conventional invasion of Saudi would also mobilize the majority of Muslim political opinion against Iran. A nuclear attack would have massive regional implications, but would almost certainly result in the end of the Iranian nation-state.
The current status quo is not ideal, but military action in any direction by Iran is a commitment they really can't afford. They would be decisively defeated, which is why their current military action is through intermediaries and the support of other rogue states like North Korea.
Added 10 April, 2011
The recent intervention by Saudi in Bahrain brings to light an ongoing cold war that has been going on for decades between Shia (Iran) and Sunni (Saudi) countries in the Middle East. There is a very interesting analysis of the regional view of the conflict on The Gulf Blog. This supports my conclusion previously, that Saudi and Iran are both largely acting through proxies, and analysis of conflicts in the region need to take into account this cold war.
http://thegulfblog.com/20
Thanks for the A2A Robert.
If anyone actually believed Saudi Arabia, or the entire GCC for that matter, was capable of dealing with the Iranian military, the US wouldn't have needed to park two Navy carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for the past forty years. The fact is even when Iran was at its weakest in the aftermath of the revolution when Saddam attempted to invade, the support of the entire Arab League as well as the US, USSR, and the Europeans wasn't enough for him to beat the Iranians. The Arab army was thrown off Iranian territory rather quickly and the only reason Iranian tanks didn't roll into Baghdad that same year was the support Saddam received vs the sanctions and embargo that were imposed on Iran.
Saudi Arabia by itself won't prevail against Iran needless to say. This isn't so much a function of Saudi military weakness (they have great gear and Arab soldiers are as brave as anyone), its a function of relative Iranian strength where it counts; Iran's Navy, ability to project power from its Southern coast, and the training/motivation of Iranian soldiers/sailors/airmen.
En fin compte, as the French would say, the war would be over the day it starts when Iran closes the Straight of Hormuz. And without the USN running interference for the Saudis in our hypothetical scenario, it will stay closed. The Saudi Navy would experience a Persian Gulf where there are more Iranian submarines than fish (Iran has the world's fourth largest Navy with the fifth largest submarine fleet, all but the Kilo class designed for operations in the shallow waters of the gulf). All of Saudi Arabia's naval assets and bases are within striking distance of Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles and ballistic missile shore batteries.
The relative strength of the Saudi air force both in terms of numbers (they have almost twice as many assets as Iran) and quality of their cutting-edge strike aircraft will be a factor but a short-lived one. The Iranian surface fleet will stay under their air defence umbrella (which is a lot more formidable than most western commentators are aware of, even without an operational S-300 system). Also, every Saudi ship the Iranians destroy is gone for good unless the Saudis can sail on the desert, because that's the only way they'll get newly purchased ships to the Persian Gulf from the Red Sea. Iran, on the other hand, has a ship-building industry and makes its own frigates, combat speed boats, and submarines.
The only commercial ships allowed in or out of the Persian Gulf will be Iranian ships, and if they asked real nicely and don't interfere in the war, the tankers carrying Emirati and other countries' oil. The Saudis will lose millions of barrels/day of oil income and even without any other action on Iran's part, will sue for peace sooner rather than later. If they don't, the Iranian Army will be coming through Iraq and rolling over Kuwait on their way to KSA (they'll ask, and will almost certainly be granted passage by the Shiite government in Baghdad, especially if the Saudis start the war). This will be an army of a million (when you add the Basij reserves) led by real officers, not princes playing at soldiering, and the troops will be more motivated since there isn't the same wide social gulf between enlisted men and officers in the post-revolutionary Iranian military as there are in Gulf Arab armies.
In a nutshell, the reason an independent Iran will remain sanctioned and embargoed under one pretext or another despite whatever kind of government is in power (unless it becomes a Western client state again and toes the line) is that a strong, independent Iran that can carry out real A2/AD (area access/area denial) against all comers including the USN is in NO ONE'S interest other than Iran's. Effectively, Iran would own the Persian Gulf (Persians owning the Persian Gulf, how absurd) and become the Energy Czar of the planet and who wants that, right?
So in summary, the chance Iran can go to war just against the KSA without the entire world rushing to the Saudis' defence is a fairly good approximation of zero.
Iran would roll over Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia constructed its army along ethnic lines. The military reflects the tribal divisions which exist within the country. It does not present a strongly united fighting force. In addition, the soldiers do not have much motivation to fight due to living under an absolute dictatorship.
Saudi Arabia increasingly relies on mercenaries as well. Blackwater to Colombian mercenaries. More on this later.
In contrast Iran is a republic however you look at it, and even if it is constructed on a conservative religious basis it is still a representative democracy. People have sense of ownership of their country, and this reflects in the motivation of the army. The army is more professional, has experience from Iran-Iraq war, and it has long standing institutional organizations ranging from Revolutionary Guards to Intelligence organizations. It has its own arms industry, able to design and manufacture its own combat aircraft which are competent to a degree, has the technology to design and manufacture tactical ballistic missiles, antiship missiles and many more.
Saudi Arabia on the other hand, keeps buying extremely expensive weapons from US, with questionable capability to even maintain them. They are no match for Iran.
Now about the mercenaries and whatnot:
You may not know this, but Yemeni Army and Yemeni Houthis have been beating the crap out of Saudi Arabia in the invasion Saudis did to Yemen. Not only Saudis, but entire 'coalition' they assembled from the countries which back them, (Gulf, Egypt etc) and the mercenaries they hired.
Have a look at the below collection of news regarding incidents in Yemen in the past few months, which will construct the full picture for you easily:
Yemenis are destroying M1 tanks Saudis bought from US, they are shooting down Apache helicopters, they sunk ~7 Saudi warships until this point, and they have a habit of lobbing a tactical ballistic missile to Saudi bases at the most critical times - like when Saudi air force commander is visiting. They killed him, by the way. They hurled a ballistic missile at the biggest Saudi air base in the south, killed Saudi air force commander along with hundreds of other casualties. Saudi arabia denied the claims, only to declare two days later that their air force commander died from a heart attack.
Then there are the Saudi ships going down one by one.
You may ask, from where this reliable supply of ballistic missiles, antiship missiles, anti tank missiles and the excellent proficiency in using them at the most proper and critical times are coming.
That would be a good question.
..........
Conclusion: A war in between Iran and Saudi Arabia would not even be a war. It would be a 'military operation' from the viewpoint of Iran. And that may not even be a concept, since at this rate Yemenis seem to be going to undo entire Saudi army.
Below is a video from a Houthi ballistic missile delivering a share of the action to UAE contingent participating in the Saudi 'Coalition'. Missile apparently landed on a weapons depot.
And if you would like to see such missiles being launched:
Now, lets drop the pretense and just lay it bare: Saudi Arabia is actually fighting Iran by proxy in Yemen.
As you can see from what kind of beating they are getting from Yemenis backed and propped up by Iran, you can easily conclude what would happen if Iran and Saudi Arabia directly waged war against each other.
No. Iran does not have a strong history of starting wars. They do have a strong history of being very verbally outspoken and destroying embassies, but their government knows that wars would destroy their economy and foreign relations. The Supreme Leader has been quoted saying that "Saudi Arabia will face divine vengeance" for their recent execution of a prominent Shi'ite leader, which does not point towards any bombings or anything of that sort, rather only religious punishment.
Iran and Saudi Arabia have multiple proxy wars that they're fighting over in addition to many verbal disputes, they do not want to add another huge war on top of that! Iran is currently participating in the Syrian Civil War, the Yemen Crisis, intervening against ISIS, and in the Iran-PJAK Conflict. Saudi Arabia is intervening in ISIS, and also in the Yemen Crisis. Iran wouldn't want to add another huge war to that list! This would devastate the already weak economy and lessen moral, none of which would make any sense for the government to do. In light of the execution of Sheikh Nimr-al-Nimr, Iran and Saudi Arabia will probably cut all diplomatic ties but not engage in a direct war with each other. It is likely that we'll see growing hostilities and verbal propaganda against each country, but there is an extremely extremely small chance
Lastly, it wouldn't make sense military wise. Firstly Saudi Arabia has $70 billion more in military budget, as well as a backing by 6 major world powers (while Iran is only back by 2). While Iran does have more manpower, its technology and foreign support are far inferior to that of Saudi Arabia's, therefore an attack in the next 10 years would probably lose.
It simply does not make sense, and Iran's government is very reasonable.
They don't border each other (so no land-based excursions or invasions) and don't really have the military capabilities for a direct conflict (strong blue-water navies, air forces with long-range strike capabilities, rapid deployment capabilities etc.). Any conflict would be limited to proxy wars, with the most likely direct engagement between the two countries taking the form of relatively small-scale engagements involving contingents of Iranian intelligence officers, irregulars, special forces, and trainers/advisers skirmishing directly against their Saudi counterparts. In such limited showdowns, the Iranians would largely triumph. Their forces have decades of field experience with intelligence gathering, training local forces, special operations, and other features of "Green Beret-style" irregular warfare. The Saudis are pretty much only good at distributing money (that was their main role with regards to the Afghan mujahideen, as the ISI and CIA did the heavy-lifting when it came to training and intelligence gathering-and that's the same limited role that the Saudis are currently relegating themselves to play with regards to supporting Syrian rebels). The Saudis are getting some recent combat experience from their adventure in Yemen, but it is safe to say the jury is certainly out on their capabilities and effectiveness. Long story short, in limited conflicts between Saudi and Iran you should bet on Iran every time. Though you shouldn't actually bet, because nobody should be rooting for more war and strife in the Middle East.
Neither side really wants a war, they are happy with their proxies fighting each other. If a conflict between them started, it does have to ingredients to become global
Strait of Hormuz
If Iran would try to take control of this strait then the United States would get involved through their Navy and would engage the Iranian navy. I would expect the United States to only offer naval support. The Iranian Navy would either be destroyed or seriously crippled after this.
Israel
If Saudi and Iran went to war then Israel would have perfect opportunity to strike at their nuclear facilities. This may also give them the cover to take out Iranian proxies in Lebanon being Iran couldn't resupply them.
Russia
Would block any resolutions critical of Iran. Also they would provide weapons to Iran.
Yes, there is. There are many factors covered in the anwers to the question:
http://www.quora.com/What
As some aren't seeing that link, I'll repost my answer here:
http://www.quora.com/What
As some aren't seeing that link, I'll repost my answer here:
While I can't say I can name all the reasons, here are a few...
Historical antipathy between Arabs and Persians. This goes back at least to the late Roman period, when both Romans/Byzantines and Persians had various Arab groups as allies;
Religious antipathy based on Arabs being predominantly Sunni and Persians predominantly Shi'a;
Geographic competition for various pieces of land and islands in the Gulf;
Political competition for 'leadership' of the Islamic umma or global community of Muslims;
Fear of Iran's expansionist politics whereby it makes claims to own Bahrain, parts of Iraq, and islands in the Gulf that have been--at least in recent history--possessions of Arab states;
Fear of Iran's ability to stop the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz through
unilateral military action. Cutting the flow of oil would have profound effects on Saudi and other Gulf Arab economies;
Fear of Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons for which Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arabs have no immediate counter.
It all depends on how badly the diplomats mess up.
What they seem to be doing is responding to each other's actions and there is a slow escalation in tension. When tensions are at a high level lots of things become more risky. Civilian airplanes get shot, tourists get gunned down, an industrial accident is sabotage.
A lot of this is then not controllable and suddenly you have diplomats riding a tiger. To coin a phrase.
In the medium term it is almost certain to come to shooting. Iran is a revolutionary government. In some ways no different to the communes in 1789 and the Bolsheviks in 1917. After 1979 they were stymied. The US kept peace in the gulf through Saudi and Iraqi proxies.
Now that the US is self sufficient in oil, and that much of the middle east's oil goes to its geopolitical challenger, China, there is less reason to stay involved. Given its experience in Iraq it won't get involved in a Ground war.
So Saudi Arabia hasn't got much support. Iran's proxies bait it into military overreach and wait for the opportunity. There is probably a 10-15 year window where they could achieve hegemony in the Middle East if they were careful.
Above all the Iranians strongest weapon is the decadence and corruption of the al-Sauds. Are they any better than the corrupt Ottomans who they replaced? Most muslims, Shia or Sunni, would say no.
So war will come unless some strong countervailing force appears.
EDIT:
Clarifying what I meant by a 10-15 year window. One of the reasons that China is building a carrier fleet is for the same reason the US has one. To project power and protect its oil supplies. It is one of the largest buyers of Middle East oil. But at the moment it is impotent
Originally answered for "Who will win if Iran and Saudi Arabia go to war?"
-------------------------
Russia.
Most of the trade happening from the Middle East in oil and gas is sourced from the Persian Gulf. Saudi's and Iran's oil and gas fields are all in and next to the Gulf.
Any hostility between Iran and Saudi Arabia will almost invariably lead to a complete stop of trade in the Persian Gulf, which will mean a massive increase in oil prices. Russia should be looking at some really good returns on her oil barrels.
Iran will have the military advantage despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has been spending over 6 times what Iran spends on defense annually for decades. There are three factors that make me say this:
1- Lesser vulnerability to bombing: Strategic targets in Iran are more widespread, meaning that an enemy would need to conduct many more raids to destroy them compared to the KSA whose population centers and centers of government are quite few.
2- Lesser internal volatility. Iran has managed to secure all its borders (except with Pakistan) and the population within Iran is fiercely nationalistic. The KSA on the other hand has a significant Shiite population and even the Sunni population are not all ardent supporters of the ruling family.
3- Larger manpower. Iran has nearly 80 million citizens compared to Saudi's 28 million. Of these, around 65% are between 15 and 45 and allowing for half of these to be men we can clearly see that Iran has the possibility of fielding around 25 million men which almost equals the entire Saudi population.
So unless the KSA manages to defeat Iran within a week or two (which despite their great number of foreign acquired advanced weapons is quite unrealistic as shown by the fact that they have not been able even to subdue the Yemeni after more than a year) or unless they manage to drag the US into the war on their side, they will face almost certain defeat.
As for ISIS, the Iranians have managed to consolidate the position of their allies against ISIS in Syria, in Iraq and in Iraqi Kurdistan and have little to fear from a terrorist organization armed with small arms, no armor or heavy artillery and no air force and no popularity among its own population.
Turkey and Bahrain will probably be on KSA's side although they will probably refuse to declare war on Iran. Qatar and the UAE will most definitely try to not get involved. Kuwait might help the KSA with funds. Egypt and Pakistan might agree to allow their soldiers to fight under KSA leadership as mercenaries without officially declaring war. Oman, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon will obviously be supporting Iran along with probably Afghanistan and Armenia. The jury is out on Azerbaijan. Turkmenistan has a lucrative gas deal with Iran and will probably remain neutral.
Hope this helps
Economics:
Rising oil prices as more Gulf countries severe relationships with Iran. But personally I think this won't continue to ascend to actual aggression from any country. Both Iran and the Gulf would keep it verbally heated as long as they can for oil prices to increase then everyone will go home. Both Iran and the Gulf know they can't afford "yet another" war in the region, economically at least.
Iran would win, which is why Saudi Arabia is very eager to marginalize Iran.
Iran has a powerful military with a substantial indigenous arms industry. It also has more relevant combat experience (it fought a long and disastrous war with Iraq from 1980-88).
Saudi Arabia has a sizable military and a lot of high-tech equipment but their troops are of dubious quality.
Iran has a powerful military with a substantial indigenous arms industry. It also has more relevant combat experience (it fought a long and disastrous war with Iraq from 1980-88).
Saudi Arabia has a sizable military and a lot of high-tech equipment but their troops are of dubious quality.
Iran. Now i assume you mean just these two, cos the USA and NATO will jump in and Iran cant stand up to them with just Russia.
The thing is, Saudi Arabia's army is kept much weaker than it could be. A report published by Great Britain stated that the Saudi Army could triple in size without any noticeable effects on expenditure or GDP.
Also, Iran has a lot of power now. Her military might is enough to launch airstrikes independent of any power, and its generally accepted she is the third foremost power in the Middle East, behind Turkey and Israel. Not to mention many inportant strategic targets are located near to Iran's border.
2.9k Views
First of all, There is no win in war just destruction. But at the moment is a real mistake action for Saudi Arabia attacks Iran and Also Same for Iran. Iran faced a 8 years war against Iraq on Saddam Hussein presidential period 25-35 years ago. Iraq attacked Iran and destroyed many cities. Iranian knows what war could bring for them so they are really care how to stay away from a war!
Iran felt so lonely at the Iran-Iraq war. Therefore as soon as war finished they don't stop. They developed their defensive plan. Iran always feels shadow of war with USA on itself. Therefore they tried to think about a bigger enemy than Saudi Arabia.
Iran role in region Iran supports Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Palestine And Also Hezbollah Lebanon. They show they can be effective in war for example 33 days wars between Hezbollah and Isreal or helping Hamas to shooting missile and defeated undefeatable iron dome of Isreal.
Iran experience in war Iran was engaged in a war (Iran-Iraq war) with more powerful country than itself, But could overcome that war. And now Iran uses the commanders for improving their tactics in war.
Iran proxy war Iran with proxy war could test their guns for high tech equipment and also improved them during these years.
Iran Missile Programs Iran developed an high tech ballistic missiles, Iran tested many successful launches of their missiles that covers whole land of Saudi Arabia.
Iran navy programs Iran developed a program for controlling hormoz strait and Persian gulf therefore they have their own program for the sea to manage wars from seas.
Iran air forces Iran could not improved their airplanes program but they know tactics, they have pilots that engaged with Iraq air forces army and they invented new tactics that the methods teaches in air-force academies.
Theory of war
Most of alliances maybe accepted to help Saudi Arabia by guns or some troops, but they don't engage into the war directly. Because Iran is not a weak country and they know it has no good consequences for themselves specially gulf countries.
Saudi Arabia is utilized with western countries therefore they will support Saudi Arabia to sell more weapons. Saudi Arabia has even hired foreigner mercenaries for the war in Yemen. It shows they don't have solid troops. However I am not going judge them.
Only air attacks possible between Saudi Arabia and Iran because they don't have same border.
Iran F-14 Against Saudi Arabia F-15. Iran has problem to attack because of F14-Combat Radius but real effective in defense. Maybe Russia will make some money in the situation and sell some newer version of sukhoi.
Iran has an advantage against Saudi Arabia. Iran developed tactics for not in same borders war. Therefore they will launch their missiles and really they do not need to wait for new package of delivery from other countries. They have their own factories therefore will refill storage from factories continuously.
Iran will try to engage Yemen into the war. Therefore Saudi Arabia will have two fronts of war. And that's too bad for Saudi Arabia.
However Western countries try to support Saudi Arabia to be a winner of the war.
------------FAQ----------
"Iran was engaged in a war with more powerful country", Which war are you talking about?
Iran counterfeited Iraq in war that Iraq equipped by weapons and aid from USA, UK, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, East-West Germany and many countries but mentioned countries was major supporters at the time. Iraq was equipped the highest tech weapon at the war time.
The fighter jets used then and now are way too different. It is a very hard challenge to master using fighter jets according to pilots who actually have. Also, Iran's old fighter jets cannot stand against the US-supplies Saudi fighter jets which are very effective and more recently manufactured.
There is no evidence that USA sold to Saudi Arabia Gen5 of fighters. Because Generation 5 of fighters still is an active program of developed countries and they don't sell them. F14 and F15 both are in same generation but F15 more optimized than F14. F15 have more long distance of combat service and higher ceil of service. it gives to Saudi Arabia more interception power. However there are some unclear news about that Iran modernized current fleets of F-5 and F-14 by reverse-engineering, anyway we can not rely on unclear news.
Plus Iran introduced domestic S-300 Anti-Aircraft and Also is delivering S-300 system from Russia.
Iron Dome works very greatly against Hamas missiles. How do you say that ineffective?
Commander of Iron Dome says we could destroyed 90% of Missiles. It's really great rate of destruction. But unfortunately this is against a small group that has limited and old-tech cruise missiles.But Iran during past years introduces newer technology of Ballistic Missiles. And Nobody knows veiled missiles yet. Because Iran when feels threaten then unveil a new technology of Ballistic Missiles.
Plus Saudi Arabia didn't introduce or bought any effective anti-missile system. Even Missile attack power.
It's more likely that proxy wars fought with insurgents and terrorists will be the outcome. Of course that's exactly what's going on now. Almost every conflict in that region has had the influences of both Saudi Arabia and Iran revolving around training, equipping and/or supporting various factions that serve their interests.
Open warfare would not be in either nation's interest. While the Iran-Iraq war was a violent conflict for Iran, it was not caused due to sectarian geopolitical struggle. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran sustain their influence in the region through clandestine and not-so-clandestine aid to various proxy factions. An open war would force both sides to limit or totally sever any support to focus on their conflict, depending on their policy. Many proxy groups would probably begin declining with the aid from either side, but there are many larger established groups that have a decent degree of autonomy.
These groups would undoubtedly become significantly active in case of such a conflict, turning much of the middle east into a battle ground for both sides. Simply put, open warfare between Iran and Saudi Arabia would cause significant sectarian polarization and turn the region into a very violent and volatile place as armed Shia and Sunni groups clash in support of their "patron" nation. It wouldn't just be a war between the two states, it'd be a war of the entire Middle East as extremists, terrorists, militias, and warlords crop up to pick a side hoping they picked the winning side.
Open warfare would not be in either nation's interest. While the Iran-Iraq war was a violent conflict for Iran, it was not caused due to sectarian geopolitical struggle. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran sustain their influence in the region through clandestine and not-so-clandestine aid to various proxy factions. An open war would force both sides to limit or totally sever any support to focus on their conflict, depending on their policy. Many proxy groups would probably begin declining with the aid from either side, but there are many larger established groups that have a decent degree of autonomy.
These groups would undoubtedly become significantly active in case of such a conflict, turning much of the middle east into a battle ground for both sides. Simply put, open warfare between Iran and Saudi Arabia would cause significant sectarian polarization and turn the region into a very violent and volatile place as armed Shia and Sunni groups clash in support of their "patron" nation. It wouldn't just be a war between the two states, it'd be a war of the entire Middle East as extremists, terrorists, militias, and warlords crop up to pick a side hoping they picked the winning side.
Indirectly Iran-Saudi tension will getting worse. Why this is happened? Because Iran condemn the execution of Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr, see http://www.theguardian.co
As we know, sunni-shia view is the motive why Saudi Arabia and Iran cannot cooperate together as the same Islamic-based country. They compete to gain broader influence in and outside the regions. The precedent of sunni-shia conflict is now happens in Yemen and Syria. Although other factors included as the cause of the conflict, sunni-shia sectarian factor remain significant.
As we know, sunni-shia view is the motive why Saudi Arabia and Iran cannot cooperate together as the same Islamic-based country. They compete to gain broader influence in and outside the regions. The precedent of sunni-shia conflict is now happens in Yemen and Syria. Although other factors included as the cause of the conflict, sunni-shia sectarian factor remain significant.
It can be stated that there currently is such a cold war between these two countries. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fighting over dominance throughout the Middle-East and are already involved in covert actions in each others countries. There is no doubt that the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia benefits from Persian support and that the Arab and Sunni minority in Iran benefits from Saudi support. Furthermore, they fight for political dominance in many countries in the region (in Iraq and Lebanon for instance). However, in today's modern world, you cannot fight in the name of a race; states fight over "ideology". But whenever you hear Sunni, you know it means Arab and when you hear Shia, you know it means Persian. To me, this is a historical war between two races that has been going on for a long time now. In the western world, we see many Arabs and Persians getting along like brothers, but if you go to the Middle-East and talk to people, you see that there still is much hatred.
I would like to add that I see the real cold war in the Middle-East as being between the USA and Iran. Just as during the cold war between the USSR and the USA, these two powers are fighting via proxies. Even though Saudi Arabia is a country with a might that cannot be neglected, without the USA's support it wouldn't have such a power up to date in order to be able to effectively counter Iran's growing influence the Middle-East.
Long story short, I believe that the Saudi kingdom itself is being used as a proxy in a larger game of chess that is being played between the USA and Iran.
I would like to add that I see the real cold war in the Middle-East as being between the USA and Iran. Just as during the cold war between the USSR and the USA, these two powers are fighting via proxies. Even though Saudi Arabia is a country with a might that cannot be neglected, without the USA's support it wouldn't have such a power up to date in order to be able to effectively counter Iran's growing influence the Middle-East.
Long story short, I believe that the Saudi kingdom itself is being used as a proxy in a larger game of chess that is being played between the USA and Iran.
Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr was the highest spiritual authority for the Shia Muslims in Saudi's Eastern region. His execution will mostly likely further strain relations between this group and the government. There will probably be increased security in the Eastern region, particularly around Qatif and Awamiya, for the next couple of weeks.
No one,
US would try to linger this war, by militarly supporting both Iran and Saudis - like they did in Iran-Iraq war. By doing so, US would exhaust Iran's military power and Saudi money (though they aren't very interested in doing so), and would also be able to sell quite some billions of dollars of weapons. US roughly depends 15% on middle east oil (How dependent are we on foreign oil?) which I guess they could fill up from other sources (may be not, just an intelligent guess), but on the other hand, China would suffer largely.
But I guess this war don't be able to last long. All international powers would like this conflict to end so that supply of petroleum could be resumed. Moreover, logistically, this would be a hard battle for both countries.
I am convinced that in an isolated environment, Iran would rock Saudis in days.
US would try to linger this war, by militarly supporting both Iran and Saudis - like they did in Iran-Iraq war. By doing so, US would exhaust Iran's military power and Saudi money (though they aren't very interested in doing so), and would also be able to sell quite some billions of dollars of weapons. US roughly depends 15% on middle east oil (How dependent are we on foreign oil?) which I guess they could fill up from other sources (may be not, just an intelligent guess), but on the other hand, China would suffer largely.
But I guess this war don't be able to last long. All international powers would like this conflict to end so that supply of petroleum could be resumed. Moreover, logistically, this would be a hard battle for both countries.
I am convinced that in an isolated environment, Iran would rock Saudis in days.
The US.
Well, no one, really. But if you mean who's going to be the king of the hill of dead bodies? The US for days, baby.
Iran makes the gulf states nervous because it's bigger and badder than almost all of them combined. That's why countries who don't even like us that much allow us to host military bases there. It keeps Iran in check. They can't beat us.
It's been my experience with these countries (I lived/worked in both several years apiece), and there are major differences in their governments, religious beliefs, ethnicity, language, society, historical perspective, and so on. Not trying to dig too deep on topical comparisons, but, in terms of similarities:
- Both have major armed forces assets & resources, and have combat experience to use them;
- Both countries are in the Middle East, and have a history in the past 150 years of being subjugated by large empires and colonial powers;
- Both countries are sitting on vast natural energy reserves with an experienced, modern industry to bring these resources to market.
More traits could be listed, but, that is not the point. One of the most unique aspects of this situation is that in the 1970s the western powers, in general, and the United States, in specific, actively promulgated a foreign policy of Iran and Saudi Arabia being the "Twin Pillars" driving regional stability in the Middle East. Ironic, isn't it, how things turn out? See my comprehensive report I wrote on this topic back in 1977, and posted it on Quora with updated information...it's quite enlightening. Look for this question: What was the nature of US foreign policy toward Iran and its importance prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution?
I could write even more on this topic; we need to wait awhile to watch developments. I will say this, however, any super power with existing relations with either country would be foolish to expand or contract those relationships based on the current turmoil between Saudi Arabia and Iran. And any large powers who do not already play a significant role with either country should hold back and do nothing to foment an already bad situation. This confrontation is like two brothers in an argument...everyone else needs to stay back and not take an active part...it's too early for an outside party to start telling the "brothers" what to do, or putting a knife in either one's hand, thinking you are "helping" the one you favor.
Stay tuned...
Steve Miller, Copyright (c) 2016
Not likely. At current oil prices a contained regional conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran will benefit producers in the rest of the world, especially in Russia and the United States.
Just look back to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Similar situation, but no global escalation.
Now as to what might likely happen. Saudi Arabia and Iran do not share a border but are already engaged in proxy wars in Yemen and Syria. So I would expect an escalation in military aid to their proxies.
Iran has been stirring up Shias in the region for decades and has hundreds of sleeper cells all over the world. We might see increased Shia militant activity in Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies.
The two countries are in range of each other for bombing raids, and Iran can close the Pesian Gulf to traffic at will. For Iran, these would be extreme measures that would draw the United States into the conflict and invite sanctions from the UN, so not a likely scenario. Saudi Arabia could however bomb Iranian targets associated with support to Shia militias in the region. Iran will naturally be on guard with itchy trigger fingers so we may see some "accidental" shoot downs. Air traffic between the two countries has already been suspended.
Just look back to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Similar situation, but no global escalation.
Now as to what might likely happen. Saudi Arabia and Iran do not share a border but are already engaged in proxy wars in Yemen and Syria. So I would expect an escalation in military aid to their proxies.
Iran has been stirring up Shias in the region for decades and has hundreds of sleeper cells all over the world. We might see increased Shia militant activity in Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies.
The two countries are in range of each other for bombing raids, and Iran can close the Pesian Gulf to traffic at will. For Iran, these would be extreme measures that would draw the United States into the conflict and invite sanctions from the UN, so not a likely scenario. Saudi Arabia could however bomb Iranian targets associated with support to Shia militias in the region. Iran will naturally be on guard with itchy trigger fingers so we may see some "accidental" shoot downs. Air traffic between the two countries has already been suspended.
I'm going to say quite unlikely in terms of a force-to-force war, but in terms of proxy wars? They're already at it. The Middle East has been host to such conflicts for over a century now.
Saudi Arabia are like the US and Russia, they've often been in proxy war with each other at different times in the past. A proxy war is when two states fund, support or do not obstruct an insurgency, military coup, armed rebellion or opposition forces in a state that is not their own. They do this knowing such a movement is likely to come up against groups under the same influence, but of their enemy. By destabilising key regions - often on the master states' periphery - either state can weaken the other without having to engage in a 'hot war' (the Cold War between the US and Russia had many examples of proxy conflicts globally, Syria may well become one, some argue the Ukraine conflict was another recent one, though this would be more Russia<->NATO).
In the case of Saudi and Iran, you have a majority sunni Arab (Saudi) state against shia Persian (Iran) state. Both seek an endgame where they have total control of the middle east, and crucially, all natural resources contained within the encompassing territory, and all shipping lanes that pass through it. There is also a religious element to being the dominant hegemon of the Islamic world, but on that I am lesser informed.
Right now there is said to be a proxy war ongoing between these two nations in Yemen, which has become a civil war. Rebel groups, the Houthi's, are purportedly funded and supported by the Iranian state, whilst the Hadi Loyalists, are being openly supported by Saudi Arabia as an ally to the disposed presidency in Yemen. When you realise the disposed Yemeni president was a sunni and the rebel groups zaydi shia's, you can see why the suspicion of proxy war exists in this conflict.
Saudi Arabia are like the US and Russia, they've often been in proxy war with each other at different times in the past. A proxy war is when two states fund, support or do not obstruct an insurgency, military coup, armed rebellion or opposition forces in a state that is not their own. They do this knowing such a movement is likely to come up against groups under the same influence, but of their enemy. By destabilising key regions - often on the master states' periphery - either state can weaken the other without having to engage in a 'hot war' (the Cold War between the US and Russia had many examples of proxy conflicts globally, Syria may well become one, some argue the Ukraine conflict was another recent one, though this would be more Russia<->NATO).
In the case of Saudi and Iran, you have a majority sunni Arab (Saudi) state against shia Persian (Iran) state. Both seek an endgame where they have total control of the middle east, and crucially, all natural resources contained within the encompassing territory, and all shipping lanes that pass through it. There is also a religious element to being the dominant hegemon of the Islamic world, but on that I am lesser informed.
Right now there is said to be a proxy war ongoing between these two nations in Yemen, which has become a civil war. Rebel groups, the Houthi's, are purportedly funded and supported by the Iranian state, whilst the Hadi Loyalists, are being openly supported by Saudi Arabia as an ally to the disposed presidency in Yemen. When you realise the disposed Yemeni president was a sunni and the rebel groups zaydi shia's, you can see why the suspicion of proxy war exists in this conflict.
I believe that the current Saudi-Iran confrontation has much to do with legitimacy issues at home, as since.....
If an armed clash does happen, there are two things to take into mind - Saudi Arabia's increasingly restive Shiite community, and its more advanced military resources assuming Yemen has not degraded them fully.
- The lifting of American-based sanctions has not really resulted in tangible benefits to Iran.
- Saudi Arabia faces legitimacy issues, due to various reasons - corruption and the fading legitimacy of the Wahhabi movement, and its reduced petrodollar income.
- An all-Shiite axis reaching from Damascus to Tabriz in the north might result in attempted secession in Saudi Arabia's Shiite east.
- Iran's neo-imperialist ambitions for the Middle East are driven mostly by its own internal instability and desire by its élite to retain their legitimacy by any means necessary. The slow process of propping up Assad (who in my mind is already as good as finished) has not really helped them that much.
If an armed clash does happen, there are two things to take into mind - Saudi Arabia's increasingly restive Shiite community, and its more advanced military resources assuming Yemen has not degraded them fully.
Saudi Arabia just cut off all diplomatic ties with Iran. The most influential Sunni and Shia countries now have no means of communication, coordination or cooperation. For Syria and Iraq this means there will be a more fragmented opposition with the KSA-Qatar backed Jihadi rebels possibly targeting IRGC-backed Shiite militias as in a proxy war.
The more broad outcome is, though, outside Bahrain and other Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia is seen as a villain since it was the one that started this by executing a very popular Shiite cleric. Countries might be more sympathetic to Iran. USA which is an old ally of KSA was just getting closer to Iran and then the sanctions came and now this. Iran has already made sure it blames US for this by saying this was caused due to the unrelenting American support for the al-Saud dynasty.
The Saudi embassy was raided and burned in Iran, hopefully no diplomats were hurt. Iranians ones are getting ready to leave the Kingdom within 48 hours, lest they be apprehended by the angry Sunnis.
It will most certainly get worse since neither of these countries are known for their diplomatic skills.
Probably not conventional war, no. That's not in the cards. But Iran and KSA have been at each others' throats in a Cold War for decades now. Proxy conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Bahrain have occurred because of their power struggle. Guess which side America picked, and see how much good it's done.
How likely is such a war? Not a clue. There are too many unknown variables.
That being said, one recent factor is the US's retreat from the Gulf - thus limiting its role as a peace keeper. This is happening mostly because the US of A has become self sufficiant in regards to petroleum, so it doesn't really need Saudi Arabia among its friends anymore.
Another consequence of the US becoming self sufficient is that Saudi Arabia's economy is starting to fall apart. One can only wonder how this will affect the Army - or indeed the country itself.
What would result from this war? Again, it's hard to tell, and here's why:
Iran, since the Islamic revolution, has been banned for weapons trade by most of the world. Because of that, they have develpoed most of their own long range missles, tanks, submarines and even ships. They have a huge military industry.
However, most of this home-made weaponry has never been tested in combat. This makes it tremendously difficult to assess Irans military power - and difficylt for Iran to improve their weaponry. We do know that their military technology is years behind any US ally - such as Saudi Arabia - but we don't really know to what extent.
In an attrition war Iran is likely to have a significant advantage, as it has a significantly larger army.
A direct war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is unlikely because they have more to lose than to gain from such a war. Both countries rely on oil exports, while their oil infrastructure is concentrated in and around the Persian Gulf which separates them.
Both countries have long-range weapons - Saudi Arabia has a modern airforce and air defense, while Iran developed a variety of missiles for different ranges and is building up air defense. Without going through Southern Iraq (another oil hub), it would be difficult for Iran and Saudi Arabia to engage in land combat. The richer Saudi Arabia is unlikely to risk many lives while fighting against the poorer but more populous Iran. Iran, on the other hand, has a relatively weak economy and would find it difficult to fund a protracted war against Saudi Arabia. Moreover, any attempts to block the Persian Gulf are likely to be cut short by the US Fifth Fleet that is headquartered in Bahrain (in the Gulf). So, hostilities between Iran and Saudi Arabia would mostly be confined to long-range weapons and may target oil infrastructure, causing serious economic handicaps.
There are several scenarios under which a war is possible, but it would likely be short and lopsided, with more humiliation for Iran that Iran would want to conceal. For example, if there are indications that Iran is violating the nuclear agreement, it is possible that Saudi Arabia or Israel or both strike Iran, possibly along with the US. Given that each of these countries has more modern weapons than Iran, and much better intelligence, they may be able to achieve their objectives quickly and without much noise. It will also be harder for Iran to respond. So, Iran would try to pretend that nothing happened, and the attackers would be perfectly fine with this (this would be similar to Israel's attacks on Syria's nuclear reactor under construction by North Korean engineers).
Both countries have long-range weapons - Saudi Arabia has a modern airforce and air defense, while Iran developed a variety of missiles for different ranges and is building up air defense. Without going through Southern Iraq (another oil hub), it would be difficult for Iran and Saudi Arabia to engage in land combat. The richer Saudi Arabia is unlikely to risk many lives while fighting against the poorer but more populous Iran. Iran, on the other hand, has a relatively weak economy and would find it difficult to fund a protracted war against Saudi Arabia. Moreover, any attempts to block the Persian Gulf are likely to be cut short by the US Fifth Fleet that is headquartered in Bahrain (in the Gulf). So, hostilities between Iran and Saudi Arabia would mostly be confined to long-range weapons and may target oil infrastructure, causing serious economic handicaps.
There are several scenarios under which a war is possible, but it would likely be short and lopsided, with more humiliation for Iran that Iran would want to conceal. For example, if there are indications that Iran is violating the nuclear agreement, it is possible that Saudi Arabia or Israel or both strike Iran, possibly along with the US. Given that each of these countries has more modern weapons than Iran, and much better intelligence, they may be able to achieve their objectives quickly and without much noise. It will also be harder for Iran to respond. So, Iran would try to pretend that nothing happened, and the attackers would be perfectly fine with this (this would be similar to Israel's attacks on Syria's nuclear reactor under construction by North Korean engineers).
No comments:
Post a Comment