AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Writing sourced historical facts (which I have done throughout the entire debate) is maybe "supremacist" in your eyes. I openly dislike your Mullah regime and its supporters however Arabs as a people have very little reason to be occupied by small Iran (in terms of size and population compared to the Arab world) historically. The grievances and grudges are mostly a one-sided event for obvious reasons and this has also been the case for the past 1400 years. This is evident when looking at our views/priorities pre-1979.
It's very simple. You stand no chance of hurting KSA without being burnt severely in the process.
Arab stronk propaganda is not fact. Facts are indisputable, like water is a liquid, the earth is round etc.
You make a series of assertions based on your own jingoistic thoughts. Not facts. Opinions. "Culturally, linguistically bla bla bla" conquered people is an assertion made by you, and actually disagreed with by most people.
It's very simple. You stand no chance of hurting KSA without being burnt severely in the process.
And you have made this assertion based on what you have concluded from your own convoluted picture of past events, and your nationalism. Not military-strategic analysis.
- Land invasion by Iran of Saudi Arabia = Not possible : Iran doesn't share a border.
- Land invasion of KSA by Iran and Iraq = Not possible (even if it happens, it will be defeated)
- Marine invasion of KSA by Iran = Iran does not have any marine landing ships nor the navy to support it.
- Naval bombardment of KSA coastal belt & refineries = Iranian navy is incapable of doing so.
- Using terrorists against KSA by Iran = Possible but also counterproductive.
- Sealing the straight of hormoes by Iran = The entire world will make sure Iran no longer has a navy.
- Bombing KSA oil refineries with Ballistic Missiles = Possible and the only option Iran really has, but it will result in massive losses for Iran as the GCC itself not only has ballistic missile defenses but also has an arsenal of Ballistic Missiles and its Air Force is light years ahead of Iran. After such an attack Iran will lose all of its navy, all of its air force, all of its refineries and reactors.
You're getting it all wrong.
This entire thread is based on statements the Iranian Defence Minister made in response to the Saudis saying they will work for battles to be fought in Iran.
It is Saudi that will be doing the attacking, especially since they have right now a far more aggressive leadership that seems to have a taste for extraterritorial operations by its regular forces (i.e not using proxies. I don't see how I can be more neutral there, I didn't even say "invasion" since some sensitive people would say it was with invitation of "legitimate Yemeni govt" etc.).
So your entire list of scenarios is moot.
Its also not helpful that you seem not to want a proper technical discussion, but simple chest thumping, like claiming Iran would use terrorists. This chest thumping is a recurring negative trend in this forum.
Iran has maintained a defensive military-strategic posture for decades. Iran has planned extensively to defend against an American attack. It is not as simple as some sort of top trumps game, where the one with the shiniest card wins.
So maybe you should also look at Iranian defensive advantages and Saudi offensive disadvantages as well.
It's true that Saudi has a powerful air force. But Iran has a powerful air defence force, comprising of the latest Russian S-300 system, and its Iranian counterpart. Aside from these, there is a myriad of medium and short range defensive systems.
It's true that Saudi has modern ABM systems. But those ABM systems are optimised for shooting down unsophisticated tactical scuds, not hypersonic MRBMs, and manoeuvring warheads make the job even more difficult. Iran also has an increasing stockpile of long range land attack cruise missiles that can slip under the Saudi defences.
It's true that Saudi has a strong navy. But Iran's navy is similar in strength of equipment of and number of surface vessels. However, Saudi doesn't have any submarines, which puts it at a huge disadvantage, in any naval conflict especially in the shallow Persian Gulf where Iran's submarines are designed to operate in. Meanwhile, Iran is launching missiles from its submarine torpedo tubes. The simple lack of submarines makes Saudi's navy inferior to Iran's, in my opinion. Furthermore, Iran fields a large number of mobile coastal anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, ranging up to 300 km.
As for Ballistic Missiles, you must be having a laugh. Comparing Saudi's missile forces to Iran's is like comparing Iran's air force to Saudis. Iran has thousands of missiles in scattered hardened silo bases, and on mobile launchers. Saudi has, at best, 150 missiles, and at worst 50 or so. These are all located in one base, using the absolute worst launch method - launch pads. Like satellite launches. Just sitting out in the open, completely immobile, completely physically unprotected.
Due to the lack of land borders, any Iran-Saudi conflict would likely be a short one, naval and aerial. Saudi may not have time to whittle down Iran's air defences, which can cover the Persian Gulf with their range. Iranian ballistic missiles can rain down on Saudi ports, military airbases, and possibly oil facilities if there is an escalation. I reckon the conflict would be so short (most likely ending in a UN ceasefire) that no side would suffer any significant damage.