US & KSA Together we prevail: Riyadh Summit 2017

[Holmes]

Talk about when will USA nuke so called KSA for creating ISIS and al-quaeda.

 

[LeGenD]

Why did the war started between Iraq and Iran?

Ayatollah Khomeini was political opponent of Shah of Iran and was forced to flee his country in 1965. Khomeini settled in Najaf (Iraq) but remained politically active. You can find some details here: http://en.imam-khomeini.ir/en/n2338/Biography/Exile_to_Iraq

Khomeini was not only a critic of Shah of Iran but also disliked Ba'ath party in Iraq and sought to expand his sphere of influence in both Iraq and Iran with his teachings (Shia from all over the world used to attend his sessions). Khomeini was believed to be plotting a coup in Iran and Shah of Iran took notice of it. Shah of Iran persuaded Saddam Hussein to exile Khomeini from Iraq who then moved to France. However, Khomeini's influence in Iran continued to grow and risks of civil war increased. Conversely, Khomeini fueled Anti-American sentiment in Iran because US supported Shah of Iran. Ironically, Khomeini's followers were not aware of the fact that Khomeini had struck a deal with US (in absolute secrecy) in regards to non-violent takeover of Iran.

----

Anyhow, Khomeini's return to Iran and subsequent takeover of the state in 1979 stunned Saddam and he feared that Khomeini might orchestrate a major Shiite uprising in Iraq since Khomeini had declared him infidel; such level of success arguably emboldened Khomeini to expand his sphere of influence across Arabian peninusla and this was one of the major reasons for Saddam to act preemptively (google the article "As Iran Exported Its Shiite Revolution, Sunni Arabs Resisted" for more clarity). Conversely, Saddam was not comfortable with a treaty signed with Iran in 1975 for sharing of shatt-al-arab.

However, situation reached boiling point when an Iraqi shia militant wing (led by Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr) attempted to assassinate Tariq Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in 1980. Saddam struck back by executing Baqir and deporting thousands of shia with Iranian nationality. This development enraged Khomeini who called for coup in Iraq. Please note that Baqir and Khomeini were close friends and evidence of Khomeini's funding and supply of arms to his militant wing was an open secret.

Anyhow, a very talented (but overshadowed) Iraqi military commander Raad Hamdani (a well-known critic of Saddam Hussein) offers a very balanced and comprehensive explanation of causes of Iran-Iraq war and why it ended in a stalemate for both: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/109998/McNair70.pdf

Hamdani was not less than a brilliant strategist himself but Saddam Hussein was all-powerful in his country and used to ignore professional advice for his political motives.

 

[Asghar1234]

Ayatollah Khomeini was political opponent of Shah of Iran and was forced to flee his country in 1965. Khomeini settled in Najaf (Iraq) but remained politically active. You can find some details here: http://en.imam-khomeini.ir/en/n2338/Biography/Exile_to_Iraq

Khomeini was not only a critic of Shah of Iran but also disliked Ba'ath party in Iraq and sought to expand his sphere of influence in both Iraq and Iran with his teachings (Shia from all over the world used to attend his sessions). Khomeini was believed to be plotting a coup in Iran and Shah of Iran took notice of it. Shah of Iran persuaded Saddam Hussein to exile Khomeini from Iraq who then moved to France. However, Khomeini's influence in Iran continued to grow and risks of civil war increased. Conversely, Khomeini fueled Anti-American sentiment in Iran because US supported Shah of Iran. Ironically, Khomeini's followers were not aware of the fact that Khomeini had struck a deal with US (in absolute secrecy) in regards to non-violent takeover of Iran.

----

Anyhow, Khomeini's return to Iran and subsequent takeover of the state in 1979 stunned Saddam and he feared that Khomeini might orchestrate a major Shiite uprising in Iraq since Khomeini had declared him infidel; such level of success arguably emboldened Khomeini to expand his sphere of influence across Arabian peninusla and this was one of the major reasons for Saddam to act preemptively (google the article "As Iran Exported Its Shiite Revolution, Sunni Arabs Resisted" for more clarity). Conversely, Saddam was not comfortable with a treaty signed with Iran in 1975 for sharing of shatt-al-arab.

However, situation reached boiling point when an Iraqi shia militant wing (led by Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr) attempted to assassinate Tariq Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in 1980. Saddam struck back by executing Baqir and deporting thousands of shia with Iranian nationality. This development enraged Khomeini who called for coup in Iraq. Please note that Baqir and Khomeini were close friends and evidence of Khomeini's funding and supply of arms to his militant wing was an open secret.

Anyhow, a very talented (but overshadowed) Iraqi military commander Raad Hamdani (a well-known critic of Saddam Hussein) offers a very balanced and comprehensive explanation of causes of Iran-Iraq war and why it ended in a stalemate for both: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/109998/McNair70.pdf

Hamdani was not less than a brilliant strategist himself but Saddam Hussein was all-powerful in his country and used to ignore professional advice for his political motives.

Nonsense.... Iranian revolution was not a coup but a disagree against Shah's regime and 98% of Iranians voted to Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran didn't want to overthrow Iraq's government by increasing it's influence or whatever else. It was Iraq that wanted to conquer west and Southern west of Iran but Saddam fully failed in the first year of war.

 

[LeGenD]

Iran had 35 million people at the time. Plus, it had just gone through a revolution, had just purged almost all of its military officers and generals, and was fighting a quasi-civil war with MKO and Kurdish separatists when Saddam attacked. It was also under a total arms embargo by the west and the Soviets. Iran's largest military weapons supplier (supplies which paled in comparison to the supplies Iraq got) was China, who in fact sold to both sides.

Saddam in comparison was better armed, much better prepared, had the political, financial, and military support of the US, Soviet Union, Europe, and entire Arab World, and most importantly, had chemical weapons, and freely used them with not a single protest from the UN.

If it were any non-Arab country (like Turkey, Pakistan, or hell, even Afghanistan) attacking Iran instead, Iran would have collapsed instantly and lost a vast amount of land.

This is a misconception.

Iraqi army at the time of invading Iran in 1980 was much smaller and lacking in experience in comparison to what Americans encountered in 1991.

An analysis of the balance of military forces between Iran and Iraq suggests that in the summer of 1980 Iraq held an advantage over Iran, despite Iran’s larger size and its historical military superiority. Although Iran was larger, had more people, and had a defense budget one and a half times that of Baghdad’s, Iraq’s army was 30 percent larger. Iran’s air force was about twice the size of Iraq’s; however, by the summer of 1980, Iran had been cutoff from its principal arms supplier, the United States, for nearly a year and a half. Saddam, like many outside observers, probably believed that the loss of spare parts, training, American military advice, and ammunition dramatically weakened the Iranian armed forces, especially its high-tech Air Force.

Iran’s navy was nearly five times larger than Iraq’s, and its superiority was too great for Iraq to overcome, regardless of Iran’s problems. Still, Saddam could well have concluded his forces held an advantage on the ground and in the air. The Iranian military was also emasculated by the loss of a great many officers, especially senior officers, who had sided with the Shah. Those senior officers who remained in Iran instead of fleeing the country during the revolution were not trusted by the Khomeini regime. 52 In the wake of coup attempts in late May and again in early July of 1980, Tehran’s ruling mullahs began purging the armed forces of what little professional military leadership remained.53 Thus, logistical and leadership problems within Iran’s armed forces probably convinced Saddam Hussein of Iraq’s martial superiority over his traditionally more powerful neighbor to the east. This temporary Iraqi advantage would wane as Khomeini consolidated power and found new sources for military supplies, thus adding to Saddam’s motivation to act soon and win quickly.

http://i68.tinypic.com/11t3ajd.png

As previously mentioned, geography and demographics also hindered Saddam. While Saddam could not hope to march on Tehran with his own forces, he had to defend Baghdad in case the Iranian Army came west. Moreover, comparatively shallow incursions of Iranian forces into eastern Iraq would put many Iraqi towns within Iranian artillery range; Iran was less vulnerable in this sense. Finally, Iranian lines of communication to the outside world were relatively secure, while Iraq depended on support from its neighbors to maintain imports and exports.

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a441842.pdf

It is true that professionalism of Iranian military had taken a nosedive during revolution period, Iran was still a much larger state than Iraq and faced no shortage of motivated people to partake in the war (Iranian militias were a force-multiplier). Another thing is that high-tech American equipment such as F-14 aircraft inflicted heavy losses on Iraqi military assets during the course of war. Iranian navy was also much more powerful than Iraqi navy and would be used to enforce blockade Shatt-al-Arab and disrupt supplies to Iraq at times. This war wasn't one-sided by any stretch of imagination.

Conversely, Iraqi generals testify that Iraqi military was not prepared for a (long-term) war with Iran and Saddam would ignore professional advice for political motives. All that aid that poured into Iraq during the war, enabled it to cope with pressures of war with Iran and reverse Iranian gains in the battlefield at a later stage.

I would say that Iraq stood much better chance at 'regime-change' mission in Iran during 1991. However, Saddam was preoccupied with GCC during this time.

As for your claim that non-Arab states such as Turkey, Afghanistan and/or Pakistan would have decisively defeated Iran in a war - simply untrue.

1. Turkey could not project power into Iran due to its geography.

2. Afghanistan does not have a professional army; did not had one (back then).

3. Pakistani army is designed for short-term quality engagements and gains to extract political concessions from an opponent. Occupation of a country (and that too as big as Iran) is a very ambitious and costly military endeavor and Pakistani cannot afford it. Heck, Iraq rained down missiles and chemical weapons on Iran and that achieved nothing (180+ missiles in total). Pakistani missile arsenal is not that large and mostly reserved for strategic purposes.

In-spite of its shortcomings, Iraq gave you guys hell in the battlefield. Give credit where due.

Nonsense.... Iranian revolution was not a coup but a disagree against Shah's regime and 98% of Iranians voted to Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran didn't want to overthrow Iraq's government by increasing it's influence or whatever else. It was Iraq that wanted to conquer west and Southern west of Iran but Saddam fully failed in the first year of war.

Everything that goes against your "interpretation" of events is nonsense now? Your leaders have brainwashed you well.

I do (not) deny popularity of Khomeini; surely, a large number of Iranian citizens supported Khomeini and the notion of Islamic state. However, what you don't get is that once Khomeini came into power, he commenced a state-wide crackdown on elements he deemed secular and/or supportive of Shah of Iran; thousands were systematically assassinated and suppressed. Today, this is why you get the impression that Shah of Iran had no support back then which is wrong.

 

[Asghar1234]

This is a misconception.

Iraqi army at the time of invading Iran in 1980 was much smaller and lacking in experience in comparison to what Americans encountered in 1991.

An analysis of the balance of military forces between Iran and Iraq suggests that in the summer of 1980 Iraq held an advantage over Iran, despite Iran’s larger size and its historical military superiority. Although Iran was larger, had more people, and had a defense budget one and a half times that of Baghdad’s, Iraq’s army was 30 percent larger. Iran’s air force was about twice the size of Iraq’s; however, by the summer of 1980, Iran had been cutoff from its principal arms supplier, the United States, for nearly a year and a half. Saddam, like many outside observers, probably believed that the loss of spare parts, training, American military advice, and ammunition dramatically weakened the Iranian armed forces, especially its high-tech Air Force.

Iran’s navy was nearly five times larger than Iraq’s, and its superiority was too great for Iraq to overcome, regardless of Iran’s problems. Still, Saddam could well have concluded his forces held an advantage on the ground and in the air. The Iranian military was also emasculated by the loss of a great many officers, especially senior officers, who had sided with the Shah. Those senior officers who remained in Iran instead of fleeing the country during the revolution were not trusted by the Khomeini regime. 52 In the wake of coup attempts in late May and again in early July of 1980, Tehran’s ruling mullahs began purging the armed forces of what little professional military leadership remained.53 Thus, logistical and leadership problems within Iran’s armed forces probably convinced Saddam Hussein of Iraq’s martial superiority over his traditionally more powerful neighbor to the east. This temporary Iraqi advantage would wane as Khomeini consolidated power and found new sources for military supplies, thus adding to Saddam’s motivation to act soon and win quickly.

http://i68.tinypic.com/11t3ajd.png

As previously mentioned, geography and demographics also hindered Saddam. While Saddam could not hope to march on Tehran with his own forces, he had to defend Baghdad in case the Iranian Army came west. Moreover, comparatively shallow incursions of Iranian forces into eastern Iraq would put many Iraqi towns within Iranian artillery range; Iran was less vulnerable in this sense. Finally, Iranian lines of communication to the outside world were relatively secure, while Iraq depended on support from its neighbors to maintain imports and exports.

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a441842.pdf

It is true that professionalism of Iranian military had taken a nosedive during revolution period, Iran was still a much larger state than Iraq and faced no shortage of motivated people to partake in the war (Iranian militias were a force-multiplier). Another thing is that high-tech American equipment such as F-14 aircraft inflicted heavy losses on Iraqi military assets during the course of war. Iranian navy was also much more powerful than Iraqi navy and would be used to enforce blockade Shatt-al-Arab and disrupt supplies to Iraq at times. This war wasn't one-sided by any stretch of imagination.

Conversely, Iraqi generals testify that Iraqi military was not prepared for a (long-term) war with Iran and Saddam would ignore professional advice for political motives. All that aid that poured into Iraq during the war, enabled it to cope with pressures of war with Iran and reverse Iranian gains in the battlefield at a later stage.

I would say that Iraq stood much better chance at 'regime-change' mission in Iran during 1991. However, Saddam was preoccupied with GCC during this time.

As for your claim that non-Arab states such as Turkey, Afghanistan and/or Pakistan would have decisively defeated Iran in a war - simply untrue.

1. Turkey could not project power into Iran due to its geography.

2. Afghanistan does not have a professional army; did not had one (back then).

3. Pakistani army is designed for short-term quality engagements and gains to extract political concessions from an opponent. Occupation of a country (and that too as big as Iran) is a very ambitious and costly military endeavor and Pakistani cannot afford it. Heck, Iraq rained down missiles and chemical weapons on Iran and that achieved nothing (180+ missiles in total). Pakistani missile arsenal is not that large and mostly reserved for strategic purposes.

In-spite of its shortcomings, Iraq gave you guys hell in the battlefield. Give credit where due.


Everything that goes against your "interpretation" of events is nonsense now? Your leaders have brainwashed you well.

I do (not) deny popularity of Khomeini; surely, a large number of Iranian citizens supported Khomeini and the notion of Islamic state. However, what you don't get is that once Khomeini came into power, he commenced a state-wide crackdown on elements he deemed secular and/or supportive of Shah of Iran; thousands were systematically assassinated and suppressed. Today, this is why you get the impression that Shah of Iran had no support back then which is wrong.

Shah of Iran had near to zero back.

1 - 2% are in favor of him. Since those very small minority lived in Iran's enemy country 'the US' they have always had very big noise and for 38 years they have many medias and satellite tv channels talking against Iran and Islamic Republic 24/7.

To me voice of those 2 - 3% worth as much as fart of horse...

 

[mike2000 is back]

Precisely. The US is the best partner that you can have to help implement the Saudi Vision 2030 and having leading US companies and thus by default world leaders in their respective fields on our side and a large amount of ToT and the best weapons that money can buy, is overall a great thing. Especially as tons of historic deals where signed on fields ranging from economy, petrochemical industry, arms industry, health care, education, security, technology transfer and the geopolitical aspect.

All this while at the same time cultivating close and growing ties with countries such as China, South Korea, Japan, UK, France, Ukraine, Indonesia, fellow Arab countries within the GCC and outside of it, Pakistan etc.

Also news like this are what makes those historic deals a completely different beast altogether compared to the usual "we sell you buy".

https://twitter.com/x/status/865928402628476929

https://twitter.com/x/status/866000752623407105

https://twitter.com/x/status/865902169408589824

https://twitter.com/x/status/865906382435954688

Mutual beneficial (hopefully) investments in both countries that will create 1000's of new jobs and hopefully contribute to the overall development in KSA.



KSA and the US are benefiting from each others partnership and it is not a one-sided relationship. In fact the trade balance is in favor of KSA as things stand. The US has invested 100's of billions into the Saudi Arabian economy since the 1940's and similarly KSA has invested A LOT of money in the US. The US has helped educate 800.000 Saudi Arabian students since the 1960's who later on shaped all of our industries and will continue to do so. Several Saudi Arabian universities (the highest ranked in the Muslim world per most surveys) also have very valuable partnerships with their American counterparts. Then you have the security/terrorism aspect. US companies have played an important role in KSA's amazing rise since the 1940's as well.

All part of a wider plan/vision (Saudi Vision 2030):

KACTS was one of the Saudi Arabian universities that signed 10 agreements with leading US universities and 3 memorandums of understanding with 3 major US companies.

They can be seen below:

Sure, the US is not perfect but neither is KSA. For that matter which country or partnership is that? None. All I can say is that I rather be a partner of the US than Russia. I have seen the state of pro-Russian Arab/Muslim countries (even resource rich ones such as Algeria etc.) and it is not something that pro-US Arab/Muslim countries should envy or aspire to.

With all due respect, everything that the US offers us and the GCC, nobody else can offer even remotely close to. Maybe China in the future.

Agree 100%. Well said.
KSA and GCC countries are very pragmatic, open and business friendly countries. Their leaders at least know how to make use of their natural resources for the betterment of their people. Can't say the same for many other developing countries. Having visited some gulf countries I was amazed by the development of these countries and the high living standards their people enjoy. Great endeavour.

 

[The SC]

Lol, Iran-gate was a measly fraction of all arms sold. Seriously, the total worth was about $35 million and that's being optimistic. Whereas the Iraqis must have bought over $60 billion worth of arms (and that's in 1990 dollars). It isn't even comparable. Iran-gate wasn't the west supporting Iran, it was the west trying to get Iran to do something for it, which was indirectly fund the contras.

Algiers agreement was an international treaty and Saddam violated it because he was hungry for territory. Though of course genocidal Saddam era-officials and their supporters will say Iraq was the victim.

Even if we do not take into account any arms supplies to Iran during that war, would you recognise that Iran had the best US and UK weapons anyone could field at that time? from the F-5 freedom fighters through the F-4 phantom to the F-14 Tomcat, to frigates, tanks armed with the best missiles and munitions and almost every weapon system the west had to offer was in the Iranian inventory..And all of them were in big quantities and brand new..My friend, what the Shah had for weapons was to confront a USSR invasion not tiny Iraq..

 

[AmirPatriot]

Even if we do not take into account any arms supplies to Iran during that war, would you recognise that Iran had the best US and UK weapons anyone could field at that time? from the F-5 freedom fighters through the F-4 phantom to the F-14 Tomcat, to frigates, tanks armed with the best missiles and munitions and almost every weapon system the west had to offer was in the Iranian inventory..And all of them were in big quantities and brand new..My friend, what the Shah had for weapons was to confront a USSR invasion not tiny Iraq..

Yes, and as Iran learnt the hard way in that war, those weapons are useless if you cannot arm or maintain them.

Meanwhile Saddam got all the CW, jets, tanks, missiles he wanted with full support, much of them with Arab money. They far outnumbered us in equipment as the war progressed.

 

[The SC]

Here’s a list of the companies and weapons involved in the $110 billion deal:

Lockheed Martin (The firm says its share of the potential total is $28 billion.)

• THAAD missile defense system
• Four Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ships
• 150 S-70 Black Hawk helicopters
• Radars systems, tactical aircraft and surveillance systems

Boeing

• Chinook helicopters
• Guided weapons
• P-8 surveillance planes
• Sustainment work
• Saudi Rotorcraft Support Company
• Maybe: 16 widebody commercial jetliners

Raytheon

• Air defense systems
• Smart munitions
• C4I systems
• Cybersecurity for defense systems

General Dynamics

• Abrams tanks

Unidentified Weapons

• Light close-air-support aircraft
• Transport aircraft
• Armored personnel carriers
• Patrol boats

http://cdn.defenseone.com/b/defense...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Add to this the mandatory inclusion of ToT (to various degrees of course)

Considering that Iran and Iraq had lost more than $600 billion each during the Iran-Iraq war, It is a very good move on the part of KSA, even if the amount goes up to $300 billion it will be worth it to prevent a war instead of conducting one that by today's standards and weapons prices might cost more than a $1 trillion for each opponent!!!

 

[AmirPatriot]

Considering that Iran and Iraq had lost more than $600 billion each during the Iran-Iraq war, It is a very good move on the part of KSA, even if the amount goes up to $300 billion it will be worth it to prevent a war instead of conducting one that by today's standards and weapos prices might cost more than a $1 trillion for each opponent!!!

Unless, of course, KSA wants to play the role of Iraq.

 

[The SC]

Unless, of course, KSA wants to play the role of Iraq.

Well, it can't even if it wanted to, there are no shared borders between the 2 countries.. so your fears are based on some subjective thoughts.. There are two unsolved issues though since the Iran -Iraq war that Iran should work on with its neighbours, namely the 3 islands that belonged to the UAE and Britain and were taken forcefully by Iran and the export of the Iranian Islamic revolution.. this will fix the problem very quickly, otherwise it will extend the conflict for as long as at least and most importantly the export of the Iranian revolution ideology to wherever Shia Muslims are found!

 

[AmirPatriot]

There are two unsolved issues though since the Iran -Iraq war that Iran should work on with its neighbours, namely the 3 islands that belonged to the UAE and Britain

That is no issue. They are Iranian islands. Their status as such is non-negotiable. This is something Saudi can try to change, but will be met with the same response we dealt to Saddam.

and the export of the Iranian Islamic revolution

Which is meant to liberate Muslims from oppressors, like in Palestine.

 

[The SC]

That is no issue. They are Iranian islands. Their status as such is non-negotiable. This is something Saudi can try to change, but will be met with the same response we dealt to Saddam.



Which is meant to liberate Muslims from oppressors, like in Palestine.

The problem Amir, is that one should not confuse Shia revolution with all Muslims.. that is the source of the problem.
I do not know about the 3 islands that much but it is the UAE who is claiming them not KSA!

I do not know what response you dealt to Saddam:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/anat...al-war-the-iran-iraq-war.498480/#post-9523367

 

[AmirPatriot]

The problem Amir, is that one should not confuse Shia revolution with all Muslims

It was called the "Islamic Revolution of Iran", not the "Shia Revolution of Iran".

I do not know about the 3 islands that much but it is the UAE who is claiming them not KSA!

But UAE obviously don't have the military power to take on Iran, and since Iran will not negotiate at all over the islands (which delusional UAE are calling for), they may want to get KSA's "help". After all, they've already brought it up in Arab League meetings (or PGCC meetings, not sure which one).

I do not know what response you dealt to Saddam:

That we will go to extraordinary lengths to defend every inch of our territory.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Where are the moderators? Why is this thread which has nothing to do with the North Korea of the Middle East and their Wilayat al-Faqih Mullah drones, being derailed continuously by the usual suspects?

@The SC has done a great job at updating this thread but his posts drown in the sea of Wilayat al-Faqih nonsense. Kindly remove this as we don't care about that small, impoverished and isolated entity.

Ayatollah Khomeini was political opponent of Shah of Iran and was forced to flee his country in 1965. Khomeini settled in Najaf (Iraq) but remained politically active. You can find some details here: http://en.imam-khomeini.ir/en/n2338/Biography/Exile_to_Iraq

Khomeini was not only a critic of Shah of Iran but also disliked Ba'ath party in Iraq and sought to expand his sphere of influence in both Iraq and Iran with his teachings (Shia from all over the world used to attend his sessions). Khomeini was believed to be plotting a coup in Iran and Shah of Iran took notice of it. Shah of Iran persuaded Saddam Hussein to exile Khomeini from Iraq who then moved to France. However, Khomeini's influence in Iran continued to grow and risks of civil war increased. Conversely, Khomeini fueled Anti-American sentiment in Iran because US supported Shah of Iran. Ironically, Khomeini's followers were not aware of the fact that Khomeini had struck a deal with US (in absolute secrecy) in regards to non-violent takeover of Iran.

----

Anyhow, Khomeini's return to Iran and subsequent takeover of the state in 1979 stunned Saddam and he feared that Khomeini might orchestrate a major Shiite uprising in Iraq since Khomeini had declared him infidel; such level of success arguably emboldened Khomeini to expand his sphere of influence across Arabian peninusla and this was one of the major reasons for Saddam to act preemptively (google the article "As Iran Exported Its Shiite Revolution, Sunni Arabs Resisted" for more clarity). Conversely, Saddam was not comfortable with a treaty signed with Iran in 1975 for sharing of shatt-al-arab.

However, situation reached boiling point when an Iraqi shia militant wing (led by Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr) attempted to assassinate Tariq Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in 1980. Saddam struck back by executing Baqir and deporting thousands of shia with Iranian nationality. This development enraged Khomeini who called for coup in Iraq. Please note that Baqir and Khomeini were close friends and evidence of Khomeini's funding and supply of arms to his militant wing was an open secret.

Anyhow, a very talented (but overshadowed) Iraqi military commander Raad Hamdani (a well-known critic of Saddam Hussein) offers a very balanced and comprehensive explanation of causes of Iran-Iraq war and why it ended in a stalemate for both: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/109998/McNair70.pdf

Hamdani was not less than a brilliant strategist himself but Saddam Hussein was all-powerful in his country and used to ignore professional advice for his political motives.

This is a misconception.

Iraqi army at the time of invading Iran in 1980 was much smaller and lacking in experience in comparison to what Americans encountered in 1991.

An analysis of the balance of military forces between Iran and Iraq suggests that in the summer of 1980 Iraq held an advantage over Iran, despite Iran’s larger size and its historical military superiority. Although Iran was larger, had more people, and had a defense budget one and a half times that of Baghdad’s, Iraq’s army was 30 percent larger. Iran’s air force was about twice the size of Iraq’s; however, by the summer of 1980, Iran had been cutoff from its principal arms supplier, the United States, for nearly a year and a half. Saddam, like many outside observers, probably believed that the loss of spare parts, training, American military advice, and ammunition dramatically weakened the Iranian armed forces, especially its high-tech Air Force.

Iran’s navy was nearly five times larger than Iraq’s, and its superiority was too great for Iraq to overcome, regardless of Iran’s problems. Still, Saddam could well have concluded his forces held an advantage on the ground and in the air. The Iranian military was also emasculated by the loss of a great many officers, especially senior officers, who had sided with the Shah. Those senior officers who remained in Iran instead of fleeing the country during the revolution were not trusted by the Khomeini regime. 52 In the wake of coup attempts in late May and again in early July of 1980, Tehran’s ruling mullahs began purging the armed forces of what little professional military leadership remained.53 Thus, logistical and leadership problems within Iran’s armed forces probably convinced Saddam Hussein of Iraq’s martial superiority over his traditionally more powerful neighbor to the east. This temporary Iraqi advantage would wane as Khomeini consolidated power and found new sources for military supplies, thus adding to Saddam’s motivation to act soon and win quickly.

http://i68.tinypic.com/11t3ajd.png

As previously mentioned, geography and demographics also hindered Saddam. While Saddam could not hope to march on Tehran with his own forces, he had to defend Baghdad in case the Iranian Army came west. Moreover, comparatively shallow incursions of Iranian forces into eastern Iraq would put many Iraqi towns within Iranian artillery range; Iran was less vulnerable in this sense. Finally, Iranian lines of communication to the outside world were relatively secure, while Iraq depended on support from its neighbors to maintain imports and exports.

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a441842.pdf

It is true that professionalism of Iranian military had taken a nosedive during revolution period, Iran was still a much larger state than Iraq and faced no shortage of motivated people to partake in the war (Iranian militias were a force-multiplier). Another thing is that high-tech American equipment such as F-14 aircraft inflicted heavy losses on Iraqi military assets during the course of war. Iranian navy was also much more powerful than Iraqi navy and would be used to enforce blockade Shatt-al-Arab and disrupt supplies to Iraq at times. This war wasn't one-sided by any stretch of imagination.

Conversely, Iraqi generals testify that Iraqi military was not prepared for a (long-term) war with Iran and Saddam would ignore professional advice for political motives. All that aid that poured into Iraq during the war, enabled it to cope with pressures of war with Iran and reverse Iranian gains in the battlefield at a later stage.

I would say that Iraq stood much better chance at 'regime-change' mission in Iran during 1991. However, Saddam was preoccupied with GCC during this time.

As for your claim that non-Arab states such as Turkey, Afghanistan and/or Pakistan would have decisively defeated Iran in a war - simply untrue.

1. Turkey could not project power into Iran due to its geography.

2. Afghanistan does not have a professional army; did not had one (back then).

3. Pakistani army is designed for short-term quality engagements and gains to extract political concessions from an opponent. Occupation of a country (and that too as big as Iran) is a very ambitious and costly military endeavor and Pakistani cannot afford it. Heck, Iraq rained down missiles and chemical weapons on Iran and that achieved nothing (180+ missiles in total). Pakistani missile arsenal is not that large and mostly reserved for strategic purposes.

In-spite of its shortcomings, Iraq gave you guys hell in the battlefield. Give credit where due.


Everything that goes against your "interpretation" of events is nonsense now? Your leaders have brainwashed you well.

I do (not) deny popularity of Khomeini; surely, a large number of Iranian citizens supported Khomeini and the notion of Islamic state. However, what you don't get is that once Khomeini came into power, he commenced a state-wide crackdown on elements he deemed secular and/or supportive of Shah of Iran; thousands were systematically assassinated and suppressed. Today, this is why you get the impression that Shah of Iran had no support back then which is wrong.

Perfectly put. Well written posts bro. A rarity on PDF. Chapeau!

Anyway indeed our Iraqi brothers and sisters gave them hell to such an extend that they don't dare to attack a single Arab country any longer. Now they are only good at using a few Arab proxies who will be defeated by the Arab states which they operate in (Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen). Not only that we will support 1 million more Saddam Hussein's against hostile foreigners.

Here’s a list of the companies and weapons involved in the $110 billion deal:

Lockheed Martin (The firm says its share of the potential total is $28 billion.)

• THAAD missile defense system
• Four Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ships
• 150 S-70 Black Hawk helicopters
• Radars systems, tactical aircraft and surveillance systems

Boeing

• Chinook helicopters
• Guided weapons
• P-8 surveillance planes
• Sustainment work
• Saudi Rotorcraft Support Company
• Maybe: 16 widebody commercial jetliners

Raytheon

• Air defense systems
• Smart munitions
• C4I systems
• Cybersecurity for defense systems

General Dynamics

• Abrams tanks

Unidentified Weapons

• Light close-air-support aircraft
• Transport aircraft
• Armored personnel carriers
• Patrol boats

http://cdn.defenseone.com/b/defense...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Considering that Iran and Iraq had lost more than $600 billion each during the Iran-Iraq war, It is a very good move on the part of KSA, even if the amount goes up to $300 billion it will be worth it to prevent a war instead of conducting one that by today's standards and weapos prices might cost more than a $1 trillion for each opponent!!!

Add to this the mandatory inclusion of ToT (to various degrees of course), bro.

https://twitter.com/x/status/865928402628476929

In any case we are well-positioned as things stand right now but after this deal and other ones and with the kickstart of Saudi Vision 2030 potential enemies will think not twice but several times before trying to hurt our interests let alone attack us!