Saudi special forces soldiers with G36C assault rifles. Saudi Press Agency
Ben Brimelow, Business Insider: Saudi Arabia has the best military equipment money can buy — but it's still not a threat to Iran
* Saudi Arabia has some of the greatest military equipment money can buy, but its military is still not seen as a threat to its longtime rival Iran.
* Saudi Arabia's military has not proved capable of effectively fighting back Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.
* Its arsenal is designed for a large conventional war — not proxy fighting.
In the past few years, Saudi Arabia has led an intervention in Yemen's civil war, been the driving force behind a diplomatic crisis between Qatar and its neighbors, and involved itself in the politics of Lebanon.
All of these things appear to have one common objective: to push back against the influence of Iran.
But experts say Saudi Arabia's ambitions are limited by its military, which is considered an ineffective force even though the kingdom is one of the world's largest spenders on defense.
"The fact is, Iran is better at doing this stuff," said Michael Knights, a Lafer fellow at The Washington Institute who specializes in the military and security affairs of Iraq, Iran, and the Persian Gulf.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This remark from a military and security expert on the region is very telling ....
.... "There's nobody in the Iranian General Staff that's afraid of Saudi Arabia on the ground," Knights said.
The above remark reminds me of what was the mindset of Hitler and the German High Command on the eve of invading the Soviet Union. They were not afraid of the Soviet Army, and were confident that Soviet institutions would collapse once the invasion started. What they refused to understand is that once they had committed to their actions, those who would oppose them would organize, and backed by unlimited manpower coupled with military supplies from America ... quickly become a force that was able to counter-attack and drive the Germans back .... which they did. In the Middle East today Iran is committed to the conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and Shiite groups in the Gulf States. They .... like the Germans in World War II .... feel confident that they can project their power with minimal opposition, and when opposed .... be able to destroy the enemy. I think for Iran .... to be pursuing this policy .... is a strategic mistake. The Sunni Arab world should not be underestimated, they have the numbers and they are backed by the U.S.. The only thing that is missing from this equation is the Sunni Arab population being motivated to wage all-out war against Iran instead of waging proxy conflicts that are now in play. For the moment .... the will to escalate the war is not there .... hence the condescending view from Tehran. But everyone has a breaking point, and Iran is certainly testing those boundaries.
6 comments:
WNU,
I agree with you. Also Iran is in that "awkward" stage at the moment. They are extended and very vulnerable, one (of many) reason they cannot stop now, at a minimum in their minds. This gives Putin a lot of leverage over them with use or not use of his air power for their benefit or detriment.
Saudi Arabia cannot start such a war because unless it can be 100% sure the US would protect it, it would ultimately lose against Iran. But equally your point holds true, unless Iran can be 100% sure that the US will not substantially back Saudi Arabia (which is actually likely they will do) they cannot afford to attack. The life of the attacker is always harder. The attacked has home ground, supply and logistics advantages, and usual moral high ground and motivation on his side. ..which is good, otherwise we'd have many more wars..
"coupled with military supplies from America ... "
The number of people that would dispute that is quite large no matter the the statistics on the number of trucks, tanks and planes sent to Russia.
Good observations.
I think either side might be considering a first strike before either is further along in their new weapons buying programs.
Down the road, it will be difficult to remove a fully entrenched Iran from its arc of control.
Saudi Arabia with time under its new leadership will probably be in a better position to project or defend.
Both sides might be tempted to strike now.
That is almost 1500 years ago. One the Roman empire was formidable, the Italian army has never been. In modern battle you need to know more than rush forward and scream " Allah et akbar".
Heraclius was short on manpower, when he fought the Persians and many others. He recruited many Arabs. It was not a Roman army. How polyglot or how pure of an army it was I cannot say now.
The Italians fought well in WW2, when under German leaders. The Italians like almost everyone else can fight well under proper leadership.
Sun Tzu asserted that he could make the women of the court perform with military precision and they did after he executed 1 or 2 of them.
I won't assert that this or that unit will perform well, but I won't offhandedly dismiss them either. During the Insurgency I have heard that American forces would mistakenly fire on Iraqi forces thinking they were a VBIED, but the Iraqis never fired on the Americans. That takes a lot of nerve. Sure the Iraqis Army melted at Mosul in 2014, but that was a fish rotting from the head type of problem not an 'Arab soldier' problem.
Post a Comment