Is war between Iran and Saudi imminent?

[Great Old Man]

 

Many Korean mystery forum user thinks Iran and Saudi War is very near.

They think that War could be WWIII and it seems Armageddon in the Bible.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Great Old Man

[RoofGardener]

No war is imminent, unless Iran undertakes more attacks against SA and its interests. (e.g. oil tankers). 

Saudi would NOT want to start a war with Iran. The Saudi military is... rather poor quality, despite having all the latest toys. (look how poorly they have performed in the conflict with Yemen). They would be more likely to try and rope America into fighting the war on its behalf. And they'd probably succeed. 

As for WWIII... no, I think not. The US (possibly with help from North-Western Europe) would simply bombard Iran's coastline (and all of its oil-processing facilities) into destruction, and then sit back and allow the country to enter an economic Dark Ages. It would all be over within a fortnight, leaving no time for anyone else to get involved, even if they wanted to. 

Saudi and the other Gulf States could make up for the shortfall of oil previously produced by Iran, to say nothing of Russia and Venezuala etc. 

Edited October 29, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, Great Old Man said:

They think that War could be WWIII and it seems Armageddon in the Bible.

They say that because that is what they want. The same Evangelical groups in the U.S. say the same thing.  They think they need a war for Jesus to come back. 

[TigerBright19]

Best way to start a war is to destabilize the regions around the country, cause civil unrest, boost negative propaganda, increase sanctions, commit espionage, surveillance, and sabotage facilities, block roads, tighten grip on trade, and effectively provoke the targeted country into firing the first shot.  Then bring in the soldiers under the pretense that they are there to protect the humanitarian effort of helping refugees escaping, threaten the regime to surrender or submit to allied control, create or fake an atrocity, and then begin the full scale assault.  Under the fog of war nobody will question the reasons why the war was initiated, as the media will be focused entirely on reaching the final objective, and with each allied death the war will be justified.  Pretty much a classic textbook approach to conquering a nation.

 

[Phaeton80]

On 10/29/2019 at 2:26 PM, Aaron2016 said:

Best way to start a war is to destabilize the regions around the country, cause civil unrest, boost negative propaganda, increase sanctions, commit espionage, surveillance, and sabotage facilities, block roads, tighten grip on trade, and effectively provoke the targeted country into firing the first shot.  Then bring in the soldiers under the pretense that they are there to protect the humanitarian effort of helping refugees escaping, threaten the regime to surrender or submit to allied control, create or fake an atrocity, and then begin the full scale assault.  Under the fog of war nobody will question the reasons why the war was initiated, as the media will be focused entirely on reaching the final objective, and with each allied death the war will be justified.  Pretty much a classic textbook approach to conquering a nation.

 

..Which is pretty much exactly the M.O. being implemented against Iran. Its pretty clear the usual suspects have been targetting Iran as the next nation in line to destroy after the Syria debacle.. It could even be argued Syria was a steppingstone to (a succesful) Iran 'intervention'. The chance of success against Iran is much higher if Syria and Iraq could be used as strategic launching pads, but it seems 'they' (with Netanyahu and MBS as the main players) are so desperate to topple this nation - one of the last remaining uncontrollable bastions, just like Syria - they are willing to to take the risk. After, ofcourse, playing the economic stranglehold / civil unrest card to the fullest extent possible.

If anyone thinks Iran will be another Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or even Syria.. might very well be in for a nasty surprise. I for one hope for some real lashback, war entering the borders of those nations which have been seeding chaos and wholesale destruction throughout the ME. That the chickens may finally come home to roost. The only way these warmongering nations will cease their incessant wars of agression (under the guise of humanitarianism) is when they, and their population, get a real taste of war, suffer thesame of what they have been dealing to others for so long now.

[ExpandMyMind]

On 10/29/2019 at 1:07 PM, RoofGardener said:

As for WWIII... no, I think not. The US (possibly with help from North-Western Europe) would simply bombard Iran's coastline (and all of its oil-processing facilities) into destruction, and then sit back and allow the country to enter an economic Dark Ages. It would all be over within a fortnight, leaving no time for anyone else to get involved, even if they wanted to. 

Even this probably wouldn't happen unless it was a desperate last resort. If the US attacks Iran, Iran has already said they'll immediately launch thousands of missiles at Israel and US forces in the region. Iran could do some serious damage.

You're claiming that war against a nation in a country that's basically, terrain-wise, Afghanistan. A country with over 80 million people? A country with an effective military and plenty of weaponry, with over 3,000 miles of border connecting to 7 different countries? This is before mentioning that Russia would be funding and arming them, making this an effective proxy war against their most significant geopolitical foe. It's not Iraq. It's not even remotely comparable to Iraq when it comes to combat. You'd need a land invasion - and conscription for that - to have anywhere near the sort of force necessary to take the country. Look at Afghanistan and they were only fighting farmers. Hell, thanks to Bush not providing the military's recommended land forces, look at the mess that was Iraq where the guerilla war went on for years despite their military being decimated in a couple of weeks.

Yeah, there's no way that war ends in 'a fortnight'. If it was so easy, Israel would already have done it. That's just a ridiculously naïve prediction, mate, and unexpected from someone with your professed knowledge of the military capabilities of the involved nations. US' war against Iran would ultimately be this generation's Vietnam. It would make the last nearly two decades of war look like Russia's recent spanking of Georgia by comparison.

Edited November 5, 2019 by ExpandMyMind

[ExpandMyMind]

On 11/2/2019 at 9:34 AM, Phaeton80 said:

The chance of success against Iran is much higher if Syria and Iraq could be used as strategic launching pads

I think the more important point is that Syria has no capability to ally itself with Iran. The US has plenty of bases in the region without the need for Syria, but neutralising them means that any war that happens won't be fought against two countries, one of which borders Israel.

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Even this probably wouldn't happen unless it was a desperate last resort. If the US attacks Iran, Iran has already said they'll immediately launch thousands of missiles at Israel and US forces in the region. Iran could do some serious damage.

You're claiming that war against a nation in a country that's basically, terrain-wise, Afghanistan. A country with over 80 million people? A country with an effective military and plenty of weaponry, with over 3,000 miles of border connecting to 7 different countries? This is before mentioning that Russia would be funding and arming them, making this an effective proxy war against their most significant geopolitical foe. It's not Iraq. It's not even remotely comparable to Iraq when it comes to combat. You'd need a land invasion - and conscription for that - to have anywhere near the sort of force necessary to take the country. Look at Afghanistan and they were only fighting farmers. Hell, thanks to Bush not providing the military's recommended land forces, look at the mess that was Iraq where the guerilla war went on for years despite their military being decimated in a couple of weeks.

Yeah, there's no way that war ends in 'a fortnight'. If it was so easy, Israel would already have done it. That's just a ridiculously naïve prediction, mate, and unexpected from someone with your professed knowledge of the military capabilities of the involved nations. US' war against Iran would ultimately be this generation's Vietnam. It would make the last nearly two decades of war look like Russia's recent spanking of Georgia by comparison.

I wouldn't propose a land invasion @ExpandMyMind; that would be impossible for the reasons you have mentioned. I merely proposed the destruction of their oil production infrastructure by a mixture of naval gunnery, stand-off land attack missiles (such as Tomahawk and Storm Shadow), and air bombardment. As for Iranian missiles; I think the US forces in the region would be well capable of destroying the missiles in flight, or simply riding the attack out. 

Once Iran has launched its missiles, it has nothing left to prevent the West simply bombing their coastline (and some inland oilfields) into rubble. 

As for Israel; it lacks the long-range missiles (in large numbers) to destroy Iran's oil-producing facilities. The same is NOT true of the combined navies of the US, the UK, and other Western nations. (to say nothing of their air forces). 

A fortnight ! 

[Essan]

A second Gulf war?   Even bigger than the first, Iran-Iraq, one?   Well, it would be an excellent way to wean the West off oil.  Cold turkey style .....  

[+and-then]

On 10/29/2019 at 8:13 AM, Piney said:

They think they need a war for Jesus to come back. 

Then they're idiots who don't have a clue.

[+and-then]

12 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I wouldn't propose a land invasion @ExpandMyMind; that would be impossible for the reasons you have mentioned. I merely proposed the destruction of their oil production infrastructure by a mixture of naval gunnery, stand-off land attack missiles (such as Tomahawk and Storm Shadow), and air bombardment. As for Iranian missiles; I think the US forces in the region would be well capable of destroying the missiles in flight, or simply riding the attack out. 

Once Iran has launched its missiles, it has nothing left to prevent the West simply bombing their coastline (and some inland oilfields) into rubble. 

As for Israel; it lacks the long-range missiles (in large numbers) to destroy Iran's oil-producing facilities. The same is NOT true of the combined navies of the US, the UK, and other Western nations. (to say nothing of their air forces). 

A fortnight ! 

If Iran did serious damage to Israel with its ballistic missile forces, Israel might well curtail Iran's activities in every sphere with a dose of EMP.  Failing THAT, they'd be justified in nuking Qom, Tehran, Isfahan... I guess they'd get the point.  Strange game... the only way to win...is not to play.

[RoofGardener]

12 hours ago, and then said:

If Iran did serious damage to Israel with its ballistic missile forces, Israel might well curtail Iran's activities in every sphere with a dose of EMP.  Failing THAT, they'd be justified in nuking Qom, Tehran, Isfahan... I guess they'd get the point.  Strange game... the only way to win...is not to play.

So far as we know, Iran only has one missile capable of reaching Israel, and that is the Shahab 3. This can carry 1200Kg of explosives, possibly as nine quasi-MIRV submunitions. It would pack one heck of a punch as a terror weapon. (it's accuracy is only around 140m at best, so it wouldn't make much sense as a military weapon, but could do huge damage if aimed at a city). 

However, Iran only has between 25 and 50 launchers. Many test-launches ended in failure, so it is unlikely that Iran could launch 50 such missiles. Even if it did, and they all successfully launched, they would be faced with over 200 Arrow2/Arrow3 anti-ballistic missile launchers as they approached Israel. It seems unlikely that many of the Shahab's would survive to hit their targets. Damage to Israel would - accordingly - be relatively trivial. In addition, Israel has an unparalleled civic defence system; most people in the cities would be in bomb shelters.

Israel has about 90 Jericho II missiles, and an unknown number of Jericho III missiles, all of which could reach Tehran armed with conventional explosives. (but not as much as the Shahab missiles). However, it is doubtful that Israel would really bother to counter-launch against Iran. The expense of the missiles (assuming a conventional warhead) wouldn't justify the limited damage they could inflict. 

On paper, Iran could damage many Saudi Arabian cities, flinging hundreds of Shahab-II's and other missiles against the Kingdom, and causing massive civilian casualties. (unlike the Israeli's the Saudi's do NOT practice civil defence; nor do the surrounding Arab nations). The Royal Saudi Air Defence network is unlikely to intercept more than a relative handfull of them. The situation is even worse in Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. 

But then.. just how many enemies does Iran want to make ? 

[Jon the frog]

On 10/29/2019 at 8:59 AM, Great Old Man said:

 

Many Korean mystery forum user thinks Iran and Saudi War is very near.

They think that War could be WWIII and it seems Armageddon in the Bible.

Depend of definition of war... Saudi and Iran are at war more or less in the past 1500 years...with the invasion of Persia by the Muslim in the dark ages. It never really ended.  You talk about an all out war?

Edited November 6, 2019 by Jon the frog

[Gingitsune]

WWIII is already going on, it has been for 18 years now.

It has already made more refugees than WWII. Plus Saudia and Iran are already fighting each other in Yemen. NATO is on the verge of implosion, so is the United Kingdom. The United States's leadership is a train wreck. The world order the West has carefully crafted over the centuries is crumbling under its own weight and they could rapidly fell apart. Plus, the debt of many powerful countries are close to their all time high, if not already over, as a new recession loom.

WWIII is going on right now, it's a very slow war of attrition and proxy guerrilla.

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 11/17/2019 at 4:27 AM, Gingitsune said:

WWIII is already going on, it has been for 18 years now.

It has already made more refugees than WWII. Plus Saudia and Iran are already fighting each other in Yemen. NATO is on the verge of implosion, so is the United Kingdom. The United States's leadership is a train wreck. The world order the West has carefully crafted over the centuries is crumbling under its own weight and they could rapidly fell apart. Plus, the debt of many powerful countries are close to their all time high, if not already over, as a new recession loom.

WWIII is going on right now, it's a very slow war of attrition and proxy guerrilla.

That is a well thought out post, you make some very good points. But I have a different idea concerning World War III, I beleive it will be the last war. I think it will start by accident, I think that a Nuclear weapon will be mistakenly fired at one of the Super Powers. Which will cause a retaliatory strike against the country that weapon was fired from, which will cause other Nations to put their finger on the button. Out of shear panic the missiles will fly and the war will end, along with 80% of the human race. 

Finally no more War

[IDunThinkSoBish]

With the recent covert and progressive take over of the internet, I think the globalist are probably planning something big. The Alex jones show discusses this as well. I bet something is in the works.