Can Saudi do a Crimea on Yemen?

[Kompromat]

The chips are down for Saudi Arabia. On one side it has anti SA, ISIS and an anti SA Iraqi govt, its proxies are bogged down in Syria and not making significant headway against ISIS, Assad and Iranian proxies backed by Iranian revolutionary guard, while on the other hand Iranian proxies, the so called Huthis have taken over major parts of Yemen and now pose a serious asymmetric threat to SA.

It is likely that SA would end up fighting a two front war against ISIS and against Huthis in Yemen which will thin and stretch its armed forces which will damage its ability to project power. In the meanwhile if Iran lays a territorial claim on Shia parts of Iraq, the Saudis would be facing a conventional threat from Iranian military.

SA is now rallying its GCC allies to counter this rather critical situation. Since there are no RSLF boots deployed in Syria or Iraq against Assad or ISIS, one would think that Yemen makes an ideal target for power projection.

In order to gain credible foothold the Saudis would have to mobilise their enormous air power to first pound Huthis in Yemen followed by a swift invasion along with Yemeni opposition to drive the Huthis away from power. This must be followed by a formal annexation of Yemen to S.A like Crimea. If Saudis install a naval blockade, Iranian supply line to the rebels will choke and Iran also won't be able to supply them when RSAF and other GCC air forces enforce a no fly zone.

It will not only consolidate SA's borders but also would send a strong message to other proxies controlled by Tehran. It will also mean SA would be able to project full power against Assad and ISIS.

If SA doesn't annexe Yemen at this stage, it will soon face a huge asymmetric threat from a number of insurgent organisations at the same time which will have far reaching destabilising impacts on the whole region.

Your thoughts?

@al-Hasani @Mosamania

 

[Asmar Hussain]

 

[Militant Atheist]

It would be interesting.

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

Too many hypothetical scenarios. The best for Saudi Arabia is to protect its borders, and seek a compromise among all Yemeni factions in order to remove the political vacuum that exists in Yemen.

For Syria, a compromise needs to be sought as well amongst all the opposition groups and the government of Syria - with the exception of the extremists. The best option would be the legitimate opposition groups join the Syrian government and be prepared themselves to stand in the next election. Enough with the sectarian hatred. The people of Syria has suffered enough and it is high time that their well-being is placed before any thing else.

Similarly, the current sectarian war that is being waged in the rest of Middle East is devastating, and the people who orchestrated it designed this way. According to Henry Kissinger, 100-year sectarian war is needed between the 2 houses of Islam: Sunni and Shia. This is how the existing order will crumple, and the borders of Israel will be increased. The best option for Sunni and Shia Muslims is the leadership of all sects to seek compromise, swallow the blind sectarian hatred, and see the bigger picture.

One thing is certain: If the current violence and sectarian hatred continuous, both houses of Islam will be losers, and there will be no winners. The prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has warned us about this fitna (tribulation), and the best person is the one who refuses to take part in it!

 

[Kompromat]

Too many hypothetical scenarios. The best for Saudi Arabia is to protect its borders, and seek a compromise among all Yemeni factions in order to remove the political vacuum that exists in Yemen.

For Syria, a compromise needs to be sought as well amongst all the opposition groups and the government of Syria - with the exception of the extremists. The best option would be the legitimate opposition groups join the Syrian government and be prepared themselves to stand in the next election. Enough with the sectarian hatred. The people of Syria has suffered enough and it is high time that their well-being is placed before any thing else.

Similarly, the current sectarian war that is being waged in the rest of Middle East is devastating, and the people who orchestrated it designed this way. According to Henry Kissinger, 100-year sectarian war is needed between the 2 houses of Islam: Sunni and Shia. This is how the existing order will crumple, and the borders of Israel will be increased. The best option for Sunni and Shia Muslims is the leadership of all sects to seek compromise, swallow the blind sectarian hatred, and see the bigger picture.

One thing is certain: If the current violence and sectarian hatred continuous, both houses of Islam will be losers, and there will be no winners. The prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has warned us about this fitna (tribulation), and the best person is the one who refuses to take part in it!

Bro the only way Israel can establish the Kingdom of Solomon is through ISIS. You just need two things to do.

* Defeat ISIS
* Maintain stability in the Arabian peninsula

Within 10 years the military balance of power is going to tilt in the favor of GCC against Israel.

 

[That Guy]

Annexation is not needed, nor does KSA want that particular burden.If KSA does launch strikes in Yemen against the Houthis, and manage to win, they'll put in place a puppet government. A protectorate at best, a satellite state at worst.

What I'm worried about is Pakistan getting dragged into any conflict with Yemen. The Saudis look to Pakistan for security, and if a war does break out, and the Saudis find themselves either losing ground, or screwing up, they'll look to Pakistan to help them out of their situation.

 

[Desert Fox]

The chips are down for Saudi Arabia. On one side it has anti SA, ISIS and an anti SA Iraqi govt, its proxies are bogged down in Syria and not making significant headway against ISIS, Assad and Iranian proxies backed by Iranian revolutionary guard, while on the other hand Iranian proxies, the so called Huthis have taken over major parts of Yemen and now pose a serious asymmetric threat to SA.

It is likely that SA would end up fighting a two front war against ISIS and against Huthis in Yemen which will thin and stretch its armed forces which will damage its ability to project power. In the meanwhile if Iran lays a territorial claim on Shia parts of Iraq, the Saudis would be facing a conventional threat from Iranian military.

SA is now rallying its GCC allies to counter this rather critical situation. Since there are no RSLF boots deployed in Syria or Iraq against Assad or ISIS, one would think that Yemen makes an ideal target for power projection.

In order to gain credible foothold the Saudis would have to mobilise their enormous air power to first pound Huthis in Yemen followed by a swift invasion along with Yemeni opposition to drive the Huthis away from power. This must be followed by a formal annexation of Yemen to S.A like Crimea. If Saudis install a naval blockade, Iranian supply line to the rebels will choke and Iran also won't be able to supply them when RSAF and other GCC air forces enforce a no fly zone.

It will not only consolidate SA's borders but also would send a strong message to other proxies controlled by Tehran. It will also mean SA would be able to project full power against Assad and ISIS.

If SA doesn't annexe Yemen at this stage, it will soon face a huge asymmetric threat from a number of insurgent organisations at the same time which will have far reaching destabilising impacts on the whole region.

Your thoughts?

@al-Hasani @Mosamania

In that case i believe Pakistan should interfere on behalf of Saudis if the threat of ISIS and Houthis becomes a major problem and one which the Saudis aren't prepared to handle all on their own, so long as we are only assisting in protecting Saudi borders, after all we do owe them for the times they assisted us, granted extremism in our country has its origins in Saudi land, but we are also to be blamed for encouraging that mindset during the 80's and 90's.

As long as we are not helping Saudis to the detriment of Iran and disturbing the regional power balance, which i believe preventing ISIS and Houthis from launching attacks on Saudi soil is not in that category, then there should be no reason why we can't and should not provide some assistance to the Saudis besides the usual military advisers.

 

[Sage]

In that case i believe Pakistan should interfere on behalf of Saudis if the threat of ISIS and Houthis becomes a major problem and one which the Saudis aren't prepared to handle all on their own, so long as we are only assisting in protecting Saudi borders, after all we do owe them for the times they assisted us, granted extremism in our country has its origins in Saudi land, but we are also to be blamed for encouraging that mindset during the 80's and 90's.

As long as we are not helping Saudis to the detriment of Iran and disturbing the regional power balance, which i believe preventing ISIS and Houthis from launching attacks on Saudi soil is not in that category, then there should be no reason why we can't and should not provide some assistance to the Saudis besides the usual military advisers.

Pakistan participated in the very first war between Yemen and KSA ' Battle of Sharura'. Recently KSA asked for military help from Pakistan persistently but as Pakistan is busy in 'Operation Azzab' it may not help the KSA the way they want it. Pakistan shall not join any war so far in the middle east. But there are hundred ways of helping a friend. Iranian policy is there. They have established Hizbullah and with that they have gone to the war against Israel even. IRGC in the guise of Hizbullah is still there in Syria to protect Assad's regime. The power balance will shift if Houthis got established. KSA does not like the influence of Iran in Yemen as it borders it and given it's sour relations with Yemen and Houthis in the recent past, war seems to be the only way out for KSA.

The chips are down for Saudi Arabia. On one side it has anti SA, ISIS and an anti SA Iraqi govt, its proxies are bogged down in Syria and not making significant headway against ISIS, Assad and Iranian proxies backed by Iranian revolutionary guard, while on the other hand Iranian proxies, the so called Huthis have taken over major parts of Yemen and now pose a serious asymmetric threat to SA.

It is likely that SA would end up fighting a two front war against ISIS and against Huthis in Yemen which will thin and stretch its armed forces which will damage its ability to project power. In the meanwhile if Iran lays a territorial claim on Shia parts of Iraq, the Saudis would be facing a conventional threat from Iranian military.

SA is now rallying its GCC allies to counter this rather critical situation. Since there are no RSLF boots deployed in Syria or Iraq against Assad or ISIS, one would think that Yemen makes an ideal target for power projection.

In order to gain credible foothold the Saudis would have to mobilise their enormous air power to first pound Huthis in Yemen followed by a swift invasion along with Yemeni opposition to drive the Huthis away from power. This must be followed by a formal annexation of Yemen to S.A like Crimea. If Saudis install a naval blockade, Iranian supply line to the rebels will choke and Iran also won't be able to supply them when RSAF and other GCC air forces enforce a no fly zone.

It will not only consolidate SA's borders but also would send a strong message to other proxies controlled by Tehran. It will also mean SA would be able to project full power against Assad and ISIS.

If SA doesn't annexe Yemen at this stage, it will soon face a huge asymmetric threat from a number of insurgent organisations at the same time which will have far reaching destabilising impacts on the whole region.

Your thoughts?

@al-Hasani @Mosamania

Annexation by force will not be a good idea ...an example is that of Kashmir. It would become a life-long challenge for the KSA then to maintain things in order there. Iran would never let that go that easily. Air power against Houthis and diplomatic pressure at the same time on Iran might work.

 

[SipahSalar]

First we need to look at a similar historical war fought in Yemen.

North Yemen Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia fought from 1962 to 1970.

Saudi and Jordanian backed Royalists vs Egyptian backed Republicans.

I don't want to say it but Arab kingdoms hate fighting. They will rather pay someone else to fight for them. Same happened here. Saudis and Jordanians backed the Royalists but never really participated directly. Whereas Egyptians deployed 70,000 troops ( I dont really consider Egypt an arab state, the only arab thing about them is arabic language ) and fought without care for blood and guts. Although Egyptians ending the deployment after heavy losses, the point i was trying to make was that Arabs will never fight themselves. They are afraid to die. When you become rich, fat and live comfortable lives, you lose the will and motivation to fight.

 

[Zarvan]

The chips are down for Saudi Arabia. On one side it has anti SA, ISIS and an anti SA Iraqi govt, its proxies are bogged down in Syria and not making significant headway against ISIS, Assad and Iranian proxies backed by Iranian revolutionary guard, while on the other hand Iranian proxies, the so called Huthis have taken over major parts of Yemen and now pose a serious asymmetric threat to SA.

It is likely that SA would end up fighting a two front war against ISIS and against Huthis in Yemen which will thin and stretch its armed forces which will damage its ability to project power. In the meanwhile if Iran lays a territorial claim on Shia parts of Iraq, the Saudis would be facing a conventional threat from Iranian military.

SA is now rallying its GCC allies to counter this rather critical situation. Since there are no RSLF boots deployed in Syria or Iraq against Assad or ISIS, one would think that Yemen makes an ideal target for power projection.

In order to gain credible foothold the Saudis would have to mobilise their enormous air power to first pound Huthis in Yemen followed by a swift invasion along with Yemeni opposition to drive the Huthis away from power. This must be followed by a formal annexation of Yemen to S.A like Crimea. If Saudis install a naval blockade, Iranian supply line to the rebels will choke and Iran also won't be able to supply them when RSAF and other GCC air forces enforce a no fly zone.

It will not only consolidate SA's borders but also would send a strong message to other proxies controlled by Tehran. It will also mean SA would be able to project full power against Assad and ISIS.

If SA doesn't annexe Yemen at this stage, it will soon face a huge asymmetric threat from a number of insurgent organisations at the same time which will have far reaching destabilising impacts on the whole region.

Your thoughts?

@al-Hasani @Mosamania

I think GCC if Iran doesn't stop supporting Houthis may declare war on them and go after them without any mercy that is what I can think will happen soon and Egypt and Morocco will be part of it along with Jordan

 

[KhuderMosavi]

very interesting scenario, but you should consider that most of the support for Saudi Arabia is in southern Yemen, will be difficult to "do a Crimea" in Yemen, geographically, if you do not want to "do a Crimea" and check the eastern desert and mountains .

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

crimea analogy doesnt works here it woud be more likr Russo-georgion conflict of 2008

 

[Sinnerman108]

Yemen is more important to Saudi Arabia, because Yemen is more dangerous.

NO one, and I shall say it again , NO ONE can mess with the Yemeni people.

 

[Daneshmand]

Simple answer is NO.

And there are too many haphazard hypothesis elements in the post, for a meaningful answer to be made.

Strategically Saudi is not an independent entity, and everything must be seen in this context.

 

[Dr.Thrax]

I hate the Saudi gov't (for many reasons, not going to say here), but I would like to see this happen. Iran is toying with Arab Shias, and is going to cause an all out Sunni-Shia war. They're making Yemen, Syria, and Iraq all sectarian. And they're enforcing their Shiism.