"If the Saudis do anything ignorant, we will leave no area untouched except Mecca and Medina"

[AmirPatriot]

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.

 

[Manama]

As for the topic; Iran's military is (respectfully) outdated. It poses no real threat to the US, Arabs, Turks and definitely not Pakistan. Iran in my opinion can defeat Israel. Israel is too small a country with a tiny population, plus Iranians are extremely brave; one has to accept that.
A ground invasion of Iran is not possible... Too large a population and Iran is no Vietnam.

Israel has one of the strongest military in the world bruh with all the new equipment etc.

 

[SALMAN F]

@SALMAN F And others

Pre-Islamic sex in the Arabian Peninsula
Facebook

Simply 90% of Saudis are adulterate.


It can be said that sex before Islam was distinguished by freedom; that is, with regard to the way the subject was seen, approached and discussed. Perhaps this was due to the nature of Bedouin society, which greatly reduces the complexities of social relationships, generally speaking, in comparison to the situation in settled environments.

The Arabs were familiar with various kinds of sexual practice, all of them within the framework of the male-female relationship. There is no historical record from the pre-Islamic era, in the poetry and stories from that time, of the proliferation of homosexuality in the Arabian Peninsula, at least not among the Arabian Peninsula’s most famous tribes. Nevertheless, according to some studies, such sexual practices did exist among Arabs before Islam.

There were many ways people could engage in intercourse in the pre-Islamic era. Some of them were passed down by Aisha bint Abi Bakr, who said that there were four, including the one sanction by Islam. Others said there were ten, including the four mentioned by Aisha. The most well-known types are as follows:



1 - al-istibḍāʻ


Wherein a man would send his wife to another man who was a prominent member of the community, such as a poet, knight or person of good lineage; the stranger would then have intercourse with the woman and when she fell pregnant she would return to her husband.





2 - al-muḵādana


Roughly translated as ‘the taking of secret lovers,’ al-muḵādana, is mentioned in the fourth chapter of the Quran, Surat al-Nisa. According to the chapter’s 25th verse, a man should not marry “those who take aḵdān” -- or, as the phrase is usually translated: “those who take [secret] lovers.” This shows then, that before the advent of Islam, some women would take lovers and those lovers would lay with them. However, there is a difference of opinion on how al-muḵādana was performed, both before and after the advent of Islam. Some have said that al-muḵādana did not include intercourse itself, and that the lover would suffice with kissing and embracing the woman. While there is also some disagreement over whether it was a secret practice or an accepted custom, most evidence suggests it was secret. According to one Arabic proverb about al-muḵādana, “that which goes unseen is harmless and that which is evident is wickedness.”





3 - al-badal


Wherein two men would swap wives temporarily for pleasure and variety without instigating divorce procedures or exchanging marriage contracts; according to the companion of the prophet Mohammad, Abu Hurairah, “in the time of Jāhilīyah, al-badal meant for one man to say to another: give up your woman to me, and I shall give up my woman to you and bestow upon you greatly.”





4 - al-muḍāmada


Wherein a woman would take one or two additional husbands in addition to her original husband; in dictionaries of classical Arabic, the definition of al-muḍāmada or aḍ-ḍimād is for a woman to share the company of two or three men so that she may eat with either of them in times of drought. It seems that this practice was not approved of, and perhaps the Arabs saw it as betrayal on the part of the woman. Yet despite this, it was an applied and widespread custom.



In one of his verses, the well-known pre-Islamic poet Abu Dhuayb al-Hudhali addressed the subject as follows: “You wish to have my company and that of Khaled* / Woe unto you! Can two swords gather in one scabbard?” The story goes that al-Hudhali delivered this couplet when his wife made his cousin Khaled bin Zuhair her second husband. Most agree that he considered the practice detestable. Indeed, for as he went on to say: “I see aḍ-ḍamad as a detestable thing.” With regard to the incident in question, he also said: “you wished to have my company and the company of my friend / No you shall not! Love my friend and leave me alone.”





5 - ar-rahṭ


Wherein ten men would meet and have intercourse with one woman, and if the woman became pregnant she would send for all of them; she would then choose who was to be the father of the fetus she was carrying and no one could refuse to accept.





6 - aṣḥāb ar-rāyāt (flag bearers)


These women, who were also referred to as al-baġāya or prostitutes by their contemporary name, would raise a flag to show that they were ready (and red is said to have been the chosen color of such flags.) Then men would come.



The above six variations are the most famous types of pre-Islamic intercourse, and they differ from the type of intercourse which Islam would later sanction, and which is known today as aš-šuhūd, al-‘uqd and other names.



With regard to homosexuality in pre-Islamic times, there are various stories, and it is difficult to discern their accuracy. Some people say it was widespread, while others refuse such ‘claims,’ basing their view on a theory that says the type of sexual orientation in question entered the Arab world from the neighboring cultures later on during the Islamic conquests. As for the issue of homosexuality among women, there is one unconfirmed story which claims that the first two women in the Arab Peninsula to prefer being intimate with one another other over intimacy with men were Zarqa al-Yamama and Hind bint al-Nuaman, daughter of the last Lakhmid king of Hira.

The Arabs before Islam were a lot better almost every thing said about them are the lies and the propaganda of the Muslims they use the same propanda against Berbers
@Shapur Zol Aktaf

 

[Finer]

Can you please show me the exact sahih hadith that says anything about the outright destruction of Arabia? Preferably from Kutub al-Sittah.

You have to read between the lines in the Authentic hadiths. KSA will have civil wars [among leaders] soon which will turn into the bloodiest. The chosen army will slaughter Arabs, conquer Persians. Then final stop is Turkey assuming Turkey is invaded.

In last hour, Arabs will be minority. Do the math.

 

[Saho]

• Using terrorists against KSA by Iran = Possible but also counterproductive.

This is the most realistic part because this is already happening. They're trying to encircle Saudi Arabia and isolate them hence all the proxies and backing in the Middle East (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Iraq etc) and they are trying in Bahrain and Eastern KSA as well but foiled by KSA when they intervened.

Also, they are trying to bring the Arab countries in their side and isolate Saudi Arabia from the Arab world. Some of them (mainly dictatorship ones) do not have a good relationship with Gulf states now and this gives the leverage for Iran.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

You and your 70 year old country will do nothing as evidenced in Syria/ Iraq/ Lebanon/ Yemen....... Iran has decided to pummel these gulfy joker. Too late now!

Let Iran quietly clean up the middle east. Four countries cleaned up........four more to go. Just observe and learn.

Yes...We are watching you along with 41 countries...Respectfully, you will not be allowed to enter into KSA or surrounding regions...Houthis should pull back, they can't count on Iranian support to foment trouble near KSA border...

I hope sensible voice in Iran speak up before its too late for Iran...

Iran FM calls attacking on Saudi Embassy “historic betrayal”
http://en.trend.az/iran/politics/2750642.html

 

[Tokhme khar]

We have succeeded thus far in SyRaq and Lebanon. Yemen is a stalemate, but time is on our side.

Like I said, if we weren't winning, these primitive sawdi wouldn't go running to you for manpower or cry daily for yahudi/ hillbilly propaganda and arms support.

They are nothing in front of Iran.

That is a dangerous miscalculation. Their only deficiency is land warfare which is quickly turning around. And my above post is not about what Saudis can do but rather what Iranians can't do or can do but will surely fail.

 

[drmeson]

I dont understand the point of these internet fights where people who inherently hate eachother try to justify their hatred to eachother writing 20 paras with all their limbs (two hands cant accomplish that). Its like you try to justify something irrational by being rational about it.

I am an azeri turk (iranian) by ethnicity (and I know indo-pakis deeply btw because of where i grew up). I dont like arabs(saudis) because we are inherent and irrational enemies. To them I am some subhuman savage, terrorist, hateful creature, muta born slave etc and to me saudis are sub human low race lizard eating low IQ motor mouths who drink camel pee ... its funny but its is what it is and we have to live with it. What we do on internet wont help us because no matter what we bring to the discussion is not going to change our mindsets. Some saudi guy is trying to come up with 5000 word each post laced with links and videos and god he is flying in the sky with his words lol ... What are you trying to achieve here akhi, do you expect me to bow down to your glorious reasoning ? and if I return your posts with my own version of history (we have our versions offcourse) would that change your way of life as well ? you need to realize and i m telling you this as a human being that you and I inherited this hatred and supermacism in ourselves. I take pride in the fact that my oghuz turk kind kept you lizard munching taazis as our conquered subjects for centuries and you can deny this and then take pride in the fact that your ancestors invaded central persia brought down the cocky sassanis ... jeez i will then have to resort to my Shapors invasion of your beddoo land. You should make fun of my sanctioned and socially backward iran and i will make fun of the fact that indo pakis will run over your country in near future because you fat low IQ scums cant survive without them ... back to square one, What are we doing ? are we changing something here ? my supermacism vs your supermacism, we can fill in pages after pages trying to justify our irrational hatred for eachother still we will both fail to change anything.

Irony here is that we all are very similar to eachother, more so than many can realize. I see same behavior all over the internet. I was once like this in my teens and years that followed. I had folders of links, pics, video links so that i can generate answers in response in no time ... like you I had multiple accounts too, i got banned, i came back, i checked the boards like every hour. With my glorious 10000 posts what did I change ? did i convert my enemy saudis into pro iranians ? no ... would you change iranians into pro saudis ? no ... then whats the point of ruining your sleep.

I wish you get liberated from your mental prison that you have to take on every enemy on internet with fives pages of posts daily otherwise you wont be able to sleep at night. You can deny it but trust me I know the pain as I myself was once like you. May be you will understand it years later.

and Iranians ... cmon guys, they hate us for what we are, shias, persians, azeris, lurs. They hate you for what you cant change about yourself, and you guys are trying to reason with them. You dont argue with your enemy because he/she has decided to be your enemy for whatever reason he/she has. And we are same by the way. Remember what we used to post and say about, lets say, saudis or turkish people on our own forum. We changed nothing and we would change nothing about anyone. Internet is a sad place and I wish i could get rid of it, well I cant but atleast i acknowledge how depressing it is to be on internet and seeing ppl wedging e-wars.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

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.



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.

Historical facts are however which is what I sticked to and continue to stick to. So far nobody has been able to disprove what I had written for very good reason.

"Stronk rhetoric" is something that your Mullah's are world famous at engaging in for the amusement of the world. This is not something that KSA does much of and when it happens it is occasional and rare.

No it is simple logic. If Iran is stupid enough to attack KSA it will be burnt in the process heavily. There is no doubt about that.

As for your comments about KSA, this only shows your ignorance. Rest assured that there are very few military fields were KSA has a disadvantage let alone the GCC as a whole (once you attack KSA or any GCC member stated for that matter every single GCC state will and HAVE TO aid the GCC state under attack) or our Arab and Muslim and non-Muslim allies.

You have to read between the lines in the Authentic hadiths. KSA will have civil wars [among leaders] soon which will turn into the bloodiest. The chosen army will slaughter Arabs, conquer Persians. Then final stop is Turkey assuming Turkey is invaded.

In last hour, Arabs will be minority. Do the math.

Interesting. Please some me this. Also it must be quite a thing for most of the Arabs (500 million people) to perish.

The Arabs before Islam were a lot better almost every thing said about them are the lies and the propaganda of the Muslims they use the same propanda against Berbers
@Shapur Zol Aktaf

First of all what he has quoted shows nothing bad other than polygamy (widespread across the entire world back then). It is nothing compared to what was posted about pre-Islamic Iran (incest etc.).

What you consider worse or better is a personal viewpoint. You as a non-Muslim will obviously have hostile view of anything Islamic and glorify everything about ancient Arab/Semitic history that predates Islam. In reality, if you ask objective historians, they will easily tell you that both those eras had very great moments and some lesser great moments like all periods and all peoples.

This is the most realistic part because this is already happening. They're trying to encircle Saudi Arabia and isolate them hence all the proxies and backing in the Middle East (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Iraq etc) and they are trying in Bahrain and Eastern KSA as well but foiled by KSA when they intervened.

Also, they are trying to bring the Arab countries in their side and isolate Saudi Arabia from the Arab world. Some of them (mainly dictatorship states) do not have a good relationship with Gulf states now and this gives the leverage for Iran.

Dear "isolating KSA" from the Arab world is as trying to isolate the UK from the Anglo-Saxon/English-speaking world. It is a oxymoron.

KSA has more influnece in all of those countries among the people and leaderships (excluding the Shia terrorist groups) than Iran and always will have by virtue of being a fellow Arab country. You need to distinguish between wishes of the Mullah's and ground realities.

Pre-2011 Syria (Al-Assad regime more precisely as Syrians otherwise have no ties to Iran let alone any love - least of all today 6 years later!) was the closest Arab ally of Iran. Today the Al-Assad regime is basically not existing any longer and no matter how much longer the Russians (in particular as they are calling the shots now, not Iran) will try to prolong this war, the vast majority will always, eventually, reach power and shape their own future.

As far as Yemen goes, they have very limited influence there. Not only that the Houthis/Saleh are losing and only control 15% of Yemen and will lose Sana'a not far from now. All they can do is try to prolong the conflict and send more weapons. That's their extend of influence.

Palestine?

Lebanon in this case means tiny Southern Lebanon. Yes, their oldest ally (Hezbollah) is indeed deeply tied to them but as I already said, should the Mullah's collapse tomorrow (they will collapse before Hezbollah collapses) Hezbollah will continue its mission irrespective of Iran. Not only that Hezbollah has no ability to target KSA nor do I think that they are stupid enough to do such a thing.

Iraq under Al-Abadi has restored ties with KSA and there will be many positive surprises in the not so distant future. You can save my post when this occurs. It's nothing like under al-Maliki. It's not ideal yet but Iranian influence is heavily overrated. Don't forget that most Iraqi Shia Arabs look towards Najaf and Karbala (their own places) and not the foreign Qom. Nor do they tolerate Iranian interference. The problem is limited to a few elements within the Islamic Dawa Party and a few Shia militias that Al-Abadi/Iraqi state will deal with should they ever cause too much trouble as they are a threat to the Iraqi state.

Bahrain? There is nothing there. Eastern province of KSA? One word that sums the entire trouble up. A few trouble makers in Al-Awamiyah. That's it.

Iran has lost much more in the past 6 years contrary to popular belief.

An ally in Libya (Gaddafi), a strong Syria (Al-Assad is limited to being a Russian puppet and having no control over most of Syria despite having all odds with him), no Al-Maliki in Iraq and Americans having returned, Kurdish aspirations for a state becoming closer than anywhere in recent history, failed revolution in Bahrain and KSA, MB gone from Egypt (which the Mullah's supported because the MB were/is a rival to the Arab monarchies), the project in Yemen failed, the nuclear deal which was/is a fiasco etc.

Let's not even talk about the situation in Afghanistan.

You see much of their tactic is to make everything seem much greater than it really is. A lot of propaganda is dedicated to this similar to how their many "groundbreaking" military projects are treated, over half of which are never heard about again and all of which have never been proven on a real battlefield. In reality we are talking about a highly fragile state with a impoverished economy and a ancient infrastructure (by large) and a country thirsty for returning to the world economy. Anyway if you ask me, they have done enough of damage, so the sooner those Mullah's are gone the better for the region.

Anyway as I said pre-1979 Arabs did not give Iran or Iranians a single thought (outside of a very limited number of instances) and nor is there any reason for this as the grudges/obsession was mostly a one-sided way pre-1979. Today this rivalry has reemerged due to events (political in the region) but to be honest most Arabs don't look at small Iran (which cannot be compared to the Arab world on any front) as anything to be obsessed about. Most Arabs know almost nothing about Iran either. The only ones that know more are the GCC countries and Iraq. That's the reality.

I am more concerned about Israel and the actions of the US and less so Russia (long-term) than I am about Iran. Not to say internal Arab issues which take the biggest priority. Iranian Mullah's can only do so much. In reality they are just meddling (to various degrees) in Arab countries already at conflict. When that is not the case there influence is non-existent. Everyone can do that similar to how we can do it in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and elsewhere. We have 1 million greater things to do.

 

[British SAS]

We have succeeded thus far in SyRaq and Lebanon. Yemen is a stalemate, but time is on our side.

Like I said, if we weren't winning, these primitive sawdi wouldn't go running to you for manpower or cry daily for yahudi/ hillbilly propaganda and arms support.

They are nothing in front of Iran.

...To be honest your military is primtive, 'talk is cheap' as the expression goes. Mate, you're behaving like a school kid, trying to convince himself he's the boss by way of making the most noise, till the ignorant kid gets knocked spark out. That's called reality. Iran is very overrated- but not weak.

P.S Ask any neutral person in Europe or elsewhere and they would tell you; you're not the most powerful Muslim country. I communicate with various ethnicities on a daily basis and i can profess; they don't see Iran in the same glory, as you do. Most days I'm having to convince them Iranians can hold their own. Yet the answer remains "Iran isn't even a nuclear power, nor do they have an airforce, they are nothing but delusional" and "their bubble will burst soon".

 

[Mamluk]

Internet is a sad place

It can be frustrating when you can't keep up with smarter people. Lol.
Anyways stop creating multiple accounts already. Stick to one account and try to keep it civil.

 

[drmeson]

It can be frustrating when you can't keep up with smarter people. Lol.
Anyways stop creating multiple accounts already. Stick to one account and try to keep it civil.

My post was for fellow middle eastern people, saudis, iranian, turkish etc ... You dont belong to our group, you dont matter in this thread. Stop being insecure.

 

[Mamluk]

My post was for fellow middle eastern people, saudis, iranian, turkish etc ... You dont belong to our group, you dont matter in this thread. Stop being insecure.

Hmm I doubt you mullas see our GCC allies as fellow people; regardless I'm reporting your multiple Ids. Navigating around bans is not allowed to maintain forum quality.

 

[Tokhme khar]

you are hanging out in third world UK, and most probably with wahabbi/ harami types.

Of course they'd tell you Iran is overrated.

...To be honest your military is primtive, 'talk is cheap' as the expression goes. Mate, you're behaving like a school kid, trying to convince himself he's the boss by way of making the most noise, till the ignorant kid gets knocked spark out. That's called reality. Iran is very overrated- but not weak.

P.S Ask any neutral person in Europe or elsewhere and they would tell you; you're not the most powerful Muslim country. I communicate with various ethnicities on a daily basis and i can profess; they don't see Iran in the same glory, as you do. Most days I'm having to convince them Iranians can hold their own. Yet the answer remains "Iran isn't even a nuclear power, nor do they have an airforce, they are nothing but delusional" and "their bubble will burst soon".

 

[AHMED85]

Mushrooms of proxy war have been glowing at climax, but I think Saudia is not interfere in boundary agreements.
Saudia only have boundary dispute with Yemen, now some boundary issue/ not a dispute with Qatar.

But i think Saudia never going to trigger for any war against Iran. Its only diplomats whom are associated with some religious statement's. Because of sentiments.

But Pakistan also declared for supporting/ defending Saudia if any prompt/ unprovoked attacked have been made.

Before going to create any vision on behalf of armed activity's: it is required to look after for Israel.