Saudi Arabia warns Iran: Will not tolerate threats to Gulf state

[Desert Fox]

Yeah, but I would rate Iran above everybody when it comes to the missile capability, mobility and warfare. Also, I believe Iran has more than the 1500 tanks that is reported.

Israel's biowarfare and nuclear capability is extremely advanced. Capable of flattening the whole middle east in hours.

Even Pakistan or just the countries of the ME?

 

[King Solomon]

You can not flatten the Middle East with "biowarfare". Maybe you meant some thing else? Most of the Middle East is flat desert terrain anyway.

Yes that is why i said nuclear and biowarfare.

Iran's missiles of various ranges and types are its most potent weapons, conventionally Egypt would be a lot stronger than Iran actually. Egypt has about 1100 (approximately) Abrams tanks that were built in Egypt. Then, there are about another 3000 tanks that are modernized and in use, followed by about 2000 tanks in storage. Some of these numbers are difficult to determine with precision because of the nature of the military and its policy, so if somebody finds more accurate and recent figures with proof, they are welcome. That was just for tanks, but tanks alone are pretty useless against any well equipped and capable adversary. You need to consider APC, IFV, ATGW, attack helicopters, air defense, theatre ballistic missiles, etc to conclude that Egypt is conventionally much stronger than Iran, besides the fact that, Egypt is likely to find more support from other countries (at least some Arab countries) in any war, unlike Iran.

You have to understand the Iranian defense doctrine. They do not have the luxury to purchase expensive arms due to the sanctions, which again would be well within the reach of Iran if there were no sanctions.

Iranian defense doctrine is based on missile deterrence. Their Shahab, Sejil and Ghadr missiles are reported tohave range of about 2000+ km (I believe the original range is more than this, taking into account Iran's SLV capability). Their doctrine is to concentrate on missile production and increase survivability of their missile systems. That is why they concentrate on underground ballistic missile launch silos and mobile launchers. Iranian concrete tensile strength is known to be of superior standard, enough to thwart any bunker busters. In an interview, an officer said that Iran has achieved almost 100% accuracy in their missiles.

In this way, I would say Iran's deterrence effect would be more than Egypt. Thus, it would be easier for Israel to wage war on Egypt than Iran. About tanks, don't forget Iran's Zolfikar. Though it is not as advnaced as Abrams ofc, but I believe the number of 1500 is highly underreported. Some Iranian sources put the number to around 000

Even Pakistan or just the countries of the ME?

Not pakistan. Pakistan's missile tech is superior to that of Iran as per my assessment.

Then again, Iran could launch 50-100 kg satellite payload in space indigenously. While pakistan had to take China's help. Who knows what capability Iran truly has. But from what I see as per official statistics, pakistan's is superior in terms of both range and accuracy.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Iran and Pakistan are very close to each other in missile capabilities, and both countries definitely do not show everything they produce to the public. My guess would be that Iran would be ahead at this time because Pakistan's government, as many Pakistanis admit, is mostly incompetent and involved in huge corruption with no steady plans for the future. This is quite different from the strong Iranian regime which has established itself deeply through various means in Iranian society. That's not to say the Iranian gov't is just, righteous or perfect (it is not), but it is far better than any Western puppet gov't.

Yes that is why i said nuclear and biowarfare.



You have to understand the Iranian defense doctrine. They do not have the luxury to purchase expensive arms due to the sanctions, which again would be well within the reach of Iran if there were no sanctions.

Iranian defense doctrine is based on missile deterrence. Their Shahab, Sejil and Ghadr missiles are reported tohave range of about 2000+ km (I believe the original range is more than this, taking into account Iran's SLV capability). Their doctrine is to concentrate on missile production and increase survivability of their missile systems. That is why they concentrate on underground ballistic missile launch silos and mobile launchers. Iranian concrete tensile strength is known to be of superior standard, enough to thwart any bunker busters. In an interview, an officer said that Iran has achieved almost 100% accuracy in their missiles.

In this way, I would say Iran's deterrence effect would be more than Egypt. Thus, it would be easier for Israel to wage war on Egypt than Iran. About tanks, don't forget Iran's Zolfikar. Though it is not as advnaced as Abrams ofc, but I believe the number of 1500 is highly underreported. Some Iranian sources put the number to around 000



Not pakistan. Pakistan's missile tech is superior to that of Iran as per my assessment.

Then again, Iran could launch 50-100 kg satellite payload in space indigenously. While pakistan had to take China's help. Who knows what capability Iran truly has. But from what I see as per official statistics, pakistan's is superior.

What you said does not disprove me. You did not delineate Egyptian military doctrine either. Iranian military doctrine can be termed 'asymmetric', which serves it well considering its limitation in economy, international affairs, industry and technology, and importantly, considering its potential adversary. Egypt is geared towards fighting so called "Israel" in conventional warfare while keeping non-conventional weapons in 'reserve' should the need arise. Iran is still stronger than a lot of countries that I will not name, so the part about Iran being under sanctions is quite irrelevant.

Iran's conventional military is mainly geared towards conducting assymetric warfare against an adversary that technologically beats it in the air, that can possibly block the Straits of Hormuz should the need arise, and that may make ample use of cruise missiles from air and sea, and airpower to overwhelm Iranian defenses. This Iranian military did not intervene directly in Bahrain because it can not, its conventional military is not strong enough to face the repercussions.

 

[Hashshāshīn]

True, Pakistan government has completely ruined the country, it's gonna take at least 10 years to get rid of this. (off topic)

 

[King Solomon]

Iran's conventional military is mainly geared towards conducting assymetric warfare against an adversary that technologically beats it in the air, that can possibly block the Straits of Hormuz should the need arise, and that may make ample use of cruise missiles from air and sea, and airpower to overwhelm Iranian defenses. This Iranian military did not intervene directly in Bahrain because it can not, its conventional military is not strong enough to face the repercussions.

Not that I'm envisioning a war between muslim nations. But repercussions from the GCC, yes, Iran can quite easily deal with it. However, repercussions from the US is the problem. All GCC states have US military bases to protect them from Iran because, lets face it, they cannot do it themselves.

Iranians are battle hardened people as can be seen from the illegal war imposed on them by US/Saudi backed terrorist shia-killer Saddam. Then again, every Shias are. They would face chemical and biological weapons but not surrender.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Not that I'm envisioning a war between muslim nations. But repercussions from the GCC, yes, Iran can quite easily deal with it. However, repercussions from the US is the problem. All GCC states have US military bases to protect them from Iran because, lets face it, they cannot do it themselves.

Iranians are battle hardened people as can be seen from the illegal war imposed on them by US/Saudi backed terrorist shia-killer Saddam. Then again, every Shias are. They would face chemical and biological weapons but not surrender.

I do not know if you are a 'Shia', but you certainly seem to believe every thing coming out from Qom. Iran can not topple the Bahraini regime on its own, when the Saudi, other GCC countries sent troops as part of the GCC wide Peninsula Shield, I think, Iran only talked and ranted against it. At the same time, Saudi and GCC countries can not face Iranian missiles (with unknown warheads) and unknown numbers lobbed at them should the war escalate.

There are major deficiencies in the GCC militaries, no doubt, as exist in many other militaries, but Iran's conventional military is not very strong. You should also consider that Iran maintains the IRGC alongside the regular navy, army and airforce, because two competing forces may prevent a coup.

 

[King Solomon]

I do not know if you are a 'Shia', but you certainly seem to believe every thing coming out from Qom. Iran can not topple the Bahraini regime on its own, when the Saudi, other GCC countries sent troops as part of the GCC wide Peninsula Shield, I think, Iran only talked and ranted against it. At the same time, Saudi and GCC countries can not face Iranian missiles (with unknown warheads) and unknown numbers lobbed at them should the war escalate.

There are major deficiencies in the GCC militaries, no doubt, as exist in many other militaries, but Iran's conventional military is not very strong. You should also consider that Iran maintains the IRGC and the regular navy, army and airforce, to prevent a coup.

No, I am not a shia but I came into that conclusion based on studying their past track record. Nor do I know what "Qom" is.

Iran cannot topple Bahraini regime? The protests in Bahrain was sponsored by Iran. Then Saudi, Pakistan and others had to send their military to Bahrain to protect the regime as reported by Al Jazeera. Do you still think Bahrain would need assistance from their bigger neighbours if they "could handle Iran themselves" (in this case, covert Iranian warfare)? Remember, words lie but actions do not lie.

If according to you, GCC military was indeed superior to that of Iran, would UAE have begged US to station F 22s in the country just a few days ago? Why do you think every GCC country has US military bases inside them? Again, remember, actions speak louder than words. And I always come to my conclusion based on actions rather than words.

 

[Arabian Legend]

Sir, can you explain then, why UAE hosts French military bases, Qatar hosts US air base, why Saudis host USA military personnel, and finally USA sends in F-22 to UAE soon after Ahmadinejad visits those islands?

military cooperation is a part of the diplomatic relations not only in the GCC but also worldwide ( political view may involve as well as economy ). so can you tell me why saudi arabia host military personnel from pakistan?

Ahmadinejad added more fuel to the fire> visiting the disputed islands claimed by both parties have increased the tension between both countries. instead of doing that he should've been peacemaker by bringing this issue to the international court of justice. the iranian regime have crossed the line many times.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

No, I am not a shia but I came into that conclusion based on studying their past track record. Nor do I know what "Qom" is.

Iran cannot topple Bahraini regime? The protests in Bahrain was sponsored by Iran. Then Saudi, Pakistan and others had to send their military to Bahrain to protect the regime as reported by Al Jazeera. Do you still think Bahrain would need assistance from their bigger neighbours if they "could handle Iran themselves" (in this case, covert Iranian warfare)? Remember, words lie but actions do not lie.

If according to you, GCC military was indeed superior to that of Iran, would UAE have begged US to station F 22s in the country just a few days ago? Why do you think every GCC country has US military bases inside them? Again, remember, actions speak louder than words. And I always come to my conclusion based on actions rather than words.

Maybe you did not read my comments well enough, or you did not understand them. Where Iranian forces are deeply entrenched, defenses have been built up, numerically superior Iranian armed forces hold a thin advantage over the GCC. Where the GCC has built up its defenses (on its own turf), GCC holds the advantage. You are the first Iranian-sympathizer that I have seen admit that Iran is behind the uprisings in Bahrain, while Iranian officials try to deny it. Nevertheless, Iran could not topple the Bahrain regime, nor could it do anything against GCC troops pouring in to quell the 'uprising' in Bahrain.

About F-22s in UAE, my guess is that their leaders take order from America.

military cooperation is a part of the diplomatic relations not only in the GCC but also worldwide ( political view may involve as well as economy ). so can you tell me why saudi arabia host military personnel from pakistan?

Ahmadinejad added more fuel to the fire> visiting the disputed islands claimed by both parties have increased the tension between both countries. instead of doing that he should've been peacemaker by bringing this issue to the international court of justice. the iranian regime have crossed the line many times.

Ahmadinejad certainly added fuel to the fire. My question was why GCC claims it is stronger than Iran but then run to Americans and the West? Regarding Pakistani contingent in Saudi Arabia, how large is this contingent? Did UAE or GCC host Pakistani Air Force's aircrafts immediately after Ahmadinejad's visit, or did they host American F-22s?


Edit: I should add that Iranian regime uses the sectarian card in its neighbouring Arab countries when it sees fit, but when it comes to Shia majority Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia, Iran supports Christian Armenia. Nobody should be fooled by the Iranian regime's propaganda in its entirety, in the same way, that you should not be fooled by USA or any other country's propaganda.

 

[King Solomon]

Maybe you did not read my comments well enough, or you did not understand them. Where Iranian forces are deeply entrenched, defenses have been built up, numerically superior Iranian armed forces hold a thin advantage over the GCC. Where the GCC has built up its defenses (on its own turf), GCC holds the advantage. You are the first Iranian-sympathizer that I have seen admit that Iran is behind the uprisings in Bahrain, while Iranian officials try to deny it. Nevertheless, Iran could not topple the Bahrain regime, nor could it do anything against GCC troops pouring in to quell the 'uprising' in Bahrain.

About F-22s in UAE, my guess is that their leaders take order from America.

Lets leave Iran vs Gcc discussion at that. You may not agree with me but nobody envisions war between muslim countries. As far as stationing F 22s, as I said, it is to act as a deterrent against Iran because GCC knows they cannot face Iran by themselves. Actions speak louder than words.

Well, that is because I always judge everything based on reality. I am not Iranian. Tell me, you are from Brazil. Would the Brazillian people be able to suddenly "rise up" against the government on their own? No, a back-support has to exist. Somebody has to provide you with the organisational knowledge and discipline + material assistance required to do that.

Every revolution has a perpetrator. I also consider Iran's 1979 revolution to be backed by certain quarters with vested interests. Read: Hostage to Khomenie. Just as I also consider the Syrian so-called revolution to be backed by nefarious quarters.

Iran could topple Bahrain regime the covert way that it was trying, if Bahrain did not get foreign assistance. As far as direct military intervention, it goes against Iranian defense doctrine, which is purely defensive. So, the question of invading Bahrain does not come at all.

Edit: I should add that Iranian regime uses the sectarian card in its neighbouring Arab countries when it sees fit, but when it comes to Shia majority Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia, Iran supports Christian Armenia. Nobody should be fooled by the Iranian regime's propaganda in its entirety, in the same way, that you should not be fooled by USA or any other country's propaganda.

Iran's goal is to be a regional power. It only sees Shiaism as a way and means to do that since any Shia would obviously be sympathetic to Iran. Iran used Shiaism to gain power over Iraq at present.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Lets leave Iran vs Gcc discussion at that. You may not agree with me but nobody envisions war between muslim countries. As far as stationing F 22s, as I said, it is to act as a deterrent against Iran because GCC knows they cannot face Iran by themselves. Actions speak louder than words.

Well, that is because I always judge everything based on reality. I am not Iranian. Tell me, you are from Brazil. Would the Brazillian people be able to suddenly "rise up" against the government on their own? No, a back-support has to exist. Somebody has to provide you with the organisational knowledge and discipline + material assistance required to do that.

Every revolution has a perpetrator. I also consider Iran's 1979 revolution to be backed by certain quarters with vested interests. Read: Hostage to Khomenie. Just as I also consider the Syrian so-called revolution to be backed by nefarious quarters.

Iran could topple Bahrain regime the covert way that it was trying, if Bahrain did not get foreign assistance. As far as direct military intervention, it goes against Iranian defense doctrine, which is purely defensive. So, the question of invading Bahrain does not come at all.



Iran's goal is to be a regional power. It only sees Shiaism as a way and means to do that since any Shia would obviously be sympathetic to Iran. Iran used Shiaism to gain power over Iraq at present.

I am not Brazilian. OK, there is no point in that discussion because it is unlikely that either party would use force now to change the status quo. Do you actually believe that the USA helped in the Iranian revolution which toppled its favourite Shah from power, which caused some Americans in their embassy to be taken hostages, which caused some 280+ Americans to be killed in Lebanon by Iranian agents?

Chechnya is one fine example of Iran's betrayal of the Muslim cause, but supposedly USA instigated Iranian revolution to cause Soviet Union to split up because of "Muslim revival", while Chechnya was totally forgotten by so called 'Islamic Republic of Iran' (but strongly supported by Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and some volunteers from various Muslim countries).

 

[King Solomon]

True, Pakistan government has completely ruined the country, it's gonna take at least 10 years to get rid of this. (off topic)

The govt has not interfered with the weapons programme. As far as i've read they are independent.

 

[The SC]

Saudi Arabia repeated on Wednesday that it would not tolerate threats to the Gulf Arab states' sovereignty

They are saying the same thing as Iran does.
The statement is addressed at the US and Israel.
The rest of the article is the author's own interpretation of the Statement made by SA.

 

[King Solomon]

I am not Brazilian. OK, there is no point in that discussion because it is unlikely that either party would use force now to change the status quo. Do you actually believe that the USA helped in the Iranian revolution which toppled its favourite Shah from power, which caused some Americans in their embassy to be taken hostages, which caused some 280+ Americans to be killed in Lebanon by Iranian agents?

Chechnya is one fine example of Iran's betrayal of the Muslim cause, but supposedly USA instigated Iranian revolution to cause Soviet Union to split up because of "Muslim revival", while Chechnya was totally forgotten by so called 'Islamic Republic of Iran' (but strongly supported by Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and some volunteers from various Muslim countries).

When did I say US helped Iranian revolution?

Chechnya is a fine example of Saudi-exported Wahabi terrorism. Only Iran adopted a fine stance to the issue and supported Russia. Thankfully, we destroyed and wiped out all terrorists in 2nd chechen war. Chechnya is now as peaceful as it gets and the city has been reconstructed. Check the Chechen picture topic i posted.

 

[Mahmoud_EGY]

military cooperation is a part of the diplomatic relations not only in the GCC but also worldwide ( political view may involve as well as economy ). so can you tell me why saudi arabia host military personnel from pakistan?

maybe becouse their soldires are cowards ran away from rebels armed with ak and rpg 7

Ahmadinejad added more fuel to the fire> visiting the disputed islands claimed by both parties have increased the tension between both countries.

it is his right all you could do is beg the west for help and the west has economy problems so you will be on your own with no friend in the region and it will get worse for you later