| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran: Paper tiger or real threat? |
| 2007-03-20 |
| Responding to a UPI article published last week on Saudi Arabia's worries over mounting Iranian influence in the Arab world, a well-informed Saudi source told United Press International that the reality on the ground offered a very different picture. "The situation has radically changed in the Gulf, and especially between the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) and Iran. Iran is at best a second-grade power and slowly slipping into a third-grade power," said the source, who requested anonymity. He added, "Saudi Arabia is more than ready at present to directly deal with the Iranians in many different ways, and this is what has got them so nervous. I've pointed out a time or two here that Iran fought a 10-year war with Iraq that ended in a draw. We demolished the Iraqi army twice, once in 100 hours, the second time im two weeks. Our military is at this time a bit worn down by Iraq and Afghanistan, but on the other hand we have a very high proportion of veterans. An American combined arms operation against Iran would take about 10 days to take the entire country. An attempt at guerrilla warfare ala Iraq would be vastly unsuccessful, since there would be no safe haven country like Iran to fund it and arm it. "It is Iran that is on the defensive and has realized it has way overplayed its hand," said the official. This fits with recent reports from Iran that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was accused by some mullahs of "making enemies" for Iran. "Iran has already tried many times to stir trouble in our eastern province and failed for many reasons," said the source. "So we are not very concerned about this currently." Now it is Iran who is worried, said the Saudi source. "They are very worried about the 8 million-plus Sunni community in Iran and the recent unrests in the Sunni areas." Refuting earlier UPI analysis that stated Saudi Arabia would be dependent on the U.S. military to guarantee its independence, the Saudi source said: "Saudi Arabia does not need to be supported by anyone to deal directly with Iran." Soddy Arabia would be approximately as vulnerable to Iranian aggression as it was to Iraqi aggression. Iran is an historical regional power - the impetus behind its present delusions of adequacy - and Arabia isn't. There are reasons for that. Saudi Arabia's lack of fear of Iran has been proven "over and over again over the past several weeks," added the source, referencing a "dressing down" of Ahmadinejad during his recent visit to the kingdom by King Abdullah as "the most recent and visible example of this." In stressing Saudi Arabia's position of strength vis-Ã -vis Iran, the Saudi source pointed to the following statistics: While it's true that Iran dwarfs Saudi Arabia in population -- 68 million vs. 25 million -- and its military is far more powerful, developed and experienced in combat than the Saudi military, the Saudis carry greater economic, diplomatic and strategic clout. The Saudis dwarf Iran in gross domestic product. According to the CIA's 2006 estimates, the Saudi per capita GDP is $13,800; Iran's is $8,900. Economically, Saudi Arabia's free-market economy is no match for Iran. Iran's economy is plagued by a bloated and inefficient state bureaucracy that is over-reliant on the oil sector. Its statist policies further hamper development. Private-sector activity is typically limited to small-scale workshops, farming and services. Saudi Arabia leads in oil production and exports. In a report carried by Arab News, Abdullah Jumah, the president and chief executive of Saudi Aramco, said the kingdom's oil output reached 10.7 million barrels per day by the end of 2006. Aramco also added an additional 3.6 billion barrels of oil to its reserves in 2006 and boosted its natural-gas holding by 10.4 trillion standard cubic feet, more than double its initial target. Iran, according to Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh, increased its crude-oil production by 55,000 barrels per day in the last year, bringing total output to 4.08 million bpd. Additionally, unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran lacks the capability of refining its own crude oil, relying instead on foreign refineries, principally India. To the world's 1.4 billion Muslims, Saudi Arabia carries greater religious importance as the center of Islam's two holiest shrines -- Mecca and Medina -- where Sunnis and Shiites carry out their pilgrimage, one of Islam's five requirements. The holy shrines in Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, as well as in Qom and Mashhad in Iran, are generally exclusively sacred to the Shiites. While Iran has a Shiite majority, Shiites account for only about 15 percent of the Muslim world. And repeated attempts by Iran to drum up support among the Saudi Shiite population of approximately 1 million yielded little success. A Saudi security expert instead sees Iran's Sunni community of close to 8 million as a "huge fifth column." The expert remarks on the differences between Saudi Shiites, who are Arabs and thus ethnically similar to Saudis, and Iranian Sunnis who, unlike the country's Shiites, are not Persian but Arab. Counter to what many Arabs fear, according to this usually very reliable source, "The hypothesis that they (Iran) are or will become the regional power is laughable and highly delusional." Leading U.S. military strategist Anthony Cordesman thinks Iran's current military capabilities are "outdated" and "present little current threat to its neighbors." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #8 Every nation in the Middle East is better off than the Saudis. Food is grown readily in Iraq, Syria, Iran, even Egypt. The Saudi desert doesn't grow much, and there's not a lot of potable water. Without proper logistics, no nation can wage modern warfare. Iran has a problem refining gasoline and other combustables. Kind of hard to fight a mechanized war without gasoline to fuel it. Neither side can fight the other and hope to win - unless they're really, REALLY lucky, or have a nuclear weapon advantage. Iran says it can close the Straits of Hormuz, but who would that hurt the most? Iran is a net IMPORTER of gasoline - is Soddy aRabida? Neither country could last ten days against a concentrated push by the United States, especially a three-pronged push from the west, east, and south. Even Russia couldn't intervene fast enough to save them. Soddy aRabida would last about 20 minutes after the nuke went off over Riyadh. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-03-20 16:39 |
| #7 Grumenk, Defeating the Iranians militarily and then not staying would put the onus on them to come up with a system that meets their needs and doesn't cause us to come back. It's their country. They're free to screw it up any way they want, with the exception of causing grief to their neighbors, who have a similar right to misgovern themselves. I actually have a certain affection for the Iranians. I can't recall ever meeting one who's been a loon - but I've always met them here or in Europe, outside the Khomeinist element. The ayatollahs are busy trying to destroy the Persian parts of their civilization, to make them into non-Arabic speaking Arabs. |
| Posted by: Fred 2007-03-20 08:22 |
| #6 But what our experience in Iraq should teach us is that nation-building in that part of the world may not lead to what we would hope for. America needs to get out of the nation-building busines, forever. Especially so with respect to the MME (Muslim Middle East). From now on, we should go in, break the bad boys' toys and depart just as swiftly. Our only lingering obligation is that, should Iran try to establish another theocracy, we will rinse and repeat however often as needed. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-20 03:59 |
| #5 "I've pointed out a time or two here that Iran fought a 10-year war with Iraq that ended in a draw. We demolished the Iraqi army twice, once in 100 hours, the second time in two weeks." Of course we could defeat Iran militarily fairly easily. But what our experience in Iraq should teach us is that nation-building in that part of the world may not lead to what we would hope for. Germany, although authoritarian, had been a highly advanced nation around 1900 and Japan has had a highly adaptive culture for many decades (and it had already begun to modernize in the Meiji period). They were more amenable to a radical change in culture and governance. At some point we would need to hand control of Iran back over to its people, and that society is far more likely to produce a next-generation Ayatollah Khomeini than a new Mustafa Kemal Attaturk. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-03-20 01:56 |
| #4 WORLDNEWS > BAHRAIN: GULF STATES CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES/ MILITARILY RESPOND IN CASE OF IRAN ATTACK - will retaliate mil in kind and btw, SSSHHHHH, will also dev own nukes iff need be. *OTOH, WAPO [paraphrased] > US MILITARY IN "DEATH SPIRAL". US Army, Marines are not prepared for other/multiple conflicts; + US MILITARY IS HIRING FELONS WHILE ELIMINATING GAY PATRIOTS. * O'REILLY > THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE FAR/HARD LEFT IN AMERICA IS USING THE WOT AND PRESIDENT BUSH'S TROUBLES TO ATTACK THE [CONSTITUTIONAL?] RIGHTS OF AMERICANS INSIDE THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND IMPOSE A SECULAR SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE AGENDA IN AMERICA. As said before, the WOT > WAR FOR SOCIALISM, espec Socialism upon America. A War against forms of FASCISM, i.e. Ultra-Rightist Socialism, is in antithesis A WAR FOR COMMUNISM, i.e. Ultra-Leftist Socialism. Remember, CLINTONISM > FASCISM IS THE "NEW COMMUNISM", at least for time being, ERGO WOT > [collectively] WAR FOR FORM OF COMMUNISM, i.e. LIMITED COMMUNISM vz FULL COMMUNISM, LIMITED TOTALITARIANISM [Fascist "Authoritarianism"] vz FULL TOTALITARIANISM, ...........etc. ET TU, EGGO WAFFLES??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-03-20 01:50 |
| #3 While it's true that Iran dwarfs Saudi Arabia in population -- 68 million vs. 25 million -- and its military is far more powerful, developed and experienced in combat than the Saudi military, the Saudis carry greater economic, diplomatic and strategic clout. The Saudi's just bribe people to fight for them but are not invincible to Iran, as the speaker suggests. |
| Posted by: Clinesing Bucket8193 2007-03-20 01:34 |
| #2 Wel-l-l now. lets see, OSAMA BIN LADEN conspired in 9-11, and event which klled 3000, and was filmed orally promising to do anything + everything to bring about the defeat and destruction of America, ERGO HE'S SEEMINGLY NO THREAT 'CUZ HE SEEMINGLY HAS "NO NUKES/NUCLEAR MISSLES"??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-03-20 01:27 |
| #1 "It is Iran that is on the defensive and has realized it has way overplayed its hand," said the official. I maintain that overreaching itself is one of the, if not the most principal hallmarks of Islam. “Delusions of adequacy” don’t even begin to address the monumental hubris and overweening aspect of Muslim self-perception. Islam’s myriad violations of human rights render its pious exhortations as so much sanctimonious blather. Counter to what many Arabs fear, according to this usually very reliable source, "The hypothesis that they (Iran) are or will become the regional power is laughable and highly delusional." Hitler was delusional too, but that didn’t stop him from killing millions. Consider what Hitler would have accomplished with nuclear weapons in his arsenal then place that sort of power into the hands of a fanatical madman like Ahmadinejad. Frightening doesn’t even begin to describe it. How the remaining world manages to deceive itself on this score amounts to a willful blindness not seen since World War II. The specter of Nazism is looming once more and being steadfastly ignored just as perilously. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-20 00:39 |