Saudi Arabia Charges Iran With ‘Act of War,’ Raising Threat of Military Clash - Polidicks

[IMG]https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/11/07/world/07saudi/07saudi-master768.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]A still image taken from a video distributed on Sunday by Yemen’s pro-Houthi Al Masirah television station, said to show the launch of a ballistic missile aimed at an airport in Riyadh, the Saudi capital.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]LONDON — Saudi Arabia charged Monday that Iran had committed “a blatant act of military aggression” by providing its Yemeni allies with a missile fired at the Saudi capital over the weekend, raising the threat of a direct military clash between the two regional heavyweights. The accusations represent a new peak in tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran at a time when they are already fighting proxy wars in Yemen and Syria, as well as battles for political power in Iraq and Lebanon. The Saudi statement said the missile could be considered an “act of war” against the kingdom and triggered its right to self-defense under international law. It claimed that the rocket, which was fired from Yemen and intercepted en route to Riyadh, the capital, had originated in Iran. The Saudis said that “experts in military technology” had examined the debris of the missile, as well as one launched in July, and “confirmed the role of Iran’s regime in manufacturing these missiles and smuggling them to the Houthi militias in Yemen for the purpose of attacking the kingdom.” American officials have previously accused Iran of arming its Yemeni allies, the Houthis. But Saudi Arabia’s claims could not be independently verified. Saudi Arabia and its allies, including the United States and the United Arab Emirates, have enforced a sea and air blockade around Yemen since the outbreak of the current war there, so it was also unclear how Iran could have provided large weapons like ballistic missiles. The top commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Iran called the accusation “baseless.” “These missiles were produced by the Yemenis and their military industry,” the commander, Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, told the semiofficial news agency Tasnim. Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, accused Saudi Arabia of “wars of aggression, regional bullying, destabilizing behavior & risky provocations,” in a statement on Twitter. Saudi Arabia “bombs Yemen to smithereens, killing 1000s of innocents including babies, spreads cholera and famine, but of course blames Iran,” Mr. Zarif said. The Saudi claim was the second time in three days that the kingdom and its allies have accused Iran of trying to destabilize the region. On Saturday, hours before the missile was intercepted, the Lebanese prime minister, Saad Hariri, resigned his post in protest of Iranian interference in Lebanon through its client, Hezbollah. Mr. Hariri tendered his resignation via a televised statement from Saudi Arabia and has not yet returned to Beirut, leading to the widespread assumption in Lebanon that he was pressured to resign by the Saudis, his political patrons. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, said over the weekend that the Saudis had all but kidnapped Mr. Hariri. Mr. Nasrallah urged Mr. Hariri to return to Beirut for power-sharing talks “if he is allowed to come back.” “It was definitely a Saudi decision that was imposed on him,” Mr. Nasrallah said. “It was not his will to step down.” The accusations of Iranian interference in Yemen and Lebanon came as the Saudi crown prince was further consolidating his power with a wave of internal arrests that began around midnight on Saturday and expanded on Monday, trapping 11 princes and dozens of others in a Ritz Carlton hotel now serving as a uniquely luxurious prison. The arrests cemented the dominance of the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, 32, over military, foreign, internal security, economic and social affairs inside the kingdom. In the two and a half years since the coronation of his father, King Salman, 81, Prince Mohammed has sharply escalated a cold war with Iran, stepping up Saudi Arabia’s efforts to push back Iranian influence in the Syrian civil war, plunging the kingdom into a protracted military conflict against Iranian-allied forces in Yemen, and isolating neighboring Qatar in part for being too close to Iran. His hawkish stance toward Iran and to Islamists in the region also appears to have formed the basis for a close bond with President Trump, who visited Riyadh this year and maintained a conspicuous silence over the weekend about Prince Mohammed’s campaign of extrajudicial arrests. The connection between the arrests in Saudi Arabia and the accusations against Iran was unclear, raising questions on Monday about whether the crown prince was emboldened to take on Iran by his success at checking his internal rivals, or whether he had hastened to check potential domestic critics in order to fortify his hand for a regional confrontation. Joseph Kechichian, a scholar at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh who is close to the royal family, said the moves represented the convergence of two long-term agendas for Prince Mohammed. “Inside he has been able to put his men into positions of influence and he has pushed aside his rivals,” Mr. Kechichian said. “And ever since President Trump’s visit to Riyadh there has been a very consistent policy with the essential coordination of the United States, and Iran is in the bull’s-eye.” “In the past, accommodation was the name of the game, and today confrontation is the name of the game,” he said. Saudi Arabia also said on Monday that it would “temporarily” close Yemen’s land, sea and air ports of entry in response to the missile firing, in order to tighten inspections and stop any weapons shipments. It pledged to provide for “the continuation of the entry and exit of humanitarian supplies and crews.” However, the United Nations said that two aid flights scheduled for Monday had not been allowed to depart for Yemen. “We’re trying to see whether we can get our normal access restored,” Farhan Haq, a United Nations spokesman, said at a daily briefing. “We underscored to all parties the need for regular humanitarian access.” The United Nations considers Yemen, the Middle East’s poorest country, one of the world’s biggest humanitarian emergencies. Roughly 17 million people — 60 percent of the population — need food assistance, and seven million are at risk of famine. Nearly 900,000 Yemenis have been sickened by cholera. Saudi Arabia accompanied its accusations against Iran with the announcement that it would pay bounties of up to $30 million for information leading to the capture of 40 Houthi leaders in Yemen. “We fear nothing,” one leader on the list, Mohammad Ali al-Houthi, said in a defiant speech on Monday in the Yemeni capital, Sana. He called the sweep of arrests ordered by Prince Mohammed “a coup leading to the throne” and invited any dissident Saudis to take refuge in Yemen. “We tell the citizens and princes in Saudi Arabia that the Yemeni people are opening their arms to you. None will endure injustice.” Yemen’s Houthi-controlled Defense Ministry said over the weekend that its forces had targeted Riyadh’s airport with a long-range missile. Immediately after the firing, the Saudi-led coalition hit Sana with the heaviest barrage of airstrikes in more than a year. With the support of Iran, the Houthis overthrew the internationally recognized government of President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi in early 2015, and they have controlled much of the country since. While the Houthis have long had loose ties to Iran and have received some support, there has never been proof that they were proxies under the direct command of Tehran, as the Saudis assert, analysts say. The Saudi claim about Iran’s responsibility for the missile attack was difficult to evaluate in part because of the long and complicated history of illicit weapons shipments to Yemen. South Yemeni forces acquired Soviet missiles during their civil war with the North before it ended in 1994, and the subsequent national government of Yemen, whose institutions are now under the control of the Houthi faction, had said as long ago as 2002 that it had bought a shipment of Scud missiles from North Korea. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Riyadh has been attacked twice before with missiles from Yemen, in February and March. The Saudi border area, including military bases in the southern city of Jizan, has also been targeted several times. [/QUOTE] [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-iran-missile.html[/url]

How high is the prospect of actual war?

It's sabre rattling, frankly if it was mano on mano I picture Iran really bloodying and eventually winning against the Saudis. There would be quite a death toll though.

[QUOTE=Aman;52862998]It's sabre rattling, frankly if it was mano on mano I picture Iran really bloodying and eventually winning against the Saudis. There would be quite a death toll though.[/QUOTE] If it were a 1v1 match I doubt Saudi would spare any expense railroading all their cash into their military. They're also a good contender given their normal civil rights manners, by which i mean they don't give a fuck and would likely do whatever they could to remain independently royal(conscription). If we were to bet I think I would put my money on the Saudis.

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;52863078]If it were a 1v1 match I doubt Saudi would spare any expense railroading all their cash into their military. They're also a good contender given their normal civil rights manners, by which i mean they don't give a fuck and would likely do whatever they could to remain independently royal(conscription). If we were to bet I think I would put my money on the Saudis.[/QUOTE] saudis would lose, they are much more incompetent than the iranians and have historically been awful at winning wars (not to mention their kleptocratic economy and broken system of government)

[QUOTE=Aman;52862998]It's sabre rattling, frankly if it was mano on mano I picture Iran really bloodying and eventually winning against the Saudis. There would be quite a death toll though.[/QUOTE] The Saudis both spend more on their military and have tacit support from the US. I actually don't see Iran faring too well, although I doubt they would be annexed either. Saudi Arabia is making this shit up, I'm almost certain of it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52863116]saudis would lose, they are much more incompetent than the iranians and have historically been awful at winning wars (not to mention their kleptocratic economy and broken system of government)[/QUOTE] That's of course assuming that the US choose to sit this one out. Which they won't, considering they are actively providing logistics, intelligence and equipment support for the current "Bomb the everloving fuck out of Yemen" campaign, Mattis wants to continue said mutual defense agreements and Trump has a massive hate boner for Iran, so he'll be signing toilet paper if that's what it takes. But, like Qatar, they're unlikely to actually do anything - this is just saber rattling. Unless, of course, something bad happens like an assassination attempt. Then all bets are off.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52863151]The Saudis both spend more on their military and have tacit support from the US. I actually don't see Iran faring too well, although I doubt they would be annexed either. Saudi Arabia is making this shit up, I'm almost certain of it.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't really count on that, the way ISIS steamrolled over Iraq should demonstrate that having advanced weaponry and equipment means nothing in the hands of an incompetent military.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52863481]I wouldn't really count on that, the way ISIS steamrolled over Iraq should demonstrate that having advanced weaponry and equipment means nothing in the hands of an incompetent military.[/QUOTE] It is true that training counts for a lot more, hence an inferior British force beating Argentina in the Falklands War, but my understanding is that Saudi Arabia has a pretty well trained military who have likely gained a lot of recent experience in Yemen.

It's great that the KSA is actually willing to call out Iran on their BS after all that's happened

[QUOTE=Aman;52862998]It's sabre rattling, frankly if it was mano on mano I picture Iran really bloodying and eventually winning against the Saudis. There would be quite a death toll though.[/QUOTE] It might be in Russia's interests to support Iran which would complicate the matter. There's also the rumour that the Saudis funded Pakistan's nuclear weapons program on the condition of being able to buy Pakistani nuclear weapons and if the war goes down hill for them they way use that to dickwave. [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52863116]saudis would lose, they are much more incompetent than the iranians and have historically been awful at winning wars (not to mention their kleptocratic economy and broken system of government)[/QUOTE] Except the US probably won't let them lose.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52863617]It is true that training counts for a lot more, hence an inferior British force beating Argentina in the Falklands War, but my understanding is that Saudi Arabia has a pretty well trained military who have likely gained a lot of recent experience in Yemen.[/QUOTE] AFAIK Saudi forces have been somewhat incompetent in Yemen.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52863617]It is true that training counts for a lot more, hence an inferior British force beating Argentina in the Falklands War, but my understanding is that Saudi Arabia has a pretty well trained military who have likely gained a lot of recent experience in Yemen.[/QUOTE] saudis are well trained by Arab standards but are not anywhere near western standards American special forces doing a demonstration: [video=youtube;06g7KodfTEI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06g7KodfTEI[/video] Saudi special forces doing a demonstration: [video=youtube;p719QRGYlCw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p719QRGYlCw[/video]

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52863151]The Saudis both spend more on their military and have tacit support from the US. I actually don't see Iran faring too well, although I doubt they would be annexed either. Saudi Arabia is making this shit up, I'm almost certain of it.[/QUOTE] God, if they drag us into another war just so we can win it for them, that would be incredibly fucking stupid. 1) It further secures the KSA as a dominant power in the Middle East if they win, and 2) It sates the Republican's war-boner towards Iran.

[QUOTE=RockmanYoshi;52863897]AFAIK Saudi forces have been somewhat incompetent in Yemen.[/QUOTE] True, but guerrilla war is something that even the US has found no way to reliably beat, based on their failures in Vietnam and Iraq despite a gargantuan military. [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Svinnik;52863924]saudis are well trained by Arab standards but are not anywhere near western standards American special forces doing a demonstration: [video=youtube;06g7KodfTEI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06g7KodfTEI[/video] Saudi special forces doing a demonstration: [video=youtube;p719QRGYlCw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p719QRGYlCw[/video][/QUOTE] I definitely wasn't saying they are comparable to the US, but I do remember reading something about them being the 5th highest military spenders, or something like that. Iran wouldn't be a push over, but I don't see any way for them to beat the Saudis either.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52864127]True, but guerrilla war is something that even the US has found no way to reliably beat, based on their failures in Vietnam and Iraq despite a gargantuan military. [editline]7th November 2017[/editline] I definitely wasn't saying they are comparable to the US, but I do remember reading something about them being the 5th highest military spenders, or something like that. Iran wouldn't be a push over, but I don't see any way for them to beat the Saudis either.[/QUOTE] They're actually the [I]4th[/I] highest military spender [t]https://i.imgur.com/7CJBeDz.png[/t]

[QUOTE=RockmanYoshi;52863897]AFAIK Saudi forces have been somewhat incompetent in Yemen.[/QUOTE] Yeah I wanted to point this out. In some other thread around here, there was an article showing how incompetent and badly managed the saudis were. A lot of soldiers deserting. Some Abrams being lost (Just like the incompetent Turks handing out Leopards to be destroyed) Idk man Really Idk....the Iranians have been waging war in one way or another since they deposed the Shah. The only concern would be their equipment and logistics which is quite shitty and they don't have enough to deck all their divisions with their latest developments.

[QUOTE=Quark:;52864152]They're actually the [I]4th[/I] highest military spender [t]https://i.imgur.com/7CJBeDz.png[/t][/QUOTE] That's odd... The UK looks to be breaking NATO rules by spending less than 2% GDP on the military, but I thought we were currently meeting that pledge here. Is that chart quite new? Edit: Actually, I bet it is due to the British pound's devaluation.

[QUOTE=RockmanYoshi;52863897]AFAIK Saudi forces have been somewhat incompetent in Yemen.[/QUOTE] [vid]https://fat.gfycat.com/WiltedFreeAlligator.webm[/vid] incompetent is an understatement

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52864245][vid]https://fat.gfycat.com/WiltedFreeAlligator.webm[/vid] incompetent is an understatement[/QUOTE] Remember kids: Don't text and war!

[QUOTE=Quark:;52864152]They're actually the [I]4th[/I] highest military spender [t]https://i.imgur.com/7CJBeDz.png[/t][/QUOTE] The reason they have to spend so much is their military is so utterly corrupt it's haemorrhaging money.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52863151]The Saudis both spend more on their military and have tacit support from the US. I actually don't see Iran faring too well, although I doubt they would be annexed either. Saudi Arabia is making this shit up, I'm almost certain of it.[/QUOTE] You should review the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980s. Iraq received billions of dollars in financial aid from the United States. They also received technology, weapons, satellite intelligence, and training from the United States. The international community supported Iraq with everything imaginable (chemical weapons included) because they bet on them winning. The Saudis alone gave them ~$20 billion. Even so, Iran successfully repelled the Iraqis despite having way less financial and military support, less equipment and decent technology to work with, and less personnel... not to mention that it was only a little while prior that they'd gone through the Islamic Revolution. And when I say that they had way less support and stuff to work with, I mean [i]way[/i] less. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_combatants_in_the_Iran–Iraq_War[/url] You can throw as much shit as you want at a military in the forms of money, training, equipment, weapons, and intelligence... but it means nothing if they're too corrupt and incompetent (they go hand-in-hand) to actually utilize what you give them in a productive fashion-- which is exactly the situation with Saudi Arabia. Iran will be fine. We're talking about a country that has happily used suicide tactics and child soldiers if/when things got bad, and they hate Arabs as much as Arabs hate them. Hussein infamously compared Persians (and Jews) to flies ("Three Whom God Should Not Have Created"). They will fight fanatically against ethnic, religious, and cultural opponents-- especially if they're losing.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52863924]saudis are well trained by Arab standards but are not anywhere near western standards American special forces doing a demonstration: [video=youtube;06g7KodfTEIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06g7KodfTEI[/video] Saudi special forces doing a demonstration: [video=youtube;p719QRGYlCw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p719QRGYlCw[/video][/QUOTE] Uhm.. Could I trouble anyone for actual military demonstrations? That video is a loose 3 minutes of nothing indicative of the strength or organization of their armed forces.

[QUOTE=ghosevil;52864665]Uhm.. Could I trouble anyone for actual military demonstrations? That video is a loose 3 minutes of nothing indicative of the strength or organization of their armed forces.[/QUOTE] But they're goose stepping and everything. Everybody knows the Nazis were successful not because of tactics, equipment or training - it was the quality of their moustaches and silly hats.

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;52864685]But they're goose stepping and everything. Everybody knows the Nazis were successful not because of tactics, equipment or training - it was the quality of their moustaches and silly hats.[/QUOTE] Nazis were successful?

Better prepare for gas prices to skyrocket over this

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52864687]Nazis were successful?[/QUOTE] What is 1939 - 1942? [sp]Correct answer: Three-year period where Germany won virtually, if not literally, every single battle they fought, against militaries judged to be equal or superior to them[/sp]

[QUOTE=Riller;52864901]What is 1939 - 1942? [sp]Correct answer: Three-year period where Germany won virtually, if not literally, every single battle they fought, against militaries judged to be equal or superior to them[/sp][/QUOTE] What is 1943-1945? [sp]Correct answer: Three-year period where Germany lost virtually, if not literally, every single battle they fought, against militaries judged to be equal or superior to them, and then lost the war.[/sp] They sure were successful :v:

They were successful for a very short time, before their atrocities caught up with them, and they were made to face Justice for their crimes against not only humanity but Planet Earth as a whole.

Given that it took far more nations fighting against them than they had allies to defeat them, I would consider them, militarily, pretty damn successful.