Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arabian War Games

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arabian War Games




    Saudi banker and political analyst Ali al-Shihabi took in his book Arabian WarGames the two major conflicts in the Middle East as starting point of a fictive doomsday scenario.
    I found it captivating and gritty reading though I had some issues with the scenario, like the depicted flawless Iranian advance into the Gulf. Highly recommended reading!

    Below in bullet form the book’s main events of the two major wars that according to the book will break out in the Middle East in autumn 2013:

    · Iran is practically strangled by the economic sanctions against its nuclear programme. Iranian leadership feels threatened and plans the occupation of the Gulf States and its rich oil reserves, codename: Operation Imam Hussein after the Shi’a saint.
    Critical phases are of this operation are:
    o 13 November 2013 Military exercises of the Iranian and Iraqi armed forces near the border with Kuwait.
    o Massive terror attack on the biggest Shi’a mosque in Kuwait, orchestrated by the Iranian secret service will serve as an excuse for an Iranian invasion. The hundreds of victims serve as martyrs for the higher cause and will go straight to paradise anyway.
    o The Iranian invasion of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is swift and relentless. In order to keep the US out of the conflict, Iranian troops give the US bases in the Gulf region a wide pass. Not even the attack of Israeli sub launched nuclear missiles (see below) on Iranian nuclear installations can distract Iranian leadership from its offensive.
    o The resistance of the Gulf States just collapses. The invaders are supported by the Shi’a minorities in the Gulf. The Saudi king flees to Mecca.
    o 16 November: The Saudi king realizes that he cannot expect anything from the US and in extremis turns to Wild Card Pakistan that answers the plea from the king and comes to the rescue of the Saudi’s by launching a nuclear missile on Tehran.

    · Around the same time Israel realizes that demographics work against a Jewish state and plans to remedy this by means of a violent removal of the Palestinians within its borders to neighbouring countries, codename Operation King David.
    o 14 November 2013, Israeli subs recently purchased from Germany fire nuclear missiles on Iranian nuclear installations at Arak, Bushehr, Isfahan, Natanz and Tehran as a reaction to Iran’s invasion. Purpose is twofold, to hamper Iran’s nuclear program and more importantly to provoke a reaction from Iran’s allies Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
    o Hezbollah lets itself be provoked and reacts as anticipated, providing Israel with an excuse to invade Lebanon as far as Litani River, chasing the population away.
    o 15 November: Hamas also reacts and Israel moves into the Gaza strip removing the Palestinian population into Egypt.
    o With the fabricated excuse that the Muslim clergy is calling for attacks on Israel, the Palestinian population from Israel, Jerusalem and the West Bank is violently driven out by the Israeli army and dumped over the border into Jordan.
    o 17 November: Israel moves into the Sinai, turning it into a buffer with Muslim brotherhood dominated Egypt. All Palestinians have been removed from Israel.

    · The Day After:
    o Leadership in Iran is replaced by a military dictatorship.
    o A US-lead UN Peace Force mops up the Iranian forces in the Gulf States and Saudi, takes over these Gulf States and its oil industry.
    o Israel is now a pure Jewish state next to a Palestinian Republic of Jordan where the Hashemite king is replaced by a Palestinian president.
    18
    Yes
    22.22%
    4
    No
    61.11%
    11
    Cannot tell
    16.67%
    3
    Other
    0.00%
    0
    Last edited by Colonel Sennef; 02 Oct 12, 08:29. Reason: clarification
    BoRG

    You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You - Leon Trotski, June 1919.

  • #2
    How does this:

    The Iranian invasion of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is swift and relentless. In order to keep the US out of the conflict, Iranian troops give the US bases in the Gulf region a wide pass. Not even the attack of Israeli sub launched nuclear missiles (see below) on Iranian nuclear installations can distract Iranian leadership from its offensive.
    Rhyme with this:

    A US-lead UN Peace Force takes over the Gulf States and the oil industry.
    They just withraw after all that (I count six nuclear strikes ??) - and return home ?

    What would Iran gain from it all ?

    Sounds pretty far fetched to me - And it goes to extreme lenghts to actually ignore the elephant in middle-eastern room that is SA itself.

    A scenario like that would be a wet dream for the saoudis - Israel an international paria and Iran a nuclear wasteland => the saoudi princes rule supreme over "dar al islam" for the forseeable future.


    Political analyst my A**
    Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

    Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

    Comment


    • #3
      Entire scenario seem to be total BS.

      1. Iran and Iraq dont have firepower to take over those countries very quickly and US would intervene and turn those attacking units to scrap metal.

      2. Israel wouldnt have any reason to use nukes in that scenario - Iranian attack would be sufficient reson for USA to use its airpower to destroy iranian nuclear program.

      3. Israelis are not idiots so whole part abour expelling millions of palestinians is absurd.

      etc. etc.
      Last edited by Rebel44; 02 Oct 12, 08:24.

      Comment


      • #4
        For myself, I do not really expect the whole scenario to happen but it has a couple of venomous bullets, such as:

        · the Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites followed by Hezbollah reaction and Israeli retaliation deep into Lebanon.
        · The fact the scenario highlights that the international community should not let the Palestinian issue simmer much longer; one way or the other it will turn very ugly.
        · The implied message that the security of the Gulf States is standing on clay feet.
        BoRG

        You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You - Leon Trotski, June 1919.

        Comment


        • #5
          Iran doesn't posses sufficient logistical or even military capacity to venture so far.

          Everything looks nice on paper,but reality is always below our expectations.
          It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.

          Косово је Србија!
          Never go to war with a country whose national holiday celebrates a defeat in 1389.

          Armored Brigade

          Armored Brigade Facebook page

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Major Sennef View Post
            For myself, I do not really expect the whole scenario to happen but it has a couple of venomous bullets, such as:

            · the Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites followed by Hezbollah reaction and Israeli retaliation deep into Lebanon.
            · The fact the scenario highlights that the international community should not let the Palestinian issue simmer much longer; one way or the other it will turn very ugly.
            · The implied message that the security of the Gulf States is standing on clay feet.
            1. Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear program is realistic, but Israeli NUCLEAR strike against those targets in situation when they would be destroyed in a few days by USAF anyway is absurd nonsense.

            2. IMO it will simmer for quite a few years longer

            3. While those countries dont have very strong military, what they have should be sufficient against Iran - Gulf states have very good hardware (F-15s, Abrams tanks etc.) which would be superior against T-72s and Migs used by Iran.

            Also, while individual gulf states are weak, IMO their combined armed forces are strong enough for defensive battle against Iran.

            Comment


            • #7
              About as realistic as a Tom Clancy novel.

              1. Israel and Iran don't have that much firepower to just attack or conquer all over the place. Even combined they couldn't take over the Gulf region in a day.

              2. Israel would not use nuclear missiles unless hit first. If they did use them without provocation, they would lose every single alliance and trade agreement with every Western nation, the US included.

              3. Iran is not stupid. If nuked, they wouldn't "continue the invasion".

              4. Iran gives the US territory in exchange for peace. Makes some sense, but why does the UN and the US then invade shortly after? It'd be very unrealistic to break diplomatic promises that quickly.

              5. Why would the West take land and allow one nation or the other to conquer the entire Gulf region without even worrying about it?

              6. It wouldn't be an instantaneous thing. It would take weeks alone for both sides to mobilize, not just an hour then end up with the whole Gulf region taken a day later. This goes for all sides.

              Comment


              • #8
                I usually enjoy this types of genera- but these scenario are ridiculous.

                I suggest looking into Ralph Peter's "The War After Armageddon". Also not very plausible, but at least more credible...

                Comment


                • #9
                  The problem is any scenario "War game" like this is always based on the perception of the writer, and on fiction. This leaves large personal license to what occurs, and often it's more of one's own fantasy than reality. Case in point, Tom Clancy or this author. They write what they want to be real and action-packed, not what is real and potentially boring.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well you have to figure the Iranians have two strategic assets, militant proxies and long range missiles. They hold one strategic position, the north side of the Strait of Hormuz. You have to assume that they will try to maximize the benefit of these things in any war they decide to initiate. They also want to use certain assets early to prevent their enemies countering them.

                    From my perspective, any war initiated by Iran has to start with one or more of the following:
                    1. Closing the Strait of Hormuz - Gets the imediate attention of the entire developed world.
                    2. Fomenting Shiite uprisings in as many Arab states as possible - ties down the maximum number of Arab troops without committing any Iranian forces.
                    3. Attacking critical targets with long range missiles before those missiles can be located and destroyed - hit strategic sites like Diego Garcia and Saudi airfields to prevent reinforcement from the US for as long as possible.
                    Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                    Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ricthofen View Post
                      The problem is any scenario "War game" like this is always based on the perception of the writer, and on fiction. This leaves large personal license to what occurs, and often it's more of one's own fantasy than reality. Case in point, Tom Clancy or this author. They write what they want to be real and action-packed, not what is real and potentially boring.
                      Agree completely.

                      This is where desired outcome of the author and outcome of his/her ‘analysis’ meet.
                      Tom Clancy and Ralph Peters IMO fall prone to this sort of wishful thinking.
                      This book written by a Saudi banker, who is western educated, seems to me remarkably free of that.
                      In other words: I do not think he wants the outcome he depicts in his book.

                      Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
                      Well you have to figure the Iranians have two strategic assets, militant proxies and long range missiles. They hold one strategic position, the north side of the Strait of Hormuz. You have to assume that they will try to maximize the benefit of these things in any war they decide to initiate. They also want to use certain assets early to prevent their enemies countering them.

                      From my perspective, any war initiated by Iran has to start with one or more of the following:
                      1. Closing the Strait of Hormuz - Gets the imediate attention of the entire developed world.
                      2. Fomenting Shiite uprisings in as many Arab states as possible - ties down the maximum number of Arab troops without committing any Iranian forces.
                      3. Attacking critical targets with long range missiles before those missiles can be located and destroyed - hit strategic sites like Diego Garcia and Saudi airfields to prevent reinforcement from the US for as long as possible.
                      Astute analysis

                      One of the reasons why this book drew my attention is its fresh perspective on the US involvement.
                      The Iranians in this scenario give the US bases in the region a wide berth and do nothing to provoke them into action.
                      As a result the US here remains on the sideline, only active on the diplomatic front asking for constraint of all involved till after the conflict.
                      BoRG

                      You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You - Leon Trotski, June 1919.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Major Sennef View Post
                        Agree completely.

                        The Iranians in this scenario give the US bases in the region a wide berth and do nothing to provoke them into action.
                        As a result the US here remains on the sideline, only active on the diplomatic front asking for constraint of all involved till after the conflict.
                        So why do you think the USA have bases over there in the first place? Why do you think the USA have alliances with the countries being invaded and don't lift a finger to help their allies?

                        This is somewhat like claiming that in 1970, the Warsaw Pact invades Western Germany and, since they don't attack Berlin and give US bases on West German soil a wide berth, the USA react by filing a diplomatic complaint. Come on.
                        Michele

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Michele View Post
                          This is somewhat like claiming that in 1970, the Warsaw Pact invades Western Germany and, since they don't attack Berlin and give US bases on West German soil a wide berth, the USA react by filing a diplomatic complaint. Come on.
                          Not to go off- topic but there was actually a lot of concern about this aspect among the European NATO members in the 1970s whether the US would come to the rescue in case of a WP attack.
                          To address this concern was one of the reasons of NATO to come to its so-called "Double-Track Decision" in 1979 and thus establish a reconnect between European security and US involvement.

                          Now you may wish to apply this insight to the current situation in the Gulf.
                          BoRG

                          You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You - Leon Trotski, June 1919.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Major Sennef View Post
                            Not to go off- topic but there was actually a lot of concern about this aspect among the European NATO members in the 1970s whether the US would come to the rescue in case of a WP attack.
                            To address this concern was one of the reasons of NATO to come to its so-called "Double-Track Decision" in 1979 and thus establish a reconnect between European security and US involvement.

                            Now you may wish to apply this insight to the current situation in the Gulf.
                            This insight has to do with disconnects, yes - between conventional and nuclear responses, and between theater and intercontinental nuclear weapons use.
                            It never had anything to do with the hypothesis that in the case of a conventional offensive by the Warsaw Pact, the US conventional forces in Germany would adopt a "fire only if fired upon" practice.
                            Michele

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Michele View Post
                              It never had anything to do with the hypothesis that in the case of a conventional offensive by the Warsaw Pact, the US conventional forces in Germany would adopt a "fire only if fired upon" practice.
                              Even this was up to debate after the outcome of the Vietnam War. NATO's Double Track Decison was to tie US and Euroepan security at all levels.
                              BoRG

                              You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You - Leon Trotski, June 1919.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X