[andriy_koval]

Saudi and UAE has less air power than US+Israel, whatever could be bombed already bombed.

But Saudi and UAE are ruled by rich regimes who benefit from oil revenue, and very vulnarable to Iran strikes, they more likely will pay those $2m.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Saudi and UAE has less air power than US+Israel

Less plus some is still more.

> whatever could be bombed already bombed

This is plainly untrue. We're still bombing things. Missiles are still being fired. Power plants and refineries continue to run.

> Saudi and UAE are ruled by rich regimes who benefit from oil revenue, and very vulnarable to Iran strikes, they more likely will pay those $2m

That functionally cedes Emirati and Saudi sovereignty to Iran. Today it's $2mm. Tomorrow it's anything else Tehran requires.

[andriy_koval]

> That functionally cedes Emirati and Saudi sovereignty to Iran. Today it's $2mm. Tomorrow it's anything else Tehran requires.

the point is besides full scale invasion which Saudi and UAE won't do, there is no reliable way to remove threat of Iran striking oil infra, they just don't have way to deal with the problem.

[JumpCrisscross]

> full scale invasion which Saudi and UAE won't do

Don't need a full-scale invasion. Just a land grab on the coasts. They can't do it alone. But they can provide troops (and mercenaries) as well as staying power where the U.S. cannot.

> there is no reliable way to remove threat of Iran striking oil infra

Barring invasion: mutualize the damage. Pot Iranian tankers. Seed their ports with mines. Israel locking up the Caspian and the UAE and Saudi Arabia locking up Hormuz to Iran changes the calculus of the war in Tehran and makes suing for peace–not with America and Israel, but with the Gulf–tenable.

[anon84873628]

>Don't need a full-scale invasion. Just a land grab on the coasts.

As the article points out, this just makes the soldiers on the coast the targets of the drones and missiles.

And it is a very large coastline to secure. How many mercenaries can they feed into the grinder? They certainly can't keep it up like Russia.

There was a semi-stable equilibrium and the US ruined it. Now Iran controls the straight and it will be very very costly to go back.

[JumpCrisscross]

> this just makes the soldiers on the coast the targets of the drones and missiles

Correct. That also reveals the locations of launchers, artillery pieces, et cetera. A winnable game if you have cheap bodies.

> it is a very large coastline to secure

To secure the Strait? Absolutely. To converge firepower onto a few beachheads? Not necessarily. And a Gulf land grab wouldn't be comprehensive. Just the islands (e.g. Larak, Hengam and East Qeshm) and maybe the land directly across from the Musandam Peninsula. (Probably not to hold. Just draw fire and trade back to Tehran. Hell, gift it to Trump.)

Kuwait and Iraq remain screwed. But if you're a Gulf exporter, that isn't necessarily a bad thing...

> There was a semi-stable equilibrium and the US ruined it. Now Iran controls the straight and it will be very very costly to go back

Sure. The point is how those costs will be borne. I don't think the emerging status quo is tenable for the Gulf.

[Starman_Jones]

Without the US, Saudi Arabia et al would be significantly outnumbered in a war with Iran. It's very unlikely that they have the capacity to invade Iran, even without considering drones. Factoring in drones, they will simply run out of soldiers before Iran runs out of drones, and the Iranian army can conduct mop-up operations at their leisure.

[andriy_koval]

> Don't need a full-scale invasion. Just a land grab on the coasts. They can't do it alone. But they can provide troops (and mercenaries) as well as staying power where the U.S. cannot.

they couldn't win this against much closer, smaller and weaker Yemen. They just don't have functional military.

> mutualize the damage. Pot Iranian tankers. Seed their ports with mines.

I don't believe they will do this because they love oil money too much, unlike Iranian regime, which is idiologically/religiously driven, and endured for many years of various attacks and sanctions.

[JumpCrisscross]

> couldn't win this against much closer, smaller and weaker Yemen. They just don't have functional military

KSA went it alone in Yemen. And from that–as well as various proxy wars in Africa–both it and the UAE have learned.

> don't believe they will do this because they love oil money too much

Loving oil money means wanting to export your oil. That said, I think the monarchies are more politically vulnerable. So it's harder for them to commit to this path. (It would also involve pissing off Trump.) But that doesn't mean it's strategically off the table, particularly for Saudi Arabia, which is less dependent on the Strait than the UAE.

[andriy_koval]

> KSA went it alone in Yemen.

there were many countries involved in coalition. UAE specifically sent troups to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aden_(2018)

But the issue is that KSA just didn't perform on the ground, well equipped troups were overrun by Houthies with AK consistently. Not clear if they changed anything.

> Loving oil money means wanting to export your oil.

right, if Iran will take reasonable cuts, gulf states won't escalate.

[sysguest]

well I don't actually think Saudi & UAE will send their own countrymen...

rather, they'd just use oil money and pay gurkha mercenaries

[andriy_koval]

this didn't work for them in Yemen. And Iran is farther and stronger.