[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Without the US, Saudi Arabia et al would be significantly outnumbered

True. Without the U.S., the most they can do is pot Iranian ships so they sue for limited peace.

> Factoring in drones, they will simply run out of soldiers before Iran runs out of drones

Both the KSA and UAE have access to mercenaries. They wouldn't be running out of fodder any time soon.

[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

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

Unlikely. Again, a reasonable cut today can turn into any ask tomorrow. It's worth tremendous costs to the Gulf to ensure the Strait returns to at least neutrality.

[andriy_koval]

If there is a good time for unreasonable ask its today, Iran has strong incentive to say: you withdraw US troupes/bases or no tankers through the strait. If they don't do it today, they won't do it in next few decades.

Also, I don't think controlling shoreline will give anything: tankers are easily strikeable via drones/missiles from inner-Iran.

The only solution: is deep invasion supported with internal uprising with full defeat of current regime.