3 ms·

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 reve

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 7mo ago
> 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 7mo ago
  > 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 7mo ago
    > 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.
    - andriy_koval 7mo ago
      > 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 7mo ago
        > 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 7mo ago
        > 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) 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 7mo ago
        > 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.
  - sysguest 7mo ago
    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 7mo ago
      this didn't work for them in Yemen. And Iran is farther and stronger.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> 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 7mo ago
> 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 7mo ago
  > 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.
  - andriy_koval 7mo ago
    > 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 7mo ago
      > 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 7mo ago
        > 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) 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 7mo ago
        > 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.
- sysguest 7mo ago
  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 7mo ago
    this didn't work for them in Yemen. And Iran is farther and stronger.