Not many countries could take on Iran

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Jan 19, 2015 at 04:52

Hi, Carlos.

I've heard this several times, about how the Saudis are unimpressive militarily. I don't know the details of this, other than their track record. They certainly couldn't take Saddam Hussein on by themselves, but depended on the US and others to do it for them. They also had a protracted proxy war in Yemen years ago, and are in another one now against Iran. Again, they have not performed with any distinction, despite very expensive equipment.

Iran, on its part, had a protracted slug-out with Saddam Hussein, which they fought to a standstill in the 1980s. Since then, they have been doing pretty well "leading from behind" against Sunni Jihadis; and they have made some impressive technological advances (such as putting satellites in orbit). I don't think Saudi Arabia is a match for them; but Israel could probably beat them up pretty badly.

Israel is such a tiny country, that much of its tactics involve the element of surprise: When they have it, they can do wonders; but when their enemies have it, it can produce some perilous situations. Because of this problem, it never ceases to amaze me, how many Israelis are willing to give up their strategic depth in return for empty promises made by proven liars.

To sum up, only Israel, or some of the heavyweights (US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, England or France) could do serious damage to Iran.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".