General Middle East & North Africa Thread

Training with the Brits isn't the same as replacing most of your officers with Brits. The Iraqis are a testament to that.

edited 4th Jan '16 8:44:59 PM by Nihlus1

@ Nihlus:

Not really; the main tank the Saudis used in the Battle of Khafji was the AMX-30, which is a French design, although the V-150 is American and LAV-25 is actually more Canadian than American.

edited 4th Jan '16 10:14:45 PM by Greenmantle

Kuwait has recalled it's ambassador to Tehran. The UNSC has also condemned the embassy attack, no word from the council on the execution.

So, as usual the only reasonable country in the region is Oman.

Kuwait recalled it's Ambassador, it hasn't gone full monty like Saudia has. Given that context, recalling the ambassador seems more token than anything else.

But yes, Oman is most reasonable.

On the subject of Jordan, it's not that their capabilities diminished "because of Arab officers", it's that they didn't anticipate the sheer amount of support Israel got during the various Arab Israeli wars from Europe at the time (with a starting base of WWII-hardened fighters at that, something Jordan didn't really enjoy).

That's a myth. The Arabs, not the Israelis, were the ones receiving the most extensive foreign support, resulting in enormous materiel superiority (as well as equipment quality at least as good and often better) on top of their numerical advantage. The aid Israel got was puny in comparison.

The Jordanians have been coasting on their reputation as the Arab Legion since 1948. Their performance in every conflict since they've replaced their British officers with Arab ones has been slightly better than their neighbors, but still objectively poor.

For example, in the battle of Janin in 1967, the Jordanians held a defensive line with their M48 Pattons. The line was heavily fortified, making them very difficult for Israelis to dislodge even with air power. However the Jordanians fell for feint and moved their Pattons out of their positions and into the open to chase down the Israelis without infantry support, where they were ambushed from the flank by Israeli Super Shermans and mauled.

This kind of thing happens all the time, however usually not twice in a row: after the surviving Pattons regrouped, the Israelis again feined a withdrawal and the Jordanians again charged out after them alone and without infantry support, and were again ambushed, with the remaining tanks wiped out.

In another example, at Tubas, another Israeli unit of Centurions ran into a blocking force of M48 tanks and lost three of their number in a failed frontal assault. The Israelis withdrew and called in airstrikes but these proved ineffective against the dug in Pattons. The Israeli commander then waited for nightfall and attacked at full speed under a massive artillery barrage. The Jordanians were caught sleeping and most of their line was overrun before the crews could get to their tanks. Almost all Jordanian tanks in the war were shown to have been killed by flank shots after the combat (and only 3% to airpower - most IAF sorties were flown against the Egyptians and Syrians), which shows the Israelis consistently outmaneuvered the Jordanians despite their plethora of disadvantages.

The cold hard truth is that in 1948 a small Jordanian army with British officers succeeded in holding the West Bank against heavy Israeli attacks for several months, while in 1967, despite having roughly equal forces to the Israelis, arguably better equipment, and a superb defensive position, they lost it in three days. Then in 1973, the Israelis could barely tell the difference between the Jordanians and the Syrians/Iraqis.

Iranian hardliners may be behind the embassy attack. They want to use the conflict to scuttle warming relations with the West.

On the subject of Jordan, events are being taken out of context. The reason Jordan's abilities detriorated in the war with Israel (in addition to Israel having a crapton of assistance from the US and western Europe, which is no myth), is that after the initial 1948 war, Jordan has since had to deal with a Palestinian issue that did not exist prior to that. In addition, between 67 and 73 was a little something called Black September in 1970 (in addition to a threatened Syrian invasion in the same year that thankfully did not come to pass due to Israel), which forced a political purge of the Army of Palestinian officers and grunts, weakening the Army's abilities when 73 came around.

Since then, the Army has recovered (it became completely reorganized in 1977, with incremental improvements since then), particularly since Abdullah II became king.

Jordan's real weakness isn't it's "Arabness", it's the small size and it's location. Jordan doesn't trust it's Palestinian population and thus must rely on Bedouin tribes exclusively, which isn't big. More problematically, they are neighbors with nations who all have designs on them (Syria, Iraq) or are otherwise antagonistic (Saudia, formerly Israel) and all of whom are bigger than Jordan, so Amman relies entirely on defensive posture and, except for the special forces regiments created by Abdullah II, Jordan can't fight offensively. But that relates to economic weakness and relatively small size. Nothing else.

I remember that Syria actually did send a brigade into Jordan during Black September. And it's a real shame Jordan's geography restricts it's potential for growth so much. I feel they could be a very positive force in the region if only they commanded more resources.

Jordan frees Muslim Brotherhood number 2 from prison. Speak of the devil,or rather look up the devil's name on Google news. This comes amongst a splintering of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, a faction is apparently interested in reconciling with the authorities and promoting a unique Jordanian identity.

Cross posted in the Arab Spring thread.

edited 5th Jan '16 6:44:04 PM by JackOLantern1337

They can definitely get more done working with the government rather than simply opposing them. Should be interesting to see how the split evolves...

Classified files released on Monday has revealed that in 1991, Iran and Finland had plans to secretly develop submarines for the Iranians. It was originally greenlighted by the Finnish ambassador to Iran, the Defence Ministry, Trade and Industry Ministry, and the Foreign Ministry. The cabinet stopped it, possibly after the Americans caught wind of it.

The article is in Finnish.

edited 7th Jan '16 1:51:49 AM by TerminusEst

Iran has banned its citizens from making the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Banning the hajj? This is getting interesting.

I am surprised the Saudi Arabia didn't ban them first, but I wonder how the religious hardliners will react, after all the Haji is kinda very important for many Muslim shia and sunni alike.

Oh dear....

Inside Yemen's Secret Sectarian Power Struggle

"Secret"

Saudi Arabia denies bombing the Iranian embassy in Yemen.

It was an accident I'm sure.

x6 Isn't that like sacrilege or something?

edited 8th Jan '16 5:23:09 AM by Skycobra51

To quote one hadith, "Allah gives respite, but never neglects." (إن الله يمهل ولا يهمل)

Saudi Aramco is apparently going to offer an IPO.

edited 8th Jan '16 9:07:08 PM by PotatoesRock

I heard about that in an article that was wondering if the Crown Prince is changing too much too fast.

An IPO on Saudi Arabia's state oil? That...makes very little sense to me.

One must hope the Sudairi are burning through a lot of influence within the family for the shenanigans of the past year. I miss Abdullah.

Low oil prices, probably. Maybe the Saudis are starting to run out of money?

edited 9th Jan '16 4:43:13 AM by Greenmantle

Wait, what? They're taking Aramco public? Jesus.