ISIS will topple Saudi Arabia

B

bidwell

With all the recent large headlines about the Greek situation, ISIS burning the Jordanian pilot, the Charlie Hebdo attack etc.; I missed the item about the ISIS suicide squad that assassinated the Saudi general in charge of the country's northern border in January.

From John Robb's Global Guerillas blog: Saudi Arabia Plunges into an Abyss

ISIS sent a suicide team across the border into Saudi Arabia. Here's what happened.
  • The attack was successful. The team found and killed the Saudi general (Oudah al-Belawi) in charge of the country's nothern border zone at the outpost he was visiting (here's a pic of the state funeral for some of the men killed in the attack).

  • The target was significant. ...
More...

Robb goes on and does some interesting analysis of ISIS's possible strategy to topple Saudi Arabia and his forecasts are dire:

The oil price dip we're currently experiencing will rapidly reverse as soon as it's clear that ISIS is gearing up a real jihad to retake Mecca and Medina. $150 a barrel or more by the end of the year, once this gets going (or much more as it puts all of the gulf aristos in full panic mode simultaneously)...

The rapid swing in oil price will plunge the perpetually stagnant western economies into a simultaneous rout. However, as bad as that will be, it will of little consequence compared to the damage the global financial system will do to us as hundreds of trillions of dollars in explosive financial derivatives topple the ziggurat of western debt we've so foolishly built.
More...

The scenario of a corrupt Saudi monarchy being toppled by a new-age Islamic caliphate seems possible as you dig into the details. BTW, a caliphate by definition implies something that is always growing its borders.

Is ISIS bat-shit crazy or is there method to their madness? Robb has a series of thoughtful posts (highly recommended) on ISIS' strategy and tactics, which suggests the latter.
 
Last edited:
ISIS I think will be rolled back as at Kobane even if it takes boots on the ground. The do-gooders got rid of cluster bombs just when they are needed. The advantage of having all the psychos in one area is that they make a bigger target.

Let peace and prosperity reign imho
 
ISIS has shown zero ability to take any territory at all from a state that is *not* in the middle of a civil war. And the fighting against such states at peace (example Jordan and Saudi Arabia) so far has been completely desultory that no war, in fact, exists.

I doubt that a real war will begin. By "real" I mean a war of national survival which is what the author is describing. If it does, you'll recognize it by the following:

(1) Complete mobilization of the states involved. That means universal conscription, laws that prevent citizens from doing anything other than help in the war effort, etc. Think what the US was like during WW2 to get an idea what a state at war looks like. Right now Jordan and Saudi Arabia are at peace. Here, plan a vacation in Jordan: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Tourism-g293985-Jordan-Vacations.html

(2) Attacks against ISIS civilians. No real (total) war makes progress by attacking only the military forces of the enemy. This is especially true when the enemy is picking up volunteers from the civilian population. The problem for Saudi Arabia and Jordan is not ISIS per se, it is the civilian populations that support ISIS. Almost no one cares about the 18-year-old ISIS volunteers that are killed. They are semi-suicidal and bent on excitement, and death (or risk) in battle is what they want. Wars are ended when the volunteer's parents, sisters, children, aunts, uncles, friends and pets start being killed at home. This is why total war always ends up with attacks against civilians. You must defeat the civilians; as long as the civilians are healthy, the military is easily replaced. 18-year-old volunteers are cheap. In fact they're free and getting rid of them solves employment problems at home. When their bodies come back they make for great propaganda in support of the cause.

(3) Total war always is accompanied by blockades. The purpose of a blockade is supposed to be to "stop the importation of military equipment", but somehow, blockades almost always end up involving food. For example, during WW1 and WW2, the primary objectives of Germany and Britain's naval forces was to cause starvation among the opposing civilian populations. One of the side effects of this was that Germany had to get rid of "excess mouths" and they put 12 million people through death camps. This is the primary way that civilian populations are killed during total war. And it is especially effective in the Middle East where so little of the land is arable and what is arable is subject to effective aerial bombardment (think dam busting and anti-agricultural attacks).

In short, when you start seeing millions of people dying of starvation in ISIS held territories, you will know that Jordan and Saudi Arabia are fighting for their lives and a real war is on. Until then, what's going on is mostly a show. Few people are being killed but maximum media exposure is accompanying it.

Real war means that millions of people die without anyone knowing. Compare the current casualties with the casualty rate of WW2 (which was mostly about Europe, a chunk of territory roughly comparable in size and population then, to the size of the territory ISIS is supposedly going to conquer). There were an average of 20,000 people killed every day for 8 years, about 7 million per year. Like Stalin said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. A war could happen, but right now we are at peace, thank God. In terms of body counts, what's going on now is within an order of magnitude of the worst of the sports riots of the Roman Empire; that is, KIA totals in the roughly 30,000 area. The ISIS crap is not war, what you're seeing is a propaganda spectacle.
 
ISIS the day we started bombing them, was pretty much over thankfully, they engage iraq / Syria forces, they pin them down and blow them up, repeat.

Against a rich country like Saudi, no chance at all, proper trained soldiers with good kit and support.

No real long term threat, sooner we kill them all the better, total mad scum.
 
TooOldForThis said:
I doubt that a real war will begin. By "real" I mean a war of national survival...
More...

The author, Robb, wrote a book entitled, Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization (2007). I have not read the book, but the intro says: "the technology that has enabled globalization also allows terrorists, criminals, and violent ideologues of every stripe to join forces against a far bigger and richer foe without revealing their identities, following orders, or even working toward the same ultimate goal. This new brand of open-source warfare enables insurgents to coordinate attacks, swarm on targets, and adapt rapidly to changes in their enemy's tactics, all at minimal cost and risk... this evolutionary leap in the methods of warfare makes it possible for extremely small nonstate groups to fight states and possibly win on a regular basis."

He wrote the book 8 years ago. ISIS has sprung from nothing and seems to be embracing some of the new tactics that Robb ID'd. Like using the internet as a force multiplier and adapting rapidly to changes in their enemy's tactics.

For example, ISIS appears to have adapted to the air campaign. They've melted into the local population and they don't mass to form large targets. In Saudi Arabia and Jordan I think they'll avoid major confrontations and instead try to start a civil war against "corrupt" monarchies. Believing that Saudi Arabia will survive intact is taking a bet that the House of Saud, a rich corrupt family of aristocrats will buy there way out of trouble or sacrifice their own people in an all out total war to save their skins. I don't know if I would put a lot of money on "monarchs" surviving in the 21st century, much less a corrupt authoritarian absolute monarchy.

I think if the Saudi's did something like "universal conscription, [and] laws that prevent citizens from doing anything other than help in the war effort" that might play right into the hands of ISIS. Using their total war effort as a way to stir up more unrest and discontent.

If you are a Saudi citizen, why do you want to fight and die for a 79 year old crook?

That said, I'm not making any bets that ISIS will win, just yet. The bet would be like buying some long dated OTM crude, /CL, calls. But, I think you have to consider the possibility and perhaps take a small long-term /CL trade if you sense that ISIS is getting any traction in "The Kingdom."
 
Last edited:
I'd say we'd send in troops sooner or later to hold land and keep them out, but we never seem to actually hold land, merely patrol to engaged, hide, bomb and retreat, that's what is needed against a gorilla force.

Supplying Tanks and anti Mortar tech soon, that will reduce ISIS's effectiveness pretty quickly/
 
Turveyd said:
I'd say we'd send in troops sooner or later to hold land and keep them out, but we never seem to actually hold land, merely patrol to engaged, hide, bomb and retreat, that's what is needed against a gorilla force.

Supplying Tanks and anti Mortar tech soon, that will reduce ISIS's effectiveness pretty quickly/
More...

I think the possibility of the US sending troops back into Iraq is low. Congress has no stomach to authorize that, they haven't even gotten around to signing off on the air campaign. And Obama won't damage his legacy as the Pres. who took us out of Iraq and Afgan. Sending US troops into the holy land of Islam, I don't think would happen until the Kingdom is collapsing and the oil fields are threatened. Even then the US would need to build some form of coalition.

The point of this thread was to highlight that ISIS is fighting a form of asymmetrical warfare that probably reduces the effectiveness of tanks and heavy equipment. Suicide squads assassinating high-ranking officials, sabotage of Saudi oil infrastructure, internet propaganda, fear, etc. ISIS is cooking up a witches brew of non-standard tactics that will make it difficult to defeat and they possible could win.

You can under estimate them, but if you're a trader, especially in commodities like oil, I think you have to be open to taking the trade that profits if they have success. If there is blood in the Saudi Arabian streets oil will run like a scalded dog.
 
bidwell said:
I think the possibility of the US sending troops back into Iraq is low. Congress has no stomach to authorize that, they haven't even gotten around to signing off on the air campaign. And Obama won't damage his legacy as the Pres. who took us out of Iraq and Afgan. Sending US troops into the holy land of Islam, I don't think would happen until the Kingdom is collapsing and the oil fields are threatened.

The point of this tread was to highlight that ISIS is fighting a form of asymmetrical warfare that probably eliminates the effectiveness of tanks and heavy equipment. Suicide squads assassinating high-ranking officials, sabotage of Saudi oil infrastructure, internet propaganda, fear, etc. ISIS is cooking up a witches brew of non-standard tactics that will make it difficult to defeat and they possible could win.

You can under estimate them, but if you're a trader, especially in commodities like oil, I think you have to be open to taking the trade that profits if they have success. If there is blood in the Saudi Arabian streets oil will run like a scalded dog.
More...

I don't think you can win with those tactics, people aren't that easily scared and likely not that many suicide squads willing to die as you'd think, security will just adapt to those kind of threats.

Nasty and could go on for years to come don't get me wrong, but doubt it will get them anywhere.


It's shame US and almost definately the UK won't send troops, France?? Jordan most likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top