For the purposes of this thread, the Middle East will be understood to include the Arabian peninsula, Anatolia, the Iranian plateau, and North Africa.
"Strongest" should be an estimation of a nation's military might (not just army size but also sophistication and power projection ability), economic influence, and geopolitical importance.
I think it's a tossup between Israel and Turkey, obviously leaning toward Israel.
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
Yeah, I'd say Israel.
Although, I can't really estimate how powerful they would be minus USA support. I'll have to think about this one.
I remember recently Egypt threatening to invade UAE cos they're being so 'un-Islamic' (or something along those lines). I guess Egypt would have the power to fight a small nation in the Middle East, like UAE, but compared to Israel, it would fail...miserably.
I have no idea why we'd give them that many. It's not as if you need that many Abrams tanks to put down an Islamist uprising and they're not going to fight any country that isn't also an American ally (except maybe Iran or Syria).
I just hope they're crappy export versions that we can make self-destruct by pressing buttons if push comes to shove.
Edit: Just 1000. Still, that's a lot. And at least from what Wikipedia says (yeah, I know, take that with a few dozen grains of salt) there doesn't seem to be any downgrade between the Egyptian and American models.
Edit 2: And assuming they really are up to par with American Abrams then Egypt would have a tank force 3x that of the UK's and of the same technical level.
Edit 3: I can't imagine Saudi Arabia ever sitting aside and letting Egypt interfere so directly in the Persian Gulf. Just like America wouldn't sit quietly if China invaded a Central American nation (if they could get there in force, anyway).
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
Last edited by Omega Vision on Apr 21st, 2012 at 07:21 PM
I think Israel would still beat Egypt thanks to the IAF being arguably the best air force in the world after the USAF, but 1000 Abrams tanks would make things...interesting if there was ever another Egypt-Israeli conflict.
Edit: Ahh wait, I just remembered, a big part of why the Abrams is so effective is the depleted uranium ammunition American tank crews use, the rounds that turned export model T-72s into desert ornaments.
I doubt we sold Egypt those.
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
France recently ran out of munitions during the NATO no-fly zone over Libya and had to borrow from America. That being said, they're still very advanced and are one of just a few countries (along with America, the UK, and Brazil) that have active carrier based combat aircraft.
The UK is very good as well but I put Israel above them because Israel has done more, IMO.
Germany is a good military but I can't imagine they're at the same level as France or England given how little they spend on defense relative to their GDP. Also they lack power projection (no big carriers).
Russia is huge, but I saw a documentary a few years back that said that Russian fighter pilots get a small fraction of the air time of American pilots because the military budget can't afford the fuel. They also utterly failed to establish real air supremacy over Georgia, a country on their southern border with a miniscule air force and poorly maintained Soviet Era air defenses.
Imagine if America couldn't establish air supremacy over Cuba.
China is an unknown quality. I'd say they're around Russia or the UK's level, but that's all guesswork.
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
__________________ Red lights flicker madly, a siren rings and jolts are shaking the bridge as I run desperately towards the nearest escape pod. The escape bay is already on fire. I see dead or injured or dying people everywhere. The other commanding officers and myself are abandoning the crew and passengers to certain death. As my pod glides slowly in the field of stars, I can see the Hive-Ship becoming smaller and smaller, ripped apart by the deadly laser beams of the Ancients' battlecruisers. The battle for the Arc is lost. I failed, and I'm watching the death of one billion of my own kind, when the Hive is finally destroyed in a blinding, silent explosion.
Oh yeah, wait, I just remembered that Israel has a hundred or so nuclear weapons.
Lol, okay never mind, Israel is the definite winner.
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
The thing is though that currently UK and alot of the other european nations have the Typhoon, and while the US F22 (imo) is better as a dog fight, the Typhoon is a better multirole fighter. With that said Israel currently only has f-15 and f-16 which the typhoon imo is superior to, so I'm not quite in agreement with Israel outclassing UK and Germany, the French Rafael I have no idea about.
But in regards to military strength in the middle East I'll say Israel is the winner, in regards to political influence etc. not so much.
That's because the F-22 is an air superiority fighter while the F-35 is the multi-role platform. The point of the F-22 is to shoot down anything that flies that isn't friendly or civilian.
I still think the F-22 is better than the Eurofighter in most ways that count, but that's just my ingrained Americanness talking, I haven't studied either plane extensively.
Edit: Israel isn't too shabby in terms of political influence. Here in America only fringe candidates dare speak an ill word toward Israel or any of its policies/leaders. Suggesting that Israel isn't a white knight crushing the foul Palestinians is the short track to political suicide here.
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
Last edited by Omega Vision on Apr 21st, 2012 at 08:00 PM
My point is that while the F22 is better then the Typhoon, it's still of little consequance seen as how the Israel Air Force doesn't have F22 but have to use F15 and F16, both are planes that the Typhoon imo outclass.
While I agree that Israel have alot of influence in regards to american foreign politics, I believe that threadstarter asked for which country in the middleeast that have the most hard and soft power there and there Israel is severely behind.
No, what I'm saying is that, imo, thinking that the Israel Air Force is the second best in the world, is wrong when the UK has 89 Typhoon fighters soon to be 160 and 150 F35 on the way. With that in mind I don't think it's correct to say that the Israel air force is the second best in the world especially since they will only get 20 F35, and the Typhoon have been outperforming F-15 and F-16 in combat tests (for what it's worth) which make up the bulk of the Israel air force.
oh ya, I wouldn't say Israel has the second best overall. maybe for what they are designed for, but certainly not when compared to just the raw strength of other western nations.
Honestly, I tend to think Israel would have a lot of issues in a full scale war against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and for sure Turkey. The Seven Days war was a different era, Isreal is powerful in the region, no doubt, but the occupation has changed the priorities of the military so much that I'd be skeptical of their abilities in conventional battle against militaries where the same type of tactics that were so dominant in the 60s won't be insta-wins for the Israelis.
How would a Pakistan-Israel war work out? I don't think either of them have the power projection to take the fight to one another.
__________________
"End when I find myn Hertland, efter Irfet end Woo,
In Dale af Paper, worin Ink Nymphen dans’n,
I’ll endly have somthing stour ta gib ta myn Fremdin.
O Vers’ af de Musen, dwan’t ferlet me noo!"
It wouldn't, I suppose I meant more in terms of just who I think is a major power in the region. The only reason I didn't add India was because they aren't a Muslim nation, but I realize you didn't include South Asia in the OP, so my bad.
Anyways, ya, I totally agree. Neither have an army really built on long distance projection, and the distance their respective navies would have to travel is sort of insane (through the Suez, around Somalia, etc). They could launch missiles at each other, and I'd probably give that to Israel. I might give an advantage to the ISI in terms of their ability to encourage attacks against the Israelis, but considering both Hamas and Hezbollah are Shia organizations, they might not have enough pull in Palestine to be as effective as they are in Kashmir, etc.
idk, the way I see Israel is more of a force that has been specifically designed based on the occupation. They don't face real military threats from their neighbours anymore, given their own diplomacy and America as their ally, so I just remain skeptical that they would fare well against comparatively funded modern militaries.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 21st, 2012 07:09 PM
