Iraqi PM declares "State of Emergency" as ISIS occupy Mosul

[Saruhan]

If Kuwait can only hold out for one day, I think it could be attacked if ISIL decides to push all the way. I don't think ISIL would have the audacity to try to take on Israel but I think Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon would all be vulnerable. While Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are all powerful enough to defend themselves.

If ISIL takes Jordan, do you think they will try taking the West Bank which will probably provoke Israel or leave it alone as a buffer zone?

I think Syria can probably continue to hold its own for the time being, as it has been for years now.

But Syria hasn't had major foreign intervention like this would be, if ISIL manages to take over Iraq

[Volnotova]

Helicopters, humvees, tanks, etc.

Which tanks, the T-72M's or the M1A1M's? The latter would be much more of a problem.

Probably both, though I couldn't find more information.

[Volnotova]

If Kuwait can only hold out for one day, I think it could be attacked if ISIL decides to push all the way. I don't think ISIL would have the audacity to try to take on Israel but I think Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon would all be vulnerable. While Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are all powerful enough to defend themselves.

If ISIL takes Jordan, do you think they will try taking the West Bank which will probably provoke Israel or leave it alone as a buffer zone?

I think Syria can probably continue to hold its own for the time being, as it has been for years now.

Barely. And with an influx of Iraqi fighters and equipment might as well fall to ISIL.

[United Marxist Nations]

Which tanks, the T-72M's or the M1A1M's? The latter would be much more of a problem.

Probably both, though I couldn't find more information.

Don't know why the troops would just abandon that equipment, knowing the problems that would cause.

[Dracoria]

It could defend itself for a couple days but would need assistance if faced with a rogue Iraq.

If Kuwait can only hold out for one day, I think it could be attacked if ISIL decides to push all the way. I don't think ISIL would have the audacity to try to take on Israel but I think Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon would all be vulnerable. While Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are all powerful enough to defend themselves.

If ISIL takes Jordan, do you think they will try taking the West Bank which will probably provoke Israel or leave it alone as a buffer zone?

Attacking Jordan at all will likely draw a response from Israel. Remember how quickly they threatened Syria when the Syrians advanced on Jordan in '70. Granted, the Jordanians didn't need that much help with their own air force, but the fact remains that even for the cynical who don't believe Israel considered Jordan a regional ally, at least Jordan represents a very useful buffer territory.

[Volnotova]

Arming one sect of Muslims against another sect of Muslims? Yeah...no that's a terrible idea, you're just encouraging Muslims to turn against Muslims.

Sunni and Shia extremists have been at eachother's throats for years. Even moderates often find differences. The issue here is that the Shi'ites are probably the best option for a local response against Sunni extremism. Bringing in non-Muslim forces threatens to bring in some of the moderates on the side of the extremists or even worse, potentially cause a temporary alliance among the two extremist camps.

No way ISIL would ally with Shia extremists.

They are opportunists, but that would be a step too far.

They tend to execute/kill Shias on sight.

[United Marxist Nations]

I think Syria can probably continue to hold its own for the time being, as it has been for years now.

Barely. And with an influx of Iraqi fighters and equipment might as well fall to ISIL.

I don't know, Syria has a lot more equipment than Iraq does, and it's troops are trained by the Russians. The Russians might even help them out if it comes to that.

[Volnotova]

Probably both, though I couldn't find more information.

Don't know why the troops would just abandon that equipment, knowing the problems that would cause.

Thing is, in a way it is understandable.

ISIL do not take prisoners. Getting caught by these people means death.

Many soldiers simply fled at the mere sight of ISIL troops.

[Dracoria]

Helicopters, humvees, tanks, etc.

Which tanks, the T-72M's or the M1A1M's? The latter would be much more of a problem.

The Abrams is a specialized tank that may not prove that useful to a group like ISIS, honestly. It requires a pretty robust supply chain to keep the tanks fuelled and armed, not the kind of thing a group like this would possess yet.

[United Marxist Nations]

Which tanks, the T-72M's or the M1A1M's? The latter would be much more of a problem.

The Abrams is a specialized tank that may not prove that useful to a group like ISIS, honestly. It requires a pretty robust supply chain to keep the tanks fuelled and armed, not the kind of thing a group like this would possess yet.

But not even the group gaining them, just the government losing them causes a big problem.

[Saruhan]

If Kuwait can only hold out for one day, I think it could be attacked if ISIL decides to push all the way. I don't think ISIL would have the audacity to try to take on Israel but I think Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon would all be vulnerable. While Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are all powerful enough to defend themselves.

If ISIL takes Jordan, do you think they will try taking the West Bank which will probably provoke Israel or leave it alone as a buffer zone?

Attacking Jordan at all will likely draw a response from Israel. Remember how quickly they threatened Syria when the Syrians advanced on Jordan in '70. Granted, the Jordanians didn't need that much help with their own air force, but the fact remains that even for the cynical who don't believe Israel considered Jordan a regional ally, at least Jordan represents a very useful buffer territory.

Other than a few Airstrikes, Israel probably won't do much. They can't afford the threat that the Palestinian Radicals would be re-enforced by basically all of the Levant at that point, and a Third Intifada. I don't see IDF moving into Jordan. Even if they did, it'd ensure a victory for ISIL, due to the amount of Palestinian refugees in Jordan (around half the population) and that they'd be pissed. I don't see it working out

[Volnotova]

Which tanks, the T-72M's or the M1A1M's? The latter would be much more of a problem.

The Abrams is a specialized tank that may not prove that useful to a group like ISIS, honestly. It requires a pretty robust supply chain to keep the tanks fuelled and armed, not the kind of thing a group like this would possess yet.

Indeed. They wouldn't have spare parts to keep them running. And the T-72s would be sitting ducks against Iraqi Apaches (assuming they will still get delivered...) and anti-tank missiles.

The light equipment and even helicopters are more worrying.

[Blakk Metal]

I think Syria can probably continue to hold its own for the time being, as it has been for years now.

But Syria hasn't had major foreign intervention like this would be, if ISIL manages to take over Iraq

The chance of foreign intervention by a major power is low. The West has weak spirit, and China and Russia are focused on their own neighborhoods.

[Saruhan]

But Syria hasn't had major foreign intervention like this would be, if ISIL manages to take over Iraq

The chance of foreign intervention by a major power is low. The West has weak spirit, and China and Russia are focused on their own neighborhoods.

I meant by an Iraq that had been taken over by ISIL. Even a wartorn nation like Iraq could be enough to tip the balance, especially if the ISIL managed to get the american weaponry the Yanks left behind

[Dracoria]

Other than a few Airstrikes, Israel probably won't do much. They can't afford the threat that the Palestinian Radicals would be re-enforced by basically all of the Levant at that point, and a Third Intifada. I don't see IDF moving into Jordan. Even if they did, it'd ensure a victory for ISIL, due to the amount of Palestinian refugees in Jordan (around half the population) and that they'd be pissed. I don't see it working out

It would less likely be boots on the ground than the threat of retaliation by air (and perhaps a few assassinations eventually) like in '70. The Jordanian air force is pretty strong, but the addition of Israeli air support would be the last nail in the coffin.

These two aerial arms are far, far stronger than the Iraqi air force, after all.

The Abrams is a specialized tank that may not prove that useful to a group like ISIS, honestly. It requires a pretty robust supply chain to keep the tanks fuelled and armed, not the kind of thing a group like this would possess yet.

But not even the group gaining them, just the government losing them causes a big problem.

At this point, I'm unsure if the Iraqi army would be able to use them as much more than local defensive actions. Plus, they're best in the role of hunting other armored vehicles, not toyotas.

Indeed. They wouldn't have spare parts to keep them running. And the T-72s would be sitting ducks against Iraqi Apaches (assuming they will still get delivered...) and anti-tank missiles.

The light equipment and even helicopters are more worrying.

It's the portable munitions that would be most worrisome. Missiles, antitank weapons, heavy machineguns. They definitely have the support network to use those, even if they can't keep the helis and tanks going for long.

[Saiwania]

Other than a few Airstrikes, Israel probably won't do much. They can't afford the threat that the Palestinian Radicals would be re-enforced by basically all of the Levant at that point, and a Third Intifada. I don't see IDF moving into Jordan. Even if they did, it'd ensure a victory for ISIL, due to the amount of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and that they'd be pissed. I don't see it working out

What else can Israel do though, if ISIL gets to right on their doorstep? Egypt threatened to attack Israel once and the IDF preemptively destroyed their air force and took the Sinai away from them. Do you think Israel should preemptively occupy the West Bank in response to ISIL encroachment towards their borders?

[Dracoria]

Other than a few Airstrikes, Israel probably won't do much. They can't afford the threat that the Palestinian Radicals would be re-enforced by basically all of the Levant at that point, and a Third Intifada. I don't see IDF moving into Jordan. Even if they did, it'd ensure a victory for ISIL, due to the amount of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and that they'd be pissed. I don't see it working out

What else can Israel do though, if ISIL gets to right on their doorstep? Egypt threatened to attack Israel once and the IDF preemptively destroyed their air force and took the Sinai away from them. Do you think Israel should preemptively occupy the West Bank in response to ISIL encroachment towards their borders?

They'll use Jordan as a buffer region and support Jordan's already-effective military with further air, drone and missile strikes. To the cynical, it means Jordan absorbing the casualties to deflect the attack. To the optimist, it means they're supporting their best regional relationship.

[Blakk Metal]

Other than a few Airstrikes, Israel probably won't do much. They can't afford the threat that the Palestinian Radicals would be re-enforced by basically all of the Levant at that point, and a Third Intifada. I don't see IDF moving into Jordan. Even if they did, it'd ensure a victory for ISIL, due to the amount of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and that they'd be pissed. I don't see it working out

What else can Israel do though, if ISIL gets to right on their doorstep? Egypt threatened to attack Israel once and the IDF preemptively destroyed their air force and took the Sinai away from them. Do you think Israel should preemptively occupy the West Bank in response to ISIL encroachment towards their borders?

They'd get yelled at by the international community if they tried that. Of course, the wrath of international community will be far better than what ISIS has in store, but many Israelis may feel different.

[Saruhan]

Other than a few Airstrikes, Israel probably won't do much. They can't afford the threat that the Palestinian Radicals would be re-enforced by basically all of the Levant at that point, and a Third Intifada. I don't see IDF moving into Jordan. Even if they did, it'd ensure a victory for ISIL, due to the amount of Palestinian refugees in Jordan (around half the population) and that they'd be pissed. I don't see it working out

It would less likely be boots on the ground than the threat of retaliation by air (and perhaps a few assassinations eventually) like in '70. The Jordanian air force is pretty strong, but the addition of Israeli air support would be the last nail in the coffin.

These two aerial arms are far, far stronger than the Iraqi air force, after all.

But the ISIL isn't stupid. They'd only go against Jordan after they take over Syria (or, at least, most of it) and even though the Syrian and Iraqi air forces aren't the best, they probably have taken some anti-air weaponry from Iraqi and Syrian armies at that point

[Saruhan]

Other than a few Airstrikes, Israel probably won't do much. They can't afford the threat that the Palestinian Radicals would be re-enforced by basically all of the Levant at that point, and a Third Intifada. I don't see IDF moving into Jordan. Even if they did, it'd ensure a victory for ISIL, due to the amount of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and that they'd be pissed. I don't see it working out

What else can Israel do though, if ISIL gets to right on their doorstep? Egypt threatened to attack Israel once and the IDF preemptively destroyed their air force and took the Sinai away from them. Do you think Israel should preemptively occupy the West Bank in response to ISIL encroachment towards their borders?

No, mostly because I'm pro-Palestinian. But even if I wasn't, that'd be a terrible idea because Israel would instantly have an armed rebellion on their hands and ISIL would have tonnes of pissed off Palestinian recruits

[Viritica]

You know, we provided Iraq with their Abrams tanks. I'm going to laugh when the ISIS takes over and starts using them against other Middle Eastern countries.

[United Marxist Nations]

You know, we provided Iraq with their Abrams tanks. I'm going to laugh when the ISIS takes over and starts using them against other Middle Eastern countries.

Eh, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have more and better versions, that they're actually trained to use.

[Germanic Imperium]

Great....

[Mizrad]

Helicopters, humvees, tanks, etc.

Which tanks, the T-72M's or the M1A1M's? The latter would be much more of a problem.

While it would be a huge problem, learning to operate an M1A1M is insanely hard. Even here in the US where we spend billions on the equipment and training needed for their operators to become even decent at using them, it takes months upon months. ISIS doesn't have both the funding, equipment or time needed to train their troops in said tanks. That and even if they did, the US would slaughter them let alone the other NATO country's tanks which were specifically designed to counter tanks like that Abrams and T-72. Speaking of the T-72M, western tanks have been blowing those things up since the day they were created and will remain the same if not worse than they always have faring against tanks like the Challenger or M1A2.

[Saruhan]

You know, we provided Iraq with their Abrams tanks. I'm going to laugh when the ISIS takes over and starts using them against other Middle Eastern countries.

Eh, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have more and better versions, that they're actually trained to use.

I'd doubt they'd attack either of those nations. Especially since the Saudis probably are or have funded them