Only Israel, Iran and Turkey have a potent military.

Syrian have some commitment and skills but prehistoric equipment.
Rest is a total joke especially Saudis even worse than Quataris (LOL).

I wonder why nobody mentioned Jordan. From the West, it looks fairly forbidding, an uninterrupted chain of cliffs and tall desert mountains running alongside the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea and the Arava Depression. A few good men with anti-tank weapons and mortars would wreak havoc on an armored invasion force of any size and description, regardless of its air cover, and this is exactly what the Arab Legion has been training and equipping for forever.

 

Israel was already invaded once, in 1948, and on the very day it declared its independence. The most important fact to remember was Israel's inability to undo the Jordanian and Iraqi hold on the Judean and Samarian hilly heartland until the June 1967 "miracle". Prior to 1991, the IDF was arrayed in depth in this area, in order to face the Eastern front onslaught towards Jerusalem which was repeatedly promised by Saddam, who had the means and the ambition to do just that. Instead, he went into Quwait, and the rest is (recent) history.

The Israeli Eastern boundary, while less mountainous than the Jordanian Gil'ad-Bashan bastions facing it, is also fairly mountainous, with many nooks and crannies allowing light, mobile units to stall and attrit an invading force until larger units are mobilised to destroy it and then go on westwards to carry the fight into enemy territory.

A notable exeption to this is the Northern Beyt Shean- Yizre'el valley continuum, which is fairly flat tank country: an invasion coming from the direction of the Syrian-Jordanian Western boundary would have to be stopped, uh, at Megiddo, which the Christians call Armageddon, for it not to reach the port city of Haifa and from there, the coastal plain, where most of the Israeli population resides.

 

   

 

Despite Israels military power, I believe the US would have an easier time going in, winning a fight and staying for the next 5 years than many of the Arab / Persian powers in the area.  Jordan possibly being one of them.  Does anyone know about their military capability compared to say, Syria and Egypt?

1. Israel=best soldiers and tech

2. Turkey=very good soldiers and tech.

3. Iran=The professional military was very good. The Revolutionary Guards are dedicated. They actually were the ones who were effective in Lebanon. The Hezbollah could not follow orders or take Persian direction so they, Hezbollah  more or less were racked and ruined in their ill timed and poorly executed guerrilla war.

4. Egypt=despite moslem Brothberhood fascism and a governement thatf makes a Marx Brothers comedy or the IS bureaucratic state look effiicient, the Egyptian Army can at least claim that it was effective. Egypt is alos a huge country hard to govern or sustain yourself in once you leave the Delta and the coast. Note carefully how the Israelis planned their operations when they trounced Egypt? Geography is a killer tpo an invader, whether west or east axis.. 

5. Jordan=As Shirrush said a well trained military who know how to use their terrain.

 

The rest of them are targets.

 

Herald

.

 

If a non-Islamic nation takes Mecca and Medina it will have to deal with some very serious Islamic hysteria.

 

If an Islamic nation manages to take Mecca and Medinathey will have a nice cash cow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But what about everything else FS?  The geography, the population, the resisitance to Regime Change?  I personally think Iran would be far harder than Iraq and we've been Iraq for years already.  The War would be the easy bit, no arguements there.  But what about winning the peace?

Iran and Turkey are two huge countries with numerous population of the same order.
However Turkey population and biggest towns are concentrated on coast.Moreover it is a US equiped army and its equipement, at least its air power, can be neutralized easily by USA since they have provided it.And without aviation their army is dead as a classical army.

Iran of course, has its own equipment now for 90%.And their army is already taylored for an asymetric fight with USA with huge numbers and a huge missile inventory.They have already assumed they will not have air superiority, and they have a denial air power strategy.

Iran is difficult to invade from the Gulf due to mountains and south is desert

Its main population and centers are closer to Caspian sea and in some wooden and moutaineous areas.

To bomb it is not so obvious without a local country, since it implies to use aircraft carriers, and they have to be likely in arabian sea since they can trap you in the Gulf by closing Ormuz (mines etc.).So far aways from main populated areas and centers.Almost 1000 miles from Teheran to south coast.

If you use bombers without a local country they have to come from Diego garcia and it is a long path.

Contrary to Turkey which has numerous islands in front of its coast what you can invide and where you can deploy depots, air bases etc..

And Iran strategy was to impeach USA to get allies ready to support USA for a preemptive invasion like for Irak, by deploying thousands of ballistic missiles, short and longer range, and threatening to attack their oil installations and close the gulf (plus using local shiite in other countries to destabilize those countries).

Without some local ally, Iran is much more difficult to invade.

Iran defense strategy is close to North Korea even Iran has better equipement and much more ressources.

I think that Iran is by far the most difficult country to invade in the area and first for geographical reasons then preparation and commitment (suicide combattants like Japan in WW2).Then Israel due to its quality army but without strategic depth.

PS:Considering Egypt their military while better than in state Gulf, is not very commited and professional.