Iran steadfastly continues its effort to have its own indigenous nuclear capability. If successful, it will be the second Islamic country after Pakistan to have its own “Islamic bomb.” There is now considerable unrest and dissent in both Pakistan and Iran accelerating global security concerns. In the case of Pakistan, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan has always been strong. However Saudi Arabia and Iran have not enjoyed strong or even good relations for quite some time. So if Iran achieves its goal of nuclear capability how big of a threat would this then pose to Saudi Arabia? Or another question, if Iran’s nuclear site is taken out would that in turn represent a threat to Saudi Arabia?
The ideal resolution is through diplomatic channels of course but Iran does not have a proven nor reliable track record at honoring diplomatic requests. However if construction on this site does not stop then in all likelihood an entity would take out this site. Due to the secure construction of the site it is not as simple as deciding to just bomb the site. It appears the site is so deep that possible a targeted low yield nuclear bomb would be the prime way to ensure that the site is effectively destroyed. Who would take on such a mission? United States? Israel? Another nation?
To take on such a mission and have it successful would likely require commando teams who can come in and remove all resistance to an aerial attack. That naturally requires significant thoughts, plans, reconnaissance and reliable sources on the ground. Although it is speculated in the event that the facility gets too close of reaching its goal Israel would unilaterally go in and strike only informing the United States too late to consider other options.
If Israel were to go in and strike this action could also be perceived as a threat against Saudi Arabia. Why? There are those who speculate that an attack on Iran’s facility would in turn have Iran mount a counter-strike against Saudi Arabia being the closest strong US ally in the region.
Quite frankly given Iran’s record of duplicity I would not be surprised to learn that perhaps Iran has other facilities not yet publicly known where additional nuclear development is taking place.
So I wish to end this post on soliciting your views? How much of a threat do you believe an attack against Iran is to Saudi Arabia? What do you see as viable options?
Filed under: America, culture, islam, politics, religion, safety, Saudi Arabia, Saudi culture, Saudi customs, Technology, travel, Uncategorized Tagged: | America, history, islam, KSA, places, religion, Saudi, Saudi Arabia, travel
The US did Iran a great favor by deposing the Baathist regime in Iraq. After that, I assume that Iran regarded Israel as its most important adversary in the region. Iran has been using proxies to try to destablize Israel (and by proxies I mean Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza).
I don’t see any obvious threat to Saudi Arabia from Iran. They may not be friends but I don’t see any obvious route to a war between them.
Do people in the area see KSA as a tool of the US?
I don’t think Iran would attack Saudi Arabia. I believe they’d retaliate against Israel if Israel takes out their nuclear plant. I never think of KSA and Israel as friendly (are they??) so I think Iran would be stupid to do such as you suggest. Putting Israel and KSA on the same side? That would be a silly thing for Iran to do.
Iran in general is a threat to Saudi Arabia for the power in the region, which is why they’re already fighting their proxy war in Yemen and there were rumours about KSA allowing Israel to attack Iran using its air space
It’s not much Iran vs Saudia but the war for power between two groups of states within the GCC
Yes, yes, and yes. Of couse Iran is a threat to SA. They haven’t forgotten the events at Karbala 1300 years ago much less the last 30 years.
This is the opinion of an old man that doesn’t like Islam but doesn’t mind speculating about the future. You asked, I reply. Sometimes I’m right and sometimes I’m wrong.
Iran will get the bomb in 2011, give or take a year. Israel can’t stop this because the Iranians have dispursed their program, not to mention international outrage.
Iran will not attack Israel (they are not that stupid) but will threaten it, to assume leadership of Islamic world. Israel will announce that if attacked, they will not die quiertly but will make sure that every Islamic country will die with them (the masada option) This means good-bye to Tehran, Amman, Damascus, Cairo, Tripoli, Mecca, Jeddas, Alger, Bagdad, Riyad and so on.
Everything changes. Muslims throughout MIddle East like the ideal of “death to Israel” but “Death to us, too” doesn’t sound quite as nice.
Suddenly Muslims begin to care a great deal about Israel. Iran becomes the common enemy. At that point my crystal ball went dead.
Also I couldn’t figure out what to do with Pakistan. That is another can of worms that is beyond help. What will happen to Pakistan? Let them choke on their theology for all I care.
SA is not friends with Israel. On the other hand nothing is more important to the Royal Saudis than their power and keeping their royal heads on their royal necks. So, yes, if it would save them they would make a deal with the devil, or even worse, the dispicable jews (and then blame it on somebody else).
MIddle East politics are not for the faint of heart.
Kactuz
.
Well, you asked and
You should be talking about the largest threat in the region… the nuclear armed Israel. Should we even begin to discuss the “record of duplicity” of Isreal?
Iran is no agel… but be balanced in your views. Iran is genuinely threatned by Israeal that America has provided uncondiitonal support and protection. Wouldn’t you want to arm yourself if you were threatened by someone such as Israel?
Remove the threat of Israel and there will be nothing to fear from Iran!
Most countries with nuclear threats themselves, notably Israel and the US are asking the question if Iran should have a nuclear bomb. Is there any world authority regulating this? If there would be, one might ask why Israel has nuclear capabilities while in the same area with a questionable regime. Since there isn’t any authority, any country can decide in favor nuclear capability (medical and/or military) and make it a priority.
Sure, the world would not be a safer place. Let’s start by removing nuclear arms from those countries that have them, before these countries ask this from Iran. That would make the world a safer place.
Iran and Saudi might not be the best of friends, but at the end of day, Iran knows that there would circumstances, devasting circumstances if they (Iran) started any air strike with Saudi Arabia. While, Iran and the President there, ( I cannot spell his name) are hard nuts to crack, they are not that stupid. An attack would happend years ago.
Historically, the Persians and the Arabs have not met “eye to eye” on many issues , but the Iranians, namely the Guardian Counsil, Supreme Council are not as angry at them as they are with Isreal.—and the common tie with Arab states is that Iran too has no diplomatic ties. ( ok. Jordan and Egypt)
Also, after the bitter results of the elections of June ’09, the powers that be are walking a fine line. This might sound like a major “slippery slope” argument, but the young Persians are sick and tired of their government, they want to be part of the global community and I am wondering if Iran strikes, not only will other countries respond in retailation, but the generation y will not back support to their so called de-facto government leader.
As difficult as Iran can be in negiotiating peace talks, e.t.c. I think it is in the best interest to have some dialogue rather than speculating and speculating. There is this motto, and its not the kindest but “keep your friends close and keep your enemies even closer”
I am thoroughly enjoying all the comments from everyone. It is as if there is an uncomfortable triangle when it comes to Iran. Israel probably views Iran if it reaches nuclear status as the biggest threat. In turn, the US is Israel’s strongest ally and Saudi Arabia is the strongest ally in the Arab world so there would be a domino affect in place.
I dont think there is any threat to Saudi from Iran. I think it is scaremongering that leaders in the region, from Egypt to Iran, use to try and control their peoples. It is much like the Palestinian issue is exploited by the same regimes, who care little or nothing for the Palestinians, but certainly arent afraid to try and manipulate the situation to their own advantage.
As for Iran, I dont blame them for wanting the bomb. When you have a neighbor like Israel, who already has the bomb, who is unrestrained by international condemnation, it is the only smart move. As long as Israel has the bomb one country or another in the region will want one.
As for me, I support the Syrian plan put forward a few years ago that would declare the entire Middle East a weapons of mass destruction free zone. Odd, but the US so worried about an Iranian bomb didnt support this. It is because they allow the Israelis to operate under a different set of rules from the rest of the region.
As long as we operate like this it is a 100% certainty that Iran or another country in the Middle East will eventually get the bomb.
Hey Larry – a little problem with your, um, logic? Israel is not a threat to Iran.
And to J. Kactuz – there is no Masada option. It’s never going to happen. That’s paranoid talk.
Let’s take the example of the late 1970s/early 1980s, when the same thing (almost) was happening in Iraq. The Israeli air force went in and took out the reactor. We know in hindsight that we made the right decision; one of Saddam’s top bombmakers has since written on the subject and told us that Saddam was, in fact, working on three nuclear bombs – figuring that those three would do the job of destroying enough of Israel’s population centers.
The threat to Saudi Arabia would be greatest from the US and from itself.
I don’t know when Iran will get nuclear weapons but they can see how much power N. Korea gained by the effort to get nuclear weapons, even very poor ones. Iran’s foreign policy has usually been quite rational. They maximize their resources. (Don’t you wish the US would maximize resources instead of using them so carelessly?) The nuclear secret is something that was solved with 1940′s technology. Is there anyone who doesn’t believe the best engineers in Iran can’t make a bomb if they put in enough effort (it does take massive amounts of electricity).
If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, will that start an Arab arms race?
Even though, the internet has exposed almost each of Zionist lies – one must give credit to Zionists for being consistant with their lying nature. They have been caught red-handed for putting words in their critics’ mouths – from Castro to Bishop Tutu; from Imam Khomeini to Chavez and from Ahmadinejad to Erdogan. The latest one is JTA’s (October 27, 2009) headline: “Iran will keep nukes as long as Israel does”.
Disregarding IAEA’s several findings which confirmed that while Iran doesn’t have nuclear bombs (at least not yet), Israel has a stockpile of those – in fact what Ahmadinejad did say during his meeting with Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (as reported by JTA under the headline): “Iran will continue to progress in its nuclear program (doesn’t say for military usage) as long as Israel continues to have nuclear weapons. When an illegal regime possesses nuclear weapons, the other countries’ right for peaceful nuclear energy cannot be denied.”
Iranian government has just told IAEA watchdog that until the country receive the neclear fuel bought from France for its reactor in Tehran – it intends to keep its lightly enriched uranium inside Iran. Earlier, IAEA had negotiated a deal under which Tehran would ship 75% of its spent uranium stock to Russia and France for further reprocessing. Iranian nuclear negotiators had made a counter offer that Tehran may agree to IAEA’s proposal only if it gurantee foreign supply of nuclear fuel for the Iranian reactor, which is used for the production of medical isotopes for cancer treatment.
Since Islamic Revolution in 1979 – Tehran has developed very close relations with its nuclear neighbors (Russia, China, India and Pakistan) – with Russia and China being its major trading partners. All those four neighbors have their eyes set on Iran’s oil and gas resrves (second largest in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia). China is soon to become Iran’s No.1 trading partner (currently it stands US$29 billion annually). This is the major economic factor which would dull any US additional sanctions against Islamic Iran. Iran’s weak point, which the ZOGs intend to exploit – is country’s existing limited petroleum refining capacity. In order to counter western sanctions in this field, Chinese companies have already signed contracts worth US$8 billion to expand Iranian refineries.
Dilip Hiro in his October 29 article, titled Why Obama\’s Iran Policy Will Fail wrote:
“Obama has not drawn the right conclusion from his predeccesor’s failed Iran policy. A paradigm of sticks-and-carrots is simply not going to work in the case of Islamic Republic. Here, a lesson is readily available, if only the Obama White House is willing to consider Iran’s recent history. It’s unrealistic to expect that a regime which fought Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (then backed by the US) to standstill in a bloody eight-year war in the 1980s, unaided by any foreign power, and has for 30 years withstood the cosequences of the US-imposed economic sanctions will be alarmed by Washington’s fresh threat of Crippling Sanction (as demanded by its Tel Aviv master, Bibi).
The Chinese want to import Iran’s petroleum and natural gas through pipelines across Central Asia, thus circumventing sea routes vulnerable to US naval interdiction. As this is integral part of China’s energy security policy, little wonder that Chinese oil companies have committed an estimated US$120 billions – so far – to Iran’s energy industry.
As a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is, in fact entitled to enrich uranium. The key point is the degree of enrichment: 5% enriched uranium for use as fuel in the electricity generating plant (called low enriched uranium); 20% enriched uranium for use as feedstock for producing medical isotopes), and 90%-plus for bomb-grade fuel……”
Interesting question Jerry in regards to if Iran got the bomb would it create an Arab arms race, particularly as Iran is not viewed as an Arab country. However which country in the Arab world do you think would be most motivated to get their nuclear capability if Iran gets a bomb? And what consequences would be put into effect as a result?
I think I’m in the minority here. KSA / Iran is a very real problem. Iran’s mullahs hate the Sunni regime of KSA with a passion. KSA is somewhat threatened by the large minority of Shia living within the Kingdom. Cetainly the overall attitude against the Shia population in KSA is not helping matters. So many of the people who have responded to this are Christian, perhaps they don’t fully understand the schism in Islam.
As to whether Iran is a threat…I think they will happily work to undermine the gov’t in KSA. This is not to say there are not thousands of loyal shia within KSA’s borders.
@Mariam,
I agree with your point of view and I also agree that many who have commented may not be aware of the sensitivities and implications of the Sunni/Shia’a relationship either in regards to the Iran/KSA relationship. Just yesterday there were more articles of Ahmedinijad insinuating that Iran’s shia’a pilgrims could be subject to various discriminations while performing Hajj which to me just further illustrates that the relationship has a shaky foundation.
@Mariam and Carol,
I am well aware of the issues regarding the Shi’a and their various host countries in the Middle East, especially the Gulf. However, I think that this problem, at it’s root, really isnt a religious one.
For the regimes that host minority Shi’ite populations I think it is more of a civil/human rights issue. The “boogy man” of Shi’ite revolution died a long time ago except in the minds of dictators, desperate for cover their repressive and sectarian policies, and a very small percentage of religious extremists that have no interest in anything but the religious hatred they peddle.
I guess the issue here is how non issues can be exploited to mask real issues and how dictators and oppressive governments can really create or inflate issues to draw attention from their own deficiencies.
Does anyone really think governments from Morroco to Yemen care about Palestinians? Of course not, but the subject gives them great cover to justify and explain their policies that otherwise would be very hard to explain. The “Shi’ite menace” like the “red” and “yellow” menace before it will be shown to a figment of of people’s imagination, but a VERY useful one.
Let me tell you how to solve and prevent any chance of a Shi’ite “problem” in the Middle East. Give them full and equal civil and human rights in the countries where they live, allow then equal access to all levels of government and assure fair and equal representation in the governments in these counties.
Shi’ite or not, keep a people oppressed, keep them down and limit the hopes for their children and there will ALWAYS be a chance of major issues, whether it is in eastern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Los Angles.
Carol,
As your comments about Shi’ite pilgrams for Hajj, the sad fact is that Saudi Arabia has a LONG history of systematic discrimination against Shi’ites at all levels of society.
The solution is for the Saudis to end the discrimination. Any solution which doesnt address the fundamental discrimination against Shi’ites in countries like Saudi will certainly be “shaky”.
Why should Shi’ites accept any situation or proposed solution that leaves intact systematic oppression and discrimination for them and their children? We’d never consider accepting such an arrangements for blacks in South Africa or hispanics in the Southwest USA, why would we ask others to accept this for our own political expediency?
Am not an expert on international geopolitics, but it’s refreshing to see so many well-structured responses here.
First, I don’t see why Pakistan should be mentioned here – Pakistan is an Islamic country, it has good ties with the KSA and is Iran’s trading partner as mentioned above, but it’s nuclear policy is really in response to its perceived Indian nuclear policy. Pakistan is linked to the geopolitics in South Asia much more than in West Asia.
As for the Iranian threat to Saudi Arabia, I find romy’s response above very well-argued. There is also something in what Peter says about why there should be different rules for different countries across the globe about possession of nuclear weapons – that’s the reason India has had reservations against the NPT, eventhough India has consistently followed a no-first use policy. And of course this is not a religious issue – Iran, KSA or any other country in the region is going to act in this matter by its political-economic considerations and not by the Shia-Sunni divide that is a reality all across the Islamic world. I feel in the wake of Israel acuiring nuclear capacity, it’s a natural reaction from Iran to respond by developing weapons – not that I am in favour of a nuclear war anywhere in the world, but if one country goes nuclear, another country in the vicinity is forced to go in that direction. The right approach should be to go for absolute nuclear disarmament everywhere in the world, rather than some countries possessing this power and telling others not to have it. Besides, those who have developed the nuclear capacity, must follow the no-first use policy of India – that is, they should not strike unless attacked first.
In face of already imposed sanctions, wide criticism of its nuclear programme and the mounting international pressure on itself, it doesn’t look as if Iran is going to strike first against Saudi Arabia – but perhaps its nuclear programme will keep Saudi Arabia under check from arm twisting Iran.
I think Pakistan deserves mention as it is the only predominantly muslim country which a nuclear capability and Pakistan’s bomb is routinely referred to as the Muslim bomb and A. Q. Khan himself known as the ‘father of the Islamic bomb.’
Then given the long history and strong ties between KSA and Pakistan, that is something that should not be overlooked nor underestimated.
A nuclear capable Iran would likely be viewed as a high threat to Israel and in my view, I do not believe Israel would allow Iran the opportunity. And that’s where it starts to get sticky and become a real mess…. If Israel takes action against Iran (with or without US knowledge) it will probably be perceived regardless that such hypothetical action would be with US support. In turn a chain reaction would occur in the region and Saudi Arabia would be caught right up in the middle.
No first use is good in principle but looking at the instability in Pakistan, in Iran…even if the governments would claim a ‘no first use’ there’s also the issue of ensuring such weapons would be secure beyond any doubt from a rogue terrorist group or that any involved in weapons production would not be coerced or willing to sell the technology and/or know-how to terrorist elements.
@Carol,
Pakistan would also be a good mention because of the very poor way Shi’ites are treated in that country. They are regular targets for systemic abuse, suicide bombers and other attacks from extremist Sunnis. That and the close histor ties with Saudi certainly mean they warrant a mention in any discussion about Muslims, attack weapons, and issues between Shi’ites and Sunnis.
@Abu Sinan -
I usually agree with you, however, the “divide” is very real, and exists more than in the minds of dictators. The average (Sunni) Saudi finds the (Shia) Saudi almost as an apostate. Jokes are made about the scourging/hidden Imam/matyrdom. Saudis went wild when Iran interfered (along with Syria) in Lebanon. The thought of southern Lebanon under the influence of shia drove the saudi public crazy.
Even fairly well educated Saudis (sunni) consider shia as suspect muslims, not entirely devoted to monotheism, with their shrines and saints.
I know it is hard to believe in this day and age…I guess it would be similar to the schism in Christianity and the distrust that engendered beginning in 1400′s Germany, that lasted 250 years in Europe, and maybe still in Northern Ireland. I would agree that eventually people are fighting over economic opportunity and full rights denied one religious group, but the root is religion. The fanatical behavior and driven need to succeed is fueled by religion.
@Mariam,
I am aware of this, I have seen it in Saudis I know and my wife’s family. However, one must ask why this is and who pushes these beliefs? A lot of these ideas and beliefs come from religious leaders, who in Saudi, are funded and sanctioned by the state.
I am glad you mentioned Northern Ireland, although it goes against your intended goal. Having spent a lot of time in that area I know a bit about it. As Bernadete Devlin once said, no one was ever killed in the north of Ireland over the “Articles of Faith”.
The conflict there was “tribal” in nature and had nothing to do with religion or religious issues. It was about economics, opportunities, representation, ect. So much so that initial rebellion in the north of Ireland was a non sectarian affair with Protestants fighting side by side with Catholics. It was those in power that worked to change the dynamics to set common citizens against each other to assure their own power base and set up a sectarian system to ensure it.
To a certain extent I think it is an apt comparison although when looking at history it tends to support my assertions over yours.
There are schisms in every religion of the world. And Islam is a very young religion as compared to Christianity or other even older religions – it doesn’t have as deep roots as those religions. So it’s natural that it is going through the process of evolution that other religions have already gone through in history.
In geopolitical considerations, nations do cross their religious affiliations to decide their actions. In the case that Carol mentions, in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran and an Iranian attack on the KSA, Pakistan is not likely to spend its nuclear resources in support of Saudi Arabia – and in the process, make itself weak in front of India – it’s a highly unlikely proposition if that is what is implied. Pakistan may support KSA in some other form, but not by exhausting its nuclear weapons in West Asia. It may advertise its “Islamic bomb” in popular arena, but I credit Pakistan with much more intelligence than exhausting its nuclear bombs in West Asia. Sunni Brotherhood is not going to count here, because Pakistan has other concerns to look after.
Carol,
If your estimate is right – you’re the international relations expert here, not I – in the event that Iran does strike at Saudi Arabia, what do you think the role of the US would be? Of course the US isn’t going to sit quietly and watch, without doing anything about it. It’s anyone’s guess that if Iran strikes at the KSA, the US is going to strike at Iran. Consider the monumental task before Iran then – to counter the Israeli offensive, to maintain its attack on the KSA and to face the attack from the US. I really don’t think Iran is going to take such a risk. Counter the Israeli attack – most probably yes, but to attack Saudi Arabia and face a three-sided war, with Israel and the US against it – highly unlikely.
If the US does feel Israeli attack on Iran is a real probability, then rather than pressurising Iran, it should try to monitor Israel’s moves – after all Israel has received continuous supposrt from the US, so the US should be able to find a way to monitor Israel. Perhaps they are already doing it.
Carol,
The no-first use policy should be a must for all nations having nuclear weapons including the US. It’s true the terrorists can get at the weapons in Pakistan or Iran, but they can get at them in Israel as well and no one talks about Israel dismantling its weapons. And we usually think of the US as a high-security zone when it comes to the terrorist activities and the nuclear weapons, but who knows? So the terrorist activities should not be linked to this concept of no-first use and all countries must follow it.
Abu Sinan,
No one ever wants to believe me when I explain that the issues in N. Ireland had/have nothing to do with religion. I’ve even found myself educating my children’s teachers of that fact. gggrrrr!
@Lynn,
The problem is that media often sells the easiest possible answer to these situations. The truth would take time and education which certainly isnt what the media is about these days.
Even people with a basic interest in Ireland often dont know that the earliest Irish rebels were often Protestant. Look at the “United Irishmen” uprising in 1798 that was lead by and more often than not, manned by Protestants.
It wasnt until the landed/upper class started fearing for their positions and privledge that they worked very hard to set Protestant against Catholic. Even when they succeded in tribalising the issue and setting Protestant against Catholic there was never a real religious element to the issue.
The establishment was just successful in getting Protestants to ally themselves to British rule even though it often worked against their own self interest.
This is a common theme through history, where those in charge set those they rule over against each other to distract them from the real issues. Certainly those in power would love to see Sunni against Shi’a so they cannot concentrate on the real issues that affect everyone, like lack of representation, lack of civil and human rights, lack of transparancy.
The Brits did it in Africa and Ireland, current regimes in the Middle East do it with Shi’a and the Palestinians. Distract the public with manufactured issues to help them ignore the power structure and give them a release valve for what truly trustrates them.
@Daisy,
It is a complicated triangle the relationship between Israel-USA-KSA. My personal view is that in spite of the long term and strong relationship between USA and Israel, Israel will ultimately act in its own best interests even if it meant not informing the USA. So I do agree that there should be independent means and methods to monitor and track plans and intentions.
If Israel were to attack Iran without coordinating with the US I am not sure how to predict which way the fallout would go (no pun intended). As has been mentioned in many press reports, the US-Israel relationship has taken a dip too.
@Carol,
It doesnt help that Israel has a long history of espionage against us, often passing the information they got to our enemies.
Some friends!
Carol,
You are right, it’s time the concerned powers and their allies devise a plan to implement a co-ordinated monitoring of Israel.
Am I wierd or what?? I have no problem with Israel at all. I get angry when I see how the Falasteeni used the whole issue to corruptly secure wealth for themselves. Funny…they can buy weapons, but not housing and sewers…
Israel is a fact. They have embarassed many of us (arabs) with their use of western technology to improve agriculture, schooling and standard of living for their citizens.
I admire the Palestinians who have continued their education and gone elsewhere to be employed. They are generally admired for their work standards and smarts. At some point, we have to live in reality.
Enough with Arab leadership using this as a focus point to divert arabs’ attention from problems to be solved.
Supposedly the textbooks in ksa have been changed. I am no longer in school there, so I cannot claim first hand knowledge. Having befriended Jews and Israelis in the USA, I do have first hand knowledge that they are just people. Some are wonderful, some not so.
Vive la paix.
Israel is a fact, even if we dont like it. The idea that a state could be set up for the sole benefit of one religious grouping, keeping all other groups second class citizens is obscene. Of course we could make comparisons to other countries set up to advance one religion……..
Of course Israel is a reality and I am completely against the use of force to make any changes. It wont work and doesnt help.
I support an Israel/Palestine, where ALL people regardless of race or religion are equal citizens and the state is set up to advance all people equally.
As for Palestinians using the issue to secure wealth for themselves, I would contend that they are just like ALL Arab nations in that the elite steal the money of the people and keep it for themselves. In this case it is international donor money, in other cases it is oil money. There is NO difference between the cleptocracy in the West Bank and Gaza than there is in the cleptocracy across the entire Arab world. it is a bit unfair to point fingers at the Palestinians when the entire Arab would is just as guilty.
A great discussion. Probably as good as or better than Hillary had in her latest trip. I have more faith in the common folks (us) than the so-called experts. We may not agree but at least we are more sincere.
So opinions are divided. That makes sense. The picture is not clear because of the many layers of interests, animosities and history. It is jew vs Muslim, West vs islam, Shia vs Sunni, Arab vs Persian, and so on. Add to this oil, power politics, trade interests and 15 other factors and you have a grade A, blue ribbon, certified mess.
I still think that Iran and the Saudis will clash. It may not be war, but it will be serious and deadly. Understand that there is no place for the Saudi family in the Shiite vision of Islam. Also, the prizes (oil and leadership of Islamic world) for knocking off SA are too tempting to ignore.
Leave the US out of this. They are a minor player and both Israel and Sa know they cannot depend on the Americans. Obama is not Bush. He has no convictions and no friends unless they serve his purposes.
Oh well, at least we live in intersting times (an old Chinese saying….)
Kactuz
J. Kactuz,
You are right about Iran’s temptation to assume Islamic leadership and the control of oil resources and hence, the clash between Iran and KSA in a non-military but deadly form. But do you seriously think the US will let this go quietly?
The US wants oil too and if Iran wrangles with the KSA, this will be a great opportunity for the US to control the oil resources of Iran as well as of the KSA – and also make Iran denuclearised in the process. The US will attack Iran not to support Israel or the KSA, but for its own benefits – although a support to its ally Saudi Arabia may be the popular propaganda used by the US in front of the world. Obama may not be Bush, but of course he understands all this – or at least his advisers understand this.
Besides, the Sunni world will never accept the leadership of a Shia Iran – precisely because of the divide that exists between them. And Sunnis are in majority in Islam.
Obama is not Bush but I would not underestimate him or his team, particularly vis-a-vis Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Iran has attempted to politicize Hajj which has further impacted on the relations between KSA and Iran. I wonder what else Iran has going on or supporting behind the scenes to increase shia’a dominance and create disruptions and divides targeted at KSA…
I suppose the real threat in the Middle-East is the US as they support Israel in keeping nuclear capacity.
In supporting Isreal they are a real threat to both KSA and Iran.
THe US keeps playing with the agenda, which is theirs (=Israel) , their jewish lobby wants to support Israel and the US needs the oils from KSA. Do you really think the ties between KSA and US are based on anything else but oil and dollars? Iran is unlikely to be as sensitive to the US needs when it comes to oil for dollars, so will will continue to be described as a real threat and the US will continue to “find” nuclear installations, programs, science, etc. in Iran that will indicate military nuclear capacity.
I like your comment Peter but I might respectfully disagree that the US is in the real threat in the Middle East. I see Israel as the bigger threat which in turn is further compounded by the strong Jewish lobby that exists in the United States. I see Israel as the bigger threat as I can see Israel acting unilaterally against Iran without choosing to inform its “ally” the USA.
Carol,
That’s why the need to monitor both Israel and Iran – and Iran can be brought to agree to any monitoring only if this process begins with Israel first. Then, the concerned contries will have a valid rationale for monitoring Iran.
Israel is the real threat to American interests in the Middle East, they continue to spy on us, never mind the fact that they slaughtered more than a few sailors years ago, an incident they NEVER properly accounted for. If anyone else had done it, it would have been a casus belli, instead our leaders at the time bent over and “took one” for the team, as usual when it comes to Israel.
Marhababikum ..am rather new here but have read several postings here and they are just excellent. Thanks bedu for all those nice stories on KSA etc. But this one does not seem to sit well with me and several others.
First the write up is silent about the Iranian side of the story. I understand this is part of the standard toolkit in the west: blot out the enemy’s opinion, pretent it does not matter and if possible silence those who seek to tell the world about the enemy. We all remember how Al Jazeera reporters were killed by American forces on account of this in the early days of Iraqi invasion. They call that the Bush doctrine: ignore Hamas, Hizbollah etc. But they eventually had to talk to IRA and presto there was progress.
Secondly Iranian nukes can never be a threat to KSA. Ask ordinary Saudis in Ar’ar or Ha’il or anywhere. But if you go to Riyadh, yes they may think so.
Thirdly you refused to even mention that Israelis have their own stockpile of nukes. And this is typical: westerners play dumb to bombs produced at Dimona or wherever inside Israel. The Iranians and indeed Saudis and all Arabs are threatened more by Israeli bombs than anything.
Fourth you seem to imply that both Iran and Pakistan do not deserve to have nukes because their governments are not stable. Well stable governments of today can turn to be unstable as a result of circumstances. And the reserve can equally be the case.
Fifth you seem to have a high regard for Israel. To me the country is a disgrace to the world. A country that kills, kidnaps, terrorize, vandalize, torture and destroy peasant crops and farmlands deserves no respect. A country that believes in racism in this millennium should be made a pariah among nations. Zionism is racism and the government of Israelis is now asking its citizens not to marry non Jews so as not to corrupt their race and fill it with disease. Was it not Hitler who started this? And we know how he ended. But everything they are doing is being recorded in note books as one poet said.
@ Daisy, Israel already has military nuclear capability. If all things would be equal, Iran would have military nuclear capability and both Israel and Iran would be monitored by the UN. To monitor and boycot Iran now only reinforces Israel’s/US threat in the region.
@ Carol, the truth stares you in the face but you are too close to see it. A small nation like Israel only survives by the grace of a big ally. You don’t honestly think that Israel can do anything at all without approval (formal or informal by looking the other way) by the US? The consequences would be too grave for such a small country to bear. Don’t underestimate the jewish lobby in the US.
Peter,
I know about the nuclear situation in Israel and Iran – please read my other responses above. Because Carol has asserted that Israel may attack Iran without talking to the US first, I made this suggestion – Israel’s monitoring first and Iran’s later. Please read my comments above.
Am new here but I enjoyed reading most of the posts. Great job you did, Bedu, writing all those things on KSA.
But this one on Iran nukes is skewed to say the least.
First you did not even say something about the Iranians and their reason for insisting on having a nuclear bomb. But someone told me its the standard in the west: ignore the enemy and his point of view. And Bush did that alot by pretending that Hamas and Hizbollah do not have a point of view. And did they not kill Aljazeera reporters because they were broadcasting enemy stories?
Second you make it sound as if both Pakistan and Iran do not deserve to have nukes. I thought they have good reasons for wanting to have nukes. Damn good reasons.
You also seem oblivious to the stockpile held by Israel in dimona. No mention of that at all in your post which suggests that you dont want your readers to know and judge by themselves as to who is more qualified to have nukes between Iran and Israel.
The Israeli nukes are the real threat to KSA and indeed the Arab world. Ask the Bedouins who work at Safari club and they will tell you.
Well, I go to Iran frequently as I have relatives there and I can tell u…there is a serious enegery crisis in that country! The previous 2 summers I was there witnessed retotating power outages. In the big cities like Tehran and Esfahan all power is off in the middle of the day…this rotates through the cities…so 1 area has it off 1 day the next area the next day. No biggie right? wrong…esp since the summers are brutally hot…so there u are in a apartment or house with NO air conditioning or fan! I’m in Saudi Arabia now…now imagine that in a HOT, brutal Eastern Provinces or Riyadh August…that would be killer!!!
In the smaller towns and rural areas the power went off in the evenings. Infact the evening we packed to return to the US the power…wonderfully enough…went off right as I was packing and didnt come on until an hr before we had to go to the airport I packed by candlelight…no fun!
really, if it’s for energy purposes…then, frankly…Iran really needs it! The cities are growing so fast and the population is booming…they already have to do rolling power outages…whats next?
Umm Ibrahim,
You’re right…anyone who has been in parts of Iran, Iraq or Saudi Arabia during the summer months absolutely does not want to be without a/c. I remember in 2003/2004 when I was in Iraq and many of the Iraqi nationals went for long periods without electricity and it was not only no a/c but in some cases doors and windows were kept closed up due to the sand storms too. Total misery!
With the global warming a reality now, even in India we absolutely need AC when it’s more than 46 degrees celsius in summers and of course there are frequent and long power cuts everywhere in India except in the hilly states where they produce electricity. I can understand the predicament of West Asia.
I remember well the summer and the monsoon season in India!
@khalid patrick,
I agree with most of what you say except the last part , I’m no fan of israel but many countries don’t like you marrying outside their nationality/religion etc.,
KSA – can a saudi man marry a non-saudi and take her into the kingdom without permission, why should the saudi govt veto his spouse. it’s his choice, deny him/her entry into the country but I don’t think any govt should have the authority to veto a marriage.
As for a saudi woman marrying a non-saudi ( muslim) , heaven help them, i can understand when a religion sets limits on it’s followers but a govt not recognizing them even though they follow thetnets of that religion?
Not to divert the topic, but just wanted to mention israel is not alone in such discrimination. we all fear the unknown /outsider …
…just to reminiscence…during one particular day in Esfahan my husband and I went down into the bazaar and into an ice cream shop…it was the only place in the day that had power when everywhere else was off…It had these HUGE power generators right on the sidewalk. The place was packed because outside it was like 40c and 12 noon and it was too hot to be inside and too hot to be outside. The only places that had air conditioning (due to rotating power outages) where the ice-cream shops. Either that or set out large pans of iced water near you, sleep up against them and hope they keep u from melting.
I’m enshallah going back with my son this March for several months, I hope there wont be power outages this time. They are REALLY a huge bother. As some of you agreed with me…nothing is worse than a 40c day, sunny, middle of summer, 12 noon and NO power!!!
ugh.
no power, imagine carrying a sleeping 3 yr old up 7 flights of stairs
and then coming back for the rest of the stuff.. yep that was me in pune this past summer with my very sweet and very chubby 3 yr old nephew.
I feel more sorry for the child’s v pregnant mum who gets to live in 38C and rotating power cuts.
so if iran says they need power i’d say go for it don’t roast.
Yes Radha, precisely the reason India signed a Nuclear deal with the US – and had a narrow escape from the government falling apart.
Abu Sinan: excellent posts; you said everything I wanted to say and much more. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Bullies don’t like it when their victims start standing up and trying to defend themselves. No one stands up to the America domination over the world, yet Iran is making attempts to do so. Of course the western media/govt will react by trying to make up ridiculous stories, funding militant anti-govt groups in Iran, and attempting to stir up political unrest as much as possible so as to make sure no one will challenge their iron grip over the world.
Also, just wanted to concur on the point that the oppression of the Shiite minority in KSA and elsewhere is certainly a reality. From knowing many Saudi Shias personally, the atrocities committed against them historically and to the present day are numerous. Most certainly, every year at Hajj Shias are harrassed, beaten, spit on, and jailed by the religious police. In fact, a while back several Iranian pilgrims were open fired on and many were killed, including some German (I think) pilgrims who were mistaken for Iranians.
So, Ahmedinejad is not unjustified in drawing attention to the treatment of Shia and/or Iranian pilgrims at Hajj.
“Quite frankly given Iran’s record of duplicity ”
WOW
Ma’am I have a question and I don’t think I can find any person better than you to answer it. Please gently answer my question, clearly and eloquently.
Q: If US can have nukes then why not Iran? What makes US more responsible than Iran? Who has history of actually using the nukes and going to unprovoked war in every decade? US or Iran?
Usman,
You do ask a very good and natural question. The reason I believe the US is more responsible than Iran (or Pakistan) for that matter is there is such a comprehensive validation process in effect before one could even think of being able to launch a nuclear weapon thereby putting in place very strong controls.
Whereas Iran has its long history of hot blood and I believe more “fearless” or should I say less hesitant of consequences associated with a nuclear launch.
Hello,
I am from K.S.A. and ALL Saudi people know that Iran is a threat to Saudi Arabia. If it happen to see someone saying he is from Saudi Arabia and he doesn’t think that Iran is a threat to Saudi Arabia, you must know directly that he is a Shiite who loves Iran. Iran or persians to be more specific hated Arabs for more than 1000 years for historical reasons witch are known by everyone. Iran is a threat to all gulf countries and especially Saudi Arabia.
@ KMS <<
"""Most certainly, every year at Hajj Shias are harrassed, beaten, spit on, and jailed by the religious police. In fact, a while back several Iranian pilgrims were open fired on and many were killed, including some German (I think) pilgrims who were mistaken for Iranians."""
seriously???? don’t you, Shiites, get tired of lying??
SHOOTING IN MAKKAH ??? why we did not see that in news? shame on you. The ones who tried to destroy Makkah are Iranians in 1407, and you know what I am talking about. I will provide links of what happend in Makkah on the Hajj of that year and guess what people, Saudi Arabia didnt block Iranians from coming to Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj.
The story is that Iranians and Hizbollah from K8 in the Hajj of 1407 tried to bomb Makkah and they hurt and killed innocent Sunnah there. This story is known by every Arab person. But can the liar tell me about where did he get his claims form? oh, wait, you still have a chance, Hajj is coming soon please ask the poeple who told you that to take pics or videos, if you can!
Finally, people who said Iran is not a threat, they need to search about how the Sunnah are treated in Iran and even the Arab Shiites. They hate Arabs with a passion. In contrast, Shiites in gulf countries are treated just like Sunnah, they own houses, they work in oil companies, they study abroad to become doctors by the governments, they are ministers in Bahrain, Kuwait and even more. While I dare anyone to find a Sunni in Iran who is,at least, treated with respect, although they are more than 28 million of popularity but Iran say they are less which is a lie. Tehran is the only capital city in the world which donsnt contain a mosque!! They catch Sunnah in Iran if they find them praying in groups even if they do it in their homes.
After all what I have stated here, K.S.A. and Iran are more than enemies.