Skip to comments.Report: Saudi Arabia to buy nukes if Iran tests A-bomb (From "Arab Spring" to nuclear Middle-East)
Posted on 02/10/2012 4:42:39 AM PST by tobyhill
Saudia Arabia would move quickly to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran successfully tests an atomic bomb, according to a report.
Citing an unidentified Saudi Arabian source, the Times newspaper in the U.K. (which operates behind a paywall) said that the kingdom would seek to buy ready-made warheads and also begin its own program to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
The paper suggested that Pakistan was the country most likely to supply Saudi Arabia with weapons, saying Western officials were convinced there was an understanding between the countries to do so if the security situation in the Persian Gulf gets worse. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have denied such an arrangement exists.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnews.msnbc.msn.com ...
Even the Arabs are smarter than Obama.
They are frightened of Iran too.
The crazy thing is they will do nothing to stop Iran from becoming an even bigger thrteat than they already are.
They're friends of all and of no one.
We are governed by fools!
So everybody’s sitting around hoping and praying Israel blows the right crap up in Iran, then everybody can publicly scream bloody murder about it.
You are quite wrong.
The fact is, you don’t know what the GCC is now doing or has already done. You don’t know about the current engagement inside Iran now.
The fact there are actually secret operations that you don’t know about underway does not mean they do not exist.
The only real clue is that things were blown up and people were killed on the street and....... a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador was thwarted
Monkeys with nukes...does it get any better?
The Sauds have been bankrolling the Paks for many years, so it has been assumed that if they ever wanted nukes they could buy them from the Paks. The Sauds already have some Chicom-made ballistic missiles that reportedly can handle nuke warheads...
Saudi Arabia AND Iran with nukes is a true nightmare scenario for the West.
There is not an immediate danger from the Saudis acquiring nukes. The real danger is that they would still have them after the monarchy eventually falls.
Paul Maud'dib: "At least we have the family atomics!"
I know an ex military man who has been in Abu Dabi for years building a missile defense system for the UAE. I believe he is actually employed by Ratheon. However, the UAE is very afraid of Iran and have been taking steps to ensure they will not become a puppet of the mullahs.
Well Bert, you are probably right. I don’t know what os going on. I do know however that when there were demonstrations in Iran by Iranians that Obama did nothing.
I know that we call for sanctions and the saudi’s , Kuwait and the other Arab countries are too busy banning Bibles to say anything positive about stopping Iran.
Maybe, to Quote Obama on another subject, they are working under the radar.
A common mistake for most westerners is the assumption that the mullahs, their officials & supporters are “Persian”. Some were born in Iran, of course speak farsi, and have some “Persian” heritage by bloodlines, but they are very Arabized and of course follow Islam. Therefore, culturally & ideologically they have much in common w/ Arabs (especially in S. Arabia) & are Arabic. The Saudis & Mullahs both know that.
A difference is the mullahs are in charge of Iran, and use the control of a nation-state to their advantage. That’s why many Persian nationalists & others refer to mullahs’ rule as the 2nd Arab-Islam occupation of Iran. The 1st happened in the 7th C. AD.
It is very important to understand the prelude to Arab-Islam invasion of Iran, and the key events thereafter, if we are to accurately predict the outcome of current situation. Shia, Sunni, Wahhabi are technicalities, for Arabs & these so-called “Iranian” mullahs. All the Shia 12er imams were Arabs.
So, now what we see is not so much a dispute about Islam, or fear of mullahs acquiring nukes. It is simply, at times, a power struggle between them. For the “Iranian” regime of course it is all about retaining *power* in Iran & dominating the region. For the Saudis, it is advantageous to have an Islamic-Arabic regime in Iran. Hence, they will never do anything to undermine them to the extent of toppling them. I can also comfortably say that should there be a choice between Israel, the US & Iran ruled by mullahs for the Saudis, they will side w/ mullahs, despite giving the appearance of siding w/ the west & Israel. The keyword is deception.
Right, Islam is the key there regardless of sect.
The other is a Persian traitor, long ago, named Salman al-Farsi who became a very close companion & confidant of Mohamad. By all accounts, he taught Mohamad & other Arabs in Mohamad’s inner-circle a great deal. Most Arabs adore Salman. He was the son of a Zoroastrian priest, who first converted to Christianity and then, after meeting Mo in Arabia, became his follower. Salman also played a critical part in Arab-Islam invasion of Iran (7th C. AD). May he rot in hell.
Playing us like a large game fish.
Tom Lehrer couldn’t be reached for comment but if he could he might have said:
One of the big news items of the past year concerned the fact that China, which we called “Red China,” exploded a nuclear bomb, which we called a device. Then Indonesia announced that it was going to have one soon, and proliferation became the word of the day. Here’s a song about that:
First we got the bomb, and that was good,
‘Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that’s okay,
‘Cause the balance of power’s maintained that way.
France got the bomb, but don’t you grieve,
‘Cause they’re on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can’t wipe us out for at least five years.
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that’s right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Egypt’s gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel’s getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
“The Lord’s our shepherd,” says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We’ll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Pakistan plays all sides against the middle, right? We were taken in by them - we're not the only ones. They've probably already sold nukes to both sides in this mess - wonder when they'll deliver...
We have to beef up our defense posture, frankly understanding that guerrilla warfare (which morphs into terrorism when not confined by national borders), by its very nature, will employ stealth attacks. When you throw in a rejection of traditional moral values, which limit what we in the West find morally acceptable, you enter a phase where what you describe become far more likely.
Thus we need not only beefed up space defenses to take out any incoming missiles; but much better port, coast & border security. An immediate start would be efficient profiling of airports, and taking those, who have been groping old native born white women, to searching cargo holds of all sorts.
The idea of targeting a succession of possible or actual hostile nations, who are likely to be replaced by another set of hostile nations, tomorrow, helps people vent anger, but does not address the real problem--which really is the future.
For example: Who would have believed that after American Naval units, visiting Japan in a goodwill gesture in the 19th Century, leading to her reentry into world affairs, would be the target of a surprise attack in 1941? Who would have believed (before the Axis powers lined up together in the 1930s) that Germany would declare war on the United States, in 1941, immediately after responded to the Japanese attack. (At the time, the largest population of German rooted immigrant families in the world was in the United States.)
Of course, by 1941, all of that was actually predictable. Germany was the victim in 1922/23 of the monetary policies, again in fashion in many lands. The middle-class was virtually wiped out; the people turned in desperation to a consummate Austrian demagogue who forged the above alliance. One thing followed another.
The problem is, that we cannot really predict what other land, or where, the next collapse of a now stable social order will occur. There is no place on the planet, where it is certain that will not occur. We need to be prepared for the threats that you describe, from whatever source. Focusing on one region, in my opinion--particularly on the other side of the world (for all sorts of reasons, a mistake)--simply puts off vital preparations, in addition to multiplying those who hate us to the point that they will commit atrocities on Americans in other lands; brutality that serves no real interests of anyone.
I have never been an advocate of Mutually Assured Destruction; that was the Fabian Defense Secretary under JFK/LBJ. We needed to win the technological war, so that only our enemies would face destruction. And we did that in the 1980s. Now we still have that superiority over Iran, but we need to guard against any variation of the threat that you indentify, but seek to limit to one region (a mistake).