Reuters: Saudi Arabia considers its own nuclear options after Iran deal
One likely Saudi Arabian response to the deal its biggest enemy Iran has struck with world powers is to accelerate its own nuclear power plans, creating an atomic infrastructure it could, one day, seek to weaponize.
But while it has recently made moves to advance its nuclear program, experts say it is uncertain whether it could realistically build an atomic bomb in secret or withstand the political pressure it would face if such plans were revealed.
"I think Saudi Arabia would seriously try to get the bomb if Iran did. It's just like India and Pakistan. The Pakistanis said for years they didn't want one, but when India got it, so did they," said Jamal Khashoggi, head of a Saudi news channel owned by a prince.
Update #1: Nuclear Arms Race: Saudi Source Reveals Plan for the Bomb -- Arutz Sheva
Update #2: Middle East rivals agree: Iran nuclear deal is no solution to regional turmoil -- Washington Times
WNU Editor: Whats my take .... quoting New York Observer columnist Micah Halpern is his latest post .... We’ll Have What They’re Having: The Iran Nuclear Deal Will Spur an Arms Race ....
.... Before, during and now after signing of this nuclear deal with Iran, Saudi Arabia has repeatedly maintained that they want the same rights as Iran. The Sunnis of Saudi Arabia cannot—and will not—permit Shiite Iranians to get the upper hand in the region and move toward improved nuclear technology under the safety shield of a signed and sealed deal.
I concur .... Saudi Arabia will never position themselves to be subservient to Iran .... something that Washington has probably underestimated.
4 comments:
But our stupid ___ president promised that this is exactly what he was avoiding.
Well actually he didn't
He used caveats like the word possibility without using any percentages or even descriptors like the words likely. When you use a word like likel,y it has a more meaning than the word possibility. You have a greater knowledge, if you are tending to 0% or 100%.
But the weasel used weasel words.
"Without a deal, the international sanctions regime will unravel, with little ability to re-impose it," he said. " With this deal, we have the possibility to peacefully resolve a major threat to regional and international security."
Obama said there would have been a risk of more fighting in the Middle East without a deal and that other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs "in the most volatile region in the world."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/15/reuters-america-obama-says-iran-nuclear-deal-best-way-to-avoid-more-mideast-war.html
The descriptor Little has more meaning than the word possibility. He used his adjectives and adverbs to lie and shape the debate.
""Without a deal, the international sanctions regime will unravel, with possibility ability to re-impose it," he said. " With this deal, we have the little to peacefully resolve a major threat to regional and international security."
Reverse the adjective/adverbs does it make a different case? Did that lying, math challenged weasel make his case?
I say NO!
Note that Turkey's site is RIGHT NEXT TO SYRIA-IS!!!
Aizino,
"Without a deal..." While this president has been wrong on many if not most issues, this quote is largely spot on. If there had been no deal, the sanctions were going to come apart with no possibility of re-imposing them. With this there is a possibility, while I don't think its a good one, there is at least still a chance.
Leading up to the deal the media was eager for an Iranian victory and with the Iranians always eager to disrespect America could not wait to jeer. Perhaps they got to excited to quickly. With the advantages Iran had in the negotiations it seems they should have been able to get an immediate lifting of sanctions, no inspections of any kind anywhere at any time under any circumstances, immediate release of all funds, and an immediate lifting of all weapons embargoes with none of a so called review process.
With this said I would have walked away from any negotiations based upon principle. If one takes this approach, one needs to fully understand the realities of what they are doing. Essentially we are going to be dealing with a nuclear armed Iran with sanctions and weapons embargoes fully removed. This was going to happen deal or no deal. We best be working on strategies to deal with this.
Additionally, I think this president and his team have far to much confidence in themselves that the "possible" parts of this deal can be enforced. For example, who is going to assist us should we try to insist on Iran adhering to the deal. Furthermore it seems to much faith is being placed on the "deal" and not enough on preparing for a nuclear armed Iran that is unencumbered by sanctions or weapons embargoes.
Earlier I stated the quote is "largely" spot on. The part where he says "the possibility to peacefully resolve a threat to regional and international security" is ridiculous and needs to be changed. It should read as follows: "the possibility to peacefully resolve a threat to American national security" or "the possibility to peacefully resolve a threat to American and Israeli national security." As Israel is our only true ally in the "region", it would be reasonable for us to try and assist them with their national security when possible. As for regional or international security, America is in no position to focus on this nor would it be reasonable for the "international" or "regional" parties to expect America or its leadership to take responsibility for such things.
"With this there is a possibility, while I don't think its a good one, there is at least still a chance. "
That is more honest, but the president was not honest.
Post a Comment