You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Arabia
On Saudis and the bomb...
2006-04-13
Think of it this way. With two very critical differences, the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia and the Shi'a of Iran bear a resemblance to the Capitalists of the United States and the Communists of the (former) USSR. They are ideological enemies, as were we and the Soviets. Perhaps their enmity is even more extreme, based, as it is, on differing and mutually-exclusive interpretations of a religion.

The two very critical differences? First, while we and the Soviets were both capable of defending ourselves (through Mutually Assured Destruction), the Saudis, if forced to be self-reliant, would be no match for even a non-nuclear Iran. Their population is a fraction of Iran's, and their economy—their oil fields—is only a stone's throw across the narrow Persian (or Arabian, if you prefer) Gulf. The Saudis depend on us to deter the descendents of Ayatollah Khomeini, as they did to shelter them from the wrath of Saddam in 1990-1991. Second, while there were very few Communists in America and very few (perhaps, no) Capitalists in the USSR, there are a lot of Shi'a in Saudi Arabia, and they happen to reside where the oil fields are located.

So if I were the King of Saudi Arabia, I'd be concerned about Iranian influence on my Shi'a subjects and extremely worried about Iran becoming a nuclear power. In the aftermath of 9/11, I'd wonder what the U.S. would be willing to do if I were threatened by a nuclear Iran determined to take my place as the leader of the Islamic world. Wouldn't it be ironic if the end result of bin Laden's Sunni fantasy were to elevate the Shi'a to the top of Islam's totem pole?

Faced with these risks, I'd be guilty of dereliction of duty if I didn't at least have an option to become a nuclear power.

There's plenty of evidence—much of it dating from long before 9/11—that the Saudis have been exploring this option. Whether they've exercised it, I can't say. Judge for yourself after reading this post.
head to the link and read it.
Posted by:3dc

#3  From
Does the U.S. Science-Based stockpile Stewardship Program Pose a Proliferation Threat?
Paine and McKinzie

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/7_2Paine.pdf

Past state decisions to share weapons information (shown graphically in Figure 1) have served to influence the current international system. By and large, the rationale for these acts had been the strengthening of an ally. But alliances change: Moscow, for example, grew to regret its early nuclear weapons assistance to Beijing.



Figure 1: Venn diagram displaying the historical sharing of nuclear weapons knowledge
among declared nuclear weapon states (solid circles), undeclared nuclear weapon states
(dashed circles), and South Africa, a former undeclared nuclear weapon state. The num-
ber of explosive nuclear tests performed is given in parentheses. Area of overlap is not
strictly proportional to the degree of knowledge sharing, as this is difficult to quantify. The
Russia-U.S. overlap reflects the recent purchase by the U.S. Defense Special Weapons
Agency (via a detailed neotiated contract) of a large amount of data concerning the
former Soviet test program. Transfer of information from nuclear weapon states to non-
nuclear weapon states that would assist the latter "in any way' to acquire nuclear explo-
sive devices is prohibited under Articles I and II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Posted by: john   2006-04-13 13:21  

#2  And the Israelis, and the French and the British, and the Russians?

Posted by: john   2006-04-13 13:08  

#1  This is one of the relatively undiscussed issues that convinces me that Bush will act. It wouldn't end at Saudi, either. Easy to see Egypt wanting to be in that club. Another is the snuggly relationship between the MM and Yugo. The problem is tryinig to stuff the nuclear genie back in the bottle post-Kahn.

Long termm technology will get faster, better and cheaper. It will become easier for any wacko turd world country to become a nuclear "power" each year. We have to demonstrate that it is not worth the effort, regardless of how small that effort becomes.

So, Iran must be made an example. We need to Shermanize the place. Especially the electrical system.

And for all this we have the Indians, Paks and Chinese to thank.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-04-13 08:56  

00:00