Included in 250,000 documents being released by WikiLeaks this week was a secret diplomatic cable that indicated Saudi King Abdullah had urged the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to use force to stop Iran's nuclear program.
According to the document, Abdullah repeatedly requested that the US attack Iran. Other leaked documents also described how other Arab countries pushed for military action.
One cable said the Saudi king "frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program," the British newspaper Guardian reported.
The Saudi Ambassador to the US, Adel al-Jubeir, recalled in April 2008, "[Abdullah] told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake."
Al-Jubeir added "that working with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and his government."
[......]
Before we start another Ostensible "War for Israel" (which isn't going to happen)
let's remember who were the real benficiaries/protected of the Iraq war.
It isn't just the sentiment of the Saudis.The Saudi king is a wahabi fool, Iran does not threaten the saudi's militarily, nor have i read provactive anti-saudi statements coming out of Tehran, on the other hand the saudi's are flapping their lips constantly, im sure iran wouldnt mind having a truce with the saudi's it's definitenly not in iran's interest to go to war with one of the world's energy suppliers who are protected by a hyper power, the saudi king looks down on the iranians for the simple fact their shia (as most already know) he is in my opinion a dictator, even irans government more closely resembles a democracy than saudi arabia, he wont even let women drive. and ofcourse im sure he's aware that Iran would rain down powerful ballsitic missles on Saudi arabia if the U.S. attacks, especially after this wikileak.In essence he is putting his country and people at risk, for what? no invasion or attack whether it be militarily or economic on saudi arabia have been threatened. Where's the saudi people's voice in this matter? o what they don't have one. The Saudi's also mistreat their shia brethern living in their own country (saudi arabia). When it boils down to it their is no reason good enough for the u.s. or saudi's to attack Iran. Why have US soldiers injured, killed and maimed, for no good reason? The hypocrisy is astounding when you look at what north korea isdoing.
So one cannot just discount it as the "Wahab fools" of Saudi Arabia.""Officials in Jordan and Bahrain have openly called for Iran's nuclear program to be stopped by any means, including military.
"Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as "evil", an "existential threat" and a power that "is going to take us to war".
I believe the never ending propaganda of the Saudi's against Iran, played a major part in allegedly wanting Iran declawed,i have not seen another arab country even come close to the ferousity of the saudi's regarding anti-iran sentiment. in fact their was in an arab gulf country, i think qatar, who reached out to Iran recently in a cooperative manner,i can post the source if you like? just say the word. this anti-iranian sentiment among arab sunni countries is blown out of proportion by biased media's who want to do their best to validate an attack on iran. i believe at worst the sunni arab countries ( their corrupt governments at least, not their population) just would rather keep a distance between them and iran, if that, i believe their foreign policy(sunni arab countries) towards iran is pressed upon them by saudi arabia and the U.S. they don't want to anger or lose financial support from a hyper power and a large petrol supplier. Syria and iran have a defense pact also btw.It isn't just the sentiment of the Saudis.
Virtually every arab sunni country wants Iran declawed.
Certainly all the Gulf States.,... as well s Jordan and Egypt.
both of them are fighting obvsiouly within in a small range of territory, with truly who they believe is their only enemy, no surprise of the fighting over there, it's between them. that's another whole different story. those groups which are militia's dont and cant threaten the u.s. hamas's arsenal is equivalent to firecrackers by today's military standards they have hard time hitting their targets from a few miles away, ofcourse you already know that, but chose to downplay it. the saudi govt are obvious religious bigots who despise others not for being in adifferent religion but a different sect( as you know) the biggest winner if iran is attacked is Israel, as i know your 1 billion % aware of.Iran is a threat to many thru it's support for hamas and hezbollah
Is that the only retort you got? I look at things rationally from both sides, the pro's and con's for each nation involved. Your totally biased views, prevent you from sharing with us an interesting and insightful post.:cowboy:
ALL the gulf states have felt this way for quite a while.I believe the never ending propaganda of the Saudi's against Iran, played a major part in allegedly wanting Iran declawed,i have not seen another arab country even come close to the ferousity of the saudi's regarding anti-iran sentiment. in fact their was in an arab gulf country, i think qatar, who reached out to Iran recently in a cooperative manner,i can post the source if you like? just say the word. this anti-iranian sentiment among arab sunni countries is blown out of proportion by biased media's who want to do their best to validate an attack on iran. i believe at worst the sunni arab countries ( their corrupt governments at least, not their population) just would rather keep a distance between them and iran, if that, i believe their foreign policy(sunni arab countries) towards iran is pressed upon them by saudi arabia and the U.S. they don't want to anger or lose financial support from a hyper power and a large petrol supplier. Syria and iran have a defense pact also btw.
Egypt has let Israeli submarines use the Suez Canal.. and much else has ben going on very quietly.me said:Kuwaiti strategist: Israel should strike Iran
March 9, 2008 //AP/Jpost
The destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities would be in the interest of the Arab nations in the Gulf, and it would be "less embarrassing" if it was done by Israel rather than the US, a top Kuwaiti strategist said in remarks published Sunday.
Officially Kuwait, like the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, wants a peaceful solution to the nuclear standoff between Teheran and the West and will not allow the US to use its territories for any attack on Iran.
But when asked in an interview with the daily Al-Siyassah about the consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear reactors, analyst and former government adviser Sami al-Faraj said it would not be such a bad thing.
"Honestly speaking, they would be achieving something of great strategic value for the GCC by stopping Iran's tendency for hegemony over the area," He said, adding that "nipping it in the bud by Israeli hands would be less embarrassing for us" than if the Americans did it.
Al-Faraj said Teheran was interfering in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories, and inciting strife between Sunnis and Shiites.
"The question is what would it do if it were a nuclear nation?
We have to call a spade a spade and say that burying the military nuclear Iranian project is in the interest of GCC states," and other countries in the area, added al-Faraj, who heads the independent Kuwait Center for Strategy Studies.
Teheran has denied it is seeking nuclear weapons and insists its program is for peaceful purposes. Despite three sets of United Nations sanctions, it is still defying demands to suspend uranium enrichment.
GCC countries -Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain - have announced they want to use nuclear energy for civilian uses as well.
Al-Faraj told the daily the GCC "offered" to cooperate with Teheran on a joint nuclear fuel station, but Iran turned down the offer.
Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar all host US military facilities.
No, but I don't give enough of a spit to fully respond. The truth is that Saudi Arabia and Iran are both America's enemies.
Iran does present a threat to Saudi Arabia, but except for Mbig, no one here is sufficiently knowledgable to address the threat.
in other words you have no retort..again:roll:but I don't give enough of a spit to fully respond.
Both, really?The truth is that Saudi Arabia and Iran are both America's enemies.
I see your at least talented in one thing.:kissass to mbigbut except for Mbig, no one here is sufficiently knowledgable to address the threat.
It seems you just gave up due to contrary and documented evidence.Well, it seem's i can't find an open minded, rational, both sides of the coin debate in this thread any longer.
eace Ya'll
It seems you just gave up due to contray and documented evidence.
I think everyone is posting "rationally" and the discussion very civilized.
The contrary evidence being the MANY statements of other Arab states beyond Saudi Arabia.you really think al, is posting ''rationally'' with any sort of content, to explain his sentiments?
Im sorry, specifically what documented evidence that is '' contrary'' to what i said? otherwise this statement is just a different way of saying, ''im right your wrong and that's final''.
I've provided MANY sources including an older string documenting this months ago.btw, as always the source is taken into consideration when presenting ''documented'' facts, as if ''documented facts'' have never been altered to serve the differing parties interests in the war of public opinion for support in the history of politics.
The contrary evidence being the MANY statements of other Arab states beyond Saudi Arabia.
In fact, the near unanimous position of every state in the area except Syria.
But I've already shown this more than adequately.
And again.. I take it you are on the Iran/Hamas/Hizbollah side in this.
Becaudse it wasn't in any way just the "wahab fools"
So you don't/Can't Disagree with my claim about Egypt.. only claim they're bought/corrupt.regarding those arab dictatorships you seem to legitimize, lets look at jordan, he is a sheep that follows any policy from the western side, as long as he gets financial support and remains ''king'' a large percentage of Jordan's population are Palestinian, maybe half, and they don't hate iran they hate israel you know that.
Egypt- see above post as mubarek's dictatorship is also receiving billions of dollars to have a certain foreign policy to follow or no money
Exactly what the Majority of other Arab states are worried about, Lebanon and Syria joining the Shia Crescent.24107 said:lebanon- is supported by iran financially, in fact ahmedinjad recently received a huge welcome on his trip lebanon, where he rebuilt infrastucture for them.
Palestinians will take any champion against israel.. from Saddam to Osama.24107 said:Palestinians- have mixed feelings about iran, but im sure iran's rivalery with israel softens their stance against iran as they seeisrael as occupiers
The non-arab Turks are becoming increasingly Islamist and have also made agreements with Iran.24107 said:Turks- obviously are not arab but 90% sunni, they don't have a conflict with Iran, especially after the flotilla where they nearly did a 360 on certain polices.
Agreed. Iraq is 60% Shia so doesn't feel threatened... and probably isn't. It's almost van Iran proxy state in eventuality.24107 said:Iraq- has a large shia population like iran and that does play a factor.
No. It's very disingenuous to cherry Pick and leave out ALL the Gulf States (Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, etc) and of course Jordan, etc.24107 said:as you see mbig, it's not really hard to boil things down, and see the actual facts on the ground.
Persian Isolation: A Quiet Axis Forms Against Iran in the Middle East - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
7/15/10
By Alexander Smoltczyk and Bernhard Zand
Israel and the Arab states near the Persian Gulf recognize a common threat: the regime in Tehran. A regional diplomat has not even ruled out support by the Arab states for a military strike to end Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"....The discussion revolved around the Middle East. When asked whether the UAE would support a possible Israeli air strike against the regime in Tehran, Ambassador Otaiba said: "A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster."
These were unusually candid words. A military strike, the diplomat continued, would undoubtedly lead to a "backlash." "There will be problems of people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country," he said.
But, he added, "if you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,' my answer is still the same. We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."...."
Had we not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and got terribly over-extended... I think Bush might well have.This is obviously false, because George WARMONGER Bush would have taken any chance he had to invade Iran.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?