Well, technically speaking at least, Iran was involved in the overthrow of the Taliban, helping topple the regime there in the aftermath of the post-9/11 invasion of that hell-hole.
saudi arabia wont be able to have a nuke for decades. and iran and al qaida dont exactly get along either. remember al qaida for the most part is of the wahabist saudi islam which for the most part considers iranian shia'ism to be heretical. given that we emphasize the religious leanings of these countries/terrorist organizations we should use them in these discussions too. Wrong... Iran or the Dictatorship in iran has befriended alqaeda now. it's a case putting aside there difference to oust the United State out of the Middel east. Alot of Alqaeda top echelon leaders currently freely operate in iran. infact iran's Revolutionary guard(al- Qhods division) assists them in bomb making and other military training before they enter Iraq.
It's already been proven that members of the royal family are directly connected to Al Queda. I thought this was common knowledge? As for nukes, they have already stated an interest in nuclear technology.
Directly? Not recently that we know of. Providing support and logistics? Who knows. That's the whole point - it's difficult, if not impossible, to trace. We do know they have been involved in nuclear dealings with North Korea or Pakistan. We invaded Iraq, have tons of their senior people in capitivity, and still don't understand exactly what, if any, relationship they had with Al Queda (good or bad).
That's funny, given that North Korea, Pakistan, and/or Iran have no control of each other and yet have sold nuclear & missile secrets between them. Ummm, the Saudis are not one universal group. There are elements in the Saudi government and population who are extremely sympathetic to Al Queda and actively involved in their funding. If you think nuclear technology in that country, or especially Pakistan, isn't just one military coup away from falling into terrorists' hands, you're both naive. To think you can predict what will happen 10 years from now and what kind of government these countries will have is delusional. None of them are stable, and any are subject to military coups or revolutions at any given time. You'd think our experiences dealing with Iran, Iran, and Afghanistan over the last few decades would have shown you that.
Except Britain and the US aren't subject to a complete revolution that will change the ruling parties. Pakistan and Iran are friends now but could easily be major enemies 10 years from now. Nuclear technology is a valuable secret, and for the right price, people will sell it. Whether its the government or individuals within it, bribery simply works. What you say about Saudi Arabia was said about North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and many other countries up until the last 5 years or so. No one realized how much missile and nuke technology was being sold between them and by others. If Saudi wants a nuke, they have the finances to get one pretty damn quickly. If they want a nuke program, they have the finances to build one in years, not decades. As for your comments about Iran/AQ, keep in mind that an enemies' enemy is often your friend in the world of international politics. You'd be surprised at how many sworn enemies are found to have significant dealings with each other when they share a mutual goal. I agree the US is not doing the right thing in regards to spreading nukes ourselves, but that doesn't mean its not a bad thing for other countries to get it. The more countries and the more scientists that have nuclear technology, the more danger there will be. You're one revolution away from all hell breaking loose. Even when the USSR fell apart, you had all sorts of concerns about nukes getting into the wrong hands and such. Imagine if there's a revolution in Pakistan. Or Iran. All it takes is an interim leader to be a bit greedy and off go some nukes. Or security for the military bunker with nuclear weapons to be in the hands of an Al Queda sympathizer (of which the Pakistani military is filled).
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1068042.cms http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14272-2004Feb4.html
In case you've missed it, states cooperate on many different matters, including military cooperation. There's nothing out of the realm in that aspect. Nuclear proliferation is a violation of international law IF a state signs the NPT, thereby voluntarily abiding by it. Yes, nuclear proliferation is a threat, but it's not what you were talking about. You said they would 'pass it on' to Al-Qaida or other terrorist groups. There is a HUGE difference between an international terrorist group alas Al-Qaida and a nation-state, which is a physical entity. A state has everything to lose, they wouldn't take that risk, and even assuming they do, it will be traced back to them and they will be blown up to pieces. Saudi Arabia has been ruled by the same clan/family since the early 1930's, they're one of the most stable governments in the entire world. They've not even once come close to being 'overthrown'; that's nothing more than Western media hype and it's 'bullocks', as the Brits like to say. They're no more unstable than the U.S. government currently is. It might surprise you to hear this, but the vast majority of Saudis take great pride in the Saud ruling family, they virtually created a 'heaven' out of a dessert, united the country and established stability in the peninsula, and do a great job of providing for the everyday needs of Saudis. Even the so-called 'liberal' Saudis who want more liberlization in the political arena aren't advocating the overthrow of the regime, they're asking for a constitutional monarchy somewhat similar (but more involved in the country's affairs) than the British monarchy. Pakistan is unstable, but with our aid, Musharraf is establishing more of a grip-hold on the regime there. In Pakistan, the military is the moderating force, they're the party of 'real politik', we'ld rather deal with them than with Jami'at Islamiyah of some other Islamists group that would most certainly win a free and fair election. Moreover, they already have nukes and an advanced delivery system, it became a necessity for them after India 'went nuclear', so there is no turning back there. The best way to deal with any possible threat from Pakistan (i.e. regime instability or a coup by hardliners) is to 'befriend' and cooperate with them, thereby enabling us to keep 'tabs' on their activities (nuclear proliferation, support or lack thereof of terrorist organizations) and limit their potential threat. In fact, we could turn them into an ally and benefit from their contributions to the 'war on terror', which is exactly what we're doing (I give Bush credit in this aspect). As for Iran, the best way to keep the regime there in power is to continually give them an 'enemy' and a 'threat' (which we're doing a pretty good job at), because it will unite the Iranian people and will stifle internal dissent. The Iranians are some of the most nationalistic peoples in the world, they have been for centuries and have always rejected outside interference and insist on independence, even if that means supporting a despotic regime.
You're right, I don't understand finance. I only have 2 degrees in it. The Saudis have been investing in a major way for years. Preferably, these investments would just appreciate and not produce 'revenue streams' since they don't have to bother w/ reinvestment. When the time comes, they can shift to 'revenue stream' investments as needed. And since you hear they are actively diversifying now so that they will have a diversified economic base w/ plenty of cash and investments, I do not understand your point at all.
i don't know if 2 degree's are going to help you understand the financial situation in Saudi Arabia. Unless you've taken a course on it or lived there.
They are just filling a tunnel full of ammonium nitrate - it's not a deliverable (missle, bomb) amount of explosive. I really think some lucky folks out in the desert are just playing around with some old 'toys' -- cleaning out the inventory the quick way. The biggest bomb we can 'drop' is the 10.5 ton MOAB and that is only out of a C130 cargo plane. Here's what 7,700 tons of ammonium nitrate looks like going up in Texas City... According to the United States Department of Defense publication Effects of Nuclear Weapons, the explosion was comparable to that produced by a 2 to 4 kiloton nuclear weapon. link
Makes you wonder what's going on out there in the desert because there is no practical use for that much ammonium nitrate. Unless they are just seeing how big or small they need to make their new nukes...
iran has never invaded a country in their modern history although they've been the constant target of foregin invasions, subversion, occupation, and terrorism (they've had many govt officials and even a president and prime minister killed by terrorists) it has also been the victim of wmd back when the us supported saddam during the iran-iraq war and iraq used chemical weapons that it got from the west against iran so who cares if they develop a missile that can duck radar, they also have the best and fastest anti-ship missile in the world, the sunburn aka mosqit, they're just trying to defend themselves against all this unjustified pressure from the rest of the world, they've never actually used any of their missiles on any country in an offensive manner, which is more than i can say for the us they havent done anything wrong or illegal....us is occupying two countries on their borders, has military bases all over the region in dictatorships they support like bahrain and kuwait, and has an entire fleet of ships in the persian gulf and arabian sea....iran just wants security like everybodyelse....if you accuse iran of terrorism and cant provide any proof, then you're bankrupt, because the burden of proof is on the person or govt making the accusation...its not enough just to say, "oh its hard to trace"....because with that logic you can justify anything....balance of power or terror as it is sometimes called actually does work....many examples during the cold war....if somebody has the capabilities to inflict lots of harm on you, you will not engaga in a conflict with them thereby contributing to stability its actually the policies of the us govt, including unequivocal support for israel, which most people recognize as a racist regime, that has brought us to this point, a change in us policies needs to happen for a more peaceful world to develop.
I respectfully disagree with you, CreepyFloyd. Israel is one of the only true democracies in the Middle East, and by the U.S. not fully supporting the country, you risk endangering Israel to unfriendly neighbors that want to do great harm to it. Our support of Israel is what allows the country to survive in an area full of despotic regimes, and Islamic fascists keen on the destruction of Israel. Yes, I agree that Israel can be very intolerant at times, but so can many other countries. I'd rather support a 'racist' Israel than an Iranian or Palestinian radical regime.