Well, they've got the money to pull it off without much problem. I guess the Bush vision of a more stable Middle East means everyone has nuclear weapons. Time to move the clock a minute closer to midnight. ____________________________ Saudis consider nuclear bomb Ewen MacAskill and Ian Traynor in Vienna Thursday September 18, 2003 The Guardian Saudi Arabia, in response to the current upheaval in the Middle East, has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons, the Guardian has learned. This new threat of proliferation in one of the most dangerous regions of the world comes on top of a crisis over Iran's alleged nuclear programme. A strategy paper being considered at the highest levels in Riyadh sets out three options: · To acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent; · To maintain or enter into an alliance with an existing nuclear power that would offer protection; · To try to reach a regional agreement on having a nuclear-free Middle East. Until now, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella. But the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington: 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi. It is not known whether Saudi Arabia has taken a decision on any of the three options. But the fact that it is prepared to contemplate the nuclear option is a worrying development. United Nations officials and nuclear arms analysts said the Saudi review reflected profound insecurities generated by the volatility in the Middle East, Riyadh's estrangement with Washington and the weakening of its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella. They pointed to the Saudi worries about an Iranian prog-ramme and to the absence of any international pressure on Israel, which has an estimated 200 nuclear devices. "Our antennae are up," said a senior UN official watching worldwide nuclear proliferation efforts. "The international community can rest assured we do keep track of such events if they go beyond talk." Saudi Arabia does not regard Iran, a past adversary with which Riyadh has restored relations, as a direct threat. But it is unnerved by the possibility of Iran and Israel having nuclear weapons. Riyadh is also worried about a string of apparent leaks in American papers from the US administration critical of Saudi Arabia. David Albright, director of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington thinktank, said he doubted whether the Saudis would try to build a nuclear bomb, preferring instead to try to buy a nuclear warhead. They would be the first of the world's eight or nine nuclear powers to have bought rather than built the bomb. "There has always been worries that the Saudis would go down this path if provoked," said Mr Albright. "There is growing US hostility which could lead to the removal of the US umbrella and will the Saudis be intimidated by Iran? They've got to be nervous." UN officials said there have been rumours going back 20 years that the Saudis wanted to pay Pakistan to do the research and development on nuclear weapons. In 1988, Saudi bought from China intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching any part of the Middle East with a nuclear warhead. Four years ago, Saudi Arabia sent a defence team to Pakistan to tour its secret nuclear facilities and to be briefed by Abdul Qader Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb. A UN official said: "There's obviously a lot of restlessness in the Middle East. Regional insecurity tends to produce a quest for a nuclear umbrella. The Saudis have the money and could provide it to Pakistan." Mr Albright said the Saudis would face a long haul if they were determined to acquire nuclear weapons. He doubted whether anyone would sell. Arab countries yesterday urged the International Atomic Energy Authority, the UN nuclear watchdog, to get tough with Israel to let inspectors assess its nuclear programme in line with similar pressure on Iran. Oman's ambassador to the IAEA, Salim al-Riyami, speaking on behalf of the Arab League, which represents Arab states, said it was time to get tough with Israel. "I think it's time to deal with this issue more substantively than before," he said.
Hey, the message of the Bush Admin is clear. If we don't like you and you don't have the bomb, we might invade. Saudi is Muslim. We invaded Iraq due to the lied about connection with 9/11. The Saudis actually have the connection. Saudi also has a lot of oil. Israel would probably like it. Maybe they could run a pipeline ,not only from Iraq to Israel as is now being discussed, but one from Saudi, too. Saudi might be easier to occupy than Iraq since it has a much smaller population. It is certainly understandable that Saudi would be threatened by the neocons and be thinking about defending themselves.
Glynch, in your overheated attack on Bush, you fail to realize that it is a good thing the Saudis are scared of us. Yeah, they are trying to get nuclear weapons (which is probably far-fetched at this point) but they will toe the line when it comes to fighting terror and the Palestinian-Israel situation.
Where is this being discussed? Seriously, do you have any support for this? If this is factual this would be big news...
I don't have a link to corroborate, but I do remember reading an article detailing a proposed pipelink link with Haifa...
Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil US discusses plan to pump fuel to its regional ally and solve energy headache at a stroke Ed Vuillamy in Washington Sunday April 20, 2003 The Observer Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad. The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria. Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria and solving Israel's energy crisis at a stroke. It would also create an end less and easily accessible source of cheap Iraqi oil for the US guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia - a keystone of US foreign policy for decades and especially since 11 September 2001. Until 1948, the pipeline ran from the Kurdish-controlled city of Mosul to the Israeli port of Haifa, on its northern Mediterranean coast. The revival of the pipeline was first discussed openly by the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructures, Joseph Paritzky, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz . The paper quotes Paritzky as saying that the pipeline would cut Israel's energy bill drastically - probably by more than 25 per cent - since the country is currently largely dependent on expensive imports from Russia. US intelligence sources confirmed to The Observer that the project has been discussed. One former senior CIA official said: 'It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States. 'The Haifa pipeline was something that existed, was resurrected as a dream and is now a viable project - albeit with a lot of building to do.' The editor-in-chief of the Middle East Economic Review , Walid Khadduri, says in the current issue of Jane's Foreign Report that 'there's not a metre of it left, at least in Arab territory'. To resurrect the pipeline would need the backing of whatever government the US is to put in place in Iraq, and has been discussed - according to Western diplomatic sources - with the US-sponsored Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi, the former banker favoured by the Pentagon for a powerful role in the war's aftermath. Sources at the State Department said that concluding a peace treaty with Israel is to be 'top of the agenda' for a new Iraqi government, and Chalabi is known to have discussed Iraq's recognition of the state of Israel. The pipeline would also require permission from Jordan. Paritzky's Ministry is believed to have approached officials in Amman on 9 April this year. Sources told Ha'aretz that the talks left Israel 'optimistic'. James Akins, a former US ambassador to the region and one of America's leading Arabists, said: 'There would be a fee for transit rights through Jordan, just as there would be fees for Israel from those using what would be the Haifa terminal. 'After all, this is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally.' Akins was ambassador to Saudi Arabia before he was fired after a series of conflicts with then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, father of the vision to pipe oil west from Iraq. In 1975, Kissinger signed what forms the basis for the Haifa project: a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the US would guarantee Israel's oil reserves and energy supply in times of crisis. Kissinger was also master of the American plan in the mid-Eighties - when Saddam Hussein was a key US ally - to run an oil pipeline from Iraq to Aqaba in Jordan, opposite the Israeli port of Eilat. The plan was promoted by the now Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the pipeline was to be built by the Bechtel company, which the Bush administration last week awarded a multi-billion dollar contract for the reconstruction of Iraq. The memorandum has been quietly renewed every five years, with special legislation attached whereby the US stocks a strategic oil reserve for Israel even if it entailed domestic shortages - at a cost of $3 billion (£1.9bn) in 2002 to US taxpayers. This bill would be slashed by a new pipeline, which would have the added advantage of giving the US reliable access to Gulf oil other than from Saudi Arabia. pipeline
Wow. This is 'fuel' for conspiracy theorists, pardon the pun. Considering that critics of the war at home have said it's for oil, and critics in the Middle East have said all of our actions there are merely to support Israel, to combine the two, particularly when, for right or wrong, the residents of the nation we are 'liberating' would never agree with this...again, wow.
Macbeth, Many times if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is a duck and not merely the imaginings of conspiracy theorists.
I don't know. "Scared" people don't react very well. Jumpy, paranoid, angry. And they weren't too scared to take out the World Trade Center. What would the Wahhabi boys do if they did manage to purchase a bomb, say, from the other country that was involved in 9/11, Pakistan, which DOES have the bomb?
If they do purchase a bomb that is a very bad thing, of course. And then they wouldn't be scared of us, and you would see their extremist tendencies and anti-American actions increase. See North Korea. You are right, they were not scared of bombing the WTC. We failed to response to numerous previous attacks and that perhaps emboldened them.
A fundamental problem with all of this scared nonsense, and "they must fear us" foreign policy rationalization is that SUICIDAL PEOPLE WHO REALLY WANT TO BECOME MARTYRS ARE NOT REALLY SCARED OF SH-T. It's a problem Israel's been having for years. You can't threaten people who have nothing to lose. BTW glynch, I wouldn't characterize the Saudis as being "scared" of us; rather the House of Saud is scared that we'll abandon them and stop propping up their larcenous rule (which we should). I wouldn't be surprised if this info was leaked on purpose to warn us what might happen if we abandon them. I'm doubtful that they could pull it off, thanks to the free spending princes, the Kingdom's finances are allegedly in terrible shape.
Well, it's no just about fear, it's about power. Whether they are suicide bombers or not, they have to respect us (ie not attack us) if we have the balance of power on our side. This has always been the case throughout history, whether they are suicide bombers doesn't matter. Our control (well, semicontrol) of Iraq certainly augmented our power and influence in the region. As far as Israel, they haven't made the Palestinians fearful for a long time. There has been a decade of mostly concessions- the Oslo accords, followed by negotiations with Arafat, followed by the Intifada, which was really a war. Israel's response to the Palestinian war on them was more negotiation (with targetted killings). If Israel uses military force, the Palestinians will realize they have a lot to lose.
Those are some Great points Sam. I honestly think the Saudi's may have leaked this info because they want our support to keep their regime propped up. They opress their people and use religion as a tool to keep dissentors out of line. Their oppressive policies and lack of freedom created groups like Al-Queda. I think we should allow them to be thrown to their people and let their people decide on what sort of government they want. Cut em off. Now that we're in Iraq, we can have our troops stationed there or in Qatar or Bahrain. Iraq can also produce the oil to quench our thirst as well. The Saudi's (monarchs) days of lavish lifestyles at the expense of their peoples freedoms are slowly coming to an end.
One of the good consequences in Iraq rarely mentioned. How other regimes have to change, whether they like it or not.
The Observer? hardly an objective source. also, check the dateline- has anybody floated anything like this since April?
But there's no way we can project enough power to neutralize our globally strewn enemies. It's just not humanly possible, we don't have the capability, funding or expertise to keep close tabs on every possible jihadist, who stretch from Morocco to the Phillipines, and all it takes is one cell to slip through. Semi-control of Iraq? fine, now what about the other 99% of places to hide? Sharon and such have definitely not been conceding or negotiating, rather they have pursued a pre-emptive military strategy since 2001. That strategy HAS had success (suicide bombings are down despite some recent high profile failures) but this comes at a cost, long term stability in the region looks further away than ever, and as Palestinian population continues to explode, and Israel's continues to shrink, it's going to become harder and harder to maintain in the future.
