WAR Saudis admit they have nuclear weapons

Night Breeze

Veteran Member
If the Saudis have a nuke in their possession as opposed to a promise of support they would have to store, provide logistic support etc. They certainly have the military capability to deploy by missile or air. Of course the real trick is what their target would be. The Israelis would have the best idea from intelligence on if the Saudis do or do not have the capability. My bet is under the table the Israelis would welcome a secondary nuclear power in the region that would not be looking to give them a haircut as the first solution. Even up the ante in the event of sabre rattling with Iran.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
The bases and organization of the Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force is such that the logistical support capability needed for such warheads would fold in nicely with the needs of the missiles themselves. That the force is only 2,500 strong also means they've been selective in recruiting as well.

The other side of this whole thing as I see it is the problem of the stability of the new Saudi regime. The current "management team" is fully vested in supporting Al Nusra and IS. That those two are more strident examples of the Muslim Brotherhood, and as such have end goals of not just biting the Saudi hands feeding them, but eating them down to their sandals and sunglasses. Openly saying the KSA has those weapons makes grabbing the kingdom all that more tantalizing a prospect.

The reports of members of the family having private jets (including B-737 and up) on alert to bug out to the EU if things go "pear shaped" further add to that IMHO.

If you thought MANPADS, ATGMs and light weapons floating around the Middle East were a threat to the region, the potential of "loose nukes" go to a whole different level of Hell.
 

vestige

Deceased
The reports of members of the family having private jets (including B-737 and up) on alert to bug out to the EU if things go "pear shaped" further add to that IMHO.

If you thought MANPADS, ATGMs and light weapons floating around the Middle East were a threat to the region, the potential of "loose nukes" go to a whole different level of Hell.
Amen.

I needed another cup of coffee to read all this. After reading I can only contribute this:

The "cheap" gas we have been recently enjoying probably ain't gonna last much longer.


BTW...

The reports of members of the family having private jets (including B-737 and up) on alert to bug out to the EU if things go "pear shaped" further add to that IMHO.

Don't know the source of that report but a 747 makes one hell of a bug out bag.

If you got it... flaunt it.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eurasiareview.com/23022016-saudi-arabias-brinkmanship-in-the-syrian-war-analysis/

Saudi Arabia’s Brinkmanship In The Syrian War – Analysis

By Published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute
February 23, 2016
By Brandon Friedman*

Prince Khaled bin Sultan Al Saud, the co-commander of coalition forces during the 1990-1991 Gulf War, argues in his 1995 biography Desert Warrior that Israel took its “bomb out of the basement” during the war to convince the U.S. that it had to do more to stop Saddam’s “Scud” missile attacks on Israel, which were launched from mobile launchers. Prince Khaled believed Israel was using its military capabilities as much to pressure its ally, the U.S., as it was to frighten its enemies.[1] Whether this version of events tracks closely with the truth is perhaps less important than how the Saudis perceived it. Indeed it may be fair to say, based on recent events, that Saudi Arabia is now making this gambit, fact or fiction, part of its own tactical playbook.

On late Thursday night, February 11, Russia and the U.S., as leaders of the International Syrian Support Group (ISSG), signed a temporary ceasefire in Munich that is to be implemented in Syria within one week, and which is to allow humanitarian relief and a resumption of diplomatic negotiations in Geneva. Yet within a day of its announcement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov assessed the chances of its implementation at 49 percent.[2] Fyodor Lukyanov, Chairman of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, claimed that the “The deal’s dead, but it will live after two or three tries,” adding that perhaps it will be implemented after Aleppo is finished being retaken.[3]

Despite the agreed ceasefire, Russia continued bombing the opposition north of Aleppo on Friday and dispatched the Zelyony Dol, a patrol ship armed with Kalibr cruise missiles, from its Black Sea fleet to patrol the Mediterranean off of the Syrian coast.[4] Turkey announced it was preparing to send ground forces to support the U.S. led anti-Islamic State (IS) coalition in Syria,[5] and in the meantime initiated an aerial bombing campaign against the Kurds of the PYD/YPG in Syria that drew censure from U.S. officials.[6] The Saudis for their part were busy surveying Turkey’s Incirlik air base, to which they will be sending fighter jets in a renewed effort to support of the U.S. led anti-IS coalition in Syria.[7] The Saudis (along with the Emiratis, Qataris, and Bahrainis)[8] have also pledged to send their own ground forces to support the U.S. led anti-Islamic State coalition.[9] In response, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told a German newspaper that “The Americans and our Arab partners must think hard about this – do they want a permanent war? All sides must be forced to the negotiating table instead of sparking a new world war.”[10]

The Saudi announcement may represent an ironic success for the Obama administration, which since last summer has been trying to convince or goad its Saudi (and GCC) ally to “get in the game,” meaning join the fight on the ground, if it wants to shape the outcome in Syria.[11] However, the Saudi decision to finally “get in the game” may have been shaped less by direct American pressure and more by the failure of the U.S. to influence the negotiations at Geneva III several weeks earlier, and the increasing Saudi frustration with American policy in Syria.[12] Saudi Arabia declared its readiness to send troops into Syria in the immediate aftermath of the dismal failure of the Geneva III negotiations.[13] Ironically, the Saudis appear to have come around to the Obama position, and would like to get in the game because they believe it may be the only way left to spur the U.S. into exercising greater leadership on Syria.[14] With Russia in the driver’s seat, the Saudis recognize there is no longer any alternative to U.S. leadership in order to push back against the Russian-backed Assad regime. Therefore, the Saudis and Turks appear to believe that their behavior will lead the U.S. to be more assertive, in part, to control its allies, and to prevent any further unmanageable escalation. To put it another way, the Saudi/Turkish announcement is brinkmanship, which may be directed as much at their American ally as it is at their Russian-backed adversaries. In the words of Muhammad bin Salman, Saudi Defense Minister and Deputy Crown Prince, “the United States must realize that they are the number one in the world and they have to act like it.”[15]

Russia Changes the Equation

Russia’s September 2015 military intervention changed the balance of forces in Syria and arguably saved the Assad regime.[16] At a relatively low cost, Russia has benefited greatly from this intervention. First, the intervention established Russia’s current role as the principal arbiter of Syria’s future, after having been marginalized in the Eastern Mediterranean region by U.S. diplomacy since the mid-1970s.[17] Second, Russia is showing itself to be an unwavering ally. Third, it is protecting its core strategic interests in Syria, such as its access to the port of Tartus and its new Khmeimim air base near Latakia. Fourth, the intervention has signaled Putin’s ruthlessness to his domestic political opponents. Fifth, it has provided a low-risk opportunity for Russia to showcase its saleable military hardware. Sixth, and perhaps most important to Russia, it has transformed Syria into a global issue through which Russia can undermine Western (U.S. and European) leadership of the international community. In short, the benefits to Russia have been manifold and the costs relatively low.

After the most recent failed attempt at a diplomatic negotiation in Geneva, Assad’s regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, believe that Russia and its partners will only change their inflexible posture on Assad if they need to pay rising costs on the ground.[18] Saudi Arabia and Turkey hope the specter of their joining the fight will put pressure on Assad’s backers to enforce the recently announced ceasefire by the end of the week. Put simply, the announcements were also intended to signal to Assad’s backers that the battlefield costs may rise if the offensive on Aleppo continues. Russia’s response was to respond with its own brinkmanship and threaten a descent into another World War. If this brinkmanship turned into escalation, it would likely produce new waves of refugees fleeing Syria; potential nuclear brinkmanship from Russia; and the specter of NATO forced to intervene because Turkey finds itself at war with Russia.[19]

The repeated announcements from Saudi Arabia that it is ready to contribute ground forces to the U.S. led anti-Islamic State coalition should not be viewed exclusively as either disingenuous brinkmanship or reckless escalation.[20] In other words, it is not just brinkmanship or a feint designed to encourage the U.S. to lead – the Saudis are trying to signal to the U.S. that they are very serious about Syria, and they are willing to take unprecedented risks to advance their interests.

Full Circle

In some respects, the Saudi policy on Syria has now come full circle. In January 2013, Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi intelligence chief, said that the Arab world did not have the military capabilities to intervene in the Syrian war. “It doesn’t have the air force, the navy, the army, the intelligence-gathering machinery to go and surgically stop this fighting.”[21] Then, as now, Saudi Arabia was attempting to convince the U.S. and Europe that they needed to take a more active and forceful military role in Syria. But things are also different now.[22]

The Saudis are deploying fighter jets to Turkey, and declaring to the world that they stand ready to send their special forces into Syria. Have Saudi military capabilities improved so dramatically in the two short years since Turki’s remarks? Perhaps, but there have been two important changes that are influencing the new Saudi approach to Syria. First, since 2013, five important developments changed the context of the Syrian War:
1.In June 2014, the Islamic State defeated the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and seized control of Mosul, shattering the desert border between Syria and Iraq, and expanding its territorial control and battlefield effectiveness, in part, by capturing advanced military hardware from regime forces. On November 13, 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State, issued an audio recording explicitly targeting the Saudi regime (and repeated it again in subsequent recordings, like May 2015).
2.In March 2015, the Saudis began a sustained intervention in the Yemeni civil war to forestall an Iranian-backed Houthi takeover that started in September 2014.
3.Iran signed a nuclear agreement with the EU3+3 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) that would lift international economic sanctions on Iran and provide it with a case infusion in exchange for limits on its nuclear development for 15 to 25 years.
4.The price of oil has declined sharply since June 2014, forcing the Saudis to issue $5 billion in bonds and run a fiscal deficit in 2015.
5.The Russian military intervention in Syria in September 2015, which rescued the Assad regime during a period in which it looked as if the Saudi backed opposition forces were making significant gains.

The second change that has altered the Saudi approach to Syria was Salman’s succeeding King Abdullah in January 2015. King Salman, with the help of his energetic son, the Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Muhammad bin Salman, are trying to transform Saudi Arabia’s regional role by injecting a spirit of self-reliance into Saudi security doctrine. Salman’s “doctrine,” as outlined by Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the aftermath of the Saudi decision to intervene in Yemen, was intended to contain and even roll back Iran’s regional influence. However, what defined Salman’s new doctrine according to Khashoggi was not its ends but its means:

“If Saudi Arabia has to act alone, then it will. Of course, it would have preferred this old tested scenario of alliance to be with its old ally [the U.S.]; however it could not link the fate of the country to this alliance – although it first resorted to forming an alliance with its brothers and friends from the Arab and Muslim world.”[23]

U.S. officials were no doubt happy to see Saudi Arabia adopt a more self-reliant security posture. However, while the Salman doctrine represents a more aggressive Saudi plan to contain Iran, it appears, for now, to be a more limited guiding principle for action against Russia’s escalation in Syria.

Riyadh attempted to persuade Moscow on the Syrian issue using dollar diplomacy. Muhammad bin Salman attended the St. Petersburg Economic Forum in June 2015, during which he met with Putin. The visit led to Saudi commitments to purchase Russia’s new short range ballistic missile system and Russian combat helicopters.[24] The Saudis also committed to investing $10 billion in Russia over the next 5 years,[25] and may have discussed providing Russia with advanced technology for oil and gas recovery, which would allow Russia to skirt Western sanctions.[26] It is not clear whether the Saudi efforts have resulted in greater influence with Putin, but they did not dissuade Russia from intervening in Syria in September 2015 and reinforcing Assad’s position in power.

The new Saudi approach to military affairs is also on display this week during the Raʿd al-Shamal (Northern Thunder) military exercise in Hafr al-Batin, Saudi Arabia, which includes 350,000 soldiers from more than twenty Middle Eastern and African countries.[27] While it may be fair to dismiss rumors that the exercise is a dress rehearsal for a massive anti-IS operation into Syria through Jordan,[28] the Saudi media is in fact discussing the operation as preparation for confronting “the forces of extremism.”[29] Most importantly, the scale and seriousness of the exercise demonstrates the new Saudi emphasis on enhancing its military capabilities.[30] In terms of the Syrian War, however, the Saudis are ostensibly back to where they were in early 2013, searching for ways to prod their allies to play a larger role in the Syrian War.

On the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference this past weekend, Saudi Foreign Minister’s Adel al-Jubeir’s remarks to Christiane Amanpour seem to have been intended for U.S. ears. “We are saying we will participate within the U.S.-led coalition, should this coalition decide to send ground troops into Syria, that we are prepared to send special forces with those troops.”[31] U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. was looking for “the rest of the world to step up,” and for the “Gulf countries to do more,” and what al-Jubeir was saying over the weekend was that the Saudis were ready to “step-up” and “do more.”

In a sense, the Saudi announcement is an attempt to test the Obama administration, which has long defended its limited engagement in Syria by arguing that its coalition has lacked effective Sunni Arabs partners on the ground.[32] The Saudis are trying to undercut that argument and convince the U.S. to help them level the playing field that Russia has tilted in Assad’s favor. Underlying this gamesmanship is the Saudi understanding that only higher costs, or the serious prospect of them, will induce the Russians to support a negotiation process that can begin to wind down the Syrian War.

The stakes are indeed high. The prospect of greater costs on the ground may lead Russia to implement the February 11 ceasefire. But what happens if, instead, as Lukyanov suggested, Russia prefers to finish off the rebel opposition in Aleppo first? The U.S. will have to weigh the risks of the Saudi/Turkish offers against the cost of its existing policy of limited engagement. The risk of unmanageable escalation is real, but so is the cost of inaction. As one observer at the Munich Security Conference noted, “much of the United States’ credibility as the leader of the free world depends on whether U.S. diplomacy can make a difference. Countries and players around the world are closely observing how America decides to bring its powers to bear.”[33]

About the author:
*Brandon Friedman is a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Program on the Middle East, and a Research Fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. His research focuses on the political history of the Arabian Peninsula and Persian Gulf States. Brandon is also the Managing Editor of Bustan: The Middle East Book Review, and teaches modern Middle Eastern history in Tel Aviv University’s International programs.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Notes:
[1] Khaled bin Sultan (with Patrick Seale), Desert Warrior (Harper Collins, 1995), p. 349.


[2] Alec Luhn, Martin Chulov, Emma Graham-Harrison, “Russia’s grip on Syria tightens as brittle ceasefire deal leaves US out in the cold,” The Observer, February 14, 2016; Aron Lund, “Syria in Crisis: A Ceasefire for Syria?,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 13, 2016.


[3] Marc Champion, “Syrian Truce is Dead, and Russia’s in Charge,” Bloomberg View, February 15, 2016.


[4] Agence France Presse (AFP) via al-Arabiya, “Russia sends brand new cruise missile ship to Syria,” February 12, 2016.


[5] Karen DeYoung, “Turkey pledges to send ground forces to fight the Islamic State in Syria,” Washington Post, February 13, 2016.


[6] Agence France Presse (AFP) via al-Arabiya, “Turkey urged to stop shelling Syria targets,” February 14, 2016; Ishmael Jamal and Ahmed al-Misri, “Saudi Arabia vows to overthrow Assad…,” al-Quds al-Arabi [Arabic], February 14, 2016.


[7] Vivian Nereim, “ Saudi Arabia Moves Jets to Turkey, Offers Troops to Fight IS,” Bloomberg News, February 14, 2016.


[8] Fahd Theyabi, “Qatar Will Join Ground Forces if Requested by Riyadh,” aSharq al-Awsat [Arabic], February 15, 2016; “Bahrain says ready to commit ground forces to Syria,” Reuters, February 6, 2016.


[9] Glen Carey, “Saudis Ready to Send Special Forces Against IS in Syria,” Bloomberg News, February 9, 2016; Mehul Srivastava, Erika Solomon, Simeon Kerr, “Saudis make plans to deploy ground troops in Syria,” Financial Times, February 9, 2016.


[10] Ian Black and Kareem Shaheen, “Partial Syrian ceasefire agreed at talks in Munich,” The Guardian, February 12, 2016.


[11] Jeffrey Goldberg, “Ashton Carter: Gulf Arabs Need to Get in the Fight,” The Atlantic, November 6, 2015. Michael R. Gordon, “U.S. Defense Chief Ashton Carter Prods Gulf States to Take Larger Role in ISIS fight,” December 15, 2015.


[12] Aron Lund, “Syria in Crisis: A Ceasefire for Syria?,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 13, 2016; Kenneth Pollack, “Fear and Loathing in Saudi Arabia,” ForeignPolicy.com, January 7, 2016.


[13] Ian Black, “Saudi Arabia offers to send ground troops to Syria to fight Isis,” The Guardian, February 4, 2016; Sam Jones, “Ban blames Russia for collapse of Syria talks,” Financial Times, February 5, 2016; “Asiri: Saudi Arabia is ready to send ground forces to Syria,” BBC Arabic, February 4, 2016.


[14] Jamal Khashoggi, “Saudi Arabia’s Plan B in Syria,” al-Arabiya [English], February 16, 2016; Jamal Khashoggi, “A long, long night…” al-Hayat [Arabic], February 13, 2016.


[15] “Transcript: Interview with Muhammad bin Salman,”The Economist, January 6, 2016.


[16] Ibrahim Darwish, “In Damascus today, Putin is the one issuing orders…” al-Quds al-Arabi [Arabic], February 14, 2016; Alec Luhn, Martin Chulov, Emma Graham-Harrison, “Russia’s grip on Syria tightens as brittle ceasefire deal leaves US out in the cold,” The Observer, February 14, 2016.


[17] Ehud Yaari, “Russia pursues a new Baghdad Pact,” Times of Israel, October 8, 2015.


[18] Jamal Khashoggi, “Saudi Arabia’s Plan B in Syria,” al-Arabiya [English], February 16, 2016; Jamal Khashoggi, “A long, long night…” al-Hayat [Arabic], February 13, 2016.


[19] Adam Garfinkle, “Follyanna?,” E-Note, Foreign Policy Research Institute, February 11, 2016.


[20] Loveday Morris, “Saudi Arabia and Turkey rolling back on rhetoric to send troops into Syria,” Washington Post, February 15, 2016.


[21] “Turkey: Syrian regime’s actions equal war crimes,” The Associated Press, Januyary 23, 2013.


[22] Issa al-Halyan, “Kingdom of Strategic Changes,” Okaz [Arabic], February 16, 2016.


[23] Jamal Khashoggi, “The Salman doctrine,” al-Arabiya [English], April 1, 2015.


[24] Zachary Keck, “Saudi Arabia Wants to Buy Advanced Russian Missiles: Should America Worry?” The National Interest, August 12, 2015.


[25] Holly Ellyat, “Saudi Arabia to invest $10b in Russia,” CNBC, July 7, 2015.


[26] Gaurav Agnihotri, “What would a Saudi-Russian Partnership Mean for World Energy?” OilPrice.com, June 24, 2015.


[27] Fatah al-Rahman Yusuf, “Forces from 20 countries arrive in Saudi Arabia to participate in the ‘Northern Thunder’ exercise,” aSharq al-Awsat [Arabic], February 15, 2016.


[28]@mujtahidd, Twitter posts [Arabic], February 7, 2016, posted between, 4:24-5:12am: https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/696309082811146242; https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/696309472466235392;

https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/696312884851306496; https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/696314267549757440;

https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/696316434482405378;


[29] Mongi al-Saʿidani, “Forces continue to arrive for the largest military exercise in the region,”aSharq al-Awsat [Arabic], February 16, 2016.


[30] Khaled Sulaiman, “Thunder and Lightning in the North!” Okaz [Arabic], February 16, 2016.


[31] Mick Krever, “Saudi Official: If all else fails, Remove Assad by force,” CNN, February 13, 2016.


[32] Anthony Capaccio, “Carter Chides Gulf Allies for ‘Strange’ Islamic State Inaction,” BloombergBusiness, January 22, 2016.


[33] Jan Techau, “A Struggle for World Order and a Russian Tragedy,” Carnegie Europe, February 13, 2016.
 

L.A.B.

Goodness before greatness.
Housecarl, your analysis and foot notes bring a lot of throw weight to your perspective. I was searching for the thread that had the most tug factor relative to the feeling 'of 'without haste' that may be in the air today. As soon as I saw your avatar in this thread as the last post, I had the distinct feeling there were insights there to be weighed.

Of all the players in the M.E. I have a hunch that the glass jaw in the region is the KSA. I wonder if by leaking info of nuclear weapons within KSA control, they are telegraphing their weakness or strength. Neither are absolute as the house of cards are played.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
From last week....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/208090#.Vs4dDJvMvIV

Ya'alon: Arabs are developing nuclear weapons

Iran deal igniting a Mideast nuclear arms race, warns Ya'alon, saying Arab countries are now pursuing atomic weapons.

By David Rosenberg
First Publish: 2/15/2016, 10:21 PM
Comments 1

Last year¡¯s controversial Iran nuclear deal has sparked an atomic arms race, claimed Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya¡¯alon following a meeting with Jordan¡¯s King Abdullah.

Ya¡¯alon revealed that Israel had indications suggesting that certain Arab countries were now actively pursuing nuclear weapons, reports the Telegraph. The Defense Minister declined to specify which countries or how Israel had ascertained they were working to create their own atomic arsenals.

The Sunni Arab world has long feared the specter of a nuclear capable Iran, and now that the Iran deal effectively permits the Islamic Republic to resume its atomic program with no limits after 15 years, many of Iran¡¯s Arab opponents have been left scrambling for an alternative to contain Iran¡¯s expanding influence across the Middle East.

In Yemen, Iranian-backed Houthi rebel victories have forced Saudi Arabia to directly intervene in support of the Sunni government. Meanwhile, the fight against Islamic State (ISIS) has brought Iran into close alignment with Russia, and given Iran greater influence than ever in Lebanon and Syria.

With Iran expanding its control far beyond its borders, many in the Arab world fear the implications of an Iran emboldened by a nuclear arsenal.

Ya¡¯alon emphasized the dread felt in the Sunni Arab world, but also the resolve not to be left behind in the emerging arms race. ¡°We see signs that countries in the Arab world are preparing to acquire nuclear weapons, that they are not willing to sit quietly with Iran on the brink of a nuclear or atomic bomb.¡±

Related Stories
¡ñ Iran: $7,000 to every terror family
¡ñ 'Ya'alon, stop stuttering'
¡ñ Ya'alon asked to close roads to Arabs after attack
¡ñ Ya'alon: No place to compare our grief to theirs
¡ñ Ya'alon doubts new Syrian ceasefire will hold
¡ñ 'Hamas building tunnels, we're prepping next war'
¡ñ Yaalon: We cannot lose our humanity to anger
¡ñ Survey: Americans still opposed to Iran deal
¡ñ Watch: Ya'alon recalls warning Rabin against Oslo
¡ñ Ya'alon taken to task by Saudi prince

__

1 Comment

Adam Neira

A high level international conference should be organised and held ASAP this year. The intention is to appoint the 42 person "Committee to Oversee the Elimination of all Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons Globally by the Year 2025". (COENCB2025). Thus you will nip the Middle East nuclear arms race in the bud. The Iran JPOA Deal makes this meeting more possible.

The nuclear question is a two faced genie. Nuclear weapons should go the way of the dinosaurs. Nuclear energy is a boon for humankind.

Before the COENCB2025 takes place, the IPC2016 - Special Focus on Syria and Health is required. It's all in the sequencing...

Like ¡¤ Reply ¡¤ Feb 15, 2016 12:41pm ¡¤ Edited

Replies-

Stephen Jeffers ¡¤
Marketing Manager at Topline Export

Ummm... Adam the horse has bolted. Obama handed Nukes to Iran on a plate and the money to do it, rest assured, there is no way Iran will miss the oppourtunity to become a world superpower, and other ME nations wil HAVE TO folow suit, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. What did you think all the drama was last year before the deal? Missed it?
So only you will be going to your imaginary conference the other 41 will not be comming.

Read Ezekeil 38-39 very carefully, and zechariah 12, Isaiah 19-21 and you will see what is coming: here's an exerpt.

Zech 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
What does that sound like??

Like ¡¤ Reply ¡¤ 4 ¡¤ Feb 15, 2016 1:22pm
..

Jesse Eek ¡¤
Call Center Agent at Webhelp Nederland

Stephen Jeffers Like Israel Using Nukes!!

Like ¡¤ Reply ¡¤ 3 ¡¤ Feb 15, 2016 2:12pm
..

Jeffrey Fixler

Jesse Eek Better us than them!

Like ¡¤ Reply ¡¤ 2 ¡¤ Feb 15, 2016 6:03pm
..

Eugene Levich

Jeffrey Fixler you r right, indeed. but it may be more complicated in reality. nevertheless, the Sunni Islam will cause nuclear encounter for sure.

Like ¡¤ Reply ¡¤ Feb 16, 2016 3:18am
..

Jesse Eek ¡¤
Call Center Agent at Webhelp Nederland

Jeffrey Fixler sure thing

Like ¡¤ Reply ¡¤ Feb 16, 2016 4:01am

____


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/15/israel-the-arab-nuclear-arms-race-has-begun/

Israel: The Arab nuclear-arms race has begun

posted at 8:41 pm on February 15, 2016 by Ed Morrissey
Comments 37

Who could have predicted that the deal John Kerry and Barack Obama cut with Iran would lead to a nuclear-arms race in the region? Well … everyone, really, especially since the deal frees Iran up after 15 years (or less) to openly pursue nuclear weapons, and gives them massive resources to covertly pursue them in the short run, too. Israel’s defense minister Moshe Ya’alon says that unnamed Sunni nations in the region have begun to prepare themselves for a nuclear Iran already, thanks to the deal:

Israel has picked up signs of the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East as Arab states seek nuclear weapons to counter Iran, the Israeli defence minister has warned.<

Moshe Ya’alon said Sunni Arab nations were not reassured by last year’s nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers and were making their own preparations for nuclear weapons.

“We see signs that countries in the Arab world are preparing to acquire nuclear weapons, that they are not willing to sit quietly with Iran on brink of a nuclear or atomic bomb,” Mr Ya’alon said.

“Acquire” could have two meanings. These immensely wealthy nations — Saudi Arabia, of course, but other emirates in the region as well — could spend money to create a native nuclear-weapons development program. It would be a lot easier to simply buy weapons from Pakistan, which has been a nuclear-armed nation for decades. It’s not as if the Pakistani defense establishment has been shy about sharing their secrets in the past, after all. It would be surprising if the Saudis and others haven’t already acquired the technology for a jump-start on an arms race, especially since it was clear for months that the Obama administration was ready to throw in the towel on isolating Iran.

The Telegraph mentions Israel’s role — of necessity, not choice — in determining just how well Iran adheres to the agreement. That makes them a key player for these same Sunni nations, and Benjamin Netanyahu wants them to acknowledge it. Speaking to a coalition of American Jewish groups, the prime minister insisted that some of these nations are covert allies of Israel, and with the threat from Iran looming, it’s time for those ties to become public:

Addressing the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the prime minister maintained that most moderate Arab countries see Israel as their ally, not their enemy, as they share a common struggle against Iran and the Islamic State.

“Major Arab countries are changing their view of Israel … they don’t see Israel anymore as their enemy, but they see Israel as their ally, especially in the battle against militant Islam with its two fountainheads,” he said in English. “Now, this is something that is forging new ties, many of them discreet, some of them open. And I think there too we can expect and should expect and should ask to see a change.”

Er … don’t hold your breath on that one. Most of these Sunni nations have a substantial minority Shi’ite population, and any official link to Israel in opposition to Iran will inflame already-tense internal politics. Far better for Israel to maintain the “discreet” links and stabilize their security rather than risk a further meltdown in the region by demanding alliances be made public. Netanyahu knows this, too; this message is intended to remind Americans of Israel’s increasing strength in the chaos surrounding it, and hopefully to keep pressure on Washington not to interfere with it.

___

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Ya...seeking-out-nukes-in-wake-of-Iran-deal-444916

Ya’alon: Arab states are seeking out nukes in wake of Iran deal

By YAAKOV LAPPIN
02/15/2016

“We periodically hear about certain states in the region considering, and also signing deals with states that can supply them with what they need,” security expert Dr. Emily Landau said.

Israel is “seeing signs that states in the Arab world are preparing to get nuclear weapons, because they are unwilling to sit quietly with a nuclear Iran, or an Iran on the verge of a nuclear bomb,” Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon told fellow defense ministers at the Munich security conference on Saturday.

Israel is closely monitoring the enforcement of the nuclear deal reached between world powers and the Islamic Republic, Ya’alon said, warning that even if Tehran keeps to the agreement, “15 years [when it expires] is around the corner.”

Asked to comment on Ya’alon’s warning, Dr. Emily Landau, who heads the Arms Control Program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said some Arab states will have more motivation to go down the nuclear path, following the deal reached with Iran.

“I believe that the motivation in some states to go down the nuclear path has increased” she told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

Landau added: This “doesn’t mean they will all become nuclear states, but I believe it means they want to be better positioned in the nuclear field. The three states that are often mentioned as those who would have the strongest motivation to become nuclear states if Iran were to cross the threshold are Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, because of the implications of Iran going nuclear for regional leadership and hegemony. Saudi Arabia has made some strong statements about its intent to have whatever capabilities Iran does.”

Arab states are showing an interest in developing civilian nuclear programs, which they are entitled to do as parties to the Nonproliferation Treaty. This would set them up for military programs should they decide to develop nuclear weapons capabilities in the future, Landau said.

“The first step is to set up a nuclear infrastructure that is civilian in nature. All of the proliferators have gone this route – developing a military capability under the guise of a civilian one, and all under the cover of the NPT,” she noted.

“The interest in a number of states in the Middle East became apparent about 10 years ago when half a dozen states across the region submitted requests to the IAEA. It was at a time when it seemed that the international powers might not be able to stop Iran, and the interest in setting up these programs has continued since then.

“We periodically hear about certain states in the region considering, and also signing deals with states that can supply them with what they need,” Landau said.
 

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
Housecarl, are you trying to freak me out? <G>

The House of Saud had their pet "political analyst" casually drop "we have two nukes," to make Russia and Putin realize things could go pear shaped fast. Yep, I may not get my first social security check on March 9th before tshtf!
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Housecarl, are you trying to freak me out? <G>

The House of Saud had their pet "political analyst" casually drop "we have two nukes," to make Russia and Putin realize things could go pear shaped fast. Yep, I may not get my first social security check on March 9th before tshtf!

No I'm just trying to do what "due diligence" that I can....Sorry dude....:vik:
 

Doomer Doug

TB Fanatic
I have a sense of impending doom that I can't shake. I have had it since the first of the year, and it grows more intense with every post and blog I write. Erdogan really is going to pull the trigger.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
I have a sense of impending doom that I can't shake. I have had it since the first of the year, and it grows more intense with every post and blog I write. Erdogan really is going to pull the trigger.

I know. It's like watching a slow motion car crash in a parking lot only the stakes are a lot higher.
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
bump





Wonder how the "play-by-play" is going to go?


I'm almost tempted to start a thread where we each write out our own "Alas, Babylon" Chapters 4-5 scenarios.........
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
From today.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.therightperspective.org/2016/03/01/saudi-arabia-we-have-nukes/

The Right Perspective
NYC's Most Famous Callers to Talk Radio give The RIGHT Perspective on their own show!

Saudi Arabia: We Have Nukes

March 1, 2016
NewsGuy

Saudi Arabia has announced it has had nuclear weapons for more than two years and plans to test one soon in response the growing military threat from Iran and Russia.

“Yes, we have a nuclear bomb,” Saudi political analyst Dahham Al-‘Anzi told RT on February 15. “To put it simply, yes.”

“This is not breaking news, the superpowers have known about this for years,” Al-‘Anzi said bluntly.

“We have said before that if Iran were to impudently announce a nuclear test, Saudi Arabia would announce one too. No problem.”

RT Interview Video

Rumors that Saudi Arabia was shopping for nukes from Pakistan began last January. At the time, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry publicly warned the two countries that there would be “all kinds of NPT [Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty] consequences” if any such plan went through.

Saudi Arabia signed the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty in 1988; Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, and Oman have also signed the document. Countries agree to never acquire nuclear weapons, and share in the mutual benefit of peaceful nuclear technology.

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir responded by saying his country “is committed to two things. I always say two things we do not negotiate over, our faith and our security. Saudi Arabia will do whatever it takes in order to protect our nation and our people from any harm. And I will leave it at that.”

Iran has been accused of funding rebel and terrorist factions in the region, including Houthi rebels in Yemen, which is on Saudi Arabia’s southern border. A Saudi-led coalition to destroy the Houthi rebels has proven unsuccessful so far.

“Iran should cease to support terrorism. Iran should cease to assassinate diplomats and blow up embassies. Iran should cease to support militias whose objective is to destabilize countries in the region. Iran should cease its policy of negative propaganda in the region. Other than that, things should be fine with Iran,” Al-Jubeir added.

Al-‘Anzi’s claim of Saudi nukes was confirmed by the founding director of the CIA’s Counter-terrorism sector, Duane Clarridge, who said the country has between 4-7 nuclear weapons that can be delivered by either F-15 planes or a recently-purchased Chinese missile system.

Saudi Arabia was the financier of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program in the 1970’s. As a result, Clarridge said, the Saudis were able to get nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

Fox Business Interview Video

Clarridge could not say if the Saudis have physical possession of the nuclear weapons, or if they are in Pakistan. He did leave open the possibility that the Saudis could use the nukes in a pre-emptive strike against Iranian military positions.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/OldNewsPage/?Id=7014&NEW/NUCLEAR/HYSTERIA/IN/WEST/ASIA

NEW NUCLEAR HYSTERIA IN WEST ASIA

BAHER KAMAL
Tuesday, March 01,2016

MADRID (IPS): Three years ago when the tsunami of panic around Iran’s potential capability to develop nuclear weapons reached its peak, a combined diplomatic, media campaign warning that a Gulf Arab state would think of purchasing atomic bombs was spread like an oil spot.

Now that the so-called P5+1group (US, UK, France, Russia and China, plus Germany) few months ago concluded an agreement with Iran to prevent the risk of an eventual military nuclear programme in exchange of lifting massive Western sanctions, a new wave of nuclear hysteria seems to be in the air.

In fact, just a few days ago, a news item that the Gulf states would be now seeking nukes, came out of the Munich Security Conference, which was basically meant to set an accord between the US and Russia to establish a humanitarian ceasefire as a step on the 18 December 2015 UN Resolution 2254 (2015) roadmap for Syria.

The majority of Arab media did not pay due attention to this piece of news which, if translated into real facts, would change the fate of the whole region.

What is this all about ?

The Persian Gulf states seeking nuclear weapons to counter “bad guy” Iran have held clandestine meetings with Israel despite not having official ties with Tel Aviv, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon revealed at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, RT on 15 February reported.

“We see signs that countries in the Arab world are preparing to acquire nuclear weapons, that they are not willing to sit quietly with Iran on brink of a nuclear or atomic bomb,” Ya’alon told fellow defense ministers on Sunday [14 February], the final day of the Munich Security Conference.

Ya’alon did not name specific countries who might be interested in developing nuclear weapons and gave no evidence to back up his claims –RT informed– however, he then made a surprise statement that the Gulf states – officially hostile to Tel Aviv because of its occupation of the West Bank – had held clandestine meetings with Israel.

“Not only Jordan and Egypt,” he said, referring to the only Arab countries who signed peace treaties with Israel after three Arab-Israeli wars, according to this television network which runs cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside the Russian Federation.

“I speak about the Gulf states and North African states too. Unfortunately they are not here to listen. For them, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood are the enemy. Iran is the bad guy for us and for the Sunni regimes. They are not shaking hands [with Israelis] in public, but we meet in closed rooms.”

In the meantime, Israel is widely believed to possess dozens of nuclear warheads, although official statistics do not exist… Israel possesses Jericho-3 ballistic missiles capable of delivering up to 1,000kg load at ranges of 4,800 to 6,500km. Additionally, it is believed to have a naval nuclear strike capability, using Dolphin-class submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, said RT.

The Israeli Air Force also has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft, which can be utilized to deliver tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at long distances using external fuel tanks or aerial re-fueling fleet of modified Boeing 707s, according to the Russian network.

“We do have atomic bombs. This is no news. World powers know that we have the bomb and we want to test it. This would take place should Iran conduct a nuclear test,” prominent Saudi political analyst, Daham to Anzi, told RT,” the Russian TV network on 20 February½ reported in its Spanish service.

“US sources said in May last year that Saudi military had traveled to Pakistan, an ally country, to acquire nuclear weapons “available for sale”. This action of the Saudi military was motivated by Ryiad’s concerns of a hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran.”

This is not the first time that the risk that Gulf countries may acquire nuclear arms has been raised. Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi ambassador to the United States, had over two years ago warned that nuclear threats from Israel and Iran might force Saudi Arabia to follow suit.

As the Wall Street Journal on November 2013 pointed out, the Saudis may conclude that international acceptance of a nuclear programme of any kind by Iran may compel them “to seek their own nuclear weapons capability through a simple purchase.” The likely source: Pakistan, whose nuclear programme was partly funded by the Saudis.

In fact, the 22 states forming the Arab region are all signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which meets, every five years, to review the state of implementation of this global agreement aimed at preventing the proliferation of atomic warheads. In all successive review conferences, the Arab states reiterated their proposal to declare the Middle East a nuclear-free zone.

Though the UN Security Council adopted in 1995 a resolution meant to pursue this goal, the NPT review conferences have so far failed to move forward in such direction, mainly due to Israeli, US-backed position against any attempt implying that Tel Aviv dismantles its nuclear arsenal.

Israel is widely believed to posses between 210 and 250 nuclear warheads, an amount that largely exceeds those in the hands of India (80 nuclear bombs) and Pakistan (90). The government of Tel Aviv systematically refuses either to confirm or deny the existence of such nuclear arsenal.

The sole attempt to implement the 1995 Security Council’s resolution, came out in 2010, when the NPT review meeting called for an “international conference” –not under the UN umbrella– to deal with that resolution. Following intensive efforts to find a country ready to host the conference, Finland volunteered to have it in Helsinki. But diplomatic talks failed to organise the meeting.

In view of this yet another frustration and also of the brinkmanship games being played by big military powers in the region, the Arab countries in general, and in the Gulf region in particular, have lately been expressing fresh fears of Iran’s nuclear programme and therefore focusing, again, on nukes.

Arab states have repeatedly heralded their opposition to any kind of nuclear activity in the region.

In fact, a couple of years ahead of the 2015 NPT conference, both Bahrain’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Ghanum Fadhel Al Buainain, and Foreign Affairs Minister, Shaikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Bin Mohamed Al Khalifa, told this journalist in Manama in March 2013 that their nation – likewise all other Gulf countries – do not want to hear a word about any nuclear activities, even for peaceful purposes.

Their arguments are that even civil nuclear activities of whatever nature, have strong, negative impacts on the very lives and livelihoods of the Gulf peoples, from polluting waters and thus affecting the fish –which historically constituted an important source of living– to the risk of a nuclear accident.

The Bahraini stand is still valid and it applies to all the Gulf states, said to IPS this week a retired high governmental official. “None of us want to have to do with any atomic weapon. But you must understand our fears from both nuclear Israel and a potential nuclear Iran… We have to defend ourselves, protect our people.”

In an evident signal confirm their stand, the Bahraini capital, Manama, hosted a major anti-nuclear campaigners activity–the international exhibition “From a Culture of Violence to a Culture of Peace: Towards a World Free from Nuclear Weapons”

Organised by the Tokyo-based non-governmental civil society association Soka Gakkai International (SGI), with the support of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), together with the Inter Press Service IPS and the UN Information Centre in Manama, and promoted by the Bahraini and Japanese ministries of foreign affairs, the exhibition was held in Manama from Mar. 12-23, 2013.

“Nuclear weapons – the most inhuman and destructive of all tools of war – are at the peak of a pyramid of violence in this increasingly interdependent world,” said anti-nuclear campaigners. “The threat of atomic weapons is not in the past… It is a major crisis today.”

“This exhibition –the first ever in an Arab country – (represents) a step further toward making the human aspiration to live in a world free from nuclear weapons a reality,” SGI’s executive director for peace affairs, Hirotugu Terasaki, told this journalist.

“The very existence of these weapons –the most inhuman of all– implies a major danger,” said Terasaki, who is also the vice president of this Buddhist organisation that promotes international peace and security, with more than 12 million members all over the planet.

Asked about the argument used by nuclear powers that the possession of such weapons is a major guarantee of safety and security – the so-called “deterrence doctrine” – Terasaki said, “The world should now move beyond this myth.”

According to the exhibition’s promoters, “Security” begins with basic human needs: shelter, air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat. People need to work, to care for their health, to be protected from violence.

These—and not nuclear bombs, are exactly the basic human needs that are lacking in Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen… and more to come.

(INTER PRESS SERVICE)
 

Lee Penn

Senior Member
I found a Wikipedia post about the paper that is the source of the article in the preceding post.
The source seems credible ... too credible for comfort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Citizen_(India)

=======================

The Citizen (India)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Citizen is a digital newspaper based in New Delhi, India. It was founded in January 2014 by Indian journalist Seema Mustafa.[1] It was first launched on online platform only and that makes it first online Newspaper in India. It is owned and operated by GSA Azadi Media Pvt Ltd.[2]

Board of advisors

The paper's board of advisors include former chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Regulatory Board A. Gopalakrishnan, former Indian Chief of Naval Staff Laxminarayan Ramdas, journalist and civil rights activist John Dayal, veteran journalist Inder Malhotra, professor Kamal Mitra Chenoy, senior journalist and political commentator Kuldip Nayar, noted historian Mushirul Hasan, senior journalist Pamela Philipose, journalist and author Prem Shankar Jha, journalist Shastri Ramachandaran, and journalist Sukumar Muralidharan.[3]
Colurmnists

The paper's columnists include journalist and author Alan Hart,[4] Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti,[5] activist Kancha Ilaiah,[6] Pakistani civilian military scientist Ayesha Siddiqa,[7] feminist activist Kamla Bhasin,[8] retired Indian army general Syed Ata Hasnain,[9] journalist Saeed Naqvi,[10] writer Javed Jabbar,[11] former chairperson of the National Commission for Minorities Wajahat Habibullah,[12] filmmaker Anand Patwardhan,[13] Middle east expert Alon Ben-Meir,[14] Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta,[15] Actor Tom Alter,[16] Politician Prakash Karat,[17]

Pakistan politician and diplomat Sherry Rehman,[18] nuclear scientist and national security analyst Pervez Hoodbhoy,[19] retired Justice and former chairman, Press Council of India Markandey Katju, [20] Filipino author and politician, Walden Bello, [21] national security analyst Vappala Balachandran, [22] amongst several others.
History

The paper was launched on January 27, 2014, with Seema Mustafa as its editor-in-chief.

The paper first came into prominence following its coverage on the rape case involving Tarun Tejpal, for which, the paper was mentioned by The Hindu,[23] Network of Women in the Media,[24] Feminists India,[25] Scroll,[26] FirstPost,[27] and NDTV.[28]

=======================

Lee
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
I'm adding these references to this thread.....


Section 4.0 Engineering and Design of Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions
Version 2.04: 20 February 1999
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4.html

Nuclear 101: How Nuclear Bombs Work Part 1/2
Belfer Center
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVhQOhxb1Mc

Nuclear 101: How Nuclear Bombs Work" Part 2/2
Belfer Center
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnW7DxsJth0

Opinion | Commentary
The Other Dangers From That North Korean Nuke Test
Scoffing at Pyongyang’s hydrogen-weapons claims ignored new, dangerous potential developments.
By Victor Gilinsky and Henry Sokolski
Jan. 18, 2016 7:15 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-other-dangers-from-that-north-korean-nuke-test-1453162539
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...sful-Hydrogen-Bomb-Test&p=5921000#post5921000

North Korea’s “Thermonuclear” Test: The Paradox of Small, developing Nuclear Forces
By Anthony H. Cordesman
Jan 6, 2016
http://csis.org/publication/north-koreas-thermonuclear-test-paradox-small-developing-nuclear-forces
http://csis.org/files/publication/160106_North_Koreas_Uncertain_nuclear_test.pdf
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...sful-Hydrogen-Bomb-Test&p=5929169#post5929169
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5::dot5::dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/saudi-arabia-buying-nuclear-weapons-from-pakistan_1861651.html

Saudi Arabia buying nuclear weapons from Pakistan?

Last Updated: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 - 20:55
Comments 2

Islamabad: The Senate of Pakistan witnessed a heated debate over reports that oil-rich Saudi Arabia might buy nuclear weapons from Islamabad.

Senate chairman Mian Raza Rabbani admitted an adjournment motion moved by Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) Senator Hafiz Hamdullah despite the government's opposition, with directives that the house would hold a detailed debate on this issue by next Tuesday.

Senator Hamdullah said that Saudi Arabia could buy nuclear bomb amidst mounting tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Riyadh's move to buy nuclear weapons would destabilise the Middle East as well as Pakistan, JUI-F Senator maintained.

Federal Minister for Commerce and Trade, Khurram Dastgir Khan, opposed the adjournment motion.

The House was informed that a national census would be taken this year and the reason for a delay in the census was the ongoing military operation against militants in the restive North Waziristan.

Federal Minister for Inter-Provincial Coordination, Riaz Hussain Pirzada, informed that a national census would be taken in March 2016 as per the recommendation of the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS).
ANI

First Published: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 - 20:55
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Same article different Indian source....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/Asia/20160303/2807994.html

Pak Senate adjourned over reports on sale of nuclear weapons to S. Arabia

Islamabad | March 3, 2016 12:01:13 AM IST

The Senate of Pakistan witnessed a heated debate over reports that oil-rich Saudi Arabia might buy nuclear weapons from Islamabad.

Senate chairman Mian Raza Rabbani admitted an adjournment motion moved by Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) Senator Hafiz Hamdullah despite the government's opposition, with directives that the house would hold a detailed debate on this issue by next Tuesday.

Senator Hamdullah said that Saudi Arabia could buy nuclear bomb amidst mounting tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Riyadh's move to buy nuclear weapons would destabilise the Middle East as well as Pakistan, JUI-F Senator maintained.

Federal Minister for Commerce and Trade, Khurram Dastgir Khan, opposed the adjournment motion.

The House was informed that a national census would be taken this year and the reason for a delay in the census was the ongoing military operation against militants in the restive North Waziristan.

Federal Minister for Inter-Provincial Coordination, Riaz Hussain Pirzada, informed that a national census would be taken in March 2016 as per the recommendation of the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS). (ANI)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm...........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-red-alert-saudi-arabia-equipped-with-nuclear-bombs/5511402

Nuclear Red Alert. Saudi Fight-Bombers Equipped with Nuclear Warheads

By Manlio Dinucci
Global Research, March 02, 2016
Il Manifesto and Voltairenet.org 28 February 2016

Warning: Saudi Arabia, although a signatory to the Nuclear Weapons Non- Proliferation Treaty has just, in violation of its pledge, acquired atomic bombs from Pakistan.

“We have nuclear bombs”: this is what was said on February 19 on Russia Today by the Saudi political analyst, Daham al-Anzi, de facto spokesman for Riyadh.

He repeated it on another Arab channel. Saudi Arabia had already declared [1] its intention to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan (not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty), of whom it finances 60% of the military nuclear program. Now, through al-Anzi, the Saudis have indicated that they started buying them two years ago. Of course, for Riyadh, this is to confront the “Iranian threat” in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, where “the Russians aid Assad.” That is to say, where Russia supports the Syrian government to free the country from Daesh (Islamic state) and other terrorist groups, financed and armed by Saudi Arabia as part of the US / NATO strategy.

Video Memri-TV
https://youtu.be/5HmWMdE9o4E

Riyadh has over 250 fighter-bombers with dual conventional and nuclear capability, provided by the US and by the European powers. Since 2012, Saudi Arabia is part of the “Nato Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency,” the NATO agency that manages European Eurofighter and Tornado fighters, of which Riyadh bought from Britain twice the number of that of the whole Royal Air Force.

In the same context, enter the imminent 8 billion EUR maxi contract – thanks to Minister Roberta Pinotti, efficient sales representative for the supply of weapons – to supply Kuwait (ally of Saudi Arabia) with 28 Eurofighter fighter Typhoons, built by a consortium including Finmeccanica with British, German and Spanish industries. This is the largest order ever obtained by Finmeccanica whose coffers will absorb half the 8 billion. Guaranteed with 4 billion in funding by a pool of banks, including Unicredit and Intesa Sanpaolo, and the group Sace Cassa Depositi e Prestiti.

And thus accelerates the conversion of military Finmeccanica, with outstanding results for those who enrich themselves with war: in 2015 Finmeccanica share value grew by 67%. Right in the face of the “Arms Trade Treaty” ratified by parliament in 2013, which states that “no State Party shall knowingly authorize the transfer of arms if the weapons could be used for attacks against civilian targets or subjects, or for other war crimes. ” Faced with the denunciation that the weapons provided by Italy are used by Saudi and Kuwaiti air forces for the massacre of civilians in Yemen, Minister Pinotti replies: “Let us not transform the states that are our allies in the battle against Daesh into enemies. This would be a very serious mistake. ”

This would be especially a “mistake” to allow it to be known who are our “allies” Saudi and Kuwaiti: absolute monarchies, where power is concentrated in the hands of the ruler and his family circle, where parties and trade unions are banned; where immigrant workers (10 million in Saudi Arabia, about half of the labor force; 2 million to 2.9 million people in Kuwait) live in conditions of exploitation and slavery, where those who call for the most basic human rights are hanged or beheaded.

In these hands, “democratic” Italy places bombers capable of carrying nuclear bombs, knowing that Saudi Arabia already has them and that they can also be used by Kuwait.

At the “International Humanitarian Law Conference,” minister Pinotti, after stressing the importance of “respecting the norms of international law,” concluded that “Italy is a immensely credible and respected country.”

Video: Manlio Dinucci : Allarme nucleare, l’Arabia Saudita ha la Bomba (Italian)
https://youtu.be/Goq6mAKdVSQ

Manlio Dinucci, Geographer and geopolitical scientist. His latest books are Laboratorio di geografia, Zanichelli 2014 ;Geocommunity Ed. Zanichelli 2013 ; Escalation. Anatomia della guerra infinita, Ed. DeriveApprodi 2005.

Translation
Roger Lagassé

Source
Il Manifesto (Italy)<:recommander:recommander:> Facebook Twitter Delicious Seenthis Digg RSS

Note

[1] “Iran nuclear talks : Prospect of deal with Iran pushes Saudi Arabia and Israel into an unlikely alliance”, Kim Sengupta, The Independent, March 30, 2015.

The original source of this article is Il Manifesto and Voltairenet.org
Copyright © Manlio Dinucci, Il Manifesto and Voltairenet.org , 2016
 

vestige

Deceased
]
Nuclear Red Alert. Saudi Fight-Bombers Equipped with Nuclear Warheads


Pucker muscle headline of the day.

Tell me one mo' time just so's I'll understand:

How many of the 19 ragheads hitting the WTC were Saudis?
 

Shacknasty Shagrat

Has No Life - Lives on TB
]


Pucker muscle headline of the day.

Tell me one mo' time just so's I'll understand:

How many of the 19 ragheads hitting the WTC were Saudis?

Events are outpacing cover stories.
The Saudi planes can carry either tactical nukes or the standard brands.
The Saudi planes can do in flight refueling.
The factoid about 'two' tactical nukes is inaccurate. Before any such announcement, the Saudis would have a lot more.
The Pakistani debates are talking after the fact. The Saudi nukes are a fait accompli, done deal.
When this gets hot, and it will this spring, it will get so hot so fast that we may never know what happened.
SS
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Events are outpacing cover stories.
The Saudi planes can carry either tactical nukes or the standard brands.
The Saudi planes can do in flight refueling.
The factoid about 'two' tactical nukes is inaccurate. Before any such announcement, the Saudis would have a lot more.
The Pakistani debates are talking after the fact. The Saudi nukes are a fait accompli, done deal.
When this gets hot, and it will this spring, it will get so hot so fast that we may never know what happened.
SS

Heck, the C-130s the Saudis (and everyone else has) can be considered "nuclear capable" if we're talking "bare bones" "roll your own" devices being "deliverable".

With the situation being what it is on the ground in the region and the OODA loop an airstrike has to fight against vs the truncated time involved in a missile strike IMHO I'm guessing that if the Saudis have them, they've got both air delivered and missile delivered. Such a "bipod" gives them about as much flexibility as they're going to get.
 
Heck, the C-130s the Saudis (and everyone else has) can be considered "nuclear capable" if we're talking "bare bones" "roll your own" devices being "deliverable".

With the situation being what it is on the ground in the region and the OODA loop an airstrike has to fight against vs the truncated time involved in a missile strike IMHO I'm guessing that if the Saudis have them, they've got both air delivered and missile delivered. Such a "bipod" gives them about as much flexibility as they're going to get.

Don't forget a Saudi-sanctioned suicide bomber with a nuke on board. It could be disguised as a civilian airliner with maybe hundreds of unwitting passengers. No air defense would try to shoot it down intentionally.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Don't forget a Saudi-sanctioned suicide bomber with a nuke on board. It could be disguised as a civilian airliner with maybe hundreds of unwitting passengers. No air defense would try to shoot it down intentionally.

Heck, just put it in the cargo bay as freight...
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Yeah, that is pretty much what I meant. But I thought they might want an operative on board to make sure things go smoothly.

Wi Fi link perhaps?....

Yeah I know I'm in the wrong line of work....

ETA: If you haven't read either the WSJ or CSIS articles regarding the "proliferation issues" that boosted type weapons allow for I strongly suggest you do.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Just dug this up from the first of the year....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1124655

Interviews

View from the inside: Prince Turki al-Faisal on Saudi Arabia, nuclear energy and weapons, and Middle East politics

Full text HTML
PDF
Free access

DOI:10.1080/00963402.2016.1124655Dan Drollette Jr*

pages 16-24
Publishing models and article dates explained
Published online: 07 Jan 2016

ABSTRACT

Turki al-Faisal has long had access to some of the innermost circles of power in Saudi Arabia. Born into the Saudi royal family – out of the extended clan’s estimated thousand or so members, he is number eight – the prince was head of the country’s intelligence agency for more than two decades before becoming an ambassador to several countries. In this interview, al-Faisal talks with the Bulletin’s Dan Drollette Jr. about the Saudi view of the Iran agreement, nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, and the possibility of Saudi Arabia becoming a net energy importer in the coming decades – and what the country wants to do to counter that prospect. He also delves into recent politics, and gives his personal views on the Shia/Sunni divide, Israel’s weapons program, and the Iran regime.

Born in 1945, Turki al-Faisal is eighth in line to the throne of Saudi Arabia. He is an Ivy League–educated (Princeton) member of the royal family and called “His Royal Highness” by his staff, or “HRH” when they send e-mail correspondence to the press.

Al-Faisal did postgraduate work at Cambridge University and elsewhere before becoming the head of the Saudi Arabia General Intelligence Directorate for more than 20 years. As part of his job, the prince kept an eye on Osama bin Laden from the earliest days, to no avail. (In frustration, al-Faisal announced his resignation in 2001, a week and a half before September 11 occurred.) He later became the ambassador to the United Kingdom and then to the United States, during which time, the Financial Times says, al-Faisal “advocated that the US engage in direct talks with Iran” but was overruled by the rest of the family – who favored a more aggressive, military approach. Al-Faisal has also argued that the Palestinian-Israel issue is key to peace in the Middle East. After his father died, al-Faisal helped to establish the King Faisal Foundation to invest in education in Saudi Arabia; he’s a big believer in education.

The prince is also an extremely busy man, difficult to get hold of – this in-person interview was first planned for New York City, and then switched to a house in an upscale suburb of Washington, DC, with scant prior notice. (The prince avoids telephone interviews.) Ironically or appropriately, depending on one’s point of view, this home of Prince Turki, the long-time Saudi intelligence chief, sits about 200 yards from a highway sign marking the exit to the George Bush Center for Intelligence, the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia. (The first George Bush was head of the CIA before becoming vice president and then president.)

The house is large and contains much polished marble, but it is definitely a home rather than a mansion. After being greeted by his appointments secretary – who notes that I am two minutes late – I am ushered to a sitting room, where a servant sets out napkins, tea, and dates.

The prince appears shortly, wearing Western clothing, a green silk handkerchief in the breast pocket of his jacket – in fact, his whole outfit favors green, a color which has long been a symbol of Islam. Following some small talk, al-Faisal introduces his old college roommate as he enters the room; his job, they both tell me, is to keep the prince from going off-message. A few minutes later, however, the minder takes a phone call, leaving us free to talk. Courtly, well spoken, and disarming, with hair that is silver-gray at the temples and the trace of a van dyke beard, al-Faisal projects intense feelings about a topic by leaning forward in his chair, fixing you with his eyes, and repeating the phrase he has just spoken. At other times, he looks bemused.

The former roommate comes and goes periodically as what had been planned to be a 20-minute interview turns into nearly an hour-and-a-half of conversation, during which the prince talks about the Saudi perspective on the Iran agreement, nuclear power in the Middle East, the possibility of Saudi Arabia becoming a net energy importer, Syrian refugees, Houthi rebels, oil prices, the first discovery of oil in his country, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Muslim culture, the current Iranian regime – and his thoughts about the reasons for the Shia/Sunni divide and its implications.

(Editor’s note: This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.)

PowerPoint slideOriginal jpg (115.00KB)Display full size

BAS:

I understand you were educated here in the States, and also in England, so I imagine you’re quite familiar with the Western media –

Al-Faisal:

Well, I don’t know if anybody can claim that.

BAS:

Fair enough. Guess I’ll just jump in. We’re thinking that because of its wealth, its opposition to Iran’s influence in the region, and the size of its aspirations in terms of civilian nuclear power, Saudi Arabia is kind of a special case in the Middle East. So, how do you view the agreement between Iran and the P5 + 1?

Al-Faisal:

When King Salman came to the United States in September, he met with Mr. Obama, and they issued a joint statement referring to the Iran deal. And King Salman expressed his agreement with President Obama’s assurances that this deal would prevent Iran from going the nuclear weapons way during its duration. He also agreed with President Obama that both countries will work together to counter the harmful effects of Iranian expansionist policy, as well as other things like countering terrorism in general, and expanding trade and business relations between the two countries. So that’s Saudi Arabia’s official position.

Another official position, which we’ve been working towards for some time, is that there should be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. It should include all countries in the Middle East, starting from Iran and going westwards all the way across to the Atlantic on the North African coast. So countries like Iran, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, etc. should be members of that zone. And 5 years ago in 2010, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York endorsed the idea. And there were four “facilitators” or “conveners” – members of the NPT – for a conference to be held to deal with the issue of the zone back in 2012. That was the agreed date for the conference.

A Finnish diplomat was assigned to follow up setting up the conference, and he traveled everywhere.

Unfortunately, before the conference was to be held in Helsinki in December 2012, the United States issued a statement saying there were no grounds to believe that the conference was going to succeed and therefore it should be canceled. Fortunately, it didn’t stop there because the conveners – the United States, the Russian Federation, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, and Egypt – agreed there would be a conference later on and that preparations should be made to have that conference. So under the auspices of the NPT and the United Nations, several meetings took place from 2012 until April 2015 in hopes of resolving the issues that had led the United States to believe that there were no grounds for holding the conference.

The main issue, in my view, was Israel. Because Israel is not a member of the NPT, so how do we get her into the discussions? What was interesting was that during these smaller committee-type meetings that took place between 2012 and April 2015, there was Israeli participation by invitation from the IAEA – of which Israel is a member.

But unfortunately, when the NPT Review Conference of 2015 was held, no decision had been reached yet about a conference for the zone.

BAS:

Right.

Al-Faisal:

But there had been that previous decision that there must be a conference on the zone and there has been a continued effort to hold it. The kingdom’s position is that this is the right way to go, to prevent potential nuclear arms development in the Middle East.

BAS:

So you genuinely are in favor of the entire Middle East being a nuclear weapons-free zone, as you said at Davos?

Al-Faisal:

Absolutely. I also put out a small pamphlet on the topic under the auspices of Harvard’s Belfer Center. It includes not just the nuclear issue but also – at a later stage – the formation of a regional security [organization], where all the countries would engage to resolve the problems that they have before they can go into the zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

BAS:

On another note, a couple of years ago, Chatham House issued a report called “Burning Oil to Keep Cool,”1

which said there’s a possibility that by 2038 Saudi Arabia could be an importer of energy instead of an exporter, because its domestic consumption keeps going up – about 7 percent a year. And other reports said that Saudi Arabia’s total energy consumption per capita is more than three times higher than the world average. Does that affect –

Al-Faisal:

All these studies that try to divine the future inevitably make assumptions. And one assumption is that Saudi Arabia by 2030 would be importing oil products, if not oil itself. We’re well aware of these studies and speculations and possibilities. And so in 2008, the kingdom established a department in charge of developing alternative and nuclear energy in the kingdom.

BAS:

The King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy?

Al-Faisal:

Yeah. The aim is to develop all these available sources of energy – solar, wind, nuclear – to complement our own domestic-consumption fossil fuel. Because we realize that if we continue to grow and expand – not just for human needs but also for industrialization, communications, etc. – we must have more sources of energy than our oil. We need to conserve as much oil as possible for export and sale.

Well, I should say not only for export, but also because it ties in to another part of our policy – to expand our refining capabilities so as to make more of the products that can be refined from the crude oil that we export. So we not only have more oil available to export but get more money from what we export.

BAS:

So you’re capturing the added value by further refining it yourself into smaller products rather than exporting it in a more raw form.

Al-Faisal:

Right. And if you look at the kingdom’s efforts here already, we now have four or five refineries in operation in the kingdom with two more being added. We’re also investing in other refineries everywhere. For many years, we’ve had investments in Louisiana and Texas for refining oil. And we have projects in China, and I think they’re thinking of having some in Japan and India.

BAS:

Because one thing that struck me about this report was its call for more energy efficiency and conservation in Saudi Arabia. The authors cited things like the huge use of electricity to power air conditioners in the summer and the rolling power brownouts and blackouts when energy use spikes in the daytime. If these devices were more efficient, or buildings made more efficient – buildings account for 23 percent of Saudi energy use, with 70 percent of that being for cooling …

Al-Faisal:

And the kingdom has done that. The vice minister for petroleum – Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, who is the son of the king – heads a national authority on energy conservation. This is a public/private combination to set up criteria and standards. They’ve already imposed very strict controls on the energy used in all its forms in homes, industries, transportation, and so on. And it’s revved up; it’s worked for the last couple of years. We’re hoping that by doing those things that we can reduce our consumption of our own oil by, I don’t know, 15, 20 percent perhaps per year, although you’d have to look it up to confirm.

BAS:

And does it make purely recommendations, or does it have the ability …

Al-Faisal:

Not just recommendations, but they’re empowered to issue regulations. The authority represents the minister of petroleum, as well as trade and finance, because they have to do with tariffs and things which would come, etc. So all government departments that have anything to do with energy are represented, as well as industry and chambers of commerce.

BAS:

Does the national authority have the ability to issue penalties?

Al-Faisal:

Well, they issue regulations, which then define if there are penalties on the breaking of these regulations.

But the penalties are implemented by the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of the Interior, the other executive departments who have the authority to do that.

BAS:

It seems to me that a lot of Middle Eastern countries tend to view nuclear energy more favorably than more sustainable forms of energy, like solar power. Do you have any idea why?

Al-Faisal:

I don’t think so. I think that’s a mistaken impression. If you look at countries that have gone into nuclear and solar, you will find that they put their finances into what is more do-able and not so exorbitantly expensive. In Abu Dhabi, for example, there is this huge Masdar City already in operation, which has a whole community built around sustainable energy. It uses conservation, solar, wind – as well as nuclear. They’ve already signed contracts with Korean companies to build four or five nuclear plants.

BAS:

Which raises another question. I thought Saudi Arabia has 16 nuclear power plants on the books; is that right?

Al-Faisal:

It depends who’s talking. Some people say 16; others say 20 by 2032, I think, or something like that. If that is possible. But we’re very flexible, you know. We put our plans in place, and then we strive to accomplish them, but we recognize that sometimes you have to be less ambitious to accomplish your ultimate aim. So time-wise I think it was just more of an estimate rather than a commitment.

BAS:

How do you protect those projected facilities? I mean, you have a background in the intelligence world – you know about the need for security, for protecting pipelines, oil fields, refineries.

Al-Faisal:

We have to develop the human capacity to do all that. If you look at the agreements that the kingdom has already undertaken through King Abdullah City, they’re with enterprises that provide training for human capacity, such as a company in France called Areva. We’re sending our scholarship students to study in top universities that can provide know-how and skills on this issue. And we’ve signed with a European or international group on security for energy for nuclear plants … We have no illusions about our capabilities. We know we have few capabilities in terms of human resources, so that’s why we began a very extensive training and skills acquisition program.

BAS:

And by skills and training, you’re talking about more than just security; you’re talking about …

Al-Faisal:

Everything. We need everything. But security, of course, is one of the primary aims. And of course we’re coordinating very closely with the IAEA, because they offer training programs as well on many aspects of the nuclear development issue.

BAS:

So the argument is that the increasing domestic use of energy in Saudi Arabia is the reason for the country going into conservation, renewables, and nuclear energy – which is why you need those 20 nuclear power plants. Although from what I’ve heard, there’s still some heavy subsidies, with gasoline at something like 50 cents a gallon when you go to fill up your car, so there’s not much incentive for people to conserve.

Al-Faisal:

I wouldn’t call them subsidies. It costs us very little to produce a barrel of oil – about seven dollars a barrel. So the costs of distributing oil to our people in Saudi Arabia are based on our production costs, not on the value – no matter how big it is – of a given quantity of oil in international terms. Even if the value of a barrel of oil is now, say, $47 per barrel on the international market, our consumption in the kingdom is more based on our production costs, which is much lower.

BAS:

Your point is that the extremely low price being charged to consumers in Saudi Arabia means it’s not really a subsidy – if you look at it on the basis of what it costs to generate that oil and distribute it to your citizens. Nevertheless, you’re trying to wean your citizens away from using excessive amounts?

Al-Faisal:

Exactly. Exactly. Even our electric generation plants use a lot of oil and gas. If we can convert them to using smaller amounts, or a combination of solar and gas perhaps, that could reduce our consumption of our own oil, allowing us to export more of it.

BAS:

I guess your oil revenues must be down because the price of oil is low these days?

Al-Faisal:

Well, that’s relative. It’s lower than a year ago but higher than 5 years or 6 years ago, when it was down to around $30 per barrel.

BAS:

If you were to look into your crystal ball and predict the near future, where do you think the prices of oil will be?

Al-Faisal:

I wish I had a crystal ball. Then I’d be a rich man.

BAS:

Well, you know, I don’t think you’re doing too badly. (Laughter.)

Al-Faisal:

You know, there are official government statements about where Saudi Arabia believes the price will be in the next year or two. They say that with the rate of reduction in the production of expensive oil and the increase in consumption rate, within a year or two prices will stabilize at a higher level than now. The assumption is between 70 and 80 dollars per barrel.

BAS:

We were talking about the reasons why an oil-rich country might want to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but there are so many potential complications – waste, dirty bombs, terrorists. How will Saudi Arabia deal with the military implications of any pursuit of nuclear energy?

Al-Faisal:

We are members of the NPT. And we’re going to follow all the regulations that apply to being members of the NPT. And we have no inhibitions about that. So that is how we will go forward on these issues.

BAS:

You’d mentioned Israel earlier. Do you think that Israel will ever actually admit that it has nuclear weapons? It seems to be an open secret.

Al-Faisal:

I don’t know. And it’s silly for them to deny it. Because as you said, it’s an open secret. Maybe they’re afraid Congress would impose sanctions on it? That’s a big question mark.

(Laughter from the prince.) They’ll find some sort of exception for Israel.

So it’s really silly that they keep denying that they have nuclear weapons. Although, technically they don’t deny; they say, “We’re not going to be the first to introduce.”

BAS:

I guess there are different definitions about what “introduce” means in that context.

Al-Faisal:

They definitely have those weapons, so they already introduced them. And this is why, I think, a zone free of weapons of mass destruction will help us all get over this issue of who does and who doesn’t have nuclear weapons.

BAS:

You mentioned the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy a few times. That’s been around for a few years now, right?

Al-Faisal:

Yes. Six, maybe 7 years.

Continued.....
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Continued.....

BAS:

What would be needed to move things from the theoretical things that they have in the lab there into the everyday world?

Al-Faisal:

Implementation. Actually signing contracts and building buildings. As we’ve seen in the kingdom from another research center, the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, which is a much older institution. It takes a broader view of research and science than the renewable and nuclear energy and has already signed a contract with an electricity company to build a model plant using solar energy.

And Aramco signed a contract to build a solar-powered plant in one of their industrial sites.

You know Aramco? It started out as an equal partnership between Arabs and Americans, hence Arab-American Oil Company, or Aramco. Saudi Aramco we now call it, because there’s no longer any American financial interest in it. It goes back to some of the earliest days of oil exploration in the area, about 1935 maybe, or 1936.

BAS:

Small world. My uncle worked for Aramco as a petroleum geologist.

Al-Faisal:

Really?

BAS:

Yes. In the late 1940s.

Al-Faisal:

Oh my.

Well, it started with one company, Standard Oil of California, at that time. Now it’s called Chevron. When Chevron needed more money, it sold shares to another American company – Mobil – until they ended up with four of the US companies owning Aramco 100 percent. And this remained so until 1973–74, when the kingdom reached an agreement with the four to buy 25 percent of the shares of the remaining four. And then in the 1980s, the kingdom bought the whole lot. At a premium price, I might add. So the companies didn’t lose any money. And they were not nationalized, the way Iraq, Libya, and others did.

We had a more peaceful and stable relationship with our oil industry and our investors from America, so there was no public resentment of American companies or who owns the oil fields.

BAS:

Just to backtrack to an earlier thread, regarding the Iran agreement and nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Is there any scenario under which Saudi Arabia would intend to seek nuclear weapons? Either by buying them from Pakistan or through an indigenous development program?

Al-Faisal:

In a speech I gave 4 years ago in the kingdom and subsequently reiterated, I said that should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) must look at all the available options to meet the potential threat that will come from Iran – including the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

I don’t think we should close the door to ourselves before we see what is going to happen with Iran. And if that means that we go to develop nuclear weapons, then that is a choice that will have to be made by the GCC leadership, as I recommend, to meet that challenge. But there isn’t going to be any buying of Pakistani or whatever source of weapons in that field. No country will sell, first of all.

Secondly, you can’t simply just buy it off the shelf and say, “OK, I’m going to bring this nuclear weapon.” Where are you going to put it? Who’s going to deal with it? Who’s going to handle it? Who’s going to protect it, etc.? You need a whole complex infrastructure to service nuclear weapons. So it’s not just simply buying from Pakistan. And that’s never been considered an option in the kingdom, despite what American and European reporters have said or written.

BAS:

Just want to be absolutely sure I get this correctly: You’re saying it’s never been considered? You’ve never, ever considered purchasing nuclear weapons from Pakistan?

Al-Faisal:

No.

BAS:

Because there have been a number of things in the BBC and other publications to the contrary.

Al-Faisal:

Yes, I know.

(Pause.)

BAS:

Hmm. Okay, well, I guess that if you’ve never considered purchasing nuclear weapons, or building your own, that ties into some articles I’ve seen.

Al-Faisal:

Yes. I think I’ll just go back to the issue of the zone free of weapons of mass destruction. And we talked about the NPT Review Conference in 2010 and 2015 advocating holding a conference on the zone, etc. But they didn’t go into specifics on how to do that because the conference supposedly will do that. And I made recommendations for what proposals such a conference should include, if there is going to be one.

I think two important issues have to be included to make the zone viable and workable. One is that countries that agree to be in the zone should get technical and financial help if they need it, to establish nuclear energy as a source of peaceful energy. And second, for the countries that do not agree to join the zone – or if they joined the zone and then develop programs to have nuclear weapons – that they should be sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, not only economically and politically but also militarily.

Both these propositions require a full accord between the five permanent members of the Security Council, as guarantors of these two issues. I think that is the only way that you can make the zone workable and viable so that nobody will cheat, or choose not to be a member of the zone.

BAS:

To reiterate, you’re saying sanctions by the UN Security Council should be enforced militarily.

Al-Faisal:

Yes. Economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions. The whole range of sanctions should be applicable if we want the zone to be a viable one.

BAS:

You’re saying there should be a carrot – technical and financial help. And a stick – sanctions.

Al-Faisal:

Yes.

BAS:

Which raises the question: Are you personally happy with the solution that the P5 + 1 and Iran came to?

Al-Faisal:

Well, my view is that it’s a temporary solution for the agreement’s duration.

BAS:

Right. So it lasts for 15 years –

Al-Faisal:

Some people say 10 years.

BAS:

Oh?

Al-Faisal:

They will always say 10–15 years. But 10 or even 15 years is a mere second compared to the length of the existence of human civilization, or the amount of time that humans have been on this planet. So it’s going to pass very quickly. What happens afterwards?

And that’s why I think the kingdom’s program for capacity building on the issue of nuclear energy is so vital and necessary and important. And by the time 15 years from now has passed – when supposedly this agreement will be coming to an end – we should be in full stride in terms of human capacity for our own development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

BAS:

Peaceful uses of nuclear –

Al-Faisal:

Absolutely. Absolutely.

BAS:

Since this is 2015, that means by 2030?

Al-Faisal:

Yeah. That’s a very short timescale.

BAS:

Can that be done, logistically, by your country? I did not agree with it, but there was a critique someone had written in The Washington Post that essentially said that Saudi Arabia couldn’t build a nuclear weapon because it couldn’t build a car.2

Al-Faisal:

Yes, I know. Fareed Zakaria wrote that. Well, let him say that. I wonder what he’ll say when the Saudi-made Meeya car comes out in 2 or 3 years. Maybe he’ll eat his words then.

BAS:

Speaking of the media, there was an interesting analysis in The New York Times3

which said: “As much as they fear a nuclear-armed Iran in the long run, [the Saudis] are just as concerned about what Tehran will do in the short run with the billions of dollars that will be unfrozen by the lifting of sanctions and become available for financing terrorist allies like Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Houthi rebels in Yemen.” Is that accurate?

Al-Faisal:

Yes. When you look at King Salman’s joint statement with President Obama, they mention the issue of Iranian ambitions in the area and that they must be countered. There is awareness, not just in the kingdom but also with President Obama, of this need to look at it not just from the nuclear issue but also in terms of Iran’s conduct in the area.

And, you know, we’re the ones who live there; we’re the ones who suffer from Iran’s politics and policies. If you look at the whole range of Iranian interference, you look at Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, there’s a whole host of problems for us. With Iran being the initiator and the instigator and the inciter of instability and negative issues in the area.

BAS:

Don’t you feel that Iran has sort of toned down since 1979, when the US embassy was overthrown, the revolution was in full swing, the ayatollah came in, and things were very vehement?

Al-Faisal:

I would say that it’s become more sophisticated in how it is projecting what Khomeini did, in a different manner. He was bombastic. Now they are more – sophisticated and underhanded, if you like, than Khomeini was …

BAS:

But you are saying that there’s a difference between the regime that runs –

Al-Faisal:

The leadership in Iran is the one that has pushed the Iranian people into the position they are today. All the reports we’ve seen about popular sentiment in Iran indicate that the majority of Iranians are not happy with how their leaders have pushed them – such as being sanctioned by the world.

(The prince describes how Iran missed out on the “Arab Spring,” and tells of reports of unrest in different parts of Iran, at funerals and soccer matches.)

BAS:

I have to ask: Is Saudi Arabia encouraging this unrest?

Al-Faisal:

Absolutely not. We are reporting it in our media. We accuse Iran of interfering in Arab affairs, but we are not going to do the same thing by interfering in Iranian affairs.

BAS:

So you’re not doing to Iran what Iran is doing to you?

Al-Faisal:

Absolutely.

BAS:

A few last questions. Has Saudi Arabia taken in any Syrian refugees?

Al-Faisal:

Since March 2011, when the uprising began in Syria, we have received 2.5 million Syrians. Those among them who wanted to stay in Saudi Arabia were given residence permits.

BAS:

They were offered residency?

Al-Faisal:

And they enjoy that capacity as residents – going to school, hospital treatment, and so forth. Of the 2.5 million, those who chose not to stay in Saudi Arabia were given temporary visas until they find where they want to go. We never considered them as refugees. We didn’t put them up in camps like they have in Jordan, or Turkey, or Lebanon. And in Europe now, they’re setting up camps as well.

These people who came to Saudi Arabia were welcomed by some – many have relatives in Saudi Arabia that have been there for years. We have had a permanent Syrian community in the kingdom for a long time, of more than 200,000–300,000 people.

That’s how the kingdom has dealt with those who came to Saudi Arabia. But we also have an extensive support program for the refugees in the other places, in Jordan, in Lebanon, and in Turkey. Some of that goes directly to funding camps and services in these camps, whether medical or scholastic or whatever. And some goes through the United Nations Refugee Fund that we support financially.

BAS:

Speaking of Syria, what do you think is the best way for the United States to handle the situation there?

Al-Faisal:

Increase support to the moderate opposition. By that I mean you don’t need to send troops on the ground to Syria. But you do need to help the moderate opposition – and they are there. And we operate with them, Saudi Arabia. We coordinate with the United States on who we operate with in Syria.

And you need to give them the defensive means to prevent the Syrian air force and army from blatantly and haphazardly attacking the Syrian population. So, don’t give them tanks and missiles – no, give them the means to prevent the attacks and the missiles and the aircraft from being used against them.

Especially the ones that throw these barrel bombs, you know, which kill civilians. Those weapons are non-discriminating, and they don’t bomb the fighters; they bomb the Syrians. They punish them. And that’s why more than 300,000 Syrians have been killed by the regime.

BAS:

The most successful moderate group being the Kurds?

Al-Faisal:

No. I think the most successful are the Free Syrian Army, because the Free Syrian Army fights not only Bashar, but ISIS and other terrorist groups. The Kurds are just fighting ISIS.

BAS:

It is barbaric seeing some of the things that ISIS has done, like what just happened in Palmyra.

Al-Faisal:

Not just Palmyra. They kill anybody who doesn’t agree with them. If you sneeze out of sorts, they’ll cut your nose off. But look at the scale of the terrorism as compared between what ISIS has done and what Bashar has done. That’s how we measure it. When you have 300,000 people killed on the side of Bashar and – what is it, 2,000? 3,000? 10,000 killed by ISIS – there is no comparison as to who is the worst terrorist.

BAS:

So you’re in favor of Bashar al-Assad staying in power?

Al-Faisal:

No. I would have him removed immediately, as I would have ISIS removed immediately. ISIS is there because of him.

BAS:

You were talking earlier about Iran. This might be incredibly naive, but why this huge divide between Shia and Sunni? To an outsider it seems like there’s an awful lot of pain and death and horror over these things.

Al-Faisal:

I agree. And unfortunately it’s inspired by political ambition, not by religious faith. It’s politicians who are using the sectarian divide for their purposes. Because look at Iran’s actions wherever they may be. In Lebanon, it’s Hezbollah that receives Iranian support. Hezbollah is a Shiite group, and they have managed to acquire a political position in Lebanon where they’ve become the decider – without them, nothing will happen. So now Lebanon has no president because Hezbollah doesn’t want to have a president in Lebanon. But it’s a Shiite group supported by Iraq.

Look at Syria. It is Bashar, as I said, who is an Alawite – a Shiite.

And in Iraq, who is Iran supporting? Only the Shia groups, whether it is the Hakim group or the Zaydiyya group or the Shiite group of the present prime minister. In Yemen, they support the Houthis – an offshoot of the Shia sect. Their concentration is on Shia. And they divide societies between Shia and non-Shia in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Bahrain.

They’re pushing this sectarian divide for political purposes, because they want to have the influence and the wherewithal to affect the politics and the policies of these countries. And that is why we are in this situation, where you have this division.

And on the other side, who is taking the opposite stance, proclaiming that they are against the Shia? It is Sunni groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. They are the ones who are carrying the banner of fighting the Shia … So, it is not the established countries, like the government of Saudi Arabia or the government of Bahrain or the government of Kuwait or the government of Oman that are pushing for the sectarian divide. It’s the terrorists on one side, and the Iranian regime on the other side that are playing this political game of Shia versus Sunni.


Notes

1. See http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/180825.

2. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e1f4f8-1074-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html.

3. See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/w...-sidestep-dispute-over-iran-nuclear-deal.html.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://mironline.ca/?p=9077

Middle East, Regions

Wahhabis of Mass Destruction: The Doomsday Scenario of an Islamic Nuclear Arms Race

Posted by Sarie M. Khalid 12 hours ago

If the US nuclear deal with Iran fails in the future, the possibility of a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites and an Iranian counterattack on US military bases in the Gulf would inaugurate a new, dangerous, unstable nuclear balance of terror in the Middle East. Iran’s determination to acquire a nuclear weapon will strengthen Saudi and even Turkish resolve to acquire nuclear capabilities (the downing of a Russian jet by the Turkish air force has created a new fault line in the Great Power confrontation in Syria). Nuclear weapons would be the Iranian regime’s ultimate insurance policy against US-imposed regime change or invasion, and this is why the Islamic Republic has paid such high political and financial costs (Western sanctions) to enrich uranium.
Iran does not need nuclear warheads to project its power in the Arab world. The existence and instability fomented by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the deployment of Qods forces in Syria, the Shiite militias attached to Iraq’s army, the Houthis in Yemen and the Bahraini Hezbollah prove that. Iran has intervened with its Revolutionary Guards Corps in the Lebanese, Yemeni, Iraqi and Syrian civil wars, an interventionism with roots deeper than the Islamic Revolution of 1979: the last Shah of Iran sent combat troops to neighboring Oman to help the Sultan’s army defeat Marxist-Leninist Dhofari secessionists in the 1970s.

Yet a nuclear Iran is the “Armageddon scenario” for a Saudi Arabia that sees revolutionary Iran as a threat to its “regime legitimacy” as the natural leader of the Islamic world. Yet any multipolar nuclear balance of terror in the Middle East would be unstable. There are no hotlines between Qom, Jerusalem and Riyadh, as existed between the superpowers of the Cold War. Nuclear deterrence in the Middle East can easily break down due to political miscalculation. Can the world really expect cold rationality while far-right ideologies, such as those espoused by Iran’s zealous clerical rulers or Binyamin Netanyahu’s xenophobic Likud in Israel, hold sway? Anyone who claims that predicting such actors’ responses under conditions of existential national crisis would be easy is sadly misguided. A multipolar region populated by nuclear powers would present us with a dangerously unstable nuclear balance of terror, one imposed by Israel and Iran against the backdrop of a crumbling post-Ottoman Arab state system. Even the ‘rational’ US and USSR came to the brink of nuclear war over Cuba in October 1962, and again during the Ramadan War of 1973.

If the accord reached last year breaks down and Iran does obtain an atomic weapon, what we will witness is the development of a tripolar arch of nuclear instability in the Middle East, with Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia playing the role of nuclear powers (the latter obtaining a weapon via its client state Pakistan, as some believe it has already tried to do). Egypt and Turkey would not stand idly by and would probably be tempted to defy Washington and develop nuclear capabilities.

Communications protocols, verification regimes, high-tech satellite surveillance and strict bureaucratic hierarchies – Khrushchev-style – moderated the brinksmanship of the Cold War. These do not exist in the secretive oligarchies overseen by the Supreme Leader and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. If the future of peace in the Middle East is dependent on “rationality” and “restraint” in Jerusalem, Tehran and Riyadh, then world peace will have come to rest on an alarmingly fragile and wobbly foundation.

Both Israel and Iran formally deny having nuclear weapons, though the former’s possession of nukes was all but confirmed by the Pentagon last year. These powers have very flawed and limited intelligence on each other’s intentions, command-and-control systems, decision-making protocols, capabilities or operational nuclear doctrines. Saudi Arabia/Pakistan can only add another dimension of dangerous “nuclear ambiguity”. As long as Israel was the sole nuclear power in the region, deterrence was stable. A nuclear trio in the Middle East means a region with a highly unstable system of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East must be prevented at all costs, posing as it does a genuine threat to world peace. A world where megalomaniac dictators like Muammar Gaddafi could aspire to nuclear weapons or the Pakistani military built a clandestine “Islamic bomb” is not a world where proliferation risk can ever be minimized.

“Buying the bomb” was a strategy used by both Libya and Saudi Arabia with Pakistan the prospective supplier, while Syria’s Assad regime turned to North Korea for assistance. However, a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear transaction would have to be carried out with extraordinary secrecy in order to evade the constant threat of Western retaliation, be it in the form of economic sanctions or interceptions and sabotage by Mossad or the CIA. Discovery of such a deal between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could result in economic sanctions which would destroy Saudi Arabia’s oil export reliant economy, which is already suffering from low energy prices. One would think that a House of Saud obsessed with the calculus of regime survival would view this as an unacceptable risk, but if there is one thing we know about the Middle East it is that we know very little at all.


1.Iran’s Political Economy Since The Revolution by Suzanne Maloney
2.Army and Democracy: Military Politics in Pakistan by Aqil Shah
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Good--hopefully Saudi and Iran fire them at eachother and take one another out.

The most glaring problem that no one is talking about is the literal foundation of sand the Saudi regime is built upon. If they in fact have nukes and they have a Waahabist inspired "regime change", if you thought the "52 pickup game" we're having fueled with Gadhafi's old Libyan Army stockpile of arms, including MANPADS, was a problem, imagine what adding some nukes to that gets you. The same concern goes for Pakistan as well.
 

LightEcho

Has No Life - Lives on TB
So far it has been bold threats from impotent psychotic controllers. The list of them must be at all-time highs, just waiting for their "mighty" acquisition of fame and glory,

Erdogan
Obama
King Salman
Kim Jong-un

But in the shadowy world of the world controllers, there are worse psychopaths who manipulate the country-level managers, the banks, and the news media. These other devils are vying for power under their master Satan... or Lucifer. They too are deceived but think they have the grand illumination and sanction to take whatever they want.

If we ever see a progression between Saudi and Iran into an overt hot war, the effects on the world economy will be devastating. Oil prices will shoot over $100 and instantly stifle most industries. China will be more imperialistic than most could imagine as they corner by force easy oil targets. Resource grabs will become primal. Courtesy among nations will fade. Turkey will make moves into Iraq & Syria. The dominoes falling will become hard to count.
 
Top