It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The danger of a nuclear-capable Iran is not an attack on Israel.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The sole danger isn't an attack on Israel, which would obviously be bad...

The entire alignment of the Middle East's political makeup would shift overnight, creating a problem 100x larger and worse than that which exists right now.

See the comments the United Arab Emirates US ambassador below:



Comments by United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States

A few weeks ago, in uncommonly direct remarks, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, Yousef al-Otaiba, told me—in a public forum at the Aspen Ideas Festival—that his country would support a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. He also said that if America allowed Iran to cross the nuclear threshold, the small Arab countries of the Gulf would have no choice but to leave the American orbit and ally themselves with Iran, out of self-protection.


So, the question is: Realizing that allowing Iran to obtain a "game changer" like nuclear weapons would completely rewrite geopolitics, what does the world do?

(Personally, I do not support military action of any kind. But, that's the pacifist in me.)




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I would hardly consider the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States a reliable source in this situation.

If Iran were to acquire nuclear arms it would never be with the intention to use them aggressively.

Their reasons can be summed up in one word: deterrent.

Iran is surrounded by nations invaded by the US or aligned with US interests.
They know they are next on the list due to their large oils reserves.

But if they were to have nuclear arms the US and Israel would probably not dare to attack them.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
In hindsight, Iraq with Saddam would have been a nice counter to the rise of Iran.

The devil you know, is better than the devil you don't know.

I am afraid we are now stuck with the devil of the unknown, with no counter to Iranian expansion of its sphere of influence.

But hey, Iraq is now a 'free and democratic' society, we should be dancing in the streets!!

Back on topic, besides the sphere of influence, is the threat of a nuclear device being used for 'asymmetrical warfare'. I understand the isotopes of the uranium can be traced back to its source, but will the religious leaders of Iran care?

Stay tuned, the never ending drama if the Middle East, the worlds longest lasting soap.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrVertigo
I would hardly consider the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States a reliable source in this situation.


Reliable? He's not a policy maker, but he does represent those who set policy and serves as a conduit of communication.

I find it interesting that in the same breath, he states that they support US military action in Iran, and that if the US doesn't prevent a nuclear capable Iran, they'll have no choice but to defect to the Iran sphere of influence.

Now, he's either advocating a position which eerily serves Israel's purposes, or (more likely) he's exhibiting the regional rationale, should this come to pass. I highly doubt the United Arab Emirates US ambassador is bearing a pro-Israeli stance for the sake of doing so. It's coincidental.

I think he's right. And even if he's not "reliable," he is using logic...self-preservation is what leads regimes to take unexpected actions. Israel is a good example of this.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
woops my mistake



[edit on 12-8-2010 by Wut?!?]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Wut?!?]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I'm not sure its strange at all, although surprisingly candid which is probably an indication of the depth of concern.

Saudi Arabia and the small, majority Sunni, Arab States have no particular desire to see Iran as a nuclear power. They are quite happy with the status quo thank you very much.

In the Saudis case in particular, they've not spent 100 Billion of our dollars exporting Wahhabism in the region to have the Shia regime in Iran steal their thunder with a nuclear bomb. That wont do...

The wish is for Israel and USA to 'take care of 'business' so they can publicly condemn and privately gloat, whilst making more money from the oil prices which are sure to soar in the upheaval.

Sectarianism and naked self interest rules, as always.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
As I have said in several other threads if it does in fact look like Iran will develop a nuke the pressure to do something about it will come from Irans neighbors Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Packistan and the GCC states. I do not think they would suddenly jump ship to Iran but, they no doubt will used that idea to force the US to act. And as the UAE now have allowed France to build naval base they and the others will also no doubt be putting huge pressure France and the UK to also act. Iran has had a history of threatening and attempting to bring down its neighbors governments it should be no suprise that they have grave concerns about how Iran would act with nukes.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
This may sound harsh, but if WE (the U.S.) don't take Iran and control the whole middle east, Iran, China and Russia will. Then the U.S. will bow to them, other democratic countries/U.S. allies will fall to Communism. If Iran controls the middle east and allies with superpower China, the u.s. will fall. Life in the states would be worse than you could ever imagine.

If Iran goes nuclear the whole region will cling to Iran making Iran far more powerful than they are now. It's not Iran's nukes or Iran nuking a neighbor we are worried about. We dont won't Iran having nukes because of the reason stated in the OP's posted article. This will cause the straight of Hormuz to be choked off.

It doesn't matter if your a Nazi, British, Roman, American, Chinese, Russian, whatever. The game has always been domination, always will. Rather we live on this planet or take to the stars. I'd prefer to be on the winning team. Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated!



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by J.Son79
The game has always been domination, always will. Rather we live on this planet or take to the stars. I'd prefer to be on the winning team. Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated!


Wow...That's not very democratic of you...




posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
The danger that many people miss is that the Iranian regime could use nukes if they were ever endanger of losing power . Much as been discussed about Iran nuking Israel but what has not been considered is the possibility of Iranian government using nukes against its own population . After Saddam gassed the Kurds and his regime wasn't in the grave danger the one in Iran is going to be in the future . The cat is out of the bag in Iran the regimes henchmen failed to kill enough protesters to prevent internal change .



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
In hindsight, Iraq with Saddam would have been a nice counter to the rise of Iran.

The devil you know, is better than the devil you don't know.

I am afraid we are now stuck with the devil of the unknown...


True, but I believe the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are merely the moves of tptb in a chess match vs Russia and China for control of the oil reserves of the middle east. The final move is coming...



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join