Arab state tells Israel it would not oppose Iran strike

Arab state tells Israel it would not oppose Iran strike

www.haaretz.com

Official representatives of an Arab country have hinted in meetings with Israeli officials that they would not oppose an Israeli military operation against Iran, sources in Jerusalem said this week.

According to the sources, the representatives of the Arab country said they are worried by Iran's growing influence in the region, primarily among Shi'ite communities in Arab states.

The representatives told the Israeli officials that other Arab countries are also troubled by Iran's policy. Some Arab states are afraid that Iran's growing power will create a rift between Sunnis and Shi'ites. That concern is especially rife in Arab countries with a Shi'ite minority.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is a new high (or low) to register on your Iran Attackometer, which has been beeping nearly nonstop for a week now.

The article comes from Haaretz, Israel's paper of record, and simply reeks of propaganda.

Anonymous sources--heck, an anonymous country--and the topper: Iran is too powerful, is fomenting a rift between Shi'ites and Sunnis, and needs to be taken down a few notches, so we're giving you a green light.

Who, exactly, is supposed to believe this?



www.haaretz.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The state in question is almost certainly Saudi Arabia, which regards Iran as it's chief strategic rival as well as a religious enemy.

I am sure they would be delighted to see Israel and Iran go at it, and watch oil prices soar

I doubt any Arab nation would care if Israel attacked Iran...think about it, $200+ oil price during the entire conflict...more animosity towards Israel, a huge blow to the already crumbling U.S. economy that could cause a Depression...I'm surprised Osama or any enemy of the U.S. and Israel have not used this time period to strike either of them. If I were a strategist for one of these groups I would undoubtedly strike Israel...no need in attacking the U.S....the U.S. would strike back in retaliation anyhow.

*cough* Mossad psych ops *cough*


While I doubt that Arab states would attack Isreal if it attacked Iran (Many people forget and assume that Arabs and Iranians are the same but the are not), I doubt there would be praise or even neutrality either.

The Saudis would have to respond or thier population would run the House of Saud out and we would have an another 1979 Iranian revolution albiet Sunni as opposed to Shiite.

Other states would also have to respond based on public sentiment.



[edit on 7/11/08 by FredT]

Nice find OP
However , has not the arab states been saying this all along with regards to Iran ?

Last I heard was that most, if not all, of the Arab states had made it clear that they would not allow US forces to launch strikes against Iran from bases within their territory. That included Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait.

No wonder the US is keen to get Iraq to sign up to it's security agreement and allow the US to launch strikes from Iraqi bases.

Originally posted by Britguy
...No wonder the US is keen to get Iraq to sign up to it's security agreement and allow the US to launch strikes from Iraqi bases.

I've always thought that was one of the main reasons for the Iraq War. Besides the tons and tons of Yellow Cake the Americans just snuck out to Canada, and the end of the Saddam and Son's regime which would have gotten worse not better, the US is now perfectly poised to support the end of the worlds main sponsor of islamic jihadism. Its a long term plan with a huge scope and the end results will be a lasting peace through victory...if things go our way...

A lot of Arab states said they would not allow the US to launch an attack from THEIR territory...not that they would be opposed to an attack in general-just they dont want it done from their particular country.

reply to post by princeofpeace


How thier populations respond will dictate thier responce IMHO. They will not attack Isreal, at least outright. Many of the Gulf states view Iran as a threat as well given thier growth etc. However, these same states will also fear a Isreali attack on them as well. They also as I noted run the risk of a popular revolution ousting thier governments. This would be easy to acomplish. Khomeni got rid of the Shah using casset tapes from Paris, it would be a piece of cake to do so today.

I wonder if that state may be one that is not happy with Iran over a film?

www.atimes.com...

Iranian film hits raw Egyptian nerve
By Sami Moubayed

DAMASCUS - A new film from Iran, Assassination of a Pharaoh , tells volumes about how strong indoctrination is in Tehran and how much it sometimes overpowers and blinds pragmatism. The movie, which recently aired on Iranian TV, is about former Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat. It labels him a "traitor" for signing the 1978 peace accords with Israel and praises his assassin, Khalid Islambouli, as a "martyr".

It comes in the middle of an Iranian effort to win allies in the Arab and Muslim world, both to penetrate the array of pro-American states in the region, and use them to lobby against a possible Israeli (or United States) attack on Tehran.

.

Mod Edit; trimmed down quote



[edit on 7/12/08 by FredT]

reply to post by Gatordone


Spot on IMHO.

I beleive that Iraq was intended to be a stepping stone to go into Iran. Rum-Cheney felt they could roll over Iraq, install a puppet government, then turn to Iran and do the same. However, lucky for us they botched the post war effort so badly I do not think we could do it now even if we wanted.

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by Gatordone

 

Spot on IMHO.

I beleive that Iraq was intended to be a stepping stone to go into Iran. Rum-Cheney felt they could roll over Iraq, install a puppet government, then turn to Iran and do the same. However, lucky for us they botched the post war effort so badly I do not think we could do it now even if we wanted.

Just curious, Fred, how exactly is that lucky for us? I think it would have been much luckier if Iraq was a 2 month affair and Iran could have been taken care of by now rather than dragging this conflict out for likely a decade. I think it's much luckier for Iran than for us.

reply to post by FredT


Of course Iran, along with Syria and Iraq, were part of the PNAC trifecta of ME regime change, so yes, it's been a target for almost ten years now.

But this article has Mossad written all over it... err, was written by Mossad, I meant to say.

reply to post by sc2099


Think about it: We invaded a country where at least a majority of the population supported our efforts or passivly did nothing. Yet years later we are still struggling to maintain controll.

Now look at Iran. 3 times the population of Iran, which historicaly faught tooth and nail against invaders. While the average Iranian Joe wants changes in the government, its not on the level of the Iraqi people and Saddam eh? We will have NO help passive or otherwise.

Mountainous terrain in a huge chunk of the country (its not just dunes and sand, and look how well the taliban have been able to hide in the tora Bora area)

Tehran: Look at how well Bahgdad is under controll. Now picture a city 3 times as large (10 million) and there simply is no way.



If Iraq is a quagmire invading and occuping Iran would esentially lead us down that slope of rapid decline the likes of which will make Vietnam look like a minor hicup.

[edit on 7/12/08 by FredT]

Some British military officers took a map of Iran, and drew big red lines across areas they thought would be impossible to take during an informal 'brain storming session'.

9/10ths of Iran was red.

Think mission impossible. It cannot be done. Look at Afghanistan, we cannot control the taliban, let alone a standing army of half a million people plus tens of thousands of suicide bombers.

This would make route Irish look like a fun sunday drive.

a war in Iran is madness beyond belief.

reply to post by Dan Tanna


I agree It would be a replay of iraq only much much worse. our tanks would roll through token resistance, some scuds would be fired, Shock and Awe would be replayed, and then it would combine the worst of iraq and Afganistan all in one, with 95% of the population openly hostile to our forces.

Funny none of those arm chair Rambos will be pulling a foot patrol on the street of occupied Tehran

Hell let Israel do it. If they want war so damn bad let them fight it but it doesnt mean the US or anyone else needs to get troops involved. Iran wouldnt even be an issue for us right now if it wasnt for oil and the very VERY strong Israeli lobby here in the states. Let them duke it out and lets sell weapons to the Israelis. That way we can at least make a little money on the deal.

Originally posted by xmotex
The state in question is almost certainly Saudi Arabia, which regards Iran as it's chief strategic rival as well as a religious enemy.

I am sure they would be delighted to see Israel and Iran go at it, and watch oil prices soar

Posted on Jul 10, 2008
oil prices
instablogsimages.com

The price of oil is bad now, but it could get much worse, according to OPEC Secretary-General Abdalla Salem el-Badri, if Iran became embroiled in a military conflict with the U.S. or Israel. If a war occurs, Badri says, there’s no telling how high oil prices might climb.

www.truthdig.com...

Originally posted by FredT

Funny none of those arm chair Rambos will be pulling a foot patrol on the street of occupied Tehran

People need to see Tehran to believe it. i would not want be on foot there, not now, not ever.

It will be the fall of the USA should they follow this folly and invade.