The Enemy of My Enemy

[Casino67]

WSJ.com:

By ELLIOTT ABRAMS



Being an Arab leader has its rewards: the suite at the Waldorf-Astoria during the United Nations General Assembly, travel in your own plane, plenty of cash, even job security—whether kings, sheiks or presidents, with or without elections, most serve for life.

But the advantages must seem dwarfed by the problems that face the Arab world this summer. The Shia in Iran seem to be building a bomb, Iran's ally Syria is taking over Lebanon (again), Yemen is collapsing (again), Egypt's President Mubarak is said to be dying and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is back on the front pages.

What's more, no one is sure who's in charge these days. The American hegemony, in place at least since the British left Aden in 1967 and secured through repeated, massive military operations of its own and victories by its ally Israel, seems to be fraying. Who will stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program, the Arabs wonder; they place no faith in endless negotiations between earnest Western diplomats and the clever Persians.

Israel is the enemy of their enemy, Iran. Now, the usual description of Arab-Israeli relations as "hostile" or "belligerent" is giving way to a more complex picture. Following the joint Arab military efforts to prevent the formation of the Jewish State in 1948, and the wars that followed in 1956, 1967 and 1973, this is a bizarre turn of events. Israel is as unpopular in the Arab street as it has been in past decades (which is to say, widely hated), but for Arab rulers focused on the Iranian threat all those the Israeli Air Force jets must now appear alluring. The Israeli toughness the Arabs have complained about for over a half century is now their own most likely shield against Iran.

The Arab view that someone should bomb Iran and stop it from developing nuclear weapons is familiar to anyone who meets privately with Arab leaders, especially in the Gulf. Now, the curtain is being pulled back: Just last month, the United Arab Emirates' ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, spoke publicly of a "cost-benefit analysis" and concluded that despite the upset to trade that would result and the inevitable "people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country," the balance was clear. The ambassador told an Aspen audience, "If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place." By speaking of "an outside force," Ambassador Al Otaiba did not specifically demand U.S. action; he left the door open for volunteers.

And two weeks ago, the Israeli press carried reports of a visit to Saudi Arabia by Gen. Meir Dagan, chief of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency; Gen. Dagan is the point man on Iran for the Israeli government. This follows stories in the Times of London two months ago claiming that the Saudis would suspend their air defense operations to permit Israeli fighter planes to cross Saudi air space en route to an attack on Iran.

All this will be denied, of course, as it has always been, but Arab-Israeli (and for that matter, Arab-Palestinian) relations remain far more complicated than headlines suggest. Even in states where there are no politics as we know it—there are no elections or the outcomes are decided by fiat in the presidential palace—all politics is local, and concerns about the Palestinians take a back seat to national and personal interests. The minuet now being conducted by Arab foreign ministers with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is illuminating.

[Valin]

Casino67

 

 

More Here

The Saudi Option

[Casino67]

Casino67

 

 

More Here

The Saudi Option

 

Valin

From the link you posted:

 

"Both the Saudi and Israeli scenarios remain distinctly unlikely in the current context. Our point, however, is that an Israeli strike is so unlikely that a Saudi-led strike is likelier. As for whether or not the strike is a surprise, there are a number of mine canaries that would sing well ahead of time in either scenario. The US would move its capital ships out of the Persian Gulf and into the Arabian Sea as a force protection move. Another carrier battle group might be dispatched to the region as a precaution against Iranian retaliation. Israel, for its part, would ready missile defenses and beef up deployments in Galilee, and the Arabs would shift oil tankers out of the Gulf."

 

We have a carrier group in the Persian Gulf since June,'10. That canary is singing.

Source

[Valin]

Casino67

 

 

More Here

The Saudi Option

 

Valin

From the link you posted:

 

"Both the Saudi and Israeli scenarios remain distinctly unlikely in the current context. Our point, however, is that an Israeli strike is so unlikely that a Saudi-led strike is likelier. As for whether or not the strike is a surprise, there are a number of mine canaries that would sing well ahead of time in either scenario. The US would move its capital ships out of the Persian Gulf and into the Arabian Sea as a force protection move. Another carrier battle group might be dispatched to the region as a precaution against Iranian retaliation. Israel, for its part, would ready missile defenses and beef up deployments in Galilee, and the Arabs would shift oil tankers out of the Gulf."

 

We have a carrier group in the Persian Gulf since June,'10. That canary is singing.

Source

 

 

I hate to bring politics into this but....given Obama's low poll numbers, a successful strike against Iran couldn't hurt his chances for reelection. It took a Nixon to go to China.

[Casino67]

I understand, would hate to see him get reelected as a result of a strike. But, can he afford to wait until the timing is right for him politically? I would imagine that the feeling in this WH is to let the Israeli's do it. And let them take any flack for what will surely come afterword's, not from the ME, but from his base.

[cudjo]

I think if OBama struck he would have plenty of time to totally mess it up before election

[Casino67]

I think if OBama struck he would have plenty of time to totally mess it up before election

 

Actually, I don't think he has the cajones to do it. Progressives are not our greatest warriors.

[AceRimmer]

I think if OBama struck he would have plenty of time to totally mess it up before election

 

Actually, I don't think he has the cajones to do it. Progressives are not our greatest warriors.

 

He doesn't have the will or the balls to do it. Bibi does.

 

Draw your own conclusions on what will happen with Iran...

[Casino67]

I think if OBama struck he would have plenty of time to totally mess it up before election

 

Actually, I don't think he has the cajones to do it. Progressives are not our greatest warriors.

 

He doesn't have the will or the balls to do it. Bibi does.

 

For the Israeli's it is a life or death situation. With Urkel it is pure politics.

 

Draw your own conclusions on what will happen with Iran...

 

With the Israeli's it is a life or death situation, with Urkel, it is pure politics.