Saudis and Israelis both don't want Iran nuclear parity!


Saudis and Israelis both don't want Iran nuclear parity!
by Iqbal Latif

Iran's nuke bomb possession is a foremost anxiety within Sunni Saudi Petrolistan. The issue of Iran's 'having a nuke' will change the unilaterally 'imposed balance of fear' by Israel in the area. An Iranian nuke will dent and minimize Israel's tactical prime directive i.e. Israel's present capacity to compel its directives and political resolve at will. Israel's tactical principle is straight forward: no regional power is to be permitted to get to the point of tactical equality. Moreover, Iranian nukes will hypothetically give rise to a survivability hazard to Israel. This what worries Israelis the most. Israeli freedom of action within the region is under danger from likelihood of Iranian nukes.

With one-sided nuclear supremacy in the Middle East, Israel tactical dominance and existence is assured in the region. This is Israel's corner stone strategy. Saudis as major voice of Islam do not seem to be too concerned with Israeli nukes but they are very concerned with Iranian nukes. Iranians on the other hand want to achieve that equivalence to establish themselves as the primary powerbrokers of the region ahead of Saudi Kingdom. Iranian nuke is a two edged sword, it will lead to comprehensive dilution of Israeli diplomatic and strategic muscle on one hand and compromise the demographic authority of Saudi regime acutely. Shiite pre-dominance in demographic and numbers from Basra down to Oman is a tinderbox that Iranians will wish to ignite, the will to export the Islamic revolution has not died in the heart of Imam Khamenei. Wiki Leaks classified cables highlighted that Saudi Arabia are keen to see Iran's nuclear sites neutralised. U.S. State Department documents showed that , Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa indicated to Gen. David Petraeus in 2009 that Iran's nuclear program should be stopped, saying, "The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it."

In event of the materialization of nuclear gap between Saudi and Iran; Iran as a principal power broker will hold political sway in the Eastern oil rich provinces where Shiites are in absolute majority. This is the biggest threat to Saudis, Iranian sponsored troubles can lead to probable sectarian demographic division of Saudi peninsula. The marriage of Nejd- Hejaz and Dhahran is not a 5000 year old occurrence. Therefore Iranian bomb is a 'no go area' for the Peninsular Arabs as well as Israel, they both agree that Iran needs to be sterilized from achieving this dangerous nuclear parity. Iranian nuke will lead to total reconfiguration of nuclear assets in the region, it may lead Saudis to go 'nuclear' as well or seek protection or an nuclear umbrella. We all know from whom!


more from Iqbal Latif

“To pick on him selectively is UNFAIR”

by Bavafa on

I would certainly agree with that statement.  But if the insinuation is that I picked on him selectivelythen I believe that may be a perception on your part.


I do read his/her blogs time to time, have commented when I had something of a value to add and also observed his/her standards in reporting.

  As for the emotions go, I have nothing against it as we are all human and have emotions.  How we allow those emotions to form our views and beliefs is a different matter and to each and his own.


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



Do you have reading problems? Where are the alleged emotions?

by FG on

TO BAVADA: Read my post again.

 CHALLENGE: Pick out one sentence that can be described as "emotional."  I'm very logical in fact.   Whereas your diversionary technique (may I say hysterical) is to assign me an indefensible position I'd never take and hack away at the easy target you've designed for yourself.  

That tactic  is known as "straw man argument."

As for my deduction that youi are pro-IRI and pro-Khamenei, your argument doesn't suggest nukes for Iran later (after the regime is gone) but seems clearly to argue the current regime should have them NOW.  If otherwise, why didn't you say so.   While it's true there would be concern if a democratic Iran sought to acquire nukes (spurring others to do likewise) it would be no one near as deep.  The IRI, like Saddam, has proven itelf a loose cannon.

Finally, norw how--using logic and evidence (not emotion)  I totally rebutted your claim that the IRI has NEVER behaved provacately or aggressively.  Your response was a Romney like "duck and divert.".  It did not become a pariah state for no reasons and it is despised by the majority of on-aligned nations--not just the USA and the West.

Ask yourself WHY Iran is a pariah state except for a few fellow dictators (Chavez, Putin, Assad, Mugabe, etc.).

PREDICTION: I'll be you will claim (falsely once again) that there is emotion in this post. Find it.  As I said, you won't find any in my earlier post--just decisive logic while you cling to such diversions.  The only emotional party I see here is yourself. 


Lets be FAIR

by Truthseeker9 on

If that is the guiding principles here, FG has been getting a lot of stick from a certain group because they deem the source of his reports "Western" oriented. Perhaps he has been emotional/ passionate but so are many on IC. To pick on him selectively is UNFAIR. People do read his blogs whether you like it or not.


Dear FG: continuing with the emotions instead of logic….

by Bavafa on

What else explains your notion of my love for Khamenie or wanting IRI to have nukes.


Honestly, I just don’t see any value in debating when emotions are the main guiding principles.  And FWIW, I never thought or concluded you as an admirer of right-wing Israeli government, those are only your assumptions.

  But if I may suggest, if you apply a bit more logic and fairness in your reporting, perhaps you will get more viewers and participant on your work in your blogs.  So far, you seem to be the most participant on your own work/blog. 

Good day to you

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



Reply to Bavafa

by FG on

I gather you adore Khamenei' Islamic Republic since you want Khamenei to have nukes. 

RE: How many hostile acts have you seen from IRI that has not been as a retaliatory or tit for tat act?

How about holding 50 Americans hostage for a year after the embassy atttack? (outlaw behavior). 

How about the two IRCG officers caught red handed in Kenya with 33 pounds of plastic explosives?  

How about three terrorists caught in Thailand after attaching a bomb to a car?

How about the attempt to assassinated the Saudi ambassador in Washington and kill up to 20 American bystanders to accomplish it?

How about the murder of CIVILIAN Israeli tourists on a bus in Bulgaria?

How about intercepted arms shipment to Yemen? (Did Yemen attack Iran)

How about Iranian IEDs targeting American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How about the four US soldiers who Al Quds kidnapped in Iraq, took across the border into Iran and executed?

Were thee things provoked? 


What you don't seem to grasp about me 

I'm no admirer of the ethnic-cleaning, right-wing Israeli government. Nor are any Jews.  I'm not Jewish by the way. 

I have no quarrel with Israel's right to exist or any effort to defend it.  On the other hand, I despise Israel's ethnic cleaning and the hard line West Bank settlers.   I'd advocate sanctions on Israel until all those settlement are withdrawn.  Ditto in Jerusalem. 



AN & SL are anti-semitic and demonize JEWS

by Truthseeker9 on

"IRI has always claimed the same thing, they are against the Zionist regime and not the Jewish people" 

AN's views reflect the SL's views: 


  • "Zionists" triggered the first and second world wars
  • major governments, banks and media were in thrall to a Zionist cabal whose aim was to "destroy the cultures, values and sovereignty of nations."
  • his denial that the Holocaust occurred


 From Wiki

The winner of Iran's first annual International Wall Street Downfall Cartoon Festival, jointly sponsored by Fars News, was an anti-Semitic cartoon depicting Jews praying before the New York Stock Exchange, which is made to look like the Western Wall. The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, condemned the cartoon, stating that "Here's the anti-Semitic notion of Jews and their love for money, the canard that Jews 'control' Wall Street, and a cynical perversion of the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism," and "Once again Iran takes the prize for promoting antisemitism."



Acting on emotions?????

by Bavafa on

Dear FG, as I read your response, I see little but emotions.

You ask:
Other Mideast state don't seem to feel so threatened by a nuclear-armed Israel as you may have noticed

If not threatened by a massive military, armed with nuclear bomb then why else can we expect such paralysis of Arab nations visa a vie Israel.

How many hostitle acts has the IRI engaged in directly via Al Quds or indirectly via surrogates like Hezbollah

How many hostile acts have you seen from IRI that has not been as a retaliatory or tit for tat act?

Given Iran's past record of sneaky attacks, why would they not assume the IRI would be tempted to use them pre-emptively

As we know for facts, Israel has proven over and over to use its military might pre-emptively without fear of a rapid and credible response.  I suppose IRI would be seeking the same shield if you will and it would not be unreasonable given the fact that one entity in the neighborhood has that shield

Israel hostility, western hostility and US hostility is directed NOT at Iran or the Iranian people but at a government that is just as nasty to its own people as it is at outsiders

Mind you IRI has always claimed the same thing, they are against the Zionist regime and not the Jewish people.  Furthermore, the US disgraceful act in 1953 can hardly be described as an act against the government and not the people of Iran.

The facts on the ground remains that  this race for nuclear bomb has begun by Israel and it can only end by Israel to agree to a nuclear free middle east. 
The West has made a mockery of the NTP by violating so many of its previsions and safeguards.  They have failed to make any meaningful effort in removing their own nuclear bombs yet have worked and built more advanced WMD.  They have rewarded those nations who did not sign up to NTP and are known to build the bomb.  In light of such record, they are hardly have any moral or legal authority to enforce the law, it is only their military might that emboldens them to such enforcement.


'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 



Major Variables you completely ignore explain so much

by FG on

1. It's not Iran with nukes that people fear.  Don't you get it?

It's a well-earned and worldwide mistrust of the Islamic Republic with a long record for backing terrrorism and covert loose cannon schemes.  Would you give a loaded pistol to a child?  Even today--as sanctions bite--it can't restrain itself.

2. Nuclear proliferation: The certainty that neighbors will be FORCED (from self protection) to do likewise.

Even if Iran had a normal state with a democratic government subject to the normal checks of the public and a free press and internet, there is no question at all that at least one next door neighbor is likely to insist on developing nukes if Iran does: Saudi Arabia.  It's also likely that a second neighbor, Iraq, MUST do so as well.  If Iran can have nukes, why can't they.

So far as Iran's neighbors are concerned, the IRI with nukes would create the same fears as Hitler with nukes would have done for France, Poland   and Czechoslovakia.   Like I said, this is NOT in anyway a normal state with normal ambition and normal intentions.


1.  Would the average Iranian feel safer and more secure if that happened or would he or she have new worries as they went to bed at night?

2. Isn't there a reason why several nuclear armed countries fear the IRI with nukes more than Brazil, for example, with nukes?


You just haven't thought it out and done some long-range thinking and act on emotions.  Your assumptions rely on on all pluses, no minus (or blowback) calculations and that is totally unrealistic: Absolute dreamland.

Other Mideast state don't seem to feel so threatened by a nuclear-armed Israel as you may have noticed.  That includes even Saudi Arabia.   People fear the IRI with nukes because of 33 years of experience with IRI pumping up hostility toward the West, Israel and the USA for domestic reasons.

Also note that that such "pumping up" doen't stop at words.  How many hostitle acts has the IRI engaged in directly via Al Quds or indirectly via surrogates like Hezbollah.  The IRI can't seem to restrain itself.  Its such act that promote IRI concerns about preventive attacks on Iran's nuclear installation.  Given Iran's past record of sneaky attacks, why would they not assume the IRI would be tempted to use them pre-emptively?

Israel hostility, western hostility and US hostility is directed NOT at Iran or the Iranian people but at a government that is just as nasty to its own people as it is at outsiders. 


Based on the IRI's past behavior, Israelis have no doubt whatsoever that if the IRI got nukes its next step would be to load up its missiles once it has enough and use them for a "quickie" directed at Israel.  You may disagree with that Isreaeli assumption but they believe it deeply and you can understand why.  Given the short distance between the IRI and Israel, there woud be little time to respond.

In Israel's shoes, believing that, what might you be tempted to do out of sheer self-protection that you are not tempted to do now? 

Bear in mid that Israel has had nukes for years and hasn't used them so it's mere possession of such cannot be argued to present a danger to neighbors. In the IRI's case, one can't argue that since it has been much, much, much more aggressive and toward all neighbors--not just Israel. 



Great analysis

by Azarbanoo on

for NUClear IRan and effect on neighbors in ME.