Report: Saudis may allow Israel's use of air space

[gambit]

Well Sir I agree with your first point about the Iran Iraq war, along with the Shia vs Shia it was mainly the Arab vs Farsi thing. But that nationalism is the part of history now. And we are seeing more and more alliances and associations of different ethnic tribes on the basis of their ideologies and also their languages and cultures. It is the children of the same Shias that killed the Iranians then are taking orders from the same Iranians when it comes to Iraq don't you think. Also I live in Kuwait and I interact with Shia's on regular basis, and when I say that the ground realities will not support such an action from the Saudis its a fact. And to add to that I can push it a bit further by saying that the Saudis might just be putting their neck on the line by risking their support base of the local Sunni population.

If so then Iraq should still be in chaos today. Instead, we have the minority Sunnis largely irrelevant and in the past several years of US occupation, we have Shia Iraqis fed up with Shia Iranians meddling in Iraqi affairs and turned against their fellow Iraqi Shias. I was in post-Saddam Kuwait. I know what oil laden air taste like. To this day, I have friends in and out of Iraq and whenever they could, the stories they tell about Iraqis have nothing to do with the Sunni-Shia divide. They want US out. They want Iran out. In trying to rebuild Iraq, they do not want a nuclear Iran. Iraq under Saddam Hussein brutalized a smaller country for oil. Iran under the mullahs? The Iraqis do not know but they do not want to take any chances of them being in the same boat Kuwait was. Just like the Saudis, after secret talks, Iraq will follow Saudi Arabia and will allow the Israelis airspace passage to Iran. After all, it was secret talks between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, not US as popularly believed, that Iraq was given tacit approval for war against Iran.

 

[Novice09]

powerful? 22 days consecutive bombing in Palestine where was saudi arabia?

 

[Aslan]

If so then Iraq should still be in chaos today. Instead, we have the minority Sunnis largely irrelevant and in the past several years of US occupation, we have Shia Iraqis fed up with Shia Iranians meddling in Iraqi affairs and turned against their fellow Iraqi Shias. I was in post-Saddam Kuwait. I know what oil laden air taste like. To this day, I have friends in and out of Iraq and whenever they could, the stories they tell about Iraqis have nothing to do with the Sunni-Shia divide. They want US out. They want Iran out. In trying to rebuild Iraq, they do not want a nuclear Iran. Iraq under Saddam Hussein brutalized a smaller country for oil. Iran under the mullahs? The Iraqis do not know but they do not want to take any chances of them being in the same boat Kuwait was. Just like the Saudis, after secret talks, Iraq will follow Saudi Arabia and will allow the Israelis airspace passage to Iran. After all, it was secret talks between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, not US as popularly believed, that Iraq was given tacit approval for war against Iran.

Well we can speculate what ever we believe to be true, I personally think that the Saudis are in no position to take such a step. They have barely contained the Al Qaeda issue at home and are still busy with the Shia rebels in Yemen. The way I look at it is that if the attack in Iran happens then the fallout will be great, the chaos is Iraq will be huge, and from Lebanon to Pakistan the whole region will be up in flames.


And that aside Sir, who gave Israel the right to attack Iran; what is the moral ground that they stand on where it becomes their right to take such an action.

 

[Aslan]

Same thing can be said about many others who were doing their dirty work in Iraq. So the Saudis them selves are not the only one to be blamed for this.

 

[su-47]

The arabs aren't comfortable with Iran's nuclear program. They might turn a blind eye towards Israel attacking Iran. After the attack, they might condemn it and say few harsh words but no action will bet taken.

If Saudi does allow Israel to use their air space, they won't be going around parading it. They will claim that Israeli planes violated their air space unnoticed, just like back in the 80s when Israel attacked Iraqi nuclear installations.

Very well said. I dont think so Saudis can cut their own feet because if Zionists can attack Iran, then they will go after Saudis not because those fat rulers are a threat to Zionists But the Holy Places in Saudia they will be eyeing to harm.

I don't think so. Israel will be shooting itself in the foot then. Firstly, Saudi is a US supported regime, and Israel is already having a fallout with USA and won't want more problems. Secondly, Israel knows that Saudi isn't Syria or Iran. They field advanced weapons like Eurofighters. Israel will have a hard time if they attack Saudi. Also attacking Mecca or Medina will alienate Israel from Muslim nations it has good relations with (like turkey).

Nut most importantly, an attack on Mecca or Medina won't give Israel any gains and will unite all muslims against Israel, which is something they won't want.

 

[gambit]

Well we can speculate what ever we believe to be true, I personally think that the Saudis are in no position to take such a step. They have barely contained the Al Qaeda issue at home and are still busy with the Shia rebels in Yemen. The way I look at it is that if the attack in Iran happens then the fallout will be great, the chaos is Iraq will be huge, and from Lebanon to Pakistan the whole region will be up in flames.

I disagree. Pretty much the same have been spouted even before Desert Storm, of which I was a part. There was no doubt as to the outcome of Desert Storm, but all were apprehensive as to the consequences. Nothing happened. Everyone in the ME breathed a sigh of relief that Iraq got beaten down. Iran does not respect Saudi Arabia because the Iranian mullahs does not believe in the moral legitimacy of the Saudi monarchy. In return, the Saudi clerics being the guardians of Islam's holiest cities, make no secret on how they view the Iranian brand of Islam -- a theological aberration. Add in nationalism and oil, which Iran is in the inferior exporter by reserve estimates, and the Israelis have the ticket they need for airspace passage to Iran.

And that aside Sir, who gave Israel the right to attack Iran; what is the moral ground that they stand on where it becomes their right to take such an action.

The right of response. Keep in mind that Iran sponsors Hezbullah. Under international laws, as much as we respect them even though enforcement is arbitrary, sponsorship does not remove culpability and with Hezbullah, it is no secret who is its sponsor.

 

[Luftwaffe]

i don't take CIA factbook crap about shia being the majority..sunni are majority in Iraq..some people just can't stop surfing cia factbook/wikipedia..

 

[Aslan]

@gambit I disagree. Pretty much the same have been spouted even before Desert Storm, of which I was a part. There was no doubt as to the outcome of Desert Storm, but all were apprehensive as to the consequences. Nothing happened. Everyone in the ME breathed a sigh of relief that Iraq got beaten down. Iran does not respect Saudi Arabia because the Iranian mullahs does not believe in the moral legitimacy of the Saudi monarchy. In return, the Saudi clerics being the guardians of Islam's holiest cities, make no secret on how they view the Iranian brand of Islam -- a theological aberration.


The above are true, but the only thing that has changed from the desert storm to now is that then Iraq was wrong. And now the people will make the decision. What happen with the Iraq war in last 8 years, in Afghanistan. People are tired now, what happens in this part of the world shall not be dictated from Washington or some where in Europe any more. I dont remember but I thing it was Robert Fisk once delivered a lecture on the whole Iran Issue. I will try to find it but he raised some very good points. The thing is that the air assault on Iran will not be the only thing, just because the Israelies will do it then the retaliation will be every where from Iran and they will try to hit what ever they can and that will bring in the American forces. So what will be the end result. More mayhem more Chaos. And do you think that the Saudis dont realize that, they know that their own Shia's value Iran more then their own country. And that is not the case with the Shias in Saudi. Its all of them.

Add in nationalism and oil, which Iran is in the inferior exporter by reserve estimates, and the Israelis have the ticket they need for airspace passage to Iran.

I didn't really understand what point are you trying to make here.


The right of response. Keep in mind that Iran sponsors Hezbullah. Under international laws, as much as we respect them even though enforcement is arbitrary, sponsorship does not remove culpability and with Hezbullah, it is no secret who is its sponsor.

And what about the death of all the Lebanese that took place after the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and in response of which Hizballah was created. And the Killings of thousands of Palestinians so far, and also the systematic destruction of their houses, controlled expulsion from their lands. Which by any international standards can be called a holocaust. What about that Sir. And not to forget the Israelis have not spared a single chance to hit Iran when ever and where ever they could.

 

[Aslan]

i don't take CIA factbook crap about shia being the majority..sunni are majority in Iraq..some people just can't stop surfing cia factbook/wikipedia..

The issue that I find with the whole thing is that when they mention Shia they count all of them there. But then they brand the Sunis as Arabs and Kurds.

 

[Aslan]

@gambit I disagree. Pretty much the same have been spouted even before Desert Storm, of which I was a part. There was no doubt as to the outcome of Desert Storm, but all were apprehensive as to the consequences. Nothing happened. Everyone in the ME breathed a sigh of relief that Iraq got beaten down. Iran does not respect Saudi Arabia because the Iranian mullahs does not believe in the moral legitimacy of the Saudi monarchy. In return, the Saudi clerics being the guardians of Islam's holiest cities, make no secret on how they view the Iranian brand of Islam -- a theological aberration.


The above are true, but the only thing that has changed from the desert storm to now is that then Iraq was wrong. And now the people will make the decision. What happen with the Iraq war in last 8 years, in Afghanistan. People are tired now, what happens in this part of the world shall not be dictated from Washington or some where in Europe any more. I dont remember but I thing it was Robert Fisk once delivered a lecture on the whole Iran Issue. I will try to find it but he raised some very good points. The thing is that the air assault on Iran will not be the only thing, just because the Israelies will do it then the retaliation will be every where from Iran and they will try to hit what ever they can and that will bring in the American forces. So what will be the end result. More mayhem more Chaos. And do you think that the Saudis dont realize that, they know that their own Shia's value Iran more then their own country. And that is not the case with the Shias in Saudi. Its all of them.

Add in nationalism and oil, which Iran is in the inferior exporter by reserve estimates, and the Israelis have the ticket they need for airspace passage to Iran.

I didn't really understand what point are you trying to make here.


The right of response. Keep in mind that Iran sponsors Hezbullah. Under international laws, as much as we respect them even though enforcement is arbitrary, sponsorship does not remove culpability and with Hezbullah, it is no secret who is its sponsor.

And what about the death of all the Lebanese that took place after the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and in response of which Hizballah was created. And the Killings of thousands of Palestinians so far, and also the systematic destruction of their houses, controlled expulsion from their lands. Which by any international standards can be called a holocaust. What about that Sir. And not to forget the Israelis have not spared a single chance to hit Iran when ever and where ever they could.

This is an extract from one of the articles from Mr. Fisk

Have we forgotten the 17,500 dead – almost all civilians, most of them children and women – in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon; the 1,700 Palestinian civilian dead in the Sabra-Chatila massacre; the 1996 Qana massacre of 106 Lebanese civilian refugees, more than half of them children, at a UN base; the massacre of the Marwahin refugees who were ordered from their homes by the Israelis in 2006 then slaughtered by an Israeli helicopter crew; the 1,000 dead of that same 2006 bombardment and Lebanese invasion, almost all of them civilians?

What is amazing is that so many Western leaders, so many presidents and prime ministers and, I fear, so many editors and journalists, bought the old lie; that Israelis take such great care to avoid civilian casualties. "Israel makes every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties," yet another Israeli ambassador said only hours before the Gaza massacre. And every president and prime minister who repeated this mendacity as an excuse to avoid a ceasefire has the blood of last night's butchery on their hands. Had George Bush had the courage to demand an immediate ceasefire 48 hours earlier, those 40 civilians, the old and the women and children, would be alive.


Robert Fisk: Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask - Robert Fisk, Commentators - The Independent

 

[KeenGuy]

Why all the hate for Saudi Arabia? I bet you guys didn't know when India tested its nuclear bomb and Pakistan was contemplating whether to test its nuclear bomb Saudi Arabia told Pakistan that it will give us 50,000 free barrels of oil per day and other aid to help cope with the economic sanctions that would ensue if we tested. And they did. Oh I bet everybody forgot that Saudi Arabia was the main financer of our nuclear weapon's program. Perhaps everybody overlooked the fact Saudi Arabia was Pakistan's strongest supporter in every single way during our wars with India.

What has Iran done for us? Certainly not as much as Saudi Arabia has done for us. Certainly not at much at all. Anybody think of that?

Some of you people are an embarassment.

 

[KeenGuy]

Saudi Arabia: Nervously Watching Pakistan

January 28, 2008 —
No country in the world, except maybe India, is more concerned with the outcome of the political crisis that is gripping Pakistan than Saudi Arabia. The Saudi kingdom has a longstanding and intimate relationship with Pakistan. They faced common enemies in the past successfully and face a common enemy today in al Qaeda. They have had a deep strategic military relationship for decades and today have an unacknowledged nuclear partnership to provide the kingdom with a nuclear deterrent on short notice if ever needed. Understanding the Saudi-Pakistani relationship is important to understanding the future of both countries, the nuclear balance in both the Near East and South Asia, and the crisis in Pakistan today.

Pakistan has received more aid from Saudi Arabia than any country outside the Arab world since the 1960s. For example, in May 1998 when Pakistan was deciding whether to respond to India’s test of five nuclear weapons, the Saudis promised 50,000 barrels per day of free oil to help the Pakistanis cope with the economic sanctions that might be triggered by a counter test. The Saudi oil commitment was a key to then Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif’s decision to proceed with testing. It cushioned the subsequent U.S. and EU sanctions on Pakistan considerably. Official aid is matched by large investments from Saudi princes and from religious institutions. Much of the Pakistani madrassa educational system, for instance, is Saudi funded by private donors.

In turn, Pakistan has provided military aid and expertise to the kingdom for decades. It began with help to the Royal Saudi Air Force to build and pilot its first jet fighters in the 1960s. Pakistani Air Force pilots flew RSAF Lightnings that repulsed a South Yemeni incursion into the kingdom’s southern border in 1969. In the 1970s and 1980s up to 15,000 Pakistani troops were stationed in the kingdom, some in a brigade combat force near the Israeli-Jordanian-Saudi border. The close ties continue between the militaries today.

Economic and military ties are matched by close intelligence and security relations. During the 1980s, the Saudis financed more than half of the jihad to support the Afghan insurgency against the Soviet 40th Army in Afghanistan and worked more closely than anyone else with the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, to support the war effort. Those ties continued in the 1990s when the Saudis and Pakistanis assisted the Taliban for a time. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Sultan has said “It’s probably one of the closest relationships in the world between any two countries.”

Today the intelligence focus is on al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden, the child of the earlier Saudi-Pakistani joint project in Afghanistan, has declared war on both countries and has been responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks in both countries. He has called for the overthrow of both King Abdullah and President Musharraf. From his lair along the Afghan-Pakistani border he issues calls for their death and trains Saudi and Pakistani jihadists to kill them. The Saudis foiled a major plot by al Qaeda in December 2007 to attack the Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, and Interior Minister Prince Nayif said the kingdom had countered over 180 al Qaeda terrorist operations since 2003. In Pakistan there were 56 suicide bombings last year, 36 targeting the army (two at ISI headquarters). Most had an al Qaeda connection, including the two attacks on Benazir Bhutto. By one count Musharraf has been the target nine times so far.

The two Sunni states also share a concern about Shia Iran. Both seek to keep ties with Tehran as normal as possible but have a deep fear that Iran might encourage unrest in their Shia minorities. Both have had serious frictions with Iran in the past and work together to minimize Iranian influence in the region. A nuclear Iran worries its neighbors to the south and to the east.

Shortly after Pakistan tested its nuclear weapons in 1998, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan visited Pakistan and toured its nuclear and missile facilities outside Islamabad. Pakistan’s famous A.Q. Khan provided some of the color commentary for these unprecedented tours. At the time, U.S. officials expressed concern that the Pakistanis might be providing a nuclear weapon to the Saudis. Sultan has been Defense Minister since 1962 and today is also Crown Prince. Saudi connections with Pakistan’s nuclear program go back almost as far. Prime Minister Zulfikar Bhutto sought financial help for the program from Saudi Arabia in the early 1970s, according to some accounts. Then King Faisal of Saudi Arabia provided some money in return for a promise that Pakistan’s nuclear program would provide a security umbrella for the kingdom. Bhutto repaid the favor by renaming a city in the King’s honor, Faisalabad.

After Sharif’s ouster in a coup by Musharraf in 1999, he went into exile in the kingdom, an agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration to forestall Nawaz’s execution. The nuclear relationship continued and matured under Musharraf. In October 2003, then Crown Prince Abdullah visited Pakistan for a state visit. Several experts reported after the trip that a secret agreement was concluded that would ensure Pakistan would provide Saudi Arabia with nuclear technology and a bomb if Saudi Arabia felt threatened by a third party nuclear program in the future. Both countries, of course, denied the stories.

Assuming an agreement exists, it is likely the two have practiced the deployment of Pakistani warheads to Saudi Arabia for use with Saudi delivery systems. It would also make sense for RSAF and Pakistani pilots to jointly train for their use. More frequent exercises would help assure Riyadh that it can count on Islamabad in a crisis and that any deal is for real. Saudi Arabia’s Chinese-made intermediate range missiles, now increasingly obsolete, are also widely assumed to be a possible delivery system for Pakistani warheads in a crisis. It was, of course, former Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who arranged their purchase.

When the current political crisis began in Pakistan last year, the Saudis assumed Musharraf would weather the storm. Like all the other Arab monarchies their sympathies are clearly with Musharraf and they made these known to the United States and other powers. After Nawaz sought to go home in the early fall, Saudi Arabia reluctantly agreed to take him back into exile at the General’s request.

But when the Bush administration persuaded Musharraf to allow Benazir Bhutto to return in October the Saudis found themselves in an unsustainable position. If Nawaz’s rival could go home, it was impossible for them to keep Nawaz in the kingdom against his will. The Saudis summoned Musharraf to the kingdom and Nawaz was allowed to end his exile. The Saudi intelligence chief Prince Miqrin abd al Aziz is said to have arranged the return.

The Saudis’ leverage to ensure a favorable outcome of the crisis is significant if limited. With oil prices hovering around $100 to a barrel, cheap subsidized Saudi oil is critical to the Pakistani economy and energy can be a major leverage point. Their close connections with the Pakistani army and intelligence services, their longstanding ties with the Sharif family and their connections with the Sunni religious establishment give them more clout than most outsiders, but they are also widely resented in the country for encouraging the fundamentalists in the 1980s and 1990s. Should Sharif emerge as the next kingmaker in Pakistan after the February 18 elections, the Saudis will probably do all they can to smooth his transition to power and encourage the army to work with him. Ironically, that could make Musharraf the next recipient of an exile in the kingdom.

Whoever emerges as the leader in Pakistan, Saudi leaders will seek to ensure their understanding about a nuclear deterrent remains in place. If that requires more aid and assistance, it will be a small price to pay. For the kingdom, Pakistan will remain a unique partner.


Saudi Arabia: Nervously Watching Pakistan - Brookings Institution

 

[KeenGuy]

It it not in the best interest of Pakistan to have a nuclear Iran.

 

[gambit]

...then Iraq was wrong.

That opinion and judgment is after the fact. What matter is perception and whether Iran is perceived as a threat or not. A good example is before the Kuwaiti invasion. Iraq claimed that Kuwaiti oil machinations harmed Iraqi interests and therefore Kuwait was perceived, at least claimed so by Saddam Hussein, as a threat. If Saudi Arabia deemed a nuclear Iran a sufficient threat, and if others in the region agreed, then Iran is a threat. An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities will be seen by all as a benefit.

And now the people will make the decision. What happen with the Iraq war in last 8 years, in Afghanistan. People are tired now, what happens in this part of the world shall not be dictated from Washington or some where in Europe any more.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was created as regional authority and by their consensus, Iraq deserved support in a war against Iran. In short, what happened then was dictated regionally.

I dont remember but I thing it was Robert Fisk once delivered a lecture on the whole Iran Issue.

Not much respect for Fisk from me. Fisk's so called 'analysis' often received so much discredits that a new Internet slang was created...

Fisking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term fisking, or to fisk, is blogosphere slang describing a point-by-point criticism that highlights perceived errors, or disputes the analysis in a statement, article, or essay.

The term was named for Robert Fisk, a British journalist whom the Jargon File entry identifies as "a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment." While initially popularized by bloggers on the libertarian-conservative spectrum, thus complicating any effort to present the term as a purely neutral synonym for "point-by-point rebuttal," the term has broadened in scope beyond the specific political circumstances of its origin.

Fisking is similar to the line-by-line method in policy debate[10], where one debater addresses each point of an argument in turn, as opposed to addressing the entire thesis of his or her opponent, the purpose being to demonstrate that the underlying foundation is poorly constructed, so the resulting edifice of reasoning cannot be trusted.

The word 'fisking' or to have been 'fisked' is now derogatory implying the target contain sloppy research, is grossly biased and has blatant disregard for proper contexts. Robert Fisk have been 'fisked' many times over.

The thing is that the air assault on Iran will not be the only thing, just because the Israelies will do it then the retaliation will be every where from Iran and they will try to hit what ever they can and that will bring in the American forces. So what will be the end result. More mayhem more Chaos. And do you think that the Saudis dont realize that, they know that their own Shia's value Iran more then their own country. And that is not the case with the Shias in Saudi. Its all of them.

What will happen is that all the countries that gave tacit approval for that Israeli strike will also crack down on internal transit routes that Iranian agents uses to provide material support for Hezbollah. It will make it difficult for Iran to retaliate against Israel through terrorism. Not saying impossible, just more difficult. Iranian missiles are not as accurate as Iranian propaganda claimed. If Iran launches them, other ME countries will also be hit as 'collateral damages'. And what happen if an errant Iranian ballistic missile hit or even damages either Medina or Mecca if Iran decides to retaliate against Saudi Arabia for allowing Israel airspace passage?

I didn't really understand what point are you trying to make here.

I am saying that nationalism still trump any supposedly religious unity, that Iranian oil problems will benefit Saudi oil profits in the long run, and that the Saudi clerics would rather see Jews than muslims attack Iran, an theological aberrant muslim country.

And what about the death of all the Lebanese that took place after the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and in response of which Hizballah was created.

Lebanon was used by the Palestinians to attack Israel.

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907

Article 1.
The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2.
Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3.
Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:

(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;

(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4.
Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5.
A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

Article 1 is respected only if Articles 2 through 5 are enforced by Lebanon. Failure or refusal to enforce Articles 2 through 5 in one's own sovereign territory tantamount to the surrender of sovereignty to foreign powers for the purpose of waging a war that said neutral party claimed to be absent from. In short, failure or refusal to enforce Articles 2 through 5 equals to an indirect declaration of participation in said conflict and alliance to one side.

And not to forget the Israelis have not spared a single chance to hit Iran when ever and where ever they could.

When?

 

[no_name]

Fighting Iran after 8 years of two wars will be different to fighting Iraq in 1991 which lasted 4 days of ground action, unless US is only having airstrike and no occupation