If you think Obama Care is bad, just wait till you hear the new “peace” agreement that is due to be imposed on the Middle East over the coming weeks. Even if it works, a giant if, it will make the world much more dangerous: The purchase of Nuclear weapons by Saudi Arabia from Pakistan is going to make Middle East worse than witches’ cauldron. What’s worse than one radical Islamic nation with nuclear weapons? Two of them.
Right now, the world is abuzz with speculation over what is transpiring in the nuclear negotiations in Geneva. On one side is Iran, and across the negotiation table are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and the United States—plus Germany. Conspicuously absent from the negotiating table are many of Iran’s adversaries in the Middle East.
Disheartened by the talks, and fearing the inevitability of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, one nation is using this time to safeguard its national security through more extreme measures.According to a November 6 BBC report, Saudi Arabia has purchased nuclear weapons from Pakistan. The report claims the weapons are ready to be transported at any time. The Saudis are the main counterbalance to Iran in the region. Being the largest and wealthiest of the Sunni Arabic nations, the Saudis are constantly at loggerheads with Iran.
The battle for dominance in the Middle East is being waged on multiple fronts at the moment. In Syria, the Saudis back the rebels; Iran backs President Bashar Assad. In Iraq, Saudi Arabia backs the Sunni minority; Iran backs the Shiite majority. In Egypt, Saudi Arabia backs the military; Iran supports the Muslim Brotherhood. In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia backs the Sunni royal family; Iran backs the Shiite majority.
Though the Saudis and Iranians may not be in direct conflict, the two sides are fighting plenty of proxy wars. It is a struggle for control of the region between two factions of Islam: Shiite and Sunni.As Iran races toward the nuclear bomb, the likelihood of a regional crisis rises. For a long time, Saudi Arabia relied on foreign powers to keep Iran in check. That changed with the election of Hassan Rouhani. Perceived as a moderate, Rouhani has the international community—particularly America, one of Saudi Arabia’s most crucial allies—falling head over heels.
An American reconciliation with Iran truly is a game-changer for Saudi Arabia. It absolutely shreds the U.S.-Saudi alliance. The Saudis are already speaking of a ‘major shift’ away from the U.S. One source told Reuters, ‘Saudi doesn’t want to find itself any longer in a situation where it is dependent’ on America, which it deems untrustworthy and treacherous.
We see this mindset transformed into action as Saudi Arabia arms itself with nuclear weaponry. The Saudis know they need to remain a credible threat to Iran, which is only moments away from obtaining nuclear weapons.
A lack of confidence in the U.S. to restrain Iran is forcing Saudi Arabia to extreme measures in its own policies.
As World Politics Review put it, “Despite the high-profile disagreements between U.S. leaders and the leadership of Israel, France, Saudi Arabia and other nations, America’s friends prefer a more assertive and competent U.S. on the global stage, particularly in the Middle East. That doesn’t mean American allies will hold back from trying to fill the spaces left empty by the United Stateless the Saudis would like America’s aid to keep Iran under control, King Abdullah and his princes have their own plans for the Middle East. These plans are by no means moderate.
Would a Saudi nuclear deterrent to Iran using WMD be a good thing? Considering Saudi Arabia’s history as an incubator of terrorism and its hostile stance toward Israel, it would not. The same BBC article about the Saudi acquisition of nuclear weapons contains graphics showing surface-to-surface missile launch facilities that can target both Iran and Israel.
The Saudis obtaining nuclear weapons would undoubtedly put Israel on edge. Israel has felt the effects of American abandonment in the months following the election of Rouhani. For a second adversary to acquire nuclear weapons would only heighten Israel’s fear of its neighbours and push it closer to acting alone in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Israel has long been suspected of having its own nuclear weapons, although it has never acknowledged this fact.
The loss of confidence in the U.S. in the Middle East is quickly turning the region into a nuclear powder keg where everyone is holding a match. Saudi Arabia can deny its investment in nuclear weapons, and Iran can deny its attempts to build them.
If one analyzes the situation, than the following deductions are natural:
1. Iran will have nuclear weapons, or it will be balanced right on the edge — within one month or less to make nukes.
2. Saudi Arabia and Egypt will go nuclear, to balance Iran.
3. America’s role as a guarantor of peace will be blown, crushed by Obama’s betrayal of Israel and the Arabs. America’s nuclear umbrella, which has kept world from major war since 1949, was always based on trust. Once you blow that trust, the umbrella disappears.
4. The coming victory of Bashar Assad in Syria, supported by Hizb’allah and Iran, will forge the much-feared Shii’ite Crescent that surrounds Israel and directly threatens Arab nations like Egypt, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states).
5. Russia will replace America as a more trustworthy major power in the region, including the Eastern Mediterranean.
This is not a framework for peace. It is an unstable Rube Goldberg contraption that could lead to total war in a matter of weeks. It will never have the long-term stability of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty of the last forty years. On top of all those balancing acts, Israel will be driven back to borders that are much more vulnerable to Muslim terrorism. World conquest is a basic premise of Islam, and it includes Europe, Russia, and America.
The emerging agreement, which will be greeted by the Euro-American socialist media as peace on earth, will be much more like Munich, 1938 — a temporary truce on the way to much more dangerous times.
Here is a reasonable guess about the Obama-Putin proposal that is now being circulated around the major participants:
1. The U.S. and Russia will agree to cut back drastically on nuclear weapons. That has been the major aim of the Russians, because they can defend against a small nuclear attack, but more attacking nukes and missiles will overwhelm any existing defense. This has its own pros and cons, depending on Russian intentions. It is a major draw for Putin, because it reinstates Russia as a superpower on an equal basis with the United States.
2. American power will be deliberately set back around the world, which is Obama’s announced policy. The U.S. will no longer be the guarantor of peace, because (a) Obama has decided to cut down our armed forces to divert money to the new massive welfare state, and (b) nobody trusts us to provide a nuclear umbrella any more.
Within that U.S.-Russian umbrella agreement, the Obama fantasy will be that:
1. The Iranian nuclear danger will be reduced by a treaty, to be monitored by a great power inspection regime, aided by the UN. Because Russia will be one of the guarantor powers, and because Russia fears and hates the prospect of a radical Muslim nuclear power near its borders, it will want to restrain Iranian weapons development. However, Iran will be able to get real nukes in a month. Other WMD programs (like dirty bombs) are not controlled, especially from rogue forces like the 60,000 Al Qaida gangsters in Syria.
Obama and the Europeans will celebrate this as a great victory. But it will be a huge gamble with the security of the world. In the foreseeable future Iran will have ICBM’s that can reach our shores.
Hamas and Hizb’allah terrorism will be increased rather than stopped, because that is the routine of every Muslim power in history. For example, Pakistan and India are nominally not at war, but Pakistan has never stopped terrorist attacks on India. That is the standard strategy for Muslim powers, and having nuclear weapons will make terrorism even more attractive.
2. The Europeans will lose the American nuclear umbrella, and will appeal to Russia for nuclear protection. They must also modernize the nuclear capacity of France and Britain, because this will not be a one- or two-superpower world, but an ongoing arms race between multiple powers, all possessing weapons of mass destruction. The UN will pretend to conduct inspections, just as it did in Iraq and Iran, a laughable failure.
In other words, this will be a fantasy peace, just as ObamaCare is a fantasy healthcare program. Obama craves the appearance of success, but in truth he never bothers to find out if his fantasies actually work. He is hooked on personal celebrity.
Obama is likely to run for UN Sec Gen positiopn after 2016, a major reason for this dreadfully unstable, phony solution to nuclear and missile proliferation. Obama’s personal ambition is a big ingredient in anything he does. The Russians have figured that out, and saw it as an opportunity to reverse their decline as a superpower. Domestically we no longer have a functioning opposition, so that there is no critical thinking about absurd policies any more. That is why Obama Care is likely to fail over and over again. A number of O’Care “architects” have come forward in the last week to confess that yes, of course they were lying to Americans about their future healthcare. But they were lying for a good cause, naturally. In fact, they were making wild guesses and now have Americans in a trap. They won’t allow us to escape their fantasy trap no matter how bad it gets.
The same mad illogic governs this Middle East “peace” process. It’s just as phony and destructive as Obama’s medical takeover. The top goal is more power for the socialists. Healthcare and peace are strictly secondary.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi royal who seems to own most everything there is to own — a chunk of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, a piece of Twitter, all of Paris’s George V Hotel, the Savoy in London, and a Boeing 747 for his personal use — was sitting in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago the other evening (he and Bill Gates own most of Four Seasons Holdings), offering up the view — the view of an experienced negotiator from the Middle East — that U.S. President Barack Obama is outmatched by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
“There’s no confidence in the Obama administration doing the right thing with Iran,” he told me, with a directness that would make Benjamin Netanyahu blush. “We’re really concerned — Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East countries — about this.”
It is quite something for a Saudi royal to state baldly that his country is part of a tacit alliance with Israel, but Saudi leaders, like Israel’s leaders, are frantic with worry that an overeager Obama will accede to Iran’s desire to become a threshold state, one whose nuclear program is so advanced that it would only need several weeks to assemble a deliverable weapon. Alwaleed, like Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, believes that Iran, in its ongoing negotiations with the world’s major powers, will pocket whatever sanctions relief it gets without committing to ending its nuclear program. “Why are they offering relief?” he asked. “Keep the pressure on. Sanctions are what brought about the negotiations to begin with! Why not keep the pressure up?”
Obama, Alwaleed says, is a man who is in desperate political straits and needs a victory — any victory — to right his presidency. “Obama is in so much of a rush to have a deal with Iran,” he said. “He wants anything. He’s so wounded. It’s very scary. Look, the 2014 elections are going to begin. Within two months they’re going to start campaigning. Thirty-nine members of his own party in the House have already moved away from him on Obama care. That’s scary for him.”
Alwaleed believes a stronger president would have the willpower to say no to a flawed deal with Iran. Like the Israelis, the Saudis believe a flawed deal is one in which Iran isn’t forced to put its nuclear program in reverse, by shuttering facilities and mothballing centrifuges. (Alwaleed is not a Saudi government official, but he often floats trial balloons on behalf of the members of his family who rule his country, and they consider him free to make impolitic statements they believe but cannot publicly endorse).
“This has been going on for 30 years plus, since the Iranian revolution in 1979,” he continued. “And his people bragged about the first call between President Obama and President Rouhani. But what does a call mean? It’s nothing.” He went on to condemn Obama for folding when confronted with proof that Syria, Iran’s proxy, used chemical weapons against civilians. Obama had previously warned Syria not to cross the red line he drew on the deployment of chemical weapons.
“When he put that red line out, and the red line was crossed, he blinks,” he said, going on to suggest that Obama is mistaken to believe that Syria will, in fact, ship out all of its chemical weapons, as it has agreed to do. “You think the chemicals are going to come out, one hundred percent? Come on. Even if he lets them go, the same people who produced them before will produce them again.” When Obama “blinked,” Alwaleed suggested, the Arabs came to the conclusion that he would not stand up to Iran, either.
Alwaleed suggested that it may ultimately be the Iranian leadership itself that saves the day, by rejecting a compromise offer it sees as unacceptably tough — but one that Iran’s Israeli and Arab adversaries see as unacceptably accommodating. “You and I both know that the real power is with Khamenei” — Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader — “and not President Rouhani. There are two theories, one that that Rouhani sincerely wants to negotiate but he can’t give up this program, and the second theory, which is — come on, give me a break, they don’t want to do this. Either way, Khamenei is the real ruler.” He went on, “We just saw Khamenei issue an announcement saying to his own negotiators that before they go and talk they shouldn’t cross his own red lines.”
If the negotiations don’t succeed — and clearly, Alwaleed sees no chance of success — then what? Anti-proliferation by force? I asked him if he thought the Arab states would actually back an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, if this terrible option should come to pass.
“Publicly, they would be against it,” he said. “Privately, they would love it.” What about at the level of the so-called Arab street? “The Sunnis will love it,” he said, referring to the dominant branch of Islam, to which most Arab Muslims adhere. “The Sunni Muslim is very much anti-Shiite, and very much anti-, anti-, anti-Iran,” he said.
You’re sure they loathe Iran more than they loathe Israel? “Look, Iran is a huge threat, historically speaking,” he said. “The Persian empire was always against the Muslim Arab empire, especially against the Sunnis. The threat is from Persia, not from Israel. This was a great empire ruling the whole neighborhood. I’ll tell you something — they are in Bahrain, they are in Iraq, they are in Syria, they are with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas, which is Sunni, in Gaza. They are intruding into these areas. King Abdullah of Jordan had a good statement on this — he said that a Shiite crescent begins from Iran, through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and goes down to Palestine, to Hamas.”
Alwaleed, who spent much of our time together criticizing Obama, also reserved some criticism for Saudi Arabia’s Jewish ally. He said that if Netanyahu would make advances in the peace process with Palestinians, he would help marginalize Iran. “If you want to weaken Iran’s position in the Arab world, you should have peace with the Palestinians. This would help move Iran away from this issue. This is the heart of it. Hezbollah will not go away, but they will be weakened.”
This last piece of analysis made good sense to me. As for the rest of his analysis? It is easy to write-off Saudi fears of Iranian regional domination as part of an internecine Muslim struggle that is ultimately immaterial to the core national security interests of the U.S. On the other hand, countries that have had long and bitter experience with Iran might have something to teach American negotiators as they strive for a deal.