Arab diplomat: Bombing Iran less costly in the long run

posted at 10:55 am on July 7, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

While Western nations debate over the finer points of sanctions to dissuade Iran from its pursuit of nuclear weapons, the neighbors of the Iranian mullahcracy are making much more practical calculations.  The ambassador from the United Arab Emirates shocked his audience yesterday by openly calling for military strikes on Iranian targets if sanctions do not reverse the mullahcracy’s course in the short term.  Yousef al-Otaiba said that talk of “containment and deterrence” makes him nervous, given the 30-year history of futility of such policies:

The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran‘s nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.

In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran‘s nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country’s quest for nuclear weapons.

“I think it’s a cost-benefit analysis,” Mr. al-Otaiba said. “I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.”

“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 nuclearIran.’ I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E.

Otaiba made a more telling point, however, in attacking the fundamental rationale for the sanctions:

The ambassador also said that “talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous.”

He said Iran has not been deterred from supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah now, when it doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal. So why, he asked rhetorically, would Iran be more cautious in its support for terrorism if it did.

“Why should I be led to believe that deterrence and containment will work?” he asked.

Otaiba is right.  That policy has led us to where we are today, with the Iranian regime entrenched behind a military police state and well on their way to acquiring weapons of mass destruction.  They already have the means to deliver them, if they choose to do so in open military conflict.  However, they would more likely use their proxy terrorist armies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to park a nuke in Tel Aviv in order to claim deniability.  The ongoing existence of both forces, which rely on Iranian funding and direction, is another plague that the policies of deterrence and containment have rendered unto the region.

However, military action against Iran is much more difficult than it was against Iraq or Afghanistan.  Iran is three times the size of Iraq in mainly mountainous territory.  The Iranians have no doubt dispersed their nuclear efforts to keep a single strike or even a series of them from completely destroying those facilities.  Despite our presence in the Gulf, those factors — plus the fact that Iran has not had to fight a war for a few decades and so has more strength than Saddam Hussein had in either conflict with the US — means successful strikes that would halt their nuclear progress and disable the Revolutionary Guard would be hard to accomplish, dangerous to try, and likely would cost the West a great deal of nascent sympathy among Iranian democracy activists unless it also succeeded in decapitating the mullahcracy and the military leadership.  That would be akin to drawing two cards to an inside straight flush.

Otaiba understands these risks, though, and accepts the costs.  As he told the startled policymakers in the audience, “The United States may be able to live with it [a nuclear Iran].  We can’t.”  Neither can the other Arab states, not without a nuclear arms race that would raise the risk of putting nukes in the hands of Islamist extremists to an almost-certainty.  The US cannot live with that outcome, either.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This is actually a very good sign.

VegasRick on July 7, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Imagine a Arab diplomat encouraging the bombing of a “cousin” and the U.S. pacifying that cousin.
Did I wake up in the same world as I was born into?

right2bright on July 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM

So says the oilman with a stake in price inflation. Bombing Iran is the dumbest thing America can do. If the Israelis and Gulf Arabs feel threatened, then they have the nukes and combined airspace to make this happen. We don’t have the money or political will to succeed in such a task- and it would shoot Obama’s “smart power” approach to hell.

abobo on July 7, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Hope

txmomof6 on July 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM

A good sign, yes. However who will they call to fight Iran? The USA of course, as Obama guts our military.

pabo on July 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton: ‘Arab Countries Would Support Attack On Iran’

“The Obama Administration does not manifestly understand,” noted Bolton, that “an Israeli attack against the Iranian nuclear program would be supported in the Arab world. It would be supported by the Arab states in the Persian Gulf region. It would be supported by Egypt and others who don’t want Iran to have nuclear we…apons any more than the Israelis do.” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37927

D0WNT0WN on July 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Let the People in the region handle their problems in their own backyard. If they want to bomb Iran more power to them.

Reality Checker on July 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece

D0WNT0WN on July 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Obama will put this guy on the no visit to America list…
Apology from head of UAE govt coming up in 3, 2, 1…

albill on July 7, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Yousef al-Otaiba said that talk of “containment and deterrence” makes him nervous, given the 30-year history of futility of such policies:

Taking history lessons from the “one” are we. It has a lot longer history of futility than 30 years.

chemman on July 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM

However, they would more likely use their proxy terrorist armies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to park a nuke in Tel Aviv in order to claim deniability.

I’ve got to assume the Israelis have planned for such a scenario and their immediate response probably includes parking a nuke on the Gaza Strip, another in Damascus and a third on downtown Tehran.

Counter-strike first, ask questions later. They are in it to survive.

fogw on July 7, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Me likey

Dear leader not so much

cmsinaz on July 7, 2010 at 11:09 AM

IF we only had a President who wasn’t a MUSLIM!!!!!!!!

SDarchitect on July 7, 2010 at 11:09 AM

I’ve seen everything!

*gasp*

THUD

rollthedice on July 7, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Eric Holder to prosecute in 3…. 2…. 1….

LibTired on July 7, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Taking history lessons from the “one” are we. It has a lot longer history of futility than 30 years.

chemman on July 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM

I think he is referring to the mad mullahs takeover.

VegasRick on July 7, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Carter lost Iran in 1979. It’s been the premier sponsor since then. They won’t stop.

Paul-Cincy on July 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Persians vs. Arabs
Israel = the enemy of my enemy is my friend

txmomof6 on July 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM

I have to ask the obvious: If the UAE and other arab nations can not live with a nuclear Iran, then why do they not initiate and fund a covert operation aimed at destabilizing and toppling the mullahcracy from within? This is the most effective method for ending the nuclear issue, and further repercussions.

paulsur on July 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM

These guys’ forefathers lived through times similar to the Spartans in ’300′ so they know who they’re dealing with. Regardless of their political rhetoric, they know the Jews never tried to conquer them.

Not so the Persians.

platypus on July 7, 2010 at 11:15 AM

But, but…, what about the “open hand”? Doesn’t Iran just love everyone now?

LASue on July 7, 2010 at 11:18 AM

That guys life is in danger

tomas on July 7, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Read them their miranda rights first.

Daggett on July 7, 2010 at 11:20 AM

This is actually a very good sign.

VegasRick on July 7, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Not really. The UAE aren’t one tiny bit more, or less, sane than they have been. They’ve always known this, but they felt secure sitting in the corner and backbiting while America protected their interests – and those of everyone else in the world.

The only reason they are publically saying this now is because they see how catastrophically America has dropped the ball.

Now if Obama saw that Muslims want him to do this and then TOOK ACTION, then that would be a good sign. But there’s no way to know whether his bias toward the greater Islamic Empire will win out over his bias toward ineptitude.

If Israel – or anyone else in that region – has to step in and try to do this without US backing, then that whole area will erupt in a potentially drawn-out war. And then we can kiss whatever is left of the world’s economy goodby.

logis on July 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Let them slay their own dragons. The Arabs, in typical fashion, want someone else to slay the dragon; then, after it is slain, they will jump up and beat their heads and ululate and chant “death to America! death to Israel!”

Time for them to grow a pair and fight for themselves instead of using homicide bombers in a proxy war.

SilentWatcher on July 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Logis, Obama reflexively sides with the dictators and those who scorn him. Though they are all dictators and are scornful, only Iran kicks him in the teeth. So, he’ll bow and side with Iran.

SilentWatcher on July 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM

This guy will lose his Diplomatic Credentials and then be deported! Immadinnerjacket will still have Carte Blanche to enter our Country.

bluemarlin on July 7, 2010 at 11:24 AM

paulsur, the Arabs idea of “covert” is a suicide bomber.

SilentWatcher on July 7, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Yep, from the other Arab states point of view, and cost benefit analysis it would be best if ‘you and him fight’.

Skandia Recluse on July 7, 2010 at 11:27 AM

That’s a nice.
HOWEVER, for the statement to have any real meaning, the UAE Ambassador needs to specify exactly WHO exactly he is ok with bombing Iran. Of course he’d be ok with an Arab country doing it, but none of them have that capability.
He needs be able say to “I’m ok with the U.S. or Israel bombing Iran”, or this story isn’t as big a deal as many here seem to think it is.
I’m still pessimistic that there would be Arab world support if even just the U.S. was to execute a bombing mission. If Arab politicians believe it, then SAY OUR NAME!!!

HDFOB on July 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM

OK, yesterday NPR had a story that the People’s Republic of China’s bank, founded by Mao, is selling $20 billion worth of shares.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/07/06/128332676/china-ag-bank-ipo-poor-farmers-need-not-apply

And now Arabs want the US to conduct a strike on Iran.

China’s going capitalist while the US goes socialist, Arabs are more in tune with Republican foreign policy than Barack Hussein Obama’s foreign policy, damn, Alice, Wonderland turly is a bizzaro world.

rbj on July 7, 2010 at 11:31 AM

WH asks UAE to apologize to Iran immediately

runner on July 7, 2010 at 11:31 AM

What is he going to do about it?

Phoenician on July 7, 2010 at 11:33 AM

On the other hand it is blah, blah, blah.
Why doesn’t he offer to cover all or most of the military costs in this attack on Iran?

albill on July 7, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Perhaps the Arab states should handle Iran by themselves.

SC.Charlie on July 7, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Yep, from the other Arab states point of view, and cost benefit analysis it would be best if ‘you and him fight’.
Skandia Recluse on July 7, 2010 at 11:27 AM

We can kid ourselves all we want about how Iran’s neighbors are “suddenly seeing the light.”

But, despite all these overtures, they plan to go right back to screaming about “murderous infidel invaders” the second the threat is gone.

logis on July 7, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Perhaps the Arab states should handle Iran by themselves.

SC.Charlie on July 7, 2010 at 11:37 AM

That would not be their most cost-effective option.

logis on July 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Wowzers. An Arab dude has more bawlz than our president. History in the making, kids.

gryphon202 on July 7, 2010 at 11:42 AM

In 1935, Persia became Iran as a homage to Hitler. In the Farsi (Parsi) language, Iran means “Aryan”. Isn’t that special?

scullymj on July 7, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Imagine a Arab diplomat encouraging the bombing of a “cousin” and the U.S. pacifying that cousin.
Did I wake up in the same world as I was born into?

right2bright on July 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Iran is a distant cousin. And a threat to its neighbors. You think the other Arab states are looking forward to a nuclear arms race?

More importantly, how do you think a nuclear Iran will treat it’s neighbors? Two of those neighbors have a lot of U.S. troops in them at the moment.

hawksruleva on July 7, 2010 at 11:45 AM

I’m still pessimistic that there would be Arab world support if even just the U.S. was to execute a bombing mission. If Arab politicians believe it, then SAY OUR NAME!!!

HDFOB on July 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Why do we care if the Arabs vocalize support for the mission? As long as they don’t do anything violent, they can say whatever they want. Muslim RADICALS in their countries don’t like us now, and won’t like us regardless of whether we bomb Iran or not.

hawksruleva on July 7, 2010 at 11:48 AM

We need to pull troops out of Iraq and then have these people fight each other. In addition, we need to become 100% independent by any means: drilling, nuclear, coal, wind, solar, or what ever works.

We can never be their friends, but if they are fighting each other they MIGHT not be able to support expensive programs. Have them spend their own treasury and blood.

Oil Can on July 7, 2010 at 11:53 AM

Let me get this straight:

The Arabs don’t care if the Jews bomb the Persians.

I’m confused . . .

BigAlSouth on July 7, 2010 at 11:58 AM

So the Middle East would be more peaceful if we launched nukes against Iran?

Sounds like we’re reaching the tipping point, then.

tom on July 7, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Was he sent out to say the Arabs are fine with bombing Iran?

tarpon on July 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Yes, you infidels bomb Iran and take all the heat….Protect us (Great Satan)….Do everything for us and we might be amicable to talking more about the usage of our resources…
Bollocks!

Dick Turpin on July 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM

I’d love the US to invade Iran only to watch Chris Matthews and Olberdweeb defend it.

angryed on July 7, 2010 at 12:05 PM

I don’t like the idea of a nuclear Iran. That little tyrant leader of theirs is nuts.

scalleywag on July 7, 2010 at 12:12 PM

It would be difficult to capture Iran, or to invade it….but it would be relatively easy to reduce it. As a petroleum producing state, it is quite ironic to note that it only has one refinery of its own and normally has to import gasoline. Hit the refinery, the ports, rail lines, bridges and passes, and some fuel depots, and Iran would quickly run out of fuel.

Its army and navy, fearsome though they might be, could do little if they could not be moved into position or resupplied. Its nuclear centrifuges wouldn’t twirl themselves. The eighteen and a half million people living in Tehran are probably unsupportable without truck transport and many millions would have to leave.

The problem with this, of course, is that it would be a humanitarian catastrophe that would play out over weeks in particularly telegenic ways. It’s much easier to go for another round of golf and wait for Tel Aviv to get nuked.

cthulhu on July 7, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Dude, if this guy gets it…

However, military action against Iran is much more difficult than it was against Iraq or Afghanistan

Let’s face it, military action anywhere is not just difficult, it’s pretty much impossible these days.

Maybe it’s just impossible in the Middle East, but when we go in with the type of ROEs that are in place, it’s best not to go in at all.

War sucks, and very few leaders in the past 100 years know how to do it well. You get in, do whatever you have to do and get out quickly.

Best example I can think of is Patton. People still say he was a lousy general because he was reckless and didn’t car about his men, blah, blah… That is total BS. He knew that you needed to hit the enemy, hot them hard and not let up. That is how you win AND keep more of your own troops alive.

We have the strength, technology and training but not the willpower to win. From not going after the enemy in Cambodia, not not going after them in a mosque (Oh, we can’t blow it up, they will be mad!) we should stay out of the business of fighting wars until we decide to win.

reaganaut on July 7, 2010 at 12:20 PM

We need to get the Russians and the Chinese to do the bombing. If they do it, who will complain, except Iran???

georgealbert on July 7, 2010 at 12:25 PM

If Arab ambassadors are publicly saying that attacking Iran makes more sense than trying to make peace, then I’d say they’re starting to get desperate.

Of course, we know how this would work.

Before the attack: “Oh, if only the U.S. or Israel would strike Iran before it’s too late!”

After the attack: “Death to the Zionist pigs who attacked our beloved brother Muslim nation of Iran!”

tom on July 7, 2010 at 12:28 PM

We need to get the Russians and the Chinese to do the bombing. If they do it, who will complain, except Iran???

georgealbert on July 7, 2010 at 12:25 PM

True, but good luck! They see Iran as our dilemma, and like it that way.

tom on July 7, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Let me get this straight:

The Arabs don’t care if the Jews bomb the Persians.

I’m confused . . .

BigAlSouth on July 7, 2010 at 11:58 AM

The Arabs don’t even mind if the Jooos bomb other Arabs. Sometimes. Remember all the fuss that didn’t happen when the Israelis took out Syria’s reactor less than 2 years ago?

ProfessorMiao on July 7, 2010 at 12:33 PM

After the attack: “Death to the Zionist pigs who attacked our beloved brother Muslim nation of Iran!”

tom on July 7, 2010 at 12:28 PM

I’m not so sure. None of them complained when Israel took out Syria’s reactor. The silence was fascinating.

ProfessorMiao on July 7, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Three recent events make me think…

1) Egypt gives verbal support to Israel’s blockade

2) Saudi Arabia says it will open its airspace for Israel to attack Iran

3) The United Arab Emirates openly advocate bombing Iran

I know I can’t be the only one thinking, “Don’t trust these guys. They are trying to leave Israel vulnerable.

ynot4tony2 on July 7, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Persians vs. Arabs
Israel = the enemy of my enemy is my friend

txmomof6 on July 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM

They took that approach with Turkey as well, must I say more?

abobo on July 7, 2010 at 12:41 PM

I know I can’t be the only one thinking, “Don’t trust these guys. They are trying to leave Israel vulnerable.

ynot4tony2 on July 7, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Exactly! i keep saying this, and getting called a truther for it, but the Sunnis WANT this war to happen. They WANT the jews and shias to kill each other. And they also know how to fan the flames and extort whatever they want out of their “allies” once it all gets started.

abobo on July 7, 2010 at 12:44 PM

“Don’t trust these guys. They are trying to leave Israel vulnerable.

I dobut it. Iran scares them, too. Iraq scared them as well, that’s why they cooperated (more the first time around).

This is coming from the ruling parties of these countries, they just want to make sure oil money keeps flowing in and they stay in power. They are living well and that includes the decadence of the west. They just want stability, to keep their “peasants” complacent and fund a little Islamic terror here and there to keep them busy. Not enough to get their hands really dirty though, and thus invite a cruise missile into their palatial residence(s).

Although the Saudis seem to get away with getting their hands pretty dirty. Someday the whole truth of that will be revealed, I wonder if I’ll still be alive to read it.

reaganaut on July 7, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Wowzers. An Arab dude has more bawlz than our president. History in the making, kids.

gryphon202 on July 7, 2010 at 11:42 AM

What do you mean? I’m afraid the bar is already set pretty low in that department. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton has more bawlz than our president.

kscheuller on July 7, 2010 at 12:57 PM

For that matter, Nancy Pelosi has more bawlz than our president.

kscheuller on July 7, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Clear skies and lots of refueling room.
Complete repudiation of the majik one& hillary’s faux foreign policy.

Col.John Wm. Reed on July 7, 2010 at 12:58 PM

This so reminds me of situations in which company managers will hire outside consultants who mearly assess conditions exactly the same as internal employees.

dts-01 on July 7, 2010 at 1:18 PM

As far as testicular fortitude in U.S. Presidents is concerned, Bush 43 had some, but he was a pale immitation of Ronaldus Magnus. Getting up and leaving Gorby at the table in Reykjavik after Gorby didn’t initially agree to SDI took enormous testicular fortitude. Reagan knew what he was doing.

Gorby called Reagan a dinosaur, he was just jealous of his dinosaur sized balls.

kscheuller on July 7, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Fight, fight, Wahabi and Shiite!

10.00/ gallon?

TheSitRep on July 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM

I’m having mixed reactions. Nice to have someone voice this, but I noted…

there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what

… and that backlash will be aimed at who???

taznar on July 7, 2010 at 2:03 PM

This is the same Dubai U.A.E. country that people freaked out about having ship ports in the U.S. (They already did) This country is not an enemy. Rush said it was stupid to stop them but we freaked out.

Next point of business:

I am certain Obama has threatened Israel with disruption of spare airplane and military parts and the shutting down of the U.S. X-band radar set up in Israel if they attack. I wouldn’t be surprised if he said our planes would shoot them down if they cross Iraqi airspace too. (Hopefully our Generals wouldn’t follow that order, but he may have said it to scare them).

The man is not a friend to Israel, or apparently the world for that matter. I don’t think anyone knows how bad that meeting at the White House really was.

scotash on July 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM

It comes down to this:

If Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia (and other Arab nations) will be hell-bent on acquiring nukes of their own, and given their financial resources, will likely succeed in arming themselves in record time.

Do we really want a bunch of fundamentalist Islamic states bristling with nuclear weapons?

This is another one of those “lesser of evils” choices, in which the greater evil could very well lead to an apocalyptic conclusion.

hillbillyjim on July 7, 2010 at 2:39 PM

In other words: We hate you infidels, but a nuclear Iran is really scary. So please take them out for us, so we can go back to concentrating on our hatred of you infidels.

Disturb the Universe on July 7, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Actually there IS a way to deal with a dispersed nuclear program. don’t attack the program, attack the leadership. That would buy time to allow us to identify and destroy the nuclear program.

Nuke Tehran, kill the entire “Revolutionary Council” along with Ahmadinijhad, and then mop up the nuclear program at our leisure.

Rorschach on July 7, 2010 at 2:52 PM

I have to ask the obvious: If the UAE and other arab nations can not live with a nuclear Iran, then why do they not initiate and fund a covert operation aimed at destabilizing and toppling the mullahcracy from within?
paulsur on July 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Because being phenomenally wealthy doesn’t stop them from being phenomenally incompetent.

As a nation/group, their only significant ‘skill’ is spending money to buy the goods and services they are incapable of providing for themselves, i.e. more or less everything.

YiZhangZhe on July 7, 2010 at 4:05 PM

“The United States may be able to live with it [a nuclear Iran]. We can’t.”

Where are your armies, Mr. Otaiba? Some may see the US as the world’s cop, but we don’t do anyone’s dirty work. How about a compromise? You provide the ground troops and we’ll provide naval and air support. Deal?

Kafir on July 7, 2010 at 4:24 PM

So says the oilman with a stake in price inflation. Bombing Iran is the dumbest thing America can do. If the Israelis and Gulf Arabs feel threatened, then they have the nukes and combined airspace to make this happen. We don’t have the money or political will to succeed in such a task- and it would shoot Obama’s “smart power” approach to hell.

abobo on July 7, 2010 at 11:01 AM

1. Israel can do a single strike but lacks the ability to carry out sustained operations that will be needed to completely eliminate the nuclear threat for now. Ditto for Iran’s neighbors. Such a strike also will lead to missile exchanges between Israel and Iran that could escalate to chemical or nuclear exchanges.

2. Only two powers possess the ability to carry out large scale sustained air operations – us and Russia.

3. We need to do it soon in conjunction with a crackdown on Islamofacists in arab countries.

4. Never use the words “Obama” and “smart” in the same sentence. They never mix.

Bubba Redneck on July 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Thus saith the two-faced snake when confronted by a mongoose!

In case you haven’t noticed, Yousef, the two endless conflict we’re embroiled in already have our armed forces strained and our civilian economy on the brink of collapse. To start a third war in Iran would also be a far taller order from the get-go; Iran actually has a semblance of a military and is much bigger. We will NOT be able to steamroll them like we have Iraq & A$$crackistan. And if we did somehow toss the mad mullahs off the throne, without wrecking the world’s biggest oil supply in the process (or them self-destructing it a la Saddam Hussein) just what would we get? Another Middle Eastern protectorate with a thin veil of democracy over an Islamic theocracy?!

In a nutshell…fight your own battles, you bunch of backbiting camelf*ckers!

Dark-Star on July 7, 2010 at 4:54 PM

I have to ask the obvious: If the UAE and other arab nations can not live with a nuclear Iran, then why do they not initiate and fund a covert operation aimed at destabilizing and toppling the mullahcracy from within? This is the most effective method for ending the nuclear issue, and further repercussions.

paulsur on July 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM

I agree. Seriously, why don’t the U.A.E., Oman, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan and other Muslim states just have a joint operation and fly in and deal with Iran.

What the U.A.E. is really saying that they’re cowards and they want someone else to do their dirty work.

I say the U.S. and Israel provide military intelligence and some cash, but the Arab nations do the dirty work.

Conservative Samizdat on July 7, 2010 at 5:15 PM

As soon as the words “a Muslim country” come up, there’s nothing constructive coming from it.

Islam is a pathway backwards.

And is best sequestered where it can do only itself harm.

Which presumes that our leadership understand that:

you do not allow militant ayatollahs to get their hands on WMD’s.

Especially not nuclear.

We do not permit madmen to arm with pistols, much less nukes.

And the longer we delay, the more likely the loons are to launch.

profitsbeard on July 7, 2010 at 7:52 PM

If Israel – or anyone else in that region – has to step in and try to do this without US backing, then that whole area will erupt in a potentially drawn-out war. And then we can kiss whatever is left of the world’s economy goodby.

We do have a lot of firepower in the Gulf right now. Iran might think Obama won’t use it, but he had to okay it to be sent there. Also the temporary lovefest with Bibi might be mostly to influence my fellow so-smart-they-are-dumb Jewish voters in November, but maybe also Obama wants to be in the loop of whatever Israel is planning.

YehuditTX on July 7, 2010 at 8:15 PM

I say the U.S. and Israel provide military intelligence and some cash, but the Arab nations do the dirty work.

The Arabs are the ones with the cash, they should finance the whole thing. Maybe they are.

YehuditTX on July 7, 2010 at 8:16 PM

It’s very Machiavellian. As an oil exporter, if Israel attacks Iran, that will push the price of oil to the moon. UAE is laughing all the way to the bank.

keep the change on July 7, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Wowzers. An Arab dude has more bawlz than our president. History in the making, kids.

gryphon202 on July 7, 2010 at 11:42 A

M

:-) they don’t have a choice there, but to have ‘bawlz’ :-) (or grow them if missing :-) he stated pretty clearly there. due to geography and super-power status the US can afford to pretend for a while that it can’t be bothered by the Iranian regime and their nukes in the making, but the smaller Arab nations in the region don’t enjoy the ‘sit and watch’ privilege.

jimver on July 8, 2010 at 5:32 AM