The leaking of millions of American diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks is a disturbing phenomenon primarily because it will make future diplomacy more difficult and, in particular, will undermine U.S. credibility in such matters.
However, the documents' revelations should finally put to rest the double game that the Arab world has been playing for decades with regard to Israel and other threats in the region.
I remember as if it were yesterday the public reaction in the Arab world when Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.
Condemnation of Israel was unanimous, with accusations being tossed around about Israeli alleged aggressive and expansionist aims. Meanwhile, the now-defunct newspaper The Washington Star captured the real situation in an insightful editorial. The Star said: "The Arab world will criticize Israel by day and sleep better at night" because of what Israel had done.
These words ably summarized a history of Middle East realities which were never more relevant than in our current world.
While the Arabs on a daily basis talk incessantly about the great Zionist threat to the region, their actions have long betrayed a very different and more rational fear. Let's recall that the Arabs, like many others, have believed since the 1960s that Israel has had a nuclear weapons arsenal (Israel has never confirmed nor denied this). One would have thought, considering all the propaganda about "expansionist Israel," that a nuclear-armed Zionist state would have been seen as the greatest threat to the Arab world and that a sense of urgency would have emerged to develop nuclear weapons of their own.
During all these years, however, with the exception of the two "crazies" among the Arabs, Saddam Hussein and Khaddafi, none of the other Arab states ever felt the need to embark on their own nuclear programs; this despite the huge oil revenues which could have enabled them to buy expertise and materials.
It was a classic example of voting with their feet, of actions speaking louder than words. Despite the vicious rhetoric, the Arab states understood what Israel was about and had no deep fear of a nuclear Israel.
Today, however, as the Islamic government of Iran moves toward a nuclear capability, there have been repeated reports of programs beginning at least in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Commentary similar to the Washington Star editorial has surfaced indicating the growing Arab concern about an Iranian bomb, only to be met with the usual Arab denials and change of subject back to the Palestinian issue.
Now come the revelations from the diplomatic cables.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly called on the U.S. to "cut off the head of the snake," referring to Iranian leadership. The United Arab Emirates defense minister, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, in 2009 urged U.S. action against Iran, framing this in terms of the danger of appeasing Iran because, he said, "Ahmadinejad is Hitler."
So much for two assumptions, that of Israel as the greatest enemy of the Arabs and that of the Palestinian issue being the sine qua non of Arab diplomacy. None of which is to deny Arab hostility toward the Jewish state or of the need to resolve the Palestinian problem, but only to put things in perspective.
What is so clear from these documents, what some of us were saying all along but were often criticized for allegedly simply expressing the Israeli view, is that the threat of a nuclear Iran is indeed the greatest threat to civilization. The Arab fears as reflected in these documents will lead the Arab world to take two contradictory but dangerous steps should the world not find a way to stop the Iranian program.
Serious nuclear programs will inevitably move forward leading to the ultimate nightmare scenario, a Middle East with nuclear weapons proliferating, a formula for nuclear Armageddon. And, at the same time, Arab appeasement of Iran -- under the rubric of, if the U.S. isn't serious about curtailing Iran, we Arabs will find a way to live with them -- would grow the Iranian threat.
All of this signals another wake up call. The international community has responded much more effectively during the past year with stronger U.N. and other sanctions against Iran, to the credit of President Barack Obama. These steps have begun to bite but, according to most experts, not fast enough to stop the Iranian program.
Now that it is as clear as can be that the Arabs themselves are demanding firmer U.S. action, the time has come for even stronger pressure on the Iranian regime. Progress on Israeli-Palestinian issues is important in its own right and should be pursued. We cannot afford, however, to use that as an excuse not to focus on what everyone in the region (besides Iran's terrorist allies) understands to be the true threat to peace and security.
Philip N. Howard: Egypt Elections: Muslim Brotherhood Loses, Internet Wins
In 1978 Richard Wilson was worried about a possible “Islamic Bomb” as a counter to the Israeli posession of nuclear weapons. But in 1981 he discovered that the activities at the time (including the OSIRAK reactor) were peaceful, and could be monitored. He constantly reminds people that the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the OSIRAK reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive internatio nal safeguards . The 1981 bombing of this reactor did not delay Iraq’s nuclear bomb program. On the contrary it started it..
[source: Wilson’s webpage at Harvard. http://www .physics.h arvard.edu /~wilson/”
If they feel so strongly about it, why don't they do it themselves? They have money in their treasuries, military equipment and manpower - why should we be the ones to lose more lives, have more wounded, throw our money into another endless pit of corruption and violence?
http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=3410
Israel needs the US to take out Iran's nuclear program because they are too scared to do it themselves without the green light. And they'll go to whatever means to gain public support in the US to do it just like they did in Iraq/
Enough all ready with propping up an apartheid state !
Let israeli take care of itself and if it fails - oh well
Somehow a uninspected nuclear reactor in a technological and industrial wateland is just like an IAEA inspected and NPT compliant nuclear energy program in a technologically advanced industrialised country (indeed, not only do they make more of a contribution to the advancement of science than most EU countries, their factories are up to the standards of the high end manufacturers in the EU).
Somehow, all the talk about the need to get away from fossil fuels should be ignored by countries that have fossil fuels in abundance (I know, the headlines and stories like this only mention Iran's nuclear program, but they are also heavily investing in hydro, building dams for that purpose wherever they can, solar, and wind)
And somehow, the talk of several other countries that they are thinking about buying reactors (though no talk about anything other than buying a turnkey operation, seeing as they have to bow to Washington) becomes them thinking about developing nuclear weapons.
Such conflations mark the article as what it truly is (not neutral, factual reporting, by a long shot)
lets read their nuclear facility inspection reports.
Not allowed ... International law and standards somehow never apply to Israel .
Why is that?
I dont care if every single person in the middle east asks us to bomb Iran. We simply need to stay out of it. We are broke. If we have one dollar to spare on bombs then it should get redirected to home consumption here. 2 million people are going to be with out unemployment benefits by end of year.
Another issue, who cares what the King of Saudi or Bibi say. They have their own interest at heart and care not about the USA, so from my perspective, good luck to them but keep us out of this.
And finally, Israel has been using the Iran crutch as a reason to postpone and delay peace and increase their land theft. Please feel free to jump in anytime and condemn this illegal behavior.
Try reading the article. Slower this time.
While I certainly don't support a war on Iran, I also don't see how the two relate, and why suddenly Iran began using the Palestinians as their battle cry...
Iran is it's own conundrum, the conflict between I/P is an entirely another.
Tying them together is ONLY done by those who oppose the existence of Israel.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/11/27/can-israel-defeat-hezbollah-in-the-coming-war/
Israle and Iran hate each other fine, I dont care thats their problem.
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/dec/1010.html
Of course this justifies Israeli claims that Iran is bad and Israel is good. Pleaasse. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Libya are bought off by the US. I expected this reaction for the pro-Israeli camp. If Israel wants to attack Iran go right ahead but leave the rest of the West out of insane actions, Israel will likely Sudan and Lebanon because they are weaker countries.
Israel has NEVER signed the NPT. And when it is singled out for not signing Israel whines about being singled out. Either the whole region has nukes or none at all. Israel/Us/Uk cant have it both ways. Mossad/MI6/CIA continue to meddle in other countries affairs which isnt there businss. I dont think of any these countries learned anything from kindergarden -- share your toys. However wealth, power and control seem to trump humanity and compassion.
Regards,
SamSeven
If you the Israelis want a war with Iran then go ahead and start one. But keep american government and our soldiers out of it. We are done losing our boys to protect ISrael
What is mysterious is why supporters of Israel see Israel's making common cause with Arab dictators as a great coup.
By contrast the Arabs, as Gates apparently said in a memo, wants to fight Iran to the last American. Far from offering any worthwhile military support they have only the strength that we have sold them, and that is not significant in this context. And had we attacked Iran, the expectation is that they would have led the public charge against us.
Foxman and Jeffrey Goldberg and the other Israel supporters who are finding significance here seem to be pointing to the comments of th Arab leaders for some kind of moral support. And Churchill and Roosevelt certainly did not make common cause with Stalin for the moral authority he could offer.
In fact your example does a good job of clarifying what I think is so strange about this argument. We know why Churchill and Roosevelt held their noses and made common cause with Stalin. It is exactly such a justification that is missing in this case.
The Israeli apologists love to ignore Turkey. Turkey is the most important country in the middle east and the second most important memeber of NATO, and they just made NATO change their non-sense comments about "Iranian threat."
http://news.az/articles/turkey/27480