Pro Bombing Iran

Saudi Arabia told US to bomb Iran: WikiLeaks
November 29, 2010 14:54 IST
A number of Middle Eastern nations have expressed concern over Iran's aspirations of becoming a nuclear armed state, according to the secret cables released by whistleblower website WikiLeaks.



Saudi Arabia's leader King Abdullah has even asked the US to consider bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, reveal the cables.

"He told you (US administration) to cut off the head of the snake," the Saudi ambassador to Washington Adel al-Jubeir is quoted as saying.


Other neighbours of Iran are equally paranoid about its might, with Jordan and Bahrain urging US to stop Iran's nuclear programme 'by any means'.


Iran is often referred to as 'evil' and an 'existential threat', while its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [ Images ] will 'take the volatile region' to war, believe many.


The cables reveal US's anxiety about Israel deciding to undertake a military strike against Iran, after the country's military intelligence chief Major General Amos Yadlin warned last year: "We are not in a position to underestimate Iran and be surprised like the US was on September 11, 2001."


Israel has taken the most aggressive stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions, repeatedly threatening a military strike and urging the US to be more pro-active. Israel and its ally US both believe that time is running out to contain Ahmadinejad.


The Jewish nation has publicly stated that military action is the only way to prevent or stop Iran's nuclear programme.


King Abdullah has warned the Obama [ Images ] administration that once Iran manages to develop nuclear weapons, the entire Middle East will jump into the fray for nuclear armament.


"Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb," a Jordanian politician told an US official, says a WikiLeaks release.


"Personally, I cannot risk it," Abu Dhabi crown prince Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed told US officials, warning them against the ambitious Ahmadinejad.


Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak [ Images ] claimed that "Iran is always stirring trouble" and a nuclear-armed Iran would be "the biggest threat to non-proliferation efforts since the Cuban missile crisis".

U.A.E. tells U.S. It's Time To Bomb Iran
Yousef Al-Otaiba, the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates to the United States, on July 6 endorsed US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado, Al-Otaiba said: "It's a cost-benefit analysis. 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." But “we can’t live with a nuclear Iran.”

He directly challenged the notion, gaining ground in US policy circles in the wake of US fecklessness, that a nuclear mullocracy could be contained: "Countries in the region view the Iran threat very differently, I can only speak for the U.A.E., but talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous. Why should I be led to believe that deterrence or containment will work? Iran doesn't have a nuclear power now, but we're unable to contain them and their behavior in the region. What makes me think that once they have a nuclear program, we're going to be able to be more successful in containing them?”

Al-Otaiba reiterated the age-old truth--small countries, in the absence of dependable allies, of necessity hedge their bets: "There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran. Small, rich, vulnerable countries in the region do not want to be the ones who stick their finger in the big bully's eye, if nobody's going to come to their support."

One hopes President Obama is listening. There is a significant rift in the Middle East, with Syria, Lebanon and Turkey cozying up to Iran; but with the majority of countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, wishing and waiting for strong US leadership to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

Robert Frost once wryly described a liberal as a person too open-minded to take his own side in a quarrel. America needs to clearly take its own side, and that of its allies, in the war against Islamism, of which Iran is the premiere exponent.




Bolton: If Mubarak falls in Egypt, Israel should bomb Iran

By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, February 1st, 2011 -- 11:24 am

0

Tags: Mubarak, position, time
Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the ouster of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would speed the timetable for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

"Do you think that the Israelis are going to have to strike — they are going to have to take action?" Fox News Republican opinion host Sean Hannity asked the former ambassador on his radio program Monday.

"As you pointed out, ElBaradei ran cover for the Iranians for all those years that he was with the IAEA. And, I just don’t think the Israelis have much longer to wait… they're going to have to act in fairly short order."

"I think that's right," Bolton responded. "I don't think there’s much time to act. And I think the fall of a Egyptian government committed to the peace agreement will almost certainly speed that timetable up."

Bolton chided the protests in Egypt last week, saying that "the real alternative is not Jefferson democracy versus the Mubarak regime, but that it’s the Muslim Brotherhood versus the Mubarak regime, and that has enormous implications for the US, for Israel, and our other friends in the region."

The former ambassador was appointed to his position by President George W. Bush in 2005 after facing heavy resistance from Democrats. He resigned from his position in December 2006 after failing to be confirmed by the Senate.

Bolton, a neoconservative, has a long history of promoting military strikes on Iran.



In August 2010, he warned that Israel only had eight days to launch an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent the nation from acquiring a functioning atomic plant.

"Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they're in the reactor, attacking it means a release of radiation, no question about it," he told Fox Business Network.

"So if Israel is going to do anything against Bushehr it has to move in the next eight days."

He also predicted in June 2008 that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear sites before the next US president was sworn in.

"An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," Bolton said. "With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development."

Iran's Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant has already been hit with a computer worm that damaged the facilities' centrifuges. The malicious code, known as "Stuxnet," is suspected to be a joint American and Israeli effort.

A recent Russian intelligence assessment warned that "Stuxnet" could cause a "Chernobyl-like disaster" should the site be switched on.

Iran continues to maintain its nuclear program is for the peaceful generation of energy, not weapons.