UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
This is stunning:
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 nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
It is extraordinary that he said this on the record. In particular:
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 nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
Jeffrey Goldberg notes that this point of view is neither a surprise nor a major revelation to anyone who knows anything about the region. He's right. But when the UAE says it this way, officially, on the record, that's very big news. Here's an excellent analysis by Bernard-Henri Lévy:
This major event absent from all the main radars, this geopolitical reversal that has not earned a thousandth of the media coverage devoted to Hillary Clinton's changing moods, is the United Arab Emirates's decision to inspect ships more or less directly linked to Iran or to trade with Iran arriving in their territorial waters and to freeze 41 bank accounts belonging to Iranian entities that may serve as a screen for contraband operations to further Tehran's nuclear program. In other words, the UAE has chosen to side with the camp of those who apply to the letter the new United Nations resolution of June 9th that provides for further intensification of sanctions against Iran.
This event occurs a few days after Hamad al-Kaabi, permanent representative of The Emirates to the IAEA, declared, at the closure of the annual meeting of the Global Initiative to CombatNuclear Terrorism at Abu Dhabi, that within the past few weeks, Emirates police have already inspected several dozen ships containing sensitive materials.
There are no good options. We all know that a military strike on Iran will be a God-awful thing. Lévy's tone contains a hint of exhilaration. But I just feel dread.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
Iran cannot be allowed to possess the bomb, because the mullahs in charge there are clearly fanatics and very likely to use them in pursuit of global jihad. IMHO this is the most pressing foreign problem we face in the next few years. If we need to focus on Iran at the expense of Afghanistan or Iraq, the so be it.
Glad to see that the Saudi's have figured this out. The moderate Muslims have figured out that the radical Muslims will target them first (low hanging fruit) before going after the true infidels.
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
I understand feeling dread, Clair. I feel for the majority of Iranians trapped by a barbarous system. But Iran with the bomb fills me with more than dread. Try terror.
May '10
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
And this statement coincides with Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington. I suppose only hindsight will tell whether all this (including Saudi Arabia's reported approval of Israeli overflight) is related.
May '10
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
I notice the ambassador does not specify which "outside force" might do the attacking. I can't believe he's neutral on that point: surely he must have a strong preference that the US handles it, and solo.
Jun '10
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
At this point I think the question is when not if. I'm still waiting for Dr. Hanson to weigh on on that question. His sources are likely closer to the decision centers than are mine.
I will note that Roger Simon thinks the Israelis will be shooting for regime change as part of the mission, but I don't know his sources. If he's right, then the Israelis will be targeting command and control centers of the Revolutionary Guard, Basij and perhaps even the regular army.
In my opinion Washington missed a window of opportunity when the Green Revolution took to the streets last year. Not a peep out of Mr. Obama. A bold leader might have put the air force on standby and publicly announced that any movement by internal security forces to put down the demonstrations would be met with hellfire from the skies. We have successful precedents for this tactic in both the Philippines under Marcos and Iraq during Gulf War II. In the case of Iraq we had the cell phone numbers for various Iraqi generals. They were told before the invasion to stay home if they wanted to live. Most did.
May '10
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
Claire, you need to comment as well on the fact that the NYT has discovered Turkey and its economy:
http://www.startribune.com/business/97905944.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
May '10
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
Ahhh, to be a fly on the wall (or on a separate phone extension listening in) when Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba is speaking with Michael Oren.
I can dream, cant' I?
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
Be sure to keep reading all the way to the bottom of Eli Lake's sobering report. You will learn, for example, that
Israel, of course, is a huge part of the picture on Iran. But do not mistake Iran's obsession with Israel for the whole picture. The UAE recognizes this. Assume Iran had its way completely with Israel. Does anyone at all think Iran would stop there?
May '10
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
Of all that is good in this world, what and who is Obama not damaging? He's threatening everything cherished that was meant to be protected by our Constitution and jeopardizing the very existence of our allies in the Middle East, and, thus, world order. It's truly frightening what this man is unravelling.
May '10
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
The more I think about this, the less comforted I am by any member of the OIC publicly stating that they don't want a nuclear Iran. I don't doubt that the UAE fears a nuclear Iran, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't fight alongside Iran if the Israel-Iran conflict escalated. Some emirates are likely interested more in money and security than the slaughter of Jews and a worldwide caliphate, but there might be enough of the latter to force action if the war spreads.
May '10
Re: UAE Ambassador: Bomb Iran
I lived in the Middle East for 8.5 years (6.5 in Bahrain 2 in Qatar) I think what most people either forget or don't realize is that the GCC countries are all Sunni ruled and regard Shias/Persians with barely constrained disdain. They fear a nuclear Iran because in their mind the World Wide Caliphate should be Sunni, not Shia. They fear the power and influence that a Shia Iran would wield over the Sunni Arab world.
It is kind of shocking that the UAE Ambassador would state this in public, however it will quickly fade and be forgotten (after all, it's not like a Republican said it) If a strike were to ever happen you can bet that the "Islamic World" would loudly condemn it in public and in private wipe the sweat off their collective brows.