Woah, if true a very interesting development.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6638568.ece
QuoteJuly 5, 2009
Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Sarah Baxter
The head of Mossad, Israel's overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran's nuclear sites.
Earlier this year Meir Dagan, Mossad's director since 2002, held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.
The Israeli press has already carried unconfirmed reports that high-ranking officials, including Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, held meetings with Saudi colleagues. The reports were denied by Saudi officials.
"The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia," a diplomatic source said last week.
Although the countries have no formal diplomatic relations, an Israeli defence source confirmed that Mossad maintained "working relations" with the Saudis.
John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations who recently visited the Gulf, said it was "entirely logical" for the Israelis to use Saudi airspace.
Bolton, who has talked to several Arab leaders, added: "None of them would say anything about it publicly but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn't trumpet it as a big success."
Arab states would condemn a raid when they spoke at the UN but would be privately relieved to see the threat of an Iranian bomb removed, he said.
Referring to the Israeli attack on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility in 2007, Bolton added: "To this day, the Israelis haven't admitted the specifics but there's one less nuclear facility in Syria . . ."
Recent developments have underscored concerns among moderate Sunni Arab states about the stability of the repressive Shi'ite regime in Tehran and have increased fears that it may emerge as a belligerent nuclear power.
"The Saudis are very concerned about an Iranian nuclear bomb, even more than the Israelis," said a former head of research in Israeli intelligence.
The Israeli air force has been training for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear site at Natanz in the centre of the country and other locations for four years.
Oviously they're planning to send planes to combat the Somali pirates.
The Saudis are already in bed with the Jews, why not with Israel?
The preference of Saudis for the Israelis over the Iranians is old news. Israel isn't an existential threat to the Saudi kingdom like Iran is.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2009, 12:19:37 PM
Woah, if true a very interesting development.
You're such a fucking douchebag.
bleh, should the israelis strike iran the saudis are going to bitch about it. They may not like shia iran but they're still muslims to be supported against the evil zionists™
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 05, 2009, 03:35:07 PM
bleh, should the israelis strike iran the saudis are going to bitch about it. They may not like shia iran but they're still muslims to be supported against the evil zionists™
They'll nitch about it for domestic consumption, sure. So will the US government.
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2009, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 05, 2009, 03:35:07 PM
bleh, should the israelis strike iran the saudis are going to bitch about it. They may not like shia iran but they're still muslims to be supported against the evil zionists™
They'll nitch about it for domestic consumption, sure. So will the US government.
Why is the world so double faced?
Why is wrong to admit that bombing Iran is the right thing to do?
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 07:40:16 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2009, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 05, 2009, 03:35:07 PM
bleh, should the israelis strike iran the saudis are going to bitch about it. They may not like shia iran but they're still muslims to be supported against the evil zionists™
They'll nitch about it for domestic consumption, sure. So will the US government.
Why is the world so double faced?
Why is wrong to admit that bombing Iran is the right thing to do?
Why is it the right thing to do?
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 07:40:16 PM
Why is the world so double faced?
Why is wrong to admit that bombing Iran is the right thing to do?
Because it may not be effective? Because the nuke programme is scattered in so many different places that it is almost impossible to get them all in one strike? Because even if you take out some of the hardware, they can easily rebuild AND they now have the excuse that building a nuke is for self-defence?
Bombing Iran can be worse than a crime - it could be a mistake.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 05, 2009, 08:41:10 PM
AND they now have the excuse that building a nuke is for self-defence?
Since when do they need an excuse?
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 07:40:16 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2009, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 05, 2009, 03:35:07 PM
bleh, should the israelis strike iran the saudis are going to bitch about it. They may not like shia iran but they're still muslims to be supported against the evil zionists™
They'll nitch about it for domestic consumption, sure. So will the US government.
Why is the world so double faced?
Why is wrong to admit that bombing Iran is the right thing to do?
Iran is going to have the Bomb, whether Israel likes it or not.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 05, 2009, 08:41:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 07:40:16 PM
Why is the world so double faced?
Why is wrong to admit that bombing Iran is the right thing to do?
Because it may not be effective? Because the nuke programme is scattered in so many different places that it is almost impossible to get them all in one strike? Because even if you take out some of the hardware, they can easily rebuild AND they now have the excuse that building a nuke is for self-defence?
Bombing Iran can be worse than a crime - it could be a mistake.
So, what do you recomend? Do nothing?
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 10:17:43 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 05, 2009, 08:41:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 07:40:16 PM
Why is the world so double faced?
Why is wrong to admit that bombing Iran is the right thing to do?
Because it may not be effective? Because the nuke programme is scattered in so many different places that it is almost impossible to get them all in one strike? Because even if you take out some of the hardware, they can easily rebuild AND they now have the excuse that building a nuke is for self-defence?
Bombing Iran can be worse than a crime - it could be a mistake.
So, what do you recomend? Do nothing?
I'd recommend turning the entire Middle East into a nuclear wasteland.
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 10:17:43 PM
So, what do you recomend? Do nothing?
The same thing most people seem to, Jews should pack up and
leave die.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2009, 01:29:30 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 10:17:43 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 05, 2009, 08:41:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 07:40:16 PM
Why is the world so double faced?
Why is wrong to admit that bombing Iran is the right thing to do?
Because it may not be effective? Because the nuke programme is scattered in so many different places that it is almost impossible to get them all in one strike? Because even if you take out some of the hardware, they can easily rebuild AND they now have the excuse that building a nuke is for self-defence?
Bombing Iran can be worse than a crime - it could be a mistake.
So, what do you recomend? Do nothing?
I'd recommend turning the entire Middle East into a nuclear wasteland.
You can send your ideas to Bethesda Softworks
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 10:17:43 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 05, 2009, 08:41:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 05, 2009, 07:40:16 PM
Why is the world so double faced?
Why is wrong to admit that bombing Iran is the right thing to do?
Because it may not be effective? Because the nuke programme is scattered in so many different places that it is almost impossible to get them all in one strike? Because even if you take out some of the hardware, they can easily rebuild AND they now have the excuse that building a nuke is for self-defence?
Bombing Iran can be worse than a crime - it could be a mistake.
So, what do you recomend? Do nothing?
Well if doing nothing is the
least bad outcome, then it is preferably to doing something for the sake of doing something.
Hmm... Biden phrased things badly? Doubtful that it's a shift in US policy, as the Obama admin says no and clarifies Biden's statement.
I saw Biden doing this interview and I thought he did ok. A few things, such as this issue, or about the economy, that he may get some flack on.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-biden6-2009jul06,0,6241017.story
[size]
Biden says Israel has the right to attack Iran
The U.S. wouldn't interfere with a sovereign nation's actions, he says, even as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says such an attack would be destabilizing.
Associated Press
July 6, 2009
Washington -- Vice President Joe Biden signaled that the Obama administration would not stand in the way if Israel chose to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, even as the top U.S. military officer said any attack on Iran would be destabilizing.
Biden's remarks suggested a tougher U.S. stance against Iran's nuclear ambitions, but administration officials denied that. Instead, White House officials said, his televised remarks Sunday simply reflected the U.S. view that Israel had a right to defend itself and make its own decisions on national security.
In an interview on ABC's "This Week," Biden also said the U.S. offer to negotiate with Tehran on its nuclear program still stood. Some thought the administration's approach might change in light of the Iranian government's harsh crackdown on protesters after the June 12 presidential election. Opponents of the ruling authorities contend the vote was rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage," Biden said.
Biden was asked whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was taking the right approach by indicating that Israel would take matters into its own hands if Iran did not show a willingness to negotiate by the end of the year.
"Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden replied. He added that this was the case, "whether we agree or not" with the Israeli view.
Biden was then asked whether the U.S. would stand in the way if the Israelis decided to launch a military attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.
"Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do," he said.
Reminded that the U.S. could impede an Israeli strike on Iran by prohibiting it from using Iraqi airspace, Biden said he was "not going to speculate" beyond saying that Israel, like the U.S., has a right to "determine what is in its interests."
In Jerusalem, the Israeli government had no comment on Biden's remarks.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Biden was not signaling any change of approach on Iran or Israel.
"The vice president refused to engage hypotheticals, and he made clear that our policy has not changed," Vietor said. "Our friends and allies, including Israel, know that the president believes that now is the time to explore direct diplomatic options."
Also Sunday, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he had been "for some time concerned about any strike on Iran." He also said that military action should not be ruled out and that a nuclear-armed Iran was a highly troubling prospect.
Mullen said he worried about unpredictable consequences of an attack on Iran.
"I worry about it being very destabilizing not just in and of itself but the unintended consequences of a strike like that," he told CBS' "Face the Nation." "At the same time, I'm one that thinks Iran should not have nuclear weapons. I think that's very destabilizing."
Mullen said if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, other countries in the Middle East could follow suit. That would open the door to a destabilizing proliferation of nuclear technology, Mullen said, adding that he discusses the subject regularly with his Israeli counterpart.
Most experts think that wiping out Iran's nuclear program is beyond Israel's ability: Iran's facilities are scattered around the country.