Iran: Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 11/29/2004 | Washington Times, UPI

[Traianus]

Iran: Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons Teheran, Iran, Nov. 28 (UPI) -- Iranian sources said the country has discovered Saudi Arabia has access to nuclear weapons and technology, the Middle East Newsline reported Sunday. The sources said Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed an agreement in 2003 that stated Pakistan would assist the Arab kingdom in the deployment of nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. Teheran University Professor Abu Mohammad Asgarkhani said in an address that Iran required a nuclear weapon following Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's acquisition of atomic weapons.

[American in Israel]

Condisering the sources, will that bucket hold camel milk?

Eventually they all will have nukes, and then they will all nuke each other. Islam is a self curing disease in the long run. I just hope the fallout of their death cult leaves planet earth green, not just another sterile rock in the galaxy.

[risk]

I've been figuring the same: richer Arab nations have access to "Islamic" nukes from Pakistan.

[Happy2BMe]

BTT

[nw_arizona_granny]

Ping

[dennisw]

Mecca's number is coming up in the great nuke-a-muz-city lottery.

[Flavius]

Well one year is enought to import nukes, ... The Washington Times October 22, 2003 Pakistan, Saudi Arabia in secret nuke pact Islamabad trades weapons technology for oil

In-Depth Coverage By Arnaud de Borchgrave Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have concluded a secret agreement on "nuclear cooperation" that will provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in exchange for cheap oil, according to a ranking Pakistani insider.

The disclosure came at the end of a 26-hour state visit to Islamabad last weekend by Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, who flew across the Arabian Sea with an entourage of 200, including Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal and several Cabinet ministers.

Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, the pro-American defense minister who is next in line to the throne after the crown prince, was not part of the delegation.

"It will be vehemently denied by both countries," said the Pakistani source, whose information has proven reliable for more than a decade, "but future events will confirm that Pakistan has agreed to provide [Saudi Arabia] with the wherewithal for a nuclear deterrent."

As predicted, Saudi Arabia - which has faced strong international suspicion for years that it was seeking a nuclear capability through Pakistan - strongly denied the claim.

Prince Sultan was quoted in the Saudi newspaper Okaz yesterday saying that "no military agreements were concluded between the kingdom and Pakistan during [Prince Abdullah's] visit to Islamabad."

Mohammad Sadiq, deputy chief of mission for Pakistan's embassy in Washington, also denied any nuclear deal was in the works. "That is totally incorrect," he said in a telephone interview. "We have a clear policy: We will not export our nuclear expertise."

But the CIA believes Pakistan already has shared its nuclear know-how, working with North Korea in exchange for missile technology.

A Pakistani C-130 was spotted by satellite loading North Korean missiles at Pyongyang airport last year. Pakistan, which is estimated to have between 35 and 60 nuclear weapons, said this was a straight purchase for cash and strongly denied a nuclear quid pro quo.

"Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia," the Pakistani source said, "see a world that is moving from nonproliferation to proliferation of nuclear weapons."

The Saudi rulers, who are Sunni Muslims, are believed to have concluded that nothing will deter the Shi'ite Muslims who rule Iran from continuing their quest for a nuclear weapons capability.

Pakistan, meanwhile, is concerned about a recent arms agreement between India, its nuclear archrival, and Israel, a longtime nuclear power whose inventory is estimated at between 200 and 400 weapons.

To counter what Pakistani and Saudi leaders regard as multiple regional threats, the two countries have decided to quietly move ahead with an exchange of free or cheap Saudi oil for Pakistani nuclear know-how, the Pakistani source said.

Pakistanis have worked as contract pilots for the Royal Saudi Air Force for the past 30 years. Several hundred thousand Pakistani workers are employed by the Gulf states, both as skilled and unskilled workers, and their remittances are a hard currency boon for the Pakistani treasury.

Prince Abdullah reportedly sees Saudi oil reserves, the world's largest, as becoming increasingly vulnerable over the next 10 years.

By mutual agreement, U.S. forces withdrew from Saudi Arabia earlier this year to relocate across the border in the tiny oil sheikdom of Qatar.

Saudi officials also are still chafing over a closed meeting - later well publicized - of the U.S. Defense Policy Board in 2002, where an expert explained, with a 16-slide Powerpoint presentation, why and how the United States should seize and occupy oil fields in the country's Eastern Province.

Several incidents have raised questions over the extent of Saudi-Pakistani cooperation in defense matters.

A new policy paper by Simon Henderson, an analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, noted that Prince Sultan visited Pakistan's highly restricted Kahuta uranium enrichment and missile assembly factory in 1999, a visit that prompted a formal diplomatic complaint from Washington.

And a son of Prince Abdullah attended Pakistan's test-firing last year of its Ghauri-class missile, which has a range of 950 miles and could be used to deliver a nuclear payload.

President Bush was reported to have confronted Pervez Musharraf over the Saudi nuclear issue during the Pakistani president's visit to Camp David this summer, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage raised the issue during a trip to Islamabad earlier this month, according to Mr. Henderson's paper.

"Apart from proliferation concerns, Washington likely harbors more general fears about what would happen if either of the regimes in Riyadh or Islamabad became radically Islamic," according to Mr. Henderson. GlobalSecurity.org, a well-connected defense Internet site, found in a recent survey that Saudi Arabia has the infrastructure to exploit such nuclear exports very quickly.

"While there is no direct evidence that Saudi Arabia has chosen a nuclear option, the Saudis have in place a foundation for building a nuclear deterrent," according to the Web site.

*Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor at large of The Washington Times, is editor at large of United Press International as well.

[M. Peach]

"It was because of the U.S. that the Assahollah Khomeini seized power in the first place after that incompetent, treasonous fool Jimmy Carter betrayed the Shah of Iran, who up until his ouster, was THE most solid ally we had in the region, outside of Israel itself."

Believe me, I'm no fan of Jimmy Carter, but what do you think he could have done - and if there was something to do, don't you think Reagan would have done it when he took over shortly thereafter?

Iran was ripe for a revolution - and now that they have the Ayatollahs in charge - they don't like it. I'm just curious what you think we should have done when they took over the Embassy -

[SirLurkedalot]

LMAO! That's me every night.

[sure_fine]

isn't the Mecca just a big rock that would make some fancy gravel?

[sure_fine]

IRAN " 'REGARDS' " SAUDI ARABIA AS NUKE STATE

I "REGARD" iran as not even deserving a capital letter ;)

[Mad Mammoth]

OK, refill the coffee cups folks, here we go...

Believe me, I'm no fan of Jimmy Carter, but what do you think he could have done - and if there was something to do, don't you think Reagan would have done it when he took over shortly thereafter? Iran was ripe for a revolution - and now that they have the Ayatollahs in charge - they don't like it. I'm just curious what you think we should have done when they took over the Embassy -

What is amazing me more and more is the lack of awareness of what Jimmy Carter did to completely destabilize the Middle East during his four abysmal years in power. (that is not a slam at you M. Peach)

The fact is, Carter was sworn into office at a time (1977) when the Shah was faced with growing subversive activity by Islamic radicals within Iran, and encouraged by the continuous agitation and calls for the overthrow of the Shah by noneother than Ayatollah Khomeini, who was at the time in exile in (where else?) France. Khomeini, whom Carter referred to as a 'godly man', advocated the establishment of an Islamic regime strictly under the control of religious zealots. Carter began to work to undermine the Shah by demanding the release of what Carter called 'political prisoners' arrested by the Iranian security service, SAVAK. While SAVAK was in fact an agency not known for being devout defenders of human rights, it was no worse than the equivalent security services of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc., with whom Carter had no problem.

Carter pressured the Shah to allow such "political prisoners" to assemble freely to protest and demonstrate, and as one might predict, the result was an increase in the number of opposition groups holding public rallies and agitating the population to overthrow the government of the Shah. This is exactly what Carter had in mind.

By late 1977, Iranian radical students working in partnership with Shiite radical clergy, were holding massive demonstrations throughout Iran, many of which became violent. This added to the local perception that the Shah was beginning to lose his grip on power.

In an ironic twist of the knife, Carter actually invited the Shah and his wife, the Empress of Iran to the White House in November 1977, and lo and behold, there was a surprise crowd of several thousand mask-wearing Iranian students who showed up to condemn the Shah visiting Washington, waving clubs, huge banners with the names of Iranian terrorist organizations, and bullhorns, all shouting the default slogan: "Shah Is U.S. Puppet! Shah Is U.S. Puppet!" I know, because I was THERE.

The Carter Administration allowed them all to come within 100 feet of the White House and the protest (of course) turned violent with the radicals attacking pro-Shah Iranians and American citizens who were quietly exercising their rights to welcome the Shah to America. But out of the 4000+ protesters, only 15 were arrested for assault, property damage, etc., and they were released pronto.

Meanwhile, Carter was twisting the arm of the Shah with demands to initiate even more radical "reforms", with the threat of cutting off all U.S. aid to Iran as the club needed to obtain the Shah's acquiesence.

It wasn't long after Carter's ham handed attempt at political intrique that the Shah was forced to abdicate after appointing a Prime Minister (Shapour Bakhtiar) to try and keep order, but the arrival of the Assahollah Khomeini meant that Bakhtiar's government would be a short one. (Bakhtiar would later be assassinated by Iranian radicals in 1991)

When you ask "what Carter could have done?", the answer is obvious: he could have kept his peanut-picking hands off of the Middle East, continued to support the Shah of Iran (a solid U.S. ally for 20+ years), and most importantly, Carter could have pulled his head out of his ass and looked around at the reality of the world we live in before he began his preaching and whining about human rights in NON-Communist countries (especially if they were ruled by authoritarian pro-U.S. regimes), while totally ignoring human rights in places like Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and the Soviet bloc. Oh yes indeedy, there was plenty that Carter could have done. He could have NOT done 99 percent of what he DID. (the other 1 percent was showing up in the Oval Office each morning to answer the telephone)

Now as for Reagan "doing something", by the time Reagan was sworn in, the hostages had been released because the mad mullahs truly feared Reagan and what he might do if they persisted in their illegal occupation and kidnapping of our embassy personnel. Iran remained persona non grata for many years during the Reagan Administration, which by the way, was forced to give support to Saddam's Iraq, in order to prevent the Iranians from taking over the entire region. (remember that Iran, pre-Ayatollah, had the best U.S. built and trained military that money could buy, the Shah was in fact the U.S. bulldog keeping order in the Persian Gulf)

Another 'fun f--kin' fact' about Carter you can share with your friends and enemies is that in the spring of 1980, Carter sent Zbigniew Brezinski to Amman Jordan to convey to Saddam's representatives that the U.S. would not be adverse to Iraq invading and annexing Iranian territory. Again, Carter tries his hand at political intrique with disasterous results, in that case hundreds of thousands of Iranian and Iraqi deaths. (And you say "say WHAT?") Now get this: Carter instigated the eight year Iran/Iraq war, in order to pressure Tehran in the ongoing hostage crisis/standoff. After Brezinski's visit to the Middle East, Saddam launched the first attack on Iran, which quickly turned bad for Iraq. The rest of that sad story is history, chemical weapons and all.

Contrary to your assertion, Iran was NOT "ripe for a revolution" until Carter made it so with his betrayal of the Shah.

As for what should have been done when the Iranians took over our embassy in Tehran? Had Carter not screwed the pooch in the first place, it would never have happened, and good Americans would NOT have died due to his absurd micro managing of a failed rescue attempt which ended with smoking helicopters at "Desert One". I will continue to tell the story of Carter's Treason as long as I have breath in me. I may not be a John O'Neill, with the ability to organize an anti-Carter 527 group (God Bless those Swifties!) but my contempt and loathing for Jimmy Carter goes all the way to the depths of my soul. I lived close up and personal to the Carter Administration during those four shameful years of 1977 through 1980, and in a perfect world, Carter would have been indicted and hanged for treason post-9/11.

And that my fellow Freepers, is your morning rant from yours truly.

MM

[Coop]

Sadly, I am getting to trust the Washington Times less and less.

Not me.

The story makes it very clear where the info comes from, and I do consider it newsworthy.

[steveegg]

All the more reason to expand the Persian Gulf both east and west.

[Rebelbase]

It is speculated that the Iranians have buried, hidden sites where the Nuke research activity is taking place.

If Israel is not satisfied that they know where the proper site is located for a surgical strike, I foresee a complete preemptive annihilation of Tehran and other key cities by Zion nukes if the Mullah saber rattling reaches a critical point.

The international outcry would threaten Israel's existence as a nation, but that what they were born to as a nation in 1949. The fear of war is nothing new to them.

[Former Proud Canadian]

Thanks for the post. I forgot how bad Carter really was. A second Carter term would have been a disaster.

[rogermellie]

i don't see why saudi arabia shouldn't have a nuke, they have enormous quantities of cash, a very secretive state and society and a close political and military relationship with a state that sells nuclear weapons technology.

they also have a real fear of iran and israel (being rich doesn't stop them being stupid) and the lifeblood that keeps the country a viable proposition is running out.
if iraq becomes a successful, independent country with a US presence and outward-looking government then saudi arabia will lose all US and western support.

then they will be in very deep poo. and they know it.

what better recipe for nuclear proliferation could there be: a rich, scared elite with very little public and international support that knows things are going to get worse.

just because it comes from iran doesn't invalidate it, they wear two-legged trousers, should americans wear three-legged trousers out of spite?

[vger]

You mean kinda like a premature jihadulation?

[American in Israel]

An Israeli General said to me a few weeks ago that he did not feel the Nuke Missiles that Iran were setting up were for Israel, but for use against Saudi Arabia. He said he felt that within two years the Saudi's would be run out of Mecca by hardliners.

I wonder if this story has more than meets the eye?

[blam]

The Pakistan bomb ("The Muslim Bomb") is the Saudi bomb. It was financed by the Saudi's years ago through the BCCI Bank. Remember that scandal?

[Happy2BMe]

Hmmmm.... interesting.

From the book review link you gave:

___________________________________

As reporters for Time magazine, Beaty and Gwynne were at the forefront of uncovering the scandals surrounding the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in 1991. Here they authoritatively examine that global institution and the $20-billion-plus fraud its agents committed in 73 countries over a nearly 20-year period. They begin by describing their own "wild ride" as investigative journalists; their dramatic story includes highly placed pseudonymous sources a la Deep Throat and veiled threats from various BCCI power brokers, among them Clark Clifford.

A second section flashes back to trace the rise of BCCI in Pakistan, where it was nourished by petrodeposits; BCCI's manipulations of such Americans as former President Jimmy Carter; and its depredations in such places as Panama and Nigeria.

Returning to their personal tale, the authors go on to probe the cover-up of BCCI crimes and the negligence of "governments all over the world." The implications are chilling: BCCI was protected by U.S. intelligence agencies--"certainly" by William Casey's CIA and "probably" by the National Security Council. Moreover, international banking rules remain unchanged. Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc."