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.

[Mona Lisa2]

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

And a very interesting and educational rant it is. I thought some of Carter's worst years have been post presidential. I stand corrected.

[aught-6]

Thanks for the rant. Carter was truly a disaster during his presidency and continuing to the present. Do you recite all this information from memory or do you have any sources we can reference?

[ElkGroveDan]

TROP adherents with nukes. As if there wasn't enough to worry about.

Pakistan was founded specifically for TROP, so this isn't news.

[papertyger]

Right after they tested the bomb, all the Arab nations began to buy up all the surface to surface missile systems they could get their hands on. Worthless, without warheads, but if the Paki's exported their nukes like I suspect, it all makes sense...

Particularly when, as I understand it, Saudi paid for something like 85 percent of Paki's nuke program. They were in from the inception.

The Saudis didn't buy all those css-22s from china for nothing.

[Another Thought]

Cool. Maybe Arabs with nucs will just shoot them straight up in the air and.......

[TedReed]

They can say what they want but I do not believe it.

[Ethyl]

Sadly, I am getting to trust the Washington Times less and less. They tend lately to represent speculation, hearsay and rumor as headline grabbing facts.

No, you got your papers mixed up, that would be the Washington Post or New York Times.

[derheimwill]

Whether the Saudis have nukes or not, Iran's statements have nothing to do with the truth. Iran IMHO is simply trying to divide the US coalition.

[manic4organic]

I have a question: If we nuke Iran and Saudi Arabia, can we still have their oil?

[Marine_Uncle]

"And that my fellow Freepers, is your morning rant from yours truly."
Thanks for POST #31. As I read through it, most of it surely started to ring bells long turned off. I sense everything you wrote was 100% on the nose.
Carter had no frigen foreign policy worth a damn. He truly turned out to be useless. A lot of folks do not appear to understand just how important it was to keep a secular government in power in Iran. As you indicated, it is one of the prime reasons the US had to deal with Saddam in the early days, to keep Iran offset once the mullahs got into power. Ron did exactly waht he had to do in this respects.
Iran under the Shah was our best hope at keeping the mideast on a somewhat docile plane. Once the radical Islamic element took over, the mideast started on the road to true de-stabiliaztion. Now we are paying the price. Iran has been behind much of the problems in the mideast we have seen come to be in the past some twenty years.

[Traianus]

I have a question: If we nuke Iran and Saudi Arabia, can we still have their oil?

I'M AFRAID IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DRILL FOR OIL TILL 999 YEARS AFTER THE DAY OF NUKING, THAT'S THE RUB....

[George W. Bush]

Well, if anyone has the money to buy Paki or old Russian nukes, it would be the Saudis.

Iran isn't very credible but nuclear Saudis wouldn't surprise me either.

[George W. Bush]

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.

Discussing it is one thing, something any defense establishment might do. But allowing it to go public was incredibly stupid, one of the worst mistakes during Rumsfeld's tenure at Defense.

The point might be lost on many readers but the Saudis consider themselves a very long term and loyal ally of the U.S. They expect we should treat them much as we do the British, the Israelis, the Japanese, i.e. as being among our most valuable economic and strategic partners, vital to our national interests. And yet, there are no conferences that suggest seizing the most valuable assets of these other allies. Or seizing those of major oil producers in South America.

So the Saudis have reason to take offense. A PR disaster like this one can change the attitude of an entire government toward another country.

[Cronos]

TROP adherents with nukes. As if there wasn't enough to worry about.

Well, TROP adherents have had nukes ever since 1998 when the Pakis 'tested' their Chinese made nukes (and in true fashion for 'made-in-china' stuff, only 3 out of 6 actually worked). THen the Pakis traded the nukes with North Korea to get missiles (all those Paki missiles are really North Korean with their names suitably islamicized). Then, the Pakis had to pay back the folks who actually finance Pakiland -- the Saudis.

voilà! THe Sauds get nukes


But, we can use this to our advantage -- the Sauds fear Iran, they fear a resurgent Persia. If somehow we manage to crack the Irani ayatollahs' control over the people, there would be a ferocious backlash againstIslam in Iran. Many Persians I meet openly resent whatIslam has done to their great land and they avidly remember the past, they just don't dare convert because of the Ayatollahs. Once these are swept away, Iran will get a new Shah and their first action would be to erase the humiliation of being defeated at Ctesiphon in 637. I'm betting they would be the first to launch nukes at Makkah and Madinah, the realm of Ahriman.

[Cronos]

The Paki's built their nukes out of the French reactor rods given to Saddam, with his scientists and his money. When they sucessfully tested the bomb they announced that they had built the "Islamic Bomb", not the Pakistani Bomb.

Paki nukes are really Chinese made, funded by the Sauds. But you're right, they belong to the Sunni state as a whole. I doubt they would actually give it to Shias

[Cronos]

Completely correct. What many folks don't realise is that in the 70s, the Shah's Iran was one of the most progressive states in the world -- where Irani women would never have heard of anyone wearing a Burkha or a veil or even a scarf (and Irani women are gorgeous, so covering them up IS a crime!), where the beards were actually shunted aside.

And the same is happening now -- Khomeini's mausoleum is empty most of the time and 75% of the population want the beards OUT.

[Cronos]

He said he felt that within two years the Saudi's would be run out of Mecca by hardliners.

Don't forget one other variable in the mix -- the Hashemite dynasty were the traditional protectors of Makkah and Madinah until the Sauds kicked them out (with a little help from the Brits)

[Cronos]

That would the the Taliban and the followers of Ayotollah Khomeni.

impossible -- the Talibs were Sunnis and the followers of Khomeini are Shia. The Talibs were rabidly anti-Shia and IRan did NOT recognise the Talib government (only Saudi A, the UAE and Pakistan did) and in fact supported the Northern Alliance (along with India and Russia) when the US under clintack was keeping silent

[Cronos]

True, Pakistan has no other raison d'être but that it is a slammie state.

[Cronos]

The Paki nukes ARE Saudi nukes -- paid for by the Sauds AND part of theIslamic ummah (or world-government)