Pakistan to Iran, don’t mess with Sunni Arab countries


Farid Ghadry

Nine coalition countries, led by Saudi Arabia, launched on Thursday surprise air strikes against the Houthi terrorists in Yemen resulting in the killing of its top leadership. Iran backs secretly the Houthis the way it backs Hezbollah openly. In response to the surprise air strikes, Iran condemned the military operations and demanded their immediate halt.

The coalition, anchored by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and the GCC countries (Oman excluded) as well as Jordan and Morocco, has deployed a considerable array of land, air, and naval forces to include 185 jet fighters (100 by Saudi Arabia alone) and naval ships provided by Pakistan and Egypt. Additionally, Saudi Arabia deployed 150,000 soldiers on its 1,800Kms borders with Yemen. No one yet knows the military mission of the foot soldiers deployment.

The U.S., for its part, is backing this new coalition by providing intelligence and creating a joint U.S. Saudi task force to coordinate the details of the campaign. It is notable to mention here that while it is sound for this White House to support Decisive Storm, this administration has yet to reconcile between assisting Iran backed militias in Iraq and fighting them in Yemen. Obama’s foreign policy simply defies logic.

The fact Pakistan is joining the Arab countries for the first time in such a military campaign is a significant development that should give Tehran a pause over its dangerously adventurous policies. Pakistan commands the seventh largest army in the world and is a nuclear power. For the Mullahs in Iran, Pakistan’s direct involvement reads, “Don’t mess with Arab countries”.

The last time Saudi Arabia took a leading role in any military campaign was during ‘Desert Storm’, which, in 1991, dislodged Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The Kingdom takes very seriously any decision to use force; the Houthi terrorists, backed by Iran, seem to have gone too far in testing the resolve of King Salman to protect Saudi southern borders from Iranian influence.

It is also important to note that this is the first major offensive posture the Arab countries take against Iranian terror directly. Ever since Obama came to power, Iran has been on a rampage occupying Arab capitals and engaged in deadly sectarianism. ‘Decisive Storm’ is Arab patience with Iran running out.

Iran is going to respond by doing what it does best: Terrorize. Saudi Arabia and any of the coalition countries run the risk of Tehran activating terror cells to respond to the frontal attack against their Houthi proxy in Yemen. It seems, though, as if the calculated risks any of these coalition countries run in not being spared Tehran’s wrath are dwarfed by the risks of letting Iran run amok in the region. If it were not for Barack Obama, ‘Decisive Storm’ would have started much sooner in Syria, which would have weakened Iran considerably and spared the lives of tens of thousands of Syrians.

In the meantime, crude oil futures were up 3.6%. They traded past the $49 a barrel mark. Prices rose $2 past the $58 a barrel price point; neither is enough to benefit Iran.

‘Decisive Storm’ is intended to halt Iran’s advances in the region. Winning against the Houthi terrorists will have positive implications for all U.S. allies.

To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran


FOR years, experts worried that the Middle East would face an uncontrollable nuclear-arms race if Iran ever acquired weapons capability. Given the region’s political, religious and ethnic conflicts, the logic is straightforward.

As in other nuclear proliferation cases like India, Pakistan and North Korea, America and the West were guilty of inattention when they should have been vigilant. But failing to act in the past is no excuse for making the same mistakes now. All presidents enter office facing the cumulative effects of their predecessors’ decisions. But each is responsible for what happens on his watch. President Obama’s approach on Iran has brought a bad situation to the brink of catastrophe.

In theory, comprehensive international sanctions, rigorously enforced and universally adhered to, might have broken the back of Iran’s nuclear program. But the sanctions imposed have not met those criteria. Naturally, Tehran wants to be free of them, but the president’s own director of National Intelligence testified in 2014 that they had not stopped Iran’s progressing its nuclear program. There is now widespread acknowledgment that the rosy 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged that Iran’s weapons program was halted in 2003, was an embarrassment, little more than wishful thinking.

Even absent palpable proof, like a nuclear test, Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident. Now the arms race has begun: Neighboring countries are moving forward, driven by fears that Mr. Obama’s diplomacy is fostering a nuclear Iran. Saudi Arabia, keystone of the oil-producing monarchies, has long been expected to move first. No way would the Sunni Saudis allow the Shiite Persians to outpace them in the quest for dominance within Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitical hegemony. Because of reports of early Saudi funding, analysts have long believed that Saudi Arabia has an option to obtain nuclear weapons from Pakistan, allowing it to become a nuclear-weapons state overnight. Egypt and Turkey, both with imperial legacies and modern aspirations, and similarly distrustful of Tehran, would be right behind.


Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.

Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions. Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish interests are complex and conflicting, but faced with Iran’s threat, all have concluded that nuclear weapons are essential.

The former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said recently, “whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same.” He added, “if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it’s not just Saudi Arabia that’s going to ask for that.” Obviously, the Saudis, Turkey and Egypt will not be issuing news releases trumpeting their intentions. But the evidence is accumulating that they have quickened their pace toward developing weapons.

Saudi Arabia has signed nuclear cooperation agreements with South Korea, China, France and Argentina, aiming to build a total of 16 reactors by 2030. The Saudis also just hosted meetings with the leaders of Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey; nuclear matters were almost certainly on the agenda. Pakistan could quickly supply nuclear weapons or technology to Egypt, Turkey and others. Or, for the right price, North Korea might sell behind the backs of its Iranian friends.

The Obama administration’s increasingly frantic efforts to reach agreement with Iran have spurred demands for ever-greater concessions from Washington. Successive administrations, Democratic and Republican, worked hard, with varying success, to forestall or terminate efforts to acquire nuclear weapons by states as diverse as South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa. Even where civilian nuclear reactors were tolerated, access to the rest of the nuclear fuel cycle was typically avoided. Everyone involved understood why.

This gold standard is now everywhere in jeopardy because the president’s policy is empowering Iran. Whether diplomacy and sanctions would ever have worked against the hard-liners running Iran is unlikely. But abandoning the red line on weapons-grade fuel drawn originally by the Europeans in 2003, and by the United Nations Security Council in several resolutions, has alarmed the Middle East and effectively handed a permit to Iran’s nuclear weapons establishment.

The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

Mr. Obama’s fascination with an Iranian nuclear deal always had an air of unreality. But by ignoring the strategic implications of such diplomacy, these talks have triggered a potential wave of nuclear programs. The president’s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East.


The Supreme Council of Cyberspace


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,807 other followers

%d bloggers like this: