30 thoughts on “Israel, Saudi Arabia Threaten War as West Prepares for Iran Nuclear Deal – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Suppose that the unthinkable according to your article happens and Iran does detonate a nuclear weapon on Israel and 500,000 humans disappear in death and then the fact that this radiation will poison the Land for thousands of years.How will you apologize, how will you atone for what you have spoken. Why do we not see an article from תיקון עולם
    speaking about the Iranian hate for Israel and their goal of destroying the Jewish people. There is more information from the Iranians concerning this from their own mouths than for Israel being the bad guy. If BiBi is so intent why has he now attacked why the diplomacy. I do not understand your logic .

    1. Really, Joel? You have a quote from an Iranian leader speaking about the goal of destroying the Jewish people? Link, please? You do know that Iran has the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside Israel, and although they are discriminated against the regime hasn’t taken any steps to “destroy” them?

      1. Dear William you are absolutely right. I couldn’t agree more with you on this matter.
        unfortunately the world is plagued by more people who entertain the sick mind that Joel seems to be enjoying.

        John Fitzgerald Kennedy saved our world in a time when those idiotic military war mongers wanted to send our whole world to thy kingdom come. and here we are 50 years later after Kennedy gave his life for us, some stupid idiots in politics want to do it again. Only this time there is no JFK to intervene in this disaster awaiting to happen…

  2. The Saudi leadership are the only people in the Middle East more risk-averse than Bibi. The idea that they would both go to war with Iran in open defiance of a US president is laughable.

    1. “Open Defiance of a US President” grandly makes it sound as
      if the USA still had the influence it always had. It doesn’t. The
      Saudis won’t go to war as eagerly as the Israeli press and
      government would like to think (it really is fantasy), but that’s
      because they will make a careful calculation of the rights and
      wrongs, as well as the balance of interests, first. There was a
      time when the opinion of the US Government might have swayed them
      in either direction, but the US Government shutdown (still
      basically unresolved) is just one of many factors which are in the
      process of liberating the Saudis and all the Gulf States from any
      awe of Washington. American national politics is such a pitiable
      farce that talk of America’s international influence borders on
      delusion. America is now seen as powerful but rudderless, rather
      like the Bismark just before HMS Rodney waded into her. The Saudi
      response to any deal done with Iran will be a measure of their
      prudence and their residual respect for the other world powers
      involved. It won’t be because they still feel disposed to respond
      amenably to President Obama shouting “heel!” at them. The only
      thing the Israelis are correct about, is that the USA has blown its
      influence with the Saudis*. But that doesn’t mean they will
      undertake a headlong rush to war on Israel’s behalf. *America’s
      influence with Japan and South Korea is staggering a bit, too. The
      great protector will be ditched very promptly when it becomes
      obvious that it dare not protect if the threat is Chinese or
      Chinese backed. The Far East matters a lot more than the Middle

      1. The decline of American influence is real, but I don’t think its quite gotten to that point yet. Saudi Arabia is a weak regime sitting on what is still an awful lot of oil. It needs a great power protector. Israel isn’t big enough and anyway has enough problems of its own. Additionally, an open alliance with the Zionist entity would destroy any Islamic legitimacy the Saudis still have (Al Qaeda recruiters will have their best year ever). China doesn’t have the global reach. Who else but the US?

        1. “Additionally, an open alliance with the Zionist entity would destroy any Islamic legitimacy the Saudis still have (Al Qaeda recruiters will have their best year ever).”

          This touches on a point I made earlier, but what do you mean by “Islamic legitimacy” of the Saudis?

          1. The Saudi government projects itself as a defender of Islam, Guardian of the Two Holy Shrines, rule in Islamic tradition by Islamic law, global patron of Sunni Islam, etc. and if it was seen as betraying Islam by openly allying with Israel, it would cause a major crisis of legitimacy for the regime.

          2. Saudi’s are capable of organizing a bombing of Iranian embassy, and Israel, more pointed assassinations. But beneficial effects are not there.

            A direct attack on Iran could have very unpleasant consequences if Iran is not diplomatically isolated. Iran could close the traffic through the Strait of Hormuz until Israel pays reparations. Suppose that China and Russia urge to satisfy that as a reasonable demand. What next?

        2. Thanks to fracking, the great power with the greatest need
          for Saudi oil is now China. But it’s not policy to have a single
          great power protector, but to buy kit from two or more different
          great powers in order for the Saudis to defend themselves. I don’t
          think any Americans actually have a handle on how much things have
          changed in the past year. Even Max Hastings is having doubts about
          America’s future.

  3. Agree fully with your analysis.

    Contingency plans are always in place, previously with Turkey and Azerbaijan. Murdoch’s ‘Sunday Times’ quotes diplomatic source … ’nuff said. More likely the Saudi Kingdom will get nukes delivered from Pakistan as a nuclear-free Middle-East is off the table.

    1. @ Oui: I read yet another stupid article in an Israeli publication saying that Pakistan has bespoke nukes which it tailor produces for client states like Saudi Arabia. All the Saudis need to do is put in their order & they get their very own nuke with “Destination Iran” name written all over it.

      1. They have a Chinese-built delivery system for nuclear
        weapons. A Pakistani source for the warheads is speculation, and I
        doubt that Pakistan has the industrial capacity needed to make an
        exportable surplus of nuclear weapons. It’s far more likely that
        the Saudis would make the warheads themselves, and they could adopt
        a much more sophisticated pathway to obtaining the necessary
        materials than was possible for Iran, or Pakistan. Its a big
        country with a lot of industrial technology.

      2. Mark Urban, the pro-Israel diplomatic and defense editor at BBC came to the above conclusion based on statements made by self-professed Israel-Firsters like Amos Yadlin, former head of Israeli military intelligence, Dennis Ross, former US ambassador at the United Nations, Simon Henderson, a director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an Israeli lobby group, Zionist Jew Gary Samore, Obama’s former WMDs Czar, and some “anonymous” (read Jewish/Zionist source) at the NATO and US State Department.

        The Six Million Dollar question is why would Saudi Arabia put its bet on ‘Iran-friendly’ Pakistan, and not on anti-Iran nuclear powers like United States and Israel? Saudi Arabia has bought over $300 billion military equipment from the United States during the last three decades. The Saudi ‘royals’ have also invested in the US over $3 trillion in bank deposits and realstate. The Saudi ‘royals’ and Israeli Netanyahu are sharing the same bed these days.


  4. I have been hoping and praying this strategy to succeed … it is a tough road ahead but the bits of the puzzle need to fall in place. Of course president Hollande of France got the red-carpet treatment in Israel today.

    Obama and Kerry’s resolve on ME diplomacy

    Kerry and Lavrov have an excellent working relationship and are devoted to a political solution for the Syria crisis. Since the end of May, efforts of Kerry for diplomacy have been stymied from inside the White House. I suspect the NeoCon influence of National Security adviser Susan Rice as the culprit. Obama himself decided to step away from the brink of starting another prolonged war on a Muslim nation.

    STEP 1 – Resolve CW issue on Syria
    STEP 2 – Arms embargo and a political solution for Syria
    STEP 3 – Resolve nuclear issue of Iran with president Rouhani
    STEP 4 – Finalize a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine

    Obama made a courageous decision stepping away from 35 years of biased US policy on the Middle East. Angry Arab states Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar plus Turkey and Israel. Praise from Russia, Iran and Iraq (Maliki).

    1. Iran is desperately in need of any possible relief from sanctions.

      In that light, let us treat Rouhani with hopeful skepticism and cautiously negotiate while demanding verifiable evidence as to Iran’s true intentions in a gradual, step by step and reversible end to sanctions.


  5. I think this is another example of Israel and Saudi Arabia showcasing their displeasure w/ the White House (and to a lesser extent other Western allies) over Syria and Iran. I’d tend to agree that Bibi and Bandar (the Killer B’s?) will not actually launch a kinetic strike against Iran and I’d also agree that we cannot just summarily dismiss the idea either. I recently heard the commotion about the Iran issue likened to the stages of grief when a loved one passes away- denial, anger and finally acceptance- we are in the “anger” stage and will soon have to accept Iran with a bomb. I sincerely hope they are wrong about the last part but I can’t say that I’m all that optimistic- regardless of any agreement that might come out of P5 +1.

    However, I do think this hypothetical presents a fascinating question in both how Obama and the rest of the Arab League would respond to a joint Israeli-Saudi attack on Iran…

    1. “However, I do think this hypothetical presents a
      fascinating question in both how Obama and the rest of the Arab
      League would respond to a joint Israeli-Saudi attack on Iran…”
      Answer: badly. It must be obvious to everyone – even Bibi – that
      the USA has made the decision that it is in the interests of US
      national security that this conflict be resolved by diplomacy. So
      while it is one thing for Israel to “defy” the USA by attacking
      some state here, or some arid territory there, it is quite another
      thing to drop a bomb on a country that is in intense diplomatic
      negotiations with the USA. And the reason why should be obvious: in
      the former case all that Israel is doing is bombing a bunch of
      foreigners, but in the latter case the Israelis won’t just be
      bombing Iran: they will also be dropping bombs on US national
      security. And that’s never wise, no matter who is doing

  6. If I recall Israel has used the Times before to plant their bluffs before the world. This threat cannot be taken seriously.

    However, let us assume for a bit that there is a real Saudi-Israel alliance (hey, lets throw in France since they seem to be moving in this direction) that will launch a war against Iran. What can they do. The powerful Saudi marine corps launches a naval assault across the Persian Gulf and storm the beaches of Iran. Israel provided air cover. The French Navy and their amphibious shock troops join in. The US lets Iran know that we are not involved. Now the Iranians mobilize their guards and army (based on a population of 75 million people) to resist the invaders. The French would have to mobilize a million men to make it even possible to seize a few coastal points. The French public in patriotic fervor would rise up to the call of viva la France. This is just too nuts for words. Even if all three countries were willing to dedicate their GDPs for the next few years, the whole thing would end in humiliating defeat.

    1. As I understand it, they are not talking about a full scale invasion and regime change. Not to oversimplify things, but the “attack” only involves a few sorties directed at a small number of targets, designed to delay Iran’s nuke program for at least a decade. That’s why it cannot simply be dismissed, IMO.

      1. First, you can’t direct a “small number of sorties” to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. You’d need scores, if not hundreds of sorties. Even if you only wanted to destroy a single facility like Fordo or Arak, you’d need a large number of sorties to do so. Second, even the most optimistic forecasts by Israelis themselves acknowledge that they can only set the Iranians back in a solo attack by at most 5 yrs. But the true number is much more likely to be 1 to 3 yrs. if that. Ten years is a pipe dream.

      2. A few sorties directed at a small number of targets would be like someone armed with a hat pin jumping into the lions cage and stabbing it in the ass. Not a good idea. Even if the Israelis are covering this action with 200 nuclear weapons. I can see nothing good coming out of that. Perhaps you kill the lion but the audience would react in ways that would not be beneficial to Israel or any of the fools they convinced to join them in the venture.

      3. ” Not to oversimplify things, but the “attack” only
        involves a few sorties directed at a small number of targets,”….
        You know, the funny thing about wars is how much they resemble
        fisticuffs i.e. while it only takes one guy throwing a punch to
        *start* the fisticuffs, once it does start then both pugilists have
        to agree to drop their fists before the fighting *stops*. So what
        happens if Israel launches “a few sorties” at “a small number of
        targets” only to find that Iran has a very different idea about
        when, and under what circumstances – the fighting will stop? What
        happens if Bibi decides that he’s going to start a short, sharp
        war, only to find that the Iranians are only interested in a
        15-round bare-knuckle knock-em-down, last-man-standing fight to the
        finish? Or, in short: what if Bibi throws his best punch, then
        calls it quits only to find that the other side begs to

      4. In 2006, President Bush asked the Joint Chiefs to prepare a plan to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. The US Air Force said that, yes, we could bomb, but that air attacks would miss some sites and only damage others. Ground troops would need to follow. The US Army and Marine Corps said, in effect, “That’s a joke”.

        Let’s note that Iran is about three times bigger than Iraq, that Iran has mountains and a coast from which anti-ship missles could be launched at anything floating in the gulf that a naval officer recently called “that bath tub”.

        Israeli tourist shops sell a tee-shirt that shows an F-16 with Israeli markings, and a slogan, “Don’t worry, America: Israel is behind you”. Does anyone believe that Netanyahu would like to be at the front of an occupation of Iran? Would Netanyahu enjoy fighting anything like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

  7. Eliminating the possibility of ethnic weapons just because
    the source is a crackpot is probably a mistake. I’d expect the
    original ‘target’ of the program was the Palestinians, but they’re
    probably too much like the Jewish inhabitants of Israel for that to
    be workable. Iran is another matter entirely. Some sort of plague
    which killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians and sickened
    millions more – that’s something which certain people would do in a
    heartbeat if they could avoid getting fingered with definite proof.
    And they might do it and brag about it!

  8. Israeli Bio-Weapons Institute Sued

    Israel’s Institute for Biological Research (IIBR), a top secret organization tasked with developing treatments to protect Israelis from chemical or biological weapons, but often accused of developing weapons of its own, risks exposure due to a lawsuit from a disgruntled former employee, Avisha Klein.

    The lawsuit was filed against the institute, its director Dr. Avigdor Shafferman, and the director of security at the Defense Ministry, according to Yossi Melman at Haaretz.

    From 1981 to 1993 the South African National Defense force developed bioweapons for the purpose of ‘suppressing population growth among blacks.’ See Dr. Basson and Project Coast.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *