You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Arabia
Saudi ambassador salutes Israeli strike
2006-04-04
Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States Turki al-Faisal expressed support for Israel's strike on the Iraqi Osirak nuclear facility in 1981.
Al-Faisal said that the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor by Israel was certainly a positive step, during a speech on foreign relations in San Francisco.
Hummmmm. Ambassadors chose their words very carefully. And saudi ambassadors would be speaking for the ruling princes. Wheels within wheels.
The prince said that a region clear of nuclear weapons would also serve Israel and increase its security. He said that it was known that Israel had nuclear weapons, and that that Arab world felt threatened by Israel, rather than the other way around. Faisal added that Israel possessed the best army, air force, and navy in the Middle East, and that these have been well used in the past.
Is he hinting they should be well used in the near future?
After becoming aware that Iraq was planning to construct nuclear weapons, Israel launched a surprise aerial attack on June 7 1981 on the Osirak facility near Baghdad, and destroyed the Iraqi reactor. The move was initially widely condemned, but was widely supported in subsequent years.
Is this a sign that an attack on Iranian facilities would be quietly supported?
Posted by:Steve

#17  Translation - if you take out those pesky Persians we will loudly condemn you afterwards, but we don't really mean it.
Posted by: DMFD   2006-04-04 23:37  

#16  LOL! That's not funny, that's really sick.
Posted by: 6   2006-04-04 19:20  

#15  I'm with OP as well - you don't have a freudian slip saying something like this. It's a message.


A freudian slip is when you mean to ask your wife to pass the cereal but actually say:
"you bitch !you ruined my life!"...
Posted by: Frank G   2006-04-04 19:11  

#14  Bet OP got it. (as usual)
Posted by: 6   2006-04-04 18:44  

#13  "Is this a sign that an attack on Iranian facilities would be quietly supported?"


"I see nothing. I know nothing..."
Posted by: BigEd   2006-04-04 15:42  

#12  One ccountry at a time Zenster, we deal with Mad Mullahs then onward to SA.

Works for me. Iran's Mullahs are like a pack of Rottweilers in the front yard of the Saudi crack house. Certainly a problem and something that must be dealt with first, but not the real threat.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-04-04 14:55  

#11  The Israelis crossed Saudi territory both ways to hit the Osirak reactor. Undoubtedly it was at very low levels (50 feet, probably), but that doesn't mean the Saudi radar couldn't or didn't pick them up. At the same time, the Saudis were the most vocal in attacking Israel after the attack.

NOBODY, even the Russians, really want a nuclear-armed Iran. The Russians also need all the foreign currency they can get, and will sell Iran ANYTHING to earn it - even the most sophisticated weapons in their arsenal. China needs Iranian crude, and will stand in the way of anything that threatens their supply.

Iran needs to be dealt with, and harshly. They're involved in Iraq and in Afghanistan, they're behind the trouble in Baluchistan, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they're aidng the pirates off the Somali coast, and they're certainly funding terrorism - Hisbollah, probably Hamas and the PFLP as well.

The Saudis may want Israel to do the dirty work, the condemn them again for their "unilateral" attacks on Islamic states. Israel, however, doesn't have the resources to do what really needs to be done - destroy the military capability of the Mad Mullahs. The United States does, but needs a few more assurances that Russia and China won't come to Iran's defenses if we attack. The Saudi comment may be a subtle signal that they will make a few offers China shouldn't resist.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-04-04 14:54  

#10  Don't read too much into this. It's not a direct quote. Here is another take on it that is a bit more direct and a bit less encouraging.
Posted by: Darrell   2006-04-04 14:25  

#9  One ccountry at a time Zenster, we deal with Mad Mullahs then onward to SA.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-04-04 14:18  

#8  Trust Turki al-Faisal to do one thing and one thing only, and that is cover his @ss until he's farting through silk. Turki cannot be trusted, his prior ties to mullah Omar and al Qaeda have totally compromised him. I doubt that the State Department would trust him with more than a fountain pen. None of this changes the fact that the Saudi Arabia remains the real enemy in the Gulf region. Iran is merely a festering boil that needs to be lanced. The Saudis represent a metastasized Wahabbist cancer that will require excision.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-04-04 14:09  

#7  I visited Osirak in the mid-90's. The strike was 100% effective. The facility was rubblized beyond repair, and with dumb bombs as I recall.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-04-04 14:04  

#6  US will be there to help. It is US strategy to keep the sea-lanes open and no one power dominant over global petroleum reserves. So, ungrateful and obnoxious as they are, the US will defend SA.
Posted by: buwaya   2006-04-04 13:59  

#5  "When that bull turns around and starts tap-dancing on your ass, don't look at US for help, pal."
Posted by: mojo   2006-04-04 13:30  

#4  surprising indeed.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-04-04 13:21  

#3  Nobody in the neighborhood wants the Persians with nukes. Now what will it take to get the Ruskies on board?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-04-04 13:04  

#2  Bottom line is the Sunnis fear an Iranian Shia dynasty. In spite of the "enemy of my enemy" cooporation between the Black Hats and AQ...that Brokeback SandDune lovefest would disentegrate overnight if Iran were to dominate Iraq overtly through Tater and his ilk.
Posted by: anymouse   2006-04-04 13:00  

#1  "Is this a sign that an attack on Iranian facilities would be quietly supported?"

It seems that way to me. The surprising thing is that this was said publicly. It may be a slip by the ambassador, if it was entirely deliberate thats even more significant.
Posted by: buwaya   2006-04-04 12:59  

00:00