Comments

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.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Saudis warn against action against Iran

2006-06-01

Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, has warned that any military actions against Iran will be "catastrophic" for the region. In an interview run by the Christian Science Monitor, the ambassador said, "We are against any military conflict in the Gulf whose aim is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear know-how. We think (it would be) catastrophic to us because - the immediate result of course is - another spike in oil prices. And this time nobody knows how high up the price will go. Secondly, there will be counter-measures by Iran if it is attacked ... It is not just going to be the Gulf states that will be affected by responses from Iran if it is attacked. But we think that there would be a worldwide manifestation of Iranian response."

Posted by:Fred

#15 Sorry for the double post. Last attempt didn't seem to go through.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-06-01 15:36

#14 Do not make the fatal error of mistaking this scumbag as any sort of friend to America. This walking waste-of-skin has been kissing terrorist @ss so long he blows his nose with toilet paper. A little background for the unfamiliar:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,905698,00.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-250

Posted by: Zenster 2006-06-01 15:33

#13 Why does that pic remind me of 'Grandpa' of the Munsters?

Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-06-01 15:02

#12 Turki has as much credibility as Prince Charles. Al-Faisal has been kissing al Qaeda's and the terrorists' @sses for so long that he blows his nose with toilet paper.

For those of you unfamiliar with this walking waste-of-skin:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,905698,00.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-250

Do not make the fatal error of mistaking this turd for any sort of friend to America.

Posted by: Zenster 2006-06-01 14:21

#11 A complete and accurate summary, Darrell.

Posted by: Elmesing Spavising7222 2006-06-01 11:44

#10 If you were a Saudi royal, you'd want status quo too. Iran isn't building bombs to attack Saudi Arabia, but Iran may attack Saudi Arabia to damage the U.S. if the U.S. attacks Iran. As for spikes in oil prices, the Saudis don't want to see the U.S. move toward energy independence and they certainly don't want instability that causes the U.S. to start seizing control of supply.

What they cannot say is that a military and mullah decapitation of Iran by the U.S. may be their best bet for long-term stability. They can think it, but they dare not say it.

Posted by: Darrell 2006-06-01 11:20

#9 Well, we could always nuke Mecca in the meantime. That work for you Saudi?

Posted by: DarthVader 2006-06-01 09:33

#8 But we think that there would be a worldwide manifestation of Iranian response."

Blackmail and intimidation.

Posted by: Gene the Moron 2006-06-01 09:21

#7 Turki realizes Saudi is next after Iran.

Posted by: ed 2006-06-01 07:38

#6 The Saudis have a lot invested in the Islamic Bomb Project. They don't want their investment wiped out AGAIN.

Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-06-01 06:07

#5 Turkey Fossil

LOL! I was wondering what clever pseudonym one of you would come up with!

Yeah, he'd probably like that war pushed back until he was a fossil. Or at least dead. He, like many, probably doesn't give a $hit what happens after he's dead.

Kind of makes you wonder how much of Iran's moves are serious, and how much of them are designed to push up oil prices, both to the detriment of the US and to the benefit of his own country's coffers. Maybe they'll back off just enough to keep the tension going but not get smacked.

Posted by: grb 2006-06-01 01:07

#4 Turkey Fossil states the obvious, but for what reasons? (1) to hedge its bets should the US not take military action, (2) to keep the oil $$.$ gravy train rollin, (3) to supposedly postpone the inevitible Shia-Sunni regional war.

The Sauds are invested in the status quo, but one way or another, big change is afoot.

Posted by: Captain America 2006-06-01 00:50

#3 Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, has warned that any military actions against Iran will be "catastrophic" for the region.

I can hear most of their neighbors now: "Oh, thtop it!"

Sure, if you call "peace" a catastrophe. Hmm, maybe that explains a lot. How do you stay in power if there's nothing to rally the ignorant masses against to keep their attention diverted from what it should be on? Maybe it should be "Oh thtop it, but leave a piece so we can rally the ignorant masses against to keep their attention diverted from what it should be on!"

We think (it would be) catastrophic to us because - the immediate result of course is - another spike in oil prices.

How could that be catastrophic to Saudi Arabia? Sounds like someone's desperate or insincere here. Or, more likely, desperately insincere.

Secondly, there will be counter-measures by Iran if it is attacked

Assuming we launch some kind of decapitating strike against their medieval leadership, who's going to lead their army to battle? Why should they follow? They'll have better things to do, like affixing satellite dishes to their rooftops to get the Playboy Channel! Where are the communications, the supplies? OK, for argument's sake, suppose you manage to mass the 10% of the army that will work without pay on the border. We've been looking for an opportunity to try out that MOAB thingy anyway . . . .

"Secondly, there will be counter-measures by Iran if it is attacked. But we think that there would be a worldwide manifestation of Iranian response."

Like what? A few suicide bombs go off in my back yard? It's worth it. I won't be happy about it, but I'll die so that many more can live without fear. They blow all the oil wells? We'll live. That might just be what it will take to get people to stop whining and get real about being more energy efficient anyway. Besides, what would the worldwide manifestation be if they weren't attacked?

I'm going to cut this off now. I want to run out and get some popcorn before the rest of the planet beats me to it. :-)

Posted by: grb 2006-06-01 00:40

#2 Dont blow him off he is absolutely correct. Iran has spent 30years of so preparing their terrorist proxy groups and connections the world over while we have been naval gazing finding every possible evil the US ever did to deserve self hatred.

The only question knowing this horrific response will happen thou is will it be more or will it be less worse than the response in the future when Iran has nukes + all these current abilities?.

Posted by: C-Low 2006-06-01 00:31

#1 The first shot hasn't even been fired yet, and Turki al-Faisal is already grabbing the ankles!! Wussies!

Posted by: smn 2006-06-01 00:17

00:00