Saudi royal: ‘Gulf states won’t be base for attack on Iran’

So what did Bush get for pretending the Gulf states and Saudis didn't fund al Qaeda and the Taliban before and after 9-11?

So much for the Sunni/Shiite schism

And another slap to the face of G.W. Bush and the Americans, whom given their lives in this war on terror. What fools we are, as most can see this is a war against islam! Amd all muslim's will stick togeather.

Saudi Arabia ought to choose its words more carefully, since in fact it is the U.S. that ultimately protects them from being overtaken by nations like Iran.

If the Saudi Arabians were left to defend themselves, they'd have their asses handed to them by the Persians. They should remember this always, and watch their mouths.

Of course the Gulf states won't be -- except where Iraq has U.S. military bases. Like I've been saying for many months....

If the attack on Iran doesn't happen, that's when you all better start getting upset, not the other way around.

Our "allies" in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Kuwait won't be able to halt our progress this time. And we aren't going to telegraph our intentions either -- I'm still convinced that our military is going to strike. I still have some faith left in lucid admirals and generals and a government that gets things right barely enough of the time that we still might do what must be done to the Iranian centrifuges: make them go BOOM!

Oh, one more thing -- borders in the Middle East are a Western contrivance. They are practically meaningless in the Islamic world.

My vote is to shift our alliance from the corrupt Royal Family to the pure practioners of the Religion of Peace. Set the goal as chaos in the streets and an overthrow of the Saudi government. In the name of the spirit of democracy.

Direct Halliburton to partner with the security forces of Ethiopia and have this team take over the oil fields with air support provided by the newly upgraded Ethiopian air force. Set up a Flying Tigers arrangement if need be.

Halliburton makes a buck, Africa gets reparations for the Arab slave trade, the West secures a large percentage of the world’s proven oil reserves, and the jihadists burn themselves out in the absence of a Dictator and money.

@pez: Well, one thing is for certain in my own game plan -- Saudi Arabia must have its knees taken out eventually.

How can you follow this

"had accused Iran of backing Shia death squads killing Sunnis in Iraq"

with this

"Iran will not be a source of harm for their neighbours and brothers"

?

Are there some special new rules about reality that I haven't heard yet?

Oh, and pez: I like it. Best plan so far.

Sounds like Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz is covering his (and his country's) hide. In issuing this statement, he helps set up deniability for covert actions in the event that the Saudis were sufficiently concerned with Iran to "allow" U.S. forces to do the dirty work for them.

And for that matter, offering reassurances that the Gulf states (I'm sure Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman appreciate being told what they will or won't do) won't be a staging area for a strike on Iran by Western countries serves to protect his territory from pre-emptive strikes by Iran, if Iran were to begin to feel cornered.

The prince may also hope it discourages Iranians from covertly fomenting discord among Shi'ite populations in the Gulf states, though that is certainly ongoing (if not yet in all possible areas) and will continue on the basis of historical religious hatred, military strategy notwithstanding.

In any event, his statement provides cover for the Saudis to prepare their own potential action against Iran, if they can't find someone else to do it for them.

More on Ethiopia from Wikipedia:

During half of the Sixth Century Ethiopians controlled all of Yemen and part of southern Saudi Arabia. In the name of fairness, the concept of the right of return should not be limited to Palestinians.

By invading Saudi Arabia, the Ethiopians would simply be exercising their god-given right of return to their ancestral lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia

Well, I just thought I would chime in and remind everyone that in 2003 the Saudis officially said they were adamantly opposed to the U.S. invading Iraq. But, privately, they have provided support for the U.S. in its endeavor against Iraq...

So, if past history provides us with any clues as to current policy in Saudi Arabia, I am of the opinion that these comments are just fluff, designed to quell tensions with Iran and others...

Cheers,

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

so they say publically
- privately what are they thinking and saying (as they know full well what fate awaits their heads if the maniacal mullahs win ...)
oh and all the profits the "Gulf States" will enjoy from astronomical oil price increases -once the war begins will mean nothing

MarisolJW,

I just saw your comment. Well said!

Cheers,

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

No, of course they won't.

They won't do a damn thing to help stop what they hysterically call the "Shi'a crescent." They take the attitude that "you Americans must do something, must stay in Iraq and sacrifice your own troops and more hundreds of billions of dollars" to prevent the Shi'a from dominating Iraq. And you mustn't dare to ask the local Sunni Arabs to acquiesce in the new power-arrangement that an actual vote-dependent political system now made possible, an arrangement whereby the Sunni Arabs who constitute less than 20% of the population, and who have lorded it over the Shi'a and Kurds for the entire life of modern Iraq, would have roughly that amount of power, in a world, a culture, where not compromise, but only the concepts of "victor" and "vanquished" and "winner take all" are recognized, and understood).

Oh, they won't do a thing, those Saudis, Kuwaits, and Emiratians. And we shouldn't do a damn thing to help the Sunnis of Iraq. Our only stake in Iran is in making sure that that fanatical regime does not acquire certain kinds of weaponry. If it prevented from so doing, it will eventually fall from the disappointment and the disarray that will naturally follow. But we have no reason to do the Sunni bidding of Saudi Arabia, or the other Gulf states, or of Egypt, or of Jordan. No stake at all -- just as we had no stake, in 2002 and early 2003, and in the years since, in going to war against Iraq for any reason (helping put those nice Shi'as in exile into positions of power, as they so devoutly wished) other than depriving it, another Muslim state, of similar weaponry -- which, in the case of Saddam Hussein's regime, turned out to be a bluff intended to scare the Islamic Republic of Iran, but turned out to scare more the Republic of the United States.

No need to take sides in the Sunni-Shi'a fight, and certainly no need to do Saudi or other Sunni bidding in Iraq. Eliminating the nuclear facilities of Iran, however, and possible future bombs that threaten not merely Sunni regimes (to which we can remain indifferent) but also Infidels, is a different matter.

“I think the brothers in Iran are totally aware that ... Iran will not be a source of harm for their neighbours and brothers"

That says it all, Iran is a "neighbor and brother". I seriously doubt if anyone in the Saudi Royal family would refer to America as a "brother". To them we're an infidel meal ticket, and when push comes to shuve, even those who would destroy them, are preferable to the apes and pigs in the West.

Sure wouldn't be in their best of interest! Royal family that is why. Royality serves them well! They trying to sit back and act as if their hands are clean. I'll never forget Gullani turning down their royal money at ground-0!

rational,

Before the U.S.-Iraq war:

http://www.ain-al-yaqeen.com/issues/20030124/feat3en.htm

"The Saudi Foreign Minister said that his country has made arrangements to deal with any possible influx of refugees from Iraq. ''But we hope that nothing will afflict our Iraqi brothers. "

So, precedence has been set...

Cheers,

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Shouldn't we all have learned one lesson well by now -- if it comes out of the mouth of a Muslim, the grain of salt to take it with is the size of a golf ball.

Foehammer,

That reminds me - I need to pick up a salt lick for my guinea pig...

While I'm at it, I guess I'll pick up an extra one for personal use whenever the Saudis speaks...

Cheers,

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

P.S. - Ooops! That should say, "...whenever the Saudis speak."

Gulf states won’t be base for attack on Iran

My first thought on reading this headline was, "I guess the Gulf states are going to be a base for attacking Iran". I'm sure the Iranians, with more knowledge of how much value is put on oaths made to infidels, and knowing that Shi'a are infidels in the view of the Wahabbist Sunnis, will also intuit the significance of this declaration. That is to say, none whatsoever.

That is to say, Marisol and Foehammer and everyone else above have it right.

the Sowdis are good at practicing "taqqiya" say one thing, and do another. they wont need those gulf states for attacks on iran as much as they think. and if bombs are going to iran, they can be off the carriers in the gulf and from iran's neighbour, iraq.

How nice it would be if Iran nuked Saudi Arabia.

Two vultures, one stone.

Maybe his statement has some truth because we'll be hitting Iran from our ships as well as by air, thus the reason we have appointed a Navy Admiral to the top military post of the Joint Chiefs. Iran has said they will attack our allies in the Gulf if attacked. However, why has the Prince chosen to make this statement at this time instead of later? I'm not convinced we're going to hit them in the near future.

"Respect and consideration are mutual" said prince nayef bin abdul-aziz. except when it comes to Western society.

A. In the previous story Admiral Ali Shamkhani, a senior defence adviser to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that in the event of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities the Gulf states providing the US with military cooperation would be the key targets of a barrage of ballistic missiles. Qatar, Bahrain and Oman all host important US bases and British forces are based in all three countries. Any Iranian attack would be bound to draw in the other Gulf Cooperation Council states: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

B. Now a Saudi prince says that the Gulf Arab countries will not be used as a launch pad for any military attack on Iran. He also says that they all have mutual respect for one another, that they are brothers. In other words, no matter what the threat posed by Iran to us or to them, the Gulf states will not lift a finger.

C. That means the Gulf States have nothing to fear from Iran and they don't need American bases and we should just pull our people out of all of them and tell the Saudis to enjoy life with their "brothers". Then we say: don't call us, we'll call you, and proceed to lose their phone number. Kuwait: enjoy. Saddam is gone. You should be safe now. And if someday you're in trouble....call Putin.

It's time to stop letting sheikhs and emirs play the game of spewing anti-American rhetoric for public consumption while secretly giving the US the go ahead. Either way, we lose. President Bush had it right the first time (if only he'd stuck to it.) You're with us or you're against us.

Let the words be rearranged: if you are not with us then you are against us. Pick a side.

And whent the iranian army will march to Saudi who the hell they going to turn to? the salvation army

the saudis may have a problem enforcing this against Israel..............

Most gulf states should be targets..not bases.