"time, the absolute priority must be our strategic security in the Gulf, which is threatened by Iran - even if this comes at the expense of the Palestinian cause."

This is the clear departure. The Palestinians have always been pawns of other leaders in the Middle East to distract their peoples from internal troubles. To put aside the "destroy Israel" urge and face the true existential threats in the region would be a brave, brave move. Too bad essays like these are rare in the Arab world.

Sometimes "brave, brave" is also "stupid, stupid". Whoever this clown is, he clearly doesn't know a damned thing about military matters, or apparently about Iran and OBL either.

In the first place, the Saudis have done as much as anyone, and more than most, to create the hopeless morass the Pals are in. If they really wanted to help they wouldn't have supported having them warehoused like livestock for decades to serve as bargaining chips, cheap labor, and terrorist recruits. They could help solve the problem now if they wanted to as well.

Second, the idea that we can take out Iran's nuclear program with a few air strikes is about a hundred times more stupid than the idea that a similar approach would destroy Hezbollah.

Third, there is no evidence whatsoever that the leadership of Iran is anything other than patient and pragmatic. They've used suicide bombers to good effect, but none of their leaders have been among them. A nuclear strike against Israel would mean the total destruction of Iran, which none of them even remotely wants, desperate use of random quotes on theology by panic-mongers notwithstanding. From their perspective, Islam will ultimately triumph and the demographics seem to support this view. They have no motivation for playing to Israel's nuclear strength when time appears to be on their side.

Forth, Iran hasn't invaded anyone in centuries, and has only recently had any kind of serious UN Resolutions passed on this issue. Launching strikes that would kill many thousands of innocent Iranians on the highly dubious chance that this would in fact disarm Iran from the weapons it almost surely wants only as a deterrent  would be a crime of enormous proportions, utterly isolating Israel for all time. Moreover, the resulting war with Iran would be a catastrophe for Israel and for the US.

Taking the advice of Saudi journalists doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea for Israel.

Wait..it's coming to me...oh yes: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

RP: clear-headed and to the point, IMHO - thanks.

Lymon: I guess that is why the author is saying, but of course while the axiom works in the schoolyard, its strategic value is dubious, and those who would hang their hat on this proposition risk losing it all.  After all, the enemy of your enemy is your friend *only* so long as the enemies remain enemies, and only insofar as the strategic imperatives require; the moment the enemy of the enemy is destroyed, other imperatives come in.  So yeah, for now, it is sound for the Saudis to leverage Israel against Iran, but this does nothing whatever to reduce the basic Saudi enmity toward Israel; by getting rid of Iran's threat to the region, Israel will make the Saudi the predominant power in the region and, guess what, bin Laden was a Saudi ...

Iran is not Persia, but tell that to the Saudis, or to the Persians for that matter.  And Ahmadinejad is not Cyrus, but Iranian make pilgrimages to the tomb of Cyrus to this day and, if clandestine pictures are evidence, prostrate themselves before Iran's secular saint and saviour - the same one who liberated the Jews from Babylonian exile.  It is an interesting quirk of history that about the only "people" on the Iranian plateau who can trace their settlement directly to Persian times are the Jews of Hamedan - who migrated there under Imperial protection 2,500 years ago, and never moved.

All this to say that "Persian"-Jewish relations are far more historically intertwined than Saudi-Israeli ones.  Most Iranians care little for Palestinians - other than a vague feeling of solidarity with other Muslims, which feeling evaporates quickly when they recall the important role of Arafat and Palestinian terrorists in the civil wars of 1979-81 in Iran.  And of course Arab-Persian enmity goes far deeper than any negative feelings Iranians might have for Israel or for the West; let's not forget that Iran was the only Muslim country where there were instant candle-light vigils to honour the 9/11 victims of terrorism; no hooting and hollering and dancing in the streets in Tehran.

All this to say that the Saudis might well goad Israel to get rid of their enemy now, but the next day, they will turn around and hit back at Israel without compunction; Iranian and Israeli common interests in the region, however, are made of sturdier stuff, Ahmadinejad notwithstanding.  Anyway, you want to know how fucked-up the country is?  Ahmadinejad's First Vice president said three weeks ago that "the American people are among the best in the world, and I say to you that we honour and respect all nations, including the nation of Israel."  He was reminded that Khomeini had specifically said that all Israelis were usurpers, not just the Government.  He corrected himself and said, "by Israel of course I meant Palestine."  This started a whole new firestorm.  His last word on the subject, "If you ask me a thousand times, I will give you the same answer: we are not against any nation, and I love the Israeli nation."  

The MEMRI piece ends 'even if it is against the will of the Arabs of the north.'

Are the Arabs of the north the Iranians?

RP, yeah, well done.

CRS9TNR: It's my understanding that Iranians aren't Arabs, they're Persians.

CRS9--No, the "Arabs of the North" are the ones who would be incinerated by an Iranian strike.

Do countries like, say Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India or Egypt, have the weaponry to do the neccesary damage to Iran to push back an Iranian nuclear bomb? One didn't hear a hell of a lot of protests when Iraq was at war with Iran. Strikes me that a president who understood subtelty could deal with the issue of postponing the Persian bomb with much more ease than direct action by  Israel or America.

Best,

TimK

Pakistan needs all its nukes for the eventual war with India (strategic depth, according to former Pakistani Def Minister: 17 million; oy); India needs Iran's heavily discounted gas and so is not likely to bomb Iran; Egypt is too far away; Saudi Arabia prefers other countries, preferably the US (and, apparently, now Israel) do its fighting for it.  The Saudis don't have nukes, but they would not start a war against Iran, because Iranian missiles could easily reach Saudi oil platforms, and because the five million or so Shi'as in Saudi Arabi who have little or no rights, who are poor, and who sit on all the oil, could conceivably decide that they have had enough and start sabotaging the pipelines to the Red Sea - and there, you could say, bye bye Arabia ...

Oh - I forgot, Shi'a, Sunni, Wahhabi, Salafi - according to McCain, that sage of Foreign Policy, they mean nothing.  And apparently Iraq, not Iran, borders Pakistan.  Next thing you know, he'll ask Indonesia to send a land army across the border to Baluchistan ...

Sheesh, ick. What? Sunni, Shia, and all the others: who cares the difference. They are all Arabs or muslims or something closely related. Boy, the temerity you have -- questioning the great sage of foreign policy, lord McCain. His worshippers on these boards might take umbrage.

No umbrage taken - McCain doesn't have all the answers.  Many of us believe that he would appoint better people around him than would The Chosen One.  Maybe if Obama assured me that Dick Holbrooke would be Sec State, I'd give him a look.

Aaaah, who am I kidding?

butchie b: Bush was supposed to appoint better people around him ... he made the Harding Administration look competent by comparison.  Foor me once ...