The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.
In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran's nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country's quest for nuclear weapons.
"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion ... there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."
"If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclearIran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival here. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public.
The remarks surprised many in the audience.
Rep. Jane Harman of California, a former ranking Democrat on theHouse intelligence committee, told The Washington Times after the session that "I have never heard an Arab government official say that before. He was stunningly candid."
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the comments reflect the views of many Arab states in the Persian Gulf region that "recognize the threat posed by a nuclear Iran."
"They also know -- and worry -- that the Obama administration's policies will not stop Iran," he told The Times in a separate interview.
......
Mr. al-Otaiba said that his country would be the last Arab country to cut a deal with Iran, if Tehran were to go nuclear. But he predicted other wealthy Arab states in the Gulf would dump their alliances with the U.S. in favor of ties with Tehran if President Obama does not stop the Islamic republic's quest to become a nuclear power.
"There are many countries in the region that if they lack assurance that the U.S. is willing to confrontIran, they will start running for cover with Iran," he said. "Small, rich, vulnerable countries do not want to stick their finger in the big boy's eye if they do not have the backing of the United States."
The ambassador also said that "talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous."
He said Iran has not been deterred from supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah now, when it doesn't have a nuclear arsenal. So why, he asked rhetorically, would Iran be more cautious in its support for terrorism if it did.
"Why should I be led to believe that deterrence and containment will work?" he asked.
Mr. al-Otaiba also said that an Iranian acquisition would set off a nuclear arms race in the region, predicting that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey would all start nuclear programs if Iran acquired such weapons.
He said however that the U.A.E. would not seek to transform its peaceful energy program into a military one in that situation.
The ambassador in the end stressed that his country would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.
"The United States may be able to live with it," he said. "We can't."
2 comments:
They know what nuclear capability would mean in the hands of Mahdist Iran. It will be interesting to read Bolton's further comments on this.
they know that if Iran nukes Israel that before Israel goes down they will nuke every Muslim population center they can vaporize with, probably, 200+ nukes.
there is no reason not to use Neutron weapons, to the contrary, Neutron bombs are the most environmentally friendly weapon of choice. 200 nukes would cause a nuclear winter killing billions of innocient people.
Post a Comment