Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warn

[Rogue Valley]

Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warns ambassador

June 8, 2015

Saudi Arabia could attempt to obtain a nuclear weapon unless negotiations with Iran produce a "watertight" agreement over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, the Saudi ambassador to the UK has warned. Prince Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz al-Saud said he hoped negotiations with Iran would lead to a "guarantee Iran will not pursue this kind of weapon", but that "if this does not happen, then all options will be on the table for Saudi Arabia".

"Watertight" agreement. Although Obama may overlook loopholes and disregard ambiguous language, other nations will definitely not ignore such shortcomings.

Nuclear proliferation all across the volatile Middle East will almost certainly transpire unless the IAEA is allowed unfettered access to all declared and suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.

 

[WCH]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

They might as well start now.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

The Obama administration will leave giant loopholes and let Iran blatantly violate the few restrictions it initially agrees to....

....and then blame the Saudi's if they try to match.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

They might as well start now.

Agreed.

The Obama administration will leave giant loopholes and let Iran blatantly violate the few restrictions it initially agrees to....

....and then blame the Saudi's if they try to match.

More examples of those strong negotiation techniques this administration and this president is known for.
(Please note sarcasm font)

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warns ambassador

"Watertight" agreement. Although Obama may overlook loopholes and disregard ambiguous language, other nations will definitely not ignore such shortcomings.

Nuclear proliferation all across the volatile Middle East will almost certainly transpire unless the IAEA is allowed unfettered access to all declared and suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.

They would be stupid not to.

The Obama administration doesn't seem to understand that the weasel words and obfuscations that are the bedrock of Obama diplomacy fools nobody but the Obama administration*.


* Edit: And sometimes the Republican leadership in Congress.

 

[reinoe]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

If the Sauds are that concerned then they should have engaged the Iranians directly to form their own deal.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

I'm rather surprised Saudi Arabia is not armed to the teeth with nukes already.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

If the Sauds are that concerned then they should have engaged the Iranians directly to form their own deal.

The Iranians would tell the Saudis to go to hell, and in reality that's what they're telling US and we dont piss them off near as much as the KSA does.

Obama needs to be strong, he should just dictate to them the terms and invade if they don't comply.

Tell them our position is a command not a request

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

As signers of the NPT, I guess our first step will be a rigorous sanctions program.

In March 2006, the German magazine Cicero reported that Saudi Arabia had, since 2003, received assistance from Pakistan to acquire nuclear missiles and warheads. Satellite photos allegedly reveal an underground city with nuclear silos containing Ghauri rockets in Al-Sulaiyil, south of the capital Riyadh.[9] Pakistan has denied aiding Saudi Arabia in its nuclear ambitions.[10]

Nuclear program of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In November 2013, a variety of sources told BBC Newsnight that Saudi Arabia had invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects and believes it could obtain nuclear bombs at will. Earlier in the year, a senior NATO decision maker told Mark Urban, a senior diplomatic and defense editor, that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.

Iran is just an excuse. A nuclear weapons program has been a longtime Saudi ambition.

Since the early 70's the Saudis have been concerned about Israeli/Indian nuclear programs.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

As signers of the NPT, I guess our first step will be a rigorous sanctions program.

Then why are you willing to give suspect Iranian military sites a pass?

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Then why are you willing to give suspect Iranian military sites a pass?

We have a sanctions program on Iran presently on suspicions of a weapons program. If Saudi Arabia goes nuclear, why wouldn't we have a sanctions program on them?

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

We have a sanctions program on Iran presently on suspicions of a weapons program. If Saudi Arabia goes nuclear, why wouldn't we have a sanctions program on them?

That's not what he was asking.
Anyway, you are supportive of the sanctions on Iran since when, exactly?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

As signers of the NPT, I guess our first step will be a rigorous sanctions program.

Word of advice here. Bringing up the NPT is not near that impacting, the only real reason for the NPT in the first place is the hypocritical creation of nuclear haves and have nots. Secondary is then what to do with those have nots that do not have US backing at the UN.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

That's not what he was asking.
Anyway, you are supportive of the sanctions on Iran since when, exactly?

Maybe you can clarify what you think he meant for me. Anyway, when did I say I was supportive of sanctions on Iran, hmm?

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Word of advice here. Bringing up the NPT is not near that impacting, the only real reason for the NPT in the first place is the hypocritical creation of nuclear haves and have nots. Secondary is then what to do with those have nots that do not have US backing at the UN.

Thanks OS, I'm aware of this.

 

[Helix]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

perhaps Saudi Arabia should be the one negotiating with Iran. the region should handle its own problems for a change.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Maybe you can clarify what you think he meant for me.

Then I'll clarify. You're always looking for loopholes/dodges when the subject of the IAEA inspecting suspect Iranian military sites comes up.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Thanks OS, I'm aware of this.

Just being honest here with you on this, if we were really paying attention to the point of the NPT then Israel would be a spotlight just as much as India would (India never even signed it, using the best argument to date as to why.)

 

[American]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Agreed.


More examples of those strong negotiation techniques this administration and this president is known for.
(Please note sarcasm font)

Well we have John Kerry (who btw served in Vietnam) leading the negotiations. What more could we ask for. :lol:

 

[MMC]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement warns ambassador



"Watertight" agreement. Although Obama may overlook loopholes and disregard ambiguous language, other nations will definitely not ignore such shortcomings.

Nuclear proliferation all across the volatile Middle East will almost certainly transpire unless the IAEA is allowed unfettered access to all declared and suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.

Mornin Simplexity. :2wave: The Egyptians say they will have the same deal as Iran too. If BO and his Team are thinking that they can make it difficult for the Saud and Others to get materials they need. Then they need to start listening to some Judas Priest. Especially the song. Got Another Thing Coming.



“We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,” one of the Arab leaders preparing to meet Mr. Obama said on Monday, declining to be named until he made his case directly to the president. Prince Turki bin Faisal, the 70-year-old former Saudi intelligence chief, has been touring the world with the same message.

Still, the Saudis have given the subject of nuclear armament more than passing thought. In the 1980s they bought a type of Chinese missile, called a DF-3, that could be used effectively only to deliver a nuclear weapon because the missiles were too large and inaccurate for any other purpose. American officials, led by Robert M. Gates, then the director of the C.I.A., protested. There is no evidence the Saudis ever obtained warheads to fit atop the missiles.

Prince Turki argued that the United States was making a “pivot to Iran” that was ill advised, and that the United States failed to learn from North Korea’s violations of its nuclear deals. “We were America’s best friend in the Arab world for 50 years,” he said, using the past tense.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/w...to-match-iran-in-nuclear-capability.html?_r=0

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Then I'll clarify. You're always looking for loopholes/dodges when the subject of the IAEA inspecting suspect Iranian military sites comes up.

I'm not looking for loopholes. And I don't suspect that when we begin a sanctions program on SA, and the IAEA inspectors go in, they will be given permission to enter and inspect their military bases, which position I will support, and you can be here to remind me of that.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Anyway, when did I say I was supportive of sanctions on Iran, hmm?

You said: "As signers of the NPT, I guess our first step will be a rigorous sanctions program."
So you support sanctions on Saudi Arabia but not on Iran? Ridiculous.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Just being honest here with you on this, if we were really paying attention to the point of the NPT then Israel would be a spotlight just as much as India would (India never even signed it, using the best argument to date as to why.)

I know man, and I agree with you. My point for mentioning NPT was to pre-emptively point out that there will be a double standard on the seriousness we place upon NPT signatories when it comes to SA, wait and see.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

You said: "As signers of the NPT, I guess our first step will be a rigorous sanctions program."
So you support sanctions on Saudi Arabia but not on Iran? Ridiculous.

Nope, I support sanctions on neither. Look here dude, you're not the clever one you think you are, you may be coy though! My statement is to point out the hypocrisy that most certainly will exist with regards to our alleged importance of the NPT,

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Saudi Arabia 'could go nuclear' unless Iran talks lead to 'watertight' agreement

Nope, I support sanctions on neither. Look here dude, you're not the clever one you think you are, you may be coy though! My statement is to point out the hypocrisy that most certainly will exist with regards to our alleged importance of the NPT,

Well in your statement you yourself engage in hypocrisy since you appear to have no problem at all to argue for sanctions against Saudi Arabia while being strongly against any action taken against Iran due to its violations. Exhibit A:

We have a sanctions program on Iran presently on suspicions of a weapons program. If Saudi Arabia goes nuclear, why wouldn't we have a sanctions program on them?

If you don't support sanctions on Saudi Arabia you wouldn't make that question. Even if your claim is that there should be sanctions on Saudi Arabia if only because there are sanctions on Iran, well then considering you claim you support neither then that will simply be a "two wrongs make a right" approach.

As to your remark regarding my intelligence I find it irrelevant since as you probably know I don't hold you to a high regard at all. In fact if I had to form a list of the members on these boards based on their intelligence your name will probably not show up due to the 5000 characters rule.