The interesting thing about the revelations over Iran’s neighbours is just how far they’d go to stop it from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
Bahrain’s King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa didn’t mince his words in a November 2009 cable to Washington on what should be done about Iran's nuclear programme. According to a cable released by WikiLeaks, Hamad said:
‘That programme must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.’
It’s a view echoed by Deputy Supreme Commander of the United Arab Armed Forces Emirates Prince Mohammed bin Zayed. In a July 2009 memo to the US government, he described Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as ‘Hitler,’ and urged the United States not to ‘appease’ Iran.
And there’s plenty more where that came from. Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia, asked the United States to strike Iran’s nuclear programme and to ‘cut off the head of the snake.’ Another memo showed Qatar had agreed to allow the United States to use a base on Qatari soil to bomb Iran.
These revelations are highly embarrassing for Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, underscoring as they do the intense level of hostility and mistrust Iran’s neighbours feel about its nuclear programme.
But what should particularly concern Iran's leadership is the statement from the Emir of Qatar. On numerous occasions, Iran's leaders have openly stated that they’d be willing to attack any neighbouring country that allows its territory to be used by foreign forces to stage an attack against Iran. By telling the United States that he’s willing to allow his territory to be used as a launch pad for a strike, the Emir of Qatar is effectively saying that he’s so concerned about the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran that he’s prepared to risk massive Iranian retaliation against his country to stop it from happening.
What’s particularly interesting about the WikiLeaks revelations, though, isn’t so much the enthusiasm that countries like Saudi Arabia demonstrated over a US-led attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, but that they wanted the United States to decapitate the entire leadership of the regime. (Lebanon's Caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri is also revealed to have stated to US officials in 2006 that they should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq).
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
John Samford
Hariri was correct but there is a slight problem.
Historically, Iran has only been invaded from the north (Russia) or the West (Iraq) the last time they were invaded it was both directions, Soviets from the north, British from the west. ’40 or ’41 IIRC. Maybe ’42.
So in order to invade Iran ( Persia ) you need logistics bases in either Russia or Iraq. The Mad Dog MUllahs (hereafter MDM) know this. They are crazy as fleas on a drunk but they are not stupid. That is why they stopped their nuclear weapon program when the US Army did Baghdad. They knew a right turn would put that same US Army in Tehran in 72 hours and there was nothing they could do to stop it.
Bush, like his father in ’91 chickened out.
The only solution for Iran is killing the MDM. Bush blew it but there IS another opportunity. Stealth gives the USA a weapon that Iran and the MDM cannot defend against. Start a decapitation campaign against the MDM. Keep bombing them until we get lucky or they quit and accept exile. Shouldn’t take more then 5 years.
hass
There’s nothing particularly interesting about US puppet regimes telling the US what they think the US wants to hear. They probably tell the Iranians what they think the Iranians want to hear too.
J.T.
US puppet regimes? Oh, mine! Only if the reality of the world is that simple.
Grant
You seem to be ignoring the fact that those ‘puppet regimes’* wanted the U.S to attack. They never suggested anything about getting involved themselves. To quote a politician (possibly Mr. Gates) they want to fight Iran “to the last American”.