The Arab League, hosted by Saudi Arabia's ruler King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, plans a public display of unity against Iran. Can you imagine 22 Arab states standing firm against Iran's nuclear program following the United Nations Security Council voting 15 to 0 for stronger sanctions? This report believes that King Abdullah is leading a diplomatic offensive to roll back Iranian influence among Lebanese, Palestinians, and Shiite Iraqis and also believes the Saudis are trying to curb the influence of radical, violent Islam.
Iran sent a belligerent warning last Friday: It seized 15 British sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf. The hostile move wasn't aimed only at London. It came just before anti-Iran moves by the UN Security Council and Sunni Arab nations. The real message? "Don't fence us in."Tehran's radical Shiite regime faces an unusual partnership of foes opposed to its regional and nuclear ambitions. The United States and Saudi Arabia, either working separately or together, have rallied friends and allies to isolate Iran by adept diplomacy.
The king, worried about Iran's ties to the radical Palestinian group Hamas, was also able to broker a deal this month between Hamas and the nationalist Fatah party to help form a new Palestinian unity government. He also may be helping to suppress Iran-backed Hizbullah forces in Lebanon. And there are reports of recent meetings between Saudi and Israeli officials.
Saudi Arabia is beefing up its Navy with US aid and supporting other Gulf states in building oil pipelines that would bypass the Gulf's Strait of Hormuz, thus weakening Iran's ability to threaten oil exports.
Confronting Iran directly, however, is not Saudi style. Its military is weak compared with Iran's. That's why the capture of British forces may be a signal from Iran's clerics – or maybe just a faction – that retaliation is a strong option. (CSM)
I hate to be a naysayer, but I don't think that agreement between Hamas and Fatah was such a good deal, at least not for Israel. If Saudi Arabia is talking with Israel, that may be good, but The American Israeli Patriot says:
... the Arab nations who have unanimously approved the plan have demanded nothing short of a complete and unconditional Israeli surrender. Each one of the three non negotiable points of the proposal is damaging enough to the Jewish state to perhaps render it totally indefensible; [snip]Whatever happened to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, which was signed on January 3, 1919, by Emir Faisal (son of the King of Hejaz) and Chaim Weizmann (later President of the World Zionist Organization) as part of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 which settled disputes stemming from World War I? (read more)
The Christian Science Monitor article believes 'a bolder Saudi Arabia and a more diplomatic US could make a good team in curbing radical Islamists in the Middle East.' That diplomacy they are talking about is sitting down with groups like Hamas. I'm all for diplomacy, but it turns my stomach to think about America negotiating with terrorists. Yet, here we are. Talking to Hamas, and talking to Iran over orange juice in Iraq.
While the new UN resolution is weaker than what the US, Britain, and France first proposed, it "is a very big step toward surrounding [Iran]. The US is going step by step to surround the country militarily, economically, and politically," says Mr. Saeed Leylaz, an independent analyst in Tehran. "They are surrounding us, and [so] the British sailors have been arrested because Iran is trying to warn Western countries that it will perceive these new sanctions as enemy [actions]."
That's it in a nutshell. That's why the British sailors were taken, so Iran could say, 'see what we can do'. One interesting tidbit, Iran is saying that the US "deliberately" failed to issue visas on time for Ahmadinejad's flight crew, and that is why he did not attend the United Nations Security Council meeting in person. Of course the U.S. denies these allegations. heh I hope we did it on purpose.
strange bedfellows indeed!
ReplyDelete