Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - 4:02 AM
Anyone else intrigued by this BBC report?
Imposing more sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme would not be a quick enough solution, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister has said.
Prince Saud al-Faisal said the threat posed by Iran demanded a "more immediate solution" than sanctions....
Speaking at a joint Riyadh news conference with Mrs Clinton, Prince Saud said: "Sanctions are a long-term solution. They may work, we can't judge.
"But we see the issue in the shorter term maybe because we are closer to the threat... So we need an immediate resolution rather than a gradual resolution."
While the Saudi minister did not detail his vision of a quick solution in public, it is likely that options were discussed behind closed doors in the meeting between Mrs Clinton and King Abdullah, says the BBC's Kim Ghattas, who is travelling with the top US diplomat.
Um.... beyond appeasement, what exactly are the policies that could lead to an "immediate resolution" of the Iranian nuclear program?
Seriously, I'm stumped on this point. All of the possible "immediate" options on the table -- Israeli airstrike, a Saudi deterrent capability -- seem equally ludicrous.
UPDATE: This Financial Times story by Abeer Allam appears to be an attempt at clarification:
Saudi foreign policy official told the French press agency on Tuesday that the kingdom was not advocating military action when Prince Saud said that sanctions were not a solution.
Riyadh was arguing that the Middle East peace process was a faster and more effective means to ease tensions in the region, the official said.
”There is no point in our spending all our time on sanctions which will not have an effect in the short term. We need something more tangible,” the offical told AFP.
”We don’t want a military strike ... A military strike, we still believe, will be very counterproductive,” he said. (emphasis added)
Um..... I agree that sanctions are not a quick fix, but does anyone, anywhere believe that the Middle East peace process will be faster than other policy options? Anyone?
Here is a quick list of things that I believe will happen more quickly than a successful Middle East peace process:
1) Cold fusion;
2) Bermuda wins gold medal in men's luge;
3) Miley Cyrus nominated for Best Actress Oscar
Well, I guess the US publicly bringing Saudi under its nuclear umbrella would do the job. After all, it's all about deterrence, isn't it?
Are you one of those people...
Are you one of those people who doesn't seriously believe Saudi Arabia doesn't already have a bomb or 2 safely redereved for them in Pakistan?
The Saudis want us to bomb Iran.
Just like they wanted us to push Saddam out of Kuwait.
Just like they wanted us to invade Iraq.
This gives them an enemy of the Muslim world to focus their people's wrath instead of at their corrupt totalitarian dictatorship, and boosts the price of oil. We have been dancing on Saudi strings for a long time (look at all the money they shovel into our politicians' pockets).
And if things get quiet, there are always more Saudi terrorists to fly planes into our buildings..
And if we do actually bomb Iran, the Saudis will protest our imperialist, Israel-loving, Arab-hating policies. And why on earth would working on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians affect whether the Iranians decide to get the bomb? Does the Iranian government want peace between Palestine and Israel? If they did, they wouldn't support Hamas and Hezbollah.
Absolutely correct. What is the 'quick (immediate) solution'?
The subsequent explanations that the Prince was referring to some fast track of Israel Arab resolution is nothing short of absurd.
Equally if not more absurd is the ancillary explanation that he was urging a broader solution vis-a-vis an Israeli disarmament. Not least of all because any Israeli disarmament would only come in context of resolution of Arab and Israeli
Broadening the negotiations with Iran by introducing Israeli disarmament into the talks would needlessly complicate negotiations, hopelessly bog negotiations down and probably insure their failure. (Something many if not most observers believe is what Iran wants in any event.)
Additionally the Saudis would be loathe to allow Iran, their arch foe and regional competitor, any sort of political victory in forcing any Israeli concessions.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(5)
SHOW COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE