George Friedman hos Stratfor om Obamas Iran-politikk:
Our current view is that the accumulation of enough enriched uranium to build a weapon does not mean that the Iranians are anywhere close to having a weapon. Moreover, the risks inherent in an airstrike on its nuclear facilities outstrip the benefits (and even that assumes that the entire nuclear industry is destroyed in one fell swoop — an unsure outcome at best). It also assumes the absence of other necessary technologies.
....The country most concerned about Iran is not Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The Saudis recall the result of the last strategic imbalance in the region, when Iraq, following its armistice with Iran, proceeded to invade Kuwait, opening the possibility that its next intention was to seize the northeastern oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In that case, the United States intervened. Given that the United States is now withdrawing from Iraq, intervention following withdrawal would be politically difficult unless the threat to the United States was clear. More important, the Iranians might not give the Saudis the present Saddam Hussein gave them by seizing Kuwait and then halting.
Kosher nukes.
2 kommentarer:
Det er tydeligvis lite kjærlighet tapt mellom Iran og Saudiarabia.
Men så lenge S.A. har balletak på de største pilegrimsmålene, er det vel lite sannsynlig at et såpass strengt gjnnomreigiøst styre som Iran har vil gå til direkte angrep?
Neida, men SA er Irans fremste rival, både som regional stormakt og som religiøs stormakt. "Dødsdommen" over Rushdie var Teherans forsøk på å overgå SA.
Legg inn en kommentar