United Arab Emirates Supports Attack Against Iran
This headline should not surprise anyone. It is well-known that corrupt Gulf monarchs fear an Iranian nuke, because they're illegitimate regimes who preside over populations strongly angered by their subservience to Israel and the United States (in the case of the latter they are dependent clients who would not survive were it not for U.S. largess) and many of them harbor large populations (and, in the case of Bahrain, a majority population) of Shiite Arabs discriminated against by the ruling Sunni elite.

So an Iranian nuke can exploit these grievances to undermine these regimes. If they are democratically-elected and popular governments then an Iranian nuke would not be something to fear. And the regimes certainly do not fear anything like a war, but they worry that Iran will flex its muscle in the region to become a hegemonic power. The protestation of Arab regimes is quite laughable. Currently, the U.S. plays the role of regional power and instead of calling for the departure of American troops and the reassertion of Arab sovereignty and independence, these humiliating Arab regimes simply have forfeited the fight for Arab rights and simply now watch a battle of hegemony over the Arabs played by two non-Arab powers.
The worst offenders are the polygamous monarchs of the Gulf. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (i.e. Abu Dhabi and Dubai) are exceedingly so. Thus it should not surprise that the U.A.E. ambassador to Washington (who uses oil money to throw lavish powers to entertain decadent U.S. journalists) recently endorsed an attack against Iran:
Here's a key exchange between Yousef al-Otaiba, and yours truly, at the Aspen Ideas Festival. I asked him, Do you want the U.S. to stop the Iranian nuclear program by force?
And he answered: "Absolutely, absolutely. I think we are at risk of an Iranian nuclear program far more than you are at risk. At 7,000 miles away, and with two oceans bordering you, an Iranian nuclear threat does not threaten the continental United States. It may threaten your assets in the region, it will threaten the peace process, it will threaten balance of power, it will threaten everything else, but it will not threaten you."
He went on to say, "I am suggesting that I think out of every country in the region, the U.A.E. is most vulnerable to Iran. Our military, who has existed for the past 40 years, wake up, dream, breathe, eat, sleep the Iranian threat. It's the only conventional military threat our military plans for, trains for, equips for, that's it, there's no other threat, there's no country in the region that is a threat to the U.A.E., it's only Iran. So yes, it's very much in our interest that Iran does not gain nuclear technology."
"There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran. Small, rich, vulnerable countries in the region do not want to be the ones who stick their finger in the big bully's eye, if nobody's going to come to their support."
And then there is this: "Countries in the region view the Iran threat very differently, I can only speak for the U.A.E., but talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous. Why should I be led to believe that deterrence or containment will work? Iran doesn't have a nuclear power now, but we're unable to contain them and their behavior in the region. What makes me think that once they have a nuclear program, we're going to be able to be more successful in containing them?"
This is all B.S. Iran's nuke is meant to serve as a deterrent to alleged America intentions to overthrow the regime (after all, U.S. troops border Iran on the Afghanistan and Iraqi borders and the U.S. Fifth Fleet is in the Persian Gulf; Iran's southern border) and to reassert Iran's power in the region as a respected power. Not to create mayhem.
Having said all that, whatever threats may exist to the U.A.E.: These awful regimes deserve the threats to their corrupt rule.





