Here is a quiz:
There is a country in the middle east that is an active supporter of terrorism, so much so it is estimated to have supplied known terrorist organizations, (ones known to have killed civilians multiple times), roughly $4 billion since 2000.
This country conducts a secret nuclear program which includes building underground bunkers, and also almost completely financed another countries successful nuclear program, which resulted in an addition to the worlds nuclear powers club. Nuclear scientists from that now nuclear capable country visit our quiz country on a regular basis, sometimes disguised to avoid detection.
Our quiz county also has between 30 - 50 Chinese made missiles which are not accurate but have a 3,500 km range, which means they are really only good for delivering nuclear warheads, since if you are off by a mile or five on a nuclear blast, well, so what. This country has at least signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but has not signed the comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA, as is required by the NPT.
Politically, year after year this country has one of the worst human rights records in the world and was added to the State Department's annual Report on International Religious Freedom (September 15, 2004) for the first time as a "Country of Particular Concern". It does not allow women to vote in its "elections" (the first one it ever had was in 2005) and so cannot really be considered a democracy.
Who is it?
Our allies, the one where representatives of the ruling class of this country sat next to George Bush (the 41st) in a New York city hotel watching what happened on Sept. 11th.
Our friends, Saudi Arabia.
Cicero Magazine [1] in Germany is running a story in this issue that, citing western security forces reports that during the Haj pilgrimages to Mecca in 2003 through 2005, Pakistani scientists posed as pilgrims to come to Saudi Arabia in aircraft sponsored by the oil-rich kingdom.
Between October 2004 and January 2005, some of them took the opportunity to "disappear" from their hotel rooms, sometimes for up to three weeks, German security expert Udo Ulfkotte told the magazine.
According to Western security services, the magazine added, Saudi scientists have been working since the mid-1990s in Pakistan. The latest issue of Cicero, which will appear on newsstands on Thursday, also quoted US military analyst John Pike as saying that Saudi bar codes can be found on half of Pakistan's nuclear weapons "because it is Saudi Arabia which ultimately co-financed the Pakistani atomic nuclear programme".
This is important because Pakistan is a nuclear power, known to have a viable nuclear device. Of course, Pakistan denies this vehemently.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006 330story_30-3-2006_pg1_4
[2]
But testimony before Congress seems to contradict the Saudi's and the Pakistani's denials.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:s9I4mOETgfsJ:www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2006/ClawsonTestimony060302corr.pdf+NPT+saudi+site:gov&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5 [3]
And there are rumors that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have a secret deal that if Iran becomes nuclear-ready, Pakistan will ship to Saudi Arabia some nuclear warheads to put on the long-range Chinese missiles Saudi Arabia bought some years ago (missiles the Chinese use to carry nuclear warheads). Ostensibly, the Pakistanis would retain control of the warheads, allowing Saudi Arabia to claim that it was not violating the NPT.
This is also not a new story. Here is an article from 2003, in a paper well known as favoriable to a conservative right wing position, the Washington Times.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031021-112804-8451r.htm [4]
Since Cicero is a foreign magazine unfamiliar in this country, lets examine it's leanings as well, perhaps it is a bit more liberal. Apparently not.
http://www.goethe.de/wis/pre/thm/en212212.htm [5]
Also Forbes Magazine, hardly a magazine with a left wing bias, picked up this same story.
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/03/28/afx2629000.html [6]
Recently it is reported that Iran has missiles that could reach Europe. It is extremely unlikely Iran has any desire to attack Europe in any way whatsoever, since this month they created an oil reserve exchange based on the Euro as the only currency that can be used. There is another country that has long range missiles as well in the Middle East. Our "allies" the Saudis.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/ludwig042706.htm [7]
"In the late '80s, Riyadh secretly purchased about 50 CSS-2 missiles from China. These advanced missiles can deliver a 2,500 kilograms payload over a range of up to 3,500 kilometers. They are well suited to deliver a nuclear weapon and could hardly be used to deliver conventional weapons due to their poor accuracy.
Due to their cost, estimated at up to 3 US$ billions and lack of accuracy, the purchase of these of long-range 50 CSS-2 Chinese ballistic missiles has widely been interpreted as an indication that the Saudis were considering the nuclear option. To ease the international worries over this matter, Saudi Arabia agreed to sign the NPT in 1988.
The acquisition by Saudi Arabia of the longest-range ballistic missiles in the Middle East prompted no formal diplomatic complaint from the U.S. government."
So, Iran will need to build a nuclear program from scratch, including mining enough uranium, refining it, creating a viable device, and a way to deliver it. The Saudi's apparently just need a phone call to get a warhead from a known nuclear power to attach to missiles they already have.
As far as support for terrorism, one of the frequently mentioned reasons for Iran being a threat to the US, one would imagine that donating to a known terrorist organizations would bring swift and severe reaction from the United States. Especially if it is announced by Himas themselves that they were given almost $100 million dollars to support their cause, or if a country was responsible for allowing $300 million from its country to start al Qaeda. That especially seems like action would be warranted, and quickly.
From the frequently referenced document the 9/11 commission report. A favorite to point to by neo-cons everywhere.
"Al Qaeda depended on fund-raising to support itself. It appears that al Qaeda relied heavily on a core of financial facilitators who raised money from a variety of donors and other fund-raisers. Those donors were primarily in the Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia. Some individual donors knew of the ultimate destination of their donations, and others did not; they were approached by facilitators, fund-raisers, and employees.
Reporting from November 1998 concluded that although the $300 million figure probably originated from rumors in the Saudi business community, it was a "reasonable estimate" as of a few years earlier"
A terrorist group can buy a lot of AK's and plastique with $300 million. Iran is also accused of allowing Himas to actually base operations within their country, a very serious accusation. Something the Saudi's also may have done.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2378 [8]
Finally we actually did do something on this, albeit not very quickly. Arlen Spector is trying to hold them accountable in HR 2307.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01171:@@@D&summ2=m& [9]
A stunning fact of this document is that it claims the Saudis have given 4 billion, yes billion, (point number 8 in the document) to terrorists since 2000.
Since its introduction last year this bill has been "Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations". Not quite the swift and decisive action one would hope for. The fact that the bill only has 13 co-sponsors does not really help push it to the top of the agenda of the 97 day work-year Congress is going to put in this year.
Saudi Arabia has signed the NPT, but it has not signed the comprehensive safeguard agreement with the IAEA, as required by the treaty
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:y-jlc4uraSQJ:www.cmc.sandia.gov/links/cmc-papers/mcnair64.pdf+NPT+saudi+site:gov&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14 [10]
The level of hypocrisy in our governments current foreign policy in the Middle East can only be described as staggering. Currently, two countries in the Middle East have almost a point for point record on nuclear behavior spanning the last few decades. One of those two countries has more documented direct ties to the worst terrorist attack against America ever, yet we are amassing troops for an invasion on the second country instead. One country must engage on a ten year plan to become a nuclear power, while another must simply ask for a warhead from a known nuclear power it helped finance to become a nuclear power in the first place.
Given all of these details it is inescapable to realize that the reasons we have been given for the imminent invasion of Iran are quite simply just not true. Every single reason that we are using as justification to do this are things that Saudi Arabia has also been guilty of, yet time and time again they are given a pass from our government and labeled as our ally.
Why is that?