Obama Gives UAE New Weapons ‘To Counter Iran’

I’ve said it until I’m blue in the face, but I guess I’ll say it again: Iran is operating out of a perception of threat and provocative militarism towards Iran will only increase the likelihood that they decide to seek a deterrent (That said, of course, the recent IAEA report DID NOT conclude or provide any solid evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program).

But now, the Obama administration has decided to treat the situation with more bombs. More bombs typically translates to more peace, right? The Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration has quietly drawn up plans to provide a key Persian Gulf ally with thousands of advanced “bunker-buster” bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.

The proposed sale to the United Arab Emirates would vastly expand the existing capabilities of the country’s air force to target fixed structures, which could include bunkers and tunnels—the kind of installations where Iran is believed to be developing weapons.

This is simply more of the same policy…namely, of garrisoning Iran’s surroundings with threatening militarism.

Paul Pillar recently debunked the myth that countries – like Libya, for example – decided to give up their nuclear weapons programs after we destroyed Iraq in a savage illegal war of aggression. They got the message, so goes the tale, that they will be attacked unless they give up nuclear weapons programs. But this is probably wrong in the case of Libya: Gadhafi gave it up well before the invasion of Iraq and ultimately ended the program because the United States gave him the alternative option of normalizing relations as opposed to attaining nuclear weapons. (I have a secret hunch that he actually decided to give up nuclear weapons so that he could receive visits from his crush, Condoleeza Rice.)

The myth also doesn’t apply to North Korea, one of George Bush’s Axis of Evil countries. Kim Jung Il worked very hard to attain nuclear capability after all of the bellicose U.S. rhetoric, and once they did…the war-rhetoric stopped. That’s the lesson of nuclear weapons Iran has probably learned from. The U.S. doesn’t make war with nations that a nuclear capable.

That said, Iran’s current strategy, according to Flynt Leverett is “to create perceptions on the part of potential adversaries that Tehran is capable of building nuclear weapons in a finite period of time, without actually building them.” A de facto deterrent, without breaking any rules and causing instability.

The United Arab Emirate is only hundreds of miles south of Iran. Just think of the violent reaction America’s political leaders would have if Iran, or some other fake rival (China?), placed thousands of bunker-buster bombs in Cuba with the explicit purpose of intimidating us with a unilateral strike. What would be the result?

As per some of the comments, see here: The Specs of U.S. Weapons Welfare.

8 thoughts on “Obama Gives UAE New Weapons ‘To Counter Iran’”

  1. I applaud anti-war.com for their daily efforts to debunk US lies and propaganda regarding Iran, but few, even the most respected of antiwar's writers, have yet to define the question of "WHY".

    For the average person, it is a question of nukes or support for "terrorist groups". But these are all excuses…I would argue that tomorrow there may be yet another excuse and then another

    which still beckons the question…why does the US hate Iran??

  2. Just remember the great history of the UAE in the past:
    – One of the 3 countries in the world who supported the Taliban regime
    – The source of funding and transfer of money for 9/11 terrorists
    – The home of 2 of 9/11 hijackers

    Just to mention a few, I am sure I will be able to give you 100s more if you want.

  3. "why does the US hate Iran?" – or why do some global power brokers distrust it?

    Iran as current "tactical pivot" as its ascent would flip the former "pivot" Iraq into a reverse effect, with Egypt and Palestine "prices" combined will shift crucial economical and geopolitical balances in the Middle East and North Africa toward Russia and China (a danger to certain US/global trade/wars as well as US-Israel relationships).

    In the mean while Saudi Arabia and UAE need to be propped up economically and politically.

    1. John,
      Since 1979 Iran has been an avowed enemy of the U. S. Their constant declaration that Israel needs to be, and will be, wiped off the face of the earth is not an empty threat and if either Israel or the U.S. takes preemptive strikes against Iran that day will surely come. The president we currently have here in the U.S., and I hate using the term president to Obama, is a Muslim with the same views as the other Islamice radicals with the same goal in mind. I hope Israel takes preemptive action before such an atrocity occurs. Netanyahu has more balls than Obama could ever hope to have. Obama is a creation similar to Frankenstein and he has no history of doing anything to serve our great country in any capacity. He is the biggest threat to our national security that we have ever faced and the 2012 election can't get here fast enough to suit many true Americans.

      1. @Benton

        You sound like one of them thar 'Arabo-Semites'. You're not an American. Obama was elected to protect American interests, NOT support an Arabo-Semite nation.

        You obviously feel that Iran needs to be 'wiped off the face of the earth." I'll bet you also feel that Iraq, Libya, Syria, China, Russia, and North Korea should receive the big towel. Isn't that a teensy bit hypocritical?

  4. John Dowser,

    The United States in 1953, arranged the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian Government that had the temerity to Nationalise the OIL industry and take the OIL from the company that became BP. The US installed the Shah who acted as a Despotic ruler who used his CIA trained Secret Police to cause the torture and disapearance of many Iranians. In 1979 there was a Revolution that Kicked out the Shah but also took the US Embassy and its staff prisoners. Ever since then there has been significant trouble between the US and Iran. Much of it because the US got a Bloody nose, something that the US can never abide by. Of course the Iranians again Nationalised their oil! as well!

    1. Thanks Lion, but that's pretty well known stuff. My entry was actually playing with the neoconservative lingo like the Hudson Institute and RAND corporation has literary spit out at times. It could give some insight on how at least *some* policy wonks in the US might view the matter. And they might be right! A shift in balance will endanger the very things they are so eager to protect. No doubt about it. And they know that Iran is the hub of the day.

Comments are closed.