In a sense, this is not news, as there has long been animosities between Iran and Saudi Arabia. But once Iran announces that they have several nuclear bombs and that they are willing to use these bombs against their enemies, they can attack the Saudis with impunity. The Saudi forces will be unable to counterattack Iran due to the threat of nuclear retaliation.
The Iranians could initially hide these attacks under the pretext that the rebels are really behind it, just as they have done with the drone attacks on Saudi oil. That attack was very provocative and risky. It proves that Iran already has nukes, or they would not have made such a bold and dangerous move. The Saudi military is well-equipped with weapons from the West.
After announcing they have nukes, Iran could dictate that the U.S. and Europe must not intervene in their dispute with Saudi Arabia and other nations in that region. With the threat of nuclear retaliation, we’d be unable to help. Iran could demand that the U.S. close its bases in the region. What could we do? Cut off from help from other nations, and unable to attack Iran directly, the Saudis would face a war on their own territory.
Eventually, Iran could order them to surrender or be struck with a nuclear bomb. That threat is probably a bluff, as nuclear fallout could spread into Iran itself. But the Saudis might not be able to take a chance.
The drone attacks on Saudi Arabia were extremely aggressive, and were only thinly veiled as if they came from rebels. Why would Iran make such an attack all of a sudden? The answer is they are ready to announce that they have nuclear weapons. They can now do so at any time, in order to thwart an attack on Iran by threat of nuclear retaliation. And they have long wanted to remove the Saudi Royal Family from power. Iran hates the fact that the Saudis are willing to have friendly relations with the West. They also see the Saudis as one of the main obstacles to bringing the Arab Muslim nations of the Middle East and northern Africa under the guidance and authority of Iran.
Iran would like to form a coalition or federation of Muslim nations, with Iran at its head. But they lack the power and influence. Once they announce they have nuclear weapons, many Muslim extremists will want Iran to lead them, so that they themselves, being united with Iran, can also boast of having nuclear weapons within their coalition. The announcement will cause a vast number of Muslims in that region to wish to join with Iran, to oppose the West more openly and more violently (as they need not fear military retaliation), and to oppose any leaders, like the Saudis, who are willing to work with the U.S. and Europe.
Bad times are ahead for the Saudi Royal Family, once Iran announces they have nuclear weapons. My sincere condolences.
Note: Based on my work studying eschatology, I have determined that Iran will make a pact with ISIS, help them conquer Iraq and Syria, unite the Arab Muslim nations of the Middle East and northern Africa, and then bring about World War 3 by striking NYC with a nuclear bomb (a few years from now). See my book: On World War 3 and World War 4
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
If Iran were to announce nuclear capability, the Saudis would almost certainly be able to purchase nukes of their own from their close allies in Pakistan. How does that fit in to your theory?
Not going to happen. Pakistan can’t risk nuclear war in their backyard.
What about the great divide between Shia and Sunni Muslims? You might be interested in coverage on the reemergence of the Islamic State scheduled for next week, Tuesday, September 24 at 9 pm. Here’s the trailer: https://youtu.be/GyEKr5aRaOs
Pakistan can’t risk an aggressive state flinging nuclear weapons around at their coreligionists and close economic partners, especially when Pakistan itself has a sordid history of persecuting Shia Muslims (among others). If Saudi Arabia went, Pakistan’s economy and society would crumble.
Pakistan can’t get involved in nuclear conflict, as they have a longstanding unhappy relationship with India, which is also a nuclear state. They would have to stay out of it.
Hi Ron. I hope you are well. As I read this article, my mind travelled to a different but related question. Saudi Arabia, together with other nations in the world, is regarded by many as being fundamentally evil, a regime of terror which has no regard for human rights. I know that these judgments can be very subjective. I have a link here to a Wikipedia page on the matter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
However, if we see serious human rights violations in a country like Saudi Arabia, is it moral for a country like USA or Ireland to support the regime through trade, military resources, etc? If I own a café, is it moral to sell a sandwich to a man I know to be a murderer, who intends to murder using the energy from the sandwich? Aiding and abetting? The same would apply to a doctor who I know works as an abortionist, should I give him a lift to work if his car breaks down? Coming back to Saudi, should the US not make its friendship dependent on human rights reforms? Shane
This question falls under the principles of cooperation with evil, as discussed in my booklet:
and in my Catechism of Catholic Ethics. The cafe owner may sell the sandwich, as the act of murder is remote from the “energy” provided by the food, so remote as to not even be remote material cooperation. Giving a ride to the abortionist is remote material cooperation, which you should refuse unless there is a reason that outweighs the cooperation, such as a taxi driver who would lose his job if he does not. As for independent nations, the U.S. should not be the judge over all nations to force them to do as the U.S. sees fit. This leads to the U.S. making abortion “rights” and contraception contingent on reception of foreign aid, etc. If the U.S. were run by devout persons, we would have a moral obligation to try to influence other nations toward good, but this would not exclude all military or economic cooperation. It’s a question of weighing the circumstances. Only cooperative acts done with a bad intention or done as participation in intrinsically evil acts are always forbidden. And I don’t think the Saudis value relations with the U.S. over their own religious beliefs. So if we can’t influence them, we are not obligated to do so.