A year or so ago, I was caught by surprise when a writer attacked me in a Saudi newspaper I respect, and whose editor I appreciate very much. The part of what he wrote that struck me most was his claim that it was not customary for me to have certain positions. In response, I wrote that I opposed the most important political stances of the Arab countries, as I support Iran having a nuclear weapons program, in the hope that Arab countries would follow suit, and I oppose arming the Syrian opposition. He said something to the effect that when I was “exposed," I tried to cover up my tracks by calling on all Arabs to acquire nuclear weapons. I had prepared a response to that dishonest author, but he became embroidered in a scandal over something he wrote, so I decided that he was a despicable person anyway and kept my response to myself. Today, I return to what I wrote about Iran's nuclear program and the Arabs, because this issue is once again under the microscope, with reports claiming that Iran's uranium enrichment efforts have reached a level that allows it to produce nuclear weapons, in addition to claims about Iran acquiring, by way of China, thousands of magnetic devices to increase the performance of the centrifuges, and push the enrichment level up to a weapons-grade level. On June 30, 2006, my article on the nuclear program included this paragraph: I wrote more than once that it is better for the Middle East to be a nuclear weapon-free zone. But if Israel alone continues to hold an arsenal of nuclear weapons with the means to deliver them onto their targets, then I support Iran in seeking to obtain nuclear weapons. I also urge Egypt, Saudi Arabia and every other Arab country to do the same, to respond to the Israeli nuclear threat. On November 13, 2007, I dedicated my whole column to the Iranian nuclear program, and called on the Arab countries to pursue similar programs, while still preferring to strip the whole region from weapons of mass destruction. If I end up in court with the dishonest writer, I would also produce a dozen other articles I wrote in the same vein, all published before the controversy with him. Today, I once again call on all able Arab countries, specifically Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to announce the start of a military nuclear program. To be sure, the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East means that America, Europe and the whole world will rush to strip the region of weapons of mass destruction, ridding us of Israel's existing arsenal and Iran's potential one. Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said at a security conference in Munich during the first week of this month that his country was ready to start a new round of negotiations with the six countries (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany). U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said that his country was ready to negotiate as well, and I read that the new round of negotiations would start on the 25th of this month. I venture to say that the upcoming negotiations will fail just like all the other rounds before them did. What Iran is doing is simply an attempt to buy time, and there is no reason at all to be hopeful about a breakthrough this time. Israel is the enemy, not Iran. But I heard Arabs saying that Iran threatened their countries, and not Israel. I say that such proclamations amount to treason. For one thing, it is our duty to confront both Israel and Iran, and the only way to do so is to seek to acquire nuclear weapons. Recall that the outgoing Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman once threatened to bomb the Aswan High Dam, which would kill millions of Egyptians. I say that he would not have dared make such threats if Egypt possessed nuclear-weapons capability, and perhaps next time he will threaten to destroy Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia as well. Yet the most dangerous point in the issue of Israel and Iran would be for the Arab nations to rely on the United States. Indeed, the latter acts in the interests of Israel alone Meanwhile, some Arab and American officials believe that the Iranian presidential elections in the early summer could bring a moderate president to power, as the successor of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's nuclear program passed on the doorsteps of all Iranian presidents after the revolution, and the difference between Ahmadinejad and his predecessor Mohammad Khatami was that one was blatant in his belligerence, while the second's was sugar-coated. The nuclear program will therefore continue, and it is possible that part of it is for military purposes. The Arab countries will not avoid the danger by escaping from it into America's bosom, because if our countries do not defend themselves, then no one will. [email protected]
