[Nicko]

This is an interesting (if not surprising development). I wonder, will it make the middle east safer or more dangerous? M.A.D. could work, on the other hand it could give the US further excuses to invade Iran and/or other countries.
---


The Times November 04, 2006
Six Arab states join rush to go nuclear

By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor
Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia seek atom technology

THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology.
NI_MPU('middle');

The move, which follows the failure by the West to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see a rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions, stretching from the Gulf to the Levant and into North Africa.
The countries involved were named by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE have also shown interest.

All want to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they are permitted to under international law. But the sudden rush to nuclear power has raised suspicions that the real intention is to acquire nuclear technology which could be used for the first Arab atomic bomb.
“Some Middle East states, including Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, have shown initial interest [in using] nuclear power primarily for desalination purposes,” Tomihiro Taniguch, the deputy director-general of the IAEA, told the business weekly Middle East Economic Digest. He said that they had held preliminary discussions with the governments and that the IAEA’s technical advisory programme would be offered to them to help with studies into creating power plants.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that it was clear that the sudden drive for nuclear expertise was to provide the Arabs with a “security hedge”.

“If Iran was not on the path to a nuclear weapons capability you would probably not see this sudden rush [in the Arab world],” he said.
The announcement by the six nations is a stunning reversal of policy in the Arab world, which had until recently been pressing for a nuclear free Middle East, where only Israel has nuclear weapons.

Egypt and other North African states can argue with some justification that they need cheap, safe energy for their expanding economies and growing populations at a time of high oil prices.

The case will be much harder for Saudi Arabia, which sits on the world’s largest oil reserves. Earlier this year Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Foreign Minister, told The Times that his country opposed the spread of nuclear power and weapons in the Arab world.
Since then, however, the Iranians have accelerated their nuclear power and enrichment programmes.

[vmarks]

Mutually Assured Destruction only works as a deterrant when both sides are heavily invested in continued existence.

Given the propensity for suicide bombers as an almost exclusively Middle East occurrence, this should cause some concern about the success of MAD in this situation you lay out.

Additionally, is this a situation of MAD between ME nations and the US, or is it MAD between Iran and Arab nations in the ME? After all, it wasn't until Iran started showing success that the other nations reversed positions. This could be because they wish to oppose Iran, or it could be because Iran set the example for stonewalling the US and Europe until they had turned plans into facts in the centrifuge.

[marden]

Any idiot has to know that more nuclear nations means a greater liklihood that there will be a nuclear detonation. ESPECIALLY Arab nations!

[Krusty]

Algeria: The US supplies the Algeria gov't with military aid which has been stepped up dramatically since 9/11 as the Algerian gov't has become a devoted ally in the US's "war on terror".
Egypt: 2nd largest recipient of US Aid, slightly behind Israel and a staunch ally of the US for at least 3 decades.
Morocco: Long considered one of the "major allies" of the US outside NATO according to the US gov't.
Tunisia: The US Dept. of State calls them a "strong US ally"
UAE: Another big buddy of the US ... the Bush admin was poised to sell control of our ports to them before an uproar ensued.
Saudi Arabia: perhaps the most important and closest Arab ally of the US in the Middle East. The "deal" between the US and Saudi is pretty well the foundation of the world's energy status quo and the leader of this country are close personal friend of the Bush clan.

The list of countries cited in the article are 6 of the biggest allies we have in the region.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Mutually Assured Destruction only works as a deterrant when both sides are heavily invested in continued existence.

Given the propensity for suicide bombers as an almost exclusively Middle East occurrence, this should cause some concern about the success of MAD in this situation you lay out.

This is patently false. Suicide bombers and suicide militants before bombs existed has a long, long history in numerous parts of the world outside the Middle East. See: Japanese Kamikazes in WWII, Tamil Tigers presently, the Nihilists in 19th century Russia, the IRA in Northern Ireland, Native Americans in the 19th century US, the Vietnamese population vs. US troops in the 60s and 70s .... the list goes on and on and includes groups from almost every area of the world during different historical periods. The Middle East appears to be a hotbed for this in the last few decades but that's HIGHLY predictable and follows the patten of suicide attacks elsewhere in the world and in different historical periods. Suicide bombing as a technique is overwhelmingly used in situations where:
The bomber lives in a place that is dominated by an occupying power which they cannot hope to defeat in a traditional war. Go figure that the number of suicide bombings in the ME is high ... the number and scope of occupations in that area is disproportionally high too.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Additionally, is this a situation of MAD between ME nations and the US, or is it MAD between Iran and Arab nations in the ME? After all, it wasn't until Iran started showing success that the other nations reversed positions. This could be because they wish to oppose Iran, or it could be because Iran set the example for stonewalling the US and Europe until they had turned plans into facts in the centrifuge.

I doubt this is a situation of MAD between ME nations and the US as it has been pointed out that the countries in question are our biggest allies. There is zero military tension between the US and any of the countries on the list. Its not likely a MAD between these countries and Iran either. Which of the countries listed have any ongoing disputes or animosity with Iran ? When's the last time Iran invaded anybody (answer, we're rapidly approaching 200 years at this point since the Persian Empire attacked Russia... though Iran has been occupied or attacked a few times by Britain, Russia, and Iraq in the 20th century). How's about the most obvious, face value answer: these countries are seeking alternative energy sources for when their oil is mostly exhausted and/or to free up more of their oil resources for export. As the price of oil continues to rise and it become even more in demand on the world market, the greater the amount they can $ell, rather than use domestically, the better off they will be.