By: Eli Lake
The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday
that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term
costs such an attack would impose.
In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed
the use of the military option for countering Iran's nuclear program, if
sanctions fail to stop the country's quest for nuclear weapons.
"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite
the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion …
there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be
problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is
an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no
matter what."
"If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a
nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear
Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the
security of the U.A.E."
Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public
interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival
here. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in
private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public.
The remarks surprised many in the audience.
Rep. Jane Harman of California, a former ranking Democrat on the House
intelligence committee, told The Washington Times after the session that "I
have never heard an Arab government official say that before. He was
stunningly candid."
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the
comments reflect the views of many Arab states in the Persian Gulf region
that "recognize the threat posed by a nuclear Iran."
"They also know — and worry — that the Obama administration's policies will
not stop Iran," he told The Times in a separate interview.
Arab leaders, Mr. Bolton said, regard a pre-emptive strike as "the only
alternative."
The U.A.E. ambassador "was thus only speaking the truth from his
perspective," Mr. Bolton said.
Patrick Clawson, the director of research at the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, said of the ambassador's comments: "This is a significant
increase in the concern from the United Arab Emirates."
"Important Arab officials have privately indicated to me personally and to
my colleagues that they would prefer an American military strike on Iran to
an Iran with nuclear weapons. However, one can never be certain what they
are saying in private to other audiences," Mr. Clawson said.
Senior Obama administration officials, including Defense Secretary Robert M.
Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, have not
ruled out the use of a pre-emptive military option against Iran.
However, administration officials have sought to play down that option,
notably because of heavy U.S. military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan
and the danger that Iran would respond by disrupting the flow of oil through
the strategic Strait of Hormuz or by encouraging more terrorist attacks in
the West and in the region.
Iran has been developing uranium-enrichment facilities, some in underground
military facilities, in violation of its obligations to the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
Military specialists have said a strike on as many as two dozen Iranian
facilities could set back Tehran's nuclear program that U.S. officials have
said appears on track to build nuclear arms in a period of as little as two
years.
The United Arab Emirates is the union of seven Arabian Peninsula emirates,
with a historically weak federal government based in Abu Dhabi. The emirate
of Dubai has been a banking center for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps and was used as a major transshipment point for the cover
nuclear-supplier network headed by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan that
supplied nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
Mr. al-Otaiba said that his country would be the last Arab country to cut a
deal with Iran, if Tehran were to go nuclear. But he predicted other wealthy
Arab states in the Gulf would dump their alliances with the U.S. in favor of
ties with Tehran if President Obama does not stop the Islamic republic's
quest to become a nuclear power.
"There are many countries in the region that if they lack assurance that the
U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover with
Iran," he said. "Small, rich, vulnerable countries do not want to stick
their finger in the big boy's eye if they do not have the backing of the
United States."
The ambassador also said that "talk of containment and deterrence really
concerns me and makes me very nervous."
He said Iran has not been deterred from supporting terrorist groups such as
Hamas and Hezbollah now, when it doesn't have a nuclear arsenal. So why, he
asked rhetorically, would Iran be more cautious in its support for terrorism
if it did.
"Why should I be led to believe that deterrence and containment will work?"
he asked.
Mr. al-Otaiba also said that an Iranian acquisition would set off a nuclear
arms race in the region, predicting that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and
Turkey would all start nuclear programs if Iran acquired such weapons.
He said however that the U.A.E. would not seek to transform its peaceful
energy program into a military one in that situation.
The ambassador in the end stressed that his country would not tolerate a
nuclear Iran.
"The United States may be able to live with it," he said. "We can't."