Advanced Weapons Proposal for Arab Countries Stokes Opposition
By JOHN HENDREN,ABC News
Posted: 2007-07-29 14:23:16
Filed Under: Nation News
WASHINGTON (July 29) - The United States and its Middle East allies are expected to raise the ante this week in an intensifying confrontation with Iran.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates make a round of Middle East visits this week, U.S. officials are scheduled to meet on Tuesday with Iranian leaders in Baghdad and with Arab allies in Egypt.


What's Your Take?

At about the same time, the Bush administration is expected to announce a controversial $20 billion arms sale over the next 10 years to Saudi Arabia and five other American allies in the Persian Gulf -- Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

A senior defense official told ABC News that the Saudi government unsuccessfully seeks an arms deal nearly every year. This year, the Bush administration is supporting the sale to counter what it sees as a rising military threat from Iran.

"The Iranians have been acting for the last six months like nobody can stop them," Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said in an interview. "Now, the United States and its friends in the Middle East are showing Iran that, in fact they've got lots of resources, which, if need be, they can use to check the Iranian ambitions."





Critics argue that the deal would accelerate a regional arms race in the Middle East -- threatening a precarious three-way balance between Israel, Sunni Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, and Shiite nations such as Iraq and Iraq.

But administration officials say it is Iran that has sped up the arms race with its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The deal has been in the works for months. It initially faced objections by Israel, particularly over the first-ever proposed sale of precision-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMs, to Saudi Arabia.

"There is a worry that a precision strike weapon in Saudi Hands could, in theory, be used against Israel, either by the Saudi Air Force itself or by another Arab state the Saudis might supply that weapon with," said Michael O'Hanlon, an ABC News consultant and a military analyst at the Brookings Institution.

To counter any threat from the Saudis, the United States would deliver an even larger arms package to Israel, worth $30 billion. That would maintain an American policy of giving Israel a military advantage over its Arab neighbors.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., said they will introduce legislation to block the deal in Congress. They said Saudi Arabia has aided Sunni insurgents in Iraq and has done little to stop Sunni extremists from crossing over into Iraq to do battle against American troops.

"Saudi Arabia has not been a true ally in furthering the United States interests in the Middle East," Weiner said. "Just this week, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the top American military spokesman in Iraq, detailed an account of a Saudi Arabian smuggled into Iraq to be a suicide bomber. American officials in Iraq say the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia and that about 40 percent of all foreign fighters are Saudi. 70 percent of the most-wanted international terrorists are Saudi Arabians."

Administration officials said they have found little evidence of Saudi complicity in Iraq

let's just hope that this works out the way the government is hoping it does.

BAD BAD IDEA those Wepons will end up in the hands of a Terrorist in a Heart Beat

This sounds eerily familiar to what Reagan did in the 80's when he supplied and trained the Afghans to fight the Russians to stop the spread of communism (although, at the time, most experts believed that communism would fall without any interference from the US.....)....I think we all remember very well how that turned out (9/11.....)....it would help significantly if our trusted leaders (I use that term loosely....) would consider reading a history book......anyone ever heard about a little thing called "The Crusades"....you know, when the Christian world savagely murdered anyone they considered "heathens"......I dont blame the Muslim's for being seriously threatened by Christians after those events.....the current administration should be tried and found guilty for crimes against humanity for what they have done (and are continuing to do....)!!!!!

Thank you, Aaron, it's about time someone put the blame for this where it belongs. The neocons just love blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11 without one shread of proof. Reagan, the neocon's golden boy, was the one who got the Afghans on the road to terrorism-not Clinton. Matter of fact, Clinton came up with not one, but two proposals to end the threat of Bin Ladin during his 2nd term. Both times, he was voted down by a Republican-controlled Congress. Check out the history, folks, it's there. When neocons open their mouths to blame Clinton for the mess we're in, it might just be a good idea if they look no further than the nearest mirror to assign blame.

thats a jump, reagan and afganistan to 9/11!!

theere was terrorism in the muslim world well before reagan. don't have to go far back behind him to remember the embassy in iran under the carter administration. and he didn't cause it either and clinton didn't cause 9/11.
people have to make decisions as we all do every day and sometimes things go wrong. look at your own world, not as complicated as world politics, but i'll bet every decision you've made didn't work out the way you planned as has not all of mine.

Knoxman...where do you get this bogus info..Al jazzair, the internet...do you ever do historic research in a library instead of some Move-on .org web site? Clinton twice had opprotunities to get osama..Sudan tried to give him to Clinton who didn't think he could be tried successfully in our courts..was the reason he gave to Sudan. As For those blaming Reagan for the terrorists...yes we supplied weapons and other "covert" aid to the afghans..but that started well before Reagan..Reagan to his credit stepped up that aid and was successful in helping defeat the Soviets...the major mistake was once the Soviets were out, the CIA just cut and ran without putting in place any long term aid and let the Pakistani backed Taliban take over...at the time it was believed better then having a Soviet satelite in place...we can all play monday morning quarterback...but it doesn't change the score on the board today.

Search...

Maybe you should take your own advice and actually, you know, look up stuff instead of relying on Fox News and Rush for YOUR historical info.

It goes a lot deeper than that. I just did a 6 page Research Paper on Afghanistan, and the events leading to the Soviet Invasion. I receieved an A on it. Would you like to read it. It is complete with sources and everything.
It dates back to the 1800's, and couldnt be done without going back that far. To blame it entirely on any one president would be stretching it. Was there times that the US could have handled things different and changed history? Possibly, but hind sight is always 20/20. Even had we accepted to help them in 1911, when they were a Democracy asking for our help (financial and infrastructure,) or again in 1958, would it had stopped the Soviet invasion? I dont know, maybe, but we didnt, and none of the Presidents you guys are talking about had anything to do with that. The Mujahadeen were scattered across the country by their King, before he was disposed by a coupe, somewhere in the late 50's or 60's. He did that because he foresaw what was to become, and as it turned out for the Afghan's it was a pretty good idea.
Anyway Reagan had nothing to do with that, nor Clinton.
I'll post that paper, or gladly e-mail it to anyone that really wants to read it!

Why don't you go a little further back - after W.W.1, when the "allies" drew lines in the sand and created these countries -
or even further, mid nineteenth century, when England was competing with Russia for the plundering of the area.
Remember what happened to the arrogant, "superior" British
on the Kyber Pass retreat. Remember Afghan civilians mustard gassed from biplanes under a young Winston Churchill.
Remember, under Operation Paperclip, the U.S. drooling over the Nazi intelligence database, had many leading Nazi bogeymen come work for us, with get out of jail free cards. Some Nazi SS and Gestapo leaders were sent to the middle East to foment, militarise and train fanatics (They also got sent to south America to do the same for us - remember how Nazi the uniforms were in Chile after we had that country's democraticaly elected president killed?
Remember the Nazi and U.S. trained Savak secret police? (One of their leaders danced at Bush's inauguration ball..
Remember Kermit Roosevelt, sent by the C.I.A. to take down Iran's democratically elected president, Mossedehg, because he tried to put SOME of Iranian's own oil revenue back into Iranian hands..

CBX, I believe I said 1800!!!!

Yes you could go back even further than that. You could go back to Ghengis Khan, but the British, Russia, or the US weren't there then. You would run into the British somewhere around the time of the Persian or Ottoman Empire. Once upon a time Afghanistan was not landlocked either, and they owned most of Central Asia. They won there Independence from England in 1919 with the help of the Russians. That's when they first asked for help from the US. They didnt trust the Russians or England, and the US turned them done because we still considered it part of the British Empire.
At that time they were ruled by a King with a parlimentary goverment, and the women were allowed to vote. Women werent even allowed to vote here then. They also favored giving the Baluchi tribe land for their own country. It was this tribe that Russia hoped to incite to help them gain control of parts of Iran and Pakistan to make a warm water port.
That's pretty good that you know what you know. I'm impressed, but I did say 1800. There were 3 wars England and Russia fought over Afghanistan. (The Anglo-Afghan wars)
Did you know that Russia's plan for Afghanistan was to gain a warm water port on the India Ocean via Pakistan?

- 'Hat's off to you, Fanta.
At least SOMEONE here factors in HISTORY!

and what history tells us is that we cannot control their destiny...hence...get the hell outta there now...

Right, davinci - you'd think we'd have learned by now...
Always in a hurry to control others when we can't even control ourselves..

The way the US got so deep into the politics of C Asia and the Arabia Peninsula, was we needed to fill a power vacumn.
A power vacuum created by a weaker British Empire after WWII, and the US step up to keep it out of Soviet's hands.

In 1958'ish, when the Afghans asked the US help. We turned them down because they wouldn't denounce a treaty Afghanistan have with the Russians.
Keep in mind this treaty was signed when the Soviets helped Afghanistan win their Independence from England in 1919.
When the Eisenhower Administration rejected the request for help. Afghanistan turned and received it from the Soviet Union. This allowed the Soviets to start training Afghan military officers in Russia.
Poof,,, several assassinations and 3 military coupes later, and the Soviets were inclined to invade so they could "intervene" on behalf of the communist led government of Afghanistan.
The only ones who kept the Soviets in check, eventually driving them out, were the Mujahedeen fighters. Of course the US had to finance men like Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and Saddam, against Iran to make it happen, but it was all for the better. Don't you think??

Hell, we've had one hung, and the other one of our "ex-allies" is hiding in caves throwing suicide bombers at us left an right.

what it all comes down to is whether or not we would have had better luck dealing with a communist afghanistan. that's one that will never be able to be answered for sure but it sure is a mess over there right now.

All we had to do King; is (1) Respect their friendships and treaties with other countries, (Russia) and (2) We could have been training their officers, provide them weapons, and help them build a modern Afghanistan.
They had a Dimocracy, and wanted our help to mintain it.
We said, "no," because they would not turn (vialate a treaty) on the only friend they had.
We couldnt allow that, because Russia might benefit through cooperation with their friends. Trade and what-not, or maybe they might steal a secret or two!!!
The leaders back then didnt have the hindsight that we have, but they should admit to their mistakes, and correct the problems. Try a new direction or something, not continue with the same-old failed policies, over and over!

**** BUSH!!!

i understand all that. i think that this deal is the wrong way to go but it is only my opinion so all i can do for right now is hope that they have better insight on this issue than they showed over the last 7 or so years.