Mr. Imonti sums up the situation very well.

The Saud Family is feeling distinctly uncomfortable. They are worried about demands for greater freedom internally, a Shia uprising in their oil producing areas assisted by Iran, growing uneasiness about US commitment to their security and even fears that the Wahhabi clergy may turn on them.

Their response has been to finance Islamist movements across the Arab world and to engage in a proxy war with Iran.

Their biggest shock has been the steadfast refusal of the US, thus far, to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. They do not think the Israelis are capable of delivering a knockout blow and they're probably right.

And if Iran deploys nukes, as now seems inevitable, so will Saudi Arabia. That will leave a triangle of nuclear armed states, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, in close proximity. All of them extremely nervous. All of them ready to strike first and ask questions later. And soon to be joined by Turkey which has its own problems with the Kurds.

I wonder whether the Saudi threat could drive the Persians back into an alliance with the US? I say "Persians" rather than "Iranians" because that's exactly what I mean.

My advice. Now would be a good time to learn to ride a bicycle because you sure won’t be able to afford petrol after the big BOOM!

A fascinating post, trying to undo the Gordian knot that is middle eastern tribalism.

Imagine the new dynamic were America and the 'west' not to have any dependence on middle eastern oil.

Imagine if Saudi and the other gulf states were to require $90 - $120 per barrel to keep their economy in the black, allowing sufficient bribe money to keep their subjugated populations and minorities in check and to afford the arms they require for their various armies.

Now imagine if America, Brazil, Canada etc were able to produce oil and gas, in sufficient quantities to become, not only self sufficient, but net oil exporters. Imagine that they could do this for the next 200 years but could produce at $58 per barrel.

The threat of Iran closing the straits of Hormuz and starving the west of oil would be a mere pipe dream.....who would care? By 2020 there would be no concern should America wish to neutralize the Iranian nuclear program.

A new paradigm unfolds. An end to American, British and French imperialism in the middle east.

Prompete

I doubt the Iranians will be so foolish as to attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz. And if they attempted it the blockage would be at most for a few days. In the mean time the Americans would seize the excuse to pulverise them.

Note, the Saudis are building pipelines that will bypass the straits. Other Gulf states will be able to make use of this infrastructure.

On your other point, I think that over time Gulf oil will become less important. However I think the price of oil will remain high for a while yet.

Obviously the Saud Family's model of buying off their populace is not sustainable indefinitely but I think it has a few years to run yet.

In the mean time the world will probably have to deal with the "infernal triangle" - Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia all with nukes.

Steven,

I have always believed that Iran's concern about the Palestinians was a pose. And why should they be concerned about Israel?

Indeed, I've also believed that the Arab states' concern about the Palestinians was also a pose; especially given how Palestinians are treated in these areas. We have seen the corruption within Arab territories. As we all know, a time honored ploy to divert people's attention from what is occurring within, is to point a finger elsewhere. In this case Israel.

As for Iran, the regime and general public are contemptuous of Arabs.
Dropping a bomb on Israel, however, would demonstrate Iran's power and be a salutary example to the Arab world. I believe that Iran wants to dominate the Islamic Middle East.

SevelmEyer
I agree the infernal triangle poses a problem into the future.

I think that my point re the closing the straits of Hormuz, whilst it would be a foolish thing to attempt, I doubt it would be used as an excuse for American intervention if it were only an oil supply issue, those days of imperialism are fast drawing to a close as 'western' reliance on oil from this region diminishes.

It would be in the American interest to maintain the price of oil above the 'bankrupt' level of middle eastern economies, both for their own profit and to avert the collapse of all or most middle eastern economies, the result would spell chaos.

Danielle,

"Dropping a bomb on Israel" would spell the end of Iran.

I mean that quite literally. Many millions would die instantly. Those unfortunate enough to survive the initial attack would die of hunger thirst and disease in the aftermath. It would impossible to get through relief supplies on the scale needed.

There would be no electricity, no clean water and for the most part no food.

I do not believe the mullahs are that suicidal. They are quite willing to sacrifice the lives of gullible young men and women; but, their purported belief in 72 virgins notwithstanding,they would not risk their sacred backsides being reduced to radioactive dust.

No, if nuclear war comes to the Middle-East it will be through mistake or miscalculation. See my thread:

You owe your life to Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14044

Steven,

I agree with what you write.

However,why did Iran seek to develop nuclear weapons in the first place? The only reason I can see is that they wish to dominate the Islamic Middle East.

Hi Danielle

Iran has a nuclear armed strategic rival called Pakistan, allied with another strategic rival called Saudi Arabia, to its south. It also used to have Saddam Hussein to its west. As the world discovered in 1991 Saddam was very much in the business of acquiring nukes.

Iran exists in a dangerous neighbourhood. If I were the big chief in Iran I too might want nukes purely as a defensive measure.

Whatever else you want to say about nukes they are the great equaliser. Once a country has nukes it has to be taken seriously. Look at that broken, bankrupt starving country called North Korea.

There is a certain irony here. The Iranians acquired some of their nuclear technology from the AQ Khan network based in Pakistan as did Gaddaffi. I wonder whether we shall ever learn the full story of AQ Khan.

Of course once they have acquired nukes the Iranian mullahs will probably use them to throw their weight around. My guess is that the program has acquired a life of its own and the prestige of the mullahs depends on bringing it to fruition.

And here is the trouble. Once the rival you fear acquires nukes you have no choice; you have to go down that path as well. As Iran goes so will Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Before you know it you will have a fully nuclearised Middle-East which will increase exponentially the risk of an accidental nuclear war.

As Wikileaks showed, the Saudis have been begging the Americans to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Obama's understandable reluctance to do so may have grave consequences.

I am very glad that I am neither the prime minister of Israel nor the president of the United States. Both individuals are going to have to make some difficult choices soon

Thank you Steven,

You have enlightened me.

Maybe this comment thread should be called "The Endless Meme".

Note how the comments studiously avoid mentioning that Iran has always been an avowed opponent of nuclear weapons, not only in the Middle East but also across the globe.

Note how the comments studiously feign ignorance of the meeting of the Non Aligned nations with respect to Israel's stockpile of nukes.

More here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/30-4

But I suppose if we all sing kumbaya loud enough, no-one else will be able to hear what is actually going on.

..... sorry, it won't work.

Steven and Danielle,

Comments like “if Iran does deploy nukes, which seems inevitable” (Steven), and “why did Iran seek to develop nuclear weapons in the first place?” (Danielle) are completely unfounded.

Firstly, there is no ‘proof of intent’ that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Secondly, they can only “deploy nukes” if they have them – which they don’t.

Thinking like this is scarily reminiscent of the months leading up to the Iraq invasion and the West’s insistence that Iraq had WMD.

The US has stated, via it’s top military officer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, that “intelligence does not provide proof of intent”. They do not want a repeat of Iraq.

What Iran has called for is a unilateral nuclear disarmament across the Middle East, and this could prove troublesome for Israel.

Iran will not make the first move. That leaves Israel out on a limb. Having come up short on support from the US, Netanyahu now needs to decide if saving face is more important than conceding this particular battle of words to Iran. This puts him in a difficult position and makes him a very dangerous man.

Israel faced a similar problem in 1981 against Iraq and took matters into its own hands. Its punishment? Vocal world condemnation and a rap on the knuckles. But sentiments about Israel are not what they were 30 years ago and Israel knows that it cannot risk a go-it-alone attack this time, without the sanction of either the US or the UN.

Either way, until there is absolute proof that Iran intends to enrich their uranium stockpile to the 90% level required for weapons grade material, Israel and the US stand on very shaky ground.