The Washington Times is reporting that Pakistan has offered to sell nuclear weapons technology to Saudi Arabia in exchange for cheap oil.
If this is true, it is a major problem. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are states with strong connections to terrorism. The Saudi Royal Familiy and Pakistan’s ISI intelligence service both have connections to al-Qaeda. Yet at the same time the current alternatives to these regimes are worse. If the Saudis fall, the world’s largest oil reserves would likely fall into terrorist hands. If President Musharraf of Pakistan is overthrown, dozens of nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists.
This is a situation in which there are no good options, similar to the North Korean standoff. In a case like this, the only thing to do is ensure that any shipments of nuclear material are intercepted and destroyed. It is clear that the last thing the world needs is more nuclear proliferation, especially not in the Middle East. President Musharraf should know that any attempt to sell nuclear materials to the Saudis is a move that serves the interests of no one.
Jay,
I’m so glad you eventually grasped it wasn’t France combined with Iraq which launched the terrorist war against the USA.
Welcome to the club !
If the Saudis fall, the world’s largest oil reserves would likely fall into terrorist hands. If President Musharraf of Pakistan is overthrown, dozens of nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists.
GASP!! We must protect our puppet dictators at all costs!!
Just as a favor, can we refer to him as “General Musharraf,” seeing as how it was a tank brigade and not a free election that put him in power?
Now I’m no fan of the Saudis – but given that they’re sitting on the source of 10% of our and 30% of Europe’s oil you have to approach the situation with kid gloves. I’d love to remove the Saudis and replace them with a more moderate regime, but short of occupying the country there’s no way of doing that safely. After all, isn’t the left the one always talking about the need for diplomacy rather than force?
As for President Musharraf (which is the correct title given to him by the Pakistani Supreme Court in June of 2001 and by election in April 2002), I’m not so sure he’s exactly a dicatator yet. I’ve done research into Musharraf’s efforts to democratize Pakistan, and while he hasn’t succeeded in fully restoring democracy, he’s hardly a tyrant either. Remember, Musharraf has said that he wishes to be another Ataturk, and he has put foward policies consistant with that goal.
Given the situation in Pakistan, I would much rather have President Musharraf in power than any of the other alternatives.