Al-Arabiya Director: UAE Ambassador's Alleged Statements in Favor of Strike against Iran – Whether Misquoted or Not – are Politically Valid

In a July 12 article in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, the director-general of Al-Arabiya TV, 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, commented on statements reportedly made by UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al-Otaiba. According to media reports, Al-Otaiba said on July 6, 2010 that the benefits of a military strike against Iran would outweigh its short-term costs. [1] This position sparked harsh criticism from Iranian officials, who rebuked the ambassador for his "boldness"[2]. On July 7, the UAE deputy foreign minister denied that Al-Otaiba had made these statements, saying that the ambassador had been misquoted.[3]

Responding to this affair, Al-Rashed pointed out that the statements attributed to Al-Otaiba, whether quoted accurately or not, are correct, because the Gulf states and the region at large has every reason to fear a nuclear Iran. He added that most Arab politicians are not too bold but rather too reticent in warning against the Iranian threat.

Following are excerpts from Al-Rashed's article, as it appeared in the English edition of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat:[4]

"Imagine What Iran's Mentality and Behavior Will Be Like After It Gains Nuclear Capabilities and Realizes that No Country in the World Is Capable of Entering a War With It"

"I read the 30-page final statement of the stormy conference [that took place in Aspen, Colorado], during which UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al-Otaiba, roused Iranian anger after he was quoted as saying that the benefits of attacking Iran today would outweigh the short-term consequences and the threat represented by a future nuclear Iran.

"Iran responded with a barrage of insults, despite the fact that the UAE Foreign Ministry said that the ambassador's quote was not accurate and had been taken out of context.

"So long as this storm is raging, there is nothing wrong with taking a closer look at the situation. Was it inappropriate for somebody in the ambassador's position to say what he allegedly said? Was he wrong in his political understanding of the situation? More important, after the ambassador said what he said – whether we believe [the quote] was accurate or not – is this statement useful or harmful?

"The fact is that we have gotten used to the officials and affiliates of the Iranian regime freely expressing their views and opinions, and indeed issuing insulting remarks against the Gulf states, with or without provocation. In fact, these officials do not hesitate even to make threats, which is the worst and most dangerous thing that can take place in the media. Just two weeks ago, Iranian officials said that [Iran] plans to inspect vessels traveling to Arab Gulf States, in response to a UN Security Council resolution to inspect vessels making port in Iran, if there are suspicions over their cargo. Iran did not dare threaten to inspect American, European or Russian vessels in the region, of which there are many. However it did threaten the Gulf [states], even though they had nothing whatsoever do with this resolution and no Gulf state sits on the Security Council. Prior to this, Iranian officials announced that Iran would attack the Gulf states in the event of any Israeli or U.S. attack against it.

"In such a poisonous climate, it is natural for an Arab politician or diplomat to say that a nuclear Iran represents a threat to us. Speaking from viewpoint of [due] protocol, both parties must work together to avoid throwing rotten tomatoes at one another, or allowing everybody to do so.

SUPPORT OUR WORK

$500 $250 $100 OTHER CryptoCurrency Apple Pay Paypal Credit Card

"What Ambassador Yousef Al-Otaiba was quoted as saying is also true from a political [perspective]. He said that we are in trouble with regards to what Iran is doing in the region today, so just imagine what Tehran will do when it has nuclear capabilities! Indeed, imagine what Iran's mentality and behavior will be like after it gains nuclear capabilities and realizes that no country in the world is capable of entering a war with it."

"What is Truly Wrong is the Reluctance of Our Politicians to Express Their Opinions and Concerns Regarding the Most Dangerous Threat that is Facing Our Region in the Last Hundred Years"

"Therefore, what is truly wrong is the reluctance of our politicians to express their opinions and concerns regarding the most dangerous threat that is facing our region in the last hundred years, not the opposite!

"...The ambassador's words, even if they are beyond the bounds of [diplomatic] protocol, are politically correct. Imagine for just one moment that Iran has nuclear capabilities. The Iranians will not attack Israel, because the Israelis would respond by burying them with a hundred nuclear bombs, wiping them off the map, and still have an arsenal of hundreds of nuclear bombs [left over]. Iran will similarly not attack the U.S., because it is geographically too far away, and [besides,] Washington would also respond by targeting Iran with a hundred nuclear bombs, and five thousand nuclear warheads will still remain in its arsenal. As for the Gulf states, the Iranians may not attack them with nuclear weapons, but it would certainly seek to dominate them, and perhaps take over some of them, knowing that no major power in the world will dare to interfere, as they are protected by their nuclear arms.

"Therefore, why is it a problem if a Gulf ambassador says that attacking Iran today is cheaper than living with a nuclear Iran tomorrow?

"Finally, I am not enthusiastic about being drawn into a verbal conflict with Iran; however this conflict is already here, because the Iranians continue to throw rotten tomatoes at us. The ambassador's words have an educational value, because the majority of people – including many of our intellectuals – only understand one viewpoint in the dispute over a nuclear Iran. Let them listen to another viewpoint this time!"