The Saudi embassy in London issued the rare public response to us on Wednesday afternoon after we had given them details of our report and the evidence it contained.
The kingdom, which is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has long argued that the Middle East should be a nuclear free-area.
But Wednesday's statement highlighted the "on-going failure" of the UN Security Council to achieve this aim and warned that "lack of international action has put the region under the threat of a time bomb that cannot be refused by manoeuvring around it".
Sir William Patey, former UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told BBC2's Newsnight programme he considered the timing of this statement, with nuclear talks ongoing with Iran in Geneva, to be significant.
The refusal of Saudi Arabia to deny our story can be seen as a continuation of signalling that started in 2009.
King Abdullah warned US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross that the kingdom would obtain nuclear weapons, and has continued in recent years with non-attributed briefing of journalists.
What many wonder, particularly in the light of Pakistan's labelling of our piece as "speculative, mischievous and baseless" - although interestingly even it did not use the word "untrue" - is whether the Saudis are simply bluffing, trying to galvanise a tougher American line on the Iranian nuclear question?
Make no mistake, Saudi Arabia, Israel and others such as the United Arab Emirates have long tried to persuade Washington to take a stronger stance on the Iranian issue.
But there are many signs that the kingdom has also thought long term about the situation it faces today, and has taken certain military precautions.
A paper leaked 10 years ago by Saudi officials detailed possible responses to the nuclear challenge as:
acquiring their own nuclear weapons
relying on another country to defend them
working for a nuclear-free Middle East
As Monday's statement shows, the kingdom no longer has any real faith in this last option.
As for relying on a foreign nuclear umbrella, could Pakistan fulfil this role?
Certainly some experts, such as Gary Samore, President Obama's chief counter-proliferation adviser until March 2013, think that the stationing of Pakistani missiles with crews and warheads inside the kingdom is the most likely way that any deal between the two countries might play out.
Yet we know also that Saudi Arabia has possessed its own possible delivery system, the 3,000km (2,000-mile) range Chinese-made CSS-2 missile, for more than 20 years.
This summer, the defence publication Jane's published details of a new base for these weapons, with launch pads aiming at Israel and Iran.
Experts such as Pakistani Maj Gen Feroz Hassan Khan, who worked in his country's nuclear program, while avoiding any confirmation of a deal with Saudi Arabia, have written that financial help from the kingdom was essential to that project.
There is enough information out there to create the impression that the kingdom could have a nuclear option and perhaps that is all it wants, in order to deter Iran from further steps.
As the invasion of Iraq showed, the beliefs of intelligence chiefs and policy makers can create their own reality in the Middle East.
Other interpretations are possible too - that a country that takes its security as seriously as the kingdom does, possesses huge financial resources, and has been anticipating this moment for over a decade would not rely simply on bluff.
And it is this fear, perhaps, that caused a senior figure in Nato to share with me a few months ago that he had read intelligence reports that nuclear warheads made in Pakistan for the kingdom were awaiting delivery.
The kingdom, which is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has long argued that the Middle East should be a nuclear free-area.
But Wednesday's statement highlighted the "on-going failure" of the UN Security Council to achieve this aim and warned that "lack of international action has put the region under the threat of a time bomb that cannot be refused by manoeuvring around it".
Sir William Patey, former UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told BBC2's Newsnight programme he considered the timing of this statement, with nuclear talks ongoing with Iran in Geneva, to be significant.
The refusal of Saudi Arabia to deny our story can be seen as a continuation of signalling that started in 2009.
King Abdullah warned US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross that the kingdom would obtain nuclear weapons, and has continued in recent years with non-attributed briefing of journalists.
What many wonder, particularly in the light of Pakistan's labelling of our piece as "speculative, mischievous and baseless" - although interestingly even it did not use the word "untrue" - is whether the Saudis are simply bluffing, trying to galvanise a tougher American line on the Iranian nuclear question?
Make no mistake, Saudi Arabia, Israel and others such as the United Arab Emirates have long tried to persuade Washington to take a stronger stance on the Iranian issue.
But there are many signs that the kingdom has also thought long term about the situation it faces today, and has taken certain military precautions.
A paper leaked 10 years ago by Saudi officials detailed possible responses to the nuclear challenge as:
acquiring their own nuclear weapons
relying on another country to defend them
working for a nuclear-free Middle East
As Monday's statement shows, the kingdom no longer has any real faith in this last option.
As for relying on a foreign nuclear umbrella, could Pakistan fulfil this role?
Certainly some experts, such as Gary Samore, President Obama's chief counter-proliferation adviser until March 2013, think that the stationing of Pakistani missiles with crews and warheads inside the kingdom is the most likely way that any deal between the two countries might play out.
Yet we know also that Saudi Arabia has possessed its own possible delivery system, the 3,000km (2,000-mile) range Chinese-made CSS-2 missile, for more than 20 years.
This summer, the defence publication Jane's published details of a new base for these weapons, with launch pads aiming at Israel and Iran.
Experts such as Pakistani Maj Gen Feroz Hassan Khan, who worked in his country's nuclear program, while avoiding any confirmation of a deal with Saudi Arabia, have written that financial help from the kingdom was essential to that project.
There is enough information out there to create the impression that the kingdom could have a nuclear option and perhaps that is all it wants, in order to deter Iran from further steps.
As the invasion of Iraq showed, the beliefs of intelligence chiefs and policy makers can create their own reality in the Middle East.
Other interpretations are possible too - that a country that takes its security as seriously as the kingdom does, possesses huge financial resources, and has been anticipating this moment for over a decade would not rely simply on bluff.
And it is this fear, perhaps, that caused a senior figure in Nato to share with me a few months ago that he had read intelligence reports that nuclear warheads made in Pakistan for the kingdom were awaiting delivery.
No comments:
Post a Comment