Charles Robb, Dennis Ross, and Michael Makovsky’s fascinating article in the WSJ touched a raw nerve with many, including advocates of Iran’s nuclear program and the Iranian regime itself.
Ross, Ross and Makovsky open their article by discussing the economic impact of a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, they also warn the WSJ’s readers that “failure to stop Iran’s nuclear-weapons program also would have myriad direct and indirect consequences…”
They note that:
Energy markets respond both to actual supply disruptions and to expected changes in supply and demand. A nuclear Iran would raise the likelihood of instability, nuclear proliferation, terrorism and war—and could thus drive oil prices up without disrupting the flow of oil.
Domestic instability in Saudi Arabia, the destruction of Saudi energy facilities, an Iran-Saudi nuclear exchange, an Iran-Israel nuclear exchange, and the lapse of sanctions against Iran.
The Iranian regime immediately hit back, in the same newspaper. Alireza Miryousefi, from the Iranian mission to the UN, declares confidently that:
The authors’ mention of a “Saudi-Iran nuclear exchange” is appalling and a grotesque stretch of imagination. Iran and Saudi Arabia have normal neighborly relations, underpinned by many historic, cultural and religious affinities, and bolstered by a strong relationship between the two nations, leaving no room for such fictitious scenarios as the authors toy with.
If only the Saudi’s agreed with you Mr. Miryousefi… (see my previous post)
And what about the claim that:
“Iran has always reiterated that her nuclear program is fully for peaceful purposes, and the intensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections have never revealed anything to the contrary.”