With Israeli Nuclear Subs Off Iran's Coast, Saudis and U.S. Give Green Light

It's just like playing with rubber ducks in the bath, except if one of them explodes, World War III starts.

As if the recent flotilla fiascos and botched government responses  (worldwide, not only Israel's) to them weren't enough, increasingly-isloated Israel is now stationing three German-built "Dolphin" submarines in the Persian Gulf off the coast of Iran, all equipped with cruise missiles capped with nuclear warheads.

"It would surely be madness for Israel to launch a nuclear attack against Iran," Executive Director of the leading U.S. anti-nuclear organization Peace Action, Kevin Martin, said in a rapid-response email blast to members. But he added that it is "an act I wish I could say with confidence is unlikely. "

And, as if that weren't enough, Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to ensure that it can stand down its air defense if Israel were to launch a nuclear attack against Iran's nuclear development sites, apparently a longstanding arrangement just now finalized logistically. Most shocking of all, according the U.K.'s The Times, the U.S. State Department is in collusion with this Saudi-Israeli nuclear attack plan with German support.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a U.S. defense source specialized in the area in The Times. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [U.S.] State Department.”

The measure is, at best, intended to be a further deterrence to pressure Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions. At worst, it is a counter-productive move that will invalidate the most recent, and perhaps already counter-productively severe, sanctions upon Iran recently enacted by the international community under UN auspices. But wait. In addition to the possibility of a submarine-based nuclear attack, an air-based one exists too.

However, this nuclear air strike plan would almost certainly require flying over Iraqi airspace, currently controlled by the U.S. So far, President Obama (to his credit) has not permitted this plan, preferring instead a diplomatic solution with Iran that has brought him much criticism from political opponents domestically. But also so far, Obama's diplomacy toward Iran hasn't differed much from his predecessor George W. Bush's approach, often called "coercive diplomacy," "the big stick," and "my way or the highway."

Could these attack plans indicate a major, or literally nuclear, foreign policy split between the Obama-led White House and the Hillary Clinton-led U.S. State Department, once bitter campaign foes, as previously suggested by the straining of the U.S.'s 'special relationships' globally?

Remember, Israel used Turkish airspace in its 2007 attack on a Syrian site suspected of nuclear work, a country that is Iran's closest ally in the region. With Israeli-Turkish ties severely strained since the flotilla fiascos, it appears that new attack plan alternatives were needed.

A deal with Iran was brokered by Brazil and Turkey before the flotilla fiasco, but the Obama Administration rejected it. Only afterwards was it revealed that President Obama had sent a letter to Brazilian President Lula da Silva endorsing it. Martin called this "fodder for the Daily Show, except it's very serious." How serious? If the rubber ducks didn't get the message across, think Hiroshima and Nagasaki meet the BP Gulf Oil Spill disaster.

A Mideast Nuclear Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone was one of the action items that made the final report from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference last month, but negotiations are stalled. Using nukes instead of words makes no sense whatsoever, and posterity will judge us for our sensibleness or lack thereof. If you believe in God, now is the time to pray that those making decisions for us have sense.

Photo credit: WikiMedia Commons