Pushing Iran and Israel Towards War: Motivation

Shout Dust

With Israel and Iran at each others throats for a while now, is it possible that the Arab states (chiefly Saudi) are helping to covertly agitate things? Sunni and Shi'ite states have been at odds with each other for a long time, and its no secret that they've long been hostile to each other. With the news over the summer that Saudi has ballistic missiles pointed at both Iran and Israel its a possibility not to be ruled out, with the bonus that a war between them would mean two powers that Saudi (which sees itself as the de facto leader of the Arab world) sees as its enemies would take each other out.

I also found this article from the BBC interesting, which states that Saudi can easily obtain nuclear weapons from Pakistan, having funded its nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.

While the kingdom's quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran's atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.

Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.

Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring."

Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, "we will get nuclear weapons", the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions.

Gary Samore, until March 2013 President Barack Obama's counter-proliferation adviser, has told Newsnight:

"I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan."

The story of Saudi Arabia's project - including the acquisition of missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long ranges - goes back decades.

In the late 1980s they secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China.

These rockets, considered by many experts too inaccurate for use as conventional weapons, were deployed 20 years ago.

This summer experts at defence publishers Jane's reported the completion of a new Saudi CSS-2 base with missile launch rails aligned with Israel and Iran.

It has also been clear for many years that Saudi Arabia has given generous financial assistance to Pakistan's defence sector, including, western experts allege, to its missile and nuclear labs.

Visits by the then Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al Saud to the Pakistani nuclear research centre in 1999 and 2002 underlined the closeness of the defence relationship.

In its quest for a strategic deterrent against India, Pakistan co-operated closely with China which sold them missiles and provided the design for a nuclear warhead.

The Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was accused by western intelligence agencies of selling atomic know-how and uranium enrichment centrifuges to Libya and North Korea.

AQ Khan is also believed to have passed the Chinese nuclear weapon design to those countries. This blueprint was for a device engineered to fit on the CSS-2 missile, i.e the same type sold to Saudi Arabia.

Because of this circumstantial evidence, allegations of a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear deal started to circulate even in the 1990s, but were denied by Saudi officials.

They noted that their country had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and called for a nuclear-free Middle East, pointing to Israel's possession of such weapons.

The fact that handing over atom bombs to a foreign government could create huge political difficulties for Pakistan, not least with the World Bank and other donors, added to scepticism about those early claims.

In Eating the Grass, his semi-official history of the Pakistani nuclear program, Major General Feroz Hassan Khan wrote that Prince Sultan's visits to Pakistan's atomic labs were not proof of an agreement between the two countries. But he acknowledged, "Saudi Arabia provided generous financial support to Pakistan that enabled the nuclear program to continue."

Whatever understandings did or did not exist between the two countries in the 1990s, it was around 2003 that the kingdom started serious strategic thinking about its changing security environment and the prospect of nuclear proliferation.

A paper leaked that year by senior Saudi officials mapped out three possible responses - to acquire their own nuclear weapons, to enter into an arrangement with another nuclear power to protect the kingdom, or to rely on the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

It was around the same time, following the US invasion of Iraq, that serious strains in the US/Saudi relationship began to show themselves, says Gary Samore.

The Saudis resented the removal of Saddam Hussein, had long been unhappy about US policy on Israel, and were growing increasingly concerned about the Iranian nuclear program.

In the years that followed, diplomatic chatter about Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation began to increase.

In 2007, the US mission in Riyadh noted they were being asked questions by Pakistani diplomats about US knowledge of "Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation".

The unnamed Pakistanis opined that "it is logical for the Saudis to step in as the physical 'protector'" of the Arab world by seeking nuclear weapons, according to one of the State Department cables posted by Wikileaks.

By the end of that decade Saudi princes and officials were giving explicit warnings of their intention to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran did.

Having warned the Americans in private for years, last year Saudi officials in Riyadh escalated it to a public warning, telling a journalist from the Times "it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom".

But were these statements bluster, aimed at forcing a stronger US line on Iran, or were they evidence of a deliberate, long-term plan for a Saudi bomb? Both, is the answer I have received from former key officials.

One senior Pakistani, speaking on background terms, confirmed the broad nature of the deal - probably unwritten - his country had reached with the kingdom and asked rhetorically "what did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn't charity."

Another, a one-time intelligence officer from the same country, said he believed "the Pakistanis certainly maintain a certain number of warheads on the basis that if the Saudis were to ask for them at any given time they would immediately be transferred."

As for the seriousness of the Saudi threat to make good on the deal, Simon Henderson, Director of the Global Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told BBC Newsnight "the Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don't bluff on this issue."

Talking to many serving and former officials about this over the past few months, the only real debate I have found is about how exactly the Saudi Arabians would redeem the bargain with Pakistan.

Some think it is a cash-and-carry deal for warheads, the first of those options sketched out by the Saudis back in 2003; others that it is the second, an arrangement under which Pakistani nuclear forces could be deployed in the kingdom.

Gary Samore, considering these questions at the centre of the US intelligence and policy web, at the White House until earlier this year, thinks that what he calls, "the Nato model", is more likely.

However ,"I think just giving Saudi Arabia a handful of nuclear weapons would be a very provocative action", says Gary Samore.

He adds: "I've always thought it was much more likely - the most likely option if Pakistan were to honour any agreement would be for be for Pakistan to send its own forces, its own troops armed with nuclear weapons and with delivery systems to be deployed in Saudi Arabia".

This would give a big political advantage to Pakistan since it would allow them to deny that they had simply handed over the weapons, but implies a dual key system in which they would need to agree in order for 'Saudi Arabian' "nukes" to be launched.

Others I have spoken to think this is not credible, since Saudi Arabia, which regards itself as the leader of the broader Sunni Islamic 'ummah' or community, would want complete control of its nuclear deterrent, particularly at this time of worsening sectarian confrontation with Shia Iran.

Map of Saudi Arabia
And it is Israeli information - that Saudi Arabia is now ready to take delivery of finished warheads for its long-range missiles - that informs some recent US and Nato intelligence reporting. Israel of course shares Saudi Arabia's motive in wanting to worry the US into containing Iran.

Amos Yadlin declined to be interviewed for our BBC Newsnight report, but told me by email that "unlike other potential regional threats, the Saudi one is very credible and imminent."

Even if this view is accurate there are many good reasons for Saudi Arabia to leave its nuclear warheads in Pakistan for the time being.

Doing so allows the kingdom to deny there are any on its soil. It avoids challenging Iran to cross the nuclear threshold in response, and it insulates Pakistan from the international opprobrium of being seen to operate an atomic cash-and-carry.

These assumptions though may not be safe for much longer. The US diplomatic thaw with Iran has touched deep insecurities in Riyadh, which fears that any deal to constrain the Islamic republic's nuclear program would be ineffective.

Earlier this month the Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar announced that the kingdom would be distancing itself more from the US.

While investigating this, I have heard rumours on the diplomatic grapevine, that Pakistan has recently actually delivered Shaheen mobile ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia, minus warheads.

These reports, still unconfirmed, would suggest an ability to deploy nuclear weapons in the kingdom, and mount them on an effective, modern, missile system more quickly than some analysts had previously imagined.

In Egypt, Saudi Arabia showed itself ready to step in with large-scale backing following the military overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi's government.

There is a message here for Pakistan, of Riyadh being ready to replace US military assistance or World Bank loans, if standing with Saudi Arabia causes a country to lose them.

Newsnight contacted both the Pakistani and Saudi governments. The Pakistan Foreign Ministry has described our story as "speculative, mischievous and baseless".

It adds: "Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state with robust command and control structures and comprehensive export controls."

The Saudi embassy in London has also issued a statement pointing out that the Kingdom is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has worked for a nuclear free Middle East.

But it also points out that the UN's "failure to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone is one of the reasons the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejected the offer of a seat on the UN Security Council".

It says the Saudi Foreign Minister has stressed that this lack of international action "has put the region under the threat of a time bomb that cannot easily be defused by manoeuvring around it".

Watch more from Mark Urban on Saudi Arabia on Newsnight on Wednesday 6 November 2013 at 2230 on BBC Two, and then afterwards on the BBC iPlayer and Newsnight website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24870469

Balaclava1991

If Iran does not abandon enrichment at some point the U.S. and Israel will once again threaten a strike against Iranian nuclear targets.
Internationally this would be supported by France, India (the relationship between Israel and India is very strong), obviously Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. After Syria was forced to give up its chemical weapons the Russians and the Chinese who have been assisting Iran for years would likely back down once again. Hopefully this will be solved peacefully and without further proliferation of nukes. It shouldn't be an either or situation.

Tzar Chasm

couple of assertions there i'd like some evidence for, you say iran and israel are 'at each others throats' and whilst I agree that israeli hawks are making noise about iran, I see no such rhetoric coming from the iranian side

you say india would side with israel, however india is one of the countries still buying iranian oil, even going so far as to pay for it in gold, what do they trade with israel

Shout Dust

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

couple of assertions there i'd like some evidence for, you say iran and israel are 'at each others throats' and whilst I agree that israeli hawks are making noise about iran, I see no such rhetoric coming from the iranian side

you say india would side with israel, however india is one of the countries still buying iranian oil, even going so far as to pay for it in gold, what do they trade with israel

I've said nothing of India, but I think its fairly obvious Israel and Iran are at each others throats. From Irans side, supplying Hezbollah and Hamas, threatning a strike on Israel if ANY western power intervenes in Syria, comments from Khamenei calling the state a 'cancerous tumour' and 'It is incorrect, irrational, pointless and nonsense to say that we are friends of Israeli people... we are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine and the occupiers are the Zionist regime. This is the position of our regime, our revolution and our people.' and the head of the Revolutionary Guards saying war will eventually come in which they will eradicate Israel.

Tzar Chasm

sorry the poster after you mentioned india.

hadn't read that khameni quote before, where& when did he say that

weisses

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

sorry the poster after you mentioned india.

hadn't read that khameni quote before, where& when did he say that

https://www.google.ie/search?q=we+are+on+a+collision+course+with+the+occupiers+of+Palestine+and+the+occupiers+are+the+Zionist+regime&oq=we+are+on+a+collision+course+with+the+occupiers+of+Palestine+and+the+occupiers+are+the+Zionist+regime&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.1623952j0j0&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

old_aussie

I'd like to see Israel and the west attack syria and iran, just so I can watch Russia nuke saudia arabia off the map.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/escalation-vladimir-putin-reportedly-threatens-saudi-arabia-with-massive-counter-strike_082013

Donnielighto

Give em all nukes that detonate if they leave the middle east region, sorted....




Cackle

weisses

Donnielighto wrote: »

Give em all nukes that detonate if they leave the middle east region, sorted....




Cackle

Since the poster above you "likes" nukes i would like to ask that they can take them only to Australia outside of the Middle east

SamHarris

Shout Dust wrote: »

With Israel and Iran at each others throats for a while now, is it possible that the Arab states (chiefly Saudi) are helping to covertly agitate things? Sunni and Shi'ite states have been at odds with each other for a long time, and its no secret that they've long been hostile to each other. With the news over the summer that Saudi has ballistic missiles pointed at both Iran and Israel its a possibility not to be ruled out, with the bonus that a war between them would mean two powers that Saudi (which sees itself as the de facto leader of the Arab world) sees as its enemies would take each other out.

I also found this article from the BBC interesting, which states that Saudi can easily obtain nuclear weapons from Pakistan, having funded its nuclear program.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24870469

Can I suggest you start the sameish thread in the normal politics forum? It's more international diplomacy than a CT, with enough meat for the claim to be taken seriously.

Plus, wrong "bad guys" for here. Won't get much traction with the blame going in the wrong place.

Conas

If Israel wants a war with Iran, let them put the boots on the ground, and do the fighting for a change. Instead they're doing everything they can to try and draw America into another war, that isn't theirs to be fighting in.

From looking at the news lately, the French are more pro-Israel than the America goverment. This is great news, it's about time other countries like France start doing the fighting aswell, why does it always have to be America?

Tzar Chasm

I think the point here is that its the saudis who are trying to start this war, two birds and all that

Conas

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

I think the point here is that its the saudis who are trying to start this war, two birds and all that

Why would anyone listen to Saudi Arabia? After all 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, they were more of an enemy to the USA than Iraq ever were. What a crazy society we live in, and nothing was ever done about Saudi Arabia, and now they have the arrogance to try and influence American foreign policy, what complete and utter BS.

Oh wait a minute I also forgot about the close ties between the Bush family, and the Saudi Oilmen, so there you go.

Tzar Chasm

well the saudis are cooperating by handing over their oil and buying mostly american weapons, and obviously their love of freedom and democracy for all means there is no need for america to bring liberty to their shores

weisses

Conas wrote: »

From looking at the news lately, the French are more pro-Israel than the America goverment. This is great news, it's about time other countries like France start doing the fighting aswell, why does it always have to be America?

America wants War

(they fabricated evidence just to do that only 10 years ago)

BuilderPlumber

At present, Israel is in need of serious reform. Netanyahu runs a government that is not a friend of peace and he covers up his poor governance by blaming Iran and Syria for all that is wrong in his own country (ironically, rather like that Ahmadinejad chap who was another leftover from the Bush era).

Brown Bomber

Shout Dust wrote: »

With the news over the summer that Saudi has ballistic missiles pointed at both Iran and Israel its a possibility not to be ruled out, with the bonus that a war between them would mean two powers that Saudi (which sees itself as the de facto leader of the Arab world) sees as its enemies would take each other out.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would Saudi Arabia supposedly having missiles pointed at Israel and Iran (and where else would you expect them to have directed towards??? ) make it more likely that Israel and Iran would be forced to engage in war against each other?

By the way. the site in Saudi Arabia is not accurately portrayed by the hysterics in the BBC article,

This is the source:
http://press.ihs.com/press-release/defense-risk-security/ihs-reveals-saudi-arabias-undisclosed-missile-site

Using satellite imagery, IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review identified an undisclosed surface-to-surface missile facility in Saudi Arabia. With a different layout to the previously documented Al Sulayyil and Al Jufayr missile bases, this new third site potentially serves as a training and storage complex with the ability to perform operational missile launches. There are two launch pads at the facility, one appearing to be aligned on a bearing of approximately 301 degrees and suggesting a potential Israeli target, and the other oriented along a bearing of approximately 10 degrees, ostensibly situated to target Iranian locations. IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review assesses that the site likely has a limited operational capacity within a defined target set, and could serve as an off-site storage point for additional missile airframes and propellant stocks.

Shout Dust wrote: »

I also found this article from the BBC interesting, which states that Saudi can easily obtain nuclear weapons from Pakistan, having funded its nuclear program.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24870469

I also found it interesting as an example of propaganda in action. It's speculation posing as news. If I had any respect for the integrity of the BBC before it would have been diminished.

Shout Dust

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense. Why would Saudi Arabia supposedly having missiles pointed at Israel and Iran (and where else would you expect them to have directed towards??? ) make it more likely that Israel and Iran would be forced to engage in war against each other?

Not make it more likely that they'll end up at war, more likely that if there's an agitator pushing the 2 of them towards war its Saudi.

This is the source:
http://press.ihs.com/press-release/defense-risk-security/ihs-reveals-saudi-arabias-undisclosed-missile-site




I also found it interesting as an example of propaganda in action. It's speculation posing as news. If I had any respect for the integrity of the BBC before it would have been diminished.

Just a theory rolling around in my head, seems to me Saudi likes to sit back and support their interests covertly or in the background, without getting directly involved

Brown Bomber

Shout Dust wrote: »

Not make it more likely that they'll end up at war, more likely that if there's an agitator pushing the 2 of them towards war its Saudi.

Just a theory rolling around in my head, seems to me Saudi likes to sit back and support their interests covertly or in the background, without getting directly involved

I'm not having a go at you and I am sorry if it appeared that way. It's an interesting theory. What bothered me is the BBC article. It leads with a bold accusation but then doesn't substantiate it in any meaningful way. It completely ignores the elephant in room i.e Israeli nukes and then gets sound bites from agenda-driven lobbyists.

This is the claim:

.... it (Saudi Arabia) could obtain atomic bombs at will,..

This is the "evidence":

1. 
   Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me....Of course he did.
2. Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference...While it is irrelevant what Yadin does or doesn't say he is Zionist lobbyist in the pay of right-wing think-tank WINEP
3. ince 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross....Hearsay. Again, worthless.
4. Gary Samore, until March 2013 President Barack Obama's counter-proliferation adviser, has told Newsnight:... What the BBC don't tell you is that Samore is now President of "United Against a Nuclear Iran". Another Neocon think-tank who were founded by the same Dennis Ross mentioned in point 3 above..

Ideological Connections and Funding
UANI claims to have a politically centrist position, and its advisory board has contained a number of well regarded academics and political centrists, including Graham Allison, Walter Russell Meade, and Leslie Gelb.
However, the board’s membership has been heavily weighted with neoconservatives and rightwing nationalists, including: James Woolsey, a former CIA director and high-profile neoconservative activist; Roger Noriega, a former U.S. representative to the U.S. Mission of the Organization of American States; Henry Sokolski, a hawkish strategic weapons expert; Mike Gerson, a torture advocate and former spokesperson for President Bush; Mark Lagon, a former State Department official whose experience also includes having served as an aide to Jeane Kirkpatrick at the American Enterprise Institute and supporting the work of the notorious neoconservative letterhead group the Project for the New American Century; and Otto Reich, a controversial Reagan-era figure implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal who maintains close ties to right-wing factions in Latin America.[18]

Then there is some conjecture and innuendo about Saudi Arabia's missiles being "circumstansial evidence about their nuclear ambitions. The reality is: http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/saudi-arabia/delivery-systems/

C

apabilities
Ballistic Missiles
Saudi Arabia's ballistic missile arsenal is limited to the Chinese Dongfeng-3 (DF-3; NATO: CSS-2). The DF-3 is a road mobile, liquid fuelled, medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM). With a range of 2500km, the DF-3 has extensive regional reach. However, the DF-3 is a highly inaccurate missile; when equipped with a conventional warhead, it would therefore not be effective against discrete military or tactical targets. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has never tested the DF-3, which would be critical for ensuring its reliability and training missile forces. [3] Riyadh is dependent upon China to maintain and operate the DF-3, which further limits the missile's military utility. [4] All of the above considerations suggest that the DF-3 is not currently an active component of Saudi defense strategy.

And the article goes on and on in this vein. Unnamed sources, a guy knows a guy who's cousin heard the Pakistan are giving the Saudis nukes, and paid Neocon lobbyists.

The last guy the name is a WINEP employee. Why anyone would take the word of an organisation who advocated attacking American civilians and framing Iran to force the US into destroying Iran for Israel is beyond me.

BuilderPlumber

Little is said about Saudi Arabia's military. But I would rate them as the best kept secret in the region. Armed to the teeth by the US for sure. They also have the US army on call anytime they want extra backup.

Arab v Persian animosity dates back years. Most Arab states have traditionally enjoyed good relations with the US while having poor relations with Israel. Israel's traditional ally in the Middle East was always (surprise, surprise!) Iran (1948-1979) and I remain unconvinced that this has really changed.

In many ways, I did not entirely get Ayatollah Khomeini (or the real power: those who supported him). I read many articles about him and his regime and at no stage was there anything in Khomeini's background to tie him to intense hatred of Israel or America.

Iranian peasants in 1970s were indifferent about Israel and the US. Their gripe was with the Shah (i.e. Pahlavi) and his lavish excesses. A Persian Shia country had no love for Sunni Arabs in Palestine either! Unlike the Arab countries such as Syria, there was never any previous war between Iran and Israel (they don't even border each other!) and neither country owns disputed land of the other!

Iran and US had differences because of the Shah being allowed into America and the students (Taliban) taking over the embassy. Khomeini showed poor leadership and capitulated to the Iranian Taliban because simply he did not know where to go (he had originally ordered the Taliban out of the embassy but later changed his mind because he felt he and those around him could be overthrown in the assassination/impeachment dominated 1979 Iran) and then things spiralled.

Countries only intensely hate each other when one invades the other. Clearly, Saddam's Iraq (a Sunni Arab regime) was number 1 enemy of Iran back then. America got slack for arming Iraq but America also armed Iran! And Israel armed ONLY Iran! Again, there is no history of hatred: Iran gladly did deals with Israel and Israel's main threat was a militant Arab regime that considered Syria, Palestine and the West bank to be part of Iraq!

So, this Iran v Israel thing is certainly exaggerated. The fact is that both countries have done secret deals. That does not mean they love and trust each other either, only they don't hate each other as much as we are lead to believe. Iran knows Israel are not popular with anyone and it would damage their own image as an Islamic powerhouse to be seen all pals with the so-called 'Zionists'. Israel does not want Iran or anyone to have nukes of course! The nuclear club traditionally does not like new members! If Iran gets nuclear, then Iran of course will grudgingly be accepted eventually and will collaborate with the other members to keep say the Saudis out!

Iran's regime has for much of its 1979-2013 history has not enjoyed good relations with its own population and thus needs to divert attention for their own mistakes to meddling foreign 'enemies' like Israel. Also, the restive Arab and Sunni population need to be placated.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a laughable caricature really. He was Saddam Hussein lite! A total clone of the Iraqi dictator even so much so that 99% of his rhetoric was taken from Saddam (the remaining 1% comes from Ayatollah Khomeini and the now moderate Hashemi Rafsanjani). Ahmadinejad apparently was actually from a Jewish family which could explain his rhetoric. Also, his complection was more Arab than Persian or Azeri in appearance (he looks very different to say Pahlavi, Khomeini, Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Khatami and Rouhani for example). So, Ahmadinejad seems to have been an Arab with Jewish blood leading a Persian Shia nation?

Now, the West is seeing the potential of a new partner in Iran. Iran has seen the benefit of other nations' improvement of ties with the West such as China and Russia. President Rouhani wants to continue the era of Khatami's reforms and the Ahmadinejad years have been considered to be wasteful and interruptive in general by many in Iran's government and among many ordinary Iranians.

The Saudis are not happy at all. Their main fear is that the West will loose interest in them and to them, they see the possibility of an American, Iranian and Israeli alliance that would not be in their interests. I cannot see Israel and Saudi Arabia collaborate openly. The leader of the Arab world doing open deals with the most hated state among Arabs! Secret deals between Israel and Saudi though are possible because again Saudi and Israel themselves have no personal history compared to say Israel and Syria have.