...has not been about the Arab *states* for a very long time. Jordan and Egypt made peace, Syria is peaceful in practice. It is about the human beings in the West Bank and Gaza and what will become of them. No fretting over Iran's presumed ambitions is going to change anything in this regard.

Tom’s is a very interesting question as to whether or not a major strategic shift is beginning to take place in the Middle East. The Bush administration was warned against destroying the only check to Iran’s western flank (Iraq) thus leaving a power vacuum in the Persian Gulf area, which Iran would certainly exploit. But like so many other aspects of the Bush administration they never let strategic reality impose upon a feckless ideology.

The one serious flaw in the supposition that the Arab states may find common cause with the Israelis regarding Iran is Israel’s own thoughtless and self-defeating behavior regarding relations with the Palestinians. If Israel can suppress its normal instincts to treat the Palestinians like helots then such a mending of fences might be possible.

We all are aware that the Arab states themselves do not have clean hands in respect to their relations with their Palestinian brethren and have exploited the Palestinians predicament for their own sordid purposes. But as a friend of Israel (yes, I am not an anti-Semite and believe in a prosperous and secure Jewish state) I think it has both the opportunity and responsibility to open the door to some form of political rapprochement. This requires the Israelis to take a risk, not so much with the Palestinians who are virtually powerless but with their own fascist right wing loons and medieval religious parties who have been the malignant force behind Israeli policy.

The House of Saud and Tehran have always been at odds, something the U.S. once exploited with what some called the Two Pillars approach when the Shah was in power.

It would probably be fair to say the Saudis have become concerned that the U.S. hasn't played a stabilizing role in the region acerbated by the bungling of the war in Iraq, and the Saudis have taken a more aggressive role in the Gulf toward the defense of the oil fields. Interestingly, earlier last years, the Kingdom did invite several Iranian Shi'a clerics to attend a Islamic religious conference – an olive branch of sorts?

Other thorny issues also should be taken into consideration before any assumptions are made. First, as OMBRAGEUX has pointed out, two of Israel's past enemies, Jordan and Egypt already have peace treaties in place. In addition, as was further alluded to, there is that "small" problem of the Israeli - Palestinian issue. As long as Israel covets water rights and the proven, but untapped natural gas deposits off the Gaza Strip in the Mediterranean, there will be no give on Israel’s part toward an equitable solution. And as long as Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist, there can be no give there either. And regardless of any position an Arab government might take, the Arab in the streets will always find this situation intolerable.

In addition, Damascus has stated the return of the Golan Heights is a non-negotiable issue toward relations with Israel. Israel understand the headwaters for many streams and several rivers that feed Israel's largest above ground water source, the Sea of Galilee originate on the Ramat Hagolanim, and that's a non-starter for them as well.

Taking all this into consideration, I doubt other than back channel minor cooperation on certain matters, there won't be any warm fuzzy fellings in the Middle East anytime soon.

I don't think the Arab States have so much 'turned away' from Israel as they have become 'increasingly concerned' with Iran's proliferation.

But there's more nuance here than meets the eye.

Right now, due to it's sheer economic size and the weight of its population, Iran possesses considerable conventional superiority vis-a-vis the Gulf Sheikdoms (including Saudi) as well as Jordan, Syria and the other regional hegemon, Egypt.

Iran compromises its conventional superiority by going nuclear as it will almost surely press at least one of their Arab neighbors to follow suit.

That's why there's a real credible threat of a regional arms race.

If one of the Arab states does go nuclear as well, and it happens to be one of Israel's immediate neighbors (most likely Egypt), we're going to have a significant shift in thinking when it comes to the I/P Peace Process.

But it may just be the case that AQ Khan and Dubya inadvertantly solve the I/P crisis. Bush by surrounding Iran on both flanks and forcing it to pursue an unconventional deterrent against a far more powerful enemy. And AQ Khan providing the technology for said deterrent.

The rest is a comedy of errors mentioned previously.

As Americans we apparently accept certain hypocrisy in protesting a possible Iranian nuclear weapons program and remain mute concerning Israel’s actual nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In non-partisan strategic terms Israel’s medium range nuclear weapons are regionally highly-destabilizing without an Arab or Iranian offsetting medium range deterrent. It was the acquisition of nuclear arms by the Soviet Union that actually balanced and made more stable Cold War relations than if one side or another had solitary possession of such otherwise useless weapons.

The absurdity of Israeli nuclear 'opacity' is matched by the myth that Iran would be the first to introduce nukes to the Gulf. Beyond the ever-present US naval battle groups, Soviet Russia almost certainly targeted the West's gulf oil. Israel's nuclear force is also targeted there, lacking any other target for its scores of N-weapons: It's a reprise of last century's Stragelovean blackmail- to nuke Moscow if the frontline Arab antagonists ever broke the IDF in conventional warfare.

Further, anyone who believes that the Saudis bankrolled AQ Kahn's program, and then installed a robust (chinese) IRBM capability, without a nuclear option, has been smoking reloaded cigars with the Navy football team.

Can I be the only one here to wonder if our premier SM-3 ABM weapon deployed in the gulf is postured to shortstop a publicly threatened Israeli missile attack, not a notional future Iranian initiated exchange?

Friedman/Stratfor has posted an open analysis, which concludes that Israel's only direct action option is nuclear, and that doesn't work for them either. What he doesn't say is that leaves them 'wag the dog', and the usual high conflict behavior.

I'm not buying the pitch that Iran is a nuclear or existential threat to Israel. Look at a map, do the nuclear arithmetic. Khameini's problem is with his former presidents and other Grand Ayatollahs. Hezbollah's move is on Beruit, not a fragment of farmland on the shore of Lake Galilee. Hez/Nasrallah already played the Israel card, and now have a seat in their gov't.

What does this all mean? The business of America is business. Sell missiles. And watch Alice in Wonderland in 3D, when it comes out.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100201_defensive_buildup_gulf

WW, mentions the new George Friedman piece on the counter strategies to a nuclear Iran. Friedman also makes the sensible side note that actual possession of deliverable nuclear weapons has had a tendency to make states very circumspect after acquiring nuclear weapons.

Friedman writes: “The Americans have seen a number of apparently extreme and dangerous countries develop nuclear weapons. The most important example was Maoist China. Mao Zedong had argued that a nuclear war was not particularly dangerous to China, as it could lose several hundred million people and still win the war. But once China developed nuclear weapons, the wild talk subsided and China behaved quite cautiously.”

Perhaps, a statement from the United States that they will take immediate counter nuclear action against the first use of nuclear weapons might bring a little sobriety to both Israeli and Iranian hawks. And WW is correct in that U.S. Aegis SM-3 systems can work against Israeli missiles just as effectively as against Iranian.