"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/islamic-republic-of-iran/
The United Arab Emirates dismissed as "inaccurate" on Wednesday statements attributed to its ambassador in Washington backing possible military action over Iran's nuclear programme.
"The statements attributed by the Washington Times to the UAE ambassador to the United States, Youssef Al-Otaiba, are not precise," the official WAM news agency quoted deputy foreign minister Tareq al-Haidan as saying.
http://mobile.france24.com//en/20100707-uae-says-ambassador-washington-misquoted-iran
Inaccurate? Inaccurate for what exactly?
ReplyDeleteNo where in that statement you posted does he say oh yes, bombing Iran is a good idea, or even idea. He said if it does happen, protesting and general anger and rioting... will happen, no matter what.
I think people are looking for things rather than reading what is there.
Plus, I mean, given the UAE's proximity to Iran, and it's going after Iranian assets in the UAE by the central bank, I think wanting his country's security isnt a bad thing.
I think that no one wants a military action in Iran, but if the all others ways fail, and the choice is the UAE being in danger or military action on Iran... It doesnt take a genius to know which Mr. Al-Otaiba, and everyone in the UAE and maybe Gulf, would choose.
"Give me back my islands!"
ReplyDelete