National Geographic Determined Who Will Rule The Middle-East in 2050, and It's Beautiful

National Geographic Determined Who Will Rule The Middle-East in 2050, and It's Beautiful

Attached: Saudi-Arabia-Israel.jpg (650x520, 32K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan–Saudi_Arabia_relations#Military_cooperation
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Nice

Attached: 534.jpg (501x585, 73K)

Nice

Nice

Reminder that there is an open agreement between Pakistan and Saudis to station nukes inside of Saudi Arabia if Israel was to ever attack an arab nation.

But hurr, remember they're allies that control the world from behind the scenes.

Nice

But Is It Really A Good Thing?

What are you talking about? Israel attacks Arab countries (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine if you consider that a country) regularly, Saudi Arabia doesn't care. Pakistan is irrelevant, they need their nukes to prevent India from beating them in a war for the umpteenth time.

I mean a full on invasion/annexation, not border skirmishes you silly goose.

There is a major difference.

You're aware that there were border skirmishes between Turkey and Syria in the 2013 I believe. If that constituted a full on attack then all of NATO would've been involved.

You're absolutely delusional. Saudi Arabia is more anti-Assad, anti-Hezbollah and anti-Iran than Israel.

That does not mean that they wouldn't protect them if their interests aligned.

Not to mention it's more of a self-defense agreement, as in Pakistan will station nukes to ward off any further provocation from Israel if they were to say, annex Palestine/Lebanon. Not necessarily to be used against them.

But it's a similar situation as to Western Sahara, in many ways.
Both Morocco and USA are very anti-Western Sahara/Polisario Front.
But if a country like Algeria invaded them, then it'd mean war between Morocco and Algeria, as well as political/economic support from USA

Crackpottery.

Whatever you say my Dutch friend. I actually seem to have been mistaken, as I believed it was a hard fact that the agreement existed, but apparently it's disputed.

>It is also speculated that Saudi Arabia secretly funded Pakistan's atomic bomb programme and seeks to purchase atomic weapons from Pakistan to enable it to counteract possible threats from arsenals of the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iran, Iraq and Israel.[16][17][18] Both nations have received high-level delegations of scientists, government and Saudi military experts of seeking to study the development of a Saudi nuclear programme.[13][16][19]
>According to Bruno Tertrais, a researcher for the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium, during informal discussions held in 2005 a former Pakistan National Command Authority officials have said that deploying Pakistan nuclear warheads in Saudi Arabia would be "worse than the Cuban missile crisis." Tertrais concludes that there is no hard evidence in the public domain of any nuclear cooperation between the two countries.[20]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan–Saudi_Arabia_relations#Military_cooperation

Saudis definitely funded the programme, but that's where it ends. Also, it's 2018, a shit ton has changed since 2005 and especially since MBS' ascension.

So are you a Sup Forumstard being sarcastic or the first Saudiboo on Sup Forums?

When was that agreement signed?

I am definitely an MBS-boo and I believe a Saudi-Israeli anti-Iranian alliance will be very beneficial for the Middle-East and the wider world.

We Pakis hate Jews. Luckily for your kind we hate Hindus more.

Please refrain from anti-Semitism

Attached: 1518974397401.png (136x102, 20K)

>funds a nuclear program in another country when you don't have nukes
for what purpose

Saudi Arabia's main foreign policy objective since its inception was to stay on the good side of the USA. They have rarely deviated from this principle (oil crisis is an example, and look what happened to King Faisal who did that, he was "coincidentally" killed). Getting nukes would have been disastrous for American-Saudi relations. The Saudis know that to survive in the Middle-East, you need American support.

But arming Pakistan is already going against America, especially in 2005

It is less of a deviation. Saudis starting a nuclear program would have led them to a same fate as Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria and Iran's current regime. Funding a Pakistani nuclear program was not as problematic. America didn't like it, but still, India got their nukes too, and it factually led to the current Pakistani-Indian stalemate which is better than massive wars every decade which is what used to be the case.