[flyinglizard]

That’s pretty much it. Cutting off weapon supplies never made countries less belligerent - on the contrary, it lets them loose as they no longer have any reigns.

The fastest way to lose global political influence is to send your allies to buy weapons from your adversaries. How did it work with North Korea, Iran and Syria?

When France cut off Israel’s weapon supplies in the late 1960s, all it did was to accelerate the development of the Israeli defense industry and replacement of all French hardware with US one. During this process, France lost any political influence it might have had on Israel - and arguably, the region - and irreversibly hurt its defense industry going forward.

That aside, Western ideals are just that in the Middle East - ideals. The reality is somewhat more complicated.

So let them have weapons. Western weapons are at least more precise and less crude than the alternatives. The worst wars were waged with teens wielding AK47s, not with F15s dropping precision munitions. Taking away weapons will not eliminate the underlying hostilities.

Finally, Saudi Arabia never pursued a nuclear program as it felt shielded by the West. Taking away its means to defend itself would make it an immensely more dangerous, rich and capable North Korea.

[boomboomsubban]

>The fastest way to lose global political influence is to send your allies to buy weapons from your adversaries. How did it work with North Korea, Iran and Syria?

What? Nothing like that situation happened in any of your examples. North Korea went from Japanese to Soviet control due to WWII treaties, Iran revolted against US control, and Syria happily bought US arms until the civil war started.

>When France cut off Israel’s weapon supplies in the late 1960s, all it did was to accelerate the development of the Israeli defense industry and replacement of all French hardware with US one.

This is pretending that they ever really lacked the support of the US, or that the UK support wasn't omnipresent as well. And, this directly contradicts your last point, as Israel was already shielded by the West yet pursued a nuclear program.

[flyinglizard]

Iran, North Korea and Syria are examples of countries that are a significant threat without having any Western arms in their arsenal, and operate outside of Western soft powers. The West is far from being the only arms supplier in town, and when countries can’t rely on Western political, technological and military support, it is very likely they will attempt to pursue WMDs to make up for it (as done by all three) and use assymeteic warfare instead of standing military (as done by Iran and Syria).

Israel was under a US arms export embargo up until the late 60s, for all intents and purposes. Israel was never shielded by the West - there has never been direct military intervention in Israel’s favor. This, combined with the trauma left by the holocaust only couple of decades prior, and the calls to the destruction of Israel - unprecedented that a country had its legitimacy disputed like this in world politics - have made it pursue nuclear weapons.

It was the threat of those weapons, in part, that brought Israel closer to the USA (see the emergency airlift of US military equipment to Israel during the war of 1973). No one wanted a desperate, nuclear state with its back to the wall.

Today, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia behave in line with Western interests because they feel embraced and protected. In the face of an imminent threat from Iran, they rely on Western arms and support. Show them you’re taking this support away for matters of public appearance, and the only choice those countries would have is to develop WMDs, both for deterrence and as the ultimate bargaining chip.

[boomboomsubban]

>Iran, North Korea and Syria are examples of countries that are a significant threat without having any Western arms in their arsenal, and operate outside of Western soft powers. The West is far from being the only arms supplier in town, and when countries can’t rely on Western political, technological and military support, it is very likely they will attempt to pursue WMDs to make up for it (as done by all three) and use assymeteic warfare instead of standing military (as done by Iran and Syria).

Really? They're the "threats?" How much Korean, Iranian, and Syrian blood is on the hands of Western arms dealers? Any "threat" they pose is a direct reaction to hostility from Western powers. If we want to stop the threat, we should stop threatening them.

>Israel was under a US arms export embargo up until the late 60s, for all intents and purposes. Israel was never shielded by the West - there has never been direct military intervention in Israel’s favor. This, combined with the trauma left by the holocaust only couple of decades prior, and the calls to the destruction of Israel - unprecedented that a country had its legitimacy disputed like this in world politics - have made it pursue nuclear weapons.

What? US started importing to Israel in 1960, and both France and the UK aided Israel in the Suez Crisis, followed by heavy US support in the Yom Kippur war as you mentioned. And if millions of your people getting killed followed by a continued call for your destruction are legitimate reasons for a nuclear program then nobody can object to North Korea's.

>Today, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia behave in line with Western interests because they feel embraced and protected. In the face of an imminent threat from Iran, they rely on Western arms and support.

Or because the US is a far greater threat than Iran, given what they've done in the region.

[chriselles]

I largely agree, but would add:

Saudi use of US precision weapons systems has been far from precise.

It still depends on weapon system operator skill, as well as rules of engagement, IE not knowingly targeting civilians or having much higher thresholds for civilian casualties.

As far as Saudi nuclear development, the Saudis have never been know for doing things themselves, preferring to hire mercenaries.

In the case of nuclear development, I think it’s safe to say that Saudi financing for Pakistani nuclear development (directly or tangentially) represents a nuclear program by proxy.

If push came to shove, I could easily imagine Pakistan flying several “leased” nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia to:

1) ensure Saudi regime continuity

2) enhance existing Pakistani influence with Saudi