That opinion and judgment is after the fact. What matter is perception and whether Iran is perceived as a threat or not. A good example is before the Kuwaiti invasion. Iraq claimed that Kuwaiti oil machinations harmed Iraqi interests and therefore Kuwait was perceived, at least claimed so by Saddam Hussein, as a threat. If Saudi Arabia deemed a nuclear Iran a sufficient threat, and if others in the region agreed, then Iran is a threat. An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities will be seen by all as a benefit.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was created as regional authority and by their consensus, Iraq deserved support in a war against Iran. In short, what happened then was dictated regionally.
Not much respect for Fisk from me. Fisk's so called 'analysis' often received so much discredits that a new Internet slang was created...
Fisking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word 'fisking' or to have been 'fisked' is now derogatory implying the target contain sloppy research, is grossly biased and has blatant disregard for proper contexts. Robert Fisk have been 'fisked' many times over.
What will happen is that all the countries that gave tacit approval for that Israeli strike will also crack down on internal transit routes that Iranian agents uses to provide material support for Hezbollah. It will make it difficult for Iran to retaliate against Israel through terrorism. Not saying impossible, just more difficult. Iranian missiles are not as accurate as Iranian propaganda claimed. If Iran launches them, other ME countries will also be hit as 'collateral damages'. And what happen if an errant Iranian ballistic missile hit or even damages either Medina or Mecca if Iran decides to retaliate against Saudi Arabia for allowing Israel airspace passage?
I am saying that nationalism still trump any supposedly religious unity, that Iranian oil problems will benefit Saudi oil profits in the long run, and that the Saudi clerics would rather see Jews than muslims attack Iran, an theological aberrant muslim country.
Lebanon was used by the Palestinians to attack Israel.
The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907
Article 1 is respected only if Articles 2 through 5 are enforced by Lebanon. Failure or refusal to enforce Articles 2 through 5 in one's own sovereign territory tantamount to the surrender of sovereignty to foreign powers for the purpose of waging a war that said neutral party claimed to be absent from. In short, failure or refusal to enforce Articles 2 through 5 equals to an indirect declaration of participation in said conflict and alliance to one side.
When?