ما لا تحمد عقباه

The 1987 GCC summit (or so I claim) witnessed the birth of a security strategy, which was finalized at some time in the early 90s (or so I claim).
Economic integration has been a factor since the inception of the council.
Military cooperation claims that any aggression towards one of the states, is considered an aggression towards all members of council. Hallah hallah.
Foreign policy is considered to be homogenous.

So in theory at least, prior to a nuclear Iran, the GCC could have a say in how the region's policy proceeds. Now would be a good time to wish I knew something about international policy, but an interesting question would be: what would have happened at the time of Operation: Iraq Invasion ('freedom' 7ag ely walaa'hom lel demoqra6eya ilqarbeya 3eshtaw), and the fact that a number of GCC countries (including Kuwait of course) functioned as a launch pad for the 'allied forces', in the shadow (fi thil) of a nuclear Iran at the time?

In other words, would the GCC have had the liberty of being the launch pad for the US forces in "invading" Eye-rak for the humane cause of "freeing" the Eye-raky people one day, and 'neutralising a threat to the free world' in the 'good riddance' of C-dam Hussain depending on which day of the week Mr Bush Jr was speaking? Obviously, I'm pissed at Mr Bush because his invasion of Eye-rak messed up my investment in the eye-rakee WMDs and how I was going to use them to 'terrorise the free world' (a.k.a Izreyeel?) because of my 'radical upbringing' and some alleged tie to Al Kaaydah.
You decide if I'm the liar now or Mr Bush.

Interesting to think about, but isn't really all fun and giggles.

Case in point, sarokh ardhe gaww ely kesar lekom e7yartain eb sog sharg.
Which is to say: the GCC countries, being a launch pad for any US military action, are prone to attack, and I am sure Sun Tzu would have said that the other party has 'the right' to retaliate.
Another case in point: assassination trial on il mar7om Sh. Jabir -allah yer7omah wesaknah fisee7 iljanat-
Point being: there are consequences, as well there should, for picking sides.

Now, Saudi Arabia's plea to the Russians in preventing any US attack on Iran is common sense. It would de-stabilize all the things mentioned at the beginning which the GCC countries share.
Also, Iran's "offer" of a treaty for "non aggression" (3adam i3tedaa') with the region (GCC included) should be jumped at.

It would have been jumped at, if and only if, we weren't anybody's bitches.
I have no idea and do not expect anyone to have any idea about what the details of that treaty include, but I would bet top dollar that it includes somewhere: Thou shall not allow any US or UN military action to be initiated in thou's water nor land.

Let's face it. Iran doesn't really want to 'attack us' the GCC, so a treaty of non-aggression could only be their way of securing that we, the GCC, won't bend over and allow any aggression to be initiated on our part from our land and waters.

If the GCC knew wassup وكان مجلس النتعاون سيد قراراته, they'd take the deal. *Play: Dawod 7sain's laugh in Fursan il Manakh*

Before any of that happens, I personally do not see how the region can proceed. All Iran did was announce a limited success in enriching uranium. Even if they did announce that they have nuclear warheads ready, I do not think anyone would've bought it.
Therefore, all the opposition is nothing but BS. Especially when France & Russia are countries with nuclear weapons.

Iran is "entitled" to nuclear energy, just as any other country is entitled to it. Which really is to say no one is "entitled" or should "claim the right", or "prevent another" of pursuing nuclear energy.
However, since we live in a non-pacifist world, and people should wake up before they get 'fucked the wake up': it's a matter of either everyone, or no one. Knowing that the 'no one route' is impossible, it should be open for everyone. Enough with the double standards.
I don't see any fuss on the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs. And they're already enlisted as a country with nuclear WEAPONS.

Having said that, Iran does pose a direct threat to the US and Israel, as well it should.

Any type of bargain, or "peaceful settlement" in today's politics can only be achieved through money, more money, and money spent on 'defense'. Including, like it or not, nuclear weapons. I'm really sorry that Barbie and the Teletubbies won't like the way things are run by in this world.

So, where do we stand as the GCC first?
Like I said, if we knew what's up, we would:
a) Make our governments act as if they don't approve of the Iranian nuclear program as it messes with our security.
b) Sign a non-aggression treaty and block any threat the US is wishing upon a star to make from our seas and land.
c) Do what we do best: act as if.

Now, that's one way to look at it. But it's not the whole picture, whether we (you) like it or not.
The other dimension that no one dares talk about officially is the Islamic one.
A muslim country possessing a nuclear weapon today is equivelant to any country having access to planes and tanks that work in world war one.
Without a muslim country having a nuclear weapon, we can only hope for peace through peace talks. Idiots would have you think they work.

Is Iran the best muslim country to have a nuclear weapon? Personally speaking, ya 7abatha lo mo bas Iran, la yakhoy, even KSA.

Would it help the muslim image? No, it would make you as a muslim look like more of a terrorist. Unfortunately, some of your 'fellow muslims' would like to think that too.

Sedna asked: Whose interest do we (as Muslims, Kuwaitis, Gulfians) have in mind?

That's the question everyone in the GCC should ask. We denounce Israel in summits, plead for the Palestinian (Il Quds actually) cause, and refuse economic trade with Israel. Common grounds with Iran. This is the 'muslim in us' speaking.

Iran has extended the hand for a non-aggression treaty. And I personally think that it was about time we figured out that we, the GCC, are the primary energy source for the US. And that we should really think about our safety on the national level and our cause as practicing-muslims first, before putting the priorities of the US and the Israeli ally.

I leave you with this excpert from the link provided above. It should, I hope, give you a better understanding and thus make a more honest judgement and form a realistic opinion:

" Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or to having developed nuclear weapons, or even to having a nuclear weapons program. Although Israel claims that Dimona is a "research reactor," no scientific reports based on work done there have ever been published."

I'm sorry to be the bearer of 'real news', but things just aren't clear cut as you would like them to be no more. Live with it.