Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Even as the US and Western European countries UK, Germany and France are discussing with Iran the need for Tehran to completely abjure its uranium fuel cycle activities, it is ironic that neither side raises in public the question why Iran insists on the need to keep its nuclear fuel cycle option nuclear weapon option open. Iran was attacked with weapons of mass destruction chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war in the 8217;80s and at that time the US and European powers and all Sunni-ruled Islamic nations not only kept quiet but shielded Saddam Hussein at the UN. Iran was subjected to seven years of war and attacks by hundreds of missiles financed by Sunni money from oil-exporting Arab countries, particularly Wahabi Saudi Arabia.
The Shia-Sunni animosity goes back more than 12 centuries. Even today in Pakistan Shias, while praying in mosques, are often attacked by Sunni extremists. The recent elections in Iraq will inevitably lead to the emergence of a second Shia power in the Gulf. The democratic spirit which the US wants to promote in the area is likely to lead to greater assertion of Shia autonomy in various Gulf states such as UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and eastern areas of Saudi Arabia where most of the oil fields are. The Iranians have every reason to be worried about possible Sunni animosity against this rising Shia influence.
Under these circumstances, will the Iranians totally abjure their nuclear option, especially when the US and the West are not even willing to disclose to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the rest of the world full details of Pakistani proliferation and Pakistan8217;s links with the Western European firms dealing in nuclear black-market transactions? The US not only shielded Saddam8217;s use of chemical weapons against Iran, but also Chinese supply of M-9 and M-11 missiles to Pakistan from 1993 to 2000. And till today it has not sought an explanation from Saudi Arabia for its acquisition of CSS-2 missiles. While the Israelis highlight the Iranian nuclear threat, they never refer to the Pakistani-Saudi threat. That would indicate that in their assessment the Saudi-Pakistan nuclear-missile capability is intended mainly to deter the rise of Shia autonomy in West Asia.
A remarkable aspect of the debate on the Iranian nuclear threat in the US and Europe is the near silence of most of the media and academia on the Iranian threat perception, and on the history of Pakistani proliferation. While President Bush repeatedly refers to Iran as part of the axis of evil, he is silent on the nation which holds the record on nuclear proliferation and on whose proliferation activities the US Congress is demanding reports from the CIA. The longer the Iranians hold out, the greater the possibility of Pakistani-Saudi nuclear threats to the Shia regions in the Middle East getting exposed. During the recent confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked about the possibility of Pakistani WMDs nuclear weapons falling into wrong hands. She replied there were contingency plans to deal with such situations and they could be discussed only in closed executive sessions. Yet the American executive, academia and media do not discuss the Pakistani nuclear threat to the western world or Iran. The nuclear flashpoint is not Kashmir as ill-informed western academics and mediapersons often claim. It is the Persian Gulf area which saw the longest and most intensive war in the developing world with the use of WMDs by Saddam, with full support of the West. Unfortunately, caught in the clutches of blackmail of the Sunni Pakistan-Saudi Arabian axis, the US is unwittingly lending itself to stoking the fires of a 12-centuries-old animosity. Both Wahabi Saudi Arabia and Sunni Pakistan have a vital interest in getting Iran stripped of its nuclear capability even as they manage to preserve theirs. The longer the US conflict with Iran continues, the more the US will need bases and facilities in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It would also help the two authoritarian Muslim states to preserve their regimes longer as the US gets entangled in Iran.
Iran is not Iraq and the Iranian regime has a lot more legitimacy than Saddam8217;s had 8212; and if Iran is attacked it would be in a position to destabilise the entire Shia world. That may suit the interests of Saudi Arabian and Pakistani regimes. It is often overlooked the only Middle Eastern Muslim states which hold reasonably fair and free elections are Iran and Lebanon, both Shia states. Now the Shia majority Iraq is joining them. No doubt their constitutions are not based on liberal-democratic principles. While these states accept the principles of representative government, Sunni Islam is resistant to that principle. The US appears to ignore that there are greater chances of earlier and easier democratisation of countries which accept representative government than states which maintain that representative rule is un-Islamic.
