Iran’s Bomb and Pakistan

[Sugarcane]

Just because the Saudi's and Iranian's hate each other doesn't mean we have to hate 1 too.. We will be friendly to both.

Example.. India and usa gets along well.. India has close alliance with russia.. Russia and usa don't get along.

Brother in case of Iran and KSA, choosing one side is not possible or remaining neutral itself is challenging because of religious factor.

 

[lem34]

Just because the Saudi's and Iranian's hate each other doesn't mean we have to hate 1 too.. We will be friendly to both.

Example.. India and usa gets along well.. India has close alliance with russia.. Russia and usa don't get along.

That's very superficial. India sided with Russians and then Americans. This friends with both is rubbish and cosmetic::


We will have to play some sort of role and I hope it is one for playing peace

A former respected ambassador of India wrote in article about India/Russia/America :

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad


Francis Fukuyama wrote a sequel to his celebrated book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) no sooner than he realised that he was hopelessly wrong in his prediction that the global triumph of political and economic liberalism was at hand. He wrote: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the crossing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such… That is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western democracy as the final form of human government.” But in no time he realised his rush to judgment and he retracted with another book.

However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting ‘non-alignment’ in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumaya’s own retraction.

Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a ‘Russia option’ again and Boris Yeltsin’s Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ‘ally’ of the west — and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?

In sum, India got entrapped in a ‘unipolar predicament’. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that India’s main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the US’s “attention”.

Russia, of course, went on to prove our pundits completely wrong. Russia remerged as a global player and the evidence of it is today spread (and is poised to expand) all across global theatres — Libya, Syria, Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc.
Why I am underscoring all this is that I am strongly reminded of that sad chapter in the recent history of India’s foreign policy when I see the huge ‘psywar’ being let loose on Pakistan currently when that country too is at a crossroads with regard to its future policy directions in a highly volatile external enviornment.

In Pakistan’s case, the ‘psywar’ substitutes Russia with China. The US’s ‘Track II’ thesis is that China is hopelessly marooned in its own malaise so much so that it has no time, interest or resources to come to Pakistan’s aid, the two countries’ ‘all-weather friendship’ notwithstanding. Let me cull out two fine pieces of this ongoing ‘psywar’.

One is the lengthy article featured by America’s prestigious flag-carrier Foreign Affairs magazine in early December titled “China’s Pakistan conundrum”. Its argument is: ‘China will not simply bail out Pakistan with loans, investment, and aid, as those watching the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations seem to expect. China will pursue politics, security, and geopolitical advantage regardless of Islamabad’s preferences’. It puts forth the invidious argument that China’s real use for Pakistan is only to “box out New Delhi in Afghanistan and the broader region.”

Alongside the argument is the highly-tendentious vector that is beyond easy verification, namely, that US and China are increasingly ‘coordinating’ their policies toward Pakistan. Diplomacy is part dissimulation and we simply don’t know whether the US and China are even anywhere near beginning to ‘coordinate’ about ‘coordinating’ their regional policies in South Asia, especially with regard to Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The odds are that while the US and China may have some limited convergent interests, conceivably, their strategic interests are most certainly in sharp conflict.

A milder version of this frontal attack by US pundits on Pakistan’s existential dilemma appears in Michael Krepon’s article last week titled ‘Pakistan’s Patrons’, which, curiously, counsels Islamabad to follow India’s foreign-policy footsteps and make up with the US. Krepon literally suggests that the Pakistanis are living in a fool’s paradise.

The obvious thrust of this ‘psywar’ — strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s — is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real ‘China option’. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad — unlike their Indian counterparts — are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a ‘unipolar predicament’, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.
Thus, the visit by the Chinese delegation led by State Councilor, Dai Bingguo to Islamabad at this point in time assumes much significance. Dai is one of the highest-ranking figures in the Chinese foreign-policy establishment and the fact he is leading a delegation that includes of senior Chinese military officials is very significant. Dai is scheduled to meet not only Pakistan’s political leadership at the highest level but also army chief Ashfaq Kayani and ISI head Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

Obviously, Beijing is making a big point through the timing of this visit as well, which, incidentally, is taking place at a time of great uncertainties in Pakistan’s internal affairs. When it comes to relations with China, it must be assumed that Pakistan’s civil and military leaderships are together.

Dai doesn’t really have a US counterpart as he is ranked above the FM. Arguably, it would be secretary of state Hillary Clinton. If so, to what extent Dai ‘coordinated’ his proposed visit with Clinton will be of particular interest. The future of the US’s ‘psywar’ on Pakistan is at stake.

The big question is whether this would be Dai’s last major trip to South Asia, as he is a key member of President Hu Jintao’s team and China is moving into a period of transition at the leadership level. Dai’s visit to Delhi for the Special Representatives meet was called off at the last minute.
Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

 

[Sugarcane]

Therefore we must play strictly neutral and plead with both sides to see sense. I know we have our problems but this will be another problem. So we must encourage for them to stand down. Maybe invite leaders of both countries to Islamabad for talks??

Yeh - We can keep trying, koshish karnay mai kya haraj hai

 

[lem34]

Iranians have no problems with Arabs over sect. It's more about patriotism and racial issues. The majority of Iranians don't even care about sectarian issues.

Arian what role would you as an Iranian like to see Pakistan play

---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 PM ----------

Brother in case of Iran and KSA, choosing one side is not possible or remaining neutral itself is challenging because of religious factor.

You hit the nail on the head it will be very difficult for us to side with either side and also very difficult to stay neutral. Its like seing two of your brothers fighting what does one do but try to stop it

 

[Sugarcane]

You hit the nail on the head it will be very difficult for us to side with either side and also very difficult to stay neutral. Its like seing two of your brothers fighting what does one do but try to stop it

And most of the time third one who is trying to stop them get hurt more than the ones fighting and sometime fighters start beating mediator, it's really scary

 

[lem34]

And most of the time third one who is trying to stop them get hurt more than the ones fighting and sometime fighters start beating mediator, it's really scary

I have been thinking the consequences for our neighbourhood are very bad on any attack on Iran. I mean for China and India also.

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------

Even if Saudi don't attack directly but America and or Israel attacks we will be in a difficult position. I suppose one good thing is that some of our nuke tipped missiles can reach Tel Aviv. I think any attack on Iran could very easily escalate out of hand involving lots of countries

 

[Sugarcane]

I have been thinking the consequences for our neighbourhood are very bad on any attack on Iran. I mean for China and India also.

Indians are businessmen, I don't think they will have any problem. However - Chin will feel threaten.

 

[Mosamania]

Conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran just by themselves is close to impossible to happen on its own. Each country holds some sort of a deterrence against one another. Its the USA and Israel that would love nothing more than to see us two fighting.

USA can not do it because it doesn't have the money to do so on the long run and wither they will win or lose they will effectively lose their super-power status, So the best option is to get the countries with money to do it. Most of our budget goes to development and I would like us to keep it that way. So does Iran.

If you haven't noticed USA is poking both sides to take military actions any military action against one another by either side.

 

[Arian]

Arian what role would you as an Iranian like to see Pakistan play

Well, Of course as an Iranian I prefer that Pakistan sides with us, but it's more than impossible. Saudi Arabia funded Pakistan's nuclear program and has been an ally of Pakistan from several decades. It is also able to use its influence in Pakistan through Salafists/Wahhabists to destabilize Pakistan. From the other side, Iran was among the very first countries that recognized Pakistan and we have thousands of kilometers of common border while you have no borders with Saudi Arabia and we can provide you with natural gas in the shortest path possible. I believe Pakistan should remain neutral. It's better for the regional stability and Pakistan's interest that she remains neutral because even if Pakistan sides with Iran then a destabilized Pakistan in a war situation can threaten our security in borders as well.
As long as Pakistan doesn't give nukes to Saudi Arabia I believe Iran will accept Pakistan's neutrality. A nuclear Saudi Arabia with the current leadership of the country can be very dangerous for Iranian interests because the western world will simply ignore the threat posed by their nuclear arsenal in case of a war with Iran.

 

[Sugarcane]

Even if Saudi don't attack directly but America and or Israel attacks we will be in a difficult position. I suppose one good thing is that some of our nuke tipped missiles can reach Tel Aviv. I think any attack on Iran could very easily escalate out of hand involving lots of countries

Why can't Pakistan have defense pact with both and say hey dudes we have enough nuke stocks will give you more than enough in case of any 3rd party attacks, why you are wasting money and facing sanctions, however if you want to fight with each other than use sticks or swords, at-least don't damage holy places.


Looks like i am talking like Zaid Hamid

 

[lem34]

Indians are businessmen, I don't think they will have any problem. However - Chin will feel threaten.

Indians will be affected price of oil

 

[lem34]

If you haven't noticed USA is poking both sides to take military actions any military action against one another by either side.

That's why America is arming UAE and Saudi and making money at the same time. It would be great if a great leader arose from either Saudi or Iran and pushed for diffusing and try to make friends with each other. that to me would signify a great Muslim leader

 

[Mosamania]

That's why America is arming UAE and Saudi and making money at the same time. It would be great if a great leader arose from either Saudi or Iran and pushed for diffusing and try to make friends with each other. that to me would signify a great Muslim leader

Actually it is better to arm than to push for war. Again as I said deterrence. And Arms prestige is needed to get our plan for a larger GCC to work. Right now even though we have good weapons but we are still not supreme as of yet. Sure the US is making money but so do we on the long run.

 

[lem34]

Well, Of course as an Iranian I prefer that Pakistan sides with us, but it's more than impossible. Saudi Arabia funded Pakistan's nuclear program and has been an ally of Pakistan from several decades. It is also able to use its influence in Pakistan through Salafists/Wahhabists to destabilize Pakistan. From the other side, Iran was among the very first countries that recognized Pakistan and we have thousands of kilometers of common border while you have no borders with Saudi Arabia and we can provide you with natural gas in the shortest path possible. I believe Pakistan should remain neutral. It's better for the regional stability and Pakistan's interest that she remains neutral because even if Pakistan sides with Iran then a destabilized Pakistan in a war situation can threaten our security in borders as well.
As long as Pakistan doesn't give nukes to Saudi Arabia I believe Iran will accept Pakistan's neutrality. A nuclear Saudi Arabia with the current leadership of the country can be very dangerous for Iranian interests because the western world will simply ignore the threat posed by their nuclear arsenal in case of a war with Iran.

Don't worry brother that's why i said its not possible we take sides. Because Saudi is close to our establishment and also we have very good reasons never to fight our Iranian brothers. Many Pakistanis would like Pakistan to behave like Iran to Americans

---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------

We need between these three countries at least one leader to push our countries closer.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ----------

Why can't Pakistan have defense pact with both and say hey dudes we have enough nuke stocks will give you more than enough in case of any 3rd party attacks, why you are wasting money and facing sanctions, however if you want to fight with each other than use sticks or swords, at-least don't damage holy places.


Looks like i am talking like Zaid Hamid

If we had a good leaders that would not be a joke but a reality. The three countries have so much to gain from such an alliance. Plus China would be friendly as well

 

[Developereo]

I really don't think Saudi Arabia is the problem; KSA and Iran are getting wise to the Western manipulation.

The more dangerous puppets seem to be the Emirs of UAE.