Brewing Storm in the Gulf
PROF. K. N. PANDITA

The US could not stop China or India from having the deadly weapon. It was partly because of their enormous landmass and partly because Washington followed its own perception of balance of power in Asia. But in the case of Pakistan, the US knew of her clandestine acquisition of nuclear components more than many within the official circles in Islamabad. But again owing to political considerations, Washington closed its eyes.

Islamabad has generally desisted from spitting fire against Israel. It even cooperated with Israel by facilitating transshipment of Israeli arms consignments to Iran during Iran-Iraq war. As far Pakistan’s nuclear capability, Washington stands an unwritten guarantee to Isreal that Pakistani Generals or civilian power holders will not dare pose a threat to her.

Evaluating the animus against it in Baghdad under Saddam and Teheran under Ayatollahs, Tel Aviv had found the former a much bigger threat than the tantrums of the clergy. It had once destroyed Baghdad’s nuclear installations. Hence followed the decision of destroying Saddam and Iraq, a strategic operation that still continues notwithstanding the costs involved. With Iran now embarking on a similar adventure, the Jewish lobby in the US corridors of power has realized that the reason for prompting military action against Iraq holds equally good for Iran. The question is not who supplied Iran the elements of nuclear technology and the secrets of enriching uranium to make it weapon worthy. The question is that the Islamic Republic, though essentially non-Arab, would want to have the deadly weapon in order to make an impact in the Arab world to which it has the proximity and also do the Saddamist sword-rattling against Israel.

The amusing question is that against which country or countries is Iran going to use the nuclear bomb? Who are her enemies, rivals or competitors? Teheran paints Israel as its "enemy number one". There is no economic and commercial rivalry between the two. There is no sharp rivalry between them for political influence and for regional superiority. In the West Asian sector, Iran is the odd man out being non-Arab and so is Israel, being what she is. The Iranian theocrats, however, follow the edict from the great Ayatollah Khumeini to hate Israel and re-capture Qods. Thus religious hatred is mixed up with political motivation. This is too dangerous a prognosis.

Iran cannot use the nuclear bomb against |Saudi Arabia, a country, which it considers a formidable rival. With the rise of the revolution, the Iranian Islamic leadership once did dream of a fall of Saudi monarchical system. Late Ayatollah Khumeini went to the extent of saying that all rulers from the days of Yazid down to his own times were usurpers – an obvious reference to the Saudi monarchy. But taking into account that the US has already a protective umbrella spread out over the Saudi monarchy, the question of Iran brandishing its nuclear muscle against Saudis is totally irrational and impracticable. Thus it is only Israel, which must be apprehensive of Iran going nuclear.

Iranian official circles are fully aware of the disaster, which a nuclear holocaust would bring in its trail in Asia if it comes to military retaliation   by the US and her allies. Should she risk it?

Any sensible well-wisher of Iran would advise the Iranian authorities to wind up Iran’s nuclear programmes for manufacturing of nuclear weapons and its use as war machine. Iran should not look at the entire issue merely from national interests but more importantly from international interests. Iran is not only a major supplier of liquid energy to the world, she is also strategically located to control the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea water lane that is used by the entire world for huge oil tankers to run up and down the stream. Therefore Iran owes some moral responsibility to the humanity at large.

If Iran obstinately continues with her nuclear arms strategy, it is the humanity and in particular the Asian people who will have to bear the brunt.

There is already internal political dissension rife in Iran. The radicals are pitted against the moderates; the students are pitted against conservatism and the Mujahideen-e Khalq continue to be active outside Iran. The US is strangulating her overland oil and gas pipeline projects to the warm waters of the Persian Gulf and then to the world markets. Any armed confrontation with the US would result in re-enactment of the Iraqi experience but with extremely dire consequences for the Iranian society, which is much more homogeneous than what the Iraqi society was.

Iran has had a history of good relations with three major European powers, France, Germany and Great Britain. AT the moment a dialogue is going on between Iran and the three European community members. This augurs well both for Iran and for the rest of the world including the US. And quite understandably the US attached much significance to these talks.

Teheran should not be greedy enough to elicit more and more concessions and privileges, material as well as political from these talks and then at the same time dole out threats that she is capable of producing the hated weapon. This is not the ideal strategy of handling sensitive issue of the weapon of mass destruction. A radical change in approach has to be made. The entire world is interested in the stability and solidarity of Iran. But if Iran herself chooses to inflict damage upon her the world will stay back watching the downward trend as helpless observers. Iran must very seriously and very sincerely continue to talk to her European friends and never lose the opportunity of an amicable settlement. Iran should remember that a nuclear bomb is made at a great cost and then it remains abandoned to the basement. The example of India and Pakistan should be an eye opener. Even when the Indians and the Pakistanis came to close war in Kargil, neither of the two had the courage to use the bomb. And it was the US, which warned both of them and that is the truth about the world in which we are living.