Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About inara

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion
  1. Asalam a alikum , i need advise badly for a specific matter ,few years back i perform Istikhara prayer for 7 days and each night i saw a dream about type of Jinns and Red Colors ,I performed Istikhara about going to America and stay there , i read on internet that Shatian has the ability to come in our dreams and this can happen with Istikhara so one should always follow what his/her heart is inclined towards and also one should seek advise from wise people and one should follow the events e.g if you perform Istikhara about going to a foreign country and after that you are having trouble in visa issues etc etc and your heart is also not inclined or you see something in your dream against it then you should not go ,in my event i came here and i after 2 years now i strongly feel i make a wrong decision 1) i don't have a job related with my profession , in bad economy i am doing a labour job here and living hand to mouth 2)I am surrounding by a very uneducated and bad community of Muslims here totally away from Islam and in there culture its free mixing , dancing , wine , gambling ,boy friends and girl friends etc 3) I am few months away from getting american nationality so my question is what should i do now repent and perform Istikhara about going back to my country and do whatever is in my mind Thanks ALLAHHAFIZ
  2. Asif Zardari

    Well Asif ardari is a land lord and also a brave person also His party is in Power Now lets see How he and is party Face the Challanges faced by pakisan too Top of the List is Security , Economic situation , and other crises like Judicial ,Electriciy etc PPP need to do some serious measures rigt away specially about war on terror
  3. Asalam alikum , recently i study a lot about Istikhara Prayer , in my life i did Istikhara few times and by Grace of Allah i was rightly guided in those issues Now i am facing one of the most critical issue of my life I did Istikhara many many times , normally i studied that Dreams are not the signs of Istikhara Prayer and if someone Can't have clear Guidance as a Istikhara Prayer ,he/she should make decision from logic and wisdom and then leave the results to Allah because Istikhara is a DAWA of guidance i did istikhara many times on the issue and it was positive (as far i understand it ) few times and one time it was negative and few times i didn't have any clear indications my question is if dreams as a result of istikhara is not the proper Sunnah then why everytime i see dreams related with my issue when i make istikhara prayer second if there is a confusion as a result of istikhara prayer what a person should do Thanks Allahhafiz
  4. A Continous Saga!

    Asalam alikum , well Do Istikhara regularly before reaching any conclusion , and ready to accept whatever Guidance Allah leads you towards Thanks Allahhafiz
  5. Asalam ailikum , I really want to know that Istikhara Prayer as taking General Guidance is allowed or not i mean Istikhara not for a specific matter , as a general direction is right or wrong Thanks Walikum Asalam
  6. Unhappy Marriage

    Well Divorce is the tool of Satan and should be use at a last option when there is no way out , Divorce is hated by Allah among Halal things Satan is always pleased with the Divorce i would suggest 1) figure out what is the root cause of your bad relation with your spouce 2) talk with your spouce about the problem and how you both can resolve them 3)if you both can't resolve the problems , consult with the elders and friends (not your father,mother,uncle etc) unbiased persons from both sides and try to present problem there and get its solution 4) consult marriage counsler 5) even if you are not sure about your marriage do istikhara before thinking about quitting marriage and divorce Assalamu alaikum
  7. Hunkering down in Afghanistan, watching 'NATO bleed to death on the Afghan plains' By Mike Whitney Online Journal Contributing Writer Jul 7, 2008, 00:19 Email this article Printer friendly page Afghanistan was supposed to be the "good war"; a "just response" to the attacks of September 11. It was supposed to bring Bin Laden to justice and quash the threat of terrorism where it originated. Ninety-five percent of the American people supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Now less than half think the U.S. will prevail. The war was promoted as a way to replace a repressive fundamentalist regime with a democratic government based on western ideals. Bush promised to rebuild war-torn country, transform its feudal system into a free market economy, and liberate its women from the oppression of Islamic extremism. But none of the promises have been kept and none of the goals have been achieved. The "good war" has turned out to be what Tariq Ali calls "a brutal war of revenge." After seven years of fighting, the country is in ruins and its future is more uncertain than ever. The Taliban have regrouped and taken over strategically vital areas in the south. They have launched attacks on US supply lines coming from Pakistan and taken control of Khost. Presently, they are inching their way north and a battle for the capital appears to be inevitable. The US does not have the manpower to establish security in Afghanistan, so it has stepped up its bombing campaign making 2008 the most deadly year on record. Civilian casualties have skyrocketed and millions of Afghans have become refugees. The careless killing of civilians has only strengthened the Taliban and swollen their ranks. The US has lost the struggle for hearts and minds; the Afghans have grown tired of foreign occupation. Michael Scheuer: "We are closer to defeat in Afghanistan than Iraq at the moment." At a recent conference at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, Michael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station, made this statement: "Afghanistan is lost for the United States and its allies. To use Kipling's term, 'We are watching NATO bleed to death on the Afghan plains.' But what are we going to do? There are 20 million Pashtuns; are we going to invade? We don't have enough troops to even form a constabulary that would control the country. The disaster occurred at the beginning. The fools that run our country thought that a few hundreds CIA officers and a few hundred special forces officers could take a country the size of Texas and hold it, were quite literally fools. And now we are paying the price." Scheuer is right. The violence is only getting worse and the prospects for success are nil. The US is just digging a deeper hole by staying. The problem is more ideological than it is strategic. War is not an instrument for positive social change; it's about killing people and blowing up things. Dolling-up military aggression and calling it "preemption" can work for a while, but eventually the truth comes out. Democracy and modernity don't come from the barrel of a gun. Scheuer's pessimism is more widespread among military and political elites than many realize. The situation on the ground is hopeless. The Afghan resistance is getting stronger while the US is getting more desperate. A recent article in the Toronto Globe and Mail pointed out that the rising popularity of the Taliban has nothing to do with an "allegiance to Mullah Omar or the Taliban leadership." The people are simply fed up with "the presence of western troops" and the "deaths of relatives or neighbors". This raises the question of whether the occupation is in fact breeding more jihadis than they are killing. By every objective standard, conditions are worse now than they were before the invasion in 2001. The economy is in shambles, unemployment is soaring, reconstruction is minimal, security is non-existent and malnutrition is at levels that rival sub-Saharan Africa. Afghanistan is not safer, more prosperous, or freer. The vast majority of Afghans are still living in grinding poverty exacerbated by the constant threat of violence. The Karzai government has no popular mandate nor any power beyond the capital. The regime is a sham maintained by a small army of foreign mercenaries and a collaborative media which promotes it as a sign of budding democracy. But there is no democracy or sovereignty. Afghanistan is occupied by foreign troops. According to The Senlis Council's report, "Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the brink": "The security situation in Afghanistan has reached crisis proportions. The Taliban's ability to establish a presence throughout the country is now proven beyond doubt; 54 percent of Afghanistan’s landmass hosts a permanent Taliban presence, primarily in southern Afghanistan. "The Taliban are the de facto governing authority in significant portions of territory in the south and east, and are starting to control parts of the local economy and key infrastructure such as roads and energy supply. The insurgency also exercises a significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change." It is not even clear that women are better off now than they were under the Taliban. According to Afghan Parliament member, Malalai Joya, "Every month dozens of women commit self-immolation to end their desolation. . . . The American war on terror is a mockery and so is the US support of the present government in Afghanistan which is dominated by Northern Alliance terrorists. . . . Far more civilians have been killed by the US military in Afghanistan than were killed in the US in the tragedy of September 11. More Afghan civilians have been killed by the US than were ever killed by the Taliban . . . The US should withdrawal as soon as possible. We need liberation not occupation." ("The War on Terror is a Mockery", Elsa Rassbach, Z Magazine Nov 2007) The Taliban had effectively eradicated poppy cultivation before the invasion in 2001. Now, after six years of war, the opium trade is back with a vengeance and Afghanistan accounts for 93 percent of world's heroin production. 2007 was a particularly good year yielding 20 percent more opium than a year before. Heroin is now Afghanistan's number one export; the nation has become a US narco-colony. Bush could care less about drug trafficking. What matters to him is stabilizing Afghanistan so that the myriad US bases that are built along pipeline corridors can provide a safe channel for oil and natural gas heading to markets in the Far East. The administration has staked America's future on a risky strategy to establish a foothold in Central Asia in order to control the flow of energy from the Caspian to China and India. But US policymakers are no longer confident of victory in Afghanistan. In fact, according to a Pentagon report released last week, the Taliban have "coalesced into a resilient insurgency" and security conditions are expected to "deteriorate sharply" in the near future. As the situation becomes direr, Bush will have to decide whether to move more troops from Iraq or face growing losses in Afghanistan. (For the second month in a row, the number of combat troops killed in Afghanistan has exceeded Iraq.) Pentagon warlords now believe the only way they can defeat the Taliban is by striking at bases in Pakistan. But it's a reckless plan that could inflame passions in Pakistan and trigger a region-wide conflict. Gradually, the US is being lured into a bigger quagmire. Obama to the rescue? Presidential candidate Barak Obama supports a stronger commitment to the war in Afghanistan and has proposed "sending at least two additional combat brigades -- or 7,000 to 10,000 troops -- to Afghanistan, while deploying more Special Operations forces to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. He has also proposed increasing non-military aid to Afghanistan by at least $1 billion per year." [Wall Street Journal] Obama, backed by Brzezinski and other Clinton foreign policy advisers, has focused his attention on the "war on terror," that dismal public relations coup which conceals America's desire to become a major player in the Great Game, the battle for supremacy on the Asian continent. Obama appears to be even more eager to repeat history than McCain. Since neither of the two presidential candidates support the rapid withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, the killing will likely persist and the country will slip further and further into chaos. The end however, is not in doubt. As Scheuer assures us, the occupation of Afghanistan will end as it did for "the British, the Soviets, and Alexander 400 years before Christ." Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney[at]msn(contact admin if its a beneficial link). Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
  8. in order to explain this i have to tell my background , i am a Jr IT professional , i am MS in Computer Science and have some good industry certifications too , because of no guidance here i feel i lost my track and there for i am having great trouble in finding job, the situation is i know my skills and i know i have unlimited potential in one of my subjects (still i lack some of the skills) i was not guided so i didn't knew about those skills which are heart of this IT industry now i have 2 options but plz remember that making and keeping up to date within IT industry is hard and time consuming my first option is to get any job or atleast a technician job in IT and carry on my studies ,with family etc around and with job its really a time consuming factor and very difficult task second option is to forget about everything and go back to my country and gain those skills and then came back here and get a job at the mid level (i am sure after getting those skills i can easily bypass the Jr level or entry level job) I talk with few of my friends back home and they said to me that for a new person all those skills can not be mastered in 15 months but for person like me with a strong IT background its a matter of few months if i only go back for studies and carry on my studies at the pace of 10 hours per day also note i know my lines now , the direction is right ,i must have to make decision now and act quickly i know my relatives , family members will mostly oppose my decisions but i want your thoughts and advise specially from people who are in IT or carrier oriented people Thanks
  9. "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran? by Michel Chossudovsky The Bush administration is envisaging the possibility of launching a naval blockade directed against Iran. Extensive war games were held off the US Atlantic Coastline under "Operation Brimstone" in late July. These war games were activated shortly after the submission in the US House of Representatives (May 22), of a bill (H CON 362) which called upon the Bush administration to carry out an economic blockade directed against Iran. "Operation Brimstone": North Atlantic Ocean War Games Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 08-4 'Operation Brimstone' commenced on July 21 in North Carolina and off the Eastern US Atlantic coast from Virginia to Florida. Of significance was the participation of British, French, Brazilian and Italian naval forces as part of a multinational US naval exercise directed against Iran. More than a dozen ships participated in the naval exercise including the USS Theodore Roosevelt and its Carrier Strike Group Two, the expeditionary Strike Group Iwo Jima, the French submarine Amethyste, Britain's HMS Illustrious Carrier Strike Group, Brazil's navy frigate Greenhalgh and Italy's ITS Salvatore Todaro (S 526) submarine. (See Middle East Times, August 11, 2008 , Dailypress(contact admin if its a beneficial link), July 28, 2008 , you are not allowed to post links yetmt-milcom.blogspot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)) Stating the purpose of a war game and identifying the real "foreign enemy" by name is not the normal practice, unless there is a decision to send an unequivocal message to the enemy. Invariably in war games, the foreign enemy is given a fictitious country name: Irmingham, Nemazee, Rubeck and Churia stand for Iran, North Korea, Russia and China (codes used in the Vigilant Shield 07 War Games' Scenario opposing the US to four fictitious enemies. (See William Arkin, The Vigilant Shield 07 War Games: Scenario opposing the US to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, Washington Post, February 10, 2007) In the case of "Operation Brimstone", the stated military purpose of the naval exercise is crystal clear: the North Atlantic war games are carried out with a view "to practice enforcing an eventual blockade on Iran". These naval exercises are intended to display US and allied "combat capabilities as a warning to Iran." They are tantamount to a declaration of war: "The drill is aimed at training for operation in shallow coastal waters such as the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz." The USS Theodore Roosevelt equipped with 80-plus combat planes, was carrying an additional load of French Naval Rafale fighter jets from the French carrier Charles de Gaulle. (Ibid). France's E2C Hawkeye early warning aircraft, which was "assigned to the 4th Squadron began flight operations with Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8 aboard Roosevelt, marking the first integrated U.S. and French carrier qualifications aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier. French Rafale fighter aircraft assigned to the 12th Squadron also joined." Navy.mil, July 24, 2008 Anglo-US war games are a routine practice. What is significant in these large scale naval manoeuvres is the active participation of France, Brazil and Italy in war games which are explicitly directed against Iran. The participation of these countries in extensive war games points to broad consensus. It also suggests that the participating nations have accepted (in political and military terms) to participate in a US-led military operation directed against Iran. The active participation of France and to a lesser extent Italy also suggests that the European Union is firmly behind the US initiative: "Operations with our friends and allies are the cornerstone of the U.S. Navy's current maritime strategy," said Capt. Ladd Wheeler, Roosevelt's commanding officer. "These combined operations will certainly pay dividends into the future as our navies continue to work together to increase global security."Navy.mil, July 24, 2008 Another important precedent has been set. Brazil's President Luis Ignacio da Silva has ordered the dispatch of the Greenhalgh Frigate, marking the first time that a Brazilian warship (under a government which claims to be "socialist") has operated as part of a US. strike group in war games directed against a foreign country. According to the Greenhalgh's Commander Claudio Mello, "It allows us to be one more asset in an international operation." (Pilot Online(contact admin if its a beneficial link), July 28, 2008) Brazil's Frigate Greenhalgh dispatched to participate in US War Games Congressional Initiative The naval blockade against Iran, which is tantamount to a declaration of war, is a bipartisan project, which has tacitly been endorsed by the Democrats. In May 2008, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives (H.CON. RES 362) that called for the enforcement of an all out economic blockade, including the encroachment of trade and the freeze of monetary transactions with the Islamic Republic: "The President [shall] initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran .... prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program." "[H. CON. RES. 362] urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, ... international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks; ... energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps." (See full text of H.CON RES 362) (emphasis added) Meanwhile, H CON RES 362 has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A similar procedure has taken place in the Senate. Concurrent Military Operations: War in the Caucasus The planning of a naval blockade by the Bush administration (Operation Brimstone, H Con 362) occurs at the very outset of an unfolding crisis in the Caucasus, marked by the Georgian air and ground attacks on South Ossetia and Russia's counterattack. The timing and chronology of these related and concurrent military operations is crucial. We are not dealing with separate and unrelated military events. The war in Georgia is an integral part of US-NATO-israeli war preparations in relation to Iran. Georgia does not act militarily without the assent of Washington. The Georgian head of State is a US proxy and Georgia is a de facto US protectorate. The attack on South Ossetia was launched by Georgia on the orders of the US and NATO. US military advisers and trainers were actively involved in the planning of Georgia's attacks on the South Ossetia capital. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, War in the Caucasus, Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation, Global Research, August 10, 2008) Russia is an ally of Iran. Russia is currently caught up in a military confrontation with Georgia. The Georgian attack on South Ossetia constitutes an act of provocation directed against Russia. It creates an aura of instability in the Caucasus, marked by heavy civilian casualties. It serves to distract Russia from playing a meaningful diplomatic and military role, which might undermine or obstruct the US-led war plans directed against Iran. Both Russia and China have bilateral military cooperation agreements with Iran. Russia supplies the Islamic Republic with military hardware and technical expertise in relation to Iran's air defense system and missile program. Since 2005, Iran has an observer member status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In turn, the SCO has ties to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), an overlapping military cooperation agreement between Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan. The structure and strength of military alliances is crucial. In the context of US war plans directed against Iran, the US is intent upon weakening Iran's allies, namely Russia and China. In the case of China, Washington is seeking to disrupt Beijing's bilateral ties with Tehran as well as Iran's rapprochement with the SCO, which has its headquarters in Beijing. The Georgian attack on South Ossetia seeks to undermine Russia, which constitutes a significant countervailing military power and ally of Iran. The ultimate objective is to isolate Iran, cut it off from its powerful allies: China and Russia. In Washington's mindset, the events in Georgia coupled with media propaganda, can be usefully applied to discredit and weaken Russia prior to the enforcement of a naval blockade on Iran in the Persian Gulf, which could lead into an all out war on Iran. This somewhat crude line of reasoning tends, however, to overlook America's own military setbacks and weaknesses as well as the enormous risks to America and the World which could result from a continued and sustained confrontation with Russia, let alone an attack on Iran. In view of the evolving situation in Georgia and Moscow's military commitments in the Caucasus, military analysts believe that Russia will not protect Iran and encroach upon a US led operation directed against Iran, which would be preceded by a naval blockade. In other words, Washington believes that Moscow is unlikely to get actively involved in a showdown with US and allied forces in the Persian Gulf. Naval Deployment According to press reports, upon completing the North Atlantic war games on July 31st, the participating warships in "Operation Brimstone" headed for the Middle East, to join up with other carrier strike groups and a constellation of US, British and French war ships. Which Carrier Strike groups and Expeditionary Forces sailed for the Middle East upon the completion of "Operation Brimstone" remains to be ascertained. Below we provide the most recent information pertaining to the movement of Carrier Strike Groups and Expeditionary Strike Groups According to Stratfor and military sources: -the USS Iwo Jima and the USS Theodore Roosevelt, according to Stratfor, returned to their home port in Norfolk after concluding participation in JTFEX Operation Brimstone on July 31 -the nuclear powered USS Ronald Reagan Carrier and its Strike Group Seven; according to Stratfor USS Reagan is currently under way in the South China Sea on a routine deployment in the 7th fleet area of responsibility (AOR) (Indian Ocean and Western Pacific) -the USS Abraham Lincoln is in the Arabian Sea (confirmed by Strafor, "operations in the 5th fleet AOR, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan", namely Ariabian Sea, - the USS Peleliu which was in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. (latest news from Stratfor USS Peleliu is in the Arabian Sea, "operations in the 5th fleet AOR, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan") USS Abraham Lincoln In other words, there are at present (August 14, 2008) two Strike Groups in the region: USS Abraham Lincoln, northern Arabian Sea, USS Peleliu Strike Group, northern Arabian sea. There is no confirmation as to whether the USS Ronald Reagan is moving towards the Arabian Sea. "Maritime Security" to Enforce a Naval Blockade US Central Command (CENTCOM) under the helm of General Petraeus, coordinates out of Bahrain so-called Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in Middle East waters ( Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Red Sea and Indian Ocean). This MSO initiative is conducted by the Combined Maritime Force (CMF) with a powerful armada of 36 warships. Established at the outset of the Iraq war, CMF involves the participation of the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Pakistan. There are several combined task forces responsible for maritime security (including CTF 150, CTF 152 and the CTF 158 North Arabian Gulf (NAG)) The mandate of the Combined Task Forces "aims to establish security and stability by countering terrorism in the Middle Eastern maritime environment and allowing legitimate mariners to operate safely in the area..." (see Canadian Navy, News), In the present context, this multinational naval alliance, will be used to encroach upon maritime trade with Iran as well as play an active role in implementing the proposed economic blockade of Iran. Canada has recently deployed three war ships to the Arabian sea, including HMC Iroquois along with HMC Calgary and HMC Protecteur which will be operating under CTF 150, which is responsible for MSO in the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. Canada's HMC Iroquois, involved in Maritime Security. Canada currently leads the CTF 150 Task Force Among the 36 war vessels involved in so-called Maritime Security Operations, are: RBNS Sabha (FFG 90) – The Bahraini flagship of CTF 152 conducting Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf. USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) – The U.S. flagship of CTF 50, conducting MSO in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf , as well as support Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. (currently in the Atlantic Ocean according to Stratfor). FS Guepratte (F 714) – French Navy ship operating as part of CTF 150 in the North Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. USCGC Wrangell (WPB 1332) – One of several USCG 110’ patrol boats conducting MSO in the North Arabian Gulf. HMAS Arunta (F 151) – Australian Navy ship conducting MSO as part of CTF 158 . PNS Tippu Sultan (D 186) – Pakistan Navy ship conducting MSO as part of CTF 150. RFA Cardigan Bay (L 3009) – British Royal Navy auxiliary ship operating with CTF 158. USS Port Royal (CG 73) – US Navy guided-missile cruiser deployed with USS Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Group. Source: US Naval forces, Central Command, Fifth fleet, Combined Maritime Forces Naval Blockade The first stage of a naval blockade directed against Iran would in all likelihood be initiated by Maritime Security Operations (MSO) under USCENTCOM. For Iran, a naval blockade, were it to be implemented, is tantamount to a declaration of war. The blockade constitutes a blatant violation of international law. According to Francis Boyle, a renowned specialist in international law: "A blockade is an act of war under international and domestic law. A "Blockade" is a term used under international law to specifically refer to belligerent measures taken by a nation for the purposes of preventing the passage of vessels or aircraft to and from another country. Customary international law recognizes blockades as an act of war because of the belligerent use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare." Meanwhile, war preparations are also being undertaken by israel and NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean. German war ships are stationed off the Syrian coastline. Turkey which constitutes a major military actor within NATO is a major partner of the US led coalition. It has an extended bilateral military cooperation agreement with israel. Turkey has borders with both Iran and Syria. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, "Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, israel and the War on Lebanon, Global Research, August 6, 2006) Pre-emptive Nuclear War A diabolical and related consensus is emerging at the political level, pointing to the pre-emptive first strike use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater, more concretely against Iran: "In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created. JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia."Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 2006) More recently, a December 2007 NATO sponsored report entitled “Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership". calls for a first strike pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. The NATO doctrine in this report is a virtual copy and paste version of America's post 9/11 nuclear weapons doctrine as initially outlined in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). (for details, see Michel Chossudovsky, The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life", Global Research, January 2008) The preemptive use of nukes as formulated in the NATO Transatlantic Partnership document would be used to undermine an "increasingly brutal World" (e.g. Iran) as well as a means to prevent "rogue enemies" to use "weapons of mass destruction". Under this NATO framework, which is explicitly envisaged in relation to Iran, US and allied forces including israel would "resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons, " (quoted in Paul Dibb, Sidney Morning Herald, 11 February 2008). "They [the authors of the report] consider that nuclear war might soon become possible in an increasingly brutal world. They propose the first use of nuclear weapons must remain "in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction". (Paul Dibb, op cit) In terms of the ongoing threats directed against Iran, a pre-emptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons, which are according to the Pentagon is "harmless to the surrounding civilian population" could be carried out in relation to Iran, even if if Iran does not possess nuclear weapons capabilities, as confirmed by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground. Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of the Middle East war (Iran) alongside conventional weapons: "Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent."(Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004) In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The NATO sponsored report --which broadly reflects a growing consensus-- insists that the option of a nuclear first strike is indispensable, "since there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world." (Report, p. 97): "Nuclear weapons are the ultimate instrument of an asymmetric response – and at the same time the ultimate tool of escalation" The US-NATO doctrine to use nukes on a pre-emptive basis against Iran, with a view to "saving the Western World's way of life", is not challenged in any meaningful way by the antiwar movement. The mainstream media has a strong grip on the public's perception and understanding of the Middle East war. The dangers of nuclear war in the Post cold War era are barely mentioned and when they are, the use of nuclear weapons are justified as a preemptive military option to ensure the security of Western World. The truth is twisted and turned upside down. Media disinformation instills within the consciousness of Americans and Europeans that somehow the war on Iran is a necessity, that Iran is a threat to the Homeland and that the Islamic Republic is supporting Islamic terrorists, who are planning a Second 9/11. And that a pre-emptive nuclear attack is the answer. In contrast, the powerful economic interests behind the war economy, the Anglo-American oil giants military, the defense contractors, Wall Street are rarely the object of media coverage. The real economic and strategic objectives behind this war are carefully obfuscated. 9/11 is used profusely both by the Bush administration and the media as a justification for waging war, despite the fact that there is mounting evidence of cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration. Despite the evidence, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran have been portrayed as the "State sponsors of terrorism" and a threat to the Homeland, thereby justifying the various stages of the Middle East military roadmap. The Project for a New American Century, had already described in a 2000 document the nature of this road map or "long war". What is envisaged is a global war without borders: fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars (PNAC, September 2000) At present US and coalition forces including NATO and israel are in an advanced state of readiness to launch an attack on Iran. Leaders of the US led coalition including France, Germany and Italy, should understand that such an action could result in a World War III scenario. Escalation scenarios have already been envisaged and analyzed by the Pentagon. US sponsored war games have foreseen the possible intervention of Russia and China in the Middle East. World War III has been on the lips of NeoCon architects of US foreign policy from the outset of the Bush regime. In response to "Operation Brimstone" and the Naval deployment, Iran's Foreign Ministry said that "Tehran will give a 'maximum response' to the slightest threat against the country's national security." War propaganda, through media disinformation consists in galvanizing US citizens not only in favor of "the war on terrorism", but in support of a social order which repeals the Rule of Law, derogates fundamental civil liberties, upholds the use of torture and establishes a modern police state apparatus as a means to "preserving Western democracy". There is a tacit public acceptance of a diabolical and criminal military agenda, which in a very sense threatens "the community of nations" and life on this planet. In the course of the last four years, Global Research has documented in detail the various war plans directed against Iran. Operation TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near Term) was initially formulated in July 2003, in the wake of the US led Iraq invasion. We have done our utmost to reverse the tide of media disinformation, to inform our readers and the broader public on the impending dangers underlying the US military adventure. This is the most serious crisis in modern history which in a very real sense threatens the future of humanity. Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international bestseller America’s "War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Countdown to the end of Bush-Cheney regime: War with Iran: What Could Happen If ... ? If war is averted, hopefully a Democratic President may enter the White House, then, who knows? Dialogue with Iran? by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach As the countdown to the end of the hated Bush-Cheney regime proceeds, calls for the U.S. and/or israel to take military action against Iran, have been multiplying almost in inverse proportion. At the same time, the Islamic Republic has redoubled its efforts to thwart such aggression, in a two-pronged maneuver. On the one hand, the government, and the new leadership in the Majlis (parliament) under Ali Larijani, have reiterated Tehran's rejection of blackmail regarding the country's nuclear program; on the other, Iran has launched a campaign to engage its leading international interlocutors in discussion of concrete cooperation aimed at defusing, if not solving, major strategic crisis situations. The recent solution to the prolonged Lebanon crisis is but the most eloquent example of what could and can be achieved in pursuing peace in many crises plaguing the region, {if} Tehran's role and contribution were accepted. That the war party is still committed to an attack against Iran, is no secret, and continues to be an item discussed daily in anti-war websites. Writing in Asia Times on May 27 (you are not allowed to post links yetatimes(contact admin if its a beneficial link) and picked up by you are not allowed to post links yetglobalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9099), Muhammed Cohen revealed that there were plans for the Bush cabal to attack Iran by August. His "informed source" told him, that two members of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Diane Feinstein of California and Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, informed of the plans, had intended to go public, but that their op-ed piece slated for the New York Times, had been blocked. The source, identified as "a retired U.S. career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community," as well as an ambassador under the reign of Bush senior, told him there was a plan to launch air strikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Qods force headquarters. Neo-con Daniel Pipes added his two cents, saying that if Barack Obama were elected in November, then President George W. Bush would wage war on Iran before leaving office. In parallel, the issue of what to do about “unruly†Iran has been placed high on the agenda of the unofficial presidential contenders from the two major U.S. parties. John McCain, who apparently cannot function psychologically without deference to his de facto alter ego, George W. Bush, has assailed the presumed Democratic Party contender Barack Obama for his declared willingness to sit down and talk with Iran's leadership. Obama, for his part, not only qualified and requalified his openness to dialogue with Tehran, but focussed on Iran as a strategic threat to israel -- and therefore -- the U.S., in a most unfortunate speech to AIPAC on June 4. One might argue, and with reason, that no speaker at AIPAC dare say anything that might conflict with the agenda of anti-Iran Zionist forces in israel, but Obama did not need to go so far. Not only, but israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, taking the podium at AIPAC a day later, lashed out at Iran, and demanded that Bush take appropriate measures. Olmert proceeded then to hold talks with lame-duck President Bush, in hopes of convincing him that the time were ripe for an Iran war. israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz, who is a former army chief and defence minister, was explicit: "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it," he said in discussion with Yediot Ahronoth on June 6. "Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable." The option of an israeli strike against Iran has been discussed at length, also on this website. What was quite unusual was that someone like Joschka Fischer, former foreign minister of Germany, would publicly warn against such an event. Fischer, whose chequered political career in the 1960s-1970s, rendered him, so to speak, a not-totally sovereign, independent player, was expected, as foreign minister, to make certain gestures to israel, which he punctually did when in office. Now, however, the old '68er, of all people, comes out with a bloodcurdling forecast, featured in Lebanon's Daily Star May 30, and carried by Global Research June 1, entitled, "As things look, israel may well attack Iran soon." Iran's Global Proposal What might Iran do, to prevent such an attack, be it from Washington or Tel Aviv? As reported on this website(you are not allowed to post links yetglobalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8868), Iran has been pursuing a global war-avoidance strategy based on forging ties with nations throughout Eurasia, beginning with Russia, China and India, and extending through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which it hopes to join as a full member. Iran's Eurasian policy is based on economic cooperation, especially in transportation and energy infrastructure, as well as security agreements. The same applies to its policy in the Persian Gulf. The Islamic Republic announced last month that it had issued a proposal for solving the major problems in the world, through discussion and cooperation. The proposal, which has since been made public, has received nowhere near the attention it deserves. The document, entitled "The Islamic Republic of Iran's Proposed Package for Constructive Negotiations," was first presented to the Russians, then to the Chinese, the United Nations, EU, and so on. It starts from the premise that respect for justice, sovereignty, peace, democracy and different cultures, must be stressed, and proceeds to list areas of possible cooperation, such as "security issues, regional and international developments, nuclear energy, terrorism, democracy, etc." Iran proposes negotiations on these and other issues (drugs, the environment, economic, technological and other cooperation, especially energy), in which "the main objective of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to reach a comprehensive agreement, one that is based on collective goodwill -- that will help to establish long-term cooperation between the parties, and will contribute to the sustainability and strength of regional and international security and a just peace." Iran says it is ready to start negotiations on the following issues: protecting the "rights and dignity of [the] human being and respect for the culture of other nations"; and, advancing democracy regionally and worldwide in the context of respect for the rights of nations and national sovereignty. Here, the document makes specific reference to the possibility of solving certain burning regional issues. Such cooperation, it says, may occur in various regions, "most specifically in the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa and Latin America. Cooperation to assist the Palestinian people to find a comprehensive plan -- one that is sustainable, democratic and fair -- to resolve the 60-year old Palestinian issue can become a symbol of such cooperation." Common efforts against various security threats, like terrorism, drugs, organized crime, etc. are also solicited. Regarding economic issues, the proposal stresses cooperation on energy, trade and investment, fighting poverty, and -- most intriguing -- "Reducing the impact of sharp price fluctuations and retooling global monetary and financial arrangements to benefit the nations of the world." The final paragraph deals extensively with the nuclear issue per se, in which Iran reiterates its commitment to the IAEA and NPT, and calls for "Establishing enrichment and nuclear fuel production consortiums in different parts of the world - including Iran." Russia’s Interested Response This proposal has been pooh-poohed as mere rhetoric or “nothing new,†and has been essentially ignored. But it contains several extremely important ideas which deserve attention. Moscow, for one, has taken note. First, regarding the nuclear issue, Iran agrees here to the Russian proposal for international enrichment centers, for example in Russia, but repeats that it wants one in Iran as well. Secondly, the document raises suggestions for international cooperation to deal with the financial, monetary and economic crises that are ravaging the world. Finally, Iran proposes intervening directing to solve -- not exacerbate -- regional crises in the Middle East. Regarding the nuclear issue, it is not coincidental perhaps that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stated unequivocally in an interview to Le Monde on May 31, that he did {not} believe Iran were pursuing a weapons progam. "I don't think the Iranians are looking to make a nuclear bomb," he said. "We have no reason to believe this." He went on: "I should say that formally Iran hasn't violated any rules. It even has the right to carry out enrichment.... I repeat there is no official basis for legal claims against Iran." Putin elaborated Russia's total rejection of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and explained his country's enrichment idea. "We offered an international program of enrichment, because Iran is only part of the problem. A lot of countries are on the threshold of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. And this means that they will need enrichment technology. And if they create their own closed cycle to solve the problem, there will always be the suspicion that they could produce military grade uranium. It is difficult to control. That is why we propose carrying out the enrichment on the territory of those countries which are beyond suspicion because they already possess nuclear weapons," (i.e. Russia.) In short, Russia still has hesitations regarding enrichment facilities on Iranian soil, but the discussion process is ongoing, and that is what is important. As for the financial and monetary crises, it is quite unusual for Iran to address them in these terms. Here, the Iranian government, in talking about "retooling global monetary and financial arrangements to benefit the nations of the world," is implicitly saying the current dollar-based system is collapsing and needs to be replaced. Russia's new President Dmitry Medvedyev made the same point on June 7, in an address to the opening session of the 12th St. Petersburg Economic Forum ( you are not allowed to post links yetitar-tass(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12757537and12757608&PageNum=0 ). Medvedyev stated: "Russia's role on global economic and raw markets enables us to take an active part in the discussions of ways of concrete settlement of the above mentioned problems [problems on the world financial and raw materials markets]." According to a German radio report (Deutschlandfunk) on June 7, he said he did not believe that the U.S. could handle the crisis alone. ITAR-TASS reported that he proposed Russia as a site for such discussions, concretely that it organize an international conference this year with finance experts and scientists. He also suggested Moscow become "a powerful world financial center" and that the ruble become "one of the leading regional reserve currencies." ITAR-TASS headlined its coverage of the speech, "Medvedyev calls to reform global financial architecture." Putting Out Regional Fires: Lebanon The third area addressed in Iran's proposal, the settlement of regional crises, is potentially the most explosive, because it touches on what the Islamic Republic could contribute positively, were it allowed to. The case in point is the recent solution to the Lebanon crisis. After 19 unsuccessful attempts to convene Parliament to elect a new president, a U.S.-backed provocation by the Siniora government, led to the firing of a pro-Hezbollah security chief at Beirut airport, and the attempt to dismantle Hezbollah's communications system. The outbreak of armed hostility between the opposition and government circles, raised the spectre of a new civil war, and Hezbollah's takeover of part of the capital indicated that the correlation of forces would not favor the government. Then came the breakthrough in Doha, Qatar, where a large gathering of Lebanese political factions came to agreement on a political solution, to elect Gen. Michael Suleiman, and share power. The details of the Lebanese deal are well known. What is less well known, is the role played by Iran. Significantly, the first foreign guest to be received by President Suleiman was Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki. Both he and Parliament speaker Nabih Berri were quoted expressing gratitude to Iran for its “help†in solving the crisis. Hezbollah leader Seyyed Hassan Nasrullah, in a remarkable address on May 26 (you are not allowed to post links yetpresstv.ir, June 1), thanked Iran, Syria, the Qataris and the Arab League for supporting this “victory for Lebanon itself.†According to well-informed Iranian sources, the renewed Lebanese hostilities alarmed both Damascus and Tehran, forcing them to act. Iran approached the Saudis, suggesting that they convene a gathering of the Lebanese factions, which Riyadh rejected. Qatar at that point picked up the proposal and moved on it. Iran pledged its support to organize the meeting, and to use its influence on those Lebanese forces allied to it. One Arab diplomatic source with good contacts to the U.S., noted that whatever the Qataris would do, must have been okayed -- or at least not sabotaged -- by some circles in Washington. If this reading is accurate, it has immense implications: to wit, that, were there to be a cessation of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, then indeed the major crises threatening peace in the region, could be settled. Palestine The next immediate theatre of confrontation appears to be Gaza, where the Olmert government is threatening a new military incursion. In this context, the reports that Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas has proposed talks with Hamas, and that Hamas leader Ismail Hanniyeh has welcomed the idea, may also indicate some behind-the-scenes activities by Iran. It may or may not be coincidental that Ali Larijani, newly elected speaker of the Majlis (Parliament) spoke to Hanniyeh on June 2. At any rate, Reuters ran an unconfirmed report on June 7 (you are not allowed to post links yetasharqalawsat(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/english/) that delegations of the two sides were in Dakar, for talks with Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade to reach a common position vis a vis israel. Wade’s spokesman said, “The first phase is an interPalestinian phase†to be followed by negotiations planned in seven stages. The Iranian global proposal contains a crucial reference to the Palestinian crisis, suggesting cooperation on a "comprehensive plan" that is "sustainable, democratic and fair." This means -- notwithstanding continuing rhetorical statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, -- that, were there to be an agreement struck between the Palestinians (i.e. Fatah and Hamas together) and israel, then Tehran would not object. This was the official position of the Iranian government under former President Mohammad Khatami, and is implicit in the new package proposal. Iraq The other leading crisis to be dealt with is, of course, Iraq. Although the fourth round of tripartite talks, among Iraq, Iran and the U.S., has been put on ice for the time being, an exchange of views among the three is being aired indirectly in the press. The subject is the U.S.'s demand that Baghdad sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SFA) by July 31, and that Parliament ratify it well in advance of the expiration of the U.N. mandate, at year's end. There is {no way} that this deal is going to go through. It will not be due to Iran’s opposition (which has been made explicit by Parliament speaker Ali Larijani as well as former President Hashemi Rafsanjani), but to an organic political process inside Iraq, shaped by consciousness of the region’s colonial past. Although no details have been made public by an obviously defensive and jittery U.S., leaks indicate that the deal would foresee permanent U.S. bases (numbering from 9 to 50, depending on the source), immunity for U.S. military as well as private contractors, the right to detain Iraqis and conduct military operations, and a de facto continuation of occupation, -- perhaps for what John McCain has said could last 100 years. Moqtadar al-Sadr’s faction was the first to take to the streets on May 30 to protest the deal, and he vows to continue mass demonstrations every Friday until the draft has been scrapped. Mainstream Shi’ite parties, like the government coalition member United Iraqi Alliance under Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, have turned thumbs down on the idea, and the major Sunni parties and organizations, like the Association of Muslim Scholars and the National Accordance Front, have followed suit. But far more important, is the intervention made by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest religious authority for all Shi’ites, currently based in Najaf, in Iraq. Al-Sistani said, essentially, that such a deal with the U.S. could occur only over his dead body. PressTV reported on May 24 that the Grand Ayatollah, in a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on May 22, had said he would not allow such an accord to be signed with “the U.S. occupiers†as long as he was alive. The same news outlet reported on June 5, that Ayatollah al-Sistani had set clear conditions for any agreement: as al-Hakim stated in a press conference following his meeting with the Grand Ayatollah, “The cleric stressed that any long-term pact in Iraq should should maintain four key terms including safeguarding Iraqis’ interests, national sovereignty, national consensus and being presented to the Iraqi parliament for approval.†He added that the current draft violates Iraqi sovereignty and does not remove it from the U.N. Charter’s Chapter 7; nor does it safeguard Iraq’s natural wealth. Although, as al-Hakim said, the leading cleric only set the parameters, leaving details up to the government, it is clear that al-Sistani is the supreme authority, and his stance is decisive. It was al-Sistani who had forced the U.S. to accept a referendum on the constitution, as well as elections. He supported elections on grounds that only an elected government could end the occupation. His foremost concern remains ending the occupation. Any fatwa issued by al-Sistani, including a call to armed resistance against the occupiers, would be followed by Shi’ites everywhere without question. As one regional expert put it to this author, the very idea of permanent occupation is repugnant, as it revives memories of the hated “capitulations†imposed by colonial powers, which guaranteed immunity to their lackeys. Such capitulations were imposed on Iran under the Shah in 1964, which led to organized protest under Ayatollah Khomeini, and his subsequent expulsion, followed by his organizing revolutionary forces from exile. One source mooted that, were such capitulations imposed on Iraq today, this could lead to actual revolution in Iraq over the next 5 years or so. Iraq has already experienced revolution against British-backed governments. This specific matter of the SFA can be resolved only through strictly bilateral discussions between Washington and Baghdad, if there is to be any credibility given to Iraqi “sovereignty.†Considering the depth and breadth of the opposition to new colonial-style capitulations, it is to be expected that no Iraqi government could acquiesce. Agreement would be tantamount to a suicide note. At that point, when the U.S. deal were defeated, the issue would be redefined: since the Bush administration’s fantasies of permanent occupation will be rejected, how could an orderly withdrawal of U.S. and remaining occupation troops be organized, to ensure their safe withdrawal as well as security for a newly independent, sovereign Iraq? In this context, yes, Iran could and should become an interlocutor, alongside other neighboring states. If the U.S. elections in November bring a Democrat into the White House, and if that new President makes good on his campaign pledges to withdraw from Iraq, and to hold rational discussions with Iraq’s neighbors (i.e. including Syria and Iran) on how to guarantee stability and security in the war-torn nation, then anything and everything is possible. Questions in Washington The U.S. election campaign to date has been an unprecedented battle, and a serious discussion of its internal workings go far beyond the scope of this article. But a few things may be said. First, both contenders for the Democratic Party nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, have gone on record pledging their commitment to end the war, and withdraw U.S. troops, within relatively similar timeframes. Republican John McCain, on the other hand, has opted for permanent occupation. Whoever the final candidate voted at the Democratic Party convention in August may be, the consensus among the voters, both those who backed Hillary and those who backed Obama, is for a speedy end to the Iraq war. Parallel to these party political developments, there have been a number of important events indicating that circles opposed to the Cheney-Bush war party, are mobilizing to prevent an “October surprise†attack on Iran. For one, Zbigniew Brzezinski co-authored an OpEd in the Washington Post on May 27 with William Odom, saying essentially that, since current policy had led nowhere, one had to reassess and redefine U.S. policy to Iran. Denouncing the “widely propagated notion of a suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon against israel†as “more the product of paranoia or demagogy than of serious strategic calculus,†the authors call for a diplomatic approach that “could help bring Iran back into its traditional role of strategic cooperation with the United States in stabilizing the Gulf region.†At the same time, it was made known that Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired two leading figures in the Air Force, allegedly in connection with that branch’s security failures regarding nuclear materials. Informed sources in Washington have mooted that Gates’s action -– taken months after the cited incident -– had less to do with that, than with plans for a U.S. aggression against Iran, an attack which the Air Force, would be deployed to execute. Gates is known to favor diplomacy over aggression. In short, even if Bush, Cheney and their israeli friends are huffing and puffing for war on Iran, influential political and military circles in the U.S. are moving to prevent it. If war can be averted until a new, hopefully Democratic President may enter the White House, then, who knows? Dialogue with Iran might even come back on the agenda. The author can be reached at mirak.weissbach[at]googlemail(contact admin if its a beneficial link) Muriel Mirak-Weissbach is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach --------Iran Opens War Avoidance Flank by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach As threats of military action against Iran continue to issue from various spokesmen of the war party in the U.S., the Islamic Republic has launched an ambitious initiative aimed at preventing war, based on a comprehensive package of economic, political and security measures on a vast regional plane. The package includes proposals to settle remaining questions related to Iran's nuclear energy program, but is not limited to that. It was Saeed Jalili, the new head of the Supreme National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator, who first announced the initiative. As Acting Secretary of the Russian Security Council Valentin Sobolev arrived in Tehran, April 28, Jalili declared that his government was presenting the Russian delegation a package of proposals aimed at solving the problems of the world. "The package is about the great questions of the world," he said, "and the nuclear question could be the subject of discussion." While declining to give details, he added, "We spoke in detail with our Russian friend and we explained our vision. Our approach could be a good basis for negotiation between the influential powers of the world," according to AFP. Talks continued in the Iranian capital for three days, including with Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on return from his South Asian tour. Although both sides said the package would not be made public yet, remarks made by Sobolev at a joint press conference April 28, indicated that Russia had listened to Iran's proposals with keen interest. He praised the expansion of relations with Iran "in all areas." After their second round of talks on April 29, Jalili said of the package that it "has provided a new opportunity for constructive cooperation for restoration of regional and international peace and stability and those who have adopted positive stands on the issue should welcome it." Ahmadinejad, following his talks with the Russian envoy, indicated that the discussions aimed at introducing a new international order. "The might of the United States and some other countries speaking the language of force that used to dictate international relations after the Second World War is now rapidly vanishing," The same day, the Iranian student news agency ISNA reported that, following that meeting, Sobolev, "said his country hails Iran's package of proposals covering a wide range of issues including Iran's nuclear program." TASS said Sobolev explicitly ruled out any Iranian weapons program. "We believe," he said, "that Iran is not engaged in any military nuclear research, but we are confident that not only Russia should think so but all countries that are involved in the settlement of the situation [revolving around the Iranian nuclear program]." Further confirmation of Russia's positive response, came, albeit indirectly, from the top. Sobolev announced to RIA , "An oral message from Russian President Vladimir Putin was conveyed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a meeting. The substance of it is that Russia confirms the principles of mutual relations (with Iran) and her policy will not depend on who is in power," a reference to the new president Dmitry Medvedev. While talks were going on with the Russian delegation, Jalili informed Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey of the initiative by telephone, saying it should be considered at the next meeting of the five permanent memers of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. The Mystery Package The content of the Iranian package has remained shrouded in secrecy, but certain features have emerged. Alaeddin Borujerdi, head of Iran's parliamentary commission on national security and foreign policy, spoke of the fact that it would guarantee the country's enrichment rights. According to well-informed Iranian sources, the initiative develops the idea of an international consortium for the enrichment of uranium, on Iranian territory. This idea had been floated by Tehran earlier, when the President issued an invitation to international partners to participate. Most important, it has also been under consideration by a group of U.S. figures opposed to the war policy of the administration, led by former diplomat Thomas R. Pickering. Together with William Luers and Jim Walsh, Pickering outlined the idea in an article, "A Solution for the US-Iran Nuclear Standoff," published in The New York Review of Books in its March 20 issue. (you are not allowed to post links yetnybooks(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/21112) The paper stated that the authors had been part of "a group of former American diplomats and regional experts" who "have been meeting directly and privately with a group of Iranian academics and policy advisers." The article stated: "We propose that Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments." This approach reflected a similar idea worked out by the International Crisis Group, of which Pickering is a member, and presented to an international conference in Berlin in March 2006. (1) In a section entitled, "Turning Iran's Enrichment Activities into a Multilateral Program," the article goes on to suggest that "the Iranian government would allow two or more additional governments (for example, France and Germany) to participate in the management and operation of those activities within Iran." It notes that, of course, several Iranian officials, including Ahmadinejad, had "already publicly endorsed a multilateral solution." However, as Iranian sources pointed out to this author, Tehran, significantly, did {not} address Paris or Berlin, but rather Moscow. Russia is considered the priority interlocutor due to the special relationship that exists between the two countries, epitomized by Russia's participation in building the Bushehr nuclear plant, but also because the Russians, unlike the Germans and French, have refused to let the nuclear issue become a casus belli. Russia and China have succeeded in blocking more hostile sanctions through the Security Council, and are both fully aware of the danger that the issue might be exploited by the war party in London and Washington, to justify military aggression. For this reason, the Russian government has been insisting that Iran return to the negotiating table with the 5+1 group. On March 31, Ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin urged Tehran to restart such talks. That was just prior to Sobolev's visit. And China had taken the unprecedented initiative of convening a meeting of the permanent five in Shanghai in mid-April, to seek a solution; although the meeting yielded no solution, it underlined Beijing's concern that war could be on the agenda otherwise. Iran expressed its readiness to settle all remaining questions related to the controversial program, just a week prior to Sobolev's mission. On April 21-22, a delegation of the International Atomic Energy Agency led by Oli Heinonen met with Iran's leading nuclear officials, including Mohammed Saeedi, Iran's IAEA envoy Ali-Asghar Soltanieh, and several AEOI and foriegn ministry representatives. Iran announced it would cooperate in clarifying anything that had to be settled. IAEA chied Mohammad ElBaradei did not hesitate to praise the move. "That is certainly a milestone," he said, "and hopefully by the end of May we will be in a position to get the explanation and clarification from Iran as to these alleged studies," referring to studies that allegedly Iran had made regarding nuclear weapons. He said this was "the only remaining topic for us to investigate about past and present Iran nuclear activities." But, the nuclear issue is merely one aspect of Tehran's global package. The rest is of a strategic nature. As noted above, Ahmadinejad was visiting South Asia when Sobolev landed in Tehran, and his mission involved other components of the package. The main focus of his talks was the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project (IPI), which has been held up for various reasons, some more real than others. Aside from bickering about the price India would have to pay Pakistan, the main glitch was pressure that certain U.S. officials were placing on New Delhi, to sabotage the agreement. Once it had been announced that Ahmadinejad would visit India, the Bush administration moved into high gear. Tom Casey, State Department spokesman, came out somewhat undiplomatically suggesting that India should "use its influence" with Iran, to persuade it to give up its uranium enrichment program. The Indian government was not amused. External Affairs Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna was quoted by Tehran Times April 23, saying, "Neither country needs any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations as both countries believe that engagement and dialogue alone lead to peace." He went on to develop the concept, saying, "Both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention." The foreign ministry issued a statement which must have been somewhat embarassing for youthful Washington: "India and Iran," it read, "are ancient civilizations whose relations span centuries." Ahmadinejad's visit was a resounding success. In an April 29 press conference, he said that progreess was being made on the IPI. "Ministers from the three countries," he was quoted by Arab News as saying, "hope to reach a tripartite agreement in the next 45 days." Construction on the pipeline is to begin in 2009, and should be completed by 2012. The 2,600 km pipeline is to transport Iranian gas to Pakistan and India. Prior to his visit to India, Ahmadinejad had been in Pakistan, where he fine-tuned details of the project with President Parvaz Musharraf. He also committed Iran to providing 1,100 MW of electricity to Pakistan, to help it overcome energy shortages. Talks between Pakistan and India had also taken place at the end of April, after which Indian Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Murli Deora announced that the deal would be "clinched soon." At an Islamabad press conference on April 25, IRNA reported that the oil ministers of the two countries said they had reached agreement on "fundamental issues," and that a final agreement could be signed in weeks, if not days. One factor which may have nudged India in the direction of a deal, is that China was showing interest in the project. In his meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, Ahmadinejad said that the IPI deal would soon be finalized "and my government will also welcome the inclusion of China in the project." The crucial question of financing for the $7.4 billion project, was being hammered out in the Asian Development Bank. According to sources in the Pakistani Petroleum Ministry cited by the Tehran Times on April 23, the ADB was ready to foot the bill. The ADB is also sponsoring the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline project, in which Pakistan would import 3.2 billion cubic feet of gas, to be shared with India. So much for pipelines. But Iran's "package" contains much more. As Iranian sources have indicated, India is also committed to invest in Iran's oil industry. And Sri Lanka, another stop on Ahmadinejad's Asian tour, is looking forward to Iranian participation in $1.5 billion worth of infrastructure projects, including the $450-million Uma Oya hydro power project slated to produce 100 MW electricity, and an upgrading of the country's oil refinery. In addiiton, Iran is ready to offer credits for military equipment to be brought in from China and Pakistan, as well as training. Beyond energy agreements, the Iranian package also deals with developing transportation infrastructure. As reported in the Tehran Times April 16, Iran and India signed an MoU for starting work on the India-Iran-Russia railway line. When one puts all these bits and pieces together, then a rather wonderful mosaic image emerges. As confirmed by Iranian sources, what the Iranians are proposing in their new package is nothing less than a blueprint for a new correlation of nations in Eurasia, whose collaboration in developing continental infrastucture--nuclear energy, gas and oil pipelines, and transportation--should establish the economic, and therefore political, basis for true independence. Iran's Foreign Minister Mottaki made clear, during his visit to Dushanbe on March 24, that his country wanted to become a full-fledged member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a grouping which includes Russia and China, along with the leading nations of Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Not only: the Iranians are also moving in their more immediate regional environment, to erect this alternative economic, political and security structure. Most significant in this context, is the meeting that took place in Tehran April 30, between Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohamadi and Saudi Arabian Deputy Interior Minister for Security Affairs Ahmed bin Mohammad Al-Salem. The aim of this 2nd joint Iran-Saudi security committee meeting was to implement the agreements the two countries had reached in groundbreaking talks in October 2001, when they signed a joint security agreement. At the same time, Iran had been engaged in talks with Turkey on security. Iran's deputy interior minister for security and political affairs, Abbas Mohtaj, had said that Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia had reached some form of agreement on regional security. Add to this the ongoing process of discussions between Iran and the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council for establishment of a free trade zone, as well as for a regional nuclear energy agreement, and it becomes clear that what is on the agenda is nothing less than a regional economic-security arrangement. The Iranian leadership has understood that, in order to face the continuing threat of militrary aggression by the war party, it must not only mobilize its military capabilities, as a defensive measure, but, more importantly, that it must move in a positive direction, to build the economic-strategic alliances in
  10. The signing on August 14 of an agreement between the governments of the United States and Poland to deploy on Polish soil US ‘interceptor missiles’ is the most dangerous move towards nuclear war the world has seen since the 1962 Cuba Missile crisis. Far from a defensive move to protect European NATO states from a Russian nuclear attack, as military strategists have pointed out, the US missiles in Poland pose a total existential threat to the future existence of the Russian nation. The Russian Government has repeatedly warned of this since US plans were first unveiled in early 2007. Now, despite repeated diplomatic attempts by Russia to come to an agreement with Washington, the Bush Administration, in the wake of a humiliating US defeat in Georgia, has pressured the Government of Poland to finally sign the pact. The consequences could be unthinkable for Europe and the planet. The preliminary deal to place elements of the US global missile defense shield was signed by Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Andrzej Kremer and US chief negotiator John Rood on August 14. Under the terms, Washington plans to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland coupled with a radar system in the Czech Republic, which it ludicrously claims are intended to counter possible attacks from what it calls "rogue states," including Iran. To get the agreement Washington agreed to reinforce Poland's air defenses. The deal is still to be approved by the two countries' governments and Poland's parliament. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in televised remarks that "the events in the Caucasus show clearly that such security guarantees are indispensable." The US-Polish missile talks had been dragging for months before recent hostilities in Georgia. The Bush White House Press spoksperson, Dona Perino stated, officially, "We believe that missile defense is a substantial contribution to NATO's collective security." Officials say the interceptor base in Poland will be opened by 2012. The Czech Republic signed a deal to host a US radar on July 8. The signing now insures an escalation of tensions between Russia and NATO and a new Cold War arms race in full force. It is important for readers to understand, as I detail painstakingly in my book, to be released this autumn, Full Spectrum Dominance: The National Security State and the Spread of Democracy, the ability of one of two opposing sides to put anti-missile missiles to within 90 miles of the territory of the other in even a primitive first-generation anti-missile missile array gives that side virtual victory in a nuclear balance of power and forces the other to consider unconditional surrender or to pre-emptively react by launching its nuclear strike before 2012. Senior Russian lawmakers said on Friday the agreement would damage security in Europe, and reiterated that Russia would now have to take steps to ensure its security. Andrei Klimov, deputy head of the Russian State Duma's international affairs committee, said the deal was designed to demonstrate Warsaw's "loyalty to the US and receive material benefits. For the Americans, it is an opportunity to expand its military presence across the world, including closer to Russia. For NATO, this is an additional risk...many NATO countries are unhappy with this, including the Germans and the French." Klimov called the agreement "a step back" toward the Cold War. Russian response The US plans to deploy a radar in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in northern Poland as part of a US-controlled missile shield for Europe and North America, has been officially sold under the ludicrous argument that it is against possible attacks from "rogue states," including Iran. Last Spring then Russian President Vladimir Putin exposed the shallowness of the US propaganda line by offering a startled President Bush that Russia would offer the US use of Russian leased radar facilities in Azerbaijan on the Iran border to far better monitor Iran missile launches. The Bush Administration simply ignored the offer, exposing that their real target is Russia not "rogue states like Iran." Russia rightly views deployment of the US missile shield as a threat to its national security. The latest Polish agreement advances a Russian response. Russian officials earlier said Moscow could deploy its Iskander tactical missiles and strategic bombers in Belarus and Russia's westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad if Washington succeeded in its missile shield plans in Europe. Moscow also warned it could target its missiles on Poland. Russia is also discussing to put in place an orbital ballistic missile system in response to US missile defense plans for Central Europe, according to a senior Russian military expert. "A program could be implemented to create orbital ballistic missiles capable of reaching US territory via the South Pole, skirting US air defense bases," said Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, former chief of staff of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, now vice president of the Academy of Security, Defense and Law Enforcement Studies. Previously as part of the post Cold War agreements with the US, agreements which have been ´significantly ignored by Washington as it pushed the borders of NATO ever closer to Moscow’s doorstep, the Soviet Union had abandoned such missiles in accordance with the START I Treaty. Obama backs missile defense too The deal would further divide European countries into what Barack Obama’s foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski calls openly, US "vassals" and those pursuing more independent policies. Any illusions that a Democratic Obama Presidency would mean a rollback of such provocative NATO and US military moves of recent years should be dismissed as dangerous wishful thinking. Obama’s foreign policy team in addition to father Zbigniew Brzezinski, includes Brzezinski’s son, Ian Brzezinski, current US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs. Ian Brzezinski is a devout backer of US missile defense policy, as well as Kosovo independence and NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia. F. William Engdahl is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by F. William Engdahl --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  11. Introduction: The GUAM Summit Venue In early July 2008, a regional summit was held in the Georgian city of Batumi under the auspices of GUAM GUAM is a military agreement between Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova, first established in 1997. Since 2006, following the withdrawal of Uzbekistan, GUAM was renamed: The Organization for Democracy and Economic Development - GUAM. GUAM has little to do with "Democracy and Economic Development". It is a de facto appendage of NATO. It has been used by the US and the Atlantic Alliance to extend their zone of influence into the heartland of the former Soviet Union. The main thrust of GUAM as a military alliance is to "protect" the energy and transportation corridors, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants. GUAM countries are also the recipients of US-NATO military aid and training. The militarization of these corridors is a central feature of US-NATO planning. Georgia and Ukraine membership in NATO is part of the agenda of controlling the energy and transport corridors from the Caspian Sea basin to Western Europe. The July 1-2, 2008 GUAM Summit Batumi meetings, under the chairmanship of President Saakashvili, focused on the central issue of pipeline and transportation corridors. The theme of the Summit was a "GUAM – Integrating Europe’s Eastâ€, from an economic and strategic-military standpoint, essentially with a view to isolating Russia. The presidents of Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Ukraine (respectively Ilham Aliyev, Mikheil Saakashvili and Viktor Yushchenko) were in attendance together with the presidents of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, and Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus. Moldova's head of State flatly refused to attend this summit. Map No 1: Georgia Undermining Russia The GUAM Summit agenda focused on undermining Moscow's influence in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. The Polish President was in attendance. US-NATO installations in Eastern Europe including the Missile Defense Shield are directly related to the evolving geopolitical situation in the Caucasus. Barely a week after the bombing of South Ossetia by Georgian forces, the US and Poland signed an agreement (August 14) which would allow the US Air Force to deploy US "interceptor missiles" on Polish soil: "... As military strategists have pointed out, the US missiles in Poland pose a total existential threat to the future existence of the Russian nation. The Russian Government has repeatedly warned of this since US plans were first unveiled in early 2007. Now, despite repeated diplomatic attempts by Russia to come to an agreement with Washington, the Bush Administration, in the wake of a humiliating US defeat in Georgia, has pressured the Government of Poland to finally sign the pact. The consequences could be unthinkable for Europe and the planet. " (William Engdahl, Missile Defense: Washington and Poland just moved the World closer to War, Global Research, August 15, 2008) The "US-GUAM Summit" Barely acknowledged by the media, a so-called "US-GUAM Summit" meeting was also held on July 1st on the sidelines of the official GUAM summit venue. US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Merkel met both GUAM and non-GUAM delegations behind closed doors. Several bilateral meetings were held including a Poland GUAM meeting (during which the issue of the US missile defense shield on Polish territory was most probably addressed). Private meetings were also held on July 1st and 2nd at the residence of the Georgian President. US-Georgia War Games Barely two weeks following the GUAM Summit of July 1-2, 2008, US-Georgian military exercises were launched at the Vaziani military base, outside Tbilisi, One thousand U.S and six hundred Georgian troops began a military training exercise under Operation "Immediate Response". US troops included the participation of the US Air Force, Army, Marines and National Guard. While an Iraq war scenario had been envisaged, the military exercises were a dress rehearsal for an upcoming military operation. The war games were completed on July 31st, a week before the onset of the August 7th Georgian attacks on South Ossetia. Troops from Ukraine and Azerbaijan, which are members of GUAM also participated in Operation "Immediate Response" Unexpectedly, Armenia which is an ally of Russia and a staunch opponent of Azerbaijan also took part in these games, which also served to create and "train and work together" environment between Azeri and Armenian forces (ultimately directed against Russia). Brig. Gen. William B. Garrett, commander of the U.S. military’s Southern European Task Force, was responsible for the coordination of the US-Georgia war games. Gen. William B. Garrett and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili Russia's War Games in the North Caucasus Russia began large-scale military exercises involving some 8,000 military personnel, some 700 armored units and over 30 aircraft ( in the North Caucasus republics of the Russian Federation on July 5th. (Georgian Times, July 28, 2008) The Russian war games were explicitly carried out in response to the evolving security situation in Abhkazia and South Ossetia. The exercise, dubbed "Caucasus Frontier 2008", involved units of the 58th Army and the 4th Air Force Army, stationed in the North Caucasus Military District. A Russian Defense Ministry spokesman acknowledged that the military exercises conducted in the Southern Federal District were being carried out in response to "an escalation in tension in the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian conflict zones,...[and] that Russia’s North Caucasian Military District was ready to provide assistance to Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia and South Ossetia if needed.†(Georgian Times, July 28, 2008, RIA-Novosti, July 5, 2008) These units of the North Caucasian Military District (Army and Air Force) were subsequently used to lead the Russian counterattack directed against Georgian Forces in South Ossetia on August 8th. Pipeline Geopolitics A central issue on the GUAM-NATO drawing board at the July GUAM Summit in Batumi, was the Odessa-Brody-Plotsk (Plock on the Vistula) pipeline route (OBP) (see Maps 3 and 4), which brings Central Asian oil via Odessa, to Northern Europe, bypassing Russian territory. An extension of OBP to Poland's port of Gdansk on the Baltic sea is also envisaged. It should be noted that the OBP also links up with Russia's Friendship Pipeline (Druzhba pipeline) in an agreement with Russia. Washington's objective is ultimately to weaken and destabilize Russia's pipeline network --including the Friendship Pipeline and the Baltic Pipeline System (BPS)-- and its various corridor links into the Western Europe energy market. It should be noted that Russia has established as part of the Druzhba pipeline network, a pipeline corridor which transits through Belarus, thereby bypassing the Ukraine. (See Maps 2 and 3 below) The Baltic Pipeline System (BPS) also operated by Russia's Transneft links Samara to Russia's oil tanker terminal at Primorsk in the Gulf of Finland. (See map below) It carries crude oil from Russia's Western Siberian region to both North and Western European markets. Another strategic pipeline system, largely controlled by Russia, is the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC). The CPC is a joint venture arrangement between Russia and Kazakhstan, with shareholder participation from a number of Middle East oil companies. The Baltic Pipeline System (BPS) is tied into the Atyrau-Samara (AS) pipeline, which is a joint venture between Russia's Transneft and Kazakhstan's national pipeline operator, KazTransOil. The AS pipeline in turn links up with the Russia-Kazakhstan Caspian Petroleum Consortium (CPC), which pumps Tengiz crude oil from Atyrau (Western Kazakhstan) to the CPC’s Russian tanker terminal near Novorossiysk on the Black Sea. On July 10, 2008, barely a week following the GUAM Summit, Transneft and KazTransOil announced that they were in talks to expand the capacity of the Atyrau-Samara pipeline from 16 to 26 million tons of oil per year. (RBC Daily, July 10, 2008). The GUAM Transportation Corridor The GUAM governments represented at the Batumi GUAM Summit also approved the further development of The GUAM Transportation Corridor (GTC), which complements the controversial Baku Tblisi Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline. The latter links the Caspian Sea basin to the Eastern Mediterranean, via Georgia and Turkey, totally bypassing Russian territory. The BTC pipeline is controlled by a oil consortium led by British Petroleum. Both the GTC and the BTC corridors are protected militarily by GUAM and NATO. The GTC corridor would connect the Azeri capital of Baku on the Caspian sea to the Georgian ports of Poti/ Batumi on the Black Sea, which would then link up with the Ukrainian Black sea port of Odessa. (And From Odessa, through maritime and land routes to Western and Northern Europe). Map No 2: Strategic Pipeline Routes. BTC, Friendship Pipeline, Baltic Pipeline System (BPS), CPC, AS Map No. 3. Russia's Druzhba pipeline system Map No 4 Eastern Europe. Plock on the Vistula The Baku Tblisi Ceyan (BTC) Pipeline The BTC pipeline dominated by British Petroleum and inaugurated in 2006 at the height of the war on Lebanon, has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is now linked, through an energy corridor, to the Caspian sea basin: "[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region's countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and israel, " (Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006) Map No 5. The Baku, Tblisi Ceyan pipeline (BTC) Pipeline Geopolitics and the Role of israel israel is now part of the Anglo-American military axis, which serves the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia. Not surprisingly, israel has military cooperation agreements with Georgia and Azerbaijan. While the official reports state that the BTC pipeline will "channel oil to Western markets", what is rarely acknowledged is that part of the oil from the Caspian sea would be directly channeled towards israel. In this regard, an underwater israeli-Turkish pipeline project has been envisaged which would link Ceyhan to the israeli port of Ashkelon and from there through israel's main pipeline system, to the Red Sea. The objective of israel is not only to acquire Caspian sea oil for its own consumption needs but also to play a key role in re-exporting Caspian sea oil back to the Asian markets through the Red Sea port of Eilat. The strategic implications of this re-routing of Caspian sea oil are farreaching. What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as israel's Tipline, from Ceyhan to the israeli port of Ashkelon. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, 26 July 2006) Map No 6. Trans-israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline America's Silk Road Strategy: The Trans-Eurasian Security System The Silk Road Strategy (SRS) constitutes an essential building block of US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. The SRS was formulated as a bill presented to the US Congress in 1999. It called for the creation of an energy and transport corridor network linking Western Europe to Central Asia and eventually to the Far East. The Silk Road Strategy is defined as a "trans-Eurasian security system". The SRS calls for the "militarization of the Eurasian corridor" as an integral part of the "Great Game". The stated objective, as formulated under the proposed March 1999 Silk Road Strategy Act, is to develop America's business empire along an extensive geographical corridor. While the 1999 SRS legislation (HR 3196) was adopted by the House of Representatives, it never became law. Under the Bush administration, the Silk Road Strategy became the basis of US-NATO interventionism, largely with a view to integrating the former Soviet republics of the South Caucasus and Central Asia into the US sphere of influence. The successful implementation of the SRS required the concurrent "militarization" of the entire Eurasian corridor from the Eastern Mediterranean to China's Western frontier bordering onto Afghanistan, as a means to securing control over extensive oil and gas reserves, as well as "protecting" pipeline routes and trading corridors. The invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 supported American strategic objectives in Central Asia including the control of pipeline corridors. Afghanistan is also a strategic landbridge linking the extensive oil wealth of the Caspian Sea basin to the Arabian Sea. The militarization process under the SRS is largely directed against China, Russia and Iran. The SRS, called for: "The development of strong political, economic, and security ties among countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia and the West [which] will foster stability in this region, which is vulnerable to political and economic pressures from the south, north, and east. [meaning Russia to the North, Iraq, Iran and the Middle East to the South and China to the East] (106th Congress, Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999) The adoption of a neoliberal policy agenda under advice from the IMF and the World Bank is an integral part of the SRS, which seeks to foster "open market economies... [which] will provide positive incentives for international private investment, increased trade, and other forms of commercial interactions". (Ibid). Strategic access to South Caucasus and Central Asian oil and gas is a central feature of the Silk Road Strategy: "The region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia could produce oil and gas in sufficient quantities to reduce the dependence of the United States on energy from the volatile Persian Gulf region." (Ibid) The SRS is also intent upon preventing the former Soviet republics from developing their own economic, political and military cooperation ties as well as establishing broad ties up with China, Russia and Iran. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, Montreal, 2005). In this regard, the formation of GUAM, which was launched in 1997, was intended to integrate the former Soviet republics into military cooperation arrangements with the US and NATO, which would prevent them from reestablishing their ties with the Russian Federation. Under the 1999 SRS Act, the term "countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia" means Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. (106th Congress, Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999). The US strategy has, in this regard, not met its stated objective: Whereas Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Georgia have become de facto US protectorates, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Armenia and Belarus are, from a geopolitical standpoint, aligned with Moscow. This extensive Eurasian network of transport and energy corridors has been defined by Washington as part of an American sphere of influence: "In the Caspian-Black Sea Region, the European Union and the United States have concentrated on setting up a reliable logistics chain to connect Central Asia with the European Union via the Central Caucasus and Turkey/Ukraine. The routes form the centerpiece of INOGATE (an integrated communication system along the routes taking hydrocarbon resources to Europe) and TRACECA (the multi-channel Europe-Caucasus-Asia corridor) projects. The TRACECA transportation and communication routes grew out of the idea of the Great Silk Road (the traditional Eurasian communication channel of antiquity). It included Georgian and Turkish Black Sea ports (Poti, Batumi, and Ceyhan), railways of Georgia and Azerbaijan, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, ferry lines that connect Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan with Azerbaijan across the Caspian Sea/Lake (Turkmenbashi-Baku; Aktau-Baku), railways and highways now being built in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and China, as well as Chinese Pacific terminals as strategically and systemically important parts of the mega-corridor." (See GUAM and the Trans-Caspian Gas Transportation Corridor: Is it about Politics or Economics?), The Kazakhstan-China Natural Gas Pipeline (KCP) Barely a few days following the GUAM Summit in Batumi, China and Kazakhstan announced (July 9, 2008) the commencement of construction work of a 1,300-kilometer natural gas pipeline. The inaugural ceremony was held near Kazakhstan's capital Almaty. The pipeline which is to be constructed in several stages is expected to start pumping gas in 2010. (See silkroadintelligencer(contact admin if its a beneficial link), July 9, 2008) "The new transit route is part of a larger project to build two parallel pipelines connecting China with Central Asia’s vast natural gas reserves. The pipes will stretch more than 7,000 kilometers from Turkmenistan, cross Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and enter China’s northwestern Xinjiang region. Uzbekistan started construction of its part this month while Turkmenistan launched its segment last year." (Ibid) Map No 7. Kazakhstan-China natural gas pipeline (KCP) China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) which is the leading operator of the consortium, "has signed deals with state oil and gas firms of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan giving them 50 percent stakes in their respective parts of the pipeline." The KPC pipeline project encroaches upon US strategic interests in Eurasia. It undermines the logic of America's Silk Road Strategy. The KPC is part of a competing Eurasian based transportation and energy strategy, largely dominated by Russia, Iran and China. Competing Eurasian Strategy protected by the SCO-CSTO Military Alliance The competing Eurasian based corridors are protected (against US-NATO encroachment) by two regional military alliances: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) The SCO is a military alliance between Russia and China and several Central Asian former Soviet republics including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran has observer status in the SCO. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which plays a key geopolitical role in relation to transport and energy corridors, operates in close liaison with the SCO. The CSTO regroups the following member states: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Of significance, since 2006, the SCO and the CSTO member countries have conducted joint war games and are actively collaborating with Iran. In October 2007, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) signed a Memorandum of Understanding, laying the foundations for military cooperation between the two organizations. This SCO-CSTO agreement, barely mentioned by the Western media, involves the creation of a full-fledged military alliance between China, Russia and the member states of SCO/CSTO. It is worth noting that the SCTO and the SCO held joint military exercises in 2006, which coincided with those conducted by Iran. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats, Global Research, August 2006) While remaining distinct from an organizational standpoint, in practice, these two regional military alliances (SCO and SSTO) constitute a single military block, which confronts US-NATO expansionism in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Full Circle The US-NATO protected SRS Eurasian transport and energy corridors, are slated to link Central Asia to the Far East, as outlined in the Silk Road Strategy. At present, the Eastward corridors linking Central Asia to China are protected militarily by the SCO-CSTO. In terms of Washington's global military and strategic agenda, the Eurasian corridors contemplated under the SRS would inevitably encroach upon China's territorial sovereignty.The proposed US-NATO-GUAM pipeline and transportation corridors are intended to connect, at some future date, with the proposed transport and energy corridors in the Western hemisphere, including those envisaged under the North American Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP). The Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is to North America what the Silk Road Strategy (SRS) is to the Caucasus and Central Asia. They are strategic regional constructs of America's business empire. They are the building blocks of the New World Order. The SPP is the result of a similar process of strategic planning, militarization and free market economic integration, largely based on the control of strategic resources including energy and water, as well as the " protection" of energy and transportation corridors (land and maritime routes ) from Alaska and Canada's Arctic to Central America and the Caribbean basin. Author's Note: This article has focused selectively on key pipeline corridors with a view to analyzing broad geopolitical and strategic issues. An examination of the overall network of Eurasian pipeline corridors would require a far more detailed and comprehensive presentation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international bestseller America’s "War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  12. Indo-isreal-us Nexus Against Pakistan

    problem of pakistan is not among educated and common people e.g i am sunni and some of my friends are shias and we share very good relationship with there families too , i am pakhoon and 2 of my best friends are punjabis so its not a issue because above all we are pakistanis problem is with the Political leadership , puppets of west and then so called ignorant religious MULLAH who hijacked the religion of Islam and divided into many sects ,they have large number of followers , i still believe some of them are also puppets of west
  13. It is essential that we...strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans." -- David Ben Gurion, the first israeli Prime Minister. Janes information group, the world's foremost source on intelligence information, reported in July 2001 that "The Indian spy agency RAW and the israeli spy agency Mossad have created four new agencies to infiltrate Pakistan to target important religious and military personalities, journalists, judges, lawyers and bureaucrats. In addition, bombs would be exploded in trains, railway stations, bridges, bus stations, cinemas, hotels and Masjids of rival Islamic sects to incite sectarianism." Pakistani intelligence agencies also said that RAW had constituted a plan to lure Pakistani men between 20 and 30 years of age to visit India so that they could be entrapped "in cases of fake currency and subversion and then be coerced to spy for India." This was the high point of cementing an unholy alliance which began much earlier and which continues to tighten its noose around the neck of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia. It appears that RAW and Mossad -- either singly or jointly, either covertly or overtly -- have been making efforts to penetrate sensitive circles of top echelon in Pakistan. It cannot be said with certainty but there are some reasons to assume that Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, wittingly or unwittingly, played in the hands of RAW-Mossad masterminds. She appointed Rehman Malik as chief of the Federal Investigation Agency which then launched a secret war against the Islamists; amounting to a direct attack on the ISI. War against religious extremists could have been a laudable goal but it seemed to target only those elements which could have brought a semblance of moderation to the religious swatch cutting across Pakistan society. Thus, leaving the field wide open for extremists. It seems that the Pakistani military was equally dismayed by reports of FIA contacts with the israeli secret service, the MOSSAD, to investigate Islamist terrorists. One of the first acts of President Leghari after dismissing Benazir Bhutto on November 5, 1996 was to imprison the Ghulam Asghar, head of FIA, suspended on non-specified corruption charges. Rehman Malik, Addl. Director General FIA, was also arrested. Whether these actions were triggered as a consequence of plotting by RAW-Mossad planners or whether it was an entirely internal matter, it is difficult to say. Bhutto s visit to India last year at a time when Pakistan was going through one of the worst crises in its history, and her statements there which aimed to undermine the whole foundation of Pakistan, generate more than a flicker of doubt in analytic minds. The basic question arises: Who is Benazir Bhutto? Leaving BB to her own fate, let's return to RAW-Mossad connection. What is clear right now is that Indian RAW and israeli Mossad are collaborating extensively to curb the freedom movement of Kashmir and destabilize Pakistan. The Indian newspaper The Pioneer wrote on March 3, 2001: Fencing of the Indo-Pak border is not enough. To check Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism, top security experts of israel have suggested that hi-tech gadgets ranging from an electronic barrier system of radars to thermal imaging devices should be immediately installed on India's sensitive international border in J[ammu] & K[ashmir] and Punjab sectors. The team of experts, including officials of the Mossad, the israeli Army and the israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), also found shocking loopholes in the security arrangements relating to the much-talked about Samjhauta Express. They advised that instead of Lahore, the train should terminate on the Attari border. Sources in the Ministry of Home Affairs said the israeli experts surveyed the 198 km international border in Jammu and Punjab and reviewed the route of the Samjhauta Express with top officials of the Border Security Force. Subsequently, former DG of the Border Security Force, E.N. Ram Mohan was appointed as the consultant on border management. Mr. Ram Mohan has recommended that besides radars, aerostate balloons and FLIR equipment be used. India is keen to purchase surveillance aircraft (UAVs) from israel to gain intelligence teeth. The UAVs could also help the state police in keeping an eye in naxalite-affected areas of Andhra Pradesh. For several years, Mossad and israel's internal intelligence agency, Shinbhet, have utilised unmanned air vehicles to patrol the hypersensitive Gaza border. Qutbuddin Aziz, former minister in Pakistan embassy in London, wrote an excellent article, titled 'Dangerous Nexus between israel & India.' It was published by a prominent Pakistani newspaper on April 1, 2001. Aziz writes: "Top secret details of Indian Home Minister LK Advani's visit to israel in June 2000, show that the deals he has struck with the israelis would make India and israel partners in threatening the Muslim world with diabolic conspiracies to fragment and cripple it as a political force in the world. The details of his meetings with israel's rulers, particularly the heads of the israeli Home Ministry and its intelligence agencies, Mossad and Sabak, reveal that the arrangements he has made for joint Indo-israel espionage operations in key areas of the Muslim world would make the Indian embassies in these Muslim countries the eyes and ears of the worldwide cloak-and-dagger israeli spy network. "Under the euphemism of 'counter-terrorism,' India is allowing israel to establish a huge spy establishment in India which will, inter alia, unearth and monitor 'Islamic fundamentalist' individuals and groups for elimination by extra judicial process or by cold-blooded murder and kidnapping. "The most important meeting Indian Home Minister Advani had during his three-day israeli tour on June 13-16 was with the top brass of israel's intelligence agencies in Tel Aviv. Heading the israeli team was the powerful chief of israeli police, Yehuda Wilk, with the heads of the israeli intelligence agencies, Mossad and Sabak, and military officials dealing with israel's punitive and espionage operations against Arabs in israel, Palestine and neighbouring states such as Lebanon and Syria. Senior officials from the israeli Foreign Office and the defence and home ministries attended this meeting. israeli experts in bomb detection were also present. "Mr. Advani's large team included India's highest-level spymasters such as the Director of the Intelligence Bureau, Mr. Shayamal Dutta, the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Mr. R. K. Raghvan, the head of the Indian Border Security Force, Mr. E. M. Ram Mohan, Indian Home Ministry's powerful Secretary K. Pande who oversees the work of the infamous Indian spy agency, RAW, and liaises with the Indian Foreign Office in respect of undercover RAW agents working in Indian embassies abroad, and a senior officer of India's military intelligence agency (equivalent of Pakistan's ISI). "In this top-level meeting in Tel Aviv on June 14, Advani reportedly thanked the israeli government for its immense help to India in security matters and spoke of the dangers India and israel face from their common enemies, i.e., Muslim neighbours. "Advani, it is reported, highly praised the help provided by Mossad and army commando personnel to the Indian army in the war on 'Muslim militants' in Kashmir and against 'Muslim terrorists' such as the 'Memon brothers' of Mumbai in Dubai. Advani said he had, throughout his political career, advocated India's recognition and friendship with israel and that his party had played a key role in forcing Congress government to have full diplomatic relations with israel in 1992. "He lauded the Indo-israeli cooperation in the military, economic and other fields. Advani recalled that India had voted in favour of a US-sponsored motion in the UN for rescinding a UN resolution that equated Zionism with racism. Mr. Advani explained at length India's security problems in which the danger from Pakistan and Indian Muslims getting Arab money loomed large. Advani gave a long list of the special services in spying and the anti-insurgency devices and spy equipment India urgently needs from israel to combat 'Muslim terrorism.' "In the June 14 Tel Aviv meeting, the israeli Police Chief, Yehuda Wilk, profusely praised India for its friendship with israel and pledged help to the Indian government in combating 'Muslim terrorism' that poses new threats to israel and India. The heads of India's intelligence agencies then briefed the israeli side in the meeting on the ground situation in India in respect of 'Muslim terrorists,' especially in Jammu and Kashmir, and the new dangers coming up for India and israel because of the Pakistani bomb and the fear that Pakistan may give its nuclear weapons to the anti-israel Arabs. "The Indian side showed a keen interest in learning from israeli security experts how they had run the slice of Lebanon which israel ruled for 18 years and gave up recently. Some information about the israeli torture and investigation methods was gathered by the Indian side from the israelis with regard to dealing with Arab dissidents within israel and in the Palestinian Authority region. "The Indians gave the israelis a long shopping list of spying, torture and surveillance equipment such as electronic fencing of sensitive sites, laser systems, short-range rockets, eagle-eyed long distance snipers, observation blimps, giant shields, night vision device, unmanned aircraft of the MALAT wing of the israeli Aircraft Industries Limited, special protective dress and gear for security personnel, cross border snopping devices and gadgets, training and deployment of spies and the special gear for them, use of computers and Internet for espionage and disinformation, code-breaking, tailing of enemy agents and their elimination, nuclear espionage, purloining state secrets of hostile countries and pooling them for the good of India and israel and their mutual friends. "The israelis were interested in having access to the secret reports of Indian undercover RAW diplomats from certain Muslim countries of special interest to israel (especially Pakistan, Libya and Iran). India is apparently willing to grant access to israeli agents to the Indian Home Ministry's Central Intelligence Processing Unit (CIPU) in New Delhi. This was recently set up under Advani's direction with israeli and US help. A handpicked RAW officer, trusted by Advani, heads this unit. israel wants full access to its information data. The Indian government has already allowed access to it by American intelligence agencies now working with the Indian government on so-called anti-terrorist assignments. Federation of American Scientists website comments on RAW in these words: "RAW has engaged in disinformation campaigns, espionage and sabotage against Pakistan and other neighboring countries. RAW has enjoyed the backing of successive Indian governments in these efforts. Working directly under the Prime Minister, the structure, rank, pay and perks of the Research & Analysis Wing are kept secret from Parliament." Tarek Fatah, a Turkish scholar settled in Canada, wrote: "Britain's authoritative and respected defense publication, Jane's Terrorism & Security Monitor, reports that israel and India have formed a military relationship and that israeli intelligence is active in Occupied Kashmir. "It says: israeli intelligence agencies have been intensifying their relations with India's security apparatus and are now understood to be heavily involved in helping New Delhi combat Islamic militants in the disputed province of Kashmir... Ed Blanche writes in Janes' Security on 14 August 2001: "israeli intelligence agencies have been intensifying their relations with India's security apparatus and are now understood to be heavily involved in helping New Delhi combat Islamic militants in the disputed province of Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state which lies at the core of the conflict with neighbouring Pakistan. "israel has several teams now in Kashmir training Indian counter-insurgency forces to fight the dozen separatist guerrilla groups operating in the Indian-controlled sector of the disputed state. "The exact extent of the involvement in Kashmir by israel s intelligence agencies is far from clear, but it fits into israel's increasing focus on events in Central Asia, and as far afield as Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim state, to counteract Islamic fundamentalism, which it perceives as a major threat. "Shimon Peres, currently israel's foreign minister, said during a visit to New Delhi in January 2001 (shortly before he took his current post in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's coalition government) that israel was prepared to co-operate with India to fight terrorism. Weeks earlier, an israeli counterterrorism team, including military intelligence specialists and senior police commanders, paid a visit to Indian-administered Kashmir and other regions of the country that are grappling with anti-government militants to assess India's security needs. If there is still any doubt as to the real intentions of israel, then please see this statement issued by David Ben Gurion, the first israeli Prime Minister. His words, as printed in the Jewish Chronicle, 9 August 1967, leave nothing to imagination: "The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological State is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs. "This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan. "Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work therefrom against Pakistan. "It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans. ____ We are grateful to Tariq Saeedi for permission to reprint excerpts from his special report that appeared first published in baluchistanpost SHOCKING TRUTH : INDO -ISREAL-US NEXUS , SECURITY IMPLICATIONS FOR PAKISTAN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDO-israel-US NEXUS: Security Implications for Pakistan South Asia has been subjected to tensions between states ever since it gainedindependence from British colonial rule in 1947. Asymmetric relationsbetween India and its neighbours are indeed influenced by the feelings of insecurity simmering amongst the smaller countries. Most of these states arelocked in disputes with India that is, three times bigger than all of them put together. Indian ambitions to consolidate its hegemony over the entire SouthAsia have catalyzed confrontation and conflict with Pakistan. The twocountries have fought three wars. In the 1971 war Pakistan wasdismembered which led to the emergence of Bangladesh as a separate state.In such a fragile security environment, Pakistan was compelled to avail all possible means available to safeguard its independence and ensure itssecurity. Resultantly, it funneled a major chunk of its GDP for its defense, maintaining a large and un-proportionate army, stockpiling huge inventoryof arms and ammunition, joining alliances to ensure protection of itssovereignty and to enhance its defense potential. Once the nefarious Indiandesigns took a step further in 1974 and prompted a nuclear explosion,Pakistan had no other option but to follow suit so as to address its new emerging security threat.The two countries, which were known to have covertly acquired nuclear weapons technology, went overtly nuclear when India carried outnuclear tests in May 1998. Pakistan has to experience a new tone of Indianleadership just after their detonation threatening its sovereignty and survival.Indian Interior Minister L.K. Advani bluntly warned Pakistan to vacate partof Kashmir under its control otherwise he “vowed to end the Pakistan menace†and declared that “a qualitative new stage of India-Pakistan relations has been brought about by the country becoming a nuclear weapon48 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3 state."1M.L. Khurana, another Indian minister, declared that India is now“fully prepared to fight a fourth war with Pakistan.â€2These and othersimilar statements suggesting reunification of the subcontinent under IndianEmpire supplemented by the relatively lukewarm international response tothe Indian tests compelled Pakistan to go for matching response. In fact Pakistan was left with no option but to conduct nuclear blasts of its own on28thand 30thMay 1998, as potent defensive step. Hence, with the nuclear tests of India and Pakistan, the security paradigm of South Asia underwent astructural change and threat of any new conflict between them carried therisk of turning nuclear since then.A flourishing Indo-israeli-US relationship has the potential to make asignificant impact on global politics by altering the balance of power, notonly in South Asia and the Middle East, but all over the Muslim World, which has been in a state of flux since the end of the cold war or more specifically since 9/11. The emerging nexus and this un-holly alliance callfor the seriousness of Muslim World in general and Pakistan in particular soas to understand the gravity of the situation and emerging securityconstraints to their sovereignty and survival. The emerging Delhi-Jerusalem-Washington strategic alliance poses major challenges to the security ofPakistan and the Middle East and has full potential to become one of thecrucial factors to the maintenance of regional and global security, if leftunchecked. Therefore, it is imperative for us to conduct an in-depth study of the emerging triad, forces of their convergence, extent and scope of their converging interests and their impact on the security of Pakistan.Aspiring Imperialism- Triangulation Being one of the world’s ancient civilizations with second most populatedcountry, India has long been questing for attaining matching role ininternational affairs and powerful enough to be reckoned with in the region.49 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 4 To pursue this mindset, Indian policymakers have been seeking a place on the world stage3from being merely a credible regional player. They havebeen aspiring for their new assertive role in the Central Asian Republics,Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. As its strategists reviewIndia's national aspirations they blame Pakistan for acting as a road-block.They believed that if the country had not been partitioned, India today would have stretched from the Gulf of Oman to Burma, controlling Indian Ocean all along, well positioned to gain access to Central Asia and encompassing apopulation that was second to none. Resultantly, Indian leadership had neverreconciled to the very existence of Pakistan. It has, therefore, imposed threewars, hundreds of skirmishes, uncountable artillery duels and covertlysupported separatist movements and fifth columnists in Pakistan, wheneverand wherever possible.To realize its designs India had always been taking cover of the antiPakistan power blocks and stock piling its already un-proportionate armada to sky limits so as to maintain a credible threat constantly looming over thesecurity of Pakistan. Once a very loyal client of USSR, India reoriented itsforeign policy to accommodate the changing realities of international milieu and find a position in US -israeli camp. India and israel are very strange so called democracies of their own kinds. Both have been unleashing mostoppressive attitudes towards their minorities, and seas of hostility aroundtheir neighbours and both have occupied areas beyond their borders,denouncing number of UNO resolutions ordering vacation of occupied areassince 1948.4Both are pursuing their hegemonic policies aimed on revivingtheir Biblical time Empires. Both have commonality of interest in weakeningthe Muslim world. Despite, India’s overt anti- israel stance to counter Pakistan’s influence in the Arab World, India covertly succeeded to manage deep rooted relations with israel. This hidden face is visible once one readscomments from Harsh Pant article that, 50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5 “israel also never hesitated to come to India’s defense, publicly and vigorously, in most of India’s major conflicts. While India got tacithelp and support from israel during its 1962 war with China and1965 war with Pakistan, India’s relations with israel went downhillin the early seventies with the worsening of the Arab-israeli dispute after the 1967 warâ€.5Commonality of Perceptions: The determined pursuance of their imperialistic approach had resulted into aheavily militarized security environment in their neighborhood. Both nations have forced wars upon their militarily weak neighbors, in connivance withSuper Powers like USA and USSR, or both, in nearly every decade of their existence. Both the countries have plans to carve out territories and resources of the Muslim neighbours and to redraw their boundaries at the pattern of their biblical time. Both the countries including USA possess a shame record of disrespecting international law and norms, violation ofhuman rights towards their minorities, excessive and barbaric use of force against struggler of independence in occupied areas.6The most strikingcommonality is their perception of Islam as their common enemy and their common target is illegal acquisition of wealth and resources of MuslimWorld. The USA also aspired to join them as having commonality ofobjective at least in the last one being its national interest.7During the ColdWar, the United States pursued many foreign policy goals, but its oneoverriding national purpose was to contain and defeat communism. If thereis no Cold War, the rationale for major programs and initiatives disappears.8As the Cold War wound down in the late 1980s, Gorbachev's adviserGeorgiy Arbatov once commented: “We are doing something really terribleto you—we are depriving you of an enemy.†Psychologists generally agreethat individuals and groups define their identity by differentiatingthemselves from and placing themselves in opposition to others.951 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 6 Convergence of Interests Several strategic imperatives account for India’s opening with israel. India wanted a reliable source of sophisticated weapons in the wake of the meltdown of Soviet Union; USA and israel were the obvious choices. American conscious response in 90s provided an intended opportunity toisrael to initiate close ties with India. israel was also interested in aprofitable relationship with India not only for a huge market for israel’s defense industry but also a way of containing Pakistan that was avowedlycommitted to helping the Middle Eastern states against Tel Aviv. Over time, India has also been able to hone its military intelligence agencies with the help of israel’s surveillance technology, including airborne warning andcontrol system. The intense and diverse nature of overt contacts betweenIndia and israel since 1992 was based on covert relations since 1952 whenIndia accepted israel as a sovereign state. Their mutual concerns and commonality of interests, despite prolonged absence of overt political relations have not prohibited both the countries from seeking security cooperation between the two. The apparent threats confronting both seemdissimilar; but the strategic orientation of their ambitions points towards common goals like: •They underscore a search for qualitative weapons, modernization, cooperation in naval patrol and anti-terrorism, arms buildup, exports and technological independence as a source of nationalpower and as the tools for furthering national interests. •Both are pursuing their hegemonic agendas of Greater israel and Akhand Bharat, since their inception as modern state. •The main rivals or obstacles, impeding realization of their ambitions, are Muslim states and Islamic civilization. 52 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 7 •Notwithstanding Pakistan’s present status of non-NATO ally or USpartner of war against terrorism and apparently favorable intentions of the current US administration, India and israel are termed as strategic partners and recipients of US economic, military aid, including access to nuclear and conventional technologies and research.•Pakistan’s hostile relationship with India impinges on both short-and- long-term American interests as America has hopes for wider strategic cooperation and stronger economic ties with India.10•During the last three years, not only has israel become the second largest exporter of defense hardware to India, New Delhi has alsosecured extensive israeli cooperation in non-defense sectors—suchas agriculture as Tel Aviv is a world leader in drip irrigation. 11•Bilateral relations between India and israel have strengthenedsignificantly. Experiencing a convergence of interests on a range of issues, both nations are focusing on military, identifying Islam as acommon foe. Islamic terrorism is also American’s center ofgeopolitical attention, ever since the dissipation of communisminternational, that is, serving as a complimenting cause fordeepening of Indo-israeli-US ties—the commonality of interestbetween the trio. US is facilitating India in terms of hi-tech trade and transactions with Indian, covering cutting-edge technologypertaining to civilian nuclear energy, space, missile defense, and hi-tech commerce.12In a relatively short span of thirteen years offormal diplomatic relations, India and israel have established avibrant partnership, strengthening their defense and securityapparatus. The two states are also making concerted attempts to diversify this relationship. The emergence of India and israel, as 53 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 8 industrialized and technologically-advanced states, makes their cooperation on a range of fields meaningful and mutuallybeneficial.•India has become israel’s second-largest trading partner in Asia in non-military goods and services reaching trade to $1.27 billion in2002 from just $202 million in 1992.13•During his visit to India, Ariel Sharon was accompanied by a largedelegation of about 30 influential businessmen, eager to forge newcontracts and open new markets in India. This bears witness toisrael’s commitment to intensify its economic and trade relations with India.14•Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, during his September 2004 visit to USA, met top leaders of the American Jewish community and complemented their contribution to the Indo-US, as well as, Indo-israeli friendships. The Jewish organizations in theUS share a very close relationship with the Indian-American community and together they have been instrumental in shaping Indo-israeli ties.15•The range and extent of developing Indo-israeli relationship can bejudged by the six agreements, signed during Sharon’s visit to India, covering the fields of environment; health; combating illicittrafficking of drugs; visa waivers for diplomatic, service, andofficial passport holders; education; and an exchange program for cultural education.16•Given India’s strong scientific and technological base, israel is keen on strengthening scientific and technological ties with India.17Both nations are planning to double the investment under the54 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 9 ongoing science and technology collaboration from $0.5 million in2003 to about $1 million by 2005.18•During their visit to India in December 2004, israel’s Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Industries, Trade,Employment, and Communications, Ehud Olmert decided toexpand trade ties and to set up a joint fund for research and development with the aim of promoting technology-based tradeand collaboration in tapping the global market together. •Since former president Bill Clinton's visit to India in March 2000, the world's two largest democracies have been moving toward creating a strategic partnership. United States and India today arehappily confronted by an unprecedented convergence of interests, values, and inter-societal ties in a way never experienced before inthe close to sixty-year history of the bilateral relationship.19Throughout his five-day stay in India, Clinton repeatedly called India a great nation and welcomed its leadership in the region.20On the other hand, in his remarks during his five-hour stopover in Pakistan, urged General Musharraf to develop a timetable and aroadmap for restoring democracy at the top as well at the local level.21USA’s Look Towards Pakistan A senior US official pointed out what Pakistan needed: “It needs bettergovernance. It needs to end its dangerous associations with extremist groupsin the region. It needs to demonstrate restraint, practically on the ground inKashmir. It needs to find ways to renew, broaden, and deepen dialogue withIndia. It needs to stay away from adventures like Kargil. It needs to use itsinfluence with the Taliban in Afghanistan to end that war, to shut downterrorism camps and to bring terrorists to justice. It needs to sign the55 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 10 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and demonstrate restraint in developingweapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.â€22 •Ashley J. Tellis while commenting on the validity as well as perceived productivity of US-Indian relationship, presumes that inthe foreseeable future relations between Washington and New Delhi will be quite different, for the first time in recent memory,from its past bound together by common and convergent interestsin a diverse set of issues and arenas. These are:22− Preventing Asia from being dominated by any singlepower that has the capacity to crowd out others and whichmay use aggressive assertion of national self interest to threaten American presence, American alliances, and American ties with the regional states; − Eliminating the threats posed by state sponsors of terrorism who may seek to use violence against innocents to attain various political objectives, and more generallyneutralizing the dangers posed by terrorism and religious extremism to free societies; − Arresting the further spread of weapons of mass destruction and related technologies to other countries andsub-national entities, including sub-state actors operatingindependently or in collusion with states; − Promoting the spread of democracy not only as an end initself but also as a strategic mean of preventing illiberal polities from exporting their internal struggles over power abroad; 56 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 11 − Advancing the diffusion of economic development withthe intent of spreading peace through prosperity through the expansion of a liberal international economic order thatincreases trade in goods, services, and technologyworldwide; − Protecting the global commons, especially the sea lanes ofcommunications, through which flow not only goods and services critical to the global economy but also undesirable commerce such as drug trading, human smuggling, andweapons of mass destruction technologies; − Preserving energy security by enabling stable access to existing energy sources through efficient and transparentmarket mechanisms(both internationallyand domestically), while collaborating to develop new sources of energy through innovative approaches that exploit science and technology; and − Safeguarding the global environment by promoting thecreation and use of innovative technology to achievesustainable development, devising permanent, self-sustaining, market-based institutions and systems that improve environmental protection, developing coordinated strategies for managing climate change, and assisting in the event of natural disasters. •In the late 90s the USA began to side India and the nature of theirrelations turned from estranged democracies of the Cold War toengaged democracies in the post- Cold War era.23•USA has welcomed the growing ties between India and israel byapproving hi-tech military exports from israel to India as it has a57 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 12 significant veto over israel’s defense exports and in 2000, vetoedan intended $2 billion Phalcon sale to China. However, US’s disapproval of the possible sale of israel’s Arrow anti-missilesystem to India, leading to the suspension of talks between Indiaand israel is apparently being seen to pacify Pakistan so as to keepher engaged in “war against terrorismâ€.24•USA has also lifted restrictions on hi-technology trade with India,covering cutting-edge technology pertaining to civilian nuclear energy, space, missile defense, and hi-tech commerce.25•India’s has successfully linked Kashmir Independence Movement with radical Islamic terrorist group, such as al Qaeda, hence succeeding to draw support of israel and USA for this commoncause. Resultant Pakistan’s withdrawal of support of Kashmiri hardliners like Syed Ali Gilani is another outcome of this unholyalliance. •India is amongst those very few countries who haveenthusiastically endorsed the United States new strategic framework (deployment of his national missile defense system) despite decades of objections to U.S. nuclear policies, at a timewhen even formal American allies withheld their support. As a reward USA has promised to provide Tactical Missile DefenceSystem to India, a step to upset the nuclear balance between Pakistan and India and even between China and India. •Offered unqualified support for the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign inAfghanistan to include the use of numerous Indian military bases,an offer that was never made even to the Soviet Union which functioned as New Delhi’s patron during the last decades of theCold War. 58 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 13 •Expressed no opposition whatsoever to the USA’s decision towithdraw from the ABM Treaty, despite the widespreadinternational and domestic condemnation of the U.S. action; •Signed a ten-year defense cooperation framework agreement withthe United States that identifies common strategic goals and the means for achieving them, despite strong domestic opposition to,and regional suspicion about, such forms of collaboration withWashington; and •Voted with the United States at the September 2005 IAEA Board of Governors meeting to declare Iran in non-compliance with theNon-Proliferation Treaty, despite strong domestic opposition and international surprise. •In the views of American policy makers “Pakistan’s hostilerelationship with India impinges on both short- and- long-termAmerican interests as America has hopes for wider strategiccooperation and stronger economic ties with Indiaâ€26•US-India defence engagement has reached to new heights usuallyreserved for close US allies and friends, ranging from joint exercises in Alaska to sales of military hardware. Reversingdecades of U.S. policy, ushering India into the world's exclusivenuclear club and sharing nuclear reactors, fuel and expertise27thusending India's long isolation as a nuclear maverick that defied world appeals and developed nuclear weapons. According toTeresita C. Schaffer, a growing convergence of Indian and USinterests in Asian security is likely to be the most dynamic element in the bilateral relationship in the next decade. Their common interest in Indian Ocean security and in not having Asia dominated59 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 14 by a single power (such as China) can be the basis for a significant expansion of their security cooperation.28•The events of September 11, anti-terrorism in Afghanistan and theUS re-engagement with Pakistan have complicated US-Indiarelations in the short term and “have introduced a wild card into theUS vision of India’s future and of future US and Indian priorities inAsia.â€29Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defense, assured New Delhi that US policy towards South Asia, in renewing the relationship with Pakistan, would not overlook India’s interests.30•Short-term points of Indo-US divergence over Pakistan, terrorismand Kashmir following 9/11, would not prevent long-termconvergence based on common commercial interests, security cooperation and democratic values. Further both India and the USshare the common view of China as a potential and major futurethreat; and, have common interests in circumscribing the rise ofChina. In the long term, there is the possibility of establishingstrategic relations with each other to contain China by using the other as a core element for balancing Beijing, especially at a timewhen each has trouble with China. •In the words of Ambassador Blackwill: “It is difficult to thinkeasily of countries other than India and the United States thatcurrently face to the same striking degree all three of these intensechallenges simultaneously: advancing Asian stability based ondemocratic values; confronting daily the threat of international terror; and slowing the further proliferation of WMD.â€31•Recognizing that a new global partnership would require engagingNew Delhi not only on issues important to the United States, theAdministration has moved rapidly to expand bilateral collaboration60 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 15 on a wide range of subjects, including those of greatest importanceto India. 10-year agreement signed between both the states in July2005 has paved the way for joint weapons production, cooperation on missile defense and lifting of US export controls on sensitivemilitary technology.32Earlier, US had allowed Lockheed Martinand Boeing to offer F-16 and F-18 warplanes.33The agreementconcluded on 2ndMarch 2006, during the Bush visit to India,relating to civilian nuclear cooperation is, part of a larger set of initiatives involving space, dual-use high technology, advancedmilitary equipment, and missile defense. Irrespective of the technologies involved in each of these realms, the Administration has approached the issues implicated in their potential release toNew Delhi through an entirely new prism. In contrast to the past, USA sees India as part of the solution to proliferation rather than aspart of the problem. He views the growth of Indian power as beneficial to the United States and its geopolitical interests in Asiaand, hence, worthy of strong American support.34Strategically Oriented Troika The people of India, USA and israel have a long history of civilizationalcontact and it is natural for this troika to cooperate more closely with each other on issues ranging from defense cooperation and counterterrorism totrade and cultural exchanges. Pakistani Ambassador to the United NationsMunir Akram once rightly commented about the Indo- israel relations (though excluded USA from this ) when remarked, ''The states which aresuppressing the right of peoples to self-determination in the Middle East andSouth Asia are now joining together in what is advertised as an alliance against terrorism, but which is more likely to emerge as an axis ofoppression.''35These remarks mirror growing worries in Pakistan at thewarming ties between India and israel—one its arch rival and the other a 61 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 16 country that it considers as an illegitimate state. Thus, the emerging situation has once again provided India with some new avenues to explore as it tries to balance its competing national interests. The present strategic regional andglobal imperatives have created a consensus in Delhi, Jerusalem and Washington that their strategic alliance is mutually beneficial in the shortterm as well as in the long term. Their special relationship has gone beyondthe institutional framework and is gradually becoming stronger as their interaction multiplies. The 'israeli card' is becoming useful to India in dealing with the Arab states. It has helped India to assume an added importance for the Arabs, and has provided a useful opportunity to carve outa role for herself in the volatile Middle East. The continuity of this triangle is likely to lead to a common visiontowards domestic issues, regional security and the global strategicenvironment. Present dispositions of the American naval armada in and around Gulf, Indian’s control on Indian Ocean and israeli’s capability of controlling entrance and exit from and into the Red Sea are pointing towards future of Muslim World of South-Central and West Asia under siege. Thisnoose around the Muslim’s neck may be fully tightened once the EuropeanUnion also joins this troika and links up -extending this siege intoMediterranean and Black sea. Similarly, America can play a decisive role in legitimizing Indian stance on Kashmir and softening up Pakistan’s capabilities to resist or counteract.The emerging scenario depicts most of these variables seem to berealizing their future shape. Socio-culturally USA, India and israel are discovering a natural affinity, their economic cooperation is provingmutually beneficial, a partnership in the defense and security spheres isdeveloping, and politico-strategically this triad is moving towards each other. Therefore, it is important for policy makers of Pakistan to come out of illusion and acknowledge that the triad is developing a clear common62 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 17 security threat for Muslim World in general and Pakistan in particular. Jointmilitary exercises and other Joint ventures in defense and security havebecome vital to the Indo-israeli –US strategic alliance and if continuallypursued, would provide further strategic depth for their relationship (andconcomitant threat for Pakistan). Pakistan’s Security Imperatives To Pakistani leadership and policy makers, the growing India-israel relationsshould come as no surprise, given the convergence of interests between the two countries. This has also been reflected in increasing cooperation between the Jewish community and the Indian diasporas in the UnitedStates. It is not in israel's interest to see the Pakistani bomb which hasbecome an 'Islamic' bomb. The growing military contacts between India and israel have rekindled speculations of Indo-israeli nuclear cooperation as wellas resurfaced the fears of the past, both countries seeking to attack the Pakistani nuclear installations. Do growing India-israel relations have an impact on Pakistan and its security? The answer is categorical yes.Security has been the overriding and foremost concern of Pakistan—both internal and external, that is, from within and without. Itgoes without saying that Pakistan is a peaceful country: it seeks actively a peaceful international order. It has always sought and upheld peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes. Despite this policy of peace-making, inherent in Pakistan's ideology and geopolitical orientation,the fact is that in the first quarter of its coming into existence the country has been the victim of aggression time and again. After the two decades of itslife, the country was subjected to another aggression in connivance with thesuper power(s) and succeeded in fulfillment of their ill designs ofdismembering Pakistan. India could not remain satisfied, with the creation of Bangladesh,and followed long tested policy of creating and sponsoring the ethnic based63 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 18 separatist’s movements amongst Sindhies, Balouchis, Pakhtoons andMuhagirs. Even Punjabis have been urged to “shed the undesirable burden†(of other provinces) and work for greater Punjab.36However, intensificationof the on going indigenous struggle in Kashmir have caused increasing number of casualties among the Indian security forces. India responded by stepping up its repression by greatly increasing its military and paramilitary forces, indulging and incurring massive human rights violations. Between1989 and 2000, some 70,000 Kashmiri freedom fighters were martyred and alarge numbers were mutilated or incarcerated. Rapes, burning of houses and villages, as well as, desecration of religious places of worship, were resortedto in order to strike terror among the rebellious population.37Should Pakistan Look toward East or West? National security is a primer of international politics and the hallmark of states’ foreign policies and postures. States are patching up alliances, marshalling hard and soft prowess and harnessing diplomacy and divulging propaganda to accomplish maximum national security. Policies revolve and evolve around security concerns, identifying possible and probable securitythreats, perceived in ideological, historical, geographical and strategic perspectives. Formation of local, regional, international and now globalsecurity systems and eventual deformation of these blocs have dominatedintellectual and policy formulation debates. National security is a primaryand permanent national interest, taking into consideration as a focal point of ‘high politics’ or ‘politics among nations’. That is why security studies haveretained its flair, remaining at the core of research studies, given thecircumstances of time and place. This is particularly true in the case of Pakistan’s national security. Setting on the most strategic turf and on the most volatile geopoliticallandscape, Pakistan’s national security agenda has been in flux, fluctuatingwith every major and minor international event. Anything anywhere else64 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 19 affects the security agenda of Pakistan such is the case of ‘the Indo-israel-US nexus’. “As the US-India-israel strategic partnership becomes institutionalized,Pakistan's threat perception regarding India's heightened military proficiency—stemming from military-to-military contacts and jointexercises between India, israel and US air forces and navies - also heightens, thereby further widening the gap between the armed forces of the two SouthAsian rivals. It is frustrating for Pakistan that, while it is going all the way in ameliorating America's threat perceptions related to al-Qaeda.â€38It is receiving nothing but a lip service in return. Probably Pakistan would bewell advised to turn to the East, that is, China in its quest for security:Pakistan would be better of if it gains full membership of ShanghaiCooperation Organization. We should not forget that our experience with theWest has been total let-down; whilst China has always been a friend in needthereby proving itself as a friend indeed.65 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 20 End Notes1The Telegraph, Calcutta, 19 May 1998. 2Asian Age, New Delhi, 22 May 1998. 3Pravin Sawhney, "Article Calls for Second Nuclear Test," The Asian Age, transcribed in FBIS-NES-95-246, December 22, 1995, p. 37. 4A detailed examination of the Indo-israeli relations in a historical context can be found in P.R. Kumaraswamy, "India and israel: Emerging Partnership," Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 2002), pp. 193-200. 5Harsh V. Pant, “India-israel Partnership: Convergence and Constraintsâ€, South Asia Analysis Group. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsaag(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/papers13/paper1279.html6Plenty"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsaag(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/papers13/paper1279.html6Plenty[/url] of examples may be cited with regards to similarity in pattern of USA towards Muslims and Islam. Firstly President Bush declaration of “Crusade†againstAfghanistan and Iraq, continued massacre of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq,inhuman treatment with Muslim prisoners in Gutamonobay and Abughareeb, etc 7A national interest is a public good of concern to all or most Americans; a vital national interest is one, which they are wining to expend blood and treasure to defend. National interests usually combine security and material concerns, on theone hand, and moral and ethical concerns, on the other. See, Samuel Huntington, "The Erosion of American National Interests," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, no. 5(September-October 1997) 8Samuel Huntington, op. cit 9Vamik D. Volkan, The Need to Have Enemies and Allies: From Clinical Practice to International Relationships, Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1994, and JonathanMercer, "Anarchy and Identity," International Organization, Spring 1996, pp. 237-68 as quoted by Samuel Huntington, in the "The Erosion of American NationalInterests," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, no. 5 (September-October 1997) 10. Cohen Stephen Philip, The Idea of Pakistan, 2005, Lahore, Vanguard Books,p.305 11“Budding israel India relationship bad for Pakistanâ€, Daily Times, June 16, 2003 12. Peter Slevin, “US to Send India Nuclear, Space Technology,†Washington Post, January 13, 2004. 13. “We need more Business: Sharon,†Times of India, September 11, 2003; Also see, “India, israel aim to increase Bilateral Trade,†Associated Press, September 9, 2003.14. Harsh, “India-israel Partnership: Convergence and Constraintsâ€, op.cit. 15. On the close relationship between American-Jewish and American-Indian groups, see Indrani Bagchi, “Canny Friends,†India Today, April 10, 2004 16. See the bilateral statement on friendship and cooperation signed between India andisrael during Ariel Sharon’s visit to India in September 2003, <you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_meaindia.nic.in>.17P. Sunderarajan, “israel plans thrust on science and technology collaboration,†The Hindu, December 25, 2003.18ibid 19Ashley J. Tellis , “The U.S.-India 'Global Partnership’': How Significant for American Interests?,†Testimony by before the House Committee on International Relations called by Chairman of the Committee Henry Hyde to examine the implications of the U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation.20. Remarks by the President to the Indian Joint Session of Parliament. US Department of State, Washington File, March 22, 2000. 66 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 21 21. Remarks by the President in Greeting the People of Pakistan. US Department of State, Washington File, March 25, 2000. 22These points taken from the testimony of Mr. Ashley J. Tellis Carnegie Senior Associate. On November 16, 2005, Ashley J. Tellis testified before the House Committee on International Relations. His testimony was part of the hearing on "The US-India ‘Global Partnership’: How Significant for American Interests?" called by Chairman of the Committee Henry Hyde to examine the implications ofthe U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation.23. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetidsa-india(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/SAARCHIVES/SA200302/APR-JUN01.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetidsa-india(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/SAARCHIVES/SA200302/APR-JUN01.htm[/url], Also SeeDennis Kux, India and the United States: Estranged Democracies 1941-1991 1992. National Defense University Press, Washington D.C; Kanti Bajpai and Amitabh Mattoo, Ed., Engaged Democracies: India-US Relations in the 21st Century. 2000. Har Anand Publications Pvt. Ltd.; New Delhi.24. Atul Aneja, “US objects to sale of Arrow missiles to India,†The Hindu, September 8, 2003. 25. Peter Slevin, “US to Send India Nuclear, Space Technology,†Washington Post, January 13, 2004. 26. Cohen, The Idea of Pakistan, 2005, op.cit,p.305 27. President Bush during his visit to India on 2ndMarch 2006, signed an agreement with India in this regards. See: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.yahoo(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/fc/US/Bush_Administration"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.yahoo(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/fc/US/Bush_Administration[/url] 28. Schaffer, Teresita C., Rising India and U.S. Policy Options in Asia. Report of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), South Asia Program, January 2002. 29. ibid 30. Dugger, Celia W. , “US and India Map Path to Military Cooperation; More ArmsSales Are Seen.†New York Times. November 6, 2001 31. Blackwill, Robert D., The Quality and Durability of the US-India Relationship.Remarks delivered November 27, 2002 in Calcutta 32.By Minhaj Qidwai, “US-India Nexus: Implications to China and Pakistan “Al-Jazeerah, July 3, 2005. available at: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetaljazeerah.info/Opinion/editorials/2005/July/3o/US-India%20Nexus%20Implications.htm33.By"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetaljazeerah.info/Opinion/editori...ations.htm33.By[/url] Minhaj Qidwai, “US-India Nexus: Implications to China and Pakistan “Al-Jazeerah, July 3, 2005. available at: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetaljazeerah.info/Opinion/editorials/2005/July/3o/US-India%20Nexus%20Implications.htm34Mr"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetaljazeerah.info/Opinion/editori...cations.htm34Mr[/url]. Ashley J. Tellis, Carnegie Senior Associate, testimony, op. cit 35Pakistani Ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram, Septemer 200436.Cohen, The Idea of Pakistan, op.cit., pp291-293 37. Statement to the press by APHC 38Ehsan Ahrari. “ New angle on the US, Pakistan, India triangleâ€, Asia Times Online,Jun 27, 200367
  14. Hi , The Sucide Blast in WAH Factory is a very important event ,target was Factory Employees as well as Economy generated through WAH factory first i am giving opinions of different pakistanis from other web sites We need to disengage Pakistan and our tribal areas from the Afghan conflict whether the US and the tribals like it or not ... a] Disengage from the Afghan conflict and take a neutral position on the war on terror b] Fence and Mine the Durand line c] Throw out ALL afghan refugees from the country d] Station the regular army on major check posts all along the Pak Afghan Border. (We want neither the tribals nor the Americans crossing anything) e] If Karzai barks anymore, impose an economic blockade of Afghanistan ( afghanis always forget there trade route is through Pakistan , why not block everyone ) National reconciliation is the need of the hour. With 8 Pak Army divisions deployed against our own people on Pakistani soil, and with 200,000 internlly displaced persons in Bajaur alone, we have played straight into the hands of our enemies. If our national assets could be really secured through spending more resources alone, the US with 100 times more resources could have a cake walk in Iraq and Afghanistan a long time ago. The best security is in national reconciliation. Stop the Army operations on Pakistani soil, no matter how much it hurts the US or NATO. i just sometimes get so frustrated that they can't read b/w the lines... we are at war... there should be no doubt about it... but its like a war of attrition... our politicians are all too bz in looting the country they don't care for anything except their seats and the tax payers money... our ppl are crying for roti kapra makaan as always the case has been... with constantly rising prices our ppl are preoccupied with all that... and then almost everyone loves bollywood!!! they can't think out of the box... what they must realize is that the brahmin zionists of india will never or rather can never have any good wishes for Pakistan... the similarities b/w the Zionists in the middle-east and the west and the brahmin zionists in india are all too common... we just need to connect the dots and the picture will emerge. Jana, now what we said was just our opinion regarding the bombing, but the timing is all too obvious to neglect this factor and hence its the job of our agencies (which I hope they will do) to get down to the end of this and reply in a befitting manner, may it be blasts outside or even inside the Bhindian ordinance factories at Kolkata (Calcutta). dear ali, I think you forgot the suicide bombers themselves are being paid by the very people they claim to be fighting against aka the enemies of Islam in their words. they r just dumb buffoons who think the way to Jannat is so easy as to blow oneself up taking down tens of hundreds innocent lives with you, not to mention those who are maimed forever... We all are to be blamed for what trials and tribulations our nation incurs. May Allah have mercy on those killed in the suicide blasts and may Allah enter these benchod bombers into their jannah in Jahanum ul Haraam. PakShaheen, Pakistan cannot be totally neutral cuz the current Afghan so called govt. or rather Kabul's govt. is totally against Pakistan and its interests and is in bed with our eternal enemy TSI. So, its too late to act neutral. and yes national reconciliation is the first step... remember Charity always begins at home Beacuse All these are using sat. phones and you know who has technology of tracking these kind of calls. It is a 30 sec job to track this kind of call's location. Us drone always remain there to strike the terrorists hideout....But TTP is terrorist only to Pakistan so why would US kill these men who are pursuing agenda of Zionists. That's not a fitting analogy. The army (watchman) is engaged with these elements in FATA and Swat. To think it is aiding them to attack Pakistan is childish and illogical. It is very difficult to stop suicide bombers, espeically in densely populated countries such as Pakistan and unless strict security procedures are introduced. These attacks should only strengthen our resolve to kick out the extremist mindset from amongst our nation. The funniest thing is the knee jerk reactions and flip flopping between positions. Why do you think immediate instance changes are going to fix things? The problems are both military and political. Let me explain the military failings to you; 1. Why is the ISI unaware of these attacks and unprepared to stop them? The head of the ISI should be bought in front of the PM and asked to explain this. The intelligence services have very obviously failed, POF was the top class kind of target we wanted to avoid being hit, if that can be hit, why not Kahuta or HIT or nuclear sites? If he cannot handle the pressure he should resign. He is the head of the organisation he should re responsible for it. 2. Why are unauthorized personnel allowed to get so close? The fact it is built in the middle of colony is foolish enough and stinks of stupidity and lack of caution in terms of health and safety as well as security. Why does it not have hardcore concrete barriers to stop lorries and truck bombs and weaving metal barriers leading to the entrance so that all pedestrians are slowed down, hence nobody can run directly at you? The head of security for the site should be sacked. 3. Why do all police cases into terrorist attacks end with the sentencing of terrorist suspects? Why do they never continue to find out who the financiers and facilitators are? Why don't we torture them until we do fin out? A special police unit should be setup as a counter terrorist investigation force, the current heads of police should be held responsible for the lack of progress. 4. Does the army have no control or responsibility over the FC? Time and time again it is mentioned that FC are under the Ministry of interior, but do they not have any link with the army? If they do, why is the army particularly the COAS continuing to use this pathetic outdated under equipped force to fight someone better armed than it? why are UAV's helicopters and fighter bombers not utilised to thier maximum in the region? This is something the COAS should be answering to the government. As for the political failings, the current politicans cannot shoot fish in a barrel, what more can anyone say for them?
  15. Musharraf Resigns

    I am Not a Musharraf Fan but Mushraff resigns after metting with ISI chief last week once again showing how strong ISI actually is , problem is do MR 10% Asif zardari or other incompetent politicians will solve the real problems of Pakistan faced by common people who will solve them ? the solution is obviously in strong judicial system and strong parliment of Pakistan without the influence of Army and other foreign elements , do any of pakistan politicians except Imran khan and few others have the courage to take actions against American policies ,the answer is NO , unless we do justice and give all the sects in Pakistan there rights we will see the continuation of bad situation in Pakistan , parliment , Army , Judicial system should work in there own domain , the solution for Pakistan is 1) Independant Election Commision and Judicial System 2)Independant Parliment 3)Army should work in its own domain as protectors not masters 4) Provinces should have there reality of whatever resources they have including lets say , there should be atleast 50% share on the development of provinces from Gas , Coal , electricity , Cotton , Leather etc the resources they have 5) Provinces should be divided , in punjab we should have SRIKAI belt , in sindh Karachi and hyderabad should be divided for urdu speaking people , in NWFP Hazara should be given to hindko speaking people , in Baluchistan a new province for Pakhtoons is the order of the day and what if tribal belt should come under Pakistan province of Pakhtoons It makes perfect sence if our leaders have the courage 6) the solution of Pakistan also lies in the strong private sector no the so called money looted NGO's etc but real NGO's and organizations who have the feelings and courage not on the earth we often see examples like SHUKAT KHANAM , EDHI , IBRAR hospital (sorry i forget the name ) our nation has lot more capacity then these in the end I STILL BELIEVE IN PAKISTAN and PAKISTANIS AS a Pakhtoon i love Peshawar more then any other City in this world so when i say NWFP should be named PAKHTOONKHAWA and Tribal belt should be part of PAKHTOONKHAWA i know what i mean love pakistan