Skip to comments.Israeli Attack Will Prompt Pakistani Response
Posted on 02/05/2012 1:58:38 PM PST by edpc
Is the world counting down to "D-Day"? After US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta estimated that Israel would attack Iran by June, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned government officials against "Iran chatter," A European diplomat based in Pakistan said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation.
The diplomat's statement raised the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, which is widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.
(Excerpt) Read more at ynetnews.com ...
Naw, not worrying....Lost my Mom last night. When TSHF then I will worry. Life is already too short. Maintain low tones.
And a Pakistani response should prompt an Indian response. Ping!
Sorry about your loss....
My condolences for your loss. Losing a mother is perhaps the worst thing that can happen to a person.
My, oh, my. We are certainly living in interesting times. Has anyone been cursed by a Chinese national lately?
As an Indian....
If it had been only between Pakistan against US-UK..... I would say let US-UK-Pakistan slog it out themselves. After all US & UK supported Pakistan military and diplomatically against India for last half a century. So let them deal with their own mess, India can stay out of it.
But if Pakistan threatens Israel then I would like India to join the fight because Israel has been a true ally of India unlike some other countries.
Quite correct. The ARabs fear a powerful Iran, as does Turkey tosome extent. The Pakis have their own restless Shias....
I think you’re on to something. At leats it is geo-politically logical. That’s probably why Us, Nato and allies should consider giving the Baluch people a homeland. It will also give the allies a free access to Afghanistan and C. Asia beyond while cutting Pakistan to size.
There is another scenario, out of necessity.
Iran is essentially correct with the idea that they could rebuild their nuclear program even after serious damage. But the way around this would be to partition Iran, so it would have neither the money, nor resources, to do so.
Here is an ethnographic map of Iran, a useful reference for its regions:
In the southwest, next to Iraq, is Khuzestan. This is where the bulk of Iranian oil comes from. But the people who live there are Arabs, not Persians, and are much the same as Iraqis, even to their Shiite-Sunni blend. They are also treated as second class citizens by the Persians, and get nothing in return for having their oil exploited by them.
Thus the first partition would be to split Khuzestan off and make it part of Iraq.
Baluchistan, in the SE, is the next partition, but does not have what it takes to be an independent nation. It does, however, have lots of mineral resources essential to a nuclear program. Since Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, it would be better if they were to annex all of Baluchistan. They would still be exploited by Pakistan, but at least they would get something out of the deal.
The final partition is a questionable one, whether Iranian Kurdistan, in the northwest, should be annexed by Iraqi Kurdistan, to form a “greater Kurdistan”.
Importantly, if Syria falls, it could very well lose its northern, Kurdish part to annexation on the other side, and if Kurdistan gets one or both of these territories, it could become large enough to form a nation, split off from Iraq. (Assuming Turkey did not feel too threatened by this, as there are sizable chunks of Turkey that are Kurdish as well.)
The end result of this shuffling would be that Iran would once again be mostly Persian and other Indo-European, and while with good government it could be prosperous, it would no longer threaten the region like the Soviet Union used to threaten Europe.
I am not sure that will work. Here’s why:
1) You said it yourself about Turkey and Kurdistan. They are not able to secede from Iraq and become a free country today because Turkey threatens war on them if they do.
2) India will not sit-aside if Pakistan annexes Sistan-Baluchistan and neither will the Baluch give in easily. Pakistan may not want to annex it even - given that today, they are barely able to hold on to their Baluchistan. - Besides, what’s in it for the US giving a mineral rich region to an at best, unreliable ally?
3) Giving Khuzestan to Iraq will also do little for either regions. Iraq is barely able to hold itself together - they don’t want more land or people - even Shiite Arabe.
To view the region from a purely ethnic perspective is a deadly mistake. Most of the Muslim world sees themselves in the following order of abstractions 1) Muslim/Dhimmi/Khafir 2) Sunni/Shia/Others 3) Language/Dialect 4) Race.
Today the Arabs oppose Iran because it is the bulwark of Shiite Islam. If it were Sunni, they would look up to it as the cradle of civilization. To give you an insight, in much of Afghanistan and large swathes of Central Asia (predominantly Sunni), speaking Persian has an element of “snob value” attached to it. It is considered refined to speak or quote in Persian. The Saud’s are insecure about their standing as the “protectors” of Islam because there is a more liberal social model that is not Wahhabi or Salafist and that is in fact, presented by the Persian Islamic model.
In my opinion, regime change in Iran with the ushering in of true democracy will do what we really want for the region. Getting rid of the mad men there and present to the Muslim world, an alternative liberal model of Islam that will thrive. The average Iranian on the street might support nuclear arms for Iran but they are pro-US, don’t care about the Palestinians or Israelis and just want to have a free, fun country. and they would want that before they would want nuclear weapons.
I am truly sorry about your mother’s passing. Though I don’t know you are her tonight I will offer up a prayer.
So here’s the lineup:
Israel, India, America(?), UK, Cyprus, South Sudan, Armenia, Kurdish Rebels, Iranian Students, Balukhi Rebels(?),
Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Syria(?), Hizbollah/Lebanon, American/UK/Israeli Leftists
>>>The end result of this shuffling would be that Iran would once again be mostly Persian and other Indo-European, and while with good government it could be prosperous, it would no longer threaten the region like the Soviet Union used to threaten Europe.<<<
So, you are suggesting that if Iran was partitioned 3 ways (i.e. - Khuzestan, Sistan & Balouchestan, and Kurdistan), the remainder would be mostly Persian & other Indo-Europeans ? — Id advise caution with that assumption. It might look good on paper, but hard to achieve in reality, and for many reasons.
Actually, Balouchis and Kurds are ALSO Iranic (Aryan) — i.e. Indo-Europeans; linguistically and racially. They belong to different Aryan grps, along with the Persians. Nonetheless, there are even sub-divisions within the mentioned ethnic groups, each with minor & at times major variations in dialect, traditions & customs.
However, the overall, broader Persian Culture” has dominated for centuries, and often well integrated with theirs.
Khuzestan has or used to have a large ethnically Arab population. In the last decade or so, many ethnic Iranian-Arabs from Khuzestan have been relocated to other Iranian provinces, and replaced by other ethnic grps in Khuzestan. Many of the current residents happen to be more of a Persian or basically Indo-European ethnicity.
IOW, the mullahs regime in Iran anticipated the potential partition of Iran by others long ago. After all, it is not the first that a strategy of partitioning Iran has been proposed or applied by foreign powers.
Also bear in mind that although Khuzestan is traditionally known to be & have a large Iranian population of Arab ethnicity, they have been part of Iran for decades if not centuries. During Iran-Iraq war, Saddam first attacked Khuzestan, but the resistance was phenomenal. More revealing was the fact that during the 8 yr long Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian-Arabs (shia) fought on the side of Iran, and Iraqi (shia) Arabs across the border fought on Iraqs side. So, *nationality* did & still does play a strong role. Not simply because Saddam was Sunni & Khomeini was Shiite, or generally along sectarian lines.
To complicate matters more, Iranian-Arabs in Khuzestan have not only married other Arabs. There has been noteworthy intermarriage across races & ethnic groups in Iran throughout the centuries; hence, *Iranian* as a Nationality is even more significant than faith or ethnicity alone.
I am fully aware that there are distinct *separatist movements* within each of the mention ethnic grps, but they are Not the majority. Geopolitics & availability of resources such as oil or minerals aside, if we focus on what the majority of people in those ethnic grps want, then I can comfortably say they have a strong sense of belonging to & do Not want to separate from Iran.
BTW, you guys forgot to mention the Azaris (in Iranian-Azarbaijan). The above also applies to them. Most dont want to separate from Iran many of them in fact curse the USSR for partitioning Azarbaijan which, as one province, had been part of Iran from time immemorial.
Even Rigi (ex-leader of Jundollah i.e. Iranian-Balouchestan) repeatedly said his movement wasnt a separatist one.
The main issue with these ethnic grps, and indeed with many Iranians of other ethnicities is the Mullahs Regime, its governance and treatment of Iranians in general, and them in particular.
A democratic, truly representative constitution and system of government (that doesnt give preference to a particular faith or ethnicity) would be acceptable & most welcome. Even a Federal Constitutional Monarchy (or a Republic) would also work quite well, I think.
Then again, that is for the People of Iran to decide in a fair referendum, which gives the options & is free of threats & intimidation Unlike the one which took place soon after Khomeini returned to Iran in 1979.
By the way, my mother is an Iranian (Zoroastrian) by birth, and currently have relatives living in different Iranian provinces.
>>>In my opinion, regime change in Iran with the ushering in of true democracy will do what we really want for the region. Getting rid of the mad men there and present to the Muslim world, an alternative liberal model of Islam that will thrive. The average Iranian on the street might support nuclear arms for Iran but they are pro-US, dont care about the Palestinians or Israelis and just want to have a free, fun country. and they would want that before they would want nuclear weapons.<<<
Except that I would strongly suggest a Secular model for government as an alternative, NOT a liberal model of Islam. Mainly because there can not be a liberal model of Islam. In politics especially, a system of government is either Islamic or it is not. And, Iran is a multi-ethnic, multi-faith, multi-racial country and has been for a very long time, even if (officially i.e. on paper) it has a majority shia population.
What was suggested in previous post (#33) I think would work best.
ping to 33 & 34
P.S. - had no idea speaking or quoting in Persian had an element of ‘snob value’ in Afghanistan or Central Asia! I should brush up on my Persian then! ;-) - ‘course certain Afghan ethnic grps & Tajiks as examples speak a dialect of Persian, known as Dari in Afghanistan or Tajik.. both have Persian roots & belong to Indo-European (Indo-Iranian grp of languages). Several Indians I know have pre-Islamic Persian names commonly & currently in use in Iran as well, such as “Nahid” or “Roshan” ...
However, I would dispute that Mullahs & supporters are “Persian”. Persian is not only defined by birthplace, language, bloodline or because they are in charge of Iran. Mullahs & their supporters are Arabised and adhere to an Islamic (bedouin culture) & ideology. For all intent & purposes they are Arabs.
Be it that in the last 2 decades they’ve tried to blend it even more with aspects of the Sassanid social & political model/structure, while giving a semblance of democracy because people can vote to elect a basically powerless president. People don’t elect the person with the REAL power being “supreme leader”. Shia Islam also is an Arab religion/sect/doctrine/ideology. It was conceived in Arabia before it was introduced in Iran.
Khamenei (supreme leader of the Islamic Republic) is not different to the King in Saudi Arabia. Shia, Wahhabi, Salafi are technicalities.
I see that like most Indian children you are totally ignorant of the malignant role played by your "leader," J. Nehru, during the Cold war. Selling India out to the highest bidder, who happened to be the USSR at the time, was a bad idea. Your own traitorous and corrupt government set you back a generation.
America had their own reason to ally with Pakistan (just as you do even now) it had nothing to do with Nehru, but hey its so much better to stick the blame on the Indians right?
A few years ago India wanted to buy Arrow missile from Israel for protection from Pakistani nukes. US blocked that sale....(even while selling F-16s to Pakistan). Yeah that's right, now go ahead tell me more about Nehru.