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 ...
Thanks G.W. Bush, for not confiscating Pakistan’s nukes after 9/11, and naively considering an enemy (Musharraf) as our ally. NO Muslim nation can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Maybe India will go after Pakistan if the Pakis try anything crazy.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Israel v Iran; Pakistan v India; Russian has its Muslim belt along its southern belly; afeared this is gonna get ugly folks.
But don’t worry, we got Obama to run things. On second thought...go ahead and worry.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
Hard to imagine a long range conventional response, Pak must be threatening nukes. Not that long ago it was thought of as the Islamic bomb.
Leon Panetta and Hillabeast, both Communist Muslim lovers, are trying to make trouble for Israel by blabbing this stuff.
If we go to war with Pockeystan, where will the Taliban be able to hide?
Talk is cheap. Iran scares the bejeebers outta the Arabs, and the Arabs are much bigger patrons of Pakistan than Iran ever was. Iran is isolating itself from the rest of the world. China and Russia only egg Iran on in order to make trouble for the U.S., they have no love nor respect for Iran.
Pakistan is not going to put itself in the crosshairs of a nuclear Israel (with a nuclear U.S. behind it, when the Shiite hits the impeller). The Pakis may resent it, but they will swallow hard and take it, like when the U.S. visited their West Point and took out one of their guests.
Any country that is willing to fight a religious war has got to be willing to lose that war to moral superiority and plain old beliefs in freedom.
have “no choice”?
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."A European diplomat based in Pakistan" -- i.e., not anyone from the so-called gov't of the so-called nation of Pakistan. And BTW, there sure are some idiots around here.
I think Pakistan is happy to be the only muslim nation with nukes
Anybody really think they want Iran to join the club
There may be more to this than meets the eye. Iran meets Pakistan in the restive place called Baluchistan. For a long time, the Baluchs have cut up rough in Iran and escaped across the border to Pakistan; and cut up rough in Pakistan and escaped across the border to Iran.
Both Iran and Pakistan would like this to stop. Right now Iran has to commit a lot of forces to Baluchistan, but if they got on good terms with Pakistan, enough to let the Pakistan army sweep all of Baluchistan, the Iranians could commit those forces elsewhere. And this would solve the Baluch problem for a while, with the Pak army butchering a lot of them.
This would be a way for Pakistan to show its support for Iran without committing any of its forces to battle, and keeping them close enough to home in case India decided to rattle their cage, which it could do easily.
The Pak government also has to be a little careful, because the army is more than ready to displace them in a coup again, and restore Perv as leader.
Other players who may want some involvement include a semi-alliance between Israel and India; with China on the side of Pakistan, up to a very shallow level.
You’re right - talk is cheap. I dont really think the Pakis are going to want a nuclear confrontation with Israel over Iran. The Israelis would suffer terrible losses, but the Pakis would be radioactive dust when its all over, and they’re not going to risk that for Iran.
No Muslim nation should have nukes, but Pakistan isn’t an existential threat to Israel, so the IDF isn’t going to take out Pakistan’s nukes. Iran, however, is a real threat to Israel, and they will do what is necessary to protect themselves. Our Muslim president will throw a fit when they do.
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.
Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Hizbollah/Lebanon,
is good enough.
I cannot think of a way through which those weapons could have been confiscated. That's the thing about nuclear weapons that makes countries like Iran pursue them. Possession of nuclear capability is basically some sort of anti-war wolfsbane/garlic. After all, it is obvious for all to see. Iraq acted the fool and got hit hard. North Korea acts as it wants all the time, even going as far as shelling South Korean territory and sinking a South Korean ship, and in return it gets food aid and fuel oil. It would be quite difficult to convince certain types of nations not to pursue certain kinds of weapon. It appears as if the difference between being tossed about like an Iraq or made excuses for like a North Korea boils down to having a form of WMD (whether that is a nuclear weapon, or something analogous at some level - North Korea, for example, has two: its limited nuclear weaponry and its 10-15,000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul).
I just wonder how exactly President Bush could have confiscated Pakistan's nuclear weapons after 9/11? Asked for them (the answer would have been no), threaten to bomb them into the stone age (worked for getting cooperation in the war on terror but would not have worked in making Islamabad give up its only true weapon against India), threaten them with the removal of aid (they were already getting increased support from Beijing), threaten them with a pin-point air-assault (against weapons made to offer survivability against an major Indian assault), send special forces to capture the weapon sites (one of the main ideas floated that would have been near-impossible to pull off successfully unless CAG and DEVGRU got Kryptonian DNA like Superman rather than simply being the best trained men available on this planet), a war (opening another war-front while plans were being put together for Afghanistan and Iraq), and, of course, threatening first use of American nuclear weapons.
How could President Bush have done it? I am not trying to defend President Bush - I am just wondering how he would have been expected to have handled that?
“India, Israel Vs Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Hizbollah/Lebanon is good enough.”
Will not happen - very simplistic world-view. And somewhat wishful thinking although I would love it if the configuration stays true to what you have described.
China will stand behind the Pakis, Russia behind Syria and for good reason (Naval Bases in Gwadar and Tartarus for starters). This war won’t happen without the US and NATO taking sides with Israel.
Better for Israel and India to let Syria be off’ed by NATO and the Arab League with Russia screaming and China whining first. Then deal with Iran who will invariably put their finger on some sort of trigger vis a vis Israel and the US. Pakistan won’t lift a finger - they simply don’t have the resources.
Good point on the future of Iran having to be Secular - especially with all the religious groups there - The Zoroastrians, Bahais & the Yazidis.
NATO is dead beat. With the economic crisis and all they really have no juice left for a big fight. Its one thing to provide air support over Libya where enemy air defense is already depleted, and quite another thing to take the air defense of Iran and Pakistan full on. NATO is actually hoping for Israel to do something with regards to Iran. There is not a lot of diplomatic/political consensus among NATO and they are not all that reliable.
China will provide backing to Iran but is too smart to get involved in a sh!t fight. And Russian backing is only so much effective. Militarily Syria is still a pussy and Israel can easily take care of Iran even in spite of Russian/Chinese support.
As for Pakistan, all we need to do is move up a dozen infantry divisions and a couple armored and artillery divisions up their eastern border to keep them quiet. Pakistan wont even think of making a dick move.
The rest of the Muslim countries will only scream and jump up and down on the sidelines but they would be more concerned about the stability of their own regime then Israel.
NATO is not yet dead beat and they want to hand Russia yet another birdie by denying them a Mediterranean naval base in Tartarus just like they did in Libya. That will leave Russia sucking its toes in the Black Sea with effective mechanisms to curb the movement of their ships with the cooperation of Turkey. Plus if they have real fears about Iran launching missiles at them, they want to deny Iran easy access to Lebanon.
Pakistan will still do nothing openly. Just like they have been fighting us on the sly, they might send weaponry and some brainwashed towel heads to wage another Jihad against Israel. China will opportunistically jump to sell weapons to Iran, Syria via the Pakis in return for oil.
That’s the real core of the alliance; Israel and India against the Islamic flood. The rest that I listed are either small though helpful, or gigantic but compromised.
But as for enemies, let’s not discount Russia and China. They must be reckoned with.
If Israel were to attack Iran, US & NATO (which essentially is the US) will be drawn in; whether Obi or another US president wants to or not.
Israel, imo, must & will do what is right for her regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But, I don’t think an *active participation* in that war will be confined to Iran-Israel or even India/Israel vs Iran, Hizbollah/Lebanon.. Nor do I think it will be about countries using nukes against each other. At least I hope not, cuz it will affect more than Iran or Israel.
What I’d like to emphasize is that in the event that Israel does attack Iran, she should not only target nuclear sites in Iran. The objective, most definitely, must be the entirety of the regime & its infrastructure primarily in Iran, and elsewhere as well. Otherwise, it most likely will be a case of leaving behind a wounded enemy, which UNlike Saddam (remember Osirak?) is smart & has had the opportunity to well & truly build itself up outside Iran thru alliances, etc...
A problem w/ the US is that she has so far (since Carter administration at least) has primarily & at best pursued a policy of containment (as she did w/ USSR) regarding Islamic countries, even those w/ so-called radical political practices. Secondly, the US, on the one hand, has tried, ineffectively, to dismantle “radical” Islamic regimes or grps, and on the other hand, has actually socially, culturally, financially, economically, & militarily supported Islam & yes even so-called “political Islam” by labeling some as ‘moderates’ or ‘liberals’. This is a very confused strategy, which has so far yielded results that favor most Islamic countries.
Islamic countries have 2 primary strengths. 1) A unifying ideology i.e. Islam, regardless of sects. 2) for some of them at least, natural resources such as Oil, hence $$$. Combine those w/ Western support & complacency, then you get a deadly combination.
“What Id like to emphasize is that in the event that Israel does attack Iran, she should not only target nuclear sites in Iran. The objective, most definitely, must be the entirety of the regime & its infrastructure primarily in Iran, and elsewhere as well”
In a perfect world, Israel, or at least Israel and fully committed, fully aware allies could pull that off. But Israel alone, or even Israel and India do not have that ability. If America, England and the EU had their heads on straight, it could be done. But their brains have long ago migrated South. The most anyone can do is act as a catalyst that will strengthen internal forces, such as dissident students, Ballukhis and Kurds, that could topple the Mullahs.
>>>”But Israel alone, or even Israel and India do not have that ability.”<<<
“Catalyst” is good ! In fact Very good ! Provided built up momentum is not lost thru long periods of inaction. Having a mechanism for pulling together those *dissident* grps to make things *effectively* happen is another key point. Individually, in isolation, these grps can’t achieve much at all. I think a unifying, overall *leadership* is a critical missing link. ‘Course, the Mullahs’ regime as soon as they feel threatened by a real, anti-regime leader, who can get things done, either discredit or kill him/her. Mind you, often w/ western help!
Minor point —> “Ballukhis” is “Balouchis” ;-)
I think the West will eventually come to its senses. But hopefully not too late, for its own sake!