January 27, 2005
Iranian Mullahs Causing Trouble?For some years now, I have been the beneficiary of periodic reports about south Asian political/military developments via an Indian organisation call the South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG). In years gone by, I was mostly interested in developments in India as they related to China - India and China in the process of becoming Great Powers, I felt it worthwhile to pay attention, especially if I could get a local take on matters.
The most recent missive from SAAG deals with the continuing problem of Pakistani terrorism - Pakistan and India having been hostile to each other since independence in 1947, there has been a great deal of cross-border military action and, at times, terrorists from Pakistan have launched quite destructive attacks in India. But what struck me as most interesting was this paragraph:
Though the Pakistan Foreign Office has been avoiding and discouraging any talk or speculation of an alleged foreign hand in the deteriorating situation in Balochistan, many military leaders do not exercise such restraint. They are not prepared to admit the possibility that the new crop of Baloch freedom fighters could have organised and motivated themselves so well without any external inspiration, if not support. In their perception, the needle of suspicion points at Iran and India. At Iran because of its perceived unhappiness over Musharraf's collaboration with the USA in its efforts to mount an operation against Iran's nuclear capability. At India, because of its unhappiness over Pakistan's continuing proxy war against it.
The Pakistani's might very well believe that India is trying to heat up things in Balochistan, but I think that common-sense dictates against any such Indian action - on the other hand, the Iranian mullahs have a great deal to gain from a crisis in Pakistan, a quasi-US ally in the War on Terrorism.
The Iranians, of course, are going hell-bent for leather to get a nuclear force - a force which President Bush has stated he will never allow the Iranian mullahs to have. The ultimate threat here is that if all diplomatic efforts fail to convince the mullah's that they cannot have nuclear weapons, then we will take appropriate military action to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. We are still a long ways from the crunch time on this issue - but it is approaching, likely within the next two years.
The mullahs want this nuclear force as a deterrent against us - feeling that once they have a credible nuclear force, we'll leave them alone; alone and free to foment terrorist acts around the world in furtherance of long-standing Iranian policy to export their sick Islamo-fascist revolution. The problem for the Iranians is to get this nuclear force up and running before we act militarily against it (the chances of diplomacy actually stopping the Iranians from building nukes are nil) - and so having the US military engaged elsewhere would seem, to a mullah, a good thing to buy them more time.
We know that Syria is supporting the terrorists in Iraq - we also know that the Iranians at least were doing the same; there doesn't seem to be much evidence of recent Iranian involvement directly in the terrorism in Iraq. Syria has long been an ally of Iran and it stands to reason that a division of labor could have been created between them - the Syrians to keep us tied down in Iraq, while the Iranians seek to upset our applecart elsewhere. Causing an explosion of violence and/or a civil war in Pakistan would serve Iranian interests - it appears that the people of Balochistan have long-standing grievances with the Pakistani government and now that there is trouble brewing there, we can look to Iran as the potential instigator of the problem.
We cannot, of course, know what the exact truth of the situation is - nor can we know what plans our goverment have in regards to this issue other than public pronouncements. But as we wade into our domestic political debates, keep well in mind that the war continues - and events outside our country might very well come front and center a lot sooner than people think.
Posted by Mark Noonan on January 27, 2005 04:21 AM
Comments
Conventional wisdom has been proven wrong on may occasions. If I were Iran, I would not be too comfortable with Pres. Bush. They continue to hold out and insist they hava a sovereign right to things like atomic fuel. However, many of use feel they do not have a sovereign right to anything if all they do is threaten others. Iran has their fingerprint in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and perhaps now Pakistan. This was a criterion of Bush's before the Iraq war, that he had attacked others. Not to sound like a neocon but what are we waiting for? If we are wrong and we do not proceed with action, Israel could be wiped out with a nuke and this would draw major support from the anti-Semitic UN. Iran is advertising that it id developing nuclear technology. Is Israel prepared to take that chance? Are we?
Action against Iran is a lot closer than any of us in the blogs may realize, I suspect.
Posted by: WK ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.gopbloggers.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 27, 2005 04:51 AM
Perhaps they haven't seen This Picture.
Posted by: Scaramonga at January 27, 2005 08:03 AM
WK,
One of the elements of the Bush Doctrine is that evil doers cannot hide behind national sovereignty - in other words, we're no longer going to allow a rouge nation to become an actual threat.
There is still a fast-fading hope that diplomacy will can do the trick - or that a revolution in Iran will eliminate the need for action; but we may end up having to take military action, something which would distress me greatly because the Iranian people are actually natural allies of the United States.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at January 27, 2005 12:41 PM
Scaramonga,
Great Pic!
WK,
I too believe that war with Iran is closer than most think. Diplomacy will not work with these parasites. And while I agree the Iranian people are more or less our ally, I don't think that there is a possiblility they will 'overthrow' the mullahs. I suspect, by whatever turn of events, the situation will go like this (assuming our troops will start leaving Iraq before years end): 2005-(early)2006 year of diplomacy, (mid-late)2006-2007 war will be almost inevitable.
Posted by: Make War Not Appease at January 27, 2005 02:20 PM
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42567
I found this piece encouraging. WHile many in the MSM continue to debate Iraq, I am looking ahead to see what future issues we will be dealing with as well. Those of us here know that Iran will need to be addressed if true security in the Middle East is to be achieved.
We need to remember one thing and only one thing when it comes to the war. The only force that will defeat us is ourselves, and many on the left continue to work to do just that. The terrorists draw strength and comfort from the behavior of the Dems and their anti-Bush stridency, this is the only hope the terrorists have in overcoming the American forces.
I can not believe (and yet I can) the irresponsibility of the left to suggest unilateral pullout of Iraq and handing the terrorists a victory. As messy as it has become and with the mistakes that have been made, the worst thing that can be done now is to embolden the terrorists. The more I watch these shows on TV about war debate, the less I learn, not more. I only learn more from research on the internet. TV is self-serving pandering to bolster ratings.
Posted by: WK at January 28, 2005 12:52 AM
