Thursday, February 19, 2009
Charles Ferndale

The Israeli army – which, despite Israel's veneer of democracy, actually runs that country -- has for some decades now pursued certain policies of direct relevance to Muslim countries in its vicinity. Amongst these countries are Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. First and foremost amongst these Israeli policies is the determination of that army to remain the pre-eminent military power in the region. And in order to retain its military hegemony, the Israeli army must necessarily prevent any Muslim country in the region from obtaining effective nuclear weapons. And if, like Pakistan, such a country already has nuclear weapons, then the Israelis believe it is essential to disable that country to the point where it ceases to operate as a nation militarily. Once we have understood the centrality of this policy to the Israeli army, then much of what has happened, and is happening, in the region falls into place.

For example, Iraq was developing a nuclear bomb. Israel destroyed the facility where Iraq's bomb was reputedly being developed. But Iraq still remained a militarily powerful nation that might be a threat to Israel, and it was too powerful for Israel to defeat alone, so Bush and Cheney obliged the Israelis by invading Iraq on false pretexts. The result was the decimation of the Iraqi army, the division of the country into three areas so it ceased to operate militarily as a nation, and the control of Iraqi oil by companies amenable to US interests. Job done.

The persistent threats to Iran issuing from the White House under Bush were designed to generate a political climate at home that would allow the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, so as to disable its supposed nuclear weapons programme. If Iran had a bomb, it would be of little danger to anyone, because, were Iran to use such a bomb against Israel, as Hillary Clinton said, America would annihilate Iran. On the other hand, were Iran to use a nuclear weapon defensively against an Israeli attack, then America would have to respond with more care. So the only result of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be to curtail Israel's power to bully countries in the region.

It follows that any American attack on a supposed nuclear weapons programme in Iran could only be designed to maintain Israel's military pre-eminence in the region. An American attack on Iran's nuclear program could only have been on behalf of Israel. A clear case of Israel controlling US foreign policy on its own behalf. If Iran is building a bomb, the main reason would be to defend itself against Israel. So the best way to put an end to the supposed Irani nuclear weapons programme would be (i) to disarm the nuclear threat from Israel, and (ii) for NATO militarily to guarantee Iran against attack from its neighbours, especially from Israel. Why has the west not pursued this effective policy that would also reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world? If India were disarmed and Pakistan were guaranteed military protection against Indian attack, why would Pakistan need nuclear weapons? When perfectly rational policies are ignored in favour of dangerously ineffective ones, something fishy is usually up. The Kashmir dispute also falls into this category.

Why are NATO forces in Afghanistan killing Afghans? Surely not for the good of the Afghans. As for democracy, the overwhelming wish of the people is for NATO forces to leave immediately. This is the principal reason for the Afghan national revolt that people in the west call Islamic militancy. The NATO forces are there for two reasons: one, for the oil and gas reserves around the Caspian Sea, which, at the very least, the NATO countries would like to deny to Russia and China; and, two, to destabilize and weaken Pakistan on behalf of Israel. That India would also like Pakistan to be weakened is just an added bonus ensuring India's participation in the skulduggery, partly by means of a close covert alliance with Israel.

In order to maintain its military dominance in the region, Israel has for years set about destabilising any Muslim country that poses a threat to its dominance. Pakistan is the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons and Israel is within range. So Pakistan must be weakened to the point at which it ceases to operate militarily as a nation. Pakistan is supposed to be the west's foremost ally in the fight against Islamic militancy, so Israel cannot attack Pakistan directly, and, if Israel did, she would certainly be defeated. So what to do? Well, two strategies come to mind: one, use America to attack Pakistan for you; and two, train and send into the border regions of Pakistan gangs of thugs willing to commit atrocities that will then be blamed on 'barbaric Muslim militants', suggesting that Pakistan has lost control of its territory to dangerous extremists and so may lose control of its nuclear weapons.

Is there any evidence that these policies are being pursued by Israel in Pakistan? Yes, though regrettably my sources must remain anonymous. Perhaps the best informed person in Afghanistan has said that he knows for sure that the Israelis are training teams in Badakshan and are sending them into Pakistan's border regions to commit atrocities. Two British friends who have covered Afghan wars since 1980, tell me the same thing. Rumours of Israeli-trained provocateurs amongst the tribesmen in the Khyber Agency and in Swat are rife. Then there is of course the completely public evidence of the daily US infringements of Pakistani sovereign airspace by drones. These drone attacks always kill many more innocents than so-called insurgents. The traditional authority of the tribal elders is weakened because they cannot protect their people, thus further destabilizing the region and allowing the infiltrators easier access. In addition, they weaken the authority of the Pakistan government and of the army, both of which are made to look as if they condone the attacks, which surely is one of the main purposes of the attacks. Perhaps the Zadari government and the army do condone the attacks, but, if so, they do so against the interests of a group of people – the Pakhtuns – who already feel alienated from central government. Thus Pakistani unity is further eroded, much to the satisfaction of the Israelis.

That the destabilization of Pakistan has been on the minds of US officials for some time is suggested quite strongly by an article in the Guardian of Aug 27, 2008. The article was called 'Take this war into Pakistan' and it was written by the Afghan ambassador to Norway, Jawed Ludin. I assume that Ludin was speaking as Afghan ambassador to Norway and so had the approval for what he said from his government. I am assuming also that since the Afghan government is simply the instrument of the US, the US authorities knew in advance of the contents of the article. Maybe they were testing the water. In this article Ludin says: "Without having to invade Pakistani territory, [a] coalition [of US, Afghan and Pakistani military forces] should establish a viable presence by opening military bases on Pakistani soil. A supreme commander, with deputies from Afghanistan and Pakistan, should be appointed to devise and implement an effective counter-terrorism strategy on both sides of the Durand Line… The coalition should also ensure the security of Pakistan's dangerous nuclear arsenal."

Earlier in the article the author says "the US must recognise the utter futility of working with the Pakistani military" which he suggest is untrustworthy and unfit to protect Pakistan's interests. This implication is rather odd given that later he says that the 'coalition of the willing', that must set up bases in Pakistan to run an efficient counter-terrorism offensive, should include the Pakistan military (I take it in only a junior capacity). So here we have a proposed force lead by a 'supreme commander' of unnamed nationality that will lead Afghani and Pakistani soldiers (the Pakistani leadership having been sidelined) on Pakistani soil (which somehow they have entered without invasion ) to take control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and to beat all the terrorists, by means undescribed.

Frankly, so bizarre a scheme is too stupid even for Indian and American intelligence officials stationed far from the action. But, if not, then its drift is obvious: the Pakistani military command should be fragmented, disabled, sidelined and the country's nuclear 'arsenal' should come under responsible control (like that of the Afghans, I suppose). Pakistan should be deprived of central military national command.

Events in Waziristan, in the Khyber Agency and in Swat all suggest that the central authorities of Pakistan have indeed relinquished control of these border areas. Balochistan is also in a state of turmoil that makes it impossible for the central authority of the Pakistan government and army to govern there. Much of this is the result of sixty years of gross incompetence and nepotism in the central government and in the army, but it has created an environment easily exploited by Pakistan's enemies. The Baloch tribes on the Iran side of the border are also being financed by outside agencies, so their insurgency will weaken the central control of the Iranian government. In short, Israel's foreign policy in the region, has, with the aid of the US, become a very successful one. The only thing I fail to understand is why the people of these countries let it happen. Especially the militants: they are supposed to be true Muslims, yet they really seem to relish doing their enemies' dirty work. I suppose when you are very poor, money can buy just about anything. And when you are ignorant you are easily fooled.



The writer has degrees from the Royal College of Art, Oxford University, and the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London. He divides his time between the UK and Pakistan. Email: charlesferndale@yahoo.co.uk