India: A friendly foe of Iran
Ishaal Zehra

INDIAN relation with Iran have generally been viewed by observers as a tightrope walking to balance out her interests in Iran as well with the US. India, knowingly, that sidestepping the international community’s efforts to thwart Iran’s so-called drive for nuclear weapons would only devalue her credibility in the eyes of global power, New Delhi is fast trying to convey an unambiguous message that a nuclear armed Iran is as unacceptable to India as it is to the US, the U.K. or France. Hence, India (a good time’s friend) seems to be all set to dump Tehran to seek new alliances and please her new friends.
So far, Indian relationship with Iran has remained unchanged, but it is getting difficult for India to maintain the same tempo because of the open hostility of its new friends towards Iran. Iran is a regional power and an aspiring nuclear state which poses a threat to Israeli expansionism in Middle East. There is no denying the fact that Iran’s nuclear programme has been a persistent worry for both, US and Israel. And the choice between new allies and old friend is getting tough on India. To understand India’s dilemma, it requires a critical view of her relation with both Israel and Iran. There has been a steady strengthening of the India’s relationship with Israel ever since India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992. From then till now, the flourishing Indo- Israel relationship has gained much potential to make a significant impact on the global politics, by altering the balance of power not only in South Asia but the Middle East as well. Today, India has become the biggest market for Israeli arms with their strategic, defence and intelligence cooperation growing at a rapid pace. Where as, on the other hand, the vast oil and gas reserves of Iran serve magnetic affiliation to the quenching India’s long term thirst for energy. And yet another attraction in Iran’s case is that she offers India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia, side-lining Pakistan.
Given the scenario, India is more likely to tilt towards Israel in future despite her fine relations with the Arab world. As regardless of her important ties with Arab countries and Iran, her lure for intelligence consultations with Israel seems a durable one. Until now, India has veered between cooperation and altercation in case of Iran yet in the time to come we may expect India to go along with Israel and US in destroying Iran, one of the country in Bush’s war against his self-selected axis of evil. A nuclear Iran suspected of supporting Palestinians and organizations sympathetic to them, faces a great threat of attack on its nuclear installations. And India would support such an operation clandestinely, while opposing in front of the world, not to annoy Iran because of economic reasons. Interestingly, India’s interest in the proposed IPI gas line project diminished sharply from the time the US-India nuclear deal began to take shape. Probably, the US wants to undermine India-Iran economic relations to such an extent that New Delhi becomes a stakeholder in its plan against Iran.
The geopolitical implications of the collaborations between India, US and Israel are grave and manifold. In spite of denials, India is playing a secret role in US strategy against Iran for past many years. India despite having close ties with Iran stabbed her in back by joining EU-3 on Iran’s nuclear issue. It is no more a secret that EU-3 is no longer acting independently, but as a surrogate of the US. How piteous that a democracy ended up as a deputy of a surrogate. History has witnessed how India once used the friendly ties with Tehran as a ladder to achieve US and European community’s support to secure permanent seat in Security Council. Thanks to her mean and wanton nature which made her vote twice against the same Iran in the IAEA governing board, thus endorsing the US agenda for confrontation with Iran. Nevertheless, the Indian vote against Iran has extensively lowered her global structure and credibility. Despite her close economic and political relations, if India could stab a friendly country like Iran in the back, then she could not be considered trustworthy by other developing countries.
The thriving indo-Israeli relations are posing a direct threat to Iran. Both countries are getting closer to each other every passing day. Their trade has grown exceptionally over the years. And especially after the launch of Israeli spy satellite, TecSAR, from the Indian Space center, the tie got even stronger. Launching a spy satellite for Israel made the political and strategic partnership of both the countries much obvious. The launch of this satellite has considerably enhanced Israel’s intelligence-gathering capability. Built by Israeli Aerospace Industries, IAI, TecSAR ranks among the world’s most advanced space system. The satellite is clearly affecting the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, as TecSAR’s ability to produce image in adverse weather and even at night would allow Israel to obtain more information about the suspected Iranian nuclear programme. Though India officially argues that she has commercially utilized her advanced technological capacity to place satellites in orbit but the act brings to light India’s full cooperation to dissuade, isolate and if necessary sanction and contain Iran. Nevertheless, Iran should realize that a friend of your enemy can never be your friend and India has already established herself as Israel’s friend and Iran’s foe at many instances.
It must be realized now that Iran is a big country with power and influence and thus can not be pushed around. Any military plans from Israel, India and their allies, against Iran would be catastrophic for the whole region. It is obvious that on Iran’s nuclear issue the new alliances are emerging on the international politics and any mistake by Israel under US patronage would be a blow for global world order. It must be kept in mind that war solves no problems. At the same time India’s credibility as a friendly democracy should be weighed by other developing countries of the world. The Indo-Israel nexus, under the US patronage, is posing a threat to the Muslim world. All their ambitions revolve around targeting particularly Muslim states that are energy rich and either nuclear or threshold nuclear states. It is high time that the Islamic countries must take a unified and concrete step to cater this ghastly menace, or else it might become too late.

Military action in FATA is no solution
Afshain Afzal

THE new US CENTCOM Chief has indirectly outlined future US strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan in his recent remarks. He is of the view that next 9/11 type actions could originate from the troubled and heavily militarized FATA where more foreign fighters have regrouped themselves and were allegedly involved in cross border terrorist activities. US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama met General Jeffrey Schloesser, the Commander of the NATO led forces at Bagram, Afghanistan on 19 July 2008. Obama expressed his desire to send two more US brigades to Afghanistan. Obama also threatened US military actions against extremists in Pakistan. Rival Republican candidate John McChain also indicated his intentions of sending three more brigades in Afghanistan and pledged extra troops by asking NATO and to send more troops from US as they became available. Both Democratic and Republican candidates have expressed their strategy of sending more troops in Afghanistan but the difference in their strategies lie in the fact that Democrats want withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and redeployment of two brigades in Afghanistan whereas the Republican have no intention of pulling out from Iraq while the additional two brigades to be deployed in Afghanistan would mostly comprise of NATO troops.
While reacting to US recent threats of military actions against extremists in Pakistan, NWFP Governor, Owais Ghani said that people of FATA are fighters and Superpowers have underestimated them. He said that the British and the Soviets made a mistake of attacking them in the past and that he was hopeful that nobody would repeat the same mistake. He emphasized Allies and the world that they must understand that no government can remain involved in Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) unless majority of public sentiments back it. The ground position is that despite the fact that Pakistan has contributed precious lives of hundreds of their security forces personnel in GWOT and earned lot of criticism from within the country as well as other Muslim states but things are not moving as planned. The US today stands at a very difficult position as regard to its GWOT and its plans for Afghanistan appear fading with the passage of time. People of Pakistan are very apprehensive and are reluctant to support US plans in the region. The sole reason for this lack of trust in the West is due to communication gap. US should never forget that it would not be possible to cover its atrocities and ruthless violation of human rights in Afghanistan simply on the basis of intelligence reports without on ground confirmation.
It needs to understand that unilateral military action by US and NATO forces is not going to yield desired objectives. Rather it is going to discourage a large section of Pakistanis who previously supported US plans. People of FATA and adjoining areas are conservative in holding their religious, cultural and traditional values esteem. Any attack on their territory would be dealt with iron hand, irrespective of the consequences. I am sure that even the barehanded child girl who will survive after attacks will hit the enemy with her toy to take revenge. US and the world should realize that local people of border areas in Pakistan are unaware of international politics and goals of civilized nations, for these people availability of next meal is the only concern. The US must understand the gravity of the situation, as its military operations in Pakistani territory would not lead them to achieve any objective. It should be the Government of Pakistan and its military to decide in partnership with the local population, which course of action best suit the situation. US with its partners in GWOT must refrain from carrying out further destruction of these troubled areas and contribute their share in infrastructure and economic development in order to win the locals to their side.

Georgia in Russia’s bear hug
David Clark

EUROPEAN UNION foreign ministers meeting in emergency session today to discuss the situation in Georgia should begin by asking why it took the outbreak of war to focus their attention. They had no cause to be surprised.
The warning signs had been apparent for at least a year, and the Georgian government had made strenuous efforts to raise the alarm. This time last summer a Russian jet violated Georgian airspace and dropped a missile north of Tbilisi in what appeared to be a botched attack on a Georgian radar installation. Russia denied involvement, but two separate independent investigations found otherwise. Despite this, Georgia’s plea for diplomatic support fell almost entirely on deaf ears. Whether or not the incident was planned in order to test international reactions to an escalation of Russian military action in Georgia, Moscow clearly took encouragement from the absence of a response. With western governments preoccupied elsewhere - not least with Iran, where they need Russian support for a negotiated solution on the nuclear issue — Russian strategists evidently concluded that they enjoyed a free hand in their “near abroad”.
In April, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would be strengthening official links with Georgia’s two breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, including opening formal relations with their political bodies and strengthening trade ties. This only confirmed what had been apparent for several years — that Russia is actively supporting secessionist forces instead of respecting its mandate and behaving as an honest broker. But it ripped away the final pretence that its role in Georgia is one of peacekeeping. Other steps of escalation quickly followed. Russia moved 400 troops into Abkhazia under the pretext of working on a railway project. Russian planes started shooting down Georgian aerial drones. There was an increase in armed attacks by Russian-backed forces in South Ossetia, including a roadside bomb that injured six Georgian policemen and an attempt to assassinate the head of the pro-Tbilisi provisional administration of South Ossetia.
None of these incidents received much coverage outside the region, so the impression has been created that Georgia initiated the current fighting with an unprovoked assault on South Ossetia. This is quite false. It has surely been a big misjudgment on Georgia’s part, but resort to offensive operations came at the end of a long period of rising tension in which Russia had done everything it could to stir up trouble and provoke a reaction. The history behind Georgia’s “frozen conflicts” is long and complex, and there is certainly fault to be found on all sides. The wars that followed Georgia’s independence were brutal affairs in which members of all communities were to be found among the victims and perpetrators. It is therefore understandable that Abkhazians and South Ossetians are suspicious of Tbilisi and want guarantees about their security. It is also true that Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has turned out to be something less than the model democrat he first seemed. Many former admirers have been shocked at his increasingly authoritarian leanings. But complexity is no excuse for abdicating moral judgment in situations of this importance. If responsibility for the conflict is not a black and white matter, the picture is not uniformly grey either. By any reasonable measure, the impact of Russian policy has been uniquely destructive in generating instability and political division in the Caucasus.
The events of the early 1990s notwithstanding, Georgia’s treatment of minorities that have remained under its rule has been generally good. Whatever his faults, Saakashvili is no Milosevic - and wild Russian allegations of genocide have no independent support. Under approp-riate international supervision, it would be perfectly possible to turn his offer of autonomy for Abkhazia and South Ossetia into a workable constitutional settlement that guaranteed the security and fundamental rights of people living those territories. The problem is that considerations of this nature form no part of Russia’s vision for the region. It talks about defending the people of South Ossetia, but the Kremlin’s aims are geopolitical rather than humanitarian. It seeks to restore the sphere of influence it regards as Russia’s birthright, which it lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union (a “major geopolitical disaster”, according to Putin).

—Khaleej Times