Pakistan News Service

Tuesday Mar 26, 2019, Rajab 19, 1440 Hijri

Clouds of War over Iran

09 May, 2006

By Ishtiaq Ahmad

  Related News  
Obama repels new Iran sanctions push, for now
White House plays down Rouhani crowing on nuclear deal
  Related Articles  
Hype over interim nuclear deal
By Asif Haroon Raja
Plan for Iranian talks
By David Ignatius
  Related Speakout  
  More on this View All
  Related News Poll

As the clouds of yet another war hover across Pakistan's western borders with Iran, no other country but Pakistan will face its gravest repercussions in the region. The foremost consequence of this war and its aftermath will be the refugee influx from Iran, chiefly the Shia revolutionary clergy in the case of a possible regime change and the consequent insurgency or resistance against the US-installed authorities.

This is a real-time possibility given Pakistan's soft borders and deep linkages that our minority Shia population has developed with the Iranian clergy since the 1979 Revolution. After Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders and activists, the Mullahs of Iran should be the last thing we can afford to host. Even otherwise, Pakistan has had its enough share of refugees and illegal immigrants, and all of their respective pitfalls. In fact, the tale about possible repercussions of this war for us may go much beyond these pitfalls, even including the realm of domestic politics.

Why avoiding war over Iran is in Pakistan's best interest?

Given that, Pakistan's best policy today should be to do whatever it can on its own and with the help of its regional and global partners to avoid war in the first place. It is more than clear now that our leadership is presently pursuing exactly the same option not in words but through a concrete policy initiative.

Sunday's announcement in Islamabad after the conclusion of the three-day session of the Iran-Pakistan Joint Working Group (JWG) about the joint Gas Pipeline agreement, which the two countries are expected to finalize in June, is a pointer in this regard.

Like the EU-3 and China before, and Russia even today, Islamabad's strategy is to engage Iran in a bilateral process aimed to producing some specific mutually beneficial outcome.

That is why we are setting specific deadlines for the finalization of the Gas Purchase and Sale (GPS) agreement. For instance, the next JWG session in the third week of May in Islamabad will finalize remaining technical and financial modalities of the deal. This will be followed by the declaration of a Joint Communique on the agreement in Tehran in June.

While our energy-specific bilateralism with Iran is getting in full gear, the politically inspired multilateralism over Iran's nuclear programme is simultaneously gaining momentum. The former initiative gives the impression as if everything is normal for the two regional neighbours, while the latter development indicates a growing international crisis over Iran's nuclear issue.

There are two immediate reasons why we wish the Iranian nuclear issue to be settled diplomatically one security and another economic. First, with core disputes with India remaining unresolved, the situation in Afghanistan not corresponding to Pakistan's regional desires, and the Balochistan strife also showing no sign of disappearing, Pakistan can ill afford to have another crisis on its western borders.

Secondly, besides our regional security predicament, which is likely to worsen in the case of the war over Iran, we seem to have de-linked regional political issues be it the international crisis over Iranian nuclear issue or our dispute with India over Kashmir from our growing quest for energy as a direct outcome of the recent growth in domestic economy.

In the aftermath of the conclusion of the nuclear energy deal between Washington and New Delhi, and America's refusal to sign a similar agreement with us, Pakistan's search for external sources of energy has assumed greater urgency. If we are able to get 2.8 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas supply from Iran as provided for in the GPS deal being finalized with Iran this would be a great headway for the economy of the country.

However, our ability to prevent war over Iran is very much restrained and largely depends upon whether the international diplomacy over Iran's nuclear issue succeeds or not. If the latter does not succeed, then whichever pipeline deal we sign with Iran will become immaterial. Had the Indians not reneged on the originally proposed tripartite gas pipeline agreement, Islamabad's ability to contribute to the diplomatic settlement together with India could have mattered considerably.

Can international diplomacy over Iran's nuclear issue succeed?

Like Pakistan, the French and the Germans, as part of the EU-3, were also until recently pursuing a strategy of engagement with Iran, despite consistent push from the Bush administration to have a hasty international settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue. However, Iran's rather bellicose stand on the matter forced them to get closer to the American approach, which is shared by the British.

As always, the Chinese have mostly remained ambivalent on the matter. This past week, however, they have started to be much more categorical intheir pronouncements. Like the Russians, China has declared its intention to oppose any US-sponsored bid to invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to impose economic sanctions or take military action against Iran.

As far as Russia is concerned, its present approach to handle the Iranian case appears to be the same as that of Pakistan. Like us, the Russians are engaging the Iranians. Even after IAEA's confirmation of Iran's non-compliance with last year's Security Council resolution prohibiting it from enriching uranium, Moscow has concluded a $70 million deal to provide defensive missile systems to Iran for the protection of its nuclear installations.

Moreover, the Russian proposal to let Iran enrich uranium in the Russian territory under IAEA safeguards is still on the table. The Iranian leadership has also shown renewed interest in the exercise of this mid-range option which will allow Iran to pursue its programme for acquiring peaceful nuclear energy in a third country and, consequently,

allay US-Western apprehensions about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons pursuit in the guise of acquiring peaceful nuclear capability. Tehran has, however, linked this option with the handling of its nuclear case by the IAEA and not within the framework of the Security Council.

What is clear from the Iranian diplomacy throughout the time the international crisis over its nuclear programme has gained momentum is that Tehran first raises the stakes by showing a bellicose attitude. Once the international stakes for it increase to an extent that is perceived to be unaffordable, the Iranian leadership starts to back down. This has happened many a times before, and the same appears to be the case in the last week or so.

For instance, the day the IAEA chief Mohammed al Baradie confirmed Iran's non-compliance with the Security Council resolution essentially paving the way for another IAEA referral to the Security Council for possible action Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenai threatened to attack "US interests worldwide" in the case of any US-led attack on Iran.

If that was the "stick," the "carrot" followed soon afterwards with the Iranian Foreign Ministry officials indicating Iran's willingness to discuss the Russian proposal, and even consider short-notice inspections of its nuclear installation by the IAEA. The US reaction to Iran's renewed flexibility was a plain "no."

In the days ahead, the EU-3 will make a last ditch effort to convince the Iranians to freeze their nuclear enrichment process, and accept unconditional IAEA safeguards. The foreign ministers of Permanent Five at the Security Council plus Germany will make a similar effort in their meeting on Tuesday in Paris. The Chinese and the Russians will reiterate their intention to block any Security Council bid to impose economic sanctions or allow the use of force under Articles 41 and 42 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, respectively.

At the end of the day, however, it is the United States and Revolutionary Iran who will decide whether diplomacy wins or the war occurs. The way the US-Iran conflict over the latter's nuclear ambition has evolved over the past year or so seems to suggest that we are in for a greater confrontation on the matter.

If the war over Iran occurs, what will be its causes?

The principal cause of a US-led war against Iran must be seen within the broader, post-1979 hostile ties between Washington and Tehran. The United States does not seem to have forgotten the humiliation it suffered at the hands of Iranian revolutionaries when they took the entire staff of the US embassy in Tehran hostage for full 444 days after the February 1979 Revolution.

The Americans did make an unsuccessful bid to release these hostages, which led to top-level rifts and resignations in the Carter Administration. The disastrous happening also led to the electoral demise of the Democrats in the 1980 elections, brining the hawkish Republican President Ronald Reagan into power.

The 1980's saw recurrent rounds of Iran-US hostility with the US backing the Saddam-led Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran, and Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeni declaring America as a "great Satan" of the world, to name only a few. Even though the rise to power of moderates such as Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami did provide avenues of accommodation in ties between Washington and Tehran in much of the 1990's, the Bush administration's pursuit of unilateralism in the post-9/11 era, and the ascent to power of an equally hawkish Ahmedinejad have dimmed all hopes for a compromise.

The conflict between Iran and the US, therefore, is not specifically related to Iran's recent nuclear ambitions. There is a long history of 27 years behind it. We simply cannot ignore this reality. Both countries have equally contributed to raising the stakes in their hostile relationship. Iran's nuclear issue is just the latest episode in this relationship. The difference this time is that the issue is becoming a means for the long-awaited direct showdown between them.

Does the Russian and Chinese threat or use of veto at the Security Council really matter?

The argument that the Russians or the Chinese will veto the Security Council resolution for either economic sanctions or use of force against Iran a possibility that both Moscow and Beijing made clear on Tuesday is debatable on two grounds.

First, both Russia and China will surely resist the American attempt to change another regime in the Middle East. For, just as in the case of Iraq war and its aftermath, such a regime change will largely benefit the United States and its vital allies, primarily Great Britain and Israel. It will further consolidate American influence in West Asia in particular and the Middle East in general.

However, the key question is whether Russia and China have the guts to confront America for the sake of a Revolutionary Muslim regime. After all, both are intermittently depended upon the United States and the G-8 world for aid, trade and a host of other issues, including their perceptions of terrorism being largely emanating from the world of Islam. Chinese President Hu Jintao was recently in the US, concluding an array of agreements with American corporations including a multi-billion dollar deal for buying over 2,000 Boeing planes in the next decade and a half.

As for Russia, we should not forget the several reversals that Moscow has suffered since the Soviet collapse primarily at the hands of the US and its NATO allies the Balkan wars, the Iraq war, the uneven nuclear deals, the so called orange revolutions next-door.

We can particularly recall the Russian reaction to two events in the Balkans in the 1990's: the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina followed by the war over Kosovo. When the Russians could not save their Orthodox Christian Slavic race from defeat and humiliation, how can we expect them to sacrifice everything for the sake of the Iranian Revolutionaries?

The second ground on which we can debate the possible use of veto by Russia and China is to recall what happened in the run up to the Iraq war. In that case, even America's European allies Germany and France were opposed to the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 permitting the use of force. The Americans finally by-passed the Security Council process and went for a military action with the help of a "coalition of the willing."

There is, therefore, a clear-cut precedent of the US-led use of force against a third country premised upon pre-empting the threat or the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against vital Western interests. In the case of Ahmedinejad's Iran, which has threatened to wipe Israel off the world map the option of pre-emption cannot be ruled out.

The preemption in Iran's case could be a unilateral Israeli air strike of Iran's nuclear facilities. After all, in this case again, we have the precedent of an Israeli air strike against Iraq's nuclear reaction at Osirak in the early 1980's. The Western media has already started to speculate about such an eventuality before September, when Iran will be able to secure its nuclear installations with the deployment of the Russian defensive missile systems.

The latest indication of a possible Israeli air strike on Iran, which will most likely lead to an Iranian military response, triggering a wider war, was the Tuesday statement by Israeli Chief of Staff General Dan Halutz on the eve of the country's Independence Day. He said that Iran's nuclear programme represented an existential threat to the Jewish state, and that the world had the military might to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

On Sunday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made it clear the United States would seek a Security Council Resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which could be enforced through penalties or military action.

Ten questions that we need to consider in the run up to a possible war over Iran.

  •  What should we do if Israel undertakes a unilateral nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear facilities?

  •  Can we, or, for that matter, other major Muslim countries in the region remain neutral in the case of a war over Iran?

  •  Will not the war over Iran complicate our role as a frontline state in the US-led war on terrorism in the region?

  •  What should be our stand if yet another US -led "coalition of the willing" succeeds in changing the current regime in Iran and replace it with a pro-US/Western transitional authority?

  •  How will we cope with the start of another insurgency next-door, especially with likely accusations of Shia insurgent infiltration from across the Balochistan-Iran border?

  •  If the Russians and the Chinese under pressure from the US agree to a Security Council resolution to economically isolate Iran, what will be the future of our pipeline deal with Iran?

  •  Do we have any alternative in mind to secure our growing energy needs for example, securing a nuclear cooperation deal with the US in exchange for being neutral in the war?

  •  Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan has already indicated at a press conference in Washington that in case the Security Council passes a resolution to economically isolate Iran as a punishment for its nuclear weapons ambitions, Pakistan will be obliged to enforce the UN-mandated economic blockade of Tehran. If that were the case, what measures would we consider to implement the UN decision? After all, our role in implementing similar resolutions against Taliban was less than satisfactory for obvious reasons.

  •  Last but not the least, with a heavy influx of Shia refugees, including the leadership of the Iranian clergy, how will we manage the political consequences of the war on Iran?

  •  Our leadership should be rest assured that the public outrage on the possible war in Iran, or even its economic isolation, could be of cataclysmic orientation. Does the already precarious fabric of the state have the capacity to manage the enraged public nationwide?


Reader Comments:

US-IRAN: Raid on Nuclear Fuel Market

I suppose you may be interested in the real reasons for US' conflict with Iran. They will surprise you.
If you want me to send you this article, I would need an email address, since it is too long for this text box.

Kind regards,

Rudo de Ruijter

Rudo de Ruijter, Pakistan - 09 May, 2006

OIL Dollar Pound Foreign Debt and Iran Nuke Oil Crisis

What is behind Iran nuke Crisis ...
June 67 war brought Iran research reactors The shah made
a $ 1 billion loan to the French for the construction of
an enrichment plant in Tricastin in the South of France.
From 1974 followed five reactors and fuel from France,
two reactors and fuel from the US, regular purchases of
uranium from Australia and two reactors from West Germany.
Denmark delivered 10 kilo of highly enriched uranium and
25 kilo of natural uranium. Technical staff came in from
Argentina and India The Iranian budget for the atomic
energy rose from $ 30 million in 1975 to $ 1 billion in 1977
But By the end of 1978, with not a single reactor
completed yet, the shah ran out of money and country to live
In while Iranian stormed the US embassy in Tehran
TO BRING Islamic revolution.for US' agenda: The oil, the dollar
and the foreign debt Allied army now in Iraq, Iran and,
for the UNOCAL pipeline project in Afghanistan with Bush aggressive stance
against Iran is its part in the weakening dollar. A new Iranian
oil strength Nuke strength if successful, will trip up US' hegemony
because World's oil and gas is traded in US-dollars. Seeking allies ….
Bush is seeking allies jointly by the UK, France and Germany,
the so-called E3. They would represent the European Union. France and Germany
WITH condemned UN Security Council TO Obtain SANCTION.
Bush, if he does not obtain his embargo, would not mind to
see the Iranian power plants under construction bombed Iran Bombed.
what role does the UK play in this EU-delegation? Well, with its IPE oil
market always playing in symbiosis with NYMEX, and its subsequent
impossibility to adopt the euro, they serve as the Chamcha
of the White HouseThe tone of the E3 talks with Iran is to impose
to Iran WHILE treated THAT IRAN will have to obey one way
or the other. In January 2006, French President Chirac
even covertly threatened with a possible nuclear attack
Russia and China VETO ..To reach a Security Council resolution
with sanctions against Iran the US, France, UK and Germany
have to convince Russia and China not to use their right of veto.
Iran still has fossil energy sources. China has good relations
with Iran for the supply of oil and gas Is enrichment of Uranium in
non-nuclear-weapon states dangerous? Natural uranium
contains 0.7 percent of U-235 atoms. To use it as nuclear
fuel the proportion of U-235 atoms has to be increased to
3 to 5 percent. To do so, the uranium must first be purified and converted into a gas.
In this form batteries of centrifuges can filter out a
few of the heavier U-238 with Risks of the chemical industries disaster
Enrichment of at least 90 percent IN 3 to 5 years CAN produce a bomb.
UN world order The idea appeared in a UN brochure in 2004
On February 6 2006 the US' Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP)Oarai Conference in Japan, this GNEP is presented as
an idea of IAEA's head ElBaradei and a proposal of Bush.
Europeans are considerably expanding their OWN production
in the UK, Netherlands and Germany.For this Bush Blair simply invaded
Iraq at gun point.Bush simply overruled the UN's Security Council…
For them IAEA's Multi-National Approach (NMA) and Bush' Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), will merge into a
final version dictated by the US. Nuclear fuel in what currency
(or currencies) will the customers have to pay? US-dollar.
The UN NUKE Department for an anti-Iranian alliance
of the US and E3 is to seize world's nuclear fuel fossil fuel market a
UN Security Council resolution would be enough, if it legalizes for
IAEA to forbid Iran to enrich uranium and like Iran part with fossil fuel
control to Bush Blair Army of monopoly without Islam without oil control

M.B.Zakaria, United Arab Emirates - 09 May, 2006

Are you nuts?

Why is it so difficult to understand why we would want Iran to be stopped??? The problem is that you have so much hatred in your heart, you would be happy to see a million Isrealis killed. Most of the racism in the world is in the 'muslim' countries. If this President of Iran doesn't say he wants to eliminate Isreal, or that the holocaust is made up, nobody would pay him any attention. But you never allow a guy that is itching to shoot someone to have a gun. To say all this is about oil is ignorance, or even about power. It's just crazy.

Ryan, United Kingdom - 10 May, 2006

We shall have to fight for Iran

Respected Readers!
We have an old pact with Iran and Turkey and now with the newly smaller republics of Turkistan. We shall live and die together and shall consider any attack on any of them as on all of us. That is the matter of life and death for us and shall have to be ready in full for that.
As far as nuclear power is concerned Iran should declare its being an atomic power as soon as possible because ordinary people do only understand the language of force and not tongue.

Mohammad Ilyas, Pakistan - 10 May, 2006

Potential Nederland Holland Nuke Attack in Tehran - entire Iran

Mohammad Ilyas

CENTO+Turkistan and entire UMMA Army
needed to get sick leader Of USA allied army
out of army and Holland allied army evicted out of Iraq Iran
Afghanistan region.

I would evict these few individuals out of UK EU
USA Middle East and from around the globe based
upon Int'l court Order .This is Sufficient to nail them
down just in Time to Prevent Massive Hiroshima
Nagasaki style Surprise attack on Islamic cities
and Tehran using their own Nuke Explosion plan.
We should pick up sick Brain few individual
G8 leaders right away and place him in Mental
Clinic of Haque Haag(nederland Holland).

Z Billo, Pakistan - 10 May, 2006

You Better be careful of your tongue

Mohammad Ilyas you better be careful of your tongue. Iran is one of the few countries in the world where America would actually go to nuclear war over. Why? Because we in America really believe its leaders are insane and you can't negotiate with insanity. We know that IF they develop Nukes they WILL use the nukes and no US President can allow that to happen. Not Clinton. Not Kerry, not Gore, and not even Jessie Jackson, but of course as we know the current President is George Bush. So if Iran declares itself a Nuclear power we will attack with massive nuclear force. But you say that would only encourage Iran (or you say Pakistan) to use Nukes against America. But again, we believe that IF Iran has Nukes they WILL USE them against us regardless of what we do or do not do because they are that crazy. SO, if they are going to nuke us anyway, we might as well nuke them first. Remember, we have enough nukes in our hands right now to nuke the world 100 times over, so, while they can harm us with a nuclear attack, we can destroy them totally with one of ours and since they are going to attack us with nukes anyway, we might as well attack first while there is still a chance that they won't be able to attack us. For if Iran gets nukes, we know we will be nuked and we can't do anything to change that.

Jay, United Kingdom - 11 May, 2006

It's about Survival

It isn't about oil. It is about survival. Even the most pacifist of American leader knows that when Iran gets the bomb it is all over for us unless we respond quickly the moment it happens. If Iran thinks that the moment that they get the bomb we are going to just surrender and give ourselves over to them and Allah, well they don't remember the experience of the Soviets. We would had rather ALL died than become communist. We would rather have destroyed not only us and the Soviets but in the attack destroy the planet's capacity to substain all life for thousands of years than to become communist. Why don't they think that it wouldn't be the same with them? The only difference is that we didn't think the Soviets were insane like we do think the Iranian leaders are. The fact that we think the Iranians will use the bomb against us even if we don't attack them means that we have a great motivation to attack first as that gives us the BEST chance for survival under the circumstance.

Gene, United Kingdom - 11 May, 2006

ineed a very good piece of research

I want to congratulate you for conducting such a factful research. I have forwarded this to all of my mailing lists.

Sunny, Pakistan - 11 May, 2006

E M B A R G O Route V E T O Route

Recognition of Israel Route VETO Route EMBARGO Route…

Israel '48 “We bombed Iraq Nuke Plant and will bomb Iran Nuke
Power Plants or technology development in ayatollah world
and we do not recognize UN resolutions "

UN Terrorism Via EMBARGO…

UN Security Council resolution for E M B A R G O would be enough .

Israel Bush Blair UN alliance “ we will flirt with China Russia not
To Use V E T O While we go for E M B A R GO and Bombing ”

benz m Ispahani, India - 11 May, 2006

What, You think you invented suicide?

What, you think YOU invented suicide as a war tactic? For over 50 years we were part of a suicide pact with another country where if one of us attacked the other we promised not only to destroy each other but also to wipe the entire human species off the face of the planet. We would have rather destroyed all of humanity than to allow the other side to win. So, when it comes to suicide as a tactic of war, compared to us you are really a bunch of amateurs. You think you know us, but you don't. You really have no idea who you are dealing with here. I pray you never find out.

Max, United Kingdom - 11 May, 2006

When Queen Elizabeth was worth $500m Shah-Sheiks wealth Route to Money NukeCrisis

When Queen Elizabeth was worth $500m Shah-Sheiks
Wealth Route leads to MONEY and Iran Nuke Crisis....

When crude oil cost was $1.93 /barrel, Queen Elizabeth ll
Of Can UK 26 countriesWas worth $500m, when Shah
Iran's NY banker was worth $250m (as money manager),
Shah gave away $1billion to France to purchase Nuke
reactors in 1967.So much the wealth cars ,the G8
west Japan and others Had never seen because all
majors' banks used to post profit (If any) worth in just
Few millions. USA Germany Australia And others rushed
to seek money in billions from Shah in Buying Nuke reactors,
Peykan Hillman cars Krupp steel mill Mercedes Benz Cars
and petrol Pumps. Even 1971 east Pakistani Adamjii of
jute mill bought $400m steel plant in France. Then Came
Kuwait purchase of remaining share of Mercedes Benz
Petrol Canada amid buying 3600 hotels worldwide with OIL
Sultan Brunei and Saudis .Car manufacturers came making cars
Boeing and airbus bombardier airplanes and jet fighters refineries.
Surplus money from looted oils of Iran Iraq Libya Saudi Arabia
And Kuwait converted hungry and destitute G8 EU USA Canada
intoCar based rich millionaires not in 2000 but in millions(via stolen
Money ).Crude oil jumped to $70/barrel, Shah lost Iran king
Idris lost Libya Saddam grabbed Iraq, Ayatollahs and Islam
Flourished back to success prosperity technology and all with
Ottoman Turkey Tatars Kazakhs (Cossacks) Timurid and Babur
And Chinese dynasty and all.

The newly wealthy of above background is trying to recreate shah
Sheik sultan free oil and millionaire and billionaire flow via Iran
Nuke crisis route which Will never happen.Current wealth came
With selling everything including DEMOCRACY Human
rights soul to Muslims.
I know I am in it.

M.B.Zakaria, United Arab Emirates - 11 May, 2006

big satan

we need not fear for anything.remember the verse in koran pak -Allah says-fear him alone....

syed sayeedur rahman, Hungary - 11 May, 2006

Clouds of War over Iran

US is a super power and going in the wrong direction. Iran is a nuclear power today whether one believes it or not makes no difference. If US and allies failed to understand the very fact that Iran needs Nuclear technology for civilian use then its not far that Iran will step out of NPT and then its too late for a compromise. Developing an atom bomb and other menaces in this modern world of today when 68% of Iranians are graduates and have 98% rate of education they can do anything in the field of technology. Their recent show of some missile testing and torpedoes is an indication that Iran is not Iraq and may be better positioned than North Korea. When North Korea said to Bush that this time North Korea will launch Nuclear Attack on US the tone of US President changed. Why not coming to senses and behave like a responsible country and leave others alone and let them develop the technology for their use. NO WMD were found in Iraq and sitution in Iran is difference as more than 2000 hours of inspection has already been carried out by IAEA and nothing found. By the time something comes out the OIL prices will go very high which is not good for common users. Iran of today should no way be compared with time of Shah who cared less for the country but enjoyed and pleased others. Even the neighbouring countries did not have good relations with him. Technology changes hands all the time and there is no problem for Iran to obtain whatever they need for their defense, may be they have no intention of attacking any country and its purely a bluff by President of Iran that they will destroy Israel. Its just an empty threat which has no footing or support of people who understand the words well.Let us hope that countries do understand that Iran is there to remain and do need to progress as their right and for survival they will go to any extent whether its desastrous for them or for others. Live and let live policy woulld be liked by majority and why not adopt it.

mohammad, United Arab Emirates - 11 May, 2006


Respected Readers!
As Mr.Ryan and many others from U.S and Israel guess that the forming of Iran a nuclear power means destruction of Israel's population, so that is totally a mis-understanding as every problem is solved by coming to some understanding and decision only. Iranians are Persians and they have seldom been in history involved in a mass destruction or massacre.
So to be involved into a massacre to avoid a massacre seems a foolish thing as it is to be carefully noted that by being afraid of Iran becoming an Atomic Power a battle started may change into a Third World War.

Mohammad Shamaun Pasha, Pakistan - 12 May, 2006

Your Debate, G-8 and Fate

Dawn fires arrows of light on the face of earth
man stares knowing nothing like a baby to blame
lips play across the milky surrounding of the necklace
O! Heaven whips hunter of the fate around the game.

O Both Writers; Our principle is to fight and die if one attacks on us. Yes, you may be do again bomb civilian population as people in short number dying are because of the terrorists and your mass killings will be named as a crusade. You should be ashamed of yourself what you are writing. Never consider that our cities are like those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as every least attack by any power will be reversed more harshly. I think you are earning more in Iraq and Afghanistan then now you are looking towards Iran. Also I think that none of your relative has died or crippled in these countries. We feel sorry for them killed and injured there and you are warning us in the response. Those days are gone now and look towards some humaneness and peace for yourself as we people are against mass killings or nuclear bombardment.

Mohammad Ilyas, Pakistan - 12 May, 2006

You misunderstand our issue

I believe the Iranian people are a good and honest group. The problem is with the president and religious leaders. The president was not voted in fairly, and we all know some parties were not allowed on ballots.

However, the missles are not in control of the people.....the gov't controls them. Just yesterday the president of Iran said Israel will be destroyed!!! What can we do but prevent them from getting to that point? If they attack Israel, Israel will destroy them. Then it's a serious war involving many other nations.

Ryan, United Kingdom - 12 May, 2006

a compliment to editor

this is one of the best article i have read on paktribune. i may this is the best article of this website which not only give many informations which we dont have but also say what we wuld think. i may bet, the writer of this article is a highly intellectual and knowledgeble man. rest......... i will think and reply to the questions raised by the writer.


s tiwari, Hungary - 12 May, 2006

To Sunny

Thanks for your compliments and for helping to get this information into the world.

Rudo de Ruijter, Netherlands - 12 May, 2006

To M.B.Zakaria

Thanks for posting a piece of my article.

Rudo de Ruijter, Netherlands - 12 May, 2006

Iranian Pres Says Iran will destroy Israel.

The Iranian President says that he will be the one who will destroy Israel. Are we not to believe him? Lots of people didn't believe the crazy things Hitler said he would do either. That is until he started doing them. But Israel aside for a moment. We know that once Iran gets nukes they will give them to terrorists and then it is game over for us. Iranian Nukes Means American Extinction, and no American leader could allow that so that is why we must stop them. Iran is the greatest threat that America has ever faced precisely because their leaders are so insane and so bent on destroying us regardless of the high consequences for them and their people for doing so.

Jean, United Kingdom - 13 May, 2006

 What do you think about the story ? Leave your comments!

Heading (Optional)
Your Comments: *

Your Name:*
E-mail (Optional):
City (Optional):
Country (Optional):
Field marked(*) are mandatory.
Note. The PakTribune will publish as many comments as possible but cannot guarantee publication of all. PakTribune keeps its rights reserved to edit the comments for reasons of clarity, brevity and morality. The external links like http:// https:// etc... are not allowed for the time being to be posted inside comments to discourage spammers.

  Speak Out View All
Military Courts
Imran - Qadri long march
Candid Corner
Exclusive by
Lt. Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)
Pakistan itself a victim of state-sponsored terrorism: Qamar Bajwa
Should You Try Napping During the Workday?
Suggested Sites