Pakistan News Service

Saturday Nov 18, 2017, Safar 28, 1439 Hijri
Logo Logo
LATEST :

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?

End.

Reader Comments:

Iran is not a threat

Iran is surrounded by Nuclear Power i.e. Pakistan, Israel, Russia and India. All have destructive weapons and for Iran its a challenge to defend and why should'nt they acquire one as well. Government of Iran is duly and fairly elected government through democratic processes and its wrong to say its not. They are great nation and are no harm to their neighbour including Israel. His words were purely to be heard by US and no one will destroy Israel because they do have Nuclear weapons. It would be better if trust is created between the nations of that region including Middle East so that all countries can develop and look after their own interests.

mohammad, Pakistan - 13 May, 2006

To Rudo de Ruijterm "Finest Research Ever"

To Rudo de Ruijterm
"Finest Research Ever" – Congratulation and
Thanks for letting me write other component.


M.B.Zakaria, United Arab Emirates - 13 May, 2006

scene is clear

The way president of Iran has passed comments, US will not allow Iran to have nuclear bombs. either this way or that way, Iran will have to surrender her nukes to either UN otherwise to US. US is strong enough to capture the whole Iran. US are just trying to take the world in confidence before taking any action against Iran. either by threatening or by attack, US will remove nukes from Iran.

about Russia and China, they know US is determined to remove nukes from Iran. they know if UN will not take proper action, US will do what US want, like in case of Iraq. Russia, France and China know if US will keep doing what US want and will not care of UN, no one will give value to UN and UN will get an image of something like failed UN. and if UN will be recognized as failed, Veto powers will loose a pride of having Veto of an organization who guide the whole world. while US will be US forever. therefore I believe first Russia and China will try US won't attack on Iran and also they will try Iran wont face any economic sanctions. but when they will find US is determined to do something, they will simply support US in UN.

I have soft corner for Irani people so as a friend I may just warn. Iran is not a powerful country like china. Iran is sandwich in between Afghanistan and Iraq where US already have full control. also US will not only use airports of Pakistan but also put two aircraft carriers in Arabic Sea carrying 60-80 advanced aircrafts and from other side Israeli aircraft's will also take strikes. challenge of Mr Ahmedizeddan, Irani president, is in air. The ground reality is ………… US will first capture skies of Iran in one week, full control on Iran in one month and then they will stabiles a new government there in six months who will do whatever US will say and that will be the worse case for Iran. as a friend of Irani people I suggest, better Iran should try to get more and more financial benefits in return of her nukes. not only Iran but also far bigger country and economy like Indonesia is not having nuke. even country like Saudi Arabia also don't have nukes. everyone knows Saudi Arabian are rich people while Iran also have all oil and gas but still poor. western countries will never allow any Muslim country to have nukes. Iran has no problem with Pakistan and Israel is not going to attack on Iran. the Nukes Iran is having is of no use for Iran while on the other hand, these nukes are threat to not only Israel but also to US and other western countries. they think terrorist may get these nukes. and also the way Irani President has passed comments, they are not fully wrong. Try to understand the flow of air. Today your typically aggressive president is showing you all the pride of having nukes and tomorrow you will loose even feeling of a national of a independent country. have a look on Iraq, what happened to them. you will get nothing from these nukes.

About Pakistan, Pakistan would think what Pakistan will do if US undertakes nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. because whatever Israel will do, they will do what US will say. I don't think it will be easy for Pakistan to say NO to US. Pakistan will have to do what US will say, like Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries of that region will also do. my suggestion to Pakistan, first they would try to convince Iran to hand over all the nukes to UN, and if Iran don't do, they would plan what they will do after the war. becoz first Pakistan will have to help US in war and then will face this Shia refugee's problem. the geographical advantage (or disadvantage whatever you recon) of Pakistan has made her in such a type of position that Mr Mushrraf has no choice other than to just take more and more financial benefits from US and do whatever US say. because it is not in the hands of Pakistan. What is going to happen, will sure to happen. Pakistan can just try to avoid war, nothing else.

s tiwari, Hungary - 13 May, 2006

I want to clear my last response

In my last response, I answered the questions raised by the writer. Which was about "the options left to Iran and Pakistan". I just tried to say how many options are left for Iran and Pakistan with the current direction of air. My advice to Iranies was about the options left for them. Because the world politics and power balance has given so much power to US that US may do anything what US want. No matter whether US is right or wrong, they may do anything. The current UN is no more than a toy of US and other Veto powers are just doing business of their Veto powers in UN.

If I advised Iran to give up the nukes, the reason is ………. It is said that if someone do wrong in society then you must resist him with your full strength. But if the wrong and dominating man is so much powerful that you can't fight with him, then first think about your family because you are responsible for your family also.

For example, during the freedom fighting in India, Mr Gandhi was blamed for not taking arms against the British government. Then Mr Gandhi said, “we don't have that good arms and people who may fight and win against Britain. If we will fight, first we will loose our people and then we will loose our strength also.” that's why in India it is said, “Mazburi Ka Naam Mahatma Gandhi”.

India got freedom, bit late, but india got freedom.

And the truth is IRAN AND US HAS EQUAL RIGHTS ON NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY. IF US, ISRAEL, INDIA, PAKISTAN, RUSSIA OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY CAN HAVE NUKES THEN IRAN CAN ALSO HAVE. US has no patent on nuclear technology.

Thanks

s tiwari, Hungary - 13 May, 2006

Islamic Theology and electorate

My All dear friends specially Mr.Ryan who is again mislead in his concept.
As the west blames and is against Iran specially the U.S putting before the theory that in Iran there is no equal rights to all and so is therefore to be opposed in all fields as is not democratic. Now you all being human beings can see in U.S that there is equal right to every man whether he be an idiot or a scholar. Because of this principle the teams of gangster, boys and girls are free to do anything against humanity or religion. Even those pleased with the same sex have influenced the government to make a law to marry with their same kind. Parents do have no right on children and similarly wife and husband relation is just like a mate in a journey who can any time change his/her seat. These things have brought up not only deseases in the society but humanity is gradually dying out.
The Muslim society differs than that and as you have said that the president has not been selected by the population. In Islam a chief or Amir-ul-Mominin is selected by a council comprised of selected men from each faction. These men are to be pious, upright and true to their word from among the others so that people may rely on them. So this president of Iran if not is selected by democracy, he is also not been chosen by a group of fools, streetfighters or gangsters.

Ahmad Farquleed, Pakistan - 14 May, 2006

Iran is shooting in its own foot

Iran hasn't learnt a lesson from Iraq. It is no match to America, who is wounded and like a tiger. Iran's ill suited bravado is likely to cause more harm to the larger interests and concerns of islam than any good.

Sher mohammad.

Sher Mohammad, Pakistan - 15 May, 2006

Clouds of War over Iran

The author of this article appears to have knowledge about past events and tries very hard to impress the readers by fitting lots of past news into the article, but it is very clear that his political vision is poor and does not comprehend the reality of Iran in the area. He does not even realize the reason the European now offering Iran as the author refer to “Carrot”, it is not because the European are trying to help Iran rather it is due to their desperate attempt to save their face. The author must know if there is a war with Iran, then he is going to walk every day to work rather than drive. Because the remaining oil left first goes to Europe before Pakistan see a drop of it. The author should not be worry about flocks of refugees from Iran into the Pakistan, it did not happen during the Iran-Iraq war and it is not going to happen during the next war.

Mehrdad, United Kingdom - 16 May, 2006

To Ahmed

Ahmed, many of your points are correct. I for one am disgusted with homesexuality and divorce, just as many Americans believe. It's a fine line with democracy and keeping moral authority. Many states have made laws that marriage can ONLY be a man or woman...what you hear about gay marriage is a small area of this country. Democracy says I may not like what you do, but if it does not affect me then I can not kill you. To my understanding, there are more than a few crimes in the Islamic world punishable by death. That is freedom and is what we represent. People hate the US for its wealth, and most that hate the US are the less intelligent groups. It's almost funny, many people in the US and the world hate Bill Gates. What did Bill Gates ever do to anyone?? He started Microsoft and became the world's wealthiest man. That brings jealously which then brings hatred.

I have business dealings with Pakistani's and have the utmost respect for those people and the culture. The same goes for Iraq and Iran. At what point does the US, as a superpower, begin to stick up for people under brutal dictatorships? I don't know the right answer, but I find it amazing the UN lets 200,000 people die in Darfur or other African nations without lifting a finger......there is no money in those areas. Why do China and Russia oppose sanctions on Iran?...the do billions of dollars in energy and trading. The world is a mixed-up place with crazy ideas, but it's the world we live in until a nuclear holocaust occurs.

Take care.
Ryan

Ryan, United Kingdom - 17 May, 2006

things are bit more complicated

Mr Sher Mohammed the question not only whether Iran or US match or not. Here, I find US is fighting for survival. They are left with limited options. People are dreaming to destroy US. First they are talking with US and at the same time they are supporting terrorists against US or UK. Everyone knows P-5 have no right to say they can keep nukes but not others. Country like india has even offered no first use of nukes against any country and no use of nukes against a non nuke country. P-5 are wrong on their stands on nuclear technology but the case of other countries are different. Except India, Pakistan and Israel, all the countries have signed NPT but few of them have been developing nuclear technology in secret. If the question was of just nukes, it could be a different thing. But here intention of Irani president is to use N bombs. And western countries are not only angry but also scared of his statements. He doesn't deserve to be a political man. He is an extremist. And I scare his intentions with destroy future of Irani people. And also he will be responsible to create more unstability in that region. He is not concerned with the justice to philistine people, he is mainly concerned with taking revenge of the entire happening in the past. He is supposed to look forward while he wants to take the world backward.

On the other hand, Developing countries are struggling with high oil prices and if there will be any new war, they cant afford to pay more than 100 or 150 dollars per barrel. Oil rich countries have very big mouth. They want to buy more and more luxury stuffs and for that they want money of those poor of developing countries who are living even under $1 a day. And on the other hand this new war will create more problems.

thanks

s tiwari, Hungary - 17 May, 2006

To Ryan

Hi Ryan now days it’s hard to find an indian who talk against US. . there are two reasons, first they don’t have to and second india is very happy with US so no-one has to come in between any talk related to US and Iran. I was expecting some replies from other readers for you but didn’t get so I thought I would reply you for your some points.

Ryan you might be proud on the wealth of US but others don’t think in the way you think for US. It is well known that out of 100% literacy of US, only 7-8% people are graduate. Also graduates of US is not that much competitive as they never faced any real competition in their life. They wanted to study and got admission in Universities. Even though US is facing unemployment problem, Mr Bill Gates has requested to increase H-1 visa category from 50,000 to atleast 100,000 for this year. Becoz on the market place, business can be run only on the shoulders those people who may face challenges. you know Bill Gates is honor of Microsoft, but we think he is running business becoz of those software developers who work for his company. And 95% professionals of Microsoft is from other countries. Like you know the world’s best-known web-based email program, Hotmail, is of US but we know the founder and creator of Hotmail is Sabeer Bhatia, Indian.

Mr Ryan, Germany is made by German, Japan is made by Japanese, but US is made by migrants of developing countries. Even in NASA, 95% scientists are from other countries and mainly from india. If you think US is made by those 90% US citizens who are doing labor jobs……… people are laughing Mr Ryan. you will find either US born businessmen or US born labors but the back boon of any country is her professionals like engineers, doctors, charter accountants. and most of professionals of US are originally from developing countries. Mr Ryan greatness can’t be gained by just publicity. This gives feel good only.

If we come to the topic, the Shame of ever using N-Bombs goes to only US. It is said, to win a war, US may go to any extent. If the question was to drop N-Bombs on the innocent unarmed Japanese, including women and children’s, I believe better US might have lost world war two. And about UN, it is said, VETO is nickname of N-Bombs. And weight of Veto of US is more becoz they have highest no of nukes. Mr Ryan this is not just an incident that only P-5 have nukes and Veto powers. They won world war two and got these powers. Otherwise there is no other reason why Japan and Germany won’t have Veto power and Nukes while France and Britain have. And if the question is just of power, then why not Iran would also exercise its luck and try for a war? After all N-Bombs and Veto is for only that group of countries who used N-Bombs and won the world war two? Mr Ryan if one day Iran or any Muslim country get success in dropping N-Bombs on US, do you think US will really have right to say that particular Muslim country did wrong? Afterall US taught them how to win a war like world war two? Afterall all the country want to feel they have power. Even though India has promised not to use N-Bombs against any non nuke country and no first use of nuke against any country, India want to keep nuclear technology just because India don’t want to feel that India is a weak country which can be dominated by P-5. Becoz first P-5 want rest of the world to follow UN, and then want to have Veto power to control UN. They want to threaten other countries by N-Bombs and don’t want other countries to have nukes?

Mr Ryan Iran is not the real problem, main problem is your chichi brothers. They have learned much in the company of US from last 30-40 years. They will never pass any comment like Irani president. They will keep increasing their defense expenditure until they don’t touch $400bn and level US defense budget. And how you will say they doing wrong? Also the way they are gathering resources, they are preparing for a big war. Not only oil and gas fields, even their craziness for steels, they in fire Mr Ryan. China is not only name of a country, China is thought of Chinese of whole world. they want China to dominate west, by both economic and military powers. The ongoing match between China and US will get an interesting turn anytime in between 2015-2020, the time frame given by china to capture Taiwan. A Chinese General has already said last year, China may use N-Bombs against Taiwan. And why not, even US has also used N-Bombs and also China is recognized as RESPONSIBLE COUNTRY and can have nukes and even use it? The way they are pumping oil from the free sea area in between Japan and China, their moral is high. Even right now they threaten Japan for not pumping oil from free sea area, what if they will have captured Taiwan and will have taken greater geographical advantage against Japan? 50,000 US troops are already there. This is a matter of shame for US.

Mr Ryan, Iran is not the main problem, think about your chichi brothers first.

thanks

s tiwari, Hungary - 21 May, 2006

Peace for everyone

I think US should live peacefully and let others live. There is a discrimination that Israel is allowed to do anything legal or illegal the way it wants but others are being stopped from getting their legal rights forcefully. Why? If Israel does not bother Iran I dont think they have any reason to strike them. Iranian President said this in response to the threats from US. Who is a TERRORIST? Everyone knows about it.

Iftikhar, Pakistan - 27 September, 2006

No More Wars

We should concentrate on global warming instead of spending the money for Nuke/Rockets or for war against each other.
We are all human regardless of religion or race. we should enjoy the life enjoy the world and live in peace.

Kosova Albana, Western Sahara - 02 November, 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