M. Abdul Hafiz
THERE are speculations galore that between now and June, before things slide into the thick of American election, Israel is likely to attack Iran, with the latter reacting with a quick ripostethus starting a mutually bruising war in the gulf. We couldn't care less if either Democrats or Republicans benefit from the possible catastrophe, but it does worry us in this region as to what might happen to Afghanistan and Pakistanboth Iran's neighbours but closely aligned to the United states. India, another US ally whom the US administration has been able to have on her side in its stand-off with Iran, will also matter in the ensuing conflict. How the next armageddon in a region close to ours will be eventually played out in the present milieu is of profound interests to observers. To make matters complex, a number of ethnic economic factors are also involved. Thus, the scenario appears alarmist and, hopefully, it is just that.
The June deadline for a possible Israeli assault on Iran has come from diplomats who watch the Middle East closely, some of them having been interacting with Israeli officials, others with Iran and its neighbours in the region. Their lunch matches the circumstantial evidence, not excluding, of course, the increased chatter within the media community about Dick Cheney's visit to the Gulf.
Cheney's swing tour included Oman and Israel, and is thought to be of significance. In Israel, he is believed to have given the proverbial green light to Prime Minister Olmert to take the course that best suited him vis-a-vis Iran and its proxies in Syria and Lebanon. Oman, on the other hand offers the best view of the perennially vulnerable Hormuz straits, from where much of the world gets its oil supply. The month of June provides the last clear-weather military opportunity to Israel to pick targets in Iran before rains arrive there in July. Soon after, there will be the excitement of US elections.
There are several other indications of the looming disaster. Apart from frequent alerts about Israel distributing gas masks to its citizens, there was the wire agency story during the week from Jerusalem. It quoted Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Ben Eliezer as warning that Israel would respond to any Iranian attack by destroying that country. Ben Eliezer's ominous remark was carried on Israel's public radio. Referring to an ongoing five-day home front defence exercise he claimed that it was not meant to threaten Israel's neighbours, but the “scenarios considered in the exercise could be reality tomorrow.”
Dick Cheney, while visiting Israel last month, was told by Defence Minister Ehud Barak that “no option would be ruled out in Israel's attempt to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” yet there seems to he a unanimity of opinion with regard to the consequences of an Israeli attack on Tehran's nuclear target. Almost everyone agrees that it will be different from the 1981 destructions of the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq. Israel may not be able to get away with it in case of Iran, whose response can be seriously debilitating for the entire gulf region and beyond. This brings us to the question; what impact would it have on South Asia that would be different from 1990, when “Desert Storm”the first gulf warwas enacted in the wake of Saddam Hussain's occupation of Kuwait?
Removed from the equation this time around are Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto, both outspoken critics of imperialism that greatly worried the US-led coalition, with their parties no longer evidently keen to challenge the US game plan even if it brings rack and ruin. The coast should be clear for any strategic help that might he needed, after the advent of Dr Manmohan Singh as the economic messiah for corporate India, which he still remain in addition to his being at the helm of the ruling UPA government. In Pakistan, a West-friendly Nawaz Sharifalso a part of new coalition governmentwill provide ballast to the emerging equation in South Asia in favour of a new US adventure in the gulf.
However, in the West's disfavour, the only flaw in the scenario is that the on-going war on terror has not quite accomplished anything that resembles a victory for its mainly pro-western advocates. And that has the potential of disturbing all calculations, including the ones favoured by India and Pakistan in recent days of their rare thaw. Afghanistan, with its huge problems under its US protected and Kabul-bound chieftain Hamid Karzai, is more of a liability for the West than an asset.
Often, the tectonic effects of a seemingly distant conflict are closer to us than we imagine. Sometimes, on the other hand, we imagine these effects when there is none. It all depends on how the impending armageddon will be played out.
Original Source