Geopolitical Analysis

Pub. Kashmir Images, by K.N.Pandita, July 12, 2005 – Many western political pundits did not expect the result of the recent Iranian presidential election the way these have came about. The reason is that for quite some time, the

American media has been doing a lot of sword’ rattling against this country. For more than a year now, Bush administration has been handing out threats to Iran alleging that she was moving fast towards acquiring nuclear capability. The intensity with which Bush administration tried to denounce Iranian nuclear programme stands in direct contrast to its benign negligence of North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear capability.

North Korea is a close neighbour and ally of China. Washington will think twice before taking any precipitate action against North Korea. As against this, Iran does not have the ideological support of any big power. The balance of power in the region was tilted with the implosion of the erstwhile Soviet Union. She remains an outsider to the Arab Muslim world.

Secondly, as a political gimmick, American media had been covertly extending moral support to what it called “moderates” in Iran. The logic was that Hashimi Rafsinjani was labelled as a moderate. The question is why did the Iranians vote for a hardliner when the philosophy of moderate politics was expected to have made inroads into the Iranian middle class. This question baffles the policy planners in many western capitals as well.

The fact of the matter is that Iran is not to be equated with Iraq in a number of aspects. Iran is a non-Arab Islamic country: she is predominantly a Shi’a and not a Sunni society. But more than that, Iran has been traditionally very sensitive about its nationalism. Though Khumaeini tried to underplay this historical identity, yet the inheritors of his ideology had to resort to it somehow. Therefore a threat perceived to be directed at Iranian nationalism will be resented strongly. The anti-Iranian propaganda unleashed by the American press for quite some time became counter productive. The nationalists converted it into a challenge to the nationhood of Iran. The local leadership cleverly played the card and used the extreme nationalism bordering on Islamism as the instrument to defeat the American ambitions. That is the reason why Mahmud Ahmadinejad was able to win a landslide victory over his opponents in the presidential election.

Furthermore, in comparison to Iraq, Iran is a more homogeneous society. The ethnic divide in this society is not as sharp as it was in the Iraqi society. Though there is a sizeable Iranian Diaspora in the US as a result of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, yet it should be clear that to whatever ideology they adhere to, the Iranians are first and last staunch nationalists. The nationalist symbols that bind them together are too strong to be wished away. Also there is no dearth of political statesmanship in Iran, notwithstanding what happened during the revolution.

Iran has a large majority of youth below 35 age line. The youth power has always been very significant in her contemporary history. The concept that Iran’s natural resources have been vandalised for long lingers on with the youth. In absence of strong democratic mechanisms and institutions, the only support structure available to the youth against the high-handedness of the world’s strongest power was that of consolidation through whipping up religious sentiments. That is what precisely happened and we have the result.

In the light of the fact that an unknown group of Al Qaeda in charge of European chapter has claimed responsibility for the recent London bombing, the ground situation will undoubtedly force the policy planners in Washington and in London to revisit their policy towards the Muslim world. At present there is enormous contradiction in it.

It is now becoming clear that Pakistan has been covertly providing basics of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. History of past one decade between the two countries, the frequent visits of leaders, clandestine visits of Pakistani nuclear scientists A.Q. Khan to Riyadh and exchanges at highest levels all now reveal that besides normal diplomatic parleys, serious attention has been given to the Saudi nuclear programme. The American intelligence agencies are fully aware of a deal between the two governments and the enormous funding which Pakistan received for her nuclear programme. It is clear to these agencies that Pakistan has been involved in nuclear proliferation among some of the Islamic countries.

Yet despite all this, Washington has adopted very friendly attitude towards Pakistan and President Bush and his representatives have a profusion of encomiums for President Musharraf. It is a contradiction in terms. And who pays for it, not the elite but the innocent and ordinary people whether in New York or in Madrid or in London and elsewhere.

As days pass by, more and more information about Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation is revealed. The way American administrations successively closed their eyes to Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear programme and the intentions of extending nuclear technology to willing Islamic states makes one thinks that time has come when a good number of Islamic countries will have the weapon of mass destruction in their hand. Therefore there should be no surprise if this weapon falls in the hands of Islamic terrorists. These apprehensions are now loudly expressed in almost all political circles in the west.

It follows that in the backdrop of this scenario, world powers now talking of containing and resisting Islamic terrorism shall have to rethink on their entire strategy. The question is that the nuclear weapon will sooner or later fall in the hands of the terrorists, and they will have no qualms of conscience in using these. What then shall be the reaction of those who have vowed to fight the terrorism to finish? It may be that before finishing the terrorists, they may themselves be finished.

Therefore the need of the hour is not to harden the postures but to find a solution. The solution lies first and foremost in re-visiting American policy towards the Islamic world and towards terrorism. The real culprits are within the knowledge of the Americans. Islamic extremism is rooted in the mind of 700,000 students who are studying in the religious seminaries (madrasahs) in Pakistan and whose expenses from A to Z are born by the petro-dollar booty of the rich Gulf kingdoms and their operatives. Unless this phenomenon is brought under control, the subject of containing Islamic terror will remain a distant dream.

It is a good news that Iran is not contributing to the Wahhabi ideology. It is all the more gratifying that Iran has returned a hardliner as the new president who will not play the second fiddle to the Americans. The more interesting aspect of Iranian elections is that the person who seems to be the hardliner for the Americans is a liberal and a moderate in true sense of the term. If he is left without interference, he will be able to lead his countrymen along the path of democracy, liberalism and peaceful coexistence. But the situation could be the reverse of what it is if there is senseless interference from any quarter.
(Kashmir Images 13 July 2005)