THE GREAT GAME REVISITED Having destroyed Iraq, Israel, with west’s support, is no

w trying to destabilize Pakistan, the only Muslim nation with N-weapons The Isra
eli Army which, despite Israel’s veneer for democracy, actually runs that country
has for some decades now pursue certain policies of direct relevance to Muslim c
ountries in its vicinity. Amongst these countries are Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. F
irst and foremost amongst these Israeli policies is the determination of that ar
my to remain the pre-eminent military power in the region. And in order to retai
n its military hegemony, the Israeli Army must necessarily prevent any Muslim co
untry in the region from obtaining effective nuclear weapons. And if, like Pakis
tan, such a country already has nuclear weapons, then the Israeli believes it is
essential to disable that country to the point where it ceases to operate as a
nation militarily. Once we understood the centrality of this policy to the Israe
li Army, then much of what has happened, and is happening, in this region falls
into place. For example, Iraq was developing a nuclear bomb. Israeli destroyed t
he facility where Iraq’s bomb was reputedly being developed. But Iraq remained a m
ilitary powerful nation that might be a threat to Israel, and it was too powerfu
l for Israel to defeat alone, so Bush and Cheney obliged the Israelis by Invadin
g a false pretexts. The result was the decimation of the Iraqi Army, the divisio
n of the country into three areas so it ceased to operate military as a nation,
and the control of Iraqi oil by companies amenable to US interest, Job done. The
persistent threats to Iran issuing from the White House under Bush were designe
d to generate a political climate at home that would allow the US to bomb Iran’s n
uclear facilities, so as to disable its supposed nuclear weapons program. If Ira
n had a bomb, it would be of little danger to anyone, because, were Iran to use
such bomb against Israel, as Hilary Clinton said, America would “obliterate” Iran. O
n the other hand, were Iran to use a nuclear weapon defensively against an Israe
li attack, then America would have to respond with more care. So the only result
of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be to curtail Israeli’s power to bully
countries in the region. It follows that any American attack a supposed nuclear
weapons program in Iran could only be designed to maintain Israel’s military pre-e
minence in the region. An American attack on Iran’s nuclear program could have bee
n on behalf of Israel. A clear case of Israel controlling US foreign policy on i
ts own behalf. If Iran is building a bomb, the main reason would be to defend it
self against Israel. So the best way to end to the supposed Iranian nuclear weap
ons program would be (1) to disarm the nuclear threat from Israel, and (2) for N
ATO military to guarantee Iran against attack from its neighbours, especially fr
om Israel. Why the West not pursued this effective policy that would also reduce
the number of nuclear weapons in the world? If India were disarmed and Pakistan
were guaranteed military protection against Indian attack, why would Pakistan n
eed nuclear weapons? When perfectly rational policies are ignored in favour of d
angerously ineffective ones, something fishy is usually up. The Kashmir dispute
also falls into this category. Why are NATO forces in Afghanistan killing Afghan
istan? Surely, not for the good of the Afghans. As for democracy, the overwhelmi
ng wish of the people is for NATO forces to leave immediately. This is the princ
ipal reason for the Afghan national revolt that the people in the West call Isla
mic militancy. The NATO forces are there for two reasons: One, for the oil and g
as reserves around the Caspian Sea, which, at the very least, the NATO countries
would like to deny to Russia and China; and, two, to destabilized and weaken Pa
kistan on behalf of Israel. That India would also like Pakistan to be weakened i
s just an added bonus ensuring India’s participation in the skulduggery, partly by
means of a close covert alliance with Israel. In order to maintain its military
dominance in the region, Israel has four years set about destabilizing any Musl
im country that poses a threat to its dominance. Pakistan is the only Muslim cou
ntry with nuclear weapon and Israel is within range. So Pakistan must be weakene
d to the point at which it ceases to operate militarily as a nation. Pakistan is
supposed to be the West’s foremost ally in the fight against Islamic militancy, s
o Israel cannot attack Pakistan directly, and, if Israel did, she would certainl
y be defeated. So what to do? Well, two strategies come to mind: One, use Americ
a to attack Pakistan for you; and two, train and send into the border regions of
Pakistan gangs of thugs willing to commit atrocities that will then be blamed o
n “barbaric Muslim militants”, suggesting that Pakistan has lost control of its terr
itory to dangerous extremist and so may lose control of its nuclear weapons. Is
there any evidence that these policies are being pursued by Israel in Pakistan?
Yes, though regrettably my sources must remain anonymous. Perhaps the best infor
m person in Afghanistan has said that he knows for sure that the Israelis are tr
aining team of Badakhshan and are sending them into Pakistan’s border regions to c
ommit atrocities. Two British friends, who have covered Afghan war since 1980, t
ell me the same thing. Rumors of Israeli-trained provocateurs amongst the tribes
men in the Khyber Agency and in Swat are rife. Then there is, of course, the com
pletely public evidence of the daily US infringements of Pakistani sovereign air
space by drones. These drone attacks always kill many more innocents than the so
called insurgents. The traditional authority of the tribal elders is weakened b
ecause they cannot protect their people, thus further destabilizing the region a
nd allowing the infiltrators easier access. In addition, they weaken the authori
ty of the Pakistani government and of the army, both of which are made to look a
s if they condone the attacks, which surely is one of the main purpose of the at
tacks. Perhaps Asif Ali Zardari’s government and the army do condone the attacks,
but if so, they do so against the interest of a group of people – the Pashtuns – who
already feel alienated from central government. Thus Pakistani unity is further
eroded, much to the satisfaction of the Israelis. That the destabilization of P
akistan has been on the minds of YS officials for some time is suggested quite s
trongly by an article in the Guardian of Aug. 27, 2008. The article entitled “Take
this war into Pakistan” was written by the Afghan Ambassador to Norway, Jawid Lud
in. I assume Jawid Ludin was speaking as Afghan Ambassador to Norway and so had
the approval of what he said from his government, I am assuming also that the Af
ghan government is simply the instrument of the US, the US authorities knew in a
dvance of the contents of this article. Maybe they are testing the water. In thi
s article Ludin says: “Without having to invade Pakistani territory, (a) coalition
(of US, Afghan, and Pakistani military forces) should establish a viable presen
ce by opening a military bases in Pakistani soil. A supreme commander, with depu
ties from Afghanistan and Pakistan, should be appointed to devise and implement
an effective counterterrorism strategy on both side of the Durand Line… The coalit
ion should also ensure the security of Pakistan’s dangerous nuclear arsenal.” Earlie
r in the article the author says: “the US must recognize the utter futility of wor
king with the Pakistani military” which he suggests is untrustworthy and unfit to
protect Pakistan’s interest. This implication is rather odd given that later he sa
ys that the “coalition of the willing”, that must set up bases in Pakistan to run an
efficient counterterrorism offensive, should include the Pakistan military (I t
ake it in only junior capacity), So here we have a proposed force lead by a “supre
me commander” of unnamed nationality that will lead Afghan and Pakistani soldiers
(the Pakistani leadership having been sidelined) o Pakistan soil (which somehow
they have entered without invasion) to take control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons
and to beat all terrorists, by means un-described. Frankly, so bizarre a scheme
is too stupid even for Indian and American intelligence officials stationed far
from the action. But, if not, then its drift is obvious: The Pakistani military
command should be fragmented, disabled, sidelined and the country’s nuclear “arsenal”
should come under responsible control (like that of the Afghans, I suppose). Pak
istan should be deprived of central military national command. Events in Waziris
tan, in the Khyber Agency and in Swat Valley all suggested that the central auth
orities of Pakistan have indeed relinquished control of these border areas. Balo
chistan is also in a state of turmoil That makes it impossible for the central a
uthority of the Pakistan government and army to govern there. Much of this is th
e result of 60 years of gross incompetence and nepotism in the central governmen
t and in the army, but it has created an environment easily exploited by Pakista
n’s enemies. The Baloch tribes On the Iran side of the border are also being finan
ced by outside agencies, so their insurgency will weaken the central control of
the Iranian government. In short, Israel’s foreign policy in the region, has, with
the aid of the US, become a very successful one. The only thing I fail to under
stand is why the people of these countries let it happen. Especially the militan
ts: They are supposed to be true Muslims, yet they really seem to relish doing t
heir enemies’ dirty work. I suppose when you are poor, money can buy just about an
ything. And when you are ignorant, you are easily fooled. E-mail: jbescabarte@ho
tmail.com milkfish54@gmail.com