Pakistan and China resolved on Tuesday to safeguard each other’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In addition to the Balochistan predicament Pakistan borders on China’s Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region. #msg-5966546
China has already protested the establishment of a Uighur Government-in-Exile in Washington and Beijing has repeatedly made it clear that it will not tolerate any political interference from abroad, where pro-independence Uighur organizations exist. This means us. It would seem we are orchestrating a riot in the Xinjiang province of China. Pakistan along with Kyrgyzstan borders the Xinjiang region. #msg-4098311
When Bush meddled in Kyrgyzstan he went too far.
China has stationed 1 million troops in Xinjiang. The 1 million troops would be in addition to a possible 2.5 million semi-military force, or 3.5 million waiting to defend Xinjiang. #msg-5871359
A top military official has urged the strengthening of China’s 2.5 million semi-military presence in the westernmost Xinjiang region to combat separatism and attempts at “sabotage and infiltration,” #msg-4248304
China is treating the Uighur/Xinjiang situation with the same fervor as the Taiwan problem. Both Taiwan and Xinjiang are a threat to One China.
Beijing is as worried about "splittism" in Xinjiang as it is about "splittism" in neighboring Tibet or "separatism" in Taiwan.
India had been keeping an eye on the rapid growth of the Chinese navy, and its expected entry into the Indian Ocean region within a decade will introduce a new military factor into the Indian neighborhood. "The Chinese growth is being watched by various powers ...
In the Indian Ocean Pakistan's Gwadar port is a proposed gateway for the external trade of the Xinjiang province and a promising regional base for the Chinese navy. #msg-4812853 #msg-5966546
This would put the Chinese navy next to Iran’s shipping lane the Strait of Hormuz. The Chinese have a considerable investment in Iran’s oil and gas. Bush plans on attacking Iran by choking the Strait of Hormuz. #msg-4320350
-Am
India talks up axis against China By Siddharth Srivastava
Apr 8, 2005
NEW DELHI - It is the kind of statement unexpected just prior to the arrival of Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in India on Saturday. Addressing India's top army brass, Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee said on Wednesday that India must keep an eye on China's modernization of its armed forces.
Mukherjee's assertions are a clear reflection of the kind of geopolitical turns that politics of the Asian region may take in the near future, with the US egging on India to rein in the growing influence of China.
"A watch has to be kept on Chinese infrastructure in Tibet and its technological and military modernization program and the growth of its navy," the defense minister said. He observed that India had been keeping an eye on the rapid growth of the Chinese navy, and its expected entry into the Indian Ocean region within a decade will introduce a new military factor into the Indian neighborhood. "The Chinese growth is being watched by various powers ... We must be alive to these changes and their implications on our strategy," Mukherjee said.
It has not been lost to observers that Mukherjee, in his same speech, was happy about India's relations with the US. "With the US, we have made progress in expanding the space for understanding of our security concerns and for defense cooperation. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent visit has opened new perspectives," he said.
Significantly, Mukherjee's statements came when Wen was in Pakistan meeting with President General Pervez Musharraf. The two signed a treaty of friendship. Though there is not much new to say, the treaty for the first time defines the strong five-decade-old relationship between the two countries, including military exchange. Coinciding with the Wen visit, Pakistan launched its joint production with China of the JF-17 fighter aircraft, a project that was initiated because of the hitherto ban on F-16 fighters by the US. Wen also spoke of joint nuclear energy production, making it apparent that China would do unto Pakistan what the US is seeking with India.
This is, however, not to rule out the importance of Sino-Indian relations, which have grown in leaps and bounds on the back of trade. It is another matter that business relations between the two countries have happened pretty much independent of government intervention.
While the two sides have been pragmatic enough to set aside important differences, such as boundary issues, in order to promote business, it goes without saying that India will always keep a keen eye on China, even if to keep the US happy. As Wen said in an address in Pakistan, the economic and trade relations between China and Pakistan did not match their political and strategic relationship. The situation is the opposite in the case of India and China.
US-India in the Chinese context Indeed, there has been considerable rethinking within the Indian establishment about developments in Indo-US relations consequent to the visit of Rice, as well as the offer by President George W Bush to deepen strategic relations with India. Over the past weeks, as the import of the US offer has sunk in, experts and well as those in the establishment have been talking a different tune, even as India has ordered a cache of arms from countries other than US, to signal its irritation.
The engagement that the US is seeking from India goes much beyond just arms supplies: that offer has also been made to Pakistan. The US is looking to India to deepen economic relations, nuclear-energy cooperation, arms production as well as procure contracts for the estimated arms purchases by India to the tune of US$12 billion over the next few years that will include fighter jets, submarines, tanks and technological advancements.
The US has opened arms supplies to India, including the much-talked-about F-16 fighter jets that have been offered to Pakistan as well. India has been miffed at the US for removing a 15-year ban on the supply of fighter jets to Pakistan. It is clear now that India missed the wood for the trees, a phrase used by Shekhar Gupta, editor of the Indian Express, in his column recently.
Gupta argues that the US wants to engage India and move beyond the traditional hyphenation of US-India-Pakistan relations, and is looking at India as a strategic partner to fend off China. The US is seeking India beyond the axis of Cold War nations wherein India was seen to be allied closely with the former Soviet Union. This point is further emphasized by the fact that the US is strongly opposing the lifting of the arms embargo on China by the European Union, especially in light of the rising tensions between Taiwan and China.
Indeed, after an initial reaction of "disappointment", there has been a perceptible turnaround by India to the offer by US that includes cooperation in nuclear energy and joint production of military hardware. Mukherjee's clear enunciation of the thinking of the Indian establishment re-emphasized the perceptible turnaround made by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after the US offered arms to Pakistan. After his initial reaction of "disappointment", Manmohan said, "We have said publicly about the F-16s issue at a time when we are engaged in peace talks [with Pakistan]. I am disappointed but we have to move forward and resolve outstanding issues."
However, he added, "India needs the strong support of the world community, including the US, to emerge as a major world power." India and Pakistan must devote more time and money for the betterment of their people, he said, making it apparent that it would not be wise for India to take a stand that completely counters the US. "Our common enemy is poverty, ignorance and disease. We should devote all our resources to fighting poverty. Our generation has an obligation to the future," he said.
In the past, the US has required Pakistan, whether it be to take on Soviet ambitions in Afghanistan or the post-September 11, 2001, "war on terror". It still does need Pakistan for support against Iran, as well as to nab cadres of al-Qaeda and the elusive big fish, Osama bin Laden. However, there is a growing feeling of disenchantment with Pakistan as well, given its record in buttressing terror and peddling nuclear secrets. Importantly, Pakistan's strong military dealings with China are quite well known, a facet that the US can never be comfortable with.
The reaffirmation of US interest in India being independent of Pakistan is further buttressed by the fact that the peace process between the two countries is firmly in place and has built a momentum independent of the overtures that the US is making. Musharraf is due to arrive in India in a few days to witness a cricket match. He will meet up with Manmohan, with the meeting being widely seen as a further firming-up of the peace process that has received a major fillip due to the agreement to initiate the bus service between Indian and Pakistan Kashmir, despite threats of terror.
From India's point of view, the supply of arms to Pakistan will hardly tilt the balance of power with India's conventional military superiority clearly established. At the same time, the chances of the two countries going to war are quite remote.
The US, by seeking out India, is clearly looking beyond Indo-Pak relations.
Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.
ISLAMABAD, APRIL 6. The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, and the visiting Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, on Wednesday said that with the signing of new pacts, particularly the Friendship Treaty, relations between their countries have entered a "new qualitative stage."
The two leaders, who met at the Presidential House here this afternoon, said that their multi-faceted ties would not only be mutually beneficial but also contribute to regional stability. Diplomatic and political observers here are of the view that though there is no dramatic element in the Treaty of Friendship signed by Beijing and Islamabad on Tuesday, the document for the first time, defines the contours of the five-decade-old relationship between the two countries.
During the meeting, they also exchanged views on regional and international issues and said they would continue to share and coordinate their views at political and diplomatic levels.
Strategic dialogue
Under the "Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good-Neighbourly Relations" both sides are committed to maintain a regular high-level strategic dialogue. It noted that both sides should adhere to the principle of non-encroachment on national territories and boundaries and strictly observe the boundary agreements between the two. They resolved to maintain lasting peace and friendship in their border areas. The Pakistani side reiterated that there is but one China in the world and Taiwan is its inalienable part and supported Beijing's "great cause of national reunification." The Chinese side reiterated its respect for Pakistan's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and appreciated and supported its efforts to settle peacefully all the problems with its neighbouring countries.
Military cooperation
It said both sides should enhance and consolidate trust and cooperation in the military and security fields to strengthen their security. It said they should enhance their cooperation in the United Nations and other international and regional organisations.
Gen. Musharraf, in his meeting with Mr. Wen, described the treaty as a step forward from the historic declaration signed in Beijing in 2003.
He particularly referred to economic and defence cooperation between the two countries and said Chinese assistance in the construction of Gwadar deep-sea port and other development projects is a testimony to Beijing's commitment to the region's economic progress.
Pakistan has just signed a historic treaty with China, the United States is countering by pressing Pakistan on democracy #msg-5933429
-Am
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Apr 14, 2005
KARACHI - With the US playing a carrot and stick game and Pakistan playing hide and seek over its nuclear program - past and present - the two sides are developing a relationship based on mutual interests, although Pakistan is developing alternative choices.
The US is increasing pressure on Pakistan over its proliferation history, seeking to establish conclusive evidence that Iran is committed to a nuclear weapons program, while at the same time offering Islamabad - a key ally in the "war on terror" - inducements such as F-16s fighters.
Pressure on Pakistan has risen since the arrest last year of Asher Karni, a 51-year-old Hungarian-born Israeli and South African businessman, in the US on charges of violating American export laws. He was accused of exporting "triggered spark gap" devices. These are used for medical purposes, but can also, when installed into an enriched uranium casing, ignite a nuclear explosion.
During interrogation Karni revealed links with an underworld mafia operating in Pakistan and India. Despite giving details of unlawful shipments to India, no charges were brought against any Indian, but Asia Times Online contacts say that his evidence will be used to target Pakistan.
In the coming days the US is expected to formally ask Pakistan to help bring a Pakistani businessmen, Humayun Khan, to the US for investigation. Karni came up with Khan's name in connection with arranging shipments to Pakistan. Investigations will also be reopened into Pakistani scientist Bashiruddin Mehmood.
In late 2001, US officials investigating the activities of Osama bin Laden discovered that the al-Qaeda head had contacted some Pakistani nuclear experts for assistance in making a small nuclear device. US officials sought two veteran Pakistani nuclear scientists, in particular, Bashiruddin Mehmood and Abdul Majid, for interrogation. The two admitted to working in Afghanistan in recent years, but said they had only been providing "charitable assistance" to Afghans.
Old wine in new bottles Since news of Pakistan's nuclear proliferation officially broke last year with the father of the country's program, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitting to proliferation, albeit in a "personal capacity", the US has laid siege to Pakistan's nuclear program. It has been learned that before a major non-proliferation treaty (NPT) conference in May, new pressures will be mounted exclusively on Pakistan to sign the NPT, which would allow the UN's watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to closely inspect Pakistan's nuclear sites. However, Pakistan has officially refused to sign the NPT.
Up to a point, Pakistan has extended maximum cooperation to international agencies and provided them with evidence and material sources to investigate the nuclear underworld. However, Pakistan has point-blank refused to allow any external investigation into Khan (who is under house arrest), former chief of army staff Mirza Aslam Beg and former Pakistani president Ghulam Ishaq Khan. Instead, Pakistan has passed on details of interviews with these people to concerned international authorities, including the IAEA and US authorities.
Pakistan's strategic circles are now debating how to deal with demands for further assistance.
A case in point is Bashiruddin Mehmood. He was linked with the Taliban government in Afghanistan to develop agro-projects in Afghanistan through his non-governmental organization, but he was thought to have assisted al-Qaeda in acquiring nuclear weapons. He was immediately taken into custody. On US demands, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation kept Bashiruddin Mehmood at a private location in Pakistan for interrogation. He was released after no links were found to developing nuclear weapons for al-Qaeda.
In the meantime, US agencies conducted investigations and inquiries with al-Qaeda detainees, and recovered documents from Kabul and Jalalabad. They concluded that al-Qaeda's focus to acquire nuclear material and weapons was on renegade scientists of Russia and the Central Asian Republics. Nevertheless, their focus remained on Pakistan, and they still want to pursue this avenue.
A similar US mindset appeared when Iran's possible nuclear weapons program came under the spotlight.
Certainly, elements of nuclear cooperation have been traced between Pakistan and Iran, but indigenous Iranian efforts and non-Pakistani sources are also involved. Recently, the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based anti-nuclear proliferation group, divulged that Iran had established a facility called Kalaye Electric in 1995. The Persian name, which means "electric goods", was apparently chosen to mislead people about the real purpose of the site.
A US news agency quoted the institute's deputy director, Corey Hinderstein, who researched the Iranian site, as saying, "They have been using the site to research, develop and manufacture gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment." The centrifuges can also be used for enriching weapons-grade uranium. Hinderstein categorically mentioned that Iran also had "developed an indigenous capability to manufacture centrifuges". The fact is well documented by international agencies, yet all the focus of investigations is on the Pakistani side.
The great Asian game At a time when the US, China and India have well-defined economic interests, strategic experts in Rawalpindi once again cling to their own theory of "greater Central Asia" with regard to the strategic depth that they feel will help them against US and Indian designs in the region.
In the past, Pakistan was obsessed with cultivating former Soviet Muslim states through its Islamic ideology and establishing a "brotherhood", including Afghanistan. After September 11, everything was turned upside down, notably Pakistan having to abandon the Taliban, which it had nurtured.
In hurriedly arranged visits, Musharraf has recently not only signed agreements on anti-terror with former Soviet Muslim states, he has also handed over several operators arrested in Pakistan. Several military deals are secretly in the pipeline, including joint exercises and the sale and purchase of military hardware. Pakistan has already handed over a map to Central Asian Republic states for a trade route, of which Gwadar's warm waters will be the centrifugal point. (See China's pearl in Pakistan's waters, Mar 4.)
The pace of these developments between the Central Asian states and Pakistan has been so rapid over the past three months that the US has been stunned.
A sop of F-16s was dished out to Pakistan, while at the same time pressure was renewed on exposing its proliferation mafia, and with a revived possible al-Qaeda link.
Asia Times Online has learned that Islamabad will continue to defy US pressure, while attempting to minimize its dependency on the US - even though the US still needs Pakistan assistance to keep Iran on the hook, and the Taliban resistance in Afghanistan under constant pressure.
Conventional wisdom has it that Pakistan has to rely on US aid, but its economic managers are drawing up an aggressive strategy to lessen this reliance. They have prepared a road map for privatization over the next five years in which major national assets, including in the power sector, telecom and even the national airline, will be sold off. They also plan to lay the foundations for complete liberalization leading to a full market economy, which will generate huge revenues for the state without sharing any liabilities. In terms of this grand plan, mostly Gulf-based companies will be encouraged to invest. Several have already arrived, while many more will come.
"Leave it to me and I will not let Pakistan surrender to the US or India." President General Pervez Musharraf pledged to Kashmiri leaders in a briefing in Rawalpindi recently, after which they all came out with smiles on their faces.
What Pakistan has developed as an alternative strategy to wean itself from the US is a gamble, whether in the field of economics or in the field of courting former Soviet states. But for the time being, it has forced the US to hang around on Pakistan's terms.
Syed Saleem Shahzad, Bureau Chief, Pakistan, Asia Times Online. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
Excerpts from the following text. On the other side of Iran, the United States did the Iranian bidding by removing the Taliban from control in Afghanistan.
"They were thrilled to see the Taliban fall," says Khalidi. "The Taliban were violently anti-Shia."
And Taliban rule meant that Afghanistan was oriented toward its neighbor to the east, Pakistan.
"Iran is very, very happy," says Cole of the new U.S.-installed government in Afghanistan. "Afghanistan is now again in the Iranian sphere of influence rather than Pakistan's."
Iran made several friendly gestures toward the United States as the war in Afghanistan began and most credit it with helping to keep the situation in western Afghanistan stable as the Taliban crumbled.
#msg-6218646 - We even have a plan for contacting the Taliban movement in Afghanistan to study the possibility of their participation in power, in exchange for their giving up arms.
I have listed some of the possible advantages of a more powerful U.S. backed Taliban in Afghanistan.
If we give the Taliban a position of power in Afghanistan albeit under our ‘supervision’ Iran can possibly be held in check. Bush has a history and an agenda of using one faction or ethnic group against another.
Might the giving up of arms pertain only to the Taliban in Afghanistan? And should they accidentally stray into Iran while armed to the teeth the United States could probably be cajoled into forgiving them.
Wouldn’t also an Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban once again tilt toward its neighbor to the east, Pakistan, and thus help squelch the Washington-frowned-upon burgeoning alliance between Pakistan and China? #msg-5966546
And finally Afghanistan would once again be in Pakistan’s sphere of influence instead of the Iranian sphere of influence.
-Am
Gulf actions of U.S. prove boon to Iran Influence: With its Iraqi and Afghan enemies gone, the nation is in a position to become the area's major power.
By Michael Hill Sun Staff
May 29, 2005
And the winner is - drum roll, please - Iran!
That's at least one surprising answer to the question of who is coming out on top in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Everything has gone very well for the Iranians," says Juan Cole, a professor specializing in Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan, a view echoed by many others who study the region.
"They had two major geopolitical enemies on the region. One was the Taliban and the other was Saddam Hussein," Cole says. "So from their point of view, the United States has very helpfully removed their major problems.
"And not only has it removed those major problems, it has installed regimes that have strong traditional alliances with the Iranians," he says.
It can certainly be assumed that it was not the intention of the Bush administration when it embarked on these military adventures to aid a member of the so-called "axis of evil." Bush put Iran on that axis, along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea.
But that's the way it has worked out.
"It's a very odd outcome," says Shibley Telhami, professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, College Park. "I don't think the administration ever thought we would be where we are today."
Where we are is not only were Iran's enemies vanquished by the U.S.-led forces, but the government now in power in Baghdad has longstanding ties to Iran, turning those former enemies into potentially strong allies.
"Iraq was the major competitor with Iran in the Persian Gulf," Telhami says. "The intentional strategy of the United States for decades was to maintain that balance of power, not to allow one of them to dominate, to use one against the other.
"What you have now is Iraq really disappearing as a strategic player in the gulf for the foreseeable future," he says. "It will not be able to threaten anyone militarily. And that leaves Iran as the sole power in the gulf, except for the American military presence."
Iran certainly does not dismiss that, especially with Washington's threatening denunciations of Iran's nuclear program. But for now, U.S. forces are tied down by the insurgency in Iraq and probably not able to take on any more military adventures.
That is the fine line Iran must walk: taking steps that will get the U.S. troops out of the region, but not freeing those troops up so they could be used against Iran.
Part of walking that line will be to try to insure that the new government in Iraq would not support its country being a launching pad for an invasion of Iran. Given the close ties between the two, that seems unlikely.
To emphasize those ties, two days after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Iraq this month, Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi took his own historic trip to Baghdad, the capital of the country that waged a protracted, gruesome war with his country two decades ago.
Kharazzi visited with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, President Jalal Talabani and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. That new Iraqi government cleared up a major source of contention between the two countries, acknowledging that Iraq was the aggressor in the eight-year war that killed an estimated 1 million people, one of Hussein's major misadventures.
Wherever Kharazzi looked in the Iraqi government offices, he was likely to see familiar faces as many of the winners in Iraq's Jan. 30 election were people who had spent their exile years, not in London talking to the Pentagon, but in Tehran talking to the mullahs.
The post of interior minister, a powerful one since it controls internal security, went to a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a group founded in Tehran and backed by the Iranian government. The Iranians even have a good relationship with Kurdish leader Talabani.
"These people spent long years of exile in Iran," says Shaul Bakhash, a professor of history at George Mason University. "You spend 15 to 20 years somewhere, you send your children to school, you intermarry, certain ties and links are established ... that are not easily brushed away."
Bakhash, an Iranian who has been in the United States for 25 years, says that Iran has skillfully used these ties, providing modest financial support, building schools, clinics, nurseries and mosques.
"The Iranians have influence," he says. "Not the same kind of influence that the United States, with 130,000 troops and billions of dollars, has. The Iranian financial commitment is more modest, but there is this other more personal skein of relationships that does give Iran influence with the Shiite leadership."
No one contends that the religious and cultural ties trump nationalistic sentiments.
"You have to be very careful about assuming that someone who speaks Arabic with a Persian accent or has a past connection to Iran or even someone who follows some of the same theological ideas are Iranian stooges," says Rashid Khalidi, professor of Arab studies at Columbia University. "Iranians are Iranians and Iraqis are Iraqis. ... Iranian national sentiment and Iraqi national sentiment are not to be underestimated."
Still, from Iran's point of view, the elections finished the job that the U.S. invasion started, installing a government dominated by religious-oriented Shias, the same group that controls Iran, making them a natural ally.
In the initial Bush administration vision, once Hussein was toppled, he was to have been replaced by secular leaders, probably chosen from among the London-based political exiles - someone like one-time Pentagon ally Ahmad Chalabi.
When it turned out that those types had little popular support in Iraq, the U.S. authorities installed another secular Shia, Ayad Allawi, as president. But his party won few votes in the election that was dominated by the more religious parties.
"You go back to December and January, and Bush was saying very menacing things about Iran, dismissing the European diplomatic track" that was trying to deal with the nuclear issue, Cole says.
"All of a sudden in February, after the elections, Bush was praising the European diplomacy," he says. "I think if they had gotten Allawi back in, then they could have hoped that Allawi could control Iraq while they did something about Iran.
"But since he did not get back in, indeed he was repudiated, if the United States did something dramatic in Iran, the danger is there would be very substantial blowback in Iraq," Cole says.
And that blowback would be led by the government in Baghdad put there only because coalition forces fought and died for free elections in Iraq.
A more conciliatory Bush approach was underscored last week when the World Trade Organization agreed to start membership talks with Iran after the United States dropped its longstanding veto.
One additional irony is that the U.S. administration had a falling out with Chalabi and accused him of selling secrets to Iran. But this apparently only raised his status in Iraq. He ended up as deputy prime minister and acting oil minister in the new government.
On the other side of Iran, the United States did the Iranian bidding by removing the Taliban from control in Afghanistan.
"They were thrilled to see the Taliban fall," says Khalidi. "The Taliban were violently anti-Shia."
And Taliban rule meant that Afghanistan was oriented toward its neighbor to the east, Pakistan.
"Iran is very, very happy," says Cole of the new U.S.-installed government in Afghanistan. "Afghanistan is now again in the Iranian sphere of influence rather than Pakistan's."
Iran made several friendly gestures toward the United States as the war in Afghanistan began and most credit it with helping to keep the situation in western Afghanistan stable as the Taliban crumbled.
Lee Strickland, a former CIA senior official who is now director of the Center for Information Policy at the University of Maryland, College Park says that was not the original reaction of Iran to the invasion of Iraq.
"I think they viewed themselves very much as the next target of the United States," he says. "There are a lot of indications that they were behind a lot of the turmoil in Iraq, keeping the U.S. troops off balance, and making life difficult for them."
But Strickland says that changed as the shape of the new Iraq emerged. "Their interest may be in getting the United States out as quickly as possible and that probably translates into minimizing the violence and establishing working relationships with the new Iraqi government."
He sees Iran now playing a moderating role, helping to keep radical Shiites like Muqtada al-Sadr in the political process while urging the Shiite-dominated government to come to terms with the Sunnis, thought to be behind the insurrection.
That is because one thing the Iranians do not want is a chaotic country on their border.
"Ultimately, the Iranians do not want Iraq breaking up," says Tariq Karim, former ambassador to Iran from Bangladesh. "They have a very big stake in the Kurds not breaking apart and going off on their own tangent. They have probably the second largest Kurdish population outside of Iraq apart from Turkey, so that would trigger its own consequences within Iran.
"No country in its right senses wants chaos in its immediate vicinity," he adds. "Borders tends to be porous and chaos seems to take advantage of the osmotic process."
Karim, now senior adviser at the Institutional Reform and the Information Sector (IRIS) Center at the University of Maryland, College Park says that if handled correctly, the Iranians could help bring peace to Iraq. What they are asking for, he says, is a little respect.
"I hear Iranian leaders saying, 'We can be a force for stabilizing the region, insuring security," Karim says. "But I also hear aggrieved egos. I hear them saying, 'Why does the world judge us to be irresponsible? Can you prove we are acting irresponsibly?'
"If you were to place yourself in their shoes, their arguments have a logic of their own that is undeniable," he says.
To this end the United States is training 20,000 Kurds to oppose Iran and it seems also Azerbaijanis. If Bush can add the Arabs to this group he might be able to come up with a formidable force to oppose Iran with little of our own troop involvement.
Where the details of the operation with the participation of Azerbaijanis against Iran are being considered. #msg-6273446
Dividing the Arabs against the Persians is the same strategy Bush has been trying in the Persian Gulf Island Dispute. #msg-3136614
The Sunni Arabs know they have an education and experience advantage over the more numerous Shia Arabs. They know that powerful Sunni Arab nations in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, will back them in many ways. The fear of Islamic conservatism from Shia Iran can also be manipulated. #msg-6071457
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
