Why Iran fuels the Balouch uprising in Pakistan and why does
Pakistan have to grin and bear it
The Balouchi Sardars are again making news. This time again they are
threatening an insurgency. Baluchistan has a troubled history since
independence. The Khan of Kalat delayed accession to Pakistan till
the last. Then again in early 60's the army had to be used to put
down a rebellion in Kalat. The most prolonged period of unrest was in
1970s when the army had to fight an insurgency for over 3 years
before it was crushed. SO Iran finds a fertile ground to exploit to
sow an insurgency against Pakistan. But why does Iran do this?
The Iranian rearguard action to scuttle the US from using Pakistani Baluchistan as a base to attack Iran.
- A Bugti (Baluch) tribesman chants slogans during a rally in Karachi to condemn military action in the troubled Dera Bugti area of Baluchistan province, Pakistan, recently. Eight soldiers were killed and 23 wounded in a fierce battle with tribal militants in Pakistan's troubled southwest, the military said on Friday, while a tribal politician said dozens of tribesmen died.
According to an article in the London Sunday telegraph, by Massoud
Ansari, Pakistan has quietly and unofficially blamed Iran for fueling
the growing insurgency in Baluchistan, the strategically sensitive
province where militant tribesmen have launched a series of terrorist
attacks in recent weeks.
Senior government officials say Iran is encouraging "intruders" from
within its own Balouch community to cross the 550-mile border with
the Pakistani province and give support to the rebels.
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency set up a unit in
the provincial capital, Quetta, last year to monitor suspected
Iranian activity in Baluchistan. Officials say that in addition to
directly supporting the insurgency, Tehran's state-controlled radio
has launched a propaganda campaign against Islamabad.
"Radio Tehran broadcasts between 90 and 100 minutes of programs every
day which carry propaganda against the Pakistan government," said a
former interior minister. He added that Iran was suspected of
providing financial, logistical and moral backing for the insurgency.
"All this violence is a part of a greater conspiracy," a senior
Pakistani government official said. "These militants would not be
challenging the government so openly without the backup of a foreign
But what does Shia Iran gain by destabilizing Baluchistan. After all
the Balouch are overwhelmingly Sunni. The reason is Iran's fear of
Pakistani complicity in the impending American action against their
country. Iran fears that Pakistan is about to reenact its role vis-a-
vis the Taliban immediately after 9/11 and before the US action
against the Taliban began
For any movement of American group troops
into eastern Iran, Pakistan's support would be essential (this is
similar to the US request to Turkey for allowing US marines to move
into Iraq from its northern border with Turkey.) Iran's
fundamentalist Muslim regime was last week put firmly in the sights
of the second Bush administration by Vice President Dick Cheney. "You
look around the world at potential trouble spots — Iran is right at
the top of the list," Mr. Cheney said.
Iran has exploited the prevailing grievance among tribesmen who claim
to have been denied the benefits of Baluchistan's natural-gas fields.
Earlier this month, Balouch rebels disrupted gas production in a
series of rocket and mortar attacks, which killed eight persons.
However, the reason Islamabad is delaying a formal complaint to
Tehran, trying to sort out the issue thru private diplomatic channels
and not raise it at the UN, as it does the Kashmir issue to keep
under wraps the Pakistani gameplan of assisting the US in the
impending action against Iran.
Pakistan does not want this to be
highlighted to unleash the full fury of its own Jihadi constituency
to raise hell as it did during the US action against the Taliban. So
for the time being Pakistan has to grin and bear it. Meanwhile, large
numbers of Pakistani troops are hunting rebels in the province and in
turn are being hunted by the rebels, who have besieged a large
battalion of Pakistani troops in Baluchistan. The battle is fierce
Pakistani officials privately acknowledge that Tehran — already
furious at Pakistan's support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism — has
stepped up its activity in Baluchistan because of its anger at the
construction of a vast deep-water port at Gwadar, close to the
Iranian border, which it fears could be used by Washington as a base
for monitoring and infiltrating and use it as a launch pad for moving
ground troops in a future land assault on Iran.
Washington believes Iran is pursuing an advanced nuclear-weapons
program in addition to sponsoring international terrorism, and has
repeatedly accused Tehran of fomenting trouble within Iraq and
through its proxy Hezbollah in Israel.
Senior American journalist Seymour Hersh had reported in the New
Yorker that U.S. special forces had carried out recent reconnaissance
missions inside Iran to identify nuclear, chemical and missile sites
that could be targeted. Although the Bush administration brushed
aside the claims, the report heightened the belief that the United
States might be preparing to take action. The US obviously wants to
hide the red rag, before it is ready to take on the bull.
Is it merely a coincidence that as the US rhetoric against Iraq
has increased in belligerency, the acts of sabotage in Balochistan
have increased in frequency and intensity?
Given the growing unrest nothing would suit the US better than to
aggravate Pakistan-Iran relations -- by planting rumours that somehow
Iran was involved in the Balochistan violence, thereby compelling
Pakistan to seal the Pakistan-Iran border in a fashion similar to the
Pakistan-Afghan border in October –December 2001. Also, given that
the US continues to develop the idea of a military strike against
Iran, the US thinking, seems to be that somehow if suspicion and
animosity is created between Pakistan and Iran, its actions against
Iran will have no fallout in Pakistan.
But in many Pakistani eyes,
especially in those of the MMM, the Jihadi elements in the Pakistani
army, this logic does not hold The US should realize that no matter
what the state of the Pakistan-Iran relationship, any military attack
against Iran will be seen as a precursor to an attack against
Pakistan's nuclear assets. After Iran is knocked out, it is Pakistan
that goes into the "Finals" for an American take over, is what many
Pakistanis, including President Musharraf thinks. Musharraf had once
made a loose comment to this effect, before Iraq was liberated.
Destabilizing Baluchistan - Iran has short term gains, but long
term gains will accrue to the US
We need to note that the
Iranian interests in destabilizing the region are short term in order
to complicate an American assault, and prevent America from using
Baluchistan as a springboard into Iran. But for the US there is also
a much wider and long term context to the unrest in Balochistan,
beyond the assault on Iran in the near future.
But the American
long term plan is linked to its efforts to redraw the map of the
Muslim World in the Middle East and West Asia -- what is now being
referred to as the "Broader Middle East". Breaking up larger Muslim
states, redrawing borders between some of them, creating new
political entities -- all these are part of the new strategic game
plan. A plan that will be put into action after the American action
on Pakistan, but that will have to wait till Iran is dealt with
sometime by the late autumn of this year.
A similar plan is
already unfolding in the subtle American nudging that is taking Iraq
towards smaller manageable states of Kurdistan, Turkomenistan,
Shiastan and Sunnistan. The haranguing of Iraq's newly elected
legislators is a symptom of the coming balkanization of Iraq.
Story Credits : Washington Times