Israel, in a precision strike, destroyed Saddam's nuclear ambitions at a time when Iraq was much in favour with the United States. Additionally, the present neo-conservative US administration seems unlikely to hesitate in the face of what it may perceive as a threat to itself or one of its staunch allies namely, Israel. The pre-emptive strike on Iraq, which was essentially a country without any nuclear capability or possession of adequate conventional military hardware, because of a perceived recalcitrance on the part of Saddam, is proof positive that the US is no longer deterred by taking unpopular actions unilaterally. Therefore, Iran must take note of the recent hard line statements by Bush and senior members of his administration regarding its nuclear capability. Israel too has been quite vocal in its condemnation and subsequent threats.
It is unfortunate that Iran's rulers appear to have opted for defiance instead of compliance. If the Iranians do not change their rhetoric there is a very real danger of a US attack on Iran's nuclear facility, which may well escalate into a full-scale war. Given the military hardware in America's possession the outcome of such a war is not in question. The situation is serious and there have been reports, though denied, that the US has been scouting the areas where Iran's nuclear capability is housed.
Israel too seems to have this essential intelligence and has announced that it will strike if Iran does not dismantle its nuclear arsenal. There is no doubt that the Iranian government is in a state of quandary. Should it capitulate to US threats and lose face amongst its own people? Those who vehemently oppose capitulation argue that it is grossly unfair that Iran's security threats are ignored while those of Israel are considered of paramount importance. Why, they ask, is Israel allowed to have its not so secret nuclear arsenal? Fair or foul, facts must be accepted at the present juncture and it is a fact that the present day geo-political alliances favour Israel.
Unless the Muslim countries can prove to the rest of the world that their governments have checks and balances over their nuclear arsenal, as part and parcel of a democratic set-up, it is unlikely that the Western world will accept nuclear arsenals in their repertoire. Others who oppose giving in to US demands base their arguments on an assessment that the Iraq war is becoming unpopular and, therefore, a democratically elected US government is not likely to indulge in another war that may prove unpopular both at home and abroad. The hardening of the EU stance must be seen as proof that Europe now shares the US and Israeli concerns.
Pakistan's involvement in this entire issue must be seen in the context of the recent visit of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to Brussels, the EU headquarters, and to the World Economic Forum. An ill-informed section of our population may view our government's exhortation to Iranian authorities to seek a compromise with the EU as abandoning a Muslim country in favour of our alliance with the West in general and the US in particular. Others may well say that Iran put Pakistan on the line when it publicly announced that they had procured centrifuges from Pakistan.
However, there is a serious concern in this country that if Iran remains adamant an attack is a distinct possibility with severe repercussions for Pakistan that would be similar to the ones we are battling across our porous border with Afghanistan. It is this concern that is and must continue to dictate our foreign policy. The initiative, however, must come from the EU to provide a face saving to the Iranian government and also address their security concerns by providing a nuclear security umbrella on similar lines as accorded to Germany and Japan by the US. This in our opinion would not only provide a face saving to the Iranian government but also strengthen their hand vis-a-vis their own hawks in general and the 'Guardian's Council' in particular.