Font size:

The roots of rabid anti-Western and anti-American sentiment in Iran started with U.S. disregard for Persian national sovereignty in the late 1970s, beginning with the forced removal of a democratically elected president, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, after World War II and the installation of the Shah, who was oblivious to the misery of the greater Iranian population and concerned only with oil money. The United States and its allies interfered with Iran’s sovereignty in order to control oil companies that Mossadegh was threatening to nationalize.

Decades of pent-up hatred in Iran led to the storming of the U.S. Embassy in 1979, the Shah’s exile, the radicalization of Iranian society and the countdown to the present-day incendiary situation where U.S. presidential candidate John McCain has to sing, “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

The United States can no longer disregard a people’s national sovereignty, especially in the case of Pakistan, where the present threat of terrorism has manifested itself to the fullest in the heartland of the traditional U.S. ally.

Did the United States take into account the ramifications of mounting raids into Pakistan’s terrorist hotbed of Waziristan?

And did the Bush administration factor in the possible fallout of marines descending on Angoor Ada during the month of Ramadan and gunning down innocent villagers preparing a simple meal before their day-long fast?

Not likely. Bush, who will shortly retire to his Crawford ranch and who authorized the raids, never cared for such nuances. Later, following further incursions and returned fire from Pakistani forces, as well as the terrorists’ reaction of razing the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, the consequences of such U.S. actions became evident.

And it seems possible that this policy of pursuit will continue beyond the current administration. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama said he wouldn’t hesitate about crossing the border if Osama bin Laden’s hideout was known. And despite McCain’s restraint, his vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, has made it clear that she would support pursuing terrorists over the border into Pakistan.

However, the negative effect of such incursions on the U.S.-Pakistani relationship may cause problems for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan. For instance, the supply chain for U.S.-NATO oil and food supplies for the troops in landlocked Afghanistan passes through Pakistan.

"Things are very tense and very dangerous in Pakistan," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference. "But that doesn't mean the sky is falling … Now more than ever is a time for teamwork, for calm."

Is teamwork between the United States and Pakistan possible? Teamwork with Pakistan was already blurry with gray areas, even when the United States’ staunch ally, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, was in power.

Can calm suddenly come in the midst of the changed relations with the United States? Calm was never there to begin with. The situation was always simmering and is now boiling over, as can be seen by the extent of damage from regular attacks into Pakistan.

The News, a Pakistani news agency, reported that Prof. Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, head of fundamentalist group Lashkar-e-Taiba – renamed Jamaat al-Dawat – said, “If the United States attacks Pakistan, every man, woman and child of the nation will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the country’s armed forces.”

This writer has discussed in several earlier commentaries about the tradition of Pakistan’s military and the much-belated U.S. socioeconomic aid, which, had it come earlier, could have weaned an entire generation away from terrorism after the Soviets left Afghanistan.

Other signs of potential trouble have emerged. Pakistan army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani recently visited China – an ally with formidable investments in Pakistan – with a shopping list including sophisticated air defense radars and surface-to-air missiles, weapons that are too sophisticated and redundant to be used for the war on terror.

Meanwhile, the infiltration of militants into Indian Kashmir has risen, as have incursions and firing along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan, which has been breached nearly 30 times since January of this year.

Not only Pakistan, but India too will be affected by the outcome of the United States’ new policy concerning Pakistan, as U.S. focus shifts from its involvement in Iraq to the Pakistan-Afghan border.

Pakistanis are at a historical crossroad as their nation heads toward failure, but like Iranians during the late 1970s, anti-Americanism threatens to swell among the general Pakistani population.

Like Iranians, ordinary Pakistanis have been economically hard hit. Unlike the Shah’s Iran, a façade of democracy prevails, yet actual power rests in the hands of a couple hundred feudal families. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s track record as a leader so far is not very encouraging. And whereas Iran did not have nuclear weapons, Pakistan does, with a military that can call the shots any time.

The United States, having created Pakistan’s military monster with unaccounted largesse, will now have to press in to Pakistan, for the future of the war on terror in Afghanistan, at the expense of the majority of Pakistanis who have nothing to do with terrorism.

Can the Pakistani army’s renewed offensive in the crucial battle for Bajaur in Waziristan succeed? And will it stop attacks inside Pakistan or crossovers from Afghanistan? It appears as if the terrorists know better than that.

The question remains as to whether or not the current situation in Pakistan will go the way of Iran and continue to inflame the area as a hotbed of terrorism.

--

(Susenjit Guha is a freelance writer living in Kolkata, India. He can be contacted at sguha60@yahoo.com. ©Copyright Susenjit Guha.)