West Asia News and Discussions

[shyamd]

Ramana, re: your iraq comment. Do you see my point about the US plan to shia'ize the peninsula?

[ramana]

Was it really a plan or the consequence?

I did see your point about allowing the Shiaizing of the peninsula but what choice did they have in these times?

Or are you suggesting the Iraq war/intervention was to bring about this outcome and reduce the Sunni power?

[AKalam]

Things are moving at a fast pace it seems. ramana ji, with due respect, disagree with your comment above, Ottomans had their problems, but breaking of Ottoman was a disaster for Muslims (specially Sunni's), just like the Subcontinental Partition was. Perhaps the Saud's have finally realized their mistake. The rise of Shia was a by product of that twin disaster. Shia demographic map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_by_country.png

[ramana]

Yes but allowed Arabs to come out under Turkish domination for centuries. I agree bigger disaster was for all Muslims.

[AKalam]

A quick backgrounder of Iran's conversion from Sunni to Shia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_co ... _to_Shiism

The Safavid conversion of Iran from Sunnism to Shiism made Iran the spiritual bastion of Shia Islam against the onslaughts of orthodox Sunni Islam, and the repository of Persian cultural traditions and self-awareness of Iranianhood, acting as a bridge to modern Iran. Through their actions, the Safavids reunified Iran as an independent state in 1501 and established Twelver Shiism as the official religion of their empire, marking one of the most important turning points in the history of Islam.

Pre-Safavid Iran

Iran’s population was mostly Sunni of the Shafi`i[1] and Hanafi legal rites until the triumph of the Safavids (who had initially been Shafi`i Sunnis themselves).[2] Ironically, this was to the extent that up until the end of the 15th century the Ottoman Empire (the most powerful and prominent Sunni state and future arch-enemy of the Shia Safavids) used to send many of its Ulema (Islamic scholars) to Iran to further their education in Sunni Islam, due to a lack of Madrasahs (Islamic schools) within the Empire itself.[3] The Sunni Iranians had always held the family of Muhammad in high esteem.[4] In contrast, before the Safavid period, a minority of Iranians were Shia and there had been relatively few Shia Ulema in Iran.[5]

Reasons for Ismail’s conversion policy

More than most Muslim dynasties the Safavids worked for conversion to their branch of Islam and for ideological conformity. The reasons for this conversion policy included:

* One of the main reasons why Ismail and his followers pursued such a severe conversion policy was to give Iran and the Safavid lands as distinct and unique an identity as was possible compared to its two neighboring Sunni Turkish military and political enemies, the Ottoman Empire and, for a time, the Central Asian Uzbeks — to the west and north-east respectively.[9][10][11]
* The Safavids were engaged in a lengthy struggle with the Ottomans — including numerous wars between the two dynasties — and this struggle continuously motivated the Safavids to create a more cohesive Iranian identity to counter the Ottoman threat and possibility of a fifth-column within Iran among its Sunni subjects.[12]
* The conversion was part of the process of building a territory that would be loyal to the state and its institutions, thus enabling the state and its institutions to propagate their rule throughout the whole territory.[13]

[edit] Methods of converting Iran

Ismail consolidated his rule over the country and launched a thorough and at times brutal campaign to convert the majority Sunni population to Twelver Shiism and thus transform the religious landscape of Iran.[14] His methods of converting Iran included:

* Imposing Shiism as the state and mandatory religion for the whole nation and much forcible conversions of Iranian Sunnis to Shiism.[15][16][17]
* He reintroduced the Sadr (Arabic, leader) – an office that was responsible for supervising religious institutions and endowments. With a view to transforming Iran into a Shiite state, the Sadr was also assigned the task of disseminating Twelver doctrine.[18]
* He destroyed Sunni mosques. This was even noted by Tomé Pires, the Portuguese ambassador to China who visited Iran in 1511–12, who when referring to Ismail noted: “He (i.e. Ismail) reforms our churches, destroys the houses of all Moors who follow (the Sunnah of) Muhammad…”[19]
* He enforced the ritual and compulsory cursing of the first three Sunni Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman) as usurpers, from all mosques, disbanded Sunni Tariqahs and seized their assets, used state patronage to develop Shia shrines, institutions and religious art and imported Shia scholars to replace Sunni scholars.[20][21][22]
* He shed Sunni blood and destroyed and desecrated the graves and mosques of Sunnis. This caused the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II (who initially congratulated Ismail on his victories) to advise and ask the young monarch (in a “fatherly” manner) to stop the anti-Sunni actions. However, Ismail was strongly anti-Sunni, ignored the Sultans warning and continued to spread the Shia faith by the sword.[23][24]
* He persecuted, imprisoned and executed stubbornly resistant Sunnis.[25][26]
* With the establishment of Safavid rule, there was a very raucous and colourful, almost carnival-like holiday on 26 Dhu al-Hijjah (or alternatively, 9 Rabi' al-awwal) celebrating the murder of Caliph Umar. The highlight of the day was making an effigy of Umar to be cursed, insulted, and finally burned. However, as relations between Iran and Sunni countries improved, the holiday was no longer observed (at least officially).[27]
* In 1501 Ismail invited all the Shia living outside Iran to come to Iran and be assured of protection from the Sunni majority.[28]

The fate of Sunni and Shia Ulema (scholars)
[edit] Sunni Ulema

The early Safavid rulers took a number of steps against the Sunni Ulema of Iran. These steps included giving the Ulema the choice of conversion, death, or exile[29][30][31] and massacring the Sunni clerics who resisted the Shia transformation of Iran, as witnessed in Herat.[32] As a result, many Sunni scholars who refused to adopt the new religious direction lost their lives or fled to the neighboring Sunni states.[33][34]

Historical outcome of Ismail’s conversion policy

Ismail’s conversion policy had the following historical outcomes:

* Although conversion was not as rapid as Ismail’s forcible policies might suggest, the vast majority of those who lived on the Iranian plateau did identify with Shiism by the end of the Safavid era in 1722. Hence it is no accident that today Iran’s Sunni minorities are concentrated among the countries non-Persian ethnic groups that are scattered along the country’s borders, with their Sunni conationals next door.[84][85][86][87][88][89][90]
* The Safavid experience largely created the clear line of political demarcation and hostility between Twelver Shiism and Sunnism, even though doctrinal differences had long been recognized. Before the Safavids the Twelvers for many centuries had mostly accommodated themselves politically to the Sunnis, and numerous religious movements combined Twelver and Sunni ideas.[91]
* Ismail’s advent to power signaled the end of Sunni Islam in Iran and Shiite theologians came to dominate the religious establishment.[92][93]
* The hierarchical organization of the Shiite clergy began under Ismail.[94]
* The current borders between Iran, on the one hand, and Afghanistan and Turkey on the other, date from this time and are not ethnic but religious, opposing Shiites and Sunnis.[95]
* The Sunni majority was treated brutally and was most resistant to the Safavids’ conversion policies, which went on at least until the end of the Safavid period.[96][97]
* The use of the Shia religion to exert control was not completely successful. It resulted in the annexation of large areas of the country, but was followed by centuries of conflict between the Sunni and Shia populations, even after the fall of the Safavids.[98]
* Iran was a Shia country and gradually became an isolated island surrounded by a sea of Sunnism. While regretting the cruelty of forced conversion, modern Persian historians are generally agreed that the establishment of Shia religious hegemony saved Iran from being incorporated into the Ottoman Empire.[99]

[RamaY]

A map for reference

[Muppalla]

The whole Arab freedom triggers and also cascading crisis management by the arabs for the leaders to survive could be something else. First round of Wikileaks is a pointer. Arabs criticising Iran and begging the west to attack Iran is a pointer.

It is possible that uncle and Israel may be using the triggers to unite all the Arab leaders in crisis and in turn begging the west to help them survive like the past. They may have allowed the removal of Mubarak and Gaddafi to show to the other Arab leaders that they can allow such a world unless you all unite and attack Iran. Instead of US or an Israel attack, it will be a master stroke for the west if arabs/sunnis attack Iran.

[RamaY]

In this chaos who would ensure that Paki non-state actors do not do a JDAM on Iran, just to show that they have something others do not or to avoid down-hill skiing?

[ramana]

PAKISTAN REASSERTS MILITARY INTRUSIVENESS IN
GULF REGION: REGIONAL IMPLICATIONS
By
Dr Subhash Kapila

http://www.southasiaanalysis. org/papers/paper4408. html

Introductory Observations

Providence and the United States have in an
uncanny manner periodically facilitated the
reinvention of Pakistan Army’s ‘strategic
utility’ to United States strategic
interests in both South Asia and in the Gulf
Region. Both are contiguous geographical
regions of geostrategic significance.

The recent political upheaval in the Arab World
from North Africa and now engulfing the Gulf
Region monarchial kingdoms has shaken the
very fundamentals of the underpinnings of
United States security framework in the Gulf
Region. The United States security
architecture in the Gulf Region rested on
the continuance of existing autocratic
US-friendly monarchies presiding over the
oil riches of this Region.

With the political upheaval in the Arab World
seeking governance transformation and
political reforms, which means regime
changes in the Gulf Region, both the United
States and the Gulf Kingdoms have a
strategic and political convergence to
maintain the ‘status-quo’.

The United States is militarily over-stretched
and limited by domestic political
compulsions to adopt a military proactive
role in maintaining the status-quo in the
Gulf Region. Saudi Arabia and the smaller
Gulf Kingdoms are not militarily capable of
securing the status-quo.

Herein emerges Pakistan Army’s strategic
indispensability and strategic utility to
both the United States and Saudi Arabia in
securing the status-quo in the Gulf Region
for all of them

Media reports have widely publicized the
Pakistan Army earmarking two Pakistan Army
Divisions on standby alert for immediate
deployment to Saudi Arabia fearing outbreak
of political upheaval in that country.

Media reports also indicate that Pakistan
Army’s Fauji Foundation is recruiting
Pakistan Army retired soldiers for service
in the Bahrain National Guard at exorbitant
salaries. This is to boost up the strength
of the Bahrain National Guard to deal with
the majority Shia population spearheading
political upheaval calling for replacement
of the Sunni monarchy. Pakistani media also
indicates that this recruitment is being
restricted to Sunnis only and that too the
Mashnavi Syeds and its sub-clans of ManiKhel,
SahibKhel, DeraKhel and RahatKhel. Shias are
not being recruited.

It would be recalled that Saudi Arabia had
militarily intervened in Bahrain last month
by sending Saudi military forces when
Bahrain was being virtually taken over by an
Egypt style upsurge.

Saudi Arabia can ill afford a Shia takeover
of Bahrain which is just a causeway away
from oil-rich Saudi Arabian oilfields.
United States can similarly ill afford such
an eventuality as the Headquarters of the US
Navy Fifth Fleet along with other military
installations are located in Bahrain.

Pakistan seems to have now taken the first
tentative steps to reassert its intrusive
military presence in the Gulf Region, as
earlier visible in the 1970s but later
diminished. The way the political dynamics
are churning in the Gulf Region, one can
foresee the Pakistan Army being sucked-in
into the Gulf Region, both because of Saudi
Arabia and the United States.

Pakistan Army would relish such a
foreseeable eventuality but Pakistan itself
as reactions in the media there, seem to be
inclined for a more detached involvement.

Pakistan Army’s military moves in the Gulf
Region are fraught with regional
implications and for Pakistan itself and
which this Paper intends to examine under
the following heads:

United States
Strategic Dilemma in Facilitating
Pakistan Army Military Intrusiveness in
the Gulf Region

Pakistan Army: Can it
Afford a Sizeable Politico-Military Role
in the Gulf Region?


Pakistan Army’s
Transformation: From “Frontline State
Against Terrorism� to “Frontline State
of Sunni Islam�

Pakistan Army’s
Military Intrusiveness in Gulf Region
Generates Strong Regional Implications

 United
States Strategic Dilemma in Facilitating
Pakistan Army Military Intrusiveness in the
Gulf Region
The United States may perceive a tactical
advantage in facilitating Pakistan Army
military intrusiveness in the Gulf Region,
if US perspectives are solely confined to
viewing the securing of the status-quo in
the Gulf and Saudi pressures on USA to do
so. But the United States strategic
perspectives cannot be solely confined to
the Gulf Region only. The United States has
to also focus on the lateral implications of
such facilitation on the overall security
situation in the Middle East and more
importantly in South Asia and Afghanistan.

Overall, such a development places the
United States in a piquant situation in
South Asia and it could even be accused of
‘doublespeak’

India has been under constant US pressure to
lessen its military postures and deployments
so that the Pakistan Army Chief could feel
more secure in diverting Pakistan Army
formations from the Indian border to he
Afghan border to assist US military
operations in Afghanistan. If that be so,
how can the Pakistan Army divert two of its
Army Divisions to Saudi Arabia?

Further, if that be so how can the United
States expect the commencement of US troops
withdrawal from Afghanistan by July 2011?
After all such planning was predicated on
Pakistan Army’s reinforcement of the
Pakistan-Afghan border by moving troops from
the India border?

In South Asia can the United States afford to
diminish the US-India Strategic Partnership
by strategic doublespeak and further distort
India’s emerging sizeable politico-military
profile in the Gulf Region?

The call is on the United States also in terms
of getting involved in the Gulf Region in an
emerging internal Islamic Sunni- Shia civil
war, in the absence of a better word?

 Pakistan Army: Can it Afford a Sizeable
Politico-Military Role in the Gulf Region?

Pakistan Army has the propensity to box much
above its weight. To be drawn into a
sizeable role in the security of the Gulf
Region would be more than welcome to the
Pakistan Army hierarchy. More so when such a
role will take place at the behest of Saudi
Arabia and the United States.

The crucial question that arises is that against
the backdrop of the contextual domestic
situation within Pakistan and the
Afghanistan turbulence, can Pakistan Army
extend its reach to the Gulf Region? The
Pakistan Army is yet to gain firm control of
the internally driven insurgency within
Pakistan’s borders

Pakistan is seriously beset with sectarian
divides not only between Sunnis and Shias
but also sects within each of them. The
Baluchistan insurgency is still very much
active and with its geographical contiguity
to Iran may emerge even hotter to handle.

But then the Pakistan Army has all along been a
rentier Army whose services could be
requisitioned by the highest bidder. An
invitation to play a bigger role in the Gulf
Region coming from the United States and
Saudi Arabia carries the promise of sizeable
inflow of petro-dollars and advanced
military equipment for services rendered.

Pakistan Army’s Transformation From
“Frontline State Against Terrorism� to
“Frontline State of Sunni Islam�

Pakistani media reports indicate that
immediately after the uprisings in Tunisia
and Egypt, the Pakistan Army hierarchy had
undertaken contingency planning for
earmarking of two Pakistan Army Divisions
for Saudi Arabia in the event of political
disturbances breaking out there. The process
was reinforced by the visit of the Secretary
General of the Saudi National Security
Council to Islamabad thereafter.

The significant point to note is that both in
Saudi Arabia and Bahrain where the Pakistan
Army is getting involved in the Gulf Region,
the Shia majorities on the Gulf littoral are
pitted against the conservative entrenched
Sunni monarchies

Pakistan Army is not getting involved in
these two countries to begin with, for
‘boy-scout’ duties. Any escalation of
political upheaval in Saudi Arabia and
Bahrain, to begin with, would require
Pakistan Army soldiers in Saudi Arabia and
its ex-soldiers in Bahrain National Guard to
take military action against Shia
protestors.

In effect, what it amounts to is that the
Pakistan Army will be actively involved in
perpetuating the Sunni monarchies status-quo
in the Gulf against overwhelming political
upheaval for regime change from the Shia
majorities.

No wonder in the Pakistan media some higher-up
has wryly commented that in such a process
the Pakistan Army gets transformed from a
“Frontline State Against Terrorism� to
“Frontline State of Sunni Islam�

The ramifications of the above transformation in
the Islamic World carries its own
consequences for Pakistan, and domestically
too.

Pakistan Army’s Military Intrusiveness in
the Gulf Region Generates Strong Regional
Implications Â

Strong regional implications are likely to
be generated by Pakistan Army’s military
intrusiveness in the Gulf Region. It would
require a separate Paper to effectively
analyze them in detail. For this Paper it
would suffice to highlight the salient
implications.

In the Gulf Region there is an ongoing
political and military rivalry for regional
predominance between Sunni Saudi Arabia and
Shia Iran. Iran has a sizeable edge over
Saudi Arabia but for the security ballast
provided to it by the United States.Â

Pakistan has been so far following a
‘hedging strategy’ in relation to Iran which
has a sizeable geographical contiguity with
Pakistan. Â Pakistan Army getting transformed
into a “Frontline State of Sunni Islam� is
not going to be lightly taken by Iran which
has the capability to create turbulence
against Pakistan in Baluchistan.Â

Pakistan’s nuclear bombs are no longer to be
viewed as ‘Islamic Bomb’ but a ‘Sunni Bomb’
and that would spur Iran to full scale
nuclear weapons capability.Â

Pakistan has a large workers population in
the Gulf States and these would stand
endangered by the wrath of Shia minorities
in these kingdoms enraged by the involvement
of Pakistan Army in suppression of Shias.
Reports already exist of some Pakistanis
being killed in Bahrain in the recent
disturbances. Foreign exchange remittances
to Pakistan from the Gulf could be
drastically  affected.Â

Turkey would have to take a tough call in
relation to its strengthened relations with
Iran and its restive Shia population in the
South and its revival of warmth towards
Pakistan. A Turkish break with Iran
diminishes its increasing Middle East
profile

Iraq carries the most damaging potential
for the United States should it even
remotely facilitate an intrusive Pakistan
Army presence in the Region in whatever
form. Iraq has a sizeable Shia population
which would not take kindly to Pakistan Army
bolstering the autocratic regimes in Saudi
Arabia and Bahrain. Iraq is already
noticeably restive on the Saudi Arabian
military occupation of Bahrain.

In South Asia, it is India that has to worry
more and be upfront in pointing out to the
United States of yet another tactically
expedient initiative facilitating Pakistan
Army military intrusiveness in the Gulf
Region. In effect India would have to face
two sets of pressures from the resultant
situation.Â

India in the ensuing developments would have
to face more intense United States pressures
on its Pakistan policy approaches as
Pakistan Army Chief would demand
quid-pro-quos more strongly in relation to
Kashmir and also maintaining ‘balance of
power equilibrium’ with India That
translates into more advanced weapons
systems and increased military aid. It also
translates into increased US pressures on
India on Kashmir

Additionally Pakistan Army can expect
greater under the table financial payments
from Saudi Arabia to bolster its military
machine with possible payments for raising
two additional Pakistan Army Divisions to
offset deployments in Saudi Arabia.

Concluding Observations

The Gulf Region today is sitting on an explosive
powder-keg where long suppressed aspirations
for political transformation and political
freedoms were ignored by the autocratic
Sunni monarchies sitting on unparalleled oil
wealth. Introduction of Pakistan Army in
whatever backdoor entries would amount in
Shia perceptions of perpetuating the
oppressive political systems as existing.Â

More than any country, it is the United States
which needs to steer clear of Islamic World
internally driven civil war divides between
the Sunnis and the Shias. In no case the
United States can afford to be seen as the
mover of the transformation of Pakistan Army
to a "Frontline State of Sunni Islam"

So Indian establishment has been briefed and is thinking about it.

[ldev]

Pakistan has been "frontline" in Bahrain via its ex-servicemen since the early 1980s, maybe earlier. However earlier recruitment was in the Interior Ministry. Now it will be also in the BDF.

Basing in KSA is not new. Deployment if it occurs will be new. Two divisions means KSA fears incursions along the Iraqi border via sympathatic Iraqi Shias and also Iranians who can enter Iraq via the now porous border.

US service types will tell you that the most ruthless nationalities they have encountered in combat are the Turks and the Koreans. Dont ever discount these two armed forces. And the Koreans include both the North and South Koreans. JEM is correct. If you take away the nuclear component, the Turkish armed forces are the second most powerful in NATO, only next to the US.

The Saudi/Bahraini emissaries probably wanted assurances from India that it would not create problems along the Indo-Pak border in the event of the 2 div Pak deployment. Shows you how low US credibility has sunk in the Gulf region that they wanted direct assurance from GOI, unlike in the past when the USG would have conveyed the same.

[vera_k]

Now is time for an Indian ship to "lose" a few WMD off the Iran coast to maintain the balance of power. China-India type standoff would be good in that part of the world.

[ramana]

Well lets see. Very assuring that NATO's best non-nuke forces are Turks.

If clashes occur we will see how non Caucasian NATO Troops fare against combat Iranians.

In early 80s TSPA did base in KSA. Were withdrawn in later part.

As I said earlier India has no intentions of taking advanage either in early 80s are now.

So bon voyage for them.

I find the SAAG article very interesting and on the dot. It appears that the two envoys indicated US has supported this 'deployment' of troops for cash. His article is addressed to US. Also what can two divisions do unless they are an advance force?

[vera_k]

If India arms Iran, won't that take care of the two-front threat from Chin-Pak?

[ramana]

No Iran can take care of itself.

[vera_k]

As in Iran arming against Pak thus keeping it distracted away from India.

[devesh]

what about other Tiger in the room: Russia? is Putin going to sit and watch like a docile idiot? the recent news about Germany collaborating with India on paying Iran is also interesting. how does Russian and European factor play into the situation? imvho, Russia won't watch by sidelines while a huge chunk of territory lying to its South is in an upheaval and dangerous games are being played. broadly speaking, a united Islamic Front is bad for Russia. a united Sunni Islamic Front emerging victorious in a struggle against Shias by crushing Iran is extremely bad for Russia.

[Arya Sumantra]

After defacto partition of Libya between oil rich and no oil regions, KSA also has the same prospects.

which would be a good thing if it happens. The wahabbi fundies fomenting radicalism and perpetually poisoning the IM clerics minds, would lose their petro$ since it is the shia regions which are oil rich in KSA.

[vera_k]

Hey, it's the behaviour of a Great Power. Iran is going to get the weapons sooner or later.

[Singha]

BBC:

Sudan: Air strike kills two in Port Sudan
map

An air strike has destroyed a car near Sudan's city of Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast, killing its two passengers, local officials say.

They say vehicle was moving from the city's airport when the unknown plane carried out the raid.

There was no immediate word on the identity of the two victims. Security forces have now sealed the area, reports say.

So far no-one has claimed to have carried out the attack.

In 2009, the Sudanese authorities said a convoy of arms smugglers was hit by unidentified aircraft in Sudan's eastern Red Sea state, Reuters reports.

There was speculation at the time that the strike may have been carried out by Israel to stop weapons bound for Gaza.

Israel has not commented on the claims.

[Singha]

would require some onsite humint and designation to be able to hit a single car in sudan!

or maybe someone planted a homing beacon beneath the car to attract the weapon...

[shyamd]

Was it really a plan or the consequence?

I did see your point about allowing the Shiaizing of the peninsula but what choice did they have in these times?

Or are you suggesting the Iraq war/intervention was to bring about this outcome and reduce the Sunni power?

Last point. And keep in mind the events in Bahrain. See my email. Keep in mind this is the GCC view, whether it is true or not is another matter.

[shyamd]

Pakistan has been "frontline" in Bahrain via its ex-servicemen since the early 1980s, maybe earlier. However earlier recruitment was in the Interior Ministry. Now it will be also in the BDF.

Basing in KSA is not new. Deployment if it occurs will be new. Two divisions means KSA fears incursions along the Iraqi border via sympathatic Iraqi Shias and also Iranians who can enter Iraq via the now porous border.

US service types will tell you that the most ruthless nationalities they have encountered in combat are the Turks and the Koreans. Dont ever discount these two armed forces. And the Koreans include both the North and South Koreans. JEM is correct. If you take away the nuclear component, the Turkish armed forces are the second most powerful in NATO, only next to the US.

The Saudi/Bahraini emissaries probably wanted assurances from India that it would not create problems along the Indo-Pak border in the event of the 2 div Pak deployment. Shows you how low US credibility has sunk in the Gulf region that they wanted direct assurance from GOI, unlike in the past when the USG would have conveyed the same.

You have it BANG ON. Well done. Puki's will also be used down south in yemen and maybe in eastern province in ksa.

Since turkey and puki's have been mentioned in the article. Basically the agreement is, the moment Iran attacks the GCC, Turkey and Paki's are required to attack Iran. So, the 2 divisions are for internal security, the rest will be fighting iran on the baloch border.

[shyam]

Looking at the game, Iran has to remain Shiite and can not return to Persian root anytime soon. Influence among the Shiite population in other Sunni countries may become Iranian trump card.

[shyamd]

Someone asked the question about russia's position. Russia has sided with GCC. KSA - russia arms talks have re-started.

[Gagan]

The Pakistanis are valuable to several countries as armed mercenaries on hire.

They have all variety of mercenary work to offer:
1. Official Armed forces - in the form of Pakistani Army, Navy and Airforce.
2. Unofficial Militia - in the form of Jihadi Groups, Islamic fighters, etc of which they maintain a mix of fighters from various parts of the world to wage Jihad, to be inserted into a geographical area as per the payment received by GHQ pindi and ex ISI managers.

They are fulfilling a vital global need in these troubled times, it seems.

[Arya Sumantra]

So far Amirkhan has been at the receiving end of guerrilas in afg backed by Pak fauj. It would be interesting situation if Pak fauj in KSA had to face shiite guerrilas backed by Amirkhan. That would be a sweet way to get back at them for Amirkhan. It paid back the soviets in afg for what they did to amirkhan in vietnam. This would be a nice opportunity too.

The oil rich shiite breakaway from KSA could give deeper interests to amirkhan than Aramco and family of Sauds, if only amirkhan chose the right side at right moment.

[Gagan]

Is that map of the middle east (before and after) that was supposedly from CIA itself any indicator of how things might turn out?

Are we looking at moves that'll lead to lead to something similar?

[shyamd]

Basically, it also explains why PLA have deployed in Paki controlled Kashmir, to make sure india plays bal, confidence boost for pak.

See how all the stories are linking in.

People on this forum/public have maybe 5% of the real picture. The truth is hardly ever reported in media.
As I said. There is news and the real news. News is just to keep ordinary joes happy etc and just used as a tool for control.

[RajeshA]

It is a bit saddening that the most important country in the Indian Ocean - India has been sidelined completely in the events happening in West Asia. We are not playing the game. We have not sorted out what our national interests are, what our meat is in West Asia, how do we protect it!

We have basically three priorities:

1. At the end, when the dust settles down, Pakistan ends up broken.
2. The schism in Islam remains counterpoised
3. India gets a better access to Gulf Oil

At the moment, access to Oil would remain as it is right now, without any additional energy security. I am not so sure about the schism, because it seems the whole world is ganging up on Iran and the Shias. As far as Pakistan is concerned, this is the proverbial next get-out-of-jail free card Pakistan gets every ten years or so!

So in all aspects, India is losing big time.

If Pakistan can prove to the Gulf region, that it is indispensable, than we can expect KSA and USA to continue to feed the Pakistani monster. Sure there could be clashes between the Shia and the Sunnis in Pakistan. So what is new? The Sunnis in Pakistan would just increase the pressure on the Shia and massacre more. But at the end of the day, Pakistan would get a new lease of life, showing its indispensability to KSA, USA and China of course, having Ummah, West and Pax-Sinica in its pocket. Is that what India wants, in exchange for a few contracts the Bahrainis and KSA has promised India? That is simply some sugar cubes for the Indian donkey (pardon the wording)! In a couple of years the sugar would melt away and be gone!

We need to secure our future today!

So we have two choices:

Either the proposal, I made in the ebook, that India joins with Bangladesh, thus becoming the defacto biggest Muslim country in the world, including the Subcontinent, thus sidelining Pakistan as the Muslim flag-bearer in the Subcontinent. Then the security of GCC becomes an Indian responsibility! Accordingly we extend our security protection over the Gulf monarchies.

Or we finish off the pro-Pakistani Sunnis as power-brokers in the Gulf completely. So that at the end of the day, the House of Saud, the Emirates and the Bahrainis fall. Most of the Oil wells in Saudi Arabia are in the Northeast of the country, exactly where the Shias in Saudi Arabia are in the majority. If Bahrain too falls to the Shia, the Emirates cannot last that long either in the shadow of Iran. In Iraq, Oil is either in the hands of the Shia or the Kurds. So we decide to throw our weight on the side of the Shias. In response to GCC+USA+Pakistan axis there comes up an Iran+Hezbollah+Muslim Brotherhood+Al Qaeda+Kurds+Baluchis axis with India, Oman and Qatar in quiet support. We let the Shia get the upper hand in the Gulf and we let the Muslim Brotherhood get the better of American allies in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere.

American grip on the Indian Ocean and the Gulf would be broken for ever. Even though any chance of Indian domination in the future would fade away, we can at least live in the comfort, that Pakistan's influence would be gone for ever as well. If America loses Gulf to the Shia, Americans may also lose interest in Pakistan.

Of course there is the possibility that the Sunnis do not take the loss of Oil revenue lying down, so the real guerrilla war against the Shias start in earnest, and the Pakistanis are again asked to lend a hand, but basically Pakjabi Army is really not very good at guerrilla warfare if they have to do it themselves. Anyway this war between Shia and Sunnis can go on for eternity? Do we really want that?

If Pakistan comes out of this imbroglio feeling like a hero, USA would again be seeing things from Pakistan PoV, e.g. on Kashmir. We on the other hand, want Pakistan to come out of it with a very bloody nose.

So what is it, going to be for India?

1. India becomes the prime Muslim power in Asia, and decides for the Gulf, sidelining Pakistan.
2. India enables the Shia to win, pushing out the Sunni Oil Sheikhs and USA from the region, securing Oil for ourselves, and possibly pushing for an eternal Sunni-Shia war, thus taking away almost all of the financing Pakistan gets from KSA and USA. India however loses the Gulf to the Iranians for ever.
3. India wins a few contracts now, and waits for the next 4 years when Pakistan comes right at India with full terrorist thrust.

[Klaus]

would require some onsite humint and designation to be able to hit a single car in sudan!

or maybe someone planted a homing beacon beneath the car to attract the weapon...

Sounds like a Reaper drone Hellfire strike! No info on whether any fighter planes were sighted.

[Maram]

ShyamD Garu,

What ever your sources are, the stuff yopu come up with are very very plausible. Keep it coming. Thanks for sharing with us.

Rajesh A Garu,

Regarding the post above, one small correction. Qatar have significant investments here in the UK and in Europe and even in the US. So, I can't see how they can do anything anti amirkhan/antiwestern????

[RajeshA]

Rajesh A Garu,

Regarding the post above, one small correction. Qatar have significant investments here in the UK and in Europe and even in the US. So, I can't see how they can do anything anti amirkhan/antiwestern????

Maram ji,
They don't have to do anything outlandish. That is why I said, Qatar would be like India in silent mode, in the sense non-aligned officially but tilting towards Iran, where each country would tilt in its own way.

Al Jazeera is in Qatar at home. If Al Jazeera wants, they can bring out a lot of anti-KSA propaganda.

[Gagan]

RajeshA ji,
There are a number of problems with that line of thought:
1. There is no movement yet or on the horizon calling for a union of India and Bangladesh.
The populations of the two countries still guard their respective nationalities with zealousness, and any such suggestion out of the blue will be wajib-ul-cattle period.
Assuming that this is the goal, one would expect a SERIES of aman ki asha type moves that will generate debate and acceptance amongst the ordinary and elite alike in both nations.

None of this is happening.

2. The overwhelming majority of muslims in the Indian subcontinent are Sunnis. We are the largest group of sunni muslims on this planet. One clarion call from Mecca that the Shias are coming in and are going to destroy the holy lands and you have pakistaniyat hitting the fan all over. Each government will be under pressure from within to side with KSA / Sunni group of nations in the Middle East.

3. India siding with Al Qaida? Rajesh-ji, I don't see that happening.
Al Qaida has announced that it wants to attack targets in India, its hands have been found in some terrorist attacks. I will give them this that they have not focussed on India the way the ISI would have wanted them to, and they have realized that they are better off not messing with the regional goonda. But their role has been extremely negative in the IC-814 episode, and thereafter and they have been against Indian interests all this while.

4. How about we watch from the sidelines. As it is the GCC knows we are not going to jump in and get our hands dirty (euphism for: We are not invited onlee). If the GCC starts to sink, and that day will probably never arrive, then they'll ask for India's help.

How about we watch from the sidelines, move a few pieces on the chessboard, and when the fighting is done, and the dust settles down, we move in for the reconstruction.
When the fighting is done, both the fighting nations and their allies will be out of money. Our private business houses with their capital can move in, bribe the guys and get reconstruction deals. Our guys have done this everywhere, they've been doing reasonably well so far.

No reason why we NEED to jump into this muck and dirty ourselves here. This is one messy ethino-religious fight we should be very wary of. It has the potential to fracture our internal unity. The gains we seek will be there even if we don't join in.

My do naya paisa.

[Sanku]

Personally, from a Indian perspective, nothing would please me more than a Shia-Sunni spat of magnificent proportion.

Even better if THIS GoI sides with GCC.

Atri-ji and Airavat would get to write a new chapter(s) in their blogs!

[rohitvats]

Regarding, PA deployment to KSA - 2 Infantry Division worth of troops would ideally amount to ~30K troops @ 15K each (and this includes the support elements integral to each division). But since these are deploying to another country, for full scale military operations, expect this number to reach ~45K with additional support elements as well as armored brigade group with additional armored and mechanized units. This is supposing that PA will be called up to fight a full scale war or CI Ops.

As for PA forming up against Iran, that will require commitment of large level of force. While there seems to be no clear info on Iranian Army, and even givena two front war for Iran (turkey and pakistan at opposite ends), PA will need to put down quote some force.

The Multan based II Corps, the centerpiece of of Army Reserve South (ARS), is the prime candidate. While Bahawalpur based XXXI Corps should stay put on Indian border, the II Corps with armored and mechanized division each is likely move west. It will pick up Quetta based XII Corps and should see addition of at least another Corps. You can also expect elements of Karachi based V Corps move west to guard the southern end of iran-pakistan border.

With the above move and reports about 2 division worth of troops movement to Gulf, it is of upmost importance that any and all operations in FATA cease. These operation had at one point sucked in 2+ division worth of troops. And that Indian remain quite, very quite.

As for PLA in POK, the move happened quite some time back when there was no wiff 'tulip revolution' in the air. Even if some how TSPA and KSA has seen it coming and agreed on move of PA formation, IMO, PLA has moved in not to help TSP but protect its soft underbelly. POK in Indian hands will lay to rest any grand design of China to dominate Central Asia and diversify the routes for its enery security.

IMO, I don't think we'll see TSPA attacking Iran...if that happens, then it is good bye Pakistan.

[RajeshA]

RajeshA ji,
There are a number of problems with that line of thought:
1. There is no movement yet or on the horizon calling for a union of India and Bangladesh.
The populations of the two countries still guard their respective nationalities with zealousness, and any such suggestion out of the blue will be wajib-ul-cattle period.
Assuming that this is the goal, one would expect a SERIES of aman ki asha type moves that will generate debate and acceptance amongst the ordinary and elite alike in both nations.

None of this is happening.

I know, that is just my idea of killing a whole flock of birds with just one stone. Nobody needs to expect any similar moves by GoI, at least not yet.

2. The overwhelming majority of muslims in the Indian subcontinent are Sunnis. We are the largest group of sunni muslims on this planet. One clarion call from Mecca that the Shias are coming in and are going to destroy the holy lands and you have pakistaniyat hitting the fan all over. Each government will be under pressure from within to side with KSA / Sunni group of nations in the Middle East.

Yes it is a challenge. We cannot allow the various Muslim sectarian groups to create trouble in India. There hasn't been much of that in India, and it should stay that way!

3. India siding with Al Qaida? Rajesh-ji, I don't see that happening.
Al Qaida has announced that it wants to attack targets in India, its hands have been found in some terrorist attacks. I will give them this that they have not focussed on India the way the ISI would have wanted them to, and they have realized that they are better off not messing with the regional goonda. But their role has been extremely negative in the IC-814 episode, and thereafter and they have been against Indian interests all this while.

Al Qaeda, IMHO, may have sent out a few anti-Indian messages, in order to tap in into the Pakistanis native enmity against India, but my feeling is that it has been pretty much hands off in their approach to India. That however is here beside the point.

The question I was posing, was whether Al Qaeda and Associated Movements, whether Muslim Brotherhood, take the side of the Sunni Gulf monarchies, or twist this as another betrayal by them by aligning with the Great Satan, and take the side of Iran and the Arab Shias. If it is the latter, then one could see the TTP and JeM and others increasing their destabilization of Pakistan. The Gulf War would come to Pakistan and not just through the Shia-Sunni schism but through the Wahhabi schism as well.

Perhaps some gurus here would like to speculate on the position of Al Qaeda on this coming war.

4. How about we watch from the sidelines. As it is the GCC knows we are not going to jump in and get our hands dirty (euphism for: We are not invited onlee). If the GCC starts to sink, and that day will probably never arrive, then they'll ask for India's help.

How about we watch from the sidelines, move a few pieces on the chessboard, and when the fighting is done, and the dust settles down, we move in for the reconstruction.
When the fighting is done, both the fighting nations and their allies will be out of money. Our private business houses with their capital can move in, bribe the guys and get reconstruction deals. Our guys have done this everywhere, they've been doing reasonably well so far.

No reason why we NEED to jump into this muck and dirty ourselves here. This is one messy ethino-religious fight we should be very wary of. It has the potential to fracture our internal unity. The gains we seek will be there even if we don't join in.

My do naya paisa.

If Iran and the Arab Shias are put down ruthlessly and Pakistanis have a hand in it, which whatever little size, they will probably brag about it till even Allah hears about their valor, then one can be assured that Pakistan's anti-Indian rile would increase.

We cannot sit on the sidelines because of how it impinges on our stability in the aftermath of this war. Pakistanis would be sending in more soldiers, and the Saudis would increase their funding for the Wahabbization of the Indian Muslims making them both more radical and more pro-Pakistani. Pro-Pakistanism amongst Indian Muslims would mean more trouble with the Hindus, and more Wahhabized radicalization of the Indian Sunnis mean more trouble with Indian Shias.

As the saviors of Gulf monarchies, Pakistan would get another lease of life and then one can expect many more billions flowing to the TSPA, and TSPA buying still more India-centric weaponry.

One other factor is, that India would have lost such a golden opportunity to finish off Pakistan. If Pakistan should attack Iran, India should be taking over Sindh, and Iranians, Baluchis and Indians should crush Pakistan in between. Should Pakistan attack India with nukes, India should not just retaliate at Pakistan with nukes but also give Iran some nukes for use on the Saudis. After all it is one big war.

The Saudis must be clear on what it means if Pakistan attacks India with nukes!

We have to get a single message across to the Saudis, that if Pakistanis are used in the fight against Iran, India would enter the fray on the opposite corner. We don't mind if they get Turks to help them out against Iran, but Pakistanis should be left in Pakistan itself.

I understand the concept of just sitting back and watching the fireworks and then going in and reconstructing, but it doesn't solve Pakistan for us!

Let's also not forget what Dr Subhash Kapila says:

India in the ensuing developments would have to face more intense United States pressures on its Pakistan policy approaches as Pakistan Army Chief would demand quid-pro-quos more strongly in relation to Kashmir and also maintaining balance of power equilibrium with India That translates into more advanced weapons systems and increased military aid. It also translates into increased US pressures on India on Kashmir.

Additionally Pakistan Army can expect greater under the table financial payments from Saudi Arabia to bolster its military machine with possible payments for raising two additional Pakistan Army Divisions to offset deployments in Saudi Arabia.

That is what it would cost us. And we are being told we again have to just swallow the bitter pill, and some contracts is the sugar afterwards to help us swallow.

India has got the wherewithal to make a change. We just say either you keep Pakistanis out of it, or we jump in as well. The Saudis may comply! The Saudis are free to use Turks, Egyptians, Yemenis, Sudanese and what not. They should just leave Pakistanis alone!

[RamaY]

RajeshA garu,

It is in Indian interests that Sunnis and Shias are trying to settle their differences militarily.

India has enough number of issues to increase its military alertness in no time, changing the balance of the equation at will.

There will be no terror attacks as long as this war/hostilities continue. It is Indian interests to prolong this situation.

Of course anyone can change the balance of the equation by perpetuating a terror attack on India. That is an external player influencing the game. With MMS at helm we can be confident of this scenario till 2014.

[Gagan]

I get the feeling that this is an attempt to put pressure on Ahmedinijad by all concerned - The GCC, the US etc.

Ahmedinijad and the current Iranian regime are the ones who are fuelling this shia-sunni conflaguration. I don't know if they instigated it, but they are by now surely involved in keeping the flames burning. Ahmedinijad has been pushed in a corner, and he is trying to take the fight to the GCC.
The GCC, if they were ambivalent about taking out Iran earlier, are no longer so. This is going to be a fight to the end of the Ahmedinijad regime.

Remember that Iranians are most likely split down the middle in their support or their opposition to Ahmidinijad. Ahmedinijad's opponents are western leaning, have families settled and prospering in the west, and we will see Iran solidly back in the US sphere of influence if there is a regime change.

The aim of all of this might be to do a sort of Libya on Iran - Regime change or divide the country if that fails.
But we are NOT witnessing a Shia-Sunni fight to the finish. It is a more political fight.

Once a favourable regime returns to tehran, all of GCC's anxieties will have been addressed. I don't know what the next regime will do to their nuclear program, I suspect that if the Iranians are close to a bomb, the next regime will covertly support that program. I suspect that we will see a nuclear Iran no matter the outcome of this.

[Gagan]

GoI is split on whose side to take on this.

India has had close relations with the Iranians - even military relations.
And GCC is a block that India can't anger.

Plus the picture within Iran is murky, the population is not solidly behind Ahmedinijad.

I get the feeling that India is going to sit by the sidelines, sip beer and popcorn, do whatever needs to be done covertly and then join the party once this is over.

[JE Menon]

As things stand, the Turks - who are by no means stupid - will not be enthusiastic to get into a confrontation with anyone by themselves.

Their focus is MENA region primarily on economic expansion, with whatever else in terms of strategic overlays it can get as a result. They were pissed off to hell about Libya because they had a very very strong presence there and now they are literally kicked out. They are not going to do the job for the US vis a vis Iran without a significant quid pro quo and that may mean considerable leeway with the Gulf states. The Pakistanis, in that sense, would be competing for that.

The Gulf states have different considerations to make in each case. Do they want Ottomanism redux or Paki unpredictability? Uncle will not be unhappy about seeing a major sectarian rift to the detriment of the Iranians, including war - so long as it does not head in the nuclear direction; and who the hell is going to guarantee that?

Nobody predicted much of this. Everyone is trying to take advantage. Not an atypical situation. That said, history never repeats itself exactly. We find retrospective parallels because that's all we can do pretty much after the fact.

Right now, waiting and seeing is a good policy I think, whether for the outcome of a Turko-Iranian confrontation (on any major scale) and/or a Sunni-Shiite issue. No need for India to make any premature comments, observe the situation, wait for MORE confusion to emerge. It will. Meanwhile, make quiet slow moves for incremental advantages in case by case basis while focusing on enhancing economic links and making it possible for the Indian private sector to increase business in these areas.

This chess game is not going to end anytime soon. Our position is not bad. Let's not get carried away by breathless Western media/think-tank analyses/reports of the advantages they may gain, and of our own media's boringly predictable and predictably boring whines about how we do nothing ever.

The Kapila analysis shows people clearly understand what might be going on. Things are very fluid.