"The
CIA has been long preparing a sordid plan to recognize Balochistan as an
independent state. … This is not because Pakistani leaders pose a threat to
America's hegemonic transgressions, but because Iran is a bogeyman that poses a
major threat to the U.S. and Israel. Tehran is being singled out for defying
Washington."
One after the other, U.S.
ambassadors in Islamabad have quite suspiciously shown concern about developments
in Balochistan. In his visit to Quetta last Thursday, incumbent U.S. Ambassador
Cameron Munter tried to pressure the Balochistan government to facilitate opening
a U.S. consulate in the province.
Just to show how important
Balochistan is to the United States, his predecessor Anne Patterson also visited
on such a mission. These persistent attempts to establish a foothold in
Balochistan are fraught with danger. That isn't because Washington has any
particular dislike for the local population, but because the creation of a
“Greater Balochistan” has long been a dream of U.S. strategists. Up to now,
America's sinister plan has been opposed by the Pakistan Foreign Office and
intelligence services. But how long can Islamabad's frail rulers hold out
against U.S. pressure?
That’s the “billion dollar”
question. Can Islamabad contain Washington's behavior within Balochistan and
ensure that it conforms to Pakistan’s constitution, sovereignty and international
legal guarantees?
The CIA has been long preparing
a sordid plan to recognize Balochistan as an independent state. This is
illustrated by the U.S. immigration form for non-U.S. nationals, which assigns a
separate checklist for Balochistan under the “Country of Citizenship” column.
This is just one of several measures the U.S. administration has taken to help
realize its designs for a so-called free Balochistan. The plan had been
highlighted in an article entitled Blood Borders
written by a U.S. military officer some years ago. [See before and after maps
from Ralph Peter's article Blood Borders
below. Click on maps for larger versions. Note the creation of a "free Balochistan
on the bottom map].
Asia Times journalist Saleem Shezad, a
Pakistani, had exposed the CIA's suspicious underground activities across the
country, for which he had to pay a very heavy price. CIA-sponsored mercenaries
in Pakistan kidnapped and murdered him - even if leaving no trail. All along, Washington
has favored creating a “Greater Balochistan” that would integrate Baloch areas
of Pakistan with those of Iran and perhaps the southern tip of Afghanistan - ultimately
resulting in political fracturing for both Iran and Pakistan. This is not
because Pakistani leaders pose a threat to America's hegemonic transgressions, but
because Iran is a bogeyman that poses a major threat to the U.S. and Israel.
Tehran is being singled out for defying Washington.
The last decade was witness
to an unremitting clash between the West and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program.
The West has consistently accused Iran of trying to build a nuclear arsenal.
Tehran has just as consistently denied this - and solid ground. In the June
2006 issue of the Armed Forces Journal, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters
suggested in no uncertain terms that Pakistan should be broken up, leading to
the formation of Greater or Free Balochistan, which would incorporate Baloch
provinces in both Pakistani and Iranian into a single political entity. And
Colonel Peters went one step further, suggesting, because of linguistic and
ethnic affinities, the incorporation of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province
- presently Khyber Pakhtunkhawa - into Afghanistan. This proposed fragmentation,
which broadly reflects U.S. official policy, would reduce Pakistan to
approximately half of its present size, and would deny it a large section of
its coastline along the Arabian Sea. Before his retirement, Peters' last post
was the office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He is one of
Pentagon’s most widely-read authors, writing many essays on strategy for
military and foreign policy journals. And there are very plausible indications
that the Baloch insurgency is being backed and abetted by Britain and the United
States.
The Balochistan separatist
movement is in the process of being hijacked by foreign powers. In June 2006, the
Pakistan Senate Committee on Defence accused British intelligence of aiding the
Balochistan insurgency with CIA and Mossad support. Behind these nefarious
moves is America's mission to topple Iran's sovereign government and facilitate
Tel Aviv’s supremacy over the Muslim world.
The hoax of Iran's nuclear program
has been deliberately turned into a controversy - even though Iran's nuclear
program has as little to do with nuclear proliferation as the Iraq invasion had
to do with WMDs and al-Qaeda. Isn’t it a fact that once, when the country was
ruled by the Shah, Washington supported Tehran’s nuclear program?
And isn't it strange that while
Tehran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as many as four other countries
are not NPT signatories (such as Israel), and yet no one in the international
community pressures them to halt their nuclear programs? And isn’t it odd that
neither the IAEA or Washington have even investigated their nuclear arsenals?
Despite the fact that in 2007,
America’s own intelligence agencies assessed that Tehran had no active nuclear
weapons program, the threats against Iran persist. In an updated report
published in The New Yorker, the 2011 National Intelligence Estimate
reiterated that judgment. Yet despite facts to the contrary, Iran has been
singled out because it defies Washington.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
Israel is the only country in
the region that actually possesses nuclear weapons. Unlike Iran, it isn't a
signatory to the NPT. The jaundiced Western media constantly trumpet that
Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is a threat to the region, because it would
spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But, for some inexplicable reason,
there is no concern that Tel Aviv’s large nuclear arsenal might spark a nuclear
arms race.
The U.N. Charter explicitly
forbids member nations, including both the U.S. and Israel, from not only the
use of force, but the threat of using force in international relations. Under
international law, there are very narrow circumstances under which force can be
legitimately resorted to. The first is in self-defense. The second is if the
U.N. Security Council provides an unequivocal mandate. In other words, every
time the United States or Israel threatens Iran with a military attack, it violates
the U.N. Charter.
Allowing a U.S. Consular
office in Quetta would amount to providing a safe haven for the CIA and its
mercenary employees to extend their sabotage activities into Iran from
Pakistani soil. This is a serious threat and not be taken lightly by Islamabad.
This might be what is behind U.S. and Israeli posturing, as both nations have
repeatedly shown a willingness to reject diplomacy and use military force in
pursuit of their respective policies.
Setting aside the questions
of legality and morality, there are plenty of reasons for the U.S. and Israel
not to launch an invasion against Iran like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. It
is more likely that they intend to use Balochistan as a mercenary base to destabilize
Iran. And there is no shortage of such mercenaries in the CIA. Right now,
secret U.S. commandos are carrying out raids in 70 countries. By the end of the
year, the number will probably be closer to 120.
