Pakistan and Israel: A Nuclear Confrontation?

By Geoffrey Cook, TMO

Early in this reporter’s tenure at the Muslim Observer, his researches uncovered a nuclear stand-off between Tel Aviv and Rawalpindi in the Arabian Sea which was largely documented in articles in Jayne’s, etc.

At that time Israel had five top-of-the-lines, extremely silent, German-made diesel submarines.  Pakistan, on the other hand, had indigenously constructed four similar French-designed submarines.  Since then Germany has delivered several more extremely silent Underwasserboats to the Jewish State. 

Also, your researcher could find no evidence that Pakistan had nuclearized their underwater fleet at the time of the initial paper, but Israel had, and, thereby, was able to build a naval cantonment within striking distance from Pakistan to challenge the “Islamic Bomb,” but the Saudis helped the Pakistanis financially to develop their nuclear program.  Therefore, Pakistan may have a military presence in Saudi Arabia. 

Further, historically, Pakistan has maintained Division and Brigade level presences in Middle Eastern countries.  Furthermore, Israel had contemplated attacking Islamabad’s nuclear facilities by an air assault through India in 1982, but New Delhi refused the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) the use of refueling and use of their air space in 1982, for fear of a devastating counter strike against Bharat’s soil by the fearsome Pakistan Air Force.

Your investigator is interested in revisiting my former paper on Israeli-Pak confrontation. Your researcher today is attempting to determine if the posture towards the South Asian Islamic Republic still stands after (the drastically disabled former Prime Minister) Sharon has passed as a “player” from the scene.  Your commentator is trying to determine whether there is enough new information on the Zionist threat within the Arabian Sea to update my study.

Your student has had the opportunity to ask the leading authority on the Israeli nuclear program residing in the United States, Avner Cohen, about Tel Aviv’ presence on their rented island off Ethiopia – an ally of theirs.  He replied politically that “the base was still there,” but he did not know whether it still supported a nuclear-armed submarine.

Because of the miscalculation of Israel, another unnecessary conflict may have developed.

In pursuing the question of whether the confrontation still exists, your presenter has discovered what A.Q.Khan may have been attempting to do and the possibly of a Rawapindi-approved policy of creating a proxy MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), which is very much involved in the current events in the Middle East at this moment. In fact, technology transfer – especially to Middle Eastern Islamic nations — began after the intelligence of Tel Aviv’ attempt to hit Pakistan’s facilities in 1982, and Benazir Bhutto’s first Government were well aware of the policy.  Also, it is common knowledge that Pakistan exchanged its nuclear technology for North Korea’s superior missile expertise. Before India’s (fascist-like) BJP tested its bomb forcing Pakistan, who was in no shape to do so, tested its own atomic capacity.  Previously both nations had remained potentially nuclear, but had not weaponized but could quickly meet any threat that developed. 

India’s right-wing party, to cement a weak coalition (which lasted for two weeks) created the second most dangerous theater in the world.  Shortly after the blasts.  Pakistan publically tested their ballistic capability.  Before (theoretically) India could destroy Pakistan’s entire infrastructure while Pakistan a third of India.  With Rawalpindi’s projectile advantage, Islamabad’s reach covered over all of India.

As your writer mentioned, the focus of this article changed because of his discoveries, the focus of this study has changed.   On January 6th, (former) Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf granted a revealing interview to the Israeli English-language Israeli newspaper Haaretz.  First, he admits Pakistan has been anti-Israel “because of the plight of the Palestinian people.”  Unfortunately, he admits, “Israel is a fait accompli.” Yet, “Pakistan has to keep demanding the resolution of the Palestinian dispute.”

Curiously Pakistan and Israel are the only two States in the world who are mono-religious constitutionally. “Pakistan, like Israel, is an ideological state.  That is the foundation of our creation,” and “…we are wholly sensitive to the Palestinian plight.”  Further, “…the Palestinian dispute is at the foundation of many of our bigger problems…these are product of the unsettled Palestinian dispute.  Because…the misery Palestinians are suffering…there is a reaction.”  Therefore, he tried to gather a block of seven non-Arab Islamic nations to negotiate the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but it did not come to much.

The shocker was on Iran.  “…proliferation did take place from Pakistan … unfortunately…” and to Libya, also, and probably Syria.  In a cable from the U.S. Embassy there during Musharraf’s Presidency, the Hebrew Defense Minister Ehud Barack described Rawalpindi as his “private nightmare.”

Your composer proposes that A.Q. Khan was under the directions of either the COAS (the Commander and Chief of the Armed Services) and/or the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) or most likely it was part of a Government of Pakistan policy to create a proxy MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) within the Middle East itself to meet the Israeli tactical threat to South Asia.  Now, Iran has become ultimately more of a problematic threat to Tehran than Tel Aviv.

Since 2003 things have changed on the Arabian Sea littoral.  For one thing, a more moderate Government has formed in New Delhi while a much more corrupt and ineffectual one has arisen in Islamabad.  Two years ago a Brigader Khan, who had recently retired as director of the Command and Control of the Pakistani Nuclear Arsenal, told me that they were on such good terms with their Indian counterpart(s) that they were in constant telephone contact with them.  Thus, my prediction of a Pakistani redirection of interest towards West and Central Asia after a resolution of the Kashmir issue with India is evolving as I predicted in an earlier piece.

In the ensuing month we shall look at the Pakistani connection to the Iran crisis, and how the determination of their (Pakistani) interest there may be central to the resolution one or way or another to the ensuing possible conflagration.

14-11