Engage in the Middle East

Two phenomenons that are taking shape in the region to our West hold extreme significance for us. One is the continuing isolation of Israel and the other is nuclear ambition of Iran. Before I analyze these and suggest what in my view is the best course of action, let me make one thing clear. In no way, we should commit the same mistakes of the past of trying to force our solution, exporting militancy to deal with the potential threats, and to close channels with one or more sides of the crisis.

Both these issues are likely to damage the balance of power in the region which will have severe consequences on our western borders. Not only that, but because of the global spread of sectarian militancy, the ripples will be felt all across – with Pakistan being at the helm of the fallout.

A nuclear Iran is not in the interest of Pakistan. There cannot be any contrary rational argument on this. And it does not have to do with an Ayatullah-controlled Iran, even an Iran under Shah with nukes would have been equally dangerous. First and foremost, we cannot afford a nuclear Iran in the neighborhood of volatile Balochistan and Afghanistan. This will seriously undermine our security, trade routes, energy routes, and influence in the region. Secondly, a nuclear Iran will lead to a nuclear race in the Middle East with serious impacts on the economy and social fabric of the society in the surrounding regions. More importantly, Middle Eastern ruling elite, still entrenched in tribal and pre-modern mindset, is not mature enough to be trusted with the nukes. Third, a nuclear Iran has a potential of drawing up the ire of the West and might open another war frontier on our western border. Forth, even if the West shows restraint, a nuclear Iran has every likelihood of enticing Israel to unilaterally take steps aimed at curbing nuclear Iran. This act of Israel, one way or another will drag all regional and international players into a conflict that will start as a religious war but can soon turn into a sectarian and racial one (Arabs vs Iran). This would destroy the whole political and social fabric of Middle East and the region will have to pass a long period of turbulence and pain before the new equilibrium could emerge. We cannot be immune to the effects of this pain and turbulence.

Palestinian people have suffered a lot in past six decades. They have been wronged by Israel, the world, their neighbors and by themselves. I feel for the plight of Jews spanning centuries. But the solution somehow neither ended the plight of Jews (who still face uncertainty and anti-Semitism) nor has it been kind to the Palestinians. West, which to counter the nationalist movements in Middle East had come close to Israel, now sees a benefit in distancing itself from Israel to gain sympathy and credibility among the Muslims. The politicians in the West also face pressure from their liberal constituents on account of Israel’s human rights record. From the perspective of the West, the current change of direction makes perfect sense. Ask the parties to resolve their differences and if they do not, use it as a pretext to keep distancing away from Israel. To be fair to the West, as first resort, it tried for last two decades to broker a mutually agreeable peace accord between the rivals, only to be sabotaged by the radicals in Israel and the rise of more militant religious movements among the Palestinians (allegedly initiated by Israeli Intelligence apparatus to counter PLO but later hijacked by global Jihadis, Saudi Arabia and Iran).

In the wake of these events, the only two possible outcomes have a huge risk for the region and beyond - a region with which we have very strong correlation. Amidst its continued isolation, Israel might opt for a more militaristic response. This will suck the region into a conflict which will not remain an Arab-Israel conflict. Just like the Lebanon war of 1980s, beyond Israel, the conflict has a huge potential of leading to a sectarian warfare in the region and beyond among militias backed by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Second outcome, not mutually exclusive from the first one, is weakening of Israel. This will start a snowball reaction with educated Israelis migrating to the lands with more opportunity. The problem with this outcome is that this will be termed as a victory for the religious fanatics and will boast the morale of Jihadis across the region. The potential consequences for us need no elaboration. Another victim of this fallout is surely going to be the present autocratic order of the Middle East. I am sure that riding on the wave of a moral victory over Israel, Islamists in their regions will become too powerful to be tamed by the existing rulers. If Hamas comes on top in claiming the fruits of the victory, it will be Wahabi radicals, and if Hizb Ullah does this, we will have Shia insurgencies at hand across the Middle East. It is naïve to think that the monarchies and Iran will be able to control their powerful, militant proxies fully.

Palestinian rights need to be secured but not at the cost of radicals running wild in the region spanning from Indonesia to Morocco. This radical dominance will be more devastating, more damaging and more regressive than the present dispensation. Palestinians’ plight, of both living in Palestine and those living in refugee camps, has to end but not at the cost of the same misery for Jews and not at the cost of another mass exodus. I do not have an answer for what will be a permanent solution to the problem. I am not sure whether it will be the one-state solution or the two-state solution. That is for all concerned to figure out and when humans act in good faith, they always do. All I know is this. Any solution should not come as a victory for radicals, Shias, Sunnis or Jewish. Any solution has to correct the mistakes made in past century (or centuries) but should not be abrupt and should ensure least jittery transition from present state of affairs to the newer one.

And on broader Middle East, the autocracy should lead to more representative rule but the representative rule should be based around broad-based social involvement and should be transitioned to smoothly. If bringing democracy to Middle East would result in establishment of Shia theocracies replacing Wahabi/Sunni autocracy, it will neither lead to stability nor modernity. More so, it will be detrimental to the heterogeneous social fabric of Pakistan.

So what should Pakistan do? The simple answer is engagement. Engage with the Mid-Eastern monarchies and help them devise a mechanism aimed at opening up of political system with least impact to the political and economic interests of the rulers in the short-term. We need to help our friends understand that the status quo cannot prevail and they will be better of accepting the change and controlling it to the extent they can.

We need to use all tools of soft-power available with Iran to bring it out of isolation and to convince it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. We have a long list of common interests with Iran including Afghanistan, Balochistan, energy security, trade and economic interests.

Most importantly, we need to open up to Israel. The time is ripe for taking a populist Anti-Israel stand but that will be detrimental to our interest as well as that of the region. Israel needs to be engaged now more than it has ever been needed. An Israel communicating with Pakistan and through it to the other regional players, might feel more confident taking steps to peace. We also need to engage with the West on its Mid-East policy to ensure least turbulence and to be in loop regarding the shaping up of events. The time also calls for opening up with soft-radicals (moderate Hamas, modern Taliban) – the radicals whose agenda is not to uproot the system, but whose demands are more around social, economic and political concessions.

On the other hand, apart from these preventive measures, we need to take corrective measures as well. We need to root out militant and sectarian tendencies in our motherland before the potential time-bomb of Middle East explodes. We need to resolve the Balochistan issue and we need to try to put our weight behind anti-radicalism drive in Afghanistan. We need to do this all to minimize the damage of a turbulent Middle East. Just when we should be prepared for the worst, we need to act, in good faith, with the hope that the human suffering could be prevented.


Note: The purpose of this piece is to initiate the debate on the issue which has so far been dealt with emotional response.