8/8/2019 The GREAT GAME REVISITED
1/3
THE GREAT GAME REVISITED Having destroyed Iraq, Israel, with
wests support, is now trying to destabilize Pakistan, the only
Muslim nation with N-weapons The Israeli Army which, despite
Israels veneer for democracy, actually runs that countryhas for
some decades now pursue certain policies of direct relevance to
Muslim countries in its vicinity. Amongst these countries are Iraq,
Iran and Pakistan. First and foremost amongst these Israeli
policies is the determination of that army to remain the
pre-eminent military power in the region. And in order to retai
n its military hegemony, the Israeli Army must necessarily
prevent any Muslim country in the region from obtaining effective
nuclear weapons. And if, like Pakistan, such a country already has
nuclear weapons, then the Israeli believes it isessential to
disable that country to the point where it ceases to operate as
a
nation militarily. Once we understood the centrality of this
policy to the Israeli Army, then much of what has happened, and is
happening, in this region fallsinto place. For example, Iraq was
developing a nuclear bomb. Israeli destroyed the facility where
Iraqs bomb was reputedly being developed. But Iraq remained a
military powerful nation that might be a threat to Israel, and it
was too powerful for Israel to defeat alone, so Bush and Cheney
obliged the Israelis by Invading a false pretexts. The result was
the decimation of the Iraqi Army, the division of the country into
three areas so it ceased to operate military as a nation,
and the control of Iraqi oil by companies amenable to US
interest, Job done. Thepersistent threats to Iran issuing from the
White House under Bush were designed to generate a political
climate at home that would allow the US to bomb Irans nuclear
facilities, so as to disable its supposed nuclear weapons program.
If Iran had a bomb, it would be of little danger to anyone,
because, were Iran to usesuch bomb against Israel, as Hilary
Clinton said, America would obliterate Iran. On the other hand,
were Iran to use a nuclear weapon defensively against an Israeli
attack, then America would have to respond with more care. So the
only resultof Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be to curtail
Israelis power to bully
countries in the region. It follows that any American attack a
supposed nuclearweapons program in Iran could only be designed to
maintain Israels military pre-eminence in the region. An American
attack on Irans nuclear program could have been on behalf of
Israel. A clear case of Israel controlling US foreign policy on
i
ts own behalf. If Iran is building a bomb, the main reason would
be to defend itself against Israel. So the best way to end to the
supposed Iranian nuclear weapons program would be (1) to disarm the
nuclear threat from Israel, and (2) for NATO military to guarantee
Iran against attack from its neighbours, especially from Israel.
Why the West not pursued this effective policy that would also
reducethe number of nuclear weapons in the world? If India were
disarmed and Pakistanwere guaranteed military protection against
Indian attack, why would Pakistan n
eed nuclear weapons? When perfectly rational policies are
ignored in favour of dangerously ineffective ones, something fishy
is usually up. The Kashmir disputealso falls into this category.
Why are NATO forces in Afghanistan killing Afghanistan? Surely, not
for the good of the Afghans. As for democracy, the overwhelming
wish of the people is for NATO forces to leave immediately. This is
the princ
ipal reason for the Afghan national revolt that the people in
the West call Islamic militancy. The NATO forces are there for two
reasons: One, for the oil and gas reserves around the Caspian Sea,
which, at the very least, the NATO countrieswould like to deny to
Russia and China; and, two, to destabilized and weaken Pa
kistan on behalf of Israel. That India would also like Pakistan
to be weakened is just an added bonus ensuring Indias participation
in the skulduggery, partly bymeans of a close covert alliance with
Israel. In order to maintain its militarydominance in the region,
Israel has four years set about destabilizing any Musl
im country that poses a threat to its dominance. Pakistan is the
only Muslim country with nuclear weapon and Israel is within range.
So Pakistan must be weakened to the point at which it ceases to
operate militarily as a nation. Pakistan issupposed to be the Wests
foremost ally in the fight against Islamic militancy, s
o Israel cannot attack Pakistan directly, and, if Israel did,
she would certainl
y be defeated. So what to do? Well, two strategies come to mind:
One, use America to attack Pakistan for you; and two, train and
send into the border regions ofPakistan gangs of thugs willing to
commit atrocities that will then be blamed o
8/8/2019 The GREAT GAME REVISITED
2/3
n barbaric Muslim militants, suggesting that Pakistan has lost
control of its territory to dangerous extremist and so may lose
control of its nuclear weapons. Isthere any evidence that these
policies are being pursued by Israel in Pakistan?Yes, though
regrettably my sources must remain anonymous. Perhaps the best
inform person in Afghanistan has said that he knows for sure that
the Israelis are training team of Badakhshan and are sending them
into Pakistans border regions to commit atrocities. Two British
friends, who have covered Afghan war since 1980, t
ell me the same thing. Rumors of Israeli-trained provocateurs
amongst the tribesmen in the Khyber Agency and in Swat are rife.
Then there is, of course, the completely public evidence of the
daily US infringements of Pakistani sovereign airspace by drones.
These drone attacks always kill many more innocents than the
socalled insurgents. The traditional authority of the tribal elders
is weakened b
ecause they cannot protect their people, thus further
destabilizing the region and allowing the infiltrators easier
access. In addition, they weaken the authority of the Pakistani
government and of the army, both of which are made to look as if
they condone the attacks, which surely is one of the main purpose
of the attacks. Perhaps Asif Ali Zardaris government and the army
do condone the attacks,but if so, they do so against the interest
of a group of people the Pashtuns whoalready feel alienated from
central government. Thus Pakistani unity is further
eroded, much to the satisfaction of the Israelis. That the
destabilization of Pakistan has been on the minds of YS officials
for some time is suggested quite strongly by an article in the
Guardian of Aug. 27, 2008. The article entitled Takethis war into
Pakistan was written by the Afghan Ambassador to Norway, Jawid
Lud
in. I assume Jawid Ludin was speaking as Afghan Ambassador to
Norway and so hadthe approval of what he said from his government,
I am assuming also that the Afghan government is simply the
instrument of the US, the US authorities knew in advance of the
contents of this article. Maybe they are testing the water. In this
article Ludin says: Without having to invade Pakistani territory,
(a) coalition(of US, Afghan, and Pakistani military forces) should
establish a viable presen
ce by opening a military bases in Pakistani soil. A supreme
commander, with deputies from Afghanistan and Pakistan, should be
appointed to devise and implementan effective counterterrorism
strategy on both side of the Durand Line The coalit
ion should also ensure the security of Pakistans dangerous
nuclear arsenal. Earlier in the article the author says: the US
must recognize the utter futility of working with the Pakistani
military which he suggests is untrustworthy and unfit toprotect
Pakistans interest. This implication is rather odd given that later
he says that the coalition of the willing, that must set up bases
in Pakistan to run anefficient counterterrorism offensive, should
include the Pakistan military (I t
ake it in only junior capacity), So here we have a proposed
force lead by a supreme commander of unnamed nationality that will
lead Afghan and Pakistani soldiers(the Pakistani leadership having
been sidelined) o Pakistan soil (which somehowthey have entered
without invasion) to take control of Pakistans nuclear weaponsand
to beat all terrorists, by means un-described. Frankly, so bizarre
a schemeis too stupid even for Indian and American intelligence
officials stationed farfrom the action. But, if not, then its drift
is obvious: The Pakistani militarycommand should be fragmented,
disabled, sidelined and the countrys nuclear arsenalshould come
under responsible control (like that of the Afghans, I suppose).
Pakistan should be deprived of central military national command.
Events in Waziristan, in the Khyber Agency and in Swat Valley all
suggested that the central authorities of Pakistan have indeed
relinquished control of these border areas. Balochistan is also in
a state of turmoil That makes it impossible for the central
authority of the Pakistan government and army to govern there. Much
of this is the result of 60 years of gross incompetence and
nepotism in the central government and in the army, but it has
created an environment easily exploited by Pakistans enemies. The
Baloch tribes On the Iran side of the border are also being
financed by outside agencies, so their insurgency will weaken the
central control ofthe Iranian government. In short, Israels foreign
policy in the region, has, with
the aid of the US, become a very successful one. The only thing
I fail to understand is why the people of these countries let it
happen. Especially the militants: They are supposed to be true
Muslims, yet they really seem to relish doing t
