Pakistan can support Iran in confrontation with the West
The events of a number of recent years suggest that the spreading American influence is so strong that the states that fall into such dependence are forced to unconditionally obey the White House. Or, if you don’t openly obey, then conduct your policy in such a way that Washington “feels ardent support” from its new satellites. In order to understand that such a tendency is taking place, it is enough to look at countries that were not so long ago included in the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union and even were listed as friends with Moscow. These are the countries of Eastern Europe, many states that were once Soviet Republics, Arab countries and a number of states in other regions of the world.
However, today there is at least one “out of control” state of Washington, besides post-Yeltsin’s Russia, over which, it seemed, such control was provided seriously and for a long time. This state today can be considered Pakistan.
A couple of years ago, Pakistan was considered one of the main ideological supporters (read, vassals) of the United States in Central Asia. American funding has steadily and steadily entered the coffers of Islamabad, funding both political and military projects of the country. Even the Pakistani nuclear program has not been without “humanitarian” American aid to “fraternal” Pakistan. It was financial investments in the Pakistani budget that were sufficiently strong for Washington to ensure that Pakistan acted as a de facto American colony, from which territory it was possible to manage regional forces and push American interests.
However, life goes on, times change, and that’s the relationship between Islamabad and Washington has reached a critical point, beyond which is either the recognition of a de facto serious dependence on the United States or a demonstration to the White House that Pakistan has its own interests in the region. This critical mark was the elimination by US special forces of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad. The American command then issued an order to destroy the terrorist No. XXUMX on the territory of Pakistan, without deigning to inform the leadership of Pakistan itself about the upcoming operation. For the United States, everything seems to be more than logical: after all, we give Islamabad money, he takes it from us, which means we have every right to do literally anything we want on its territory. And besides, did the American special services ever notify anyone before starting a serious operation in the territory of another country. But official Islamabad, as it seemed to the White House, was too sensitive to the invasion of the US special forces into the country, and on such a sensitive issue as the destruction of the al-Qaida leader.
And official Islamabad really, not only expressed concern about the actions of the United States, but also quite sharply stated that the authorities of Pakistan consider the uncoordinated military actions on the territory of Pakistan by the United States as an unfriendly and aggressive act on the part of the state, which they considered here their main ally. Even President Zardari, who seemed to adhere to unequivocally pro-American views, spoke out about the fact that the United States literally encroached on the independence of Pakistan, disregarding all sorts of international norms (as if the United States is aware of international norms that do not tally with their interests).
In the US, they could not understand what to do with criticism from the official Pakistani authorities and, without inventing anything, simply and stampedly stated that Pakistan was unexpectedly for Washington among those who give shelter to international terrorists.
From that moment on, the first black cat ran between Washington and Islamabad. And this cat was not the last.
The second serious gap between the two states occurred in the fall of 2011, when the Americans “by mistake” bombed a border checkpoint, destroying the 24 of Pakistani military personnel. This incident really caused a storm of indignation in Pakistan and led to the Americans turning on a bright red light. It was denied use of the territory of Pakistan for the transportation of military goods both to the territory of Afghanistan and in the opposite direction. In addition, even the very appearance of the American military on the streets of Pakistani cities could be considered unstable for the stars and stripes. Allied relations experienced such a powerful blow, which was not observed for a very long time.
Immediately after the incident, the American administration attempted to “give it back” and stated that it was ready to apologize for the “mistakes” made and, they say, this will not happen again. However, the wheel of contention has already managed to turn around. Waves of confrontation in Pakistan instantly picked up extremist forces, which, taking advantage of the occasion, were quick to show that all the troubles of modern Pakistan are solely due to excessive flirting with the United States.
After this, many experts in the United States even made very radical conclusions that, they say, Pakistan all this time only used the United States to build up its military power and tried to solve its own problems through funding from the US state budget. And now he is looking for an excuse to abandon the “democratic path”. One of the former CIA officers, Bruce Riedel, even stated that Pakistan had simply been hiding all this time under the guise of a fighter against communism and world terrorism, while in fact he only cultivated his own regimes based on generous American funding.
In this statement, perhaps there is some truth, but, tell me, what state is friendly with the United States with a different purpose than the receipt of military and economic assistance. There are simply no such “true friends” of the United States, with all the desire of Washington. Friendship is friendship, and the tobacco, as they say, apart ... Some are friends for the sake of “sponsorship” financial assistance, others for the sake of weapons, others are not averse to get one and the other.
Only not every state can refuse the influx of American dollars, which becomes like a normal dependence. Pakistan, if it has not yet finally been able to abandon the “close ties” of the United States, then, at least, has shown that Washington is unlikely to succeed in using it as a classic puppet. This was expressed in the position of the official Islamabad on Iran. The West and the Americans, in the first place, thought that Pakistan would unequivocally support not only a package of sanctions against Tehran, but would side with the United States, NATO and Israel in a possible war against Iran. However, Islamabad showed its teeth here too.
President Zardari spoke so harshly that he made his “partners” in Washington start up. He said that Pakistan and Iran need each other, and together they do not accept any foreign intervention. And at the same time, Pakistan has long been able to become an independent democratic state in order to be able to choose for itself the path of development. From these words, we can draw the following conclusion: the United States may not wait for Pakistan to provide territory for possible aggression against Iran. Moreover, Pakistan may even support Ahmadinejad if the invasion of the Americans or Israelis takes place. Let's not forget that if the Americans are only looking for a “non-peaceful” atom in Iran, then it has been in Pakistan since 1998. It turns out that a nuclear power can participate in the conflict already on the side of Iran. Such a prospect for the United States looks very unproductive. In addition, Pakistan announced its desire to purchase Iranian gas in order to use it for the needs of its country, and not to support the construction of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, the project of which is actively lobbied by the United States. If Islamabad transfers to the purchase of Iranian gas, then this may make the European sanctions on Iranian hydrocarbons untenable.
In this regard, 1 March 2012, Hillary Clinton, said that in the United States, to put it mildly, do not support the decision of Islamabad to enter into economic relations with Tehran. Still would! After all, the Americans continue to escalate economic pressure on Iran in order to arrange a large-scale blockade of the Islamic Republic, and here Pakistan is wedged in and is trying to confuse the cards on the green cloth of American geopolitics. Clinton openly urges Islamabad to “look for alternative sources” for the purchase of blue fuel, and in no case should we go towards rapprochement with Iran. But after blocking US funding, Islamabad needs new allies, including economic allies.
It remains to wait for the resolution of the US-Pakistan dispute, on the basis of which it will be possible to make an unequivocal conclusion: does Pakistan bargain for itself new financial preferences or indeed this state has finally completely broken with dependence on the United States.
However, today there is at least one “out of control” state of Washington, besides post-Yeltsin’s Russia, over which, it seemed, such control was provided seriously and for a long time. This state today can be considered Pakistan.
A couple of years ago, Pakistan was considered one of the main ideological supporters (read, vassals) of the United States in Central Asia. American funding has steadily and steadily entered the coffers of Islamabad, funding both political and military projects of the country. Even the Pakistani nuclear program has not been without “humanitarian” American aid to “fraternal” Pakistan. It was financial investments in the Pakistani budget that were sufficiently strong for Washington to ensure that Pakistan acted as a de facto American colony, from which territory it was possible to manage regional forces and push American interests.
However, life goes on, times change, and that’s the relationship between Islamabad and Washington has reached a critical point, beyond which is either the recognition of a de facto serious dependence on the United States or a demonstration to the White House that Pakistan has its own interests in the region. This critical mark was the elimination by US special forces of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad. The American command then issued an order to destroy the terrorist No. XXUMX on the territory of Pakistan, without deigning to inform the leadership of Pakistan itself about the upcoming operation. For the United States, everything seems to be more than logical: after all, we give Islamabad money, he takes it from us, which means we have every right to do literally anything we want on its territory. And besides, did the American special services ever notify anyone before starting a serious operation in the territory of another country. But official Islamabad, as it seemed to the White House, was too sensitive to the invasion of the US special forces into the country, and on such a sensitive issue as the destruction of the al-Qaida leader.
And official Islamabad really, not only expressed concern about the actions of the United States, but also quite sharply stated that the authorities of Pakistan consider the uncoordinated military actions on the territory of Pakistan by the United States as an unfriendly and aggressive act on the part of the state, which they considered here their main ally. Even President Zardari, who seemed to adhere to unequivocally pro-American views, spoke out about the fact that the United States literally encroached on the independence of Pakistan, disregarding all sorts of international norms (as if the United States is aware of international norms that do not tally with their interests).
In the US, they could not understand what to do with criticism from the official Pakistani authorities and, without inventing anything, simply and stampedly stated that Pakistan was unexpectedly for Washington among those who give shelter to international terrorists.
From that moment on, the first black cat ran between Washington and Islamabad. And this cat was not the last.
The second serious gap between the two states occurred in the fall of 2011, when the Americans “by mistake” bombed a border checkpoint, destroying the 24 of Pakistani military personnel. This incident really caused a storm of indignation in Pakistan and led to the Americans turning on a bright red light. It was denied use of the territory of Pakistan for the transportation of military goods both to the territory of Afghanistan and in the opposite direction. In addition, even the very appearance of the American military on the streets of Pakistani cities could be considered unstable for the stars and stripes. Allied relations experienced such a powerful blow, which was not observed for a very long time.
Immediately after the incident, the American administration attempted to “give it back” and stated that it was ready to apologize for the “mistakes” made and, they say, this will not happen again. However, the wheel of contention has already managed to turn around. Waves of confrontation in Pakistan instantly picked up extremist forces, which, taking advantage of the occasion, were quick to show that all the troubles of modern Pakistan are solely due to excessive flirting with the United States.
After this, many experts in the United States even made very radical conclusions that, they say, Pakistan all this time only used the United States to build up its military power and tried to solve its own problems through funding from the US state budget. And now he is looking for an excuse to abandon the “democratic path”. One of the former CIA officers, Bruce Riedel, even stated that Pakistan had simply been hiding all this time under the guise of a fighter against communism and world terrorism, while in fact he only cultivated his own regimes based on generous American funding.
In this statement, perhaps there is some truth, but, tell me, what state is friendly with the United States with a different purpose than the receipt of military and economic assistance. There are simply no such “true friends” of the United States, with all the desire of Washington. Friendship is friendship, and the tobacco, as they say, apart ... Some are friends for the sake of “sponsorship” financial assistance, others for the sake of weapons, others are not averse to get one and the other.
Only not every state can refuse the influx of American dollars, which becomes like a normal dependence. Pakistan, if it has not yet finally been able to abandon the “close ties” of the United States, then, at least, has shown that Washington is unlikely to succeed in using it as a classic puppet. This was expressed in the position of the official Islamabad on Iran. The West and the Americans, in the first place, thought that Pakistan would unequivocally support not only a package of sanctions against Tehran, but would side with the United States, NATO and Israel in a possible war against Iran. However, Islamabad showed its teeth here too.
President Zardari spoke so harshly that he made his “partners” in Washington start up. He said that Pakistan and Iran need each other, and together they do not accept any foreign intervention. And at the same time, Pakistan has long been able to become an independent democratic state in order to be able to choose for itself the path of development. From these words, we can draw the following conclusion: the United States may not wait for Pakistan to provide territory for possible aggression against Iran. Moreover, Pakistan may even support Ahmadinejad if the invasion of the Americans or Israelis takes place. Let's not forget that if the Americans are only looking for a “non-peaceful” atom in Iran, then it has been in Pakistan since 1998. It turns out that a nuclear power can participate in the conflict already on the side of Iran. Such a prospect for the United States looks very unproductive. In addition, Pakistan announced its desire to purchase Iranian gas in order to use it for the needs of its country, and not to support the construction of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, the project of which is actively lobbied by the United States. If Islamabad transfers to the purchase of Iranian gas, then this may make the European sanctions on Iranian hydrocarbons untenable.
In this regard, 1 March 2012, Hillary Clinton, said that in the United States, to put it mildly, do not support the decision of Islamabad to enter into economic relations with Tehran. Still would! After all, the Americans continue to escalate economic pressure on Iran in order to arrange a large-scale blockade of the Islamic Republic, and here Pakistan is wedged in and is trying to confuse the cards on the green cloth of American geopolitics. Clinton openly urges Islamabad to “look for alternative sources” for the purchase of blue fuel, and in no case should we go towards rapprochement with Iran. But after blocking US funding, Islamabad needs new allies, including economic allies.
It remains to wait for the resolution of the US-Pakistan dispute, on the basis of which it will be possible to make an unequivocal conclusion: does Pakistan bargain for itself new financial preferences or indeed this state has finally completely broken with dependence on the United States.
Information