For quite some time now, the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran has flooded the world media. The western media is contemplating an attack on Iran and advocating all kinds of reasons as why the Iranian intervention is imminent yet necessary.
This media, not only anti-Iran but on the whole anti-Asia, is adamant on portraying Iran as a state that would attack Israel as soon as it gets equipped with the nuclear arms. The media moguls and analysts are proposing that Tehran’s nuclear ambitions must be surrendered for the larger interest of the region. But one question that lingers in many minds is, why are Israel and USA, two of the bitterest Iranian rivals, are not asked to surrender their weapons of mass destruction in order to assure Tehran’s security?
The past few month have witnessed open criticism from pro US Arab states against Iran and its nuclear program. So much so that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia may even be ready to provide its land to the US if it plans to attack Tehran and its nuclear sites. Saudi Arabia has also pressurized Pakistan and persuaded countries like Malaysia and Indonesia to form an alliance against the shia- majority Iran.
With some of the oil rich gulf states already in US’s kitty, the addition of Saudi Arabia may ring the alarm bells for Iran. Any possible intervention with the Saudi support may further add fuel to the already raging spiral of sectarian violence not only in these countries but also in the region, especially Pakistan and Afghanistan. This dilemma has haunted the whole Muslim community all over the world that feels perplexed as how the policy makers of one sect are going all out against the other sect of the same religion just on the name of vested interests and western influence.
Even when the minority Shias voiced their dissent in emirate of Bahrain against the monarch and his family, Saudi Arabia came forward in support and brute force was exercised against the protestors by the Saudi forces deployed in the country. In the same event, the Saudi officials also asked Pakistan for its support against the Bahrain uprising in form of providing military personnel. Bahrain, on the other hand, accused Iran of supporting the Shias in the country against the ruling Khalifa.
Sadly enough, when Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed on the name of War against Terror and Dictatorship, no Muslim state came forward to denounce these interventions and the attacks against innocent civilians who fell prey to missiles of the NATO forces. In Libya, the rebel – or the so called revolutionary – forces were headed by ex fugitives and banned terrorists. They were supported and funded by the NATO forces in order to oust Gaddafi – the ex Libyan leader. No voice from any head of the Muslim states was heard condemning the brutal murder of Gaddafi. Such is the cold bloodedness of all the Islamic states that the concept of One Muslim Community has been diluted and replaced by international vested interests.
Not different from Libya is the situation in Syria. A popular leader in form of Bashar al Assad is being asked by the international community, especially the Arab States, to step down as the ruler of the country. The reason provided by the International observers is the atrocities which Assad’s army is carrying out on the innocent civilians. The point that many tend to ignore is that if Assad would have be infamous and lacking majority of the public’s support, he would have faced the same fate as of his counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt. Yet, the UK announced a multi million pound aid for the disintegrated Syrian opposition in order to fight against the alleged tyrant regime.
In midst of this critical scenario, it is indeed humiliating for the Muslim states that countries like Russia and China are playing their part to avoid any possible attack on Iran in order to prevent any chaos and loss of innocent lives. Both these rising powers have also vetoed all sanction resolutions in the UN against Syria. What Russia and China have done is what the Muslim states of Gulf – having the power of Oil- should have done, that is, preventing any possible attack or sanctions against their fellow brother states. This mix and match of relations, between the Shia and Sunni led states, is not only detrimental for the world security, but also for the Muslim unity as a whole. Although unity and peace may be deemed as Idealistic propositions, striving for them may lead towards a world with minimum amount of conflict resulting in better progress of the less developed Muslim states.
I think this divide would soon erupt and benefit the western forces