On December 6, Prince Turki Al Faisal, the Intelligence Chief of Saudi Arabia, asserted: “Our efforts and those of the world have failed to convince Israel to abandon its weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iran. It is, therefore, our duty towards our nation and people to consider all possible options, including the possession of nuclear weapons”.
Saudi Arabia has plans to build 16 nuclear reactors over the next two decades at a cost of $80 billion. Prince Turki's assertion came in the aftermath of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear programme, which has predictably produced a hysterical American reaction, leading to moves for the imposition of further banking sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Tensions between the UK and Iran have also escalated, after the former unilaterally announced new and stringent financial sanctions on Iran.
IAEA report
Most analysts agree that it would take Iran anywhere from three to eight years to build a nuclear weapon. However, key Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in Tehran and a ‘Stuxnet' computer virus mysteriously introduced into Iran's nuclear facilities, crippling the system. The widespread belief is that these developments have evidently been engineered by the US and Israel. Matters have again come to a head, after the recent IAEA report alleged that a foreign scientist had helped Iran develop and design a nuclear explosive device. The report alludes to information provided by unnamed foreign intelligence agencies, quite evidently from the US, the UK and Israel. Its credibility and accuracy have been widely questioned. It is also evident that both Russia and China will oppose any move by the US and UK to impose any further economic sanctions on Iran.
American journalist, Seymour Hersh, pertinently observed that the “carefully hedged” IAEA report had raised concerns merely about the “possible existence” of undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran. Observers have not failed to note that it was precisely such ‘unverified' information about Iraq's alleged nuclear facilities that provided the excuse for the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. The report states that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device ‘may still be ongoing'.
Nuclear enrichment
Interestingly, a rattled Iran had almost immediately agreed to suspend its nuclear enrichment programme and to stringent IAEA inspections soon after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ever since then, it has been a cat and mouse game between the Americans and Iranians, on the entire question of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme. Iran recommenced its uranium enrichment in 2005 and the IAEA declared that it was in violation of its obligations as signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). While there is no evidence to establish that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, the very fact that it appears to be moving towards developing nuclear weapons capabilities has brought together an alliance of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia to sound alarm bells about a country that has rather provocatively called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. Moreover Shia-Sunni rivalries and differences have assumed greater salience across the Gulf and West Asia. There is little doubt that the Saudis would be delighted if the Israelis chose to act to decapitate Iran's nuclear programme.
Pakistan's role
While explaining the rationale for Pakistan's nuclear programme, its then Prime Minister, Z. A. Bhutto, noted that while the “Christian, Jewish and Hindu” civilisations had nuclear weapons capability, it was the “Islamic Civilisation” alone that did not possess them. Mr Bhutto's views on Pakistan's nuclear weapons contributing to the capabilities of the “Islamic civilisation” were shared by Pakistan's nuclear scientist, Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood. It is precisely such ideological leanings that prompted the commencement of Pakistani assistance to Iran's enrichment programme over two decades ago. Iraq and Libya sought similar Pakistani assistance. The nuclear ambitions of both these Arab States were thwarted by western pressures and invasions. The Iranians are, however, made of a different mettle.
Given the growing Shia-Sunni rivalries in the oil-rich Gulf region, how will Saudi Arabia respond in the event of Iran going nuclear? Saudi Arabia lacks the manpower and technological skills of Iran. The only Islamic country that can provide the Saudis with a nuclear deterrent is Pakistan, whose nuclear arsenal is exceeding what it needs for its own security. Pakistan could, therefore, deploy nuclear weapons and missiles on Saudi soil by asserting that such deployment was akin to the deployment of American nuclear weapons and missiles on the soil of its NATO allies. It did not, therefore, constitute a violation of the NPT. The only alternative for the Saudis would be an American nuclear umbrella, whose reliability would be questionable, especially given the growing American unpopularity in the Islamic world.
Despite Bhutto's dreams of Pakistan's bomb contributing to the glory of the “Islamic Civilisation,” his cash-strapped and growingly dysfunctional country may end up being drawn into the rivalries between Shia-Iran on the one hand and the Sunni-Arabs on the other. What he described as the “Christian, Jewish and Hindu civilisations” can only watch this drama, if and when it is played out.
(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan. >blfeedback@thehindu.co.in )