By RAJ PANEKEN
Iran would have already realized its dream of developing an atomic bomb if it had not declared its devilish intentions of using that weapon to eradicate Israel from the Planet earth. It is these satanic intentions of Iran against the Israelis which compelled Israel and the U.S.A to declare war against it on the 28th February this year. Had it not declared its intentions behind the making of an atomic bomb, its dream would have definitely materialized. Unfortunately, its Machiavellian designs foiled its plan. It is totally its right to have an atomic bomb. No one would deny it that right, but it should be purely for its defence and security, and no other things.
If we take the case of India and Pakistan whose relations are strained, they did not develop atomic bomb to destroy one or the other. The weapon was developed chiefly for security and peaceful purposes. Neither country declared its intentions. The atomic bomb was there for peace and security. If relations were friendly between them, probably Pakistan would not have worried about nuclear weapons. But unfortunately because of the strained relations and conflicting boundary issues existing between the two countries, everybody knew the day of them detonated a nuclear device, the other would follow suit immediately. Both India and Pakistan had the technical know-how to develop nuclear weapons, but each was watching to see who would take the initiative. When India exploded five nuclear devices, she knew that Pakistan would react. And the Pakistani reaction did not delay. Barely two weeks after the Indian tests, Pakistan exploded seven nuclear devices, two more than India. That was a severe and unequivocal warning to India about any nuclear aggression against Pakistan.
No nation could have reasoned with Pakistan to dissuade her from exploding a nuclear device, not even worldwide criticism, condemnation and economic sanctions against her country. The Pakistan government knew that its nuclear tests would raise a storm of protests throughout the world, but it wanted to bring home to the Indian government that in case of aggression against its country, it would retaliate with nuclear weapons, no more, no less. That was the message behind the nuclear blasts of Pakistan.
Today Pakistan can amply justify her nuclear blasts just as India would have done the same if Pakistan had been the first to conduct a nuclear test. She would have never done it if India had not detonated a nuclear device. She did it for its national security and the preservation of peace in the region. The balance of terror has been respected.
So the famous saying of that great British Statesman, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill said about the maintenance of peace among nations is strikingly forceful and truthful – «Peace can be maintained by mutual threat.»
Man is a social animal, and as such he is imbued with a dose of aggressiveness and overbearing like any other animal. When two dogs of equal strength cross each other, no one will dare attack the other. They will just glare at each other, baring their teeth menacingly. A fight between the dogs is avoided because of the balance of strength between them. But what happens when a dog meets a weaker one, it immediately gives it the chase, and even going to the length of invading its territory. Man has that animal instinct in him and is prone to behave likewise.
But unlike Iran, neither India nor Pakistan said that they had developed nuclear weapons to eliminate the other from the world map.
Here lies the difference. The intentions of Iran are undilutedly Machiavellian vis-à-vis Israel. When Israel developed its atomic weapon, it did not say that it would use it against any country. The weapon was purely for the security of its country, as it is today.
You don’t invest on a Dobermann to attack your neighbour. If it is so, your intentions are evil. You have invested on that dog for your security and to keep any undesirable intruder away. Here the logic of your argument is very sensible and will no doubt convince anyone of your good intentions instead of saying that you bought a Dobermann to attach your neighbour.
To end up I would like to say that the state of Israel is immovable on the world map, and the Arab countries had learnt to their cost. When they declared war on Israel in 1967, the six-day war and in 1973 during the Yom Ki Pur, they were beaten hands down by the Israeli army which proved to be no match for them. This is the underlying reason why Anwar El Sadat, the President of Egypt negociated with Israel to end the longstanding conflict between the two countries – If you can’t beat him, join him. But unfortunately he was assassinated in Cairo on October 6, 1981 by a group of Egyptian religious militants who opposed his policies with their sworn enemy, the Israelis.
