With all eyes on Iran, who's watching Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?
Western officials fear warheads from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could fall into clutches of Taliban.
By Zvi Bar'el Tags: Iran nuclear Israel newsFear of the Iranian nuclear weapons development program has overshadowed the fact that not far from Tehran, actually right nearby, two countries, India and Pakistan, already possess nuclear weapons. Not just warheads stored in warehouses, but weapons that have already been tested and were even used to back up the two countries' reciprocal threats against each other.
These countries, unlike Iran, are not signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and one of them, Pakistan, faces a real threat to its ability to control all parts of its territory. This fear, along with the military actions of the separatists, the Taliban in Pakistan who recently attacked Pakistani military bases, are feeding Westerners' fears that the government will lose control over all its military capabilities, including its nuclear capabilities.
Between 50 and 80 nuclear warheads are stored in Pakistani warehouses, Western officials estimate, but apparently there is no exact information on where each of the warheads is located. This month investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker that the administration in Washington conducted negotiations with senior Pakistani officials about guarding against the threat of separatists gaining control of the nuclear arsenal. One of the suggestions, according to Hersh, was that the sensitive operating switches on the warheads be removed, and transferred outside the country.
Other reports in The Washington Post told of concern to the point that even a military operation was considered to take control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and dismantle it. However, in order to gain control of every warhead, it is advisable to know their locations.
In contrast to Iran, where the structure of power is clear and the decision-making process is in the hands of a hierarchy that so far has not displayed any disobedience among its ranks, Pakistan is a completely different country. The president, Asif Zardari and the army commander, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani cooperate fully with each other, but there is no guarantee that the entire senior army brass supports the president's steps and the war against Taliban terrorism.
Washington also plays an important role in deepening the suspicion around the president. When it talks with Pakistani political leaders about steps to safeguard its nuclear arsenal, the president's rivals see it as capitulation to and cowering before the Americans. Such an attitude does not help Zardari fight the Taliban or strengthen his position as a Pakistani nationalist in the eyes of his political rivals.
American involvement impacts not only Pakistani politics but also directly affects the security of nuclear arms there. Accordingly, the chairman of the Pakistani National Assembly's standing committee on defense, Azra Fazal Pechuho, suggested establishing a nuclear command authority to be headed by the president, with the prime minister serving as his deputy and the other members being the chief of staff, the defense minister and the interior minister. The bill's purpose is to remove exclusive control of the "red button" from the hands of the chief of staff, and transfer it to a more complex, multi-layered structure that will not rush - so it is hoped - to press the button.
However Pechuho's bill has so far not managed to pass because Zardari's political rival, Nawaz Sharif, opposes it. He feels the president cannot be trusted, and therefore is insisting that the chairman of the nuclear command authority be the prime minister, someone he does trust.
Washington is also not particularly enthusiastic about Zardari, and prefers to fortify its ties directly with Chief of Staff Kayani, who can at least guarantee continuation of the military struggle against the Taliban, and perhaps also the safety of the nuclear arsenal. It now seems that Washington will also not object to General Pervez Musharraf reassuming the presidency, and that with all due respect to Pakistani democracy, and primarily given the criticism Obama is receiving domestically, the war against terrorism is a more important objective.
Musharraf is apparently aware of the American position toward him, and has already started investing in a public relations campaign to improve his image in Pakistan, in order to ensure that in the coming elections the Pakistani public will not have to deliberate too much.
How much does democracy cost?
Hamid Karzai's inauguration for a second presidential term in Afghanistan included an encouraging speech, in which he promised to fight corruption in the country.
Yet it seems that the president's circle of advisers is not at all concerned.
Indian journalist Pratap Chaterjee, for example, published on the Asia Times Web site details of the rampant cronyism and corruption in the Karzai administration and among his associates, including his vice president, Mohammad Qasim Fahim. Fahim, who headed the Northern Alliance during and after the war and was the Afghan intelligence chief, at the time received huge sums from the CIA to fund the war against the Taliban; now Fahim's brother, Abdul Hasin, is receiving American money via the gasoline centers his company is supplying to the Afghan electric company, which is funded by American aid money.
Abdul Hasin has a fuel transport company called Zahid Walid, after his two sons, which transports fuel from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan.
This company wins all government tenders for the supply of fuel, thereby raising the price of electricity in the country at the expense of the Afghani and American taxpayer.
Another company, Ghazanfar, which is owned by associates of the president, also won giant tenders and in return granted an interest-free $2 million loan to finance Karzai's election campaign. Karzai also has a brother, who is suspected of running a large share of the country's drug trade.
It will be interesting now to see against which one of them Karzai wages his war on corruption.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Actually there's 4 non signers. Pakistan,India,Cuba, and ISRAEL. Funny is'nt it Iran,Syria,Lebenon,Egypt,Turkey & Jordan have all signed the NPT
All nukes are dangerous -- also for states which installed them, and whether that country is an ally of the West is irrelevant. The way you describe Iran is meaningless PR and applicable on a number of states. The destruction of Israel is in the same category. However, it might come to that if Israel decides to attack, which is unlikely. Unfortunately the (US) media are only temporarily focussed on AfPak; it will be business as usual after Obama's decision.
In the entire world now one country become a very danger to come out he is Israel's who beating to peple who need his land which they taken but noboday have tounge to say them don't do this even UAE- only iran is face to ability and did which their need etc.
It is all hush hush and rumor. But the rumor is that the predators are stationed in Pakistan and kill only at Pakistani orders. Yes, the threat is a coup. But we should transfer the Predators and distance ourselves from killings of civilians. McCrystal has already ordered the end of Predator strikes in Afghanistan because we're killing to many civilians collaterally.
christians can have nukes, jews can have nukes, but muslims should not. It's that simple..we can't just go on saying, because they have them we should have them...it just doesn't work that way...sorry, but I am not willing to be politically correct with respect of nukes in the hands of muslims...the fact is, MAD no longer will work in the era of mutli nuke nations some of whom might be theocratic and fanatically irrational...and to be honest, it's ridiculous that some on here question israel's need or right to have nukes...they have been responsible with their arsenal beyond any other country..why? because more than most, they have had the possible justification to use them....shoe on the other foot, I would not trust a msulim middle east country to have nukes for over 40 yrs and not use them.
From what I can see the Pakistani government is helping the US, hasn't started a major conflict for 30+ years unlike Israel!
"The Street despises America, the elite are either pro American or ambivalent." The proposal by neocons in a 2006 Armed Forces Journal article 'Blood Borders' which revealed a plan to carve up Pakistan giving a big chunk an intended 'Baluchistan' and India caused outrage amongst Pakistan's elite. http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899 The Seymour Hirsh article concerning the possibility of US seizure of Pakistan's nukes and possible complicity in such plans by Pakistani officials has caused a tidal wave or revulsion, denunciation and hostility towards America in the upper classes of Pakistan. The American love of the Predator Drone being able to kill without risking US lives has led many in Pakistan to be deeply offended by the disregard for their borders. The recent and sudden awareness that terrorism is a threat has not led to better feelings towards America or the west. A weak and weakening civilian government usually results in a coup. Possibly an islamist coup.
Let us not forget that the ISI and Pakistani Army have been so tightly aligned with islamist terrorists for decades that there are more than a few high officers in both organizations who's affections are Islamist. The threat is a coup.
The immanent threat of loose nukes is not Iran or even North Korea. It is the threat of the Pakistani government being overthrown by an Islamist Revolution. The threat is relatively low, but it is very real and could happen at any time.
Who's watching Israel's? ;-)
Neither has Pakistan, Russia, UK, France, China, North Korea and India. Doesn't mean that the world doesn't keep an eye on those arsenals does it? Israel is no different to any other nuclear armed country. And it is likely that the United States actually keeps a closer eye on Israel's nuclear arsenal than both countries would care to admit.
What if the wrong people get their hands on the bomb? Afghanistan is immaterial, just a distraction while the bombs security is jeopardized. A real mess. Keep your eye on the bomb.
I don't want to know. Let some other Remote Viewer handle Pakistan.
or someone like you who intends on doing something stupid. Israel has not used its arsenal at all, regardless of the situation, but if your lot got hold of a nuke it could be a very dangerous world.
This the same ISI who have continued to train and fund the Taliban post 9/11. Pakistan's nuclear weapons exist, and are more of a threat to the west than Iran. Iran is a threat to Israel, not our problem. Israel is nuclear armed and can look after itself.
Musharraf objections of course not I organized it myself personally.
The State of Isreal has no right to critise another nuclear state when they are not open to the world on their nuclear activities let the IAEA in to inspect.
According to Seymour Hersh, the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan is de-constructed. Where nuclear warheads and the triggering mechanism are stored separately. The ISI in charge of nuclear safeguard, will not reveal to US CentCom generals the location of warheads or 'lock-key' triggers. Anthony Cordesman no slouch in his own right, has written that the CIA has good intelligence on Pakistan's arsenal. But the fear revolves around lower-level or rogue Pakistani commanders. Which are corrupt and support the Taliban as a hedge against their mortal enemy India.
The Street despises America, the elites are either pro American or ambivalent. The elites/politicians/business community account for maybe 2 or 3% if that, but do generally have sway over the armed forces. Yet many in the armed forces are not at all Pro American. Pakistan is almost certainly less inclined toward America than Iran. Anti American feeling runs high in Iran but nowhere near as high as in Pakistan. This is not just now but for many decades. In neither nation do the leaders entirely reflect their populaces views. Especially Pakistan.
Fortuna Benmayor (#1) writes like a Sarah Palin fan. Iran would not even try to ?wipe Israel off the map? even if there were nuclear weapons, which there are not. The same applies to Pakistan. However, the Taliban is quite another matter. The Taliban is basically an Afghan movement and best confined to Afghanistan. The US presence in Afghanistan is provoking the Taliban incursion into Pakistan. The world has grown steadily more volatile since the knee jerk reaction to September 11 brought US and UK forces into Afghanistan. Most Pakistanis feel they would be better able to handle the situation if the US would go away.
The question implies that Pakistanis are brain damaged children. They built it on their own and don't let the US or anybody else know the details. The Soviets and the French had similar proprietary feelings about their nukes. Like the US also has. Could a dangerous situation arise? You Betcha. But nobody as close to India as the US is or as close to Israel as the US is will have much success in finding out the Pakistani secrets.
How long before one of their trained terrorists brings a special suitcase to London or Mumbai?
Both nuclear weapons programs are terribly dangerous. Yet the Pakistani one is in a country that is allied to the West (Azra Fazal Pechuho's bill is sound), whereas Iran is a terrorist, islamofascist regime, dead set to destroy Israel. The eyes of the media are on Afpak, not Iran.