Most people these days seem pretty worked up about Iran’s nascent nuclear program. In all the hysteria about a fanatically Muslim country getting its hands on a bomb, it seems to have been ignored that a Muslim country just as fanatical (and in many ways less stable) already has the bomb, namely Pakistan. The fact that there is already an Islamic bomb is a problem on its own; the it becomes a nightmare scenario when examined in the context of Pakistan’s extreme volatility. Even disregarding the severe tensions between Pakistan and India, the possibility of two nuclear armed Islamic countries may actually increases the likelihood of nuclear violence on its own. Those with the most to fear are not we here in the West, but those living in Muslim nations; the advent of a Shia bomb in Iran could very well lead to an Islamic Cold War.
Pakistan is a particularly unstable country. Since independence from Britain in 1947, Pakistan’s government has been overthrown or otherwise changed numerous times: by a coup in 1956, by a resumption of civilian rule in 1972, by a coup in 1977, resumption of civilian rule in 1988, and by a coup in 1999. Economically, as well, Pakistan suffers from chronic instability; a recent survey in The Economist listed Pakistan as the most unstable of 20 different emerging world economies. Additionally, Pakistan is fractured by old tribal loyalties, political divisions, and almost a dozen languages. Entire provinces of the country are controlled primarily by tribal warlords and Islamist insurgent groups, rather than the central government. Despite winning reelection, pro West President Pervez Musharraf, has been forced to deal with widespread discontent and opposition to his rule; and his reelection bid has yet to be confirmed by the courts. As a country, Pakistan can be best described as schizophrenic. It is a jambalaya of disparate forces barely held together and constantly vying for control of the whole; including its nuclear arsenal.
The greatest unifying force in Pakistan is Islam, and this Islamic nature creates unique problems. Pakistan was first conceived of as an Islamic counterpart to India. In 1977, Zia al- Haq overthrew the civilian government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whom he later executed. As a method of strengthening his grip on power and justifying his rule, al-Haq instituted a far-reaching program of “Islamification.” This program only deepened the already fervent devotion to Islam among Pakistan’s population. Among the reforms, al-Haq instituted shariah law, further contributing to the instability of Pakistan’s legal system. Even worse, Pakistan’s Islamic shift occurred just in time to influence the course of another Islamic, Central Asian country, Afghanistan. Control of the Khyber Pass gave Pakistan control over almost all of the aid- American and Muslim- flowing into Afghanistan. That, combined with its interest in promoting its own agenda there, practically ensured that a pro-Pakistani regime took control after the Soviets withdrew, namely the Taliban. Pakistan was one of only three nations in the world to even recognize the Taliban regime at all. The unfortunate reality of this relationship, however, is that it worked both ways. Just as Pakistan sent munitions over the border into Afghanistan, so too did Islamists pour over the border back, where they found refuge and welcome amongst like-minded Pakistanis. In his book Taliban, Ahmed Rashid puts it like this:
The Taliban's influence in its neighbour Pakistan was deep. Its "unprecedented access" among Pakistan's lobbies and interest groups enabled it "to play off one lobby against another and extend their influence in Pakistan even further. At times they would defy" even the powerful ISI [Pakistan’s secret police].
The political and military power of Islamist movements in Pakistan is so strong that the ostensibly pro-Western central government has been forced into on-again off-again truces with them, essentially ceding control of entire regions of the country to Islamist insurgents. The overwhelmingly Muslim nature of Pakistan, combined with its shaky central control and history of coups, raises the concern that Islamist groups could seize control of the country, or at least portions of it. What would this mean for the rest of the world?
If die-hard Islamists gain nuclear capabilities, the likelihood of nuclear conflict increases exponentially. In an article written for the New York Times Magazine, Noah Feldman explains how the culture of suicide bombing so prevalent in Islamism eliminates the greatest obstacle to nuclear aggression, mutual assured destruction. He writes:
What makes suicide bombing especially relevant to the nuclear question is that, by design, it unsettles the theory of deterrence. When the suicide bomber dies in an attack, he means to send the message “You cannot stop me, because I am already willing to die.” To make the challenge to deterrence even more stark, a suicide bomber who blows up a market or a funeral gathering in Iraq or Afghanistan is willing to kill innocent bystanders, including fellow Muslims. According to the prevailing ideology of suicide bombing, these victims are subjected to an involuntary martyrdom that is no less glorious for being unintentional. – New York Times Magazine, 10/29/06
This line of reasoning puts Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons into sharp perspective. The scenario deteriorates further, however, in the event of an Iranian bomb. Though they are both Muslim, the risk of conflict between these two countries is great. Contrary to popular belief, Islamist terror actually tends to be aimed inward. Three times as many Iraqis have been killed by suicide bombing in the past three years than have Israelis in the past 10- and most of this violence has been over Shia-Sunni tensions. Sunni Pakistan already has a bomb. What can we expect when Shia Iran gets its own?
Most likely we will see an Intra-Muslim Cold War, with Shia Iran facing Sunni-Pakistan, and a nuclear arms race among the remaining Sunni-Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. As the danger of Muslim on Muslim violence increases, a possible catalyst to turn this cold war hot exists in Afghanistan. The Taliban was not just fanatically anti-Western; it is equally anti-Shia. Just as Western-style haircuts were forbidden in Afghanistan, so too were chadors and other clothing in the Iranian style. The Taliban was so extreme in its Sunni fundamentalism that Iran even considered invading the country itself. Even if a shooting war never does erupt, both Iran and Pakistan show a strong tendency towards acting through proxies- such as Hezbollah or the Taliban and Kashmiri militants, respectively- who might somehow find themselves in possession of some nuclear materials. Even one corrupt official in the right place, and no shortage exists in either country, could spell the difference between security and proliferation; Dr. Abdul Khan provides a disturbing example.
Iran is working towards a nuclear bomb; that much is certain. However I disagree with the consensus that nuclear Iran poses the greatest threat to the West. I agree that nuclear conflict becomes nearly inevitable, but I believe that the mushroom clouds will most likely rise in the Islamic world itself. Pakistan is a nuclear armed country, deeply Muslim and in parts fanatically so, surrounded by enemies, with poor central control and a history of instability; and worst of all, with a history of supporting the types of groups and regimes we fear the most. Pakistan is at best an accident waiting to happen. Combine this terrifying situation with a radically Shiite Republic wielding atomic bombs, and nuclear conflict seems almost inevitable.
