Pakistan has suffered from the fall-out from Afghanistan but this would be nothing compared to a US war on Iran, writes Graham Usher in Islamabad On 8 March Pakistan's President-General Pervez Musharraf phoned his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He welcomed the Iranian leader's recent meeting with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, expressing the hope that it would "strengthen the understanding between two important neighbors". He also sought to allay Iranian "concerns" about a meeting of seven Muslim Foreign Ministers in Islamabad last month. "Pakistan would always have Iran's interests close to its heart," Musharraf assured. Ahmedinejad said Iran was keen to promote ties with Islamabad. The call was lead story in most Pakistani media, with one newspaper editorialising on its "significance". The disproportion was due to a dive in relations between the two countries and a near-consensus that Pakistan cannot be party to any United States-driven war with Iran, whether from without and especially from within. The chill has two causes. The first was Musharraf's so-called Middle East initiative -- an attempt to promulgate a pan- Islamic consensus on several issues, including the Arab- Israeli conflict and Washington's looming confrontation with Tehran over its nuclear program. In February the Pakistani leader visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Syria and Iran to sound out their views on the idea. Iran welcomed it and said it would like to be party to future discussions. "Of course," answered Pakistani Foreign Khurshid Kasuri. "Why would you be excluded?" But Iran was excluded, as was Syria. The six other "consulted" states were invited to a conference in Islamabad on 25 February. The ostensible reason was not all the countries believed the 2002 Arab League peace plan should be the basis of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict -- a weak claim when it comes to Iran and an absurd one when it comes to Syria; the latter has always backed the plan. The real reason, say sources, was American and Saudi pressure on Islamabad not to have Iran and Syria invited. This was Ahmadinejad's concern. "All the countries in the Gulf region viewed as a matter of concern the conference held in Islamabad," he said while in Saudi Arabia. "And we seek explicit answers about our apprehensions." Iran's fundamental apprehension about Pakistan is that it is a client of the US. And its apprehension about Washington is that it is currently recasting the "war on terror" away from non-state actors like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and onto independent states like Iran and Syria and authentic nationalist movements like Hezballah and Hamas. This spells regime change. The two apprehensions conflate because Iran sees an American hand in recent attacks on its forces near its southeastern border with Pakistan. On 17 February, 13 Revolutionary Guards were killed by a car bomb in Zahedan, the provincial capital of Sistan va Baluchestan. Ten days later four police officers were killed in an ambush in the same province. Iran says the attacks were carried out by Jonallah, a Sunni Islamist militia armed by the US to destabilise Iran by whipping up sectarian tensions. It also says Jonallah has a haven in Pakistani Baluchestan, where the US has two military bases. On 2 March a member of Iran's Guardian Council, Ahmad Khatemi, warned Pakistan not to play with fire. "Pakistan is our neighbor," he sermonised. "But little by little it is losing its neighborly manners. Pakistan has become a sanctuary of terrorists who kill people in Zahedan. Pakistan should be careful not to fall into the US trap, since it will be the loser, undoubtedly." Nor was the warning confined to protest. Following the attacks, Iran shut down a main crossing and began raising a fence along its 700-kilometre border with Pakistan, cutting trade and smuggling routes between Iranian and Pakistani Baluchestan. These moves prompted Musharraf's telephone call. They also prompted "categorical" statements from pro- Musharraf politicians that under no circumstances would Islamabad allow its turf be used for a US attack on Iran. The anxiety is genuine. There are very few issues on which Pakistanis see eye-to-eye, but a US engineered assault on Iran would be one of them. The reason is obvious, says analyst Shafqat Mahmood. "Whether we like it or not, (Pakistan) will be seen as complicit in the attack. The Iranians will see it this way, and so will the world. More importantly, so will our people. There will be a strong reaction all over the country and this will not be confined to the Shia community. We have different sects, but only small radical factions wage war against each other. The rest not only live as one but also share a similar worldview. The reaction to an American attack on Iran will be negative across the board." The fear is that Pakistan would be powerless to stop such a war. It is an open secret that US and NATO forces routinely violate Pakistani territory to go after Taliban and Al-Qaeda suspects in its border areas with Afghanistan. Few believe Pakistan could prevent American forces or their proxies doing likewise across its southwestern border with Iran. Islamabad has suffered a lot from incursions into its tribal areas -- and Afghanistan is a weak and fragmented country. Iran is a strong and united one. "If any attack against Iran is launched, we will face a lot of problems," said Musharraf on 6 March.
