[R-G] Interview with Tariq Ali: 'War on Terror Served Iran's Interests Best'

[Anthony Fenton]

Q&A:  'War on Terror Served Iran's Interests Best'
Interview with Tariq Ali
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39279
Credit:Rahat Dar

Tariq Ali

LAHORE, Pakistan, Sep 16 (IPS) - Eminent writer, historian and  
filmmaker Tariq Ali was born in Lahore in 1943. While a student at  
Oxford University, he became involved in the movement against the war  
in Vietnam. That was the beginning of a long career in the literary  
arts and in peace activism that has earned him iconic status.

Ali’s book ‘The Leopard and the Fox’, released this year, was  
originally written as the script for a TV drama commissioned in 1985  
by the BBC that depicted the circumstances that led to the hanging of  
Pakistan’s first elected prime minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The  
book explains how BBC was compelled to withdraw the three-part series  
because Pakistan’s then military dictator, Gen. Zia-ul-Haq, was a key  
ally of the West in the war to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan.

When IPS correspondent Aoun Abbas Sahi interviewed Ali, who was in  
Pakistan recently, the writer, known for his incisive political  
commentaries, explained why he believed U.S. policy in Iraq and  
Afghanistan was doomed to fail from the start -- because of the Iran  
factor.

IPS: Who, according to you, is the main beneficiary of the United  
States-led ‘war on terror’?

Tariq Ali (TA): Undoubtedly Iran. But then the Americans could not  
have occupied Afghanistan and Iraq and without Iran’s support. This  
is what no one likes talking about. Had the Iranians said, if you  
take Iraq we will fight you, the occupation probably would not have  
taken place. But the Iranians, who regarded the Taliban and Saddam  
Hussain as enemies, kept silent. The Americans thought, because the  
Iranians supported them before they went in, things would be fine.  
But the Iranians were opportunists. They had their own agenda and  
defended their own state interests -- just like the U.S. defends its  
state interests. These state interests are now clashing and so the  
U.S. is threatening Iran.

IPS: Do you think that the U.S. will now launch a war against Iran to  
defend its national interests?

TA: I do not believe that the U.S. can launch a new war on Iran  
because they haven’t the troops. Secondly, if they do that they will  
be fighting the Iranians on three fronts -- Iraq, Afghanistan and in  
Iran itself. So I think it is very unlikely that a war against Iran  
will happen.

IPS: In Afghanistan, U.S.-led NATO forces are blaming the Taliban for  
an increase in violence.

TA: I do not believe that big powers occupying small countries can  
solve any problem, even with good intentions. The Soviet intervention  
in Afghanistan created a mess which the Americans fully utilised.  
That is why the American intervention – operation freedom, as they  
call it -- always makes me laugh. It has been a disaster. They have  
set up a puppet regime. They have poured in money to sustain this  
puppet regime. You have large-scale corruption in the country. Recent  
figures given by the United Nations say that the drug trade is the  
worst it’s ever been in the south of the country, especially in  
Helmand, a province controlled by British troops. So what changed in  
Afghanistan? You have a thin layer of politicians implanted there by  
the West with no real base in the country. And then you have the old  
American habit of shooting from the hip, dropping bombs from the air,  
indiscriminately killing people right, left and the centre. The  
result is increased resistance. I don’t like the Taliban, but if  
people in Afghanistan see the Taliban fighting the guys who are  
bombing and killing, they get attracted -- it’s very simple.

IPS: You think the resistance against U.S. forces in Afghanistan and  
the Pakistani army in the (adjacent) tribal areas is justified?

TA: People in Pakistan who support the occupation of Afghanistan  
should ask themselves whether they favour Pakistan being occupied  
just because many people in the West regard Pakistan as a failed  
state? I think one has to look at alternatives other than western  
occupation. In my opinion, and I will argue this in public, the only  
way out of this mess is to first get all western troops to withdraw.  
A regional summit, including Pakistan, India, Russia and Iran, could  
then be organised to discuss a joint deal to stabilise Afghanistan as  
a federation. That is the way to proceed -- take regional initiatives  
and deny the U.S. any excuse to interfere. Otherwise this will mess  
will carry on.

IPS: The situation in Iraq is getting worse with every passing day.

TA: That is now accepted by every serious politician in America. It’s  
a total and complete disaster. Before they went into Iraq some of us  
tried to warn them that there will be a big resistance. For the first  
few years the resistance was essentially fought by former units of  
the Iraqi army which dispersed and went into the countryside. They  
had set up military dumps because they knew what was going to happen.  
Secondly you have new groups, many of them from the Sunni areas,  
fighting the American army. And then you have a situation where the  
Shia resistance led by Muktada al-Sadr controls large parts of  
southern Iraq.

IPS: How important is the role of the al-Qaeda in this scenario of  
strong resistance against Western forces both in Afghanistan and Iraq?

TA: Al-Qaeda utilises American mistakes and disasters. It grows as a  
result of these mistakes … because the only solution is political,  
not military. Al Qaeda, instead of being reduced in size, has grown  
because of American military adventures abroad. You cannot defeat  
people just by killing. It’s not the case that all the groups in  
Afghanistan fighting under the Taliban umbrella, are supporters of al- 
Qaeda. The Taliban itself is divided and split on this question.

IPS: Are you in favour of a world without nuclear weapons?

TA: I have always been against the nuclear weapons. I have to be  
blunt, but I do not believe that the U.S. should determine who has  
and who does not have nuclear weapons. If France and Britain, tiny  
little countries, can have nuclear weapons, why not India, Pakistan  
or Iran? Israel is permitted nuclear weapons but not Iran. Ideally,  
no one should have nuclear weapons. But many people actually believe  
the only way they can defend themselves and prevent wars is to have  
them. Many countries also think that acquiring nuclear weapons is the  
only way to stop the U.S. attacking them.

(END/2007)