An ‘Islamic NATO’ or a stillborn alliance?

‘In war,” Julius Caesar says, “events of importance are the result of trivial causes.” The Israeli aggression against the peace delegation of Hamas in Qatar — another satellite state of the US — was a trivial event for Israel, addicted to attack the Levant at will.

However, it proved to be, an event of importance; a revelation to the Arabs that their subservience to the imperialist power is no guarantee of their survival. Their Oriental lives are as insignificant as the lives of the Palestinians facing genocide.

After throwing Palestinians to the Ashkenazi wolves, selling their souls and presenting their material wealth in a platter to the imperialist empire, the Arab states considered themselves safe and secure under the US umbrella. But history of imperialism is history of invasion. Perses — the god of devastation — can strike without warning.

To restore peace in Gaza when a delegation of Hamas met in Qatar — a mediators between Prometheus, the Palestinians and Perses, the Israelis — Zionists entity following its grisly tradition bombed them in Doha. No one in the world is wearier of peace more than Israel and its mentor, the US.

Instead of peace, Zionism believes in turning everything to pieces. With the backing of the West, it mercilessly chops the skulls of innocent civilians, indiscriminately shoots at babies and decimates the opponents regardless of their gender with impunity.

Israeli aggression came as a rude shock to the Arabs, already subjugated to the Israeli domination. Akin to borderless Israel; sheikdoms in the Gulf are mere entities, pieces of lands without an army, with significantly small population, and an economy reliant on oil. For them the moment of attack became the moment of truth, of realization of betrayal by their guard and guardian.

Hassan Nasurullah frequently warned them about the dark moment of betrayal, of the treachery of imperialism, no matter the number of trillions they invest in its economy.

To console themselves the Arabs met immediately, Iran didn’t stay behind. Masoud Pezeshkian’s presence was enough to make them aware of their self-inflicted misfortune. The anxious and scary face of king of Jordan, Alistair Cook says, was telling the story. Immediately afterwards, the Saudi crown prince met Shehbaz Sharif, Pakistani premier, for signing a defence treaty between the two countries.

The Israeli shock was replaced by another; a defence treaty between an oil-rich nation with an untested army, and an IMF-dependent nuclear security state.

Much has been stated about the Pakistan-Saudia defence pact. No one is privy to its details, but the Indian and Pakistani media labelled it as ‘Islamic NATO’ in the offing. The term of Islamic NATO is a controversial if not altogether a sham. NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a defence pact involving countries of North Atlantic— US and Canada, with the countries of Northern Europe— against the Soviet Union.

After absorbing Turkey, Greece and the Balkans the term NATO has technically become obsolete, for neither Turkey nor Greece nor the Balkans fall in the Northern Atlantic.

What is NATO but a militaristic arm of the dominant powers to expropriate the resources of the Global South by putting guns on their temple while the IMF, the World Bank, the Paris Club, etc., could twist their arm through peaceful means? Accumulation of capital and dispossession of resources is their only function. Pakistan-Saudia pact doesn’t fall in this category. It’s nether a treaty between Western powers, nor is it meant to dispossess the resources of any other country.

For its incompetent foreign policy, India is sitting alone and lonely like a lame duck, blaming its foreign minister for multiple failures on the external front. Choosing to sit on the fences, India enjoyed the status of a regional power, which had all the options in its palm. It was getting cheap oil from Russia with no US sanctions. As a counterweight to China, it held a special status in the US. Being a founding member of BRICS Plus, it commands a veto kind of power in the BRICS.

But with Trump in power, things have drastically changed. Fifty percent tariff imposed by the US threatens to dent its economy; ban on skilled migrant visa has added to its misery. Last but not the least, the defence pact between the kingdom and Pakistan has left it in awe. Finding the Arabs slipping like an eel from its hands is another decisive straw on the camel’s back.

For its failure in the realm of foreign policy, India has to blame itself. Operation Sindhoor was the beginning of a downwards trajectory. The destruction of its jets led to the resurgence of Pakistan from its ashes. However, the future of the subcontinent depends on the responsible behaviour of these two countries. Instead of fuelling war, India could have settled the matter amicably.

But Indian desire for hegemony made it choose an aggressive path and faltered miserably.

Time for sitting on the fence has gone. The biblical edict of ‘with us or against us’ has replaced it. For its war against China, Trump wants unequivocal and unambiguous support from India. The first step in this direction is to open its agriculture sector for the multinationals to exploit. India cannot and should not do this. If done, the mass uprising will be unsustainable for the government sitting in a coalition.

This is the tragedy of the capitalist world. Its cyclic anarchy that Marx thought would strike after a decade is hitting every day. Accumulation through violent dispossession is seen happening in the Middle East, Ukraine, large parts of Europe and the subcontinent. It’s time to change the course of history by aligning the forces of the subcontinent together for the welfare of the people who need basic necessities and not wars.

One cannot support the oppressor— especially Israel, an artificial construct, a genocidal regime. Recently, India has changed its tone and has started condemning Israel in the UN.

However, that’s not enough. The subcontinent has to join its ranks not only for the liberation of Palestine but for its own self-liberation as well.

True self-liberation demands a permanent farewell to war. As Wilhelm Reich wrote, “Make it plain that you have no time for war that you have more important things to do…let the diplomats and marshals of the earth shoot each other”. For the peoples of the subcontinent, this means focusing on the welfare of their people rather than being drawn into imperial conflicts. Only then can liberation be real and lasting.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025