Gen (rtd) Pervez Musharraf is either a wily fox gifted with a strategist’s mind. Or else he is a wily-yet-craftless opportunist, used to just winging it. He has, of course, been charged by an Anti-Terrorist Court in connection with Benazir Bhutto’s murder. Yet he is presently in self-exile, safe in the knowledge that under Pakistani law he can’t be tried in absentia. From Dubai does he sit easy, either hosting his own show on a local television channel. Or else does he lean back as he is called on by pundits and working journalists alike proffer his views on this or that, in a bid to push up ratings. This shouldn’t come as too much of surprise. After all, Musharraf has long credited himself with waving his magic wand to have Pakistan’s so-called free and independent media explode on to the scene, in all its Technicolor glory. And it seems that the fourth pillar is still unready to see this spell broken. Especially when the good general can be relied upon to talk off the cuff. And so it was that the one-time enemy combatant waited until the very time that the ATC was handing down its first verdict in the Benazir case – something for which Pakistanis have been waiting nearly a decade – to drop a conversation changing bombshell of his own. The father of the country’s nuclear bomb, Dr AQ Khan, so the latest story goes, admitted to the former military strongman that he had been actively involved in nuclear proliferation to Iran. And that’s all we really know. Yet it remains to be seen in the long-term, at least, whether Musharraf’s risky gamble on political deflection will pay off or spectacularly backfire. And in the event of the latter – just who will pay the price? He alone or the entire country? In the meanwhile, he has vowed to come back to fight the ATC verdict and pending charges that include murder. Now this is where it becomes unclear as to with which Musharraf we are dealing. The country’s parliamentarians have rightly called for an independent inquiry into the claims. The Committee of the Whole House has expressed its commitment towards this end. This process must be supported. And it must also extend to former Interior minister Rehman Malik who claims to know the ins-and-outs of the proliferation deal but who has, until now, preferred to keep it under his hat. Following this, the principled thing to do would be to have the former COAS ‘handed over’ to the IAEA. Especially given how inconceivable it is that Khan was able to act independently, without anyone else being in the know. How feasible would it be for Musharraf to ‘hand himself over’ the IAEA? After all he would be unable to return now; not without finding himself in the firing line once again, with certain anti-state forces having their fingers firmly on the trigger Yet why is Musharraf speaking out now? If the aim was to side track the ATC verdict – it appears not to have been an effective ploy. Meaning that the bombshell has proved to be rather a dud, with all eyes still firmly fixed on increasing US belligerence towards Pakistan’s anti-terror record. Not to mention the unwelcome BRICS statement in this regard. If it is the wily fox we choose to see before us: it could be a piece of superbly choreographed patriotism. The objective being distracting the increasingly unquiet American President from the Afghan quagmire next door to a different country, a different border. After all, the latter has been warning Pakistan to do more on terror or else face the music. And, like many of us, Musharraf may be alarmed at the thought that Donald Trump may just be toying with the idea of avenging a certain American contractor. In other words, any action against Pakistan could well be conducted against the backdrop of a particular song. About kissing a girl, or someone. Yet enter Musharraf the opportunist who may well see his ‘plan’ backfire. Like his predecessors, Trump is focusing on scape-goating Pakistan over the lack of security across the Afghan border rather than the illegal US occupation of that country. Thus Musharraf’s comments may inadvertently strengthen long-held American fears that our nuclear arsenal may fall into the wrong hands. Indeed, it was during the long years of his dictatorship that Washington was ever fearful that militants would overthrow the regime and seize their control. Indeed, the end of 2004 – the year after the military invasion next door – saw a US report leaked. This outlined how if the worst were to happen Washington would sweep in to secure Pakistan’s very own weapons of mass destruction. Sadly, the White House failed to make the connection between a possibly beleaguered military strongman who was viewed at home as little more than an American asset and the ‘legitimacy’ that this afforded to anti-state forces here in this country. Do we have to sacrifice seeing Musharraf brought to account for the crimes that the ATC finds him guilty of in the Benazir murder case? That is, if we want him to disclose to the relevant international authority everything he knows about proliferation to Iran. If this was his strategic gamble all along – then it was a card well played This all being said, how feasible would it be for Musharraf to ‘hand himself over’ the IAEA? After all he would be unable to return now; not without finding himself in the firing line once again, with those aforementioned anti-state forces having their fingers firmly on the trigger. There are, after all, those who believe that the red-line that Benazir dared to cross was pledging to grant the nuclear watchdog access to Khan if returned to power. Does this mean that, in theory at least, we are faced with a stark choice? Do we have to sacrifice seeing Musharraf brought to account for the crimes that the ATC finds him guilty of in the Benazir murder case? That is, if we want him to disclose to the relevant international authority everything he knows about proliferation to Iran. If this was his strategic gamble all along – then it was a card well played. This also poses the chance for Musharraf to suddenly try on for size the mantle of elder statesman, however ill-fitting that may be. Meaning he could go voluntarily to the IAEA in a bid to blunt the growing contrast between a responsible nuclear India and an increasingly rogue nuclear Pakistan. But then what if the real Musharraf stands up and we find ourselves confronted by the craftless opportunist? What if this were simply a ruse to increase American pressure on Iran? After all, back in 2006, according to a WikiLeaks cable, the former COAS took it upon himself to urge the Tehran leadership to roll back its nuclear programme, which was making things difficult for its neighbours including Pakistan. The cable goes on to disclose the then Foreign minister revealing the main source of pressure: namely that Musharraf was keen to have Pakistan remain the only Muslim nation with the bomb. That this was in the aftermath of renewed interest in the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline may or may not be significant. Fast-forward to today and he could simply be doing his bit to strengthen the so-called Muslim NATO that appears to already have Iran in its sights. One thing is sure. Whichever Musharraf prevails – Pakistan had better be prepared for the fallout. The writer is the Deputy Managing Editor, Daily Times. She can be reached at mirandahusain@me.com and tweets @humeiwei