Page 2 of 2 India seeks 'velvet divorce' from Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar
Iranian perception, Delhi's avowal that it is capable of buttressing the
India-Iran relationship from the predatorial skill of US and Israeli diplomacy
lacks credibility.
Tehran used to respect India's perceived political will to retain its autonomy
of action and thinking on regional issues. That confidence seems to have
evaporated. Mottaki forcefully pleaded with Mukherjee that the two countries
should focus on a relationship that served their "real interests" rather than
fall into the "conspiracies of foreign powers" which hatch "mischief aimed at
sowing discord" in Iran-India relations.
The litmus test is the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project. It is obvious
that Delhi is dragging its feet on the project, despite its
great potential to boost India's energy security - all because of US and
Israeli pressure. Tehran finds itself in a dilemma. No doubt it is keen to
partner with India in the project, but Tehran realizes that political will is
lacking in Delhi.
At the same time, Tehran cannot cut out India altogether as it estimates it is
only logical that some day soon, under a different leadership in Delhi, India
will revert to this project in its compelling self-interest. The Iranian
frustration showed when Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari told the media soon
after Mukherjee concluded his visit, "Considering that we have lost many
opportunities in the 'peace pipeline' project due to India's procrastination,
we have told that country to engage more actively."
The US$7.5 billion, 2,700-kilometer pipeline has been in discussion for almost
two decades. The pipeline is to begin from Iran's Assalouyeh energy zone in the
south and stretch over 1,100 kilometers through Iran. In Pakistan it is to pass
through Balochistan and Sindh before linking up Rajasthan and Gujarat in
western India.
Strategy toward Afghanistan
Again, the geopolitics of the region dictate that Delhi and Tehran explore the
frontiers of a common strategy towards Afghanistan at a time when the Taliban's
resurgence is apparent and its induction by the US into a coalition government
in Kabul in the not-too-distant future appears highly probable. Mukherjee could
have conceivably utilized the visit for such purpose.
The Iranian side indeed appeared keen for purposeful dialogue on Afghanistan.
But Delhi isn't willing. The priority in the Indian mindset is to harmonize its
regional policies with the US (and Israel) as regards the "war on terror". That
includes Delhi's Afghan policy.
The powerful chairman of Iran's Expediency Council and former president, Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani, told Mukherjee, "Resolving the current crisis in
Afghanistan requires extensive cooperation between Iran, India and Pakistan.
This cooperation can bring tranquility to the region ... The experience of the
Soviet Union in this country [Afghanistan] shows that the path the West is now
treading in Afghanistan will not yield the desired results. The signs that are
currently observed in Afghanistan show that the West is not capable of
resolving the problems of this country."
Mukherjee responded, "No country outside the region can find a solution to the
problems of regional countries and the regional states themselves should
resolve the problems through cooperation with each other." He added that India,
Iran and Pakistan could play "important roles in regional events" and their
cooperation would "help establish peace and stability" in the region.
The Indian timidity is despite the fact that India and Iran were staunch allies
supporting the anti-Taliban alliance until the US invasion of Afghanistan in
2001. Delhi would be aware that Tehran has sharply reacted to the current US,
British, Saudi and Pakistani efforts to accommodate the Taliban. Actually, the
Indian and Iranian positions have striking similarity insofar as neither thinks
there is anything conceivable as "good Taliban". Yet, Delhi shies from
coordinating with Tehran lest it tread on US-Israeli sensitivities.
The Obama factor
So far so good. But what happens if a Barack Obama presidency moves toward
normalization of relations with Iran? Indeed, Russia and China seem to be
getting ready for such an eventuality. Iran's admission into the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a full member has now become a certainty,
with both the Russian and Chinese prime ministers affirming their support of
the Iranian candidacy. Iran has been offered membership of the Black Sea Union.
Russia is forming a gas cartel with Iran. (The SCO comprises China, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.)
Above all, Delhi will face a new situation if Obama revisits the "war on
terror". As well-known Lebanese commentator Rami Khouri thoughtfully wrote,
"US-backed governments in half a dozen countries are losing their battles and
political confrontations with Islamist-led indigenous oppositions, and have to
form national unity governments or explore other means of power ... The
American-Afghan tentative move to engage the Taliban politically is ... a
welcome sign that Washington is finally learning the value of seeing and
resolving conflicts in their wider local and regional context. We may well see
something similar happen in Iraq, including American-Iranian-Saudi-Syrian
contacts in the near future."
During his visit to Tehran, Mukherjee characterized the Persian Gulf as India's
"proximate neighborhood", but there is no evidence Delhi has thought through
its Middle East policy against the backdrop of impending shifts and
realignments in the geopolitics of the region. Creative diplomacy lies in
keeping all options open at a time of extreme volatility in regional politics.
On the other hand, it is a measure of the success of the US-Israeli diplomacy
in recent years that Delhi increasingly finds itself at odds with Tehran's
growing ambitions as a regional power, whereas sufficient elbow room is
available for them to co-exist. There is no real clash of interests between
India and Iran. So, ultimately, who is to blame - Washington, Tel Aviv or New
Delhi?
As far as Tehran is concerned, it is countering the US's containment strategy
and India's political support is no more an imperative need in the denouement
of the Iran nuclear file. Moreover, as Iran's engagement by the West advances,
Tehran will have no dearth of partners for energy cooperation. Least of all,
the Gulf Cooperation Council states themselves are seeking accommodation with
Iran and, arguably, they won't need India as a "balancer". The net result is
that any weakening of India's strong ties with Iran at the present juncture can
only debilitate Delhi's overall foreign policy in the Persian Gulf region in
the critical period that lies ahead.
Delhi may ruffle feathers not only in Tehran but in regional capitals too -
apart from Islamabad - if it presses ahead with the claim to be the pre-eminent
power between the Persian Gulf and the Malacca Strait.
The Persian Gulf is a tough neighborhood and any grandstanding will not pass
unnoticed. With only a fortnight to go for Manmohan to pay his first-ever visit
to Saudi Arabia, Riyadh abruptly sought a postponement. If there is any
political symbolism behind the Saudi move, it will surely emerge.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign
Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka,
Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
