san and anonymous,
i think this iran thing is not a life-and-death issue for india. so the best thing to do would have been to keep quiet. but no, that foreign minister had to shoot his mouth off and some idiot congressman (alas, from the sf bay area) had to show he had a big mouth, too.
arvind kumar's sensible and objective op-ed that i posted yesterday makes the most sense.
iran is not india's best pal; any NAM rhetoric about helping other non-aligned nations is worth greeting with derisive laughter. what exactly has iran done for india in the recent past? it signed supplier agreements with india (and with china) partly because nobody else would buy from them.
india just did a relatively cost-free thing in supporting the iaea censure of iran. by abstaining, russia and china (remember the sino-islamic axis?) have signalled they will veto any security council action against iran. so what india says about iran in the iaea isn't going to have much of an impact. and by not thumbing our noses at the yanks, we have prevented the non-proliferation ayatollahs from having a quick and easy point to beat india with.
in other words, this was not bad diplomacy. those who rail against it are doing it for the following reasons:
a. marxists because it is good for india's national interest, and therefore the marxists obviously have to oppose it
b. mohammedan-appeasers for obvious reasons
c. bjp because this is a good stick to beat the upa with
and anonymous, you should get yourself a name to differentiate yourself. your ranting about the neo-cons kind of shows you to be a semitic fundamentalist, because you clearly are not able to distinguish nuance: there are many shades of grey. nobody is saying india should love the neo-cons. one should hold one's nose and deal with them because they are temporary alliances one makes with the less-than-savory. and dump them as soon as they become a liability.