I originally meant to post this as a comment on rajeev's earlier post - but the HTML tag restrictions (not to mention the word limit) defeated me. In the interest of free debate here goes ...
Without suggesting that you are wrong - it is possible to cogently argue the reverse of this case. I don’t think it is any of India's business making peace b/w Iran and the US (in other words becoming the US lapdog - like the Pak's in 1971). A better bet is to start diversifying oil suppliers and get in the door with the Iraqis and Saudis
We have seen in the case of India and Pakistan that no amount of sanctions is going to have an effect on a determined and technologically-capable nation (especially if, as in the case of Pakistan, there is sugar-daddy China lurking in the background).
There is no Chinese sugar daddy proliferating to Iran as no Chinese objective is met by such proliferation. This is reserved only for those countries that can tie down India (read Pak) and Japan/ S Korea (read N Korea). And actually - sanctions may have stopped Pak proliferation (a possibility not a certainty); but as Clarke-Scott and Levy show in their excellent book - Uncle Sam chose to look the other way. Maybe Foggy Bottom learnt something from their Pak fiasco. Your statement is true for India – but then India’s economy is not dependent on oil and pistachio exports – sanctions cannot bring India down, but can constrain Iran.
Two, Iranian nuclear weapons are fundamentally less dangerous than nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable Pakistan, the epicentre of terrorism.
Less dangerous for India maybe - but certainly not for Israel -which will face more Hezbollah attacks - completely secure in the knowledge that they will not hit back at a nuclear Iran. Just like Pak screws India under the safety of the bomb - Iran will screw Israel - safe in the knowledge that it will invite no retaliation. This is not "Israeli paranoia" - it is just plain hard fact. Just because India is too chicken to stop Pakistan from going nuclear – does not imply others have to be chicken too!
In a region where there is increasing Sunni fundamentalism (the sad outcome of the Arab Spring) it is good to ensure that Shia Iran acts as a brake on the onward march of the good soldiers of Wahabism.
As a statement of principle - this is true enough. But the practical implication of a nuke-armed Iran is it will inevitably carve out a sphere of influence in Shia majority eastern Saudi Arabia; when added to its protectorate of shia dominated eastern-southern Iraq – it will give Iran a “monopoly type” access to the wells of power. That is in no one’s interest (including ours) … and Wahabism is hardly on an onward march – islamists may win Egypt and possibly Libya for now – but wahabism is on the back-foot in Iraq and indeed even in shia parts of Saudi.
Four, Iran is not rash enough to want to invite nuclear annihilation upon itself, which is the likely outcome if it were to attack Israel.
But that is not what Iran will do (not even Israelis think so) – the nukes are just the muscle to escalate hezbollah like covert war and carve out the saudi sphere.
Five, an exhausted America is not going to be able to carry on another two-front war in Afghanistan and Iran
I thought you subscribed to my favorite ‘surge, bribe and run’ in Fak-Ap (ok that phrase is yours – but I love it!). The US is not going to be in a two front war – it is preparing to run from Fak-Ap – so thanks but no thanks – it does not need no access route for military supplies through Iran (seriously Rajeev – I cannot believe you think this is possible – even if US-Iran kiss and make up – which will never happen cause that will send Barack packing in the next election).
Here are the counters for why India should do it
First, India would not at all be happy if the Straits of Hormuz are closed.
There will be no closure. The US may not be able to do another land campaign – but it’s strength on the seas will simply overwhelm any Iranian attempt to ‘blockade’ ( – which by the way will hurt the Iranians more than anyone else). I think this is just plain empty bluster by the Ayatollahs – and it will be called if they really try it.
The reason the US is rattling sabres so cavalierly is that it has reduced its dependence on oil from this region …..India, and for that matter, China, does not have that luxury
But isn’t the answer for us to reduce dependence on Iran too? If the US has reduced dependence the Saudi’s will be keen to sell to somebody (anybody). Why is it that the Chinese are running away with this prize too – should Indians not buy from Saudi’s / Iraq etc? (.. and no – I do NOT like the wahabis – but this is business)
Third, an Iran that is not treated as a pariah (remember how India was forced to vote against it in the UN based on US pressure during the so-called ‘nuclear deal’ days?) would mean that India can expand its relationship with that country without fear of sanctions and suchlike.
I don’t think the security council (read China and Russia) are going to go along with stricter (and ever more stricter) sanctions. Likely India can do this even without Iran and the US being buddies – and if we cannot; well – too bad. The US and Israel are not going to give up their self-interest (namely national security and steady and divided oil suppliers) – just cause we sunk money into Chah Bahar.
3 comments:
The easiest way to break Pakistan is to start from West Balochistan (Sista va Balochistan province of Iran). Israel will be more than happy to actively support that cause -- remember Israel and India form the boundary containing a large Islamic block. Iran is to Israel what Pakistan is to India.
We should not tie ourselves into knots due to our one-way 'friendship' with the Persians.
@ghost writer, i do admit that a cogent case can be made for your point of view. nevertheless, here is the issue: here's an excellent opportunity for india and the US to grandstand. consider: india acts like the peacemaker (blessed, arent' they?); america makes cooing noises towards iran (remember obummer himself was making cooing noises at iran when he first became POTUS); this puts the fear of god into pak that the yanks will abandon them; they start behaving a little and reining in the terrorists. this does have the salutary effect of, at very little cost to itself, india looks good and hurts pakistan in the bargain.
the other side, of course, is what @inferno suggests: iran may not be keen on a breakup of pak, because that will lead to a baluchistan that includes iranian territory as well. so they will want to stop short of that, but the iranians are also not very keen on the paks because of the taliban's (read pak army's) periodic massacres of shia hazaras. iran may want to keep pak intact but diminished in geopolitical importance.
unlike in the NAM idiocy days, india should consider the benefit strictly to itself. i agree that india-persia-bhai-bhai is nonsense, but the *threat* of yankee-ayatollah-bhai-bhai is enough to make kayani pee his pants.
rajeev - grandstanding is all fine; but bottomline is that iran and us interests are divergent - no amount of indian efforts at 'rapproachment' will help. and the us is not going to piss off the pak's just when it most needs them. yeah - obama did try to kiss-up to the persians (he probably figured having the Shia hero hussein's name as his middle name would make them love him - but that is not the case - iranians continue to pursue their objectives in the mid-east).
i suspect kayani is smart enough to figure out policy vs. grandstanding(though you would not guess after memogate)
...
but overall iran is an interesting country that i feel we should continue to invest in (and not vote against - it will cost us nothing - the russians and chinese will side with them). most iranians i know -admittedly few- have a positive opinion of india (and a highly negative one about all arabs). they worked with the taliban in the last few years with a view of getting the americans out. once that happens - they will be back siding with the hazaras, tajiks and uzbeks. they dont like the paks - as they are the running dogs of arab imperialism; not to forget they mistreat their shia's
but this ayatollah regime is execrable (though not as bad as the wahhabi fanatics). most iranians hate it
Post a Comment