Opinion Cover everyone’s bases

between the United States and Iran. The leaders of Brazil and Turkey,who along with India were part of a third world conclave convened by Iran,declared that they got Tehran to agree on a nuclear compromise that would end the impasse. Dismissing the initiative from two of its old allies and partners,Washington quickly wrapped up a draft agreement among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council on new sanctions against Tehran.

The Gulf crisis will indeed test Delhi’s strategic acumen and diplomatic mettle in dealing with a range of associated issues from a possible breakdown of international efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear aspirations and a radical redistribution of power in the region.

Iran has long been part of Delhi’s security perimeter thanks to Tehran’s historic role in shaping the geopolitics of India’s north-western frontiers,the Persian Gulf,the Caucasus and

Central Asia. Iran is a major producer of oil and natural gas,two commodities that India will need in ever larger quantities. With India’s physical access to inner Asia blocked by Pakistan,Iran offers the alternative route.

Geography alone demands that India cultivate a strong partnership with Iran. Yet,the pursuit of Indian interests in Iran is circumscribed by the political and economic orientation of Tehran’s current ruling elite. Delhi’s difficulties have become acute amidst the power struggles within Iran,Tehran’s sharpening disputes with its Arab neighbours,its prolonged hostility with the US,and its defiance of the nuclear system. India will be able to do no real business with Iran if the

present conflict with the West is not mitigated.

Reports from Tehran say that Krishna has chosen to “explain” India’s votes in the International Atomic Energy Agency against Iran — three of them during the last five years — to the Iranian leadership. If true,these reports are indeed disturbing; for it

reflects a needless nervousness in Delhi. Worse still it reveals a

focus on the peripheral rather than the central issues arising out of the current crisis.

Delhi has no reason to be apologetic because its votes are consistent with India’s principles and interests. India has always maintained that as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty,Iran must abide by its legal obligations. Any fudging of this principle would have severely undermined India’s own nuclear interests — especially in winning international endorsement of Delhi’s civil nuclear initiative.

While Delhi owes Tehran no explanation on the IAEA vote,India has every reason to be concerned about the many implications and consequences of the current stand-off between Iran and the international community.

The first is about the credibility of the UNSC itself. Three rounds of UNSC sanctions have not forced Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme. And Tehran is not trembling at the sight of the draft fourth resolution. Despite its minimalism,the new resolution will have no credibility if it runs into the opposition of Brazil,Turkey and other non-permanent members of the UNSC.

Facing a resolution that has neither teeth nor legitimacy,Iran will be right to hold that the metaphorical emperor of the post-Cold War world — the UNSC — has no clothes.

If the Bush administration gave “unilateralism” a bad name in the handling of the Iraq crisis during 2002-03,the Obama administration might be close to doing the same with “multilateralism” in its handling of Iran. Believing that American decline is real,betting that its military machine is

exhausted after Iraq and Afghanistan,and sensing that the multilateral coalition against Iran is on its last legs,Tehran may be sorely tempted to test the resolve of President Obama. Amidst a growing clamour at home for a tougher policy towards Iran and accusations that he is weak on national security,the Obama administration would be under pressure to act. With Israel straining at the leash for a military solution,Obama is between a rock and a hard place.

In this emerging situation,India’s main task is not about defining a diplomatic position that covers all political bases and potential contingencies. Nor does it involve a return to the old ideological impulses of third world solidarity.

Delhi’s current focus on the minor stakes in Iran — an oil field here or a pipeline there — stands in contrast to the enormity of the current dynamic in and around Iran. Delhi’s immediate task is to join the international effort to avert a war in the Gulf. It must press Washington and Tehran to begin an unconditional bilateral dialogue to address all issues of mutual concern. The world has had enough of shadow play between the two of them.

Looking ahead,India must assess the prospect that the US may not be able to remain for ever the principal provider of security in the arc of crisis stretching from Pakistan to Somalia,via Afghanistan,Iran,Iraq and the Gulf of Aden.

Just as the failure of the great powers to act against Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia led to the political demise of the League of

Nations in the ’30s,the Iran crisis has the potential to wreck the post-war international order and destroy the regional equilibrium.

Promoting a new concert of powers that can step into the breach between a weakening America and an irrelevant UNSC is the real long-term challenge before India’s national security planners.

raja.mohan@expressindia.com