There are some interesting aspects of the issue. Iran has clandestinely obtained nuclear technology and some vital components from Pakistan and China. It appears that the three in tandem knew what they were up to.

Soon after the ‘Islamic Revolution’ of 1979, the ruling Ayatollah’s minced no words to state that one of the major aims of their policy of “exporting Islamic revolution” was to engineer the dismemberment of the State of Israel. Ever since this has been the constant refrain of the theocratic regime in Teheran. Washington has looked at Tehran’s clandestine nuclear programme essentially keeping in mind her threatening posture against a neighbouring state in whose perpetuation the US is historically and strategically involved.

The present Iranian President has minced no words in his public statements that Teheran does not want the State of Israel to exist on the map of the Middle East. “Israel could go to Germany or Austria”, he is reported to have said in the special session of OIC in Makkah only recently. Earlier, his address to the UN General Assembly was termed “disappointing” by London.

Iran is a member of the UN and a signatory to its Charter. No member of the UN can hand out threats like these to any other member country. In natural course of things, Iran should have been expelled from the UN soon after the above statements emerged from Teheran. That did not happen and Iran took the UN for a ride.

It has also to be remembered that Saddam’s nuclear programme, too, had almost the same underpinning though Saddam was less emotive and more subtle in comparison to the Ayatollahs of Iran in his policy towards Israel.. The reason for American military action in Iraq was the tremendous pressure of the Jewish lobby in that country’s law making institution. The same guideline is true as far as the Iranian nuclear venture is concerned.

But in recent weeks a relent is visible in Washington’s pressure on Teheran This is dictated by the internal situation in Iraq where the Sunni Muslims had vowed to disrupt the elections and Washington needed covert support of the Shia population that has come under considerable influence of the Teheran Ayatollahs.

Pakistan feels that it is her religious duty to provide nuclear arm to the Muslim ummmah in order to establish Muslim supremacy and reduce western dominance over the contemporary Muslim world and the world at large. The civilizational clash is almost manifest despite expedient denials by the concerned parties. The actors do not rule out its escalation because they argue that the flow of human history is not arrested. As such, preparedness and pre-emption are the two fundamental strategies on which contemporary planners concentrate. Thus besides Iran, Saudi Arabia and Libya would be the beneficiaries. It is a different thing that Libya has put the matter on the backburner albeit temporarily.

India has to be concerned about her security. China may not necessarily have the same agenda in providing clandestine nuclear wherewithal to Iran as Pakistan has. Nevertheless her agenda is motivated by political pragmatism whereas Pakistan is pragmatically pursuing the Islamic agenda. What matters more is the end - result of the whole game plan and not the means and methods how it is realized.

Iran has not reacted violently to India’s vote “against” her in the IAEA. Not only that, Iran has assumed a low profile, trying to persuade New Delhi to reconsider its stand. She has also very subtly told the world that India’s negative vote would not be made the cause of derailing talks on Iran gas supply project stubbornly opposed by Washington. In other words, Iran has convinced herself that the opposition in the Indian parliament undertakes her job more effectively than her diplomatic mission in New Delhi.

Iran and India are two important countries in the region that will determine the future course of strategies in the Asian continent. Washington has long understood it and her response to the emerging prospect is to forestall any combination of elements that would project a united challenge to her supremacy in the region. This is one of the reasons why Washington has slowly and gradually been going through a shift in her traditional policy towards India and hardening of stance towards Iran.

In the case of India, Washington knows that India is an energy-starved country. Her biggest need at the moment is sufficient supply of oil and gas to her burgeoning population. Washington is not happy with the proposed Iran – Pakistan – India gas pipeline because it brings enormous revenues to Iran, a country not too friendly to the US. But New Delhi, too, is rather skeptic about the security of the proposed multi-billion-gas pipeline given the long standing hostility of Pakistan besides unpredictable antics of Iran. We are aware of the hassles in free flow of goods from India to Central Asia via Iranian Bandar Abbas – Sarakhs rail link.

Washington does not have the same perception of India’s nuclear control and command system as she has of Pakistan. India’s strong democratic tradition and international status are its contributing factors. In the case of Pakistan, the grapevine has it that willy-nilly the Americans have forced their say in the ultimate control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Iraq is being tackled and Iran is pilloried. This makes the Asian continent safe for the Americans to go ahead with their agenda for the region.

What the Indian Left actually thinks of the forces that contributed to the eruption of Iraq war is rather hazy. The Muslim world is eyeing the nuclear option, which may not be possible for the US to put a stop to. They have the right to do so and should not be underestimated. The US, China and Russia are locked in a triangular “great game” in Central Asia and the three crucial countries, India, Pakistan and Iran, the lightweights in the arena, do matter in their strategies. The pro-Iran stance of the Indian Left has to be viewed in this background also.

The author is the former Director of Centre of Central Asian Steadies, Kashmir University, India.

Printer-Friendly Version