Living with a nuclear Iran

Dealing with a nuclear Iran is better than suffering an international war to stop it.

Led by the United States, much of the international community has tightened economic sanctions on Iran in an attempt to prevent it from building nuclear weapons. India and China are among the few countries that have stayed out of this initiative and have been criticised for it. In a piece in the Wall Street Journal that comprehensively captures the argument against New Delhi’s current policy of not participating in the sanctions regime, Sadanand Dhume argues:

An India that uses its oil purchases and diplomatic clout to create breathing room for Iran risks scuppering the notion New Delhi has benefited from for more than a decade: that India’s rise is beneficial to the West. By contrast, should India throw its weight behind a powerful anti-Iran coalition, it stands to gain by halting the further nuclearization of its neighborhood, blunting the spread of radical Islam and bolstering its credentials as a force for stability. [WSJ]

Mr Dhume makes an important point when he says that “India’s quest for security and prosperity is most effectively pursued in a predictable and stable US-led international order.” Yet there is room—and indeed, a need—for discrimination within agreement over this worldview. In the case of Iran Washington’s policy position is dogmatic to the point of rejecting without any consideration the benefits—to the United States and to the US-led order—of a grand rapprochement with Iran. In a recent article on FP, Neil Padukone, a new fellow for geopolitics at Takshashila, details the scale and the scope of this geopolitical opportunity. I have argued that New Delhi well-placed to lubricate this process.

We have to criticise New Delhi, but for a different reason. It did not even attempt to avoid being crunched by Washington on one side and its own interests with Iran on the other. The situation in Afghanistan can change dramatically if Iran and the United States could cooperate. Where we needed imaginative and deft diplomacy, we saw resignation and default. Opportunities to improve ties with Washington on issues unrelated to Iran—from the fighter plane purchase, to UN Security Council positions over Libya and Syria—were gratuitously squandered.

On the nuclear issue, if the question were asked at a time when Iran was far away from building a bomb, the answer to whether an Iranian bomb is in India’s interests would have been a “No.” But now, at a time when the only way to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon is a war, the answer is different. In fact, the question for governments around the world now is whether an Iranian bomb is worse than an international war to prevent it.

A military conflict against Iran is not in India’s interests. Not only will it further destabilise a region that is already in deep crisis, it will do so in a form where India will be directly affected. Fuel supplies from Iran and supply routes from the Persian Gulf will come under threat and could precipitate a domestic economic crisis with unpredictable consequences. Also, doesn’t a war with Iran once again provide the Pakistani military-jihadi complex, with the encouragement of the Saudis, to once again become a frontline ally in an American war? Washington’s predisposition to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s shenanigans in the context of its own geopolitical projects was and will be expensive to India.

Those who have long enough memories will recall that General Zia-ul-Haq was in Washington’s doghouse until the United States had to intervene in Afghanistan. Those who have shorter memories will recall General Musharraf being in a similar place and his dictatorship getting a ticket to respectability when the United States had to do it again. The Pakistani military establishment used these periods to first develop and expand its strategic assets—nuclear weapons and jihadi groups. Another reprieve will be no different.

It takes a lot to believe sanctions can prevent a determined, modern state like Iran from building a bomb it wants to. The costs of these ineffective sanctions are subjective—and unless there’s a short-term way to ensure the long-term security of 11 percent of India’s energy imports—for New Delhi they are not worth incurring.

Where does this leave us? Well, with the reality of having to deal with a nuclear Iran, and consequently perhaps with an overtly nuclear Saudi Arabia too. This need not necessarily make the region more unstable, even considering a triangular dynamic that includes Israel. Let’s not forget Western nuclear deterrence theory has always lagged deterrence in practice—be it during the Cold War or in the case of the subcontinent.

This does not mean that the Iranian regime is all Persian fragrance towards India. It’s not. But you can’t survive as a regime or as a state—even a revolutionary one—without realism. There’s a reason why Mullah Omar had to flee on a motorcycle while the leaders of Viet Nam are now Washington’s strategic allies. Regimes devoid of realism write their own obituaries. The survival of the Iranian theocratic-democracy is evidence of there being an underpinning of realism. Iran’s realists, however, are eclipsed by fundamentalists like Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad who feed on hostility with the United States. To the extent that the hostility can be ratcheted down, the realists in the regime will be strengthened. Even otherwise, the Iranian regime, despite its foundations on the Shia narrative, is unlikely to desire civilisational suicide. [Update: How states act after they acquire nuclear weapons – on The Monkey Cage, linkthanks @chennaikaran]

New Delhi’s position might differ from that of Washington and Tel Aviv. But just as their positions are based on their perceptions of self-interest, so is ours. While there is no need to be apologetic about its positions over Iran, New Delhi must not lose other opportunities to strengthen its relationship with the United States and Israel.

, , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to Living with a nuclear Iran

  1. dhanya madhavan nair 1st February 2012 at 20:39 #

    yours reflects An Indian point ot view and Mr Dhume’s An American point of view

  2. Pankaj 16th February 2012 at 10:35 #

    The total land area of Israel is around 20,000 sq. kms and compared to this the total land area of Kerala is around 40,000 sq.kms. Understanding this land area is important because just a minimal low grade nuke with delivery systems by an enemy state is enough to wipe out the entire population of Israel. This is not the case with very large land mass states like India or Russia. This grave situation also presents two scenarios for Israel.

    Scenario I is a first strike by Israel on Iranian nuke centers and on its airforce and missile facilities for total decimation. This first strike is vital because once the Iranian weapon is ready Israel might not be left with any reaction time. Striking at the earliest is the only way for Israel to preserve its existence.

    Scenario II would be an Iranian strategy to replicate the South Asian assymetry created by the China Pak axis against India in the middle east. This would be targeting Israel via proxy terror groups like the hamas and hezbollah and providing them with nuclear protection against any reprisal actions by Israel.

    Both these scenarios is negative for Israel. Scenario I presents instant death while scenario II is death by a thousand cuts that is applied by islamists on India.

    Israel should just bite the bullet and strike first on Iran to finish them off with or without US support. This action would be good not just for Israel but also for middle east stability and would be in the Indian national interests.

  3. Pankaj 16th February 2012 at 10:50 #

    Arguments of preserving good relations with Iran for oil purposes and for entry into Afghan regions that is floating around is all humbug of JNU style intellectuals. These elements are in actual full supportors of Iranian islamofascism and want the destruction of Israel.

    Iran is a radicalized islamofascist and criminal regime that has repressed vast sections of its own people. Many young iranians want to be free from such a repressive regime and live in a deradicalized free society and the entire thrust of Indian foriegn policy should be to lend support to this group led by Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

    The complete inaction post 26/11 and now sending a strong trade delegation to show ‘solidarity’ with Iran exemplifies the subversive nature of this present UPA regime.

More in Foreign Affairs, Security (67 of 2685 articles)


Where militant defend the military from foreign sponsors and domestic puppets When the jihadi face of Pakistan's military-jihadi complex brazenly ...