Power play by and around Iran

Iran of course denies it all. It has been observing the NPT in letter and spirit; pursuing nuclear power is its natural right that NPT permits. However, what is interesting is who voted for and who opposed.

This crucial voting has disclosed two opposing alignments: the European Three and the US have voted for the resolution and they mustered a majority of 22 in the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors that customarily decides by consensus. Even more interesting is who voted against and who abstained. Venezuela opposed the motion. Twelve abstained; Russia, China, Malaysia and Pakistan are among them. India voted with the Americans and Europeans. Russia has urged on Iran not to fabricate nuclear weapons, echoing Europeans and Americans. But Russia and China, in a coordinated strategy, have thus sided with the Non-aligned Group. They assert there should be no referral of Iran to the UN Security Council for imposing mandatory sanctions. They have hinted that the proposition will be vetoed in the UNSC. That would thus leave only military option to the US that even the Europeans oppose along with Russia and China.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Iran is no pushover. Its strategic location and its being Number Two oil producer in the region makes it a momentous issue. Americans have long feuded with Iran. Which is why the US is isolating it. But despite having been mired in Afghanistan and Iraq, possible American military action against Iran cannot be ignored. In this possible war, even the European Three are not with America. They have a stake in Iranian oil. Should there be disruptions in oil supplies, the Europeans and the Japanese would suffer most. Moreover, international oil prices will shoot through the roof. That will hit all economies hard and a recession can result. Iran has therefore to be handled with great care. Europeans have gone as far as they could with America. But supporting the US war would jeopardise their vital economic interests.

For Americans, there are the two major considerations: their protégé, Israel, is anxious that military action should take place and the hint that Americans might ask Israel to tackle Iran is also less likely. Israelis too do not relish the idea of starting an open-ended war. Besides, Iran can hit back in America's rear, i.e. Iraq. Iranian influence in southern Iraq is no secret. Iran can make life very difficult for Occupation Forces. Hitherto Iranians have enabled Americans to act freely. But in a conflict between Iran and US, there will then be no Iranian restraint.

Iranians have been hurt by Indian vote. They are angry. Even if they did not know how India will behave after July 18 agreement with America, they are astounded by this strategic alliance. India had made two unusual agreements with the US: Framework Agreement for Military Cooperation under which India can buy any hardware or dual-use technology. The second promised US civilian nuclear reactors and related materials in violation of NPT and rules and laws of Nuclear Suppliers Group's choice. This is a fully-fledged military alliance between India and America. India expects much from the US, while the latter has undertaken to make India a major global military power.

America is also putting pressure on India not to build the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. Indian premier Manmohan Singh wavered on this in July that showed that India's commitment to the pipeline is not all that firm, though Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyer's stand later firmed up. There is now no ambiguity about India that she will have to work closely with America. Gone is its non-alignment. It is now firmly in American camp. The prospect of the gas pipeline from Iran may have receded.

In India, political reactions are sharply critical of UPA government. On one side, BJP taunted it for caving in to American pressures. On the other, the Leftist allies of the Congress are clearly angry and want no such deal with America. They might threaten a mass agitation. The Congress government has become wobbly and can fall. True, Indian middle class and Big Business simply love America. An Indo-American alliance is most welcome to them. But the prospect of Left leaving the United Progressive Alliance will unsettle everything in India.

Whether India's Left can force the Manmohan Singh government to break with America is not sure. But if UPA comes asunder, a political crisis and mid-term election look likely. But whether Left will destabilise the UPA government is not too certain. It needs to know which alliance will replace UPA. A new election, incidentally, might be the best course; it will realistically realign Indian politics. Difference between the Congress and the BJP is beginning to shrink on economic and foreign policies. It is to be seen what India will choose now. Secularism has prevented Congress-BJP grand coalition that otherwise may have become natural. Concern for secularism may yet prevent that.

What these developments around Iran portend about American intentions is not obscure. Geopolitical wind direction is clear. America is still unilateralist. It is still going flat out to establish its global hegemony. It still wants regime changes wherever possible in Asia. True, many think that Americans cannot undertake new military ventures after Afghanistan and Iraq. But the thinking of the Neocons in America -- which has so far defined America's objectives -- is inflexible. Either it is to be given up in toto or it will somehow try and continue the American advance toward becoming the global Hegemon, even if occasionally compelled to temporise.

President Bush is sticking to his original stand. A change might occur if the US Democrats were to define a new foreign policy, with more peaceable goals. But there is no clear demarcation of lines between the two parties. There are radical liberals among the Democrats while their conservatives are indistinguishable from the Neocons. Similarly, among the Republicans there are both hawks and doves. It would be a mistake to underestimate the power of the American Right. The Democrats have lagged behind the Republicans in recent elections because the Democrats have no distinct policy or programmes.

But American unilateralist drive for world domination needs to be checkmated in by world opinion, the only likely countervailing force. The Americans are no longer popular in Europe, in Latin America, and are even less popular in Asia. But protests against American policies today are less vociferous and intense whereas the situation calls for more vigorous protests. It has to pull itself up.

One aspect of the situation is fortunate. The traditional lure of military response by other possible rivals of American drive for being militarily number one is absent. This is the first time in history that all those who are not enamoured of American hegemony and are themselves notable centres of other kinds of power are determined not to adopt a directly hostile stance. They are also opposed to form military blocks. But they do differ with the US and often politically force it to delay or go slow. There is a common determination by China, Russia and EU not to confront the US but to argue with it and rely on the media to do its work.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.