US President Barack Obama has offered the beginning of a new engagement to the US’ traditional enemies, exemplified by its seriousness towards Iran. Even though Obama has declared his opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme, like the Bush administration, he has also indicated a more pliable approach to it Obama has appealed to the leaders of Iran and expressed his administration's commitment "to pursue constructive ties between the US, Iran and the international community.”
Is Washington changing its policy towards Iran fundamentally and does this imply detraction from the policies of the former administration which described Iran as one of the “axis of evil”? What strategy will Obama adopt? If the US is willing to change its policy towards Iran, what implications will it hold for India? Will it also lead to a change in India’s policy towards Iran?
Relations between Iran and the US have been strained over Iran's nuclear programme. As Obama said in his Prague speech, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has increased, because more nations are acquiring these weapons. Obama has vowed to pursue nuclear disarmament starting with Iran. He has adopted a new approach of negotiating with Iran and this is a welcome development quite different from the previous administration's policies. However, its success will depend to a large extent on Iran's reaction.
Obama has set a time limit till the end of the year to determine whether Washington's attempts at dialogue with Iran have worked or not. Meanwhile, the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has shown some willingness to engage with the US, provided it is based on "mutual respect.” Obama has appointed Dennis Ross, former negotiator for the US in the Arab-Israeli peace talks, as his point-man for Iran in a move that shows Iran's importance in his agenda. Therefore, if the US changes its policy towards Iran in the future, it will definitely have an impact on other countries, including India, which is a strategic partner of the US.
As a major power in the region, India is very concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions and believes that the acquisition of uranium enrichment capability by Iran may propel it further to develop nuclear warheads in the future. Iran may well pass on this tech-
nology to terrorist groups. This would likely encourage Saudi Arabia too to acquire nuclear weapons. All this will add to instabilityin an already unstable neighbourhood and might start a nuclear arms race in the region.
On national security considerations, therefore, India is opposed to Iran's nuclear programme and also voted against Iran in the IAEA. The Indian delegation was one of the twenty-two, which voted against Iran out of a total of thirty-five. Highlighting India's security concerns arising from proliferation activities, the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh said that India did not want one more nuclear power in the neighbourhood.
However, it is also a fact that voting against Iran is like going against one's friend and could be harmful for India's energy security. Iran is a big supplier of oil and natural gas to India. The IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) pipeline project, which has been signed by Iran and Pakistan, is in progress but the vote against Iran was a major setback to it Natural gas is crucial for India's energy security as it fulfills India's present needs, as opposed to Washington's assistance on nuclear energy, through the " 123 Agreement" which India will reap efficiently only several years from now. Despite New Delhi's vote against Iran, India also wants to strengthen its ties with Iran. Considering the economic profitability of the IPI project, the Indian government is continuing to explore options for natural gas from Iran.
India definitely supports the right of any country to develop civilian nuclear technology but it opposes Iran because of the many instances of illegal acquisition and proliferation. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has the legal right to develop the technology for peaceful purposes concurrent with its international commitments and obligations. Iran is a signatory of the Additional Protocols of the IAEA but its failure to comply has been very disappointing. If Iran's claims of developing a nuclear programme for civilian purposes are true then there is no rational reason to pursue such a programme secretly, since the IAEA encourages and assists peaceful nuclear programmes.
A change in Iran's approach would do more in this regard than anyone else's changed approach or policy change. Iran must adhere to its commitments under international treaties and instruments and furthermore must be transparent in fulfilling these commitments.