Differences over Iran threaten to undermine the progress made on U.S. relations with India. Can New Delhi be persuaded to apply more pressure on Tehran?
Iran is the crisis of the hour in Washington, and for the first time in recent memory talk now routinely turns to military action. In an effort to forestall Tehran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon, the United States has launched a worldwide effort to limit Iran’s oil exports and increase the economic stress on the Iranian regime. Where sanctions on Iran were once seem as a somewhat quixotic American campaign, they are about to go worldwide; the United States will soon sanction firms that do business with Iran’s Central Bank, which now processes a large percentage of oil transactions. The European Union, meanwhile, is poised to embargo Iranian oil and Asian countries, including South Korea and Japan, are enlisting in the effort to economically isolate Iran.
As this effort proceeds, Americans will inevitably look to India, the fourth-largest importer of Iranian oil. But they will see a view of Iran that looks very different in New Delhi than it does in Washington. This difference over Iran poses a genuine problem to the two countries and, unless it’s bridged, it could throw a tremendous spanner into the machinery of U.S.-India relations.
It’s difficult to overestimate the importance of the Iranian nuclear threat in the minds of most American policymakers. They see in Tehran a regime that pursues an atomic weapon capacity at the same time that has aided American enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, supports Hizbollah, Hamas and the thuggish regime in Syria, allegedly tries to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, and threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, all while denying the Holocaust and threatening death to America. An Iranian nuclear weapons capacity, many policymakers fear, could hand Tehran a deterrent behind which to pursue an even more aggressive drive for regional domination, set off a regional arms race, and threaten the stability of the Middle East.
In New Delhi, the picture looks very different. India imports roughly 12 percent of its oil from Iran, and because Pakistan blocks Indian commerce through Afghanistan to Central Asia, Iran forms a key transit Indian transit route. Indian Shia comprise a relatively small percentage of the population, but represent an important swing vote in elections. India and Iran have long cultural and population ties, and in 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went so far as tell an American interviewer that, “Our relations with Iran, we cherish a great deal.”
Yet this has begun to change around the edges. The talk of cherishing ties has faded, and India has begun increasing its purchases of Saudi oil. Singh has said explicitly that India opposes an Iranian nuclear weapon, and New Delhi voted to censure Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Still, the new U.S.-led sanctions push may put Washington and New Delhi on opposite sides of this critical issue. Asked about America’s new sanctions, Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai said this past week: “We have accepted sanctions which are made by the United Nations. Other sanctions do not apply to individual countries. We don’t accept that position.” Indeed, he went further, noting that an Indian delegation would travel to Iran to “work out a mechanism for uninterrupted purchase of oil from Iran.” And India and Iran have reportedly agreed to settle some of their oil trade in rupees to avoid restrictions on dollar-denominated trade.
Photo Credit: White House
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Mazo
The US-India relationship is more than just taking a position on Iran. The relationship is more than the sum of its parts even. Economically, politically and strategically India is valuable. Indian companies are creating jobs in America and Europe while Indian customers are importing more and more goods from Europe and America.
Despite the differences over Iran, the relationship is in no way close to being considered a “train-wreck”. While there may be some senators and Congressmen who would be disappointed, it would not infect the wider relationship because there is too much to gain for both sides. Further, India was not included nor was it consulted on any course of action over Iran. It was purely an internal US decision to levy sanctions. The US can’t reasonably expect the world to operate at its beck and call. The US Congress and Administration will have to get used to disappointments if they choose to act unilaterally.
John Chan
Saddam Hussein took order from the USA and fought a war with Iran on the back of a lot of Iraqis lives. When he went to Kuwait to collect his reward he thought he deserved it, he did not realize he did something that disappointed USA administration, senators and congressmen. The punishment to Saddam’s non-lackey-like behaviour was severe, his death and the destruction of his country.
India has not made any contribution to the USA empire as significant as Saddam Hussein, and expects to be treated leniently when it disappoints USA Congress and Administration; India’s expectation is rather unrealistic.
Mazo
There are several flaws in your theory. For one, India has never been a lackey of the US and the US has never actually provided any substantial help in any Indian conflict. Also, India has never needed or invited help from the US for fighting wars or handling emergencies. ( The only exception to this was in 1962 when the American’s air dropped supplies to Indian troops but nothing more. ) Your premise that Kuwait was “Saddam’s prize” is against factually incorrect. The Iraqi’s moved towards Kuwait nearly aa decade after their war with the Iranians was over due to some historic claim over the region as well as disputes over oil. The Iraqi invasion was sudden and brutal and the US and the UNSC called for Iraq’s immediate withdrawal, which Iraq refused. Thus the ensuing conflict against Saddam. India’s position is different. It isn’t an aggressor nor is it doing anything illegal according to International law. Any Indian move away from buying Iranian oil would be “favor” done to the US, not an obligation. Only substantial political benefits or some ameliorating economic alternative would compensate for India’s loss from trading Iranian crude. Plus, India has a large Shia population and current political sensitivities might not enable India to participate in any sanction regime if it seen as hurting the average Iranian citizens adversely.
John Chan
When US goes to punish India for refusing doing USA’s bidding, USA will engineer a pretext as elaborate as the one for Iraq. UNSC, EU, Japan, S. Korea, Philippines, Vietnam and Australia will all line up to back up USA’s accusation like they back up USA’s accusation of Iraq possessing WMD as a pretext for invasion, all those nations sent troops to Iraq too.
Neil
I am unable to understand why is it that the whole world should comply to US demands and stop dealing with countries that US does not like or have problems with. My question to the author in this regard is does the US bother about India’s objections in the way US deals with the countries India is not comfortable with ? If not why should India comply. Even China has suggested that they will only follow the UN imposed sanctions and not any other sanctions imposed by a country. They are right in doing so. Why do we have UN if the world has to follow what US says. Please do not forget the fact that in the given geo-political and economic situations US move will hurt the world economy more. If India China needs oil to run their economy and continue with their progress they are right to show their middle finger to any such diktats that has the slightest possibility of derailing their progress.
gopal panicker
this stuff about the iranian nuclear program is ridiculous…everybody knows they are trying for a bomb…the usa has thousands…israel has hundreds…let them deter the iranians…it worked during the cold war…why wont it work now
TOM UFERT
WHILE THE ISSUE OF A NUCLEAR ARMED IRAN IS OF MONUMENTAL WORLD CONCERN, WITH REGARDS TO U.S.-INDIAN RELATIONS, A MAJOR HISTORICAL POINT MUST BE CONSIDERED. INDIA, SINCE IT’S BIRTH AS AN INDEPENDENT DEMOCRACY, HAS BEEN THE RECOGNIZED STANDARD BEARER FOR THE 3RD WORLD NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES. FURTHERMORE, THIS POSITION IS ENHANCED AS THE PREMIER NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE NON-ALIGNED WORLD OUTSIDE OF THE P5 OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL. AS SUCH, INDIA TAKES THIS POSITION VERY SERIOUSLY AND COULD BE DEFENSIVE OF ANOTHER NATION WANTING TO JOIN THE NUCLEAR CLUB. HAVING SAID THAT, IT IS DOUBTFUL, CONSIDERING INDIA’S CLOSE GEOGRAPHICAL PROXIMITY TO IRAN, THAT SHE WOULD BLINDLY DISREGARD THE RADICAL TENDANCIES OF THE ISLAMIST THEOCRACY. HOWEVER, AMERICA MUST NOT TAKE INDIA’S FRIENDSHIP FOR GRANTED AND IGNORE HER HISTORICAL FERVOR TO VOCALLY REPRESENT THE ASPIRATIONS OF THE NONALIGNED NONNUCLEAR WORLD.
Mazo
First stop using Capitals and learn to type.
Second, this has nothing to do with Non-alignment or 3rd world leadership or geographical proximity. The primary concern for India is the impact of raising oil prices on India’s economy due to US and European sanctions. India has just recently struggled with aggressive inflation and has fought hard to bring inflation under control, US and European interests cannot take precedence over India’s domestic self-interest.
Why should India stop buying Iranian oil when it would be cheaper to do so than buying from the regular market, especially with US and European sanctions ?? Plus this is an election year in India and higher oil prices would mean an increased pressure on oil subsidies by the Indian government – not something palatable. Economically, there is very little rationale to support these sanctions.
Ultimately, while India does care about Iranian nukes, they are hardly a priority and frankly far less dangerous than North Korea or Pakistan having nukes – both of which have happened. Sanctions didn’t work with Iraq, they won’t work with Iran and the whole world will pay through our nose, especially the most vulnerable people in the third world for the failed aggressive policies of the West.
Anon
We are not asking India to do what is not in its interest, but just as India has its own interests we have ours. It may be that our actions will eventually lead india to conclude that buying oil from Iran is not in its best interests, but dear god India don’t make it a point of independence, cause these aren’t aimed at India.
Mazo
It’s not about these sanctions being a point of independence. It’s about the cost-benefit analysis of this on India. It is a matter of economics and numbers. The cost of being part of the US sanctions regime would be too high for India and even with the Saudi crude alternative, the price of oil is bound to rise as supply side pressures mount. Plus, with the EU and American sanctions in place, there is every likelihood that Iran would be more than willing to price its oil below market price and sign long term contracts at fixed prices, making such deals extremely lucrative. This decision isn’t about being unco-operative or about waving the flag for India but it’s about hard economic realities that are magnified in a politically volatile time.
John Chan
Americans are capitalist, they know there is no free lunch, every good and service costs money, and the business providing such good and service expects return too. Stop importing oil from Iran would cost India a bundle, India should ask the USA what is in it for India to take such loss.
India should give USA a list of demands as price to exchange the cooperation from India on Iran sanction, the items could be on the list like unrestricted technology transfer on military items, a carrier battle group, 300 F-35, 100 F-22, etc.
If India does not ask or asks nominal return, then it proves that India is just another USA lackey like Japan, S. Korea, Philippines, and Vietnam.
Subho
@john chan
india is not pakistan who blackmails another country or live on another country’s donation…if we have problem,we complain…not blackmail…
Mark Thomason
When the author writes, “the two nations’ respective leaders should engage on Iran, and soon” he does not imagine that the US will give anything or be flexible in any way. He means that India should do what the US wants. That is not a helpful insight, just another demand to comply.
Chris
The conclusion is all wrong.
Yes, India refused to participate embargo on Iranian oil.
But, in spite of that, the U.S. will continue to kiss Indian ass simply to balance against China.
Furthermore, the U.S. needs India in case to deter Pakistan once Pakistan.
Also, let not forget the simple fact that American military industry must have big oversea market like Indian. (Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will get it though.)
U.S. – India relationship?
U.S. doesn’t have anything to no take anything India throw at U.S. at this moment, Unless the U.S stop being a world police.