What's new

Israel, use India to pressure Iran

Paan Singh

BANNED
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
0
Israel has a tremendous fund of goodwill in India, a country that has arguably more leverage with Iran than the European powers that Israel is expending so much effort to cultivate as mediators. Israel should be more forthright in cultivating India as a major influencer on Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions.

Israel and its supporters in the West are agitated by India’s engagement with Iran, a country they regard as an irredeemable rogue state. Washington's decision to exempt India from financial sanctions on Iranian oil imports, just over a week ago, means that New Delhi continues to have a significant trading relationship with Tehran. But far from being an obstacle to peace, India’s friendship with Tehran can benefit Israel – and avert a war. Here’s how.

For over four decades, India and Israel, two of Asia’s most resilient democracies, found themselves on the opposing sides of every debate. Eager to placate Arab opinion in its contest against Islamic Pakistan, India refused to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel until 1992. Israeli diplomats considered Mumbai, where they had a tiny consulate, “the loneliest post in the world”. India had no presence in Israel at all. The 35,000 or so Israelis of Indian origin were forced to obtain visas to travel to India through third countries.

Astonishingly, not only were Israelis unmindful of India’s shabby treatment of them – they conducted themselves as New Delhi’s allies whenever India got into trouble. In 1962, when Mao’s China waged war against India, Israel offered clandestine support to India. This trend continued through India’s wars with Pakistan in 1965 and 1971. But it was only after the 1999 conflict with Pakistan over Kargil that India openly acknowledged Israel’s support.

Today, India is Israel’s closest eastern ally and its largest arms market. Annual non-military trade between the two countries exceeds $4.5bn. Israel’s tenacity in dealing with its adversaries has many admirers in India. A survey by the Israeli foreign ministry in 2009 found India – once a bastion of anti-Israeli sentiment – to be the most pro-Israeli country on earth, well above the United States.

Israel has a tremendous fund of goodwill in India. And India arguably has more leverage with Tehran than all the powers presently gathered in Moscow. Yet Israel chooses to mediate with Iran through Europe’s decaying powers, players that Tehran is adept at hoodwinking, while delegating the task of influencing Indian policy on Tehran to the United States.

This approach is bound to fail for two reasons. First, after having armed, financed and indulged Pakistan for five decades, Washington’s lectures on global responsibility sound risible to Indian ears. Second, despite its recent alignment with the West, India is fiercely protective of its independence – and nothing irks Indians more than being told what to do. As the Indian author MJ Akbar once wrote, “Indians do not make good stenographers. They simply do not like taking dictation”.

But where American advances yield resentment, Israeli appeals can generate genuine sympathy. Indians can readily identify with a fellow democracy that is a victim of terrorism and fears nuclear annihilation at the hands of a neighbouring theocracy devoted to its destruction. Besides, India has a personal interest in keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran’s reach. A successful launch by Iran will prompt other powers to go nuclear. Saudi Arabia will almost certainly buy an off-the-shelf bomb from Pakistan. The current turmoil in West Asia makes it impossible to predict the nature of the regimes that lie ahead. A deeply unstable region with multiplying nuclear states threatens India’s future as severely as it does Israel’s. This is the case Israel must make to New Delhi.

Israel must remain mindful of the fact that though India may share its fears, it cannot and will not support military action against Iran, a country with which India shares strong civilizational bonds. (Iran to many Indians is roughly what England is to Americans: the source of high culture, language and religion.)

But New Delhi has enough leverage with Tehran to effect an honest negotiation. India has gone out of its way to protect Iran’s reputation after Iranian agents carried out a terrorist attack against Israeli diplomats stationed in New Delhi. Critics of Iran balk at the idea of further talks. It is difficult to fault their stance because, as they rightly point out, Tehran has often used negotiations to buy more time for its weapons programme.

Still, the spectrum of ideas in dealing with Iran cannot be stuck between sanctions and strikes. The results of Israel relying wholly on its traditional Western allies in its effort to stem Iran’s march are plain to see, and disappointing to say the least. Israel must now start conscripting new friends to take its cause forward. At the very least, India can be a more effective peace broker than the EU. Israelis display an almost inexplicable reluctance to push India to do anything. But it’s time they realised that, as India’s reliable friends, they have earned the right to demand assistance.

Israel, use India to pressure Iran - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
 
. .
If India bows down to,pressures from any sides,then we can conclude it doesn't have independent foreign policy.But I don't think This happens,

There is no such independent policy as written above that india wont provide any military help against iran and its enough.
This is wat india expect from iran to remain out from india-pak war but you always supported pak..
 
.
If India bows down to,pressures from any sides,then we can conclude it doesn't have independent foreign policy.But I don't think This happens,

NO it never happened.....India prefers its neutrality...maximum we lean a little ot one side ...Iran and Israel both are very important to India...Hence most probably we will go for some amicable understanding or agreement ....................
 
.
Iranians would be very foolish to ever trust india or even expect it to remain neutral in any GCC+israeli vs. Iran war:


In addition, both Israel and India comprise the extremities of what Paul Sheehan, columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, has called “an ‘Arc of Instability’…stretching unbroken through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon.” Washington Post writer Jim Hoagland has similarly described “Jerusalem and New Delhi [as] end points…in a vast swath of countries from North Africa through the Himalayas that should now be seen as a single strategic region [in which] India and Israel are the most vibrant democracies….” In theory, at least, a strong Indo-Israeli alliance would have the potential to create a formidable force for stability in a region threatened by radical fundamentalism and tyrannical theocracy.

In 2003, Yuval Steinitz, then head of the Israeli Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, assessed the strategic alliance with India as “a very high priority, second only to relations with the United States.”

A central factor in the development of that alliance has been the significant scope of military equipment and expertise Israel is providing India. Indeed, some analysts believe that Israel has overtaken Russia to become India’s largest supplier of military equipment and expertise, with sales of land-based surveillance systems, seaborne missiles, and more exceeding $2 billion per year.

Revenues from these sales have helped Israel to offset research and development costs for the weaponry needed to maintain its military edge over its adversaries. To remain viable, Israel’s defense industries need to export approximately 70% of production, and today India is Israel’s largest market.

While at first the flow of equipment and expertise was unidirectional—Israel supplying India—currently the two nations are engaged in a growing number of joint enterprises. On January 21, 2008, for example, an Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle rocket propelled into orbit a TecSAR Israeli reconnaissance satellite that Israel was not able to launch from its own territory (because of geopolitical and gravitational considerations).

Cooperation in the naval sphere could potentially serve both India’s declared aim to develop its blue water navy (a maritime force capable of operating on the “high seas” outside the territorial waters of the home nation)—and Israel’s increasingly challenging geo-strategic needs.
Given its miniscule territorial dimensions after withdrawing from Gaza in a vain quest for peace and the growing Iranian nuclear threat, Israel is compelled to turn to the marine theater for second-strike capability (a country’s assured ability to respond to an attack with a counterattack that will inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor). Such capacity is essential for nations upholding a no-first-use policy (not to use nuclear weapons as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary utilizing nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare). As the international relations and strategic affairs analyst Subhash Kapila has observed, “…both Israel and India are potential targets for first-use nuclear strikes by their adversaries”—in each case, an Islamic nuclear bomb. The seaborne second-strike capability “has to be operative from the Indian Ocean,” Kapila writes, “and hence strategic cooperation with the Indian Navy is an imperative.”
Reform Judaism Magazine - Strategic Bedfellows


Israel has become one of India’s largest military suppliers, while India has assisted Israel in the naval sphere. Israel, the No. 1 foreign issuer on the NASDAQ stock exchange, is investing in many Indian companies, while India has become one of Israel’s top trading partners in Asia.

Nevertheless, India and Israel share a “natural logic,” according to Indian National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra, and strategic priorities in regards to politics, security and growing their economies.
Names You Need To Know In 2011: India-Israel Alliance - Forbes
 
.
india would be the first to take sides with Iran's enemies as india has turned against Iran in the past despite Iran supporting and favoring india over Pakistan.


India votes against Iran at IAEA - Times Of India

US thanks India for its support in IAEA vote on Iran nuclear issue

India votes against Iran's nuclear programme at IAEA | Day & Night News

India votes against Iran in IAEA resolution - Indian Express

The Hindu : News / National : India votes against Iran in IAEA resolution

A few years old article, but good read:

Why Iran Feels so Hurt and Betrayed by India


NEW DELHI, October 4 (2005): Strikingly similar to the crisis that Iran faced at the IAEA Board meeting in Vienna last weekend, India too found itself in a tight spot in April 1994 at the United Nations Human Rights Commission’s annual session in Geneva.

Curiously, India and Iran found themselves entangled with each other then too, as of now — but with an entirely different body language.

If there is a Shakespearean touch to the sense of betrayal that Iran is so evidently harboring today over India’s vote against it at Vienna, how much of that harks back to silent memories of what had transpired between the two countries in 1994, we shall never quite know.

Persians may find it to be in bad taste to be blunt and forthright on such delicate issues as trust and betrayal.

In April 1994, when the UNHRC was assembling in Geneva, India faced an ugly situation. We were just pulling out of a grave economic crisis (of our own making, though) and were extremely vulnerable to the goodwill of international financial institutions.

More importantly, the Kashmir valley was burning — witnessing some of the bloodiest violence in its unhappy history. The country itself was panting and heaving from the bloodletting of communal violence — hidden medieval passions were tearing it apart.

Back in 1994, India was not yet possessed with the swagger and all-knowing cockiness of its current middle class optimism — or, for that matter, its frightening pragmatism that is determined to make every relationship outright profitable.

Internationally too, the climate was uncertain. Boris Yeltsin’s Russia was lurching toward the West in drunken stupor, and there was a big question mark as to the availability of a ‘Soviet’ veto if the Kashmir file ever again got reopened in the UN’s business dealings.

Technically, if the UNHRC in Geneva adopted a resolution condemning India for grave human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, a pathway would have opened for any of India’s detractors (not only Pakistan) for referral of the ‘Kashmir problem’ to the UN in New York. The crisis was comparable to what could happen today if the IAEA indeed decided on a UN Security Council referral apropos of the Iran’s ‘nuclear problem.’

The assessment in the foreign policy establishment in Delhi at that time was that in the event of the Kashmir resolution coming up in Geneva, it had a strong possibility of getting adopted.

The draft resolution enjoyed the support of the 54-member states of the Organization of Islamic conference and possibly some faraway countries in the Western world. Of course, Pakistan was its prime mover.

Thus it was that on a cold wind swept morning in late March in 1994 with the Elbruz Mountain still wrapped in sheets of snow that an Indian military plane landed in Teheran airport bearing the then Indian external affairs minister Dinesh Singh and three accompanying officials from Delhi as his co-passengers.

The minister was visiting Iran to deliver in person an urgent letter from Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao addressed to Iranian President, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rao was seeking Iran’s last-minute intervention at the OIC with a view to ensuring that the Kashmir resolution did not pass through the UNHRC.

The OIC (like the IAEA) too had a convention that all decisions had to be arrived at through consensus. So, Rao shrewdly assessed that if a prominent OIC member like Iran were to abstain, there would be no ‘consensus.’ Rao was greatly averse to Dinesh Singh undertaking the mission, as the minister was seriously ill from the multiple strokes he had suffered a few months ago.

But Dinesh Singh (“Raja Saheb”) would have no one else undertake such a crucial mission — and Rao reluctantly gave in. Sadly, that also happened to be the last mission undertaken by Dinesh Singh in a diplomatic career spread over five decades.

In fact, after one look at Dinesh Singh alighting from the aircraft, Iranian Foreign Minister Dr Ali Akbar Velayati, who was waiting at the tarmac, impulsively asked what on earth could be of such momentous importance for the minister to undertake such a perilous journey in such a poor state of health.

Dinesh Singh went through his ‘Kashmir brief’ diligently through the day’s meetings with his Iranian interlocutors -– apart from Dr Velayati, President Rafsanjani and the Speaker of the Iranian Majlis Nateq-Nouri. The Iranian side politely noted the minister’s demarche.

All in all, the business was transacted in a matter of 6 or 7 hours. Dinesh Singh left immediately for the airport for his return journey.

As he was emplaning, Dr Velayati who had come to the airport, reached out and holding Dinesh Singh’s hands together in his, said: ‘Ali Hashemi (President Rafsanjani) wanted me to convey his assurance to Prime Minister Rao that Iran will do all it can to ensure that no harm comes to India.’

After the plane took off, Dinesh Singh and his three co-passengers pondered over the import of what Velayati said. Did it mean that Iran would get the OIC resolution watered down? Or, would the resolution leave out any outright condemnation of India that attracted the UN’s wrath?

It took 72 anxious hours more for Delhi to realize that instead of a halfway solution, Iran went ahead with surgical skill and literally killed the OIC move to table the resolution at a UN forum. We heard later that as the Pakistani ambassador sought to move the OIC resolution, his Iranian counterpart in Geneva acted on directives from Teheran and made an intervention.

He said that for Iran, both Pakistan and India were close friends, and Iran would be loathe to the idea that problems between friends could not be sorted out between the two of them, and needed instead to be raised at an international forum.

That was the last time that Pakistan sought to get a resolution over Kashmir issue tabled at a UN forum.


Thus, when the head of Iran’s National Security Council, Ali Larijani said last Tuesday with a palpable sense of hurt: ‘India was our friend. We did not expect India to do so’ — he would have had much more in mind than the ‘shock and awe’ that India administered to Iran last weekend at Vienna.

Larijani’s erudite mind could not have missed the dramatic irony of it all — that Teheran should have salvaged India’s day at the OIC 11 years ago, and Delhi having a sudden, unexplained, inexplicable memory lapse in the IAEA.

And, on both occasions, it boiled down to how to kill a mocking bird — how to keep a festering wound from being prised away for therapy in distant New York.

The writer is a former Indian ambassador with extensive experience in handling India’s relations with Iran.This article first appeared at rediff.com

Why Iran Feels so Hurt and Betrayed by India « South Asia Tribune




Iran has given India many concessions because of it’s unnecessary concerns about Pakistan’s close friendship with Saudi Arabia. Iran even promised Indian navy its ports in case of war with Pakistan, a point that is terribly hurtful to the muslim sentiments of Pakistanis.

For all of its support, Iran in its hour of need has been abandoned by India to side with Americans.


-India has killed off the IPI project due to American pressure and nuclear technology transfer

-Pakistan is keeping its promise on the IP pipeline much to the dissatisfaction of US

-India refused to attend Tehran’s summit on terrorism because of American pressure

-Pakistan’s president accepted the invitation

-India owes Iran 5 billion dollars for oil which it is not paying Iran

-Pakistan continues to defend Iran in international forums

-India did not welcome the 1979 Islamic government

-Pakistan recognized 1979 government immediately

-India voted against Iran in IAEA, Ali Larjani said India was our friend

-Pakistan continues to support Iran irrespective of its relations with Saudis or Americans


Pakistan Iran and Saudis should work towards an entente, to befriend each other in the greater interest of the Islamic world.

Betrayal On Iran: Costs of India-US Partnership
 
.
If India bows down to,pressures from any sides,then we can conclude it doesn't have independent foreign policy.But I don't think This happens,

Iran has so much potential but your nations leaders are fixated on a tiny significant state called Israel. Why do you place yourself, Iran in such harm's way when other Muslim states have wonderful relations with Israel. Iran needs to understand India is herself in a precarious situation regarding China and Pakistan. Times have changed but memories do not fade. Iran has the most capability than any other Muslim nation to make an impact in the sciences and maths. Iran threatening Israel will only end up a a loser.
 
.
Isreal uses India my foot. When was the last time India on isreals request cut relations with Iran. We r expanding relations with Iran.
 
.
Why Iran Feels so Hurt and Betrayed by India

Good point Desert Fox, I remember that case, Iran got betrayed by "friends" yet again. Therefore I fully understand Iran's position of not trusting anyone, neither India, nor China. Iran does business with them, but dont rely on them.

Iran has so much potential but your nations leaders are fixated on a tiny significant state called Israel.

Its the other way around - Israel is fixated on Iran, and gets corresponding reaction. Other than opposing Israel's occupations and oppression of Palestinians, Iran couldnt care less about Israel.

Why do you place yourself, Iran in such harm's way when other Muslim states have wonderful relations with Israel. Iran needs to understand India is herself in a precarious situation regarding China and Pakistan.

Those Muslim countries you mentioned have good relationship with Israel solely because they are US puppet states. And even they have to condemn Israel officially, not to lose public's support (Muslims in general dont like what Israel is doing to Palestinians, as well as constant warmongering).
 
. .
well the whole non muslim world is using India to pressure Islam. leave Iran aside
 
.
india would be the first to take sides with Iran's enemies as india has turned against Iran in the past despite Iran supporting and favoring india over Pakistan.

Their stance and its foreign policy prevents them from being a strong and reliable partner.
A case of "A friend to all is a friend to none."
 
. . .
India acting as monkey between fighting cats iran/israel.What india is interested in their roti.why should it get embroiled in their conflict.

on the sidenote india is only the best bet for both to mediate between them.
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom