Focus on Iran-Israel relations for a stable West Asia

 

From the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 until the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Actually Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel, as a sovereign state after Turkey. Israel too viewed Iran as a natural ally and a non-Arab power on the edge of the Arab world, in accordance with David Ben Gurion’s concept of an alliance of the periphery. After the ‘Six-Day’ war of 1967, Iran supplied Israel with a significant portion of its oil needs and Iranian oil was shipped to European markets via the Israeli-Iranian pipeline.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 to overthrow the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became the point of conflict where Iranian revolutionists took a hard stance of anti-Zionism. Even post Iranian revolution, Israel helped Iran with logistical and military support during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980, despite Ayatollah Khomeini’s declaration of Israel as the ‘enemy of Islam’ and the ‘Little Satan’ (US being the ‘Great Satan’). Israel even convinced the Ronald Reagan administration to allow Israel to channel arms of US origin with it to support Iran against the barbaric attacks of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Israel also destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, giving a strategic advantage to Iran over Iraq.

The relations started to turn sour with the statements by the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and his decisive anti-Zionist stance and by his successor Khamenei to consolidate domestic support which is otherwise on wane. The same goes for the other democratically elected authorities in Iran like the President, especially during the President Mahmud Ahmedinijiad’s term. He discontinued the velvet glove policy of former President Mohammad Khatami and instead adopted an offensive stance against Israel with openly nurturing Shia-Islamist group and political party in Lebanon, HEZBOLLAH. This infuriated Israel and the previously warm relations turned hostile with both sides attacking each other since then (Beunos Aires blasts on Israeli Embassy in 1992, 2006 Lebanese war, successive Gaza wars, 2010 assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, 2010 Stuxnet worming in Iran’s Natanz enrichment plant, 2012 Bulgarian bombings by Hezbollah militants to the latest 2015 explosions in Jarmana, near Damascus). Since decades, Israel has been accusing Iran for supporting Hezbollah and Syrian Government to perpetuate anti-Zionist propaganda and war to threaten the peaceful existence of Israel, whereas Khamenei has accused Israel of supporting JUNDALLAH in Balochistan (West Pakistan), a Sunni militant group targeting Iran.

The bonhomie relationship which turned to a ‘fire and sword’ hostility for each other needs to cool down for a peaceful West Asian future. The responsibility of the same lies with the immediate governments, to blend the public mood and extinguish the fire of suspicion to bloom the flower of peace between the two old friends. The world must realize that the deep mistrust between these two rivals is fueling the fire in the West Asian region and allowing the other non-stakeholders to take disproportionate advantage of the conflict to strengthen their illegitimate power structure. Wahhabism emanating from West Asia is a major global threat which is riding on the wave of conflict between Iran-Israel. US President Barack Obama made a good start with Iran through the nuclear deal, which was opposed by Israel and Saudi Arabia alike. But to my Israeli friends, I must suggest that they should exploit the opportunity of improving the relations with Iran during the term of moderate Government of President Hassan Rouhani in Iran. They should understand that Ariel Sharon believed it was important to "leave a small window open" to the possibility of good relations with Iran in the future. Simultaneously, it is the duty of the Rouhani Government to ensure peace with Israel by exploiting the huge public mandate acquired by his political party in the recent general election in Iran, by keeping the radical forces at bay.

Stemming of confrontation and unilateralism to accommodate compromise, negotiation and collaboration (especially between Iran and Israel) is the need of the hour for the West Asian political conflicts. Suspicion and deep hostilities amongst the rivals have already burnt the entire West Asian subcontinent from the last few decades. This opportunity to accommodate conflicting views and dispatching of medieval confrontations might lead to a peaceful coexistence of people in the West Asia. Shall India be the plank to bridge the gap between the two rivals? If yes, then how?

India's foreign policy under 100 days of Modi Government

Although there is no radical shift in the new Government’s dealing with the world but the Prime Minister Narendra Modi is more direct and knows what he wants. The emphasis is more on the neighborhood and Asia which is evident by the PM’s visits to Bhutan, Nepal, Japan in that order and Foreign Minister’s visits to Myanmar, Singapore, Vietnam, Tajikistan (for SCO summit). Breaking the band, there is no visit to West Asia, Europe and US till now and the whole focus is on Asia, which is a welcome step.

Prime Minister is not afraid to take on the big players like WTO regarding the TFA Agreement which was supposed to be anti-farmers for India. For it, instead of giving mixed signals, he straight away denied to take the US pressure carried in the baggage by Secretary of State John Kerry to Delhi, last month. PM’s persona and convincing power got India the first President of the New Development Bank, an initiative of the BRICS countries in Fortaleza, Brazil.

There has been enhanced multilateral and bilateral cooperation with the world by the new government which can be summed up in the following way (major initiatives) –

CHINA –
India inked 12 agreements with China – The first agreement was about the opening of new route (Nathu La) to Kailash Mansarovar  which India welcomed with folded hands.

5 year trade and economic cooperation pact to improve the trade balance and obtain $20 billion Chinese investment in India (TOTAL Chinese investment abroad so far is $80 billion and that too mostly in Africa) signaled that India is open for business with India. But the Chinese investors would be cynical about investing in India unless there is a political steadiness between India and China which is difficult until the cross border incursions do not stop at once. Also, Chinese investments come either in ‘projects’ or in the development of those resources which can be ploughed back into its own economy for their own growth.

Modi Govt is far more active unlike the paralyzed previous government with regards to military modernization and defense cooperation with Japanese and Americans which will provide a balancing element to the dealing with China.

The PM (when asked about the expansionist policy of China by a journalist during Japan visit) said, “Within Asia, India, China and Japan should work together.” This explained the  balancing approach of the PM with regards to both China and Japan. Previous Government of India pretended to be friends with China but did nothing substantive to the issues of cooperation and pushed problems under the carpet.

JAPAN – (Enemy of my enemy is my friend – Machiavelli)

Under all the drum playing and protocol breaking, PM Modi was welcomed in Japan with so much vigor and he brought $35 billion investment for the next 5 years. He also ended the blacklist of 6 Indian firms from Japan’s Foreign End User List (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, banned after 1998 nuclear test). He also managed to bring US-2 amphibian civilian aircraft (it was not a defense deal). Most importantly, Modi successfully convinced Japan to provide financial, technical and operational support to introduce SHINKASEN/ Bullet Train for the Ahmedabad-Mumbai route.

Media was contemplating a nuclear deal between the two but it is not as crucial as media seemed it. Nuclear deal would be problematic because the Japanese have a far more rigid approach to it than our other partners and India cannot make exceptions with Japan (India had not done with US too even after all the heavy lifting was done by US for the deal).

Japanese want to elevate the dialogue with India from the current Secretary level (2+2) dialogue to Ministerial level, for which Delhi is not ready for till now. Also Japan also wants to bring the Americans into the room in an extensive way to elevate the trilateral dialogue for which India has reservations too.

India needs Japanese technology, investments but above all India needs a good strategic understanding and enhancement of strategic partnership with Japan.

USA –

There has been no substantive development with USA during the first 100 days of Modi government but yes there is surely a scope of ‘good chemistry’ between the two world leaders (Modi and Obama).

Problems with USA include outstanding problems in trade, Intellectual Property Rights issue, inability of US to sell nuclear reactors to India and the problems with the civil nuclear liability law.

The biggest problem of India with USA is that US turns the bilateral issues to multilateral issues which is not acceptable to India or any sovereign nation like India.

SAARC –

PAKISTAN –

There has been no illusion on part of Modi Govt about the past experiences with Pakistan. Outreach to SAARC countries in May during the coronation of PM Modi could not have excluded Pakistan, that’s why Nawaz Sharif was invited. But we should get away from using SAARC as an instrument for our policy with our neighbors because SAARC will never take off unless our relationships are bilaterally stable. We need to strengthen BIMSTEC for a balancing element too.

BANGLADESH – (Pakistan is a problem and Bangladesh is an opportunity )

Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj went there with nothing except goodwill for their people. She said, “Our relationship is not with any particular party, but it is with the people of Bangladesh.” On Teesta agreement, land boundary agreement, she had nothing to offer except good intentions.

BJP has made gains in Assam in these elections like UPA did in 2004 and 2009 so the domestic politics may overrule the land boundary agreement even for 500 acres of land.

NEPAL –

Despite all the hustle and bustle of an Indian PM’s visit to Nepal after 17 years, and $1 billion line of credit for infrastructure and energy projects by India, Hydel power project to setup transmission lines, MoU’s on Pancheshwar Development Authority and cooperation between Doordarshan and Nepal TV, Nepal backtracked at the last minute on power transfer and power production agreements. Nepalese have been unable to overcome their inhibitions and paranoia on water resources cooperation with India, although they would have been the biggest gainer out of it. Let’s hope the 45 days grace time given them to rework on the issue would bring positive outcomes.

SRI LANKA –

Fishermen’s issue was focused more and it resulted positively with most of them getting independence from Sri Lankan prisons. Modi invited President Rajapaksa during his coronation despite strong opposition from Jayalalitha and other Tamil parties. This gave an image to Sri Lanka that Modi could stand up against Tamil parties for the sake of national interest.

BHUTAN –

Bhutan was chosen as the first destination for PM Modi despite prior commitments to Japan about the same. There he inaugurated a 600MW hydel power project and the Parliament of Bhutan, constructed by India. All in all, it was a positive step to attract Bhutan closer to India after all the fall outs of previous government during which the small hill nation was preparing to sit in the lap of China.

WEST ASIA – (Area of instability and turbulence, seen by India by the prism of domestic politics).

Modi Govt has not focused enough on West Asia. Reaction on Israel-Palestine issue was a bit knee-jerk. Perhaps Modi shares a good rapport with Israel than the previous government of UPA. But this was also balanced out by the vote in UNHRC (Geneva) ‘against’ Israel’s massive bloodshed in Gaza.

Modi has not taken a strategic view to far more important developments taking place in Syria, Israel, Hamas (Gaza), Saudi Arabia- Iran, impending change of Government in Afghanistan, Libya and UAE’s involvement in bombing Libya. We hope Modi gives a kind attention to West Asia as he is giving to South East Asia and East Asia because West Asia is a far troublesome region. Our awareness on West Asia is abysmally low. Previous PM Manmohan Singh travelled West Asia for just 4 times during his 10 year tenure (2 NAM Summits + Iran + Egypt).

Foreign Minister, Sushma Swaraj had started the West Asian campaign with visits to Bahrain. Modi has a baggage associated with him regarding his views towards Muslim community. He can achieve a breakthrough in $250 billion worth Gulf region (where 7 million Indians find a place to live) by engagement which would also help him domestically.

OTHERS –

There have been major other developments in the foreign policy under Modi rule. For example – Nuclear deal with Australia and Uzbekistan, formal letter of membership by India to Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, various trade deals with Vietnam for oil exploration in South China Sea via ONGC Videsh Ltd to name a few.

Building a set of flexible Asian coalition that do not include China and USA would help deepen ties with the allies of US and China as well as the non aligned Asian nations who are all seeking extra layer of insurance against the possibility of China’s non-peaceful rise. Delhi’s strategic cooperation with these and other Asian middle powers, including Indonesia, is likely to win greater domestic support than an Asian strategy that relies solely on American commitment to maintain the regional balance of power. For it to be achieved, India needs to raise the quality and intensity of India’s defense engagement in the region.

India needs to be multi focus in foreign policy as we’re not a ‘one issue country’ like many small countries. We’re destined to be a regional and a global player, therefore we must act in various regions, at various levels and with various countries. We know our national interest very well but we fail to have a coherent action plan to achieve our objectives because we’re hobbled by various things including our domestic problems.  UNLESS YOU ARE STRONG INTERNALLY, YOU CAN’T BE STRONG EXTERNALLY.

Sacrificing her illegitimate children (Special report on the birth of ISIS)

After ‘proclaiming’ to kill her own baby (Al Qaeda) in his paternal home  (Afghanistan), US is back with so called fundamentalists ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) militants. US nurtured the first baby (Al Qaeda) during the Cold War to counter USSR who had been honeymooning in Afghanistan for 10 years (Dec 1979 – Feb 1989).

This time, there is a strong blizzard forming in the Arctic Circle from East to West with Russia surfing solely on it victoriously this time. The ‘czar’ of Kremlin has left no stone unturned to veto all the Western moves that could undermine Asia’s authority over world affairs, or particularly, Russian authority over the international politics. As the game between the West and the ‘East’ (led solely by Russia) was going uneven, with Russia scoring all the points and the West succumbing with zilch.

• The West, or say, just US tried invading West Asia (Middle East) again to show off her defense skills and machines, to market their products to nations like India (huge importer of arms). But, Russia vetoed the move in the UN Security Council (Syrian talks). US failed the opportunity to rob West Asian wealth, to comfort her dwindling economy.
• Russia also created a mess during Ukraine’s admission to European Union and ended up giving anarchy to Ukraine by supporting the rebels, Crimean accession was a huge blow too. West merely saw the actions and replied back with childish economic sanctions which affect the European themselves.
• Allegedly, US even tried an assassination attempt on Vladimir Putin in Ukraine via CIA but failed to do the same and ended up fuming Malaysian Airlines to flames.
• Unease of European nations for economic sanctions on Russia because of the huge investments by Russian oligarchs in their respective countries, further tensed US about the Western grouping’s future.
• Most importantly, the emergence of the BRICS Bank, a parallel institution to World Bank, undermining Western dominance over world economy, the growing closeness of Russia, India and China, or say the BRICS countries as a whole forced US to bite her nails.

All in all, US had been a loser till now by scoring, literally zero points against the game with Russia. All thanks to the ‘able’ leadership of Mr. Obama.

But then, the security experts of Mr Obama like James Clapper, reminded him of their illegitimate child of a subsidiary of Al Qaeda, living in Iraq, with the funding of CIA (Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi) ready to die for his mother (US). Mr Obama cheered in joy and ordered the multiplication of his funds and a special military training to combat Iraqi forces. By this, US would be able to exert pressure on the world to invade West Asia (failed invading Syria earlier) and would be able to control the region that has turned anti-US from the past few years. This way the region would stop porting to Russia for their needs and will again be neo-colonized.

Recent air strike combat operations are an eye wash, the beheading of US journalist James Foley is as true as the assassination of Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi and Osama Bin Laden (wondering what is Area 51). The motive is to invade Syria, via Iraq (that's why the last S in ISIS stands for liberation of Syria) and to control Shia population which is on the rise in West Asia. Forgive me for the words, but Sunnis have been secret weapons of CIA in their operations.

At last, the whole world knows that this wicked mother (US) will kill her child (ISIS) after his use and will look towards another child to sacrifice for her. The history is repeating itself, the Cold War has returned with an open conflict and this time, the West seems weak because of lack of unity and a severe leadership crisis.

What is the intention of 'The Kremlin' ?

In the past few months, Russia is deliberately making calculated moves to supersede Western influence in the matters concerning world community. For instance, Syrian crisis, support for Iran despite US sanctions, defense cooperation with Egypt to mention a few.

In all of the above instances, one thing is common, that they all are Middle Eastern countries who are criticizing western powers in hush voices. US and allies have been dominating the region from a very long time since the disintegration of USSR in 1991. The western influence has more or less been effective in combating the rise of Middle Eastern influence in the world by invoking measures like economical, political and military sanctions, military strikes, invoking civil wars through secretly supporting the rebels to allow for a coup and overthrowing most of the dictators in the region with the help of their respective intelligence agencies. All this has been possible with the consistent support of Israel and Saudi Arabia, the dominant players having a strong political and economical hold in the region. The geographical location of the Middle Eastern region has also been supportive for the Western alliances to pursue their respective goals as it is surrounded by Europe. In-fighting and lack of unity among the region’s countries has been contributing towards their exploitation since the beginning of Western dominance.

Since the peak of Syrian crisis in August 2013 when the chemical weapons attack in Damascus by Bashar Al Assad’s regime invited worldwide criticism, Russia has been strongly supporting and combating threats on Syrian security by making all out efforts to persuade UN Security Council that there is no immediate need to militarily strike Syrian soil without having adequate evidence against Assad’s regime. Russia gathered support of various peace mongering nations to persuade Western alliances diplomatically to give up the idea of strikes and thereby, despite of Israel and Saudi Arabia’s push for strikes, US President suspended the idea of striking Syria. Largely the idea to oppose strike grew within the Western nations, especially in the US when the citizens of US opposed the idea of starting a new war and behaving like a ‘World Policeman’. Whatever the reason may be, but Russia succeeded in its intention to protect its ally (Syria) from the Western influence. By convincing US to suspend the idea of strikes, Russia also hit the ‘bull’s eye’ by disturbing the long time good relations between US and Saudi Arabia which came out open in the recent rejection of a temporary seat of the UN Security Council by Saudi Arabia.

Russia didn’t take rest after the handling of Syrian crisis, but it also went further in helping Iran militarily and negotiating a defense cooperation deal with the nation. Russia decided to sell an improved version of S-300 air defense missiles and strategic help in building a nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Russia also agreed to supply five batteries of S-300VM long range air defense system, also known as Antei-2500 which is more effective in intercepting missiles. It was a clear message to the United States that Russia will not adhere to US sanctions if their economic and political interests lie in a deal with any nation, irrespective of the relations of US with that nation. Russia has also been optimistically supporting Iran in the ongoing talks between P5+Germany and Iran in withdrawing sanctions by striking a deal with Iran. Although, it has not yielded the result yet but both sides have indicated a positive breakthrough in the ongoing talks in Geneva.

Russia recently moved a hand of friendship to Egypt which is striving hard to tackle the civil unrest lying because of the rebellion against Morsy. Russia took advantage of the rift between Cairo and Washington as the United States had withheld military supplies to Cairo, following Morsy’s ouster. Russian warship, VARYAG, the flagship of the Pacific fleet, docked in the port city of Alexandria symbolizes Moscow’s deepening interest in the Mediterranean Sea. Russia’s permanent presence at the port of ‘Tartus’ in Syria has already underscored its intention to implant strategic footprints in the region. Both Russia and Egypt are looking for a military tie-up soon to revive the defense cooperation when USSR had a presence in the region.

The worst blow to the United States was the approval of temporary asylum request by Russia of the NSA whistleblower Mr. Edward Snowden that shocked the whole world over the surveillance programmes creating differences between the western alliance itself. For the first time, Germany, rather the whole European Union criticized and summoned US diplomats over the issue of bugging the EU leaders. It was a clear sign that a hole was created in the relations between US and EU, indirectly by Russia as it was supporting Snowden revelations from the backdoor.

The question arises – Are we really marching in the cold war era of 1960-70s when the influence of USSR was undeniable? The present Russia is expanding its arms either by undermining ‘Western authority’ in the Middle East or by inciting disturbances between the US and EU itself. Whatever the intentions may be, but we surely do understand that Russia cannot compete economically in the present form although its economic growth is in full swing but it still relies on hydrocarbon and mineral sale which do not yield the desired results as per the renowned world economists. The present era is of economical superpowers, and the days of military domination has gone in the wind. World population wants peace with economical independence and the war mongering motives of the ‘wannabe superpowers’ may not succeed due to this concept.