If we've to choose between Israel and Iran, choose the former

[Yatharth Singh]

Some wise older men said, "Dont travel on two boats at once or you`ll sink".

Both of these nations want to gather as much as as international support they can against each other. Some day Mosad kills any Irani Scientist another day Iran`s terror network commit blast on Israeli nationals. The situation for Israel is just the same as of a bleeding person in a pool of sharks. The minute you lost your strength, in no time your game will be over. Islamic nations just want to grab or eat Israel like a hungry crocodile. Its just that they are not getting an opportunity.

If i`m not wrong then Israel consider us as our friend and it isnt wrong to expect some support or help from your friend against those who want to finish you off. But the problem is that enemy isnt mutual between us and Israel.

It is our need that keeps us away to openly support Israel against Iran. Although we have no issues with Iran and till now Iran has been a like a neutral trader to us but things are changing rapidly.

I`m support Russia and India for not giving support against Iran with the US and its allies because Iran is a sovereign nation and it has full right to develop its capabilities just like the superpowers.Its nothing but the usual worry of US that their enemy might become too strong to defeat.

India must develop its future fuel, which is not crude oil but something indigenous.That will lessen our dependability on oil producing countries. Israel is a nation which is fighting for its rightful status. It is now not dependent upon U.S.A and wants to grow and flourish. In my opinion we must maintain our closeness with Israel and help him in a diplomatic way without altering our external policies.

 

[Payeng]

Diplomatic relations are not like girlfriends, India have strategic interest with nations which does not necessarily implies that India is a part of any lobby group, Indian diplomatic interest with Iran have nothing to do with India's relationship with Israel. It is not something like at the cost of other nation when India is not a part of any military bloc, Indian military cooperation with Israel doesn't harm an Iranian relation, note that Israel even does business with PRC at the same time Indian relationship with PRC is irrespective to US wish of a counter alliance against PRC which have no direct interest of Indian policy, diplomacy is a dynamic concept while geography have its own importance, I negate any such importance to a second country in favour of a third country, the favour must be in the Indian side, and we need relations with these nations irrespective of other nations wish, the current policy is in favour from Indian perspective an equal importance for a related nation from which India have more to earn then to loose from a positive diplomacy.

 

[Adux]

Adux most likely we give a pro-israel stance but the regime in Iran is stable.Don't you think we will loose in Afghanistan access.This will enable the pukes to do as they want in Afghanistan which will bring pressure back on Kashmir.

I think whatever the nutters Iranians are our relation with Iran is a necessity when compared with Israel

Lets get some things very clear

Iran will not give up on nukes , Israel, GCC and West will not let them have it. Who do you think is going to win this stand off? I say Israel
Why do you think the regime which will come after this set of mullah's are going to be against India if they are friends with the west.
You are wrong in your assumption, if USA regime changes Iran, they will make a route to Afghanistan. Iran, US, India and Afghanistan doesnt want Pakistan or Taliban. So you are absolutely wrong in your assumption. Iran at present is not helping us in anyway with Afghanistan or Pakistan, then why bother about them.

 

[Adux]

What it actually means is please use our bases and pay us for it.

No, they wont. Regime change in Iran will affect Pakistan the most, if there is a US friendly government in Iran then why would US need Pakistan to access Afghanistan.

 

[Param]

Lets get some things very clear

Iran will not give up on nukes , Israel, GCC and West will not let them have it. Who do you think is going to win this stand off? I say Israel
Why do you think the regime which will come after this set of mullah's are going to be against India if they are friends with the west.
You are wrong in your assumption, if USA regime changes Iran, they will make a route to Afghanistan. Iran, US, India and Afghanistan doesnt want Pakistan or Taliban. So you are absolutely wrong in your assumption. Iran at present is not helping us in anyway with Afghanistan or Pakistan, then why bother about them.

CAR is Russia's backyard and they are not going to allow the west at their doorstep.
Iran has direct access to Central Asia.

Like I said earlier this war is not going to be like the Iraq war, It'll just be an offensive to destroy Iran's capabilities.

If the West bombs Iran the mulahs will be further strengthened, Iranians would not want their country to be stooges of those who kiled fellow Iranians.

 

[Adux]

Diplomatic relations are not like girlfriends, India have strategic interest with nations which does not necessarily implies that India is a part of any lobby group, Indian diplomatic interest with Iran have nothing to do with India's relationship with Israel. It is not something like at the cost of other nation when India is not a part of any military bloc, Indian military cooperation with Israel doesn't harm an Iranian relation, note that Israel even does business with PRC at the same time Indian relationship with PRC is irrespective to US wish of a counter alliance against PRC which have no direct interest of Indian policy, diplomacy is a dynamic concept while geography have its own importance, I negate any such importance to a second country in favour of a third country, the favour must be in the Indian side, and we need relations with these nations irrespective of other nations wish, the current policy is in favour from Indian perspective an equal importance for a related nation from which India have more to earn then to loose from a positive diplomacy.

Well said, but the question is should India support Iran regime change. I think we should be with Iran till the last moment, then we change into Israel side, We do what France did with Libya. Iran's regime change to US side, is in our long time interest.

 

[Adux]

CAR is Russia's backyard and they are not going to allow the west at their doorstep.
Iran has direct access to Central Asia.

Like I said earlier this war is not going to be like the Iraq war, It'll just be an offensive to destroy Iran's capabilities.

If the West bombs Iran the mulahs will be further strengthened, Iranians would not want their country to be stooges of those who kiled fellow Iranians.

It is not about War, Param, It is about Regime Change. Libya v/s Iraq. Both effected Regime change.
There is no need to be defeatist, there is enough water in Iran to make sure there is a Iran change, If Israel and US, gets in. Mullah's will be defeated. Russia cant and wont do diddly sqwat. Pakistan be squatted is a international need. There is no need to support Iran by India, when they havent done worthwhile for us. We need to free Afghanistan and US from Pakistan. Iran's regime change works in that way.

 

[Ray]

I am caught between the Devil and the Deep Sea!

 

[asianobserve]

I am caught between the Devil and the Deep Sea!

Winners make hard decision, losers bite their nails...

 

[thakur_ritesh]

TR, your point actually hits the real reason bang on the head. It's about regime change more than just nukes. In Iraq it was "confirmed" intel about WMDs now it's the alleged developments of nukes. So India as in the case of Libya has to chose which way it wants to go. The food part about India's relations with Iran is the people to people contact which will come in very handy.

Really surprising that the US has over the years not tried to somehow work a deal with the mullahs. High the US preaches democracy, it has over the years done well with authoritarian regimes.

Yusuf,

USA's weak link in this context is Israel, and Israel will not tolerate any country in its neighborhood which can dare challenge their very existence, so iran, or for that matter any west Asian country with nukes is a definite no-no for them. The trouble starts if iran ends up with nukes, which then means a domino effect, where the rest in west-Asia would also want them.

Iranian nuke sites will be taken out, either with US on board, or being only notified at the very last moment by the Israelis. But will this lead to a regime change or not is the real question because an attack on iran could well unify the whole county behind the current regime, as such Persians remain very proud about who they are, and their existence.

Adux,

Let the US compensate us today, what is stopping them from doing it today? Why wait for tomorrow? Let them make way for indian oil PSUs, which will then take up the stake and at reasonable rates, and then we will have our oil needs well secured.

Not really, nobody likes a fence sitter, neither Iran nor USA. As of now it is better to be fence sitter. Learn from the French here.

When the americans negotiate both with india and pakistan, are they being fence sitters? No, they are pursuing their interests, likewise we are doing. The art of diplomacy remains, you negotiate with everyone with whom you share interests, even though the others you negotiate with might not see eye to eye, which should be their problem, not ours.

So timing is the key.

No Adux, the key is not about timing. Key remains we list up all our interests in Iran, and negotiate all those with the powers that want us to take sides, and we do a very hard bargain. At the end, country ought to gain the max, that for me is taking a stand, ie taking a stand for the country, and for no one else.

Afghanistan and Iran is not going to anti-india just because US is going to be there. US-India relationship will get stronger, as long as the China threat exist.

But the point is when will the change happen? The war rhetoric has been on going for well over a decade now, can we be certain it will happen tomorrow? Fact remains, no matter who governs Iran, we have to have good relations with them for the sheer reason that they provide us access to CAR and Afghanistan. We have just secured raw material contracts in A'stan, and more are to be had, and all the transportation of the same will happen through Iran, then there remains a definite chance of taliban returning in A'stan, and we then again find a common cause.

Let us not cut short our memories, please recall 2010, and the way Pakistan was being allowed to have its way in A'stan, and the way we had then been ignored, it seemed all that we had done in A'stan had gone down the gutter and betrayal was written all over, and that is when we went back to Iran and Russia. Seeing that and facing a double game from Pakistan, USA changed its course again, and then we had a re-entry, or pretty much everything was lost, and I am talking about events which have happened less than two years ago to us.

There is no buckling under pressure, what the media is talking is practical sense, what Maroof Raza is saying is what India should be doing. We are doing what we are good at, that is doing nothing. But times have changed, more is expected out of India. There is no someone else business here, Nuclear Iran is not in our interest. Simple. Friendlier Iran regime to Israel and USA is better for us with regards to Pakistan. The status quo is not good for us.

How do we know the sense being drilled into us is not financed, and presented in a way that it seems logical to the viewer. All of a sudden everyone seems so interested in subject, which otherwise never ever mattered to the main stream media, things certainly dont happen out of the blue, and in a corporate media, certainly not, those chaps have profits to make.

One thing I really dont get, why is it that the more is only expected off us? If we are a power to be, should we for a change also not expect something? Which is precisely what I mean by bucking under pressure. It is us who will have to create a level playing ground, else as I said in another post, we will either end up being a japan or in a worst case scenario, a Pakistan to the US. Most important is, how we negotiate today will set the ball rolling for tomorrow, and will be followed by generations to come. If we have to take a stand, only take a stand for our interests, and so will happen in times to come as well, and so will the likes of US deal with us. We make concessions today, and they will ask for double that tomorrow.

There is something that will be always more important than money, that is existence .

Agree, but are they really being threatened as is being made out to be? Had it been so, Israel would have ceased to exist long back. Pakistanis have said a zillion things about us, and we still stand where we did, and Iran even with all the rhetoric comes across as much more saner. Also, Israel is not a power which doesnt have nukes with it, Iran dare dose something, there wont be an Iran tomorrow, and it wont just be Israel pounding them, but pretty much whole of the west and rest of west-Asia.

Anyways, I am least interested in either of these two countries, what they say or how they justify it, and I am not here to justify any of their actions. All I care for is, our interests are met the best way possible, and if we have to do a give, then we have our take which is many-many times of that give.

 

[spikey360]

To be honest, Russia will not do diddly sqwat. Also why are we bothered about Russia. The current Iranian regime is no good for us with respect to a number issues, and especially our interest in Afghanistan, also our need to subdue Pakistan.
That doesnt change, Regime change. Unlike idiotic Indians who let Pakistani's have the nuke, Israel and USA wont.

To say that Russia will not do diddly squat only reinforces the view that a biased world view is almost always wrong. Russia did not seem to mind vetoing the UN sanctions, neither would it mind fending off a US-Israel attack in its backyard. For your information, and try to read your history from now on, PM Sashtri wanted an attack on Paki nuclear sites in the early days of their nuclear program but he eventually succumbed to the same US pressure who are not letting Iran have their 'civilian' programme. Furthermore these 'brave' Yankees and Jews seemed to have been helpless while North Korea was making itself nuclear arms. So in short, it is the US who can do diddly squat.

The current Iranian regime is no good for us with respect to a number issues, and especially our interest in Afghanistan, also our need to subdue Pakistan.

Be so kind as to enumerate them and enlighten us all.

utterly stupid, nobody cares if Iran was goodie two shoes or not, this is world of geo politics. If Iran is going to have regime change, supporting its previous regime is extremely stupid, India might as well as shoot itself on the head, if it is that dumb. Iran has never allowed India to use anything against Pakistan, now that Pakistan is nuclear, it never will. understandably.
Israel provides leverage, Israel is to us, what Pakistan is to china-us relationships in the 1970's. It will short sightedness to choose side, who is going to loose, or not choose anyside and then be called an idiot,

Again, the same question, kindly enumerate these 'issues' Iran has hurt us on and also the issues which give India a levarage in case of Israel.
You say it is short sighted to choose a losing side. Well first of all, how sure are you if there is going to be a war at all. And if so, how do you know which side is going to win this hypothetical war? Any level headed person would know that Tehran called Moscow and Beijing before even thinking of announcing their recent significant strides. So if there is a possibility of any war being broken out, it would be that of WW3, which I presume even trigger happy US would like to avoid at all costs, considering its huge debt and its impending economic collapse in a few decades. You see, before a war is fought, the winners look good on paper. Much like Nazi Germany with its state of the art technology in WW2. However, their fate was sealed by the Red Army(Two men per gun before US lent supplies) and the Allied forces who were not so advanced and at first very wary at the thought of going to war with Hitler. Once trhe dogs of war have been unleashed, there is no certainity, there can be none. Anyone could be on the winning side, technology and other 'cool' stuffs which look good on tv do not always make winners. Furthermore, NATO-US can't even supress rag-tag insurgents of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. How will they even spur with militarised Iran? :shocked:

India would be foolish to remain neutral, we must take a side and the side must be a winning side.
The last Gulf War saw the US led coalition win the war there - they control the oil in Iraq now.
We need oil so we should side with the likely winning side and not with the loosers who sit on the fence.

Again, one can't choose a side in war which are sure to win. There can be no certainity in war. This is what history teaches us, I suggest you war-hawks read it first. and LOL at the thought that the US won last Gulf war. Every day there is an explosion in Iraq by the same insurgents you say have lost. If that is the quality and decsiciveness of a US win, then Indian neutrality is way more better.

 

[Iamanidiot]

From Paramjit Lal Chauduri

Idea of India and Iran


There is a curious divide between the popular Indian view of the relationship between New Delhi and Tehran — and how it is perceived within official circles in New Delhi.

The former view is of India and Iran as bosom buddies, close friends who help each other diplomatically and economically. This view likes to speak of the "civilisational" ties between the two countries and believes that if only we could get the Americans and other obstructionist types off our back there would be no stopping Indo-Iranian ties. This is the Taj Mahal school, a vision of an Indo-Persian construction of ethereal beauty.

The latter view is hardly hostile to Iran, but it knows from experience that Iran is a difficult, very self-interested nation who has no problem in playing hard ball or turning on India if it believes it will benefit by doing so. In other words, a good old player of realpolitik. Which is fine, that is the norm in the world anyway. However, they know there is no "special relationship" between India and Iran, just one based on specific shared interests and a number of divergent interests.

Iran generally finds common cause with India against Pakistan. It has tried to woo Islamabad in the past, but without success. But it joined India and Russia in backing the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. It helped keep Kashmir off the agenda of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and other such fora.

But Iran has also supported resolutions in the United Nations demanding all nuclear states sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The target was Israel, but when India protested, Tehran basically said, "Tough." Tehran has close ties with China. And the biggest gap has between over Iran's atomic ambitions where India has pointed out that an overtly nuclear weaponised Iran would lead Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to implement their tacit oil for nukes agreement and form an extremely dangerous axis. Iran has listened and said, "Tough."

The economic relationship is actually quite threadbare. India doesn't import a drop of natural gas from Iran. The key petroleum relationship was that India refined Iranian crude and sent it back go Iran or to other third countries. The Reliance Corporation pulled the plug on that last year. India does import oil, but much of that is fungible — we can get it from somewhere else.

India's imports from Iran peaked in 2009-10 and have fallen precipitously since then. I suspect Indian imports will fall to as little as 200,000 barrels per day by summer. That's nearly a fifth of what was being shipped in 2009-10. Iran is actually more desperate because there are only three or four countries who can refine its sour crude.

So why is India struggling to ensure relations with Iran aren't deep-sixed? Partly because it sees the utility of Iran rising as the United Statets moves towards withdrawal from Afghanistan. Partly because it doesn't want to be seen as following the US's unilateral moves. But a lot of its motives lie in a belief that whatever happens Iran is heading to become the dominant power of the Persian Gulf in a decade or so. By then the US will not be the country most affected by disrupted oil and gas supplies through the Straits of Hormuz. It will be India and China. So keeping the Persians happy will be essential.

That hardly means subservience. Iran is a cussed nation, its value structure and governmental system is brutal, regressive and terroristic — it does not provide a model for India in anyway whatsoever. Indian diplomats who have to deal with Iran describe a country who sees dishonesty as acceptable at the negotiating table and which will sign deals one day and then unilaterally rip them up the next.

India owes Iran no favours and vice versa. But they have common interests and when they work on those they can get a fair amount of good things done. The constructive behaviour takes place best when there are no illusions that India and Iran are brethren.

Idea of India and Iran : Foreign Hand

 

[A chauhan]

Some wise older men said, "Dont travel on two boats at once or you`ll sink".

Both of these nations want to gather as much as as international support they can against each other. Some day Mosad kills any Irani Scientist another day Iran`s terror network commit blast on Israeli nationals. The situation for Israel is just the same as of a bleeding person in a pool of sharks. The minute you lost your strength, in no time your game will be over. Islamic nations just want to grab or eat Israel like a hungry crocodile. Its just that they are not getting an opportunity.

If i`m not wrong then Israel consider us as our friend and it isnt wrong to expect some support or help from your friend against those who want to finish you off. But the problem is that enemy isnt mutual between us and Israel.

It is our need that keeps us away to openly support Israel against Iran. Although we have no issues with Iran and till now Iran has been a like a neutral trader to us but things are changing rapidly.

I`m support Russia and India for not giving support against Iran with the US and its allies because Iran is a sovereign nation and it has full right to develop its capabilities just like the superpowers.Its nothing but the usual worry of US that their enemy might become too strong to defeat.

India must develop its future fuel, which is not crude oil but something indigenous.That will lessen our dependability on oil producing countries. Israel is a nation which is fighting for its rightful status. It is now not dependent upon U.S.A and wants to grow and flourish. In my opinion we must maintain our closeness with Israel and help him in a diplomatic way without altering our external policies.

Bolded portion tells us all, the question stands before us is that, Should we secure our national monetary interests ignoring the international justice ? or Should we support a country which is fighting for its right of life/existence ?

Though we are not in a situation where we can openly support any one of them, but the question is, Will we ever be in such a situation in anytime in the future ? the answer is No!, we will never be in a situation where we can openly support any one of them. So why not to support the very first right, the right of existence ! India is considered to be the most pro- Israel country in the world ( From India with love - Israel News, Ynetnews ) Any wrong step can damage our international image of peace and justice loving country which won't be good for our own future.

No matter how much we support Islamic countries, they wont be our allies, the existence of Israel is wrong in the eyes of Muslim world, so they wont leave Israel in a peaceful state ever, and so to me Israel's struggle for it's existence is something which needs support, they are fighting against the danger of extinction.If the existence of Israel is wrong then the existence of Pakistan is also wrong.

 

[A chauhan]

A relevant cross posting in this matter -

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said that Muslims throughout the world will feel more confident now that Pakistan has nuclear weapons because it will help balance Israel's nuclear capability.
(BBC, 30 May 98)

http://defenceforumindia.com/milita...ction-pakistani-nuclear-tests.html#post425990

 

[ejazr]

If we've to choose between Israel and Iran, choose the former

Its been a busy week but I like this article because this is what I would call an Israel firster argument where the author seems more concerned about Israel's interests rather than Indian interests.

Lets break down this editorial to its "meat" and cut out the fluff.

We have, so far, rightly refrained from falling for this, but no matter what turns out to be the truth, we need to ask ourselves one thing: how has our kowtowing to the Islamic world benefited us? We can say cheap oil – but neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia is in the business of selling us cheap oil. But even while profiting from selling us their oil, they follow policies driven by Islamism that are against our interests in Kashmir and in the rest of India.

When have we kowtowed to the "Islamic world" if there is such a monolith in the International arena in the first place? We have improved our relations with Israel independently and at the same time what actions have we done that would qualify as kowtowing to the "Islamic world". What the author here is probably indicating is Indian's support to a two state solution of the Israel-Palestine problem. But other than voicing our support we have done nothing else. And this position is supported by 180+ countries including the EU, China, Russia among others. And was at least accepted by Israel and US as the end solution in various accords.
And then Kashmir comes out of the blue. This is reflective of the attitude among some people in India who can't understand that Palestine is not Kashmir and India is not Israel. And when you compare the two, you are responsible for WEAKENING the strong Indian case in Kashmir. Not to mention that the Arab League has already stated that they hold no position on Kashmir and that every country in the world with the exception of Pakistan wants to resolve Kashmir BILATERALLY which is what India's position is in any case.

In the Maldives, an island country with barely 400,000 people, recent developments have been largely anti-India in content
Again, just like making the mistake of looking at Iranian and Saudi foreign policy with a religious lens rather than geopolitics, the author makes the same mistake with Maldives. This mistake is precisely the reason why Pakistan has become a foreign policy basket case and is a prime example of where you can end by looking at foreign policy through a religious lens only. The MEA has actually done quite a good job in the domestic crises in Maldives and I won't discuss much about it here but suffice to say that the only country that the Maldives opposition and ruling party is listening to is India. The China factor will always be there not just in Maldives but around the world and it should be countered. But supporting Nasheed by landing IA troops would be the worst possible way going about doing it.

India's friendship may even help Israel follow a less brutally repressive regime in Palestine – but that is another story. For now, we will focus on our hostile neighborhood.
Then we have a long winded rant on nothing about Iran or Israel except how better we are compared to Israel and how "problematic" our neighbors are. Although I do agree with his Bangladesh view that we have squandered an excellent opportunity to improve relations with Bangladesh. Particularly where we have Mamta Banerjee playing spoilsport in important land and water agreements as well as restrictions in our 1Billion dollar loan which has become a liability instead of creating goodwill.


This brings us to the larger geopolitical alignments we need to make to counter Pakistan, China and the Islamic powers that back Pakistan for their own and fundamentalist reasons.
So now we see the slip that the author fundamentally believes that the clash of civilization "theory" that China, Pakistan and "Islamic powers" are against India. It may make similar proponents feel mush inside but this has been proven time and again how utterly inaccurate this is. Again Pakistan is a prime example of how to become a basket case by making a foreign policy. Also, for some reason, the author has forgotten that India has the third biggest Muslim population in the world and that the Indian subcontinent contains a little more than 1/3 of the global muslim population. If the number of adherents would define where a religion is more prevalent, then Islam could well be called an Indic religion. So here we have someone saying that instead of using this as an asset and support Indian Islam of moderation through the world, lets turn them into a liability because they "feel" like one.


In the Muslim world, India needs good relationships with Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but we have to be clear that the relationship must be based on quid pro quo. Iran is the fountainhead of the Shia world, and hence a natural rival to Saudi Arabia, which foments hardline Wahabi doctrines. But Iran is a fundamentalist regime in its own way, and so our relationship should be based on mutual respect and balance.
If Iran is going to keep backing the Kashmir cause, we need to make it clear that it comes at a cost. Ditto for Saudi Arabia – where we have to oppose their funding of conservative ulema and Wahabi mosque building.
Now I like this part because here the author gives a semblance of realpolitik saying India needs good relations with Iran, Turkey and SA. Although Indonesia being the largest Muslim country as well as one of the largest economies would be included as well. But again, the religious lens clouds his vision. Also he seems to have forgotten that Iran in 1993 was the country that blocked UN Human Rights council sanctioning India on Kashmir and that under Vajpayee we had signed a defence pact in 2003 where we were repairing and building subs for Iran among other things. It was the MMS govt. that voted against Iran twice in the IAEA which for them felts a betrayal when they had under tremendous pressure protected India on Kashmir and India did not return the favor.
And seriously, all we want from the Saudis is to stop funding "wahabbi mosque building"? Again, there are far more important issues that we need Saudis to work with. Cracking down on terrorist finance routes were Pakistani expats are taking donations and passing it on to terror groups in Pakistan as well as intelligence sharing. Saudi co-op on this would be as beneficial as Israeli help in technical expertise. More importantly look into their terrorism rehab program and how they are combating terrorist doctrines ideologically through their ulema and on the Internet and TV. Something that Indian ulema can share and collaborate on when countering terrorist propaganda in the name of Islam. Imagine the psychological blow when Indian ulema who have repeatedly said that there is no validity of "Jihad" in Kashmir will convince and get the Saudi ulema to say the same in Pakistan?
Other than that we have the piracy issues in the Gulf of Aden and shared interests in the stability of Yemen and Somalia. More importantly, just like we need to keep China out of Maldives, we have to engage the GCC to keep China out from there as well.

If we had to choose between Iran and Israel, who should we then choose? The answer is obvious. With Israel we have no conflicts of interest. While this does not mean we should be drawn into Israel's larger West Asian conflicts, there is no reason why we should not expand our economic, defence, security and geopolitical relationship to the limit.
And then again, we have no discussion about Iran vs Israeli benefits to India but a rant on how we should do away with subsidized in our fuel sector. Something that I totally agree with and something that the states and not the centre in reality should be taking a lead on given that they take the bulk of the taxes and without lowering the taxes, the subsidy provided by the centre will be political impossible.
But certainly energy independence is a lofty but impossible goal to achieve to be realistic. Renewable energy can do only so much and shale gas is still unproven and in the pilot stage at present.

And suddenly we have a conclusion that Israel is the obvious choice. Even though 90% of the article matter does not even discuss Israel or Iran.
Since the question is just between Israel and Iran, I have voted both. But if people have followed my posts on this matter, they would know that I had predicted that if push came to shove, India will have to downgrade - not cut- its ties with Iran and kiss C. Asia goodbye for now. But this article does a very poor job of justifying its conclusions and looks more like a polemical argument

 

[Yatharth Singh]

Diplomatic relations are not like girlfriends, India have strategic interest with nations which does not necessarily implies that India is a part of any lobby group, Indian diplomatic interest with Iran have nothing to do with India's relationship with Israel. It is not something like at the cost of other nation when India is not a part of any military bloc, Indian military cooperation with Israel doesn't harm an Iranian relation, note that Israel even does business with PRC at the same time Indian relationship with PRC is irrespective to US wish of a counter alliance against PRC which have no direct interest of Indian policy, diplomacy is a dynamic concept while geography have its own importance, I negate any such importance to a second country in favour of a third country, the favour must be in the Indian side, and we need relations with these nations irrespective of other nations wish, the current policy is in favour from Indian perspective an equal importance for a related nation from which India have more to earn then to loose from a positive diplomacy.

Ohh I thought that diplomatic relations are like sl*ts . The discussion and possibilities I carried forward were about the future Iran-Israel-Indian trilateral relationship and nor the current ones. Right now Syria is in trouble. With each passing day possibilities of a NATO charge against the Syrian Government are gaining heights. Yesterday it was Libya, today its Syria and who knows tomorrow it may be Iran`s turn!

But the case of Iran is not similar to Egypt, Libya or Syria. The President of Iran has full support of its citizens and officials. Nothing can stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. And this is what pinch the west. Iran also has the support from Arab League and is definitely a strong opponent for NATO nations. Iran is a strong, sovereign nation and is rightful in standing against the NATO. It has the same rights to develop its capabilities which U.S have. The world wont run according to Uncle Sam.

For India, relation with Iran are of extreme value. Our middle east policies cant flourish without Iran. But let me quote that India is not jumping into any sort of military operation until something affects our lands. Peace-keeping is a different thing. And Israel is strong enough to make its enemy lick their as**s. It will never call upon India for any military operation against any nation and neither India will agree. Trade and friendship are very different thing.

And you are saying Israel does trade with China. I say even India does it, on an extreme large scale than Israel. India also trade with Pakistan so it doesnt mean that Pakistan is a friend of India. In a diplomacy, the nations interest is put first and then the interest of our allies and that too with diplomacy.

Okay a simple question, would India mind if Israel open up its arms sale and give the same technology to Pakistan which it gave to India? Cant India even give a simple suggestion or advice to Israel about it?

 

[ejazr]

I might as well explain my last point as well on WHY India would have downgrade ties with Iran. Which we have been doing for a while now since UPA came to power in 2004 contrary to the NDA policy.

We would have to downgrade Iran not because of Israel, but because the US-Israel-Saudi(GCC) combine together is of much more interest to India. In fact, the GCC countries probably have more leverage with India on this issue than Israel. Keep in mind that 60% of our oil comes from the GCC and is also the biggest trading bloc in the world at more than $130Billion. Not to mention the employment of 6.5 to 7 million expats that send about $35Billion in remittances every year. That is more in trade and weapons deals we do with Iran and Israel combined.

So what are the pros and cons that have to be weighted then?
Iran:
Provides oil and gas
Geographical link to Afghanistan and C. Asia
Strategic leverage over political forces in Afghanistan and against Pakistan
Keep Chinese influence out of Indian neighborhood

Israel
Provides weapons systems
Co-operation in intelligence sharing and anti-terrorism expertise
Hi-tech trade and advanced irrigation techniques
Influence in the US congress


Given this head to head comparison, the answer would be both countries are important. Infact, there is no pertinent reason here that would indicate that India should sacrifice its interests in Iran to appease Israel. And this is no disrespect to Israel here which will continue to remain a close partner. But just like Israeli and its US partners had no qualms in destroying a friendly regime in Iraq with which had military ties and close trade deals including oil deals because they wanted to protect THEIR interests. As recently as 2002, Saddam Hussein had openly supported India on the Kashmir issue something that even the US refrains to do even now. Not only was Iraq, an important Indian ally destroyed, but US left Afghanistan to Mushrraf because of the Iraq war which has directly impacted Indian security interests there. Had it not been for the Iraq war, the US would still have 2-3 trillion dollars in its kitty and Taliban would never have made a comeback. But even though Israeli and Indian interests had a conflict here, it is their right to pursue it. Hence, India should be able to protect its interests as well in the Iran context.

But the reality is that its not just Iran vs Israel now. But like I mentioned, US-Israel-Saudi/GCC vs Iran. And when you add the GCC interests that I listed earlier along with the need to build ties with the US on an international level, Iran unfortunately loses out along with our interests there.
Personally, I don't think India should or is playing a role of a meek follower. It should more actively engage Iran and International community to mediate between the two. If countries as far away as France, Brazil and Germany are mediating between Iran, then why is India - the third largest economy in PPP terms not involved in issues related to its neighborhood. It should be actively involved in preventing an escalation and certainly not allow any war talk to take place.

 

[spikey360]

As ejazr mentioned earlier, criticizing Iran just for the sake of Israel would be a big blunder for India.
The 'flavour' of the article of this thread, it seems is based on the view that India and Israel are similar cause they have similar foes most of them from Islamic world. Pretty much wrong notion. India and Israel are alike in only in one major point. That is, both see a foe in Pakistan. It is noteworthy to mention that India is a secular country but Israel is theocratic. All muslims in Israel are treated like second-class citizens, while Indian Muslims are made Presidents of this great nation. In India we celebrate our diversity our melting pot of cultures and religion while Israel represents everything but that. Israel is a tiny country, many Israels would fit in some of our bigger states, while India is a population of 1.2 billion, spread across the subcontinent. The policy of Israel is aggression against whoever seems remotely hostile, while India is willing to forgive even Pakistan provided it mends its ways. Indian believes in not meddling with other countries while Israel has no such morality. India was a nation which has been there for centuries while Israel in its present form had no existence even a century ago.
Therefore it would be wise to note our differences and follow our independent policy instead of sleeping in the same bed with them.

 

[ejazr]

Just two quick points on something that people bring up on this issue

(1) Iran wants to destroy Israel and its very existence is at stake. So in this case, we should double down on Israel and break off from Iran
(2) Iran vs Saudi is shia vs sunni. Why get in the middle of a 1000 year old schism in Islam and try to mediate.

Now the blanket statement that Israels' very existence is at stake is incorrect. There certainly may be a "Section" of the Arab and larger Muslim AND non-Muslim world who feel the creation of Israel is wrong. But lets look at what the nation states and their govt. have to say about it

A small number of Muslim countries already recognize and have diplomatic relations with Israel like Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, C. Asian countries e.t.c. The PLO or the Palestinian Authority under Oslo accords has ALREADY recognized Israel as a state. The Arab League which includes ALL Arab countries came up with a 2002 Arab peace initiative which comprehensively stated that all Arab states will not only recognize Israel but also establish trade and diplomatic relations with Israel and something that was also endorsed by the OIC.

Even militarily, Israel has the most powerful military in that part of the world as well as a superpower ally in the US that will come to its aid. Not to mention the around 250-300 nukes that Israel has with full capability to deliver them by air, water and land based vehicles. So the idea that Israel will be destroyed is impossible given this reality. And similarly, even if Iran did get nukes, it is impossible to expect they would lob one at Israel and not expect to kill millions of Israeli Arabs or Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza.

Now Iran has been a problem in the sense that it has supported Hezbulla and HAMAS. Both groups are anti-Saudi and for those who had followed Wikileaks they would know that the Saudis had actually supported Israel going after Hamas in Gaza to cut them down to size. Again, geo-politics and not religion shows that Saudis and Israelis have aligned interests in the region here.

Coming to the shia vs sunni issue. Again, this is NOT the main issue. The main issue against is geo-politics and the Gulf Arabs realist approach to a strong Iran that can be hostile to them. Now lets look at some examples. Palestinian group Hamas is sunni but is supported by Iran. When the shah of Iran was in power - a sunni - he launched an attack on UAE and occupied three islands that are still disputed. He also had close ties with Israel and Turkey to keep Iraq, Syria and Egypt destabilized and share intelligence as part of the Trident group in order to counter the more populous Arab states. Then we have the example of the Azerbaijan vs Armenia war on early 1990s. Azerbaijan is a shia muslim country but Iran supported Armenia - a christian orthodox country- against shia Azerbaijan. This is again because it wanted to restrain Azerbaijan from becoming too powerful because 30-40% of Iranians are Azeris and Azerbaijan may stake a claim on Iran.

There are many other examples where the shia-sunni factor is in the background and realpolitik is in the foreground and that is what India needs to take into account and tackle head on. The best possible scenario would be that Iran finally agrees to nuke inspections and Israel pipes down on the rhetoric and India will have to play an active role for this to happen. Maybe even host a trilateral summit between Iran, Israel and US reps with the possible addition of GCC reps as well. Otherwise, like I mentioned in my previous post, quietly say goodbye to Iran and the strategic influence in C. Asia and Afghanistan with it.

 

[asianobserve]

It's interesting that so far based on the above survey nobody wants India to stick out its neck for Iran in case India is made to chose between it and Israel. The choice of Israel even outranks those calling for a "both" choice.