I am against US invading Iran under any circumstance (but not against a regime change). And not because it would be another Muslim country US would have invaded (although now that you mention it, that is also a very good reason and would be in US interests as well)
The main reason as I listed earlier is that for India the priorities are
(1) Focus on Afghanistan stabilization and Pakistani terrorism (both of which are Muslim countries also by the way)
(2) Prepare and tackle the challenge of a resurgent China.
A distraction towards Iran, like the distraction in Iraq would be bad for both US and Indian interests in the region when the above two priorities is what we want to focus on. The supply routes will no longer be an issue post 2014 once the bulk of the US troops withdraw and Afghans can privately continue to use the Iranian supply routes which they are already doing at present even if the US doesn't use it.
I think you are mistakenly thinking that a pro-Israel or pro-US Iran would automatically be pro-India as well. Historically, Iran under the Shah was pro-US and part of the CENTO block. Its intelligence agency along with the Turkish intelligence and MOSSAD were part of the Trident organization that was charged with tracking and de-stablising left leaning Arab nationalist regimes in the ME which were pro-India.
And the same Iranian regime provided real strategic depth to Pakistan as well as fighter jets to Pakistan in 65 and 71 wars. After the Shah of Iran was overthrown and an anti-US Iranian regime came to power, Iran became favorable to India culminating in the 1994 veto by Iran in the OIC on UNHRC resolution that would have resulted in sanctions against India on HR issues. Some details here: Revealed: Why Iran did for India and why it hurts. So the International context plays a major role in how the states behave as well and weather a regime will be favorable to us or not.
Iraq in Gulf War I was facing a coalition of 80 countries, including a large number of Arab countries and Muslim countries like Turkey. In Afghanistan, US had the backing of the entire NATO block as well as close allies like Japan, UAE and emerging ones like India. In Gulf War II, Iraq was a bankrupt country under sanction with half a million kids who died due to lack of food and medicines. Still, the US was only realistically able to gather UK and Australian support for the invasion. And with that it had to go through lots of blood and treasure to stablise it and then eventually hand it out to Iran on a platter after ending it all.
I am willing to bet that for an Iran invasion, US will have to leg it alone with possibly considerable opposition to it from the military core itself forget the domestic populace given that Mike Mullen Chief of Army staff is on record to opposing military action on Iran. Particularly given the economic crisis the EU and other countries are finding themselves in.
If you have read or heard any of the military officer core of the US speak on the decision of the Iraq invasion, the adjective disastrous is used quite regularly. Particularly now that Iraq has basically come more or less under Iranian influence after the removal of Saddam making Iran stronger in the region counter productive to what the US would have wanted. Bob Gates, former defense secretary to the President Bush and Obama basically said that the next President who orders a land invasion into another country in the Middle East or Asia needs his head examined. These are very strong and clear words on the sentiment of the US defense establishment.
As I have said in my earlier posts, yes regime change is favorable and required in Iran. Iran is one of the Muslim country in the world and even historically where a cleric is the head of state. The only other being the short lived Taliban in Afghanistan. The religious nationalist ideology that comes with is antithetical to traditional Islam and will have to be changed. I just don't see invading Iran by the US and getting bogged down there while Pakistan gets another free hand to do what it wants and China gets another decade of interference free expansion would be in the interest of India or the US. And I think no one would be foolish to suggest that just a few air strikes with bunker busters would get rid of the Iranian regime. In fact, it would only naturally strengthen the regime.
The only other way is strengthening the sanctioning regime which is already happening. At the same time, India should always try to squeeze out the maximum benefit on this deal by cutting a deal with the Americans, the GCC bloc and the Israelis on one side for cooling down Iranian ties and at the same time keep a back channel and low level ties open with Iran so that India can take the first mover advantage when necessary. And as I mentioned in my first post on this thread, we might already be seeing a India-GCC-Israel-US bloc as a counter to an emerging Iran-Pakistan-China bloc. Even though Ideally, we would like to isolate only Pakistan and possibly China and have everyone else on our side.
Again bottom line is that the most urgent Indian interests are
(1) The Af-Pak region and (2) China
And this is what should matter to the US as well. The Af-Pak region is the major breeding ground for International terrorism. US does not face any existential threat from Iran. Although yes the Arab gulf states and to a lesser extent Israel feel threatened by Iran. You may find it surprising if you view International relations in a religious context but the Arab gulf states are one of the most ardent advocates of heavy sanctions and credible military action against Iran although they prefer to be quiet about it.
But IMO, Indian interests (and US) don't coincide with Gulf Arab and Israel on this issue for now. Keep strengthening the sanctions regime on Iran and possibly a in house regime change. But use the "Western force" and firepower in the Af-Pak theatre to keep the Taliban out and Pakistan on its toes. And refocus assets into the Pacific region.
Last edited:
