The Spectre Of Iran

Iran was the unseen presence in the room, a bit like Banquo's ghost, as President George Bush welcomed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for a brief meeting at the plush Waldorf Astoria hotel to assess the state of play on the nuclear agreement announced in July. While Bush explained his difficulties in shepherding the agreement through treacherous waters on Capitol Hill, he was clear that India's position on Iran's nuclear ambitions could prove to be a problem. Manmohan responded that Iran must abide by its international obligations and India was "resolutely opposed to any proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and makes no exception", especially in its own neighbourhood.

The uproar and acidity over Iran in the US Congress is a very real thing because Iran is "a national issue", say insiders. Confusion over what the Union foreign minister Natwar Singh said, or didn't, during his visit to Tehran earlier this month has raised temperature levels. Natwar's trip, which seemed like an eager endorsement of a hardline regime to the Americans, could instead have been a bridge-building exercise. India could have been a mediator between Iran and the US. After all, what are civilisational ties worth if they don't help to bind disparate friends?

Message meisters and strategists fell a bit short, said sources, a lapse that ultimately led to an unseemly outburst by Congressman Tom Lantos against India during a hearing. Pressure from the US Congress for India to present its position in a more black-and-white fashion is intense. While the Bush administration is "much more sensitive to India, the Hill is very different", said a US analyst. When US officials tell US politicians that India is an ally and there is a "special relationship," American politicians demand "proof" of loyalty.

The Iran problem would have been easy to manage had there been no Indo-US nuclear agreement in need of Congressional support. "Capitol Hill wants more assurance that India is a far greater ally now that members are being asked to change laws for its sake," said a well-informed US analyst. "Iran is using India as a foil to feed its nuclear addiction."

But Indian officials feel Iran may end up being a storm in a teacup, not a Katrina-category hurricane. They feel that once the Bush administration decides its wants results, it will get them. After a meeting with Nick Burns, under secretary for political affairs, foreign secretary Shyam Saran told Outlook: "We are significantly more in convergence than has been reported. They are not coming down hard on us." India has thrown its weight behind the European initiative in defusing the confrontation between Iran and the US, the idea being to forge consensus and avoid a showdown because a battle over Iran would surely jeapordise the Indo-US nuclear pact.

While most members of the US Congress support the idea of a nuclear agreement with India because they recognise the need for better relations, they question the "heavy lifting" they must do for India (change US non-proliferation laws) without any guarantees on other fronts such as Iran. US officials have already begun work on garnering support for the July agreement with India among key countries. US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice explained the deal to the various foreign ministers gathered for the UN General Assembly, showing that she has a full-fledged plan. "It is very much part of the strategy to canvass support. It is not just Rice but the president on down," a former official told Outlook.

For its part, US officials would like India to make a list of its civilian and military reactors which is "credible and defensible"—a tough project in itself. "It would be best if India had a plan," said a USofficial. It would also help if India began active consultations with other members of the Nuclear SuppliersGroup. Those countries must be convinced before concrete results from the grand bargain can be felt for real.