The world must ensure Iran retains a functioning post-war state machinery

Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid a highly publicised visit to Israel on February 25 and 26. His close and personal bond with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was on display, and a significant expansion of their multi-domain partnership was announced during the visit.

 

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched a large-scale and unprovoked air and missile attack against Iran, killing Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and several top clerical and state officials.

 

In retrospect, the timing of the visit was unfortunate. Events had been building up to war with Iran for weeks. The US had assembled a large armada of warships, air assets and military personnel in the Gulf. The drumbeats of war were becoming louder in Israel. These signs were ominous enough to engender a sense of caution.

 

Was it that war was expected but that India put a wager on a swift Iranian defeat and its likely descent into American vassalage as in Mr Trump’s Venezuela model? American and Israeli commentary suggests that one objective may have been to take over Iran’s huge oil and gas reserves and resume their outward flow but under US and Israeli control. It is being argued that this would give US leverage over China, which is a major purchaser of Iranian oil. More generally, this would also give the US and its ally Israel, leverage over the other Gulf oil producers. One recalls a similar argument being used in the initial stages of the Iraq War (2003-2011), Iraq, like Iran, being a major oil producer. We know how that ended. India should not buy into that failed narrative.

 

Why was there a reluctance to condemn the attack on Iran and the violation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty? There was not even a message of condolence on the death of Ayatollah Khamenei and it was only belatedly, on March 5, that the foreign secretary was despatched to the Iranian embassy to sign the condolence book opened for the departed leader. Does this show that we are surprised by Iranian resilience in the face of a brutal campaign of death and destruction and that the state structures and authority remain in place? Are we beginning to hedge? We should not have been surprised by Iranian resilience and its capacity to endure pain. It survived the eight-year war with Iraq (1980-88) when it lost more than half a million of its people. It suffered chemical weapon attacks and the sentinels of human rights looked the other way. Iran was isolated internationally, shunned by the Arab states and their Western patrons. It has since learnt to live with sanctions and constant security threats. Its rulers have been ruthless and cruel but never has external intervention for regime change delivered benign outcomes. Think of the Iraq War (2003-11) or Libya (2011) and Afghanistan (2001-21). One should have learnt from history.

 

There has been surprise in some quarters that Iran not only retaliated with drones and missiles against Israel but also against American military bases and installations in several Gulf countries. But Iran had warned that these would be legitimate targets in the event of war.  These attacks have subsequently been expanded to target the oil and gas infrastructure, airports and port facilities in Gulf countries. Iran’s relations with its neighbours will inevitably worsen but this is a small price to pay for ensuring Iran’s survival. The strategy is simple. Faced with asymmetrical and overwhelming power, Iran is raising the cost to the regional and global economy by widening the hostilities into a regional war. Gulf countries are losing income as they are unable to export their oil and gas. What used to be one of the dense nodes for air travel is now seeing flights grounded or diverted. Shipping lanes are threatened and oil and gas shipments are at high risk. Oil  prices have risen from $60 per barrel before the war to $80 now and are still rising. Will the prospect of higher gas prices, inflation and falling stock markets lead Mr Trump to declare “victory” and stop the war, leaving behind a mess for others to clean up? It wouldn’t be for the first time in recent US history. The point is that India should have been alert to these likely scenarios and better prepared to deal with the heightened risks to Indian interests. Our energy security is under threat and the safety and welfare of the 9 million-strong diaspora is a growing concern. Our diplomacy should have been focused on preventing war and avoiding the inevitable disruptions it would cause, posing a real risk to India’s growth story.

 

There is an even more apocalyptic scenario that few have alluded to. Iran has a significant nuclear industry and highly qualified nuclear scientists and engineers. Its nuclear facilities are widely dispersed and it is not known where and how much fissile material it has in its possession. In case of a state collapse and general chaos prevailing in the country — a stated objective of Israel — what happens to this material? Could it be sold off clandestinely to hostile non-state actors? Where will the corps of highly qualified scientists and engineers go and who would tap into this knowledge pool? There is an acute danger of unrestrained proliferation and nuclear danger right next to the Indian sub-continent. It is in everyone’s interest that a functioning state machinery with authority remains in place to keep control over Iran’s substantial and highly developed network of nuclear facilities.

 

In advance of Prime Minister Modi’s visit, Prime Minister Netanyahu floated the idea of a “Hexagonal Alliance” straddling West Asia and the Mediterranean. The alliance would have Israel, India, Cyprus and Greece as original members and later include several other countries from Asia, the Arab world and Africa. Some commentary in Israel suggests that access to the Israeli port of Haifa and to the proposed Israeli naval facility on the Somaliland coast under the Hexagon, may be tempting for India. Mr Netanyahu said India would be the “pillar” of the grouping. There has been no official reaction from India.

 

One hopes that India stays away from such a problematical grouping.

The author is a former foreign secretary