Trumpian sanctions, Iran and India’s 56-inch approach to foreign policy

The much-bruited about US sanctions on Iran and those who dare to do business with it have come into force on 5 November this year, 180 days after the US president, Donald Trump, walked out of the nuclear deal with Iran, agreed to by Barak Obama in 2015. As part of the new sanctions regime, the US will be “granting exemptions” to China, India, Italy, Greece, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. Announcing the sanctions and waivers, the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo said that, “Each of them has already demonstrated significant reductions of the purchase of Iranian crude over the past six months, and two of those eight have already completely ended imports of Iranian crude and will not resume as long as the sanctions remain.” Pompeo further elaborated that the US “objective is to starve the Iranian regime of the revenue it uses to fund violent and destabilizing activities throughout the Middle East, and indeed around the world. Our ultimate goal is to convince the regime to abandon its current revolutionary course.” It is significant that Pompeo did not indicate the time frame for reducing Iran's oil exports to zero. The reason is that the US's capacity to enforce its national interest on countries across the world varies.

Where does India stand as far as US's clout to intimidate is concerned? The minister of petroleum and natural gas, Dharmendra Pradhan, has praised the prime minister Narendra Modi for getting the waiver not only for India, but also for others. Sycophancy is an Indian specialty.

India failed to avail its 56-inch confidence and its diplomacy with regard to the Iran sanctions has been lamentably immature. The day Trump was declared president, India should have figured out a strategy for the likely action he might take against Iran. As candidate, Trump had made his intentions clear. Even before Trump walked into the White House, India should have secretly offered Iran a bargain to continue with imports, despite US sanctions against CIF [Cost, Insurance and Freight] delivery and deep discounts. This would have also ensured that India alone decides when and how to reveal the deal and Iran would have accepted the offer. As Washington signalled that it was about to walk out of the nuclear deal, India should have told the US, discreetly but firmly, that it would continue to buy crude oil from Iran and go ahead with the Chabahar project — a strategic Iranian port being developed by India. However, India would be prepared to go through the charade of waivers if US wished. In short, the waivers would not have been a favour that US bestows on India.

Let’s now analyse Pompeo’s statements. It’s rather ironic that he uses the word revolutionary in a pejorative sense considering that we all admire the American Revolution of 1776. Pompeo expects to change the behaviour of the regime. In plain English, he wants a regime change and his assessment is that the new establishment will be less hostile, and even obedient, to the US. Pompeo argued, unconvincingly, that the sanctions were targeted against the regime and not the people. As of now, Iran will find it difficult to import even life-saving medicines as banks are scared of coming under scrutiny by the US treasury, if they deal with Iran. Here, we must remember the scale of human tragedy in Iraq due to the economic embargo between 1991 and 2003. According to Fred Halliday, former UN chief in Iraq, “between 1 million and 1.5 million Iraqis died from malnutrition or inadequate health care resulting from economic sanctions” during the Saddam Hussein regime.

Note that Trump advanced no good reason for his decision to walk out of the deal, for the good reason that he has no good reason at all. He has a visceral hatred for his predecessor, whose legacy he wants to undermine. Equally, if not more important, Trump's policy on Iran and the region is influenced more by Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, than anyone else. It was Israel that repeated ad nauseum that Iran was six months away, then one month away, from acquiring a nuclear bomb, unsupported by any evidence.

The Trump administration wants a new agreement with Iran that will cover nuclear activities, missile development and Iran's influence in Syria, Yemen, and the rest of the region. In his 5 November speech Pompeo claimed that, “Since President Trump’s announcement in May [2018], over 100 companies have either withdrawn from Iran or cancelled plans to do business there. More than 20 countries have stopped buying oil from Iran reducing Iran's export by one million tonnes, costing Iran $2.5 billion.”

Trump's decision and the response of the rest of the world call for reflection. The Europeans have been intimidated. The EU announced its intention to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle, or SPV, to do business with Iran. However, the SPV is yet to be established and it will give only partial relief to Iran, as the proceeds of oil exports will be kept in a special account which Iran can operate to import permitted items from EU. Among the eight countries that have been granted exemptions, the US obviously has more clout over South Korea than China. It is rather intriguing that China did not defy the US. After the May 2018 announcement, China had defiantly declared that it would continue buying oil from Iran. Perhaps, the soon-to-be superpower, already engaged in a bruising trade war with Trump, does not want to irritate him further.

Those who argue that India is too weak for a confrontational approach have not understood India's clout as a big buyer of arms from the US. India should have settled the Iran oil imports and the purchase of the S-400 [missile] system from Russia, with US, before or at the 2plus2 held in Delhi on 6 September this year. The 2plus2 was a ministerial-level dialogue between the foreign and defence ministers of India and the US. Trump will not dare to do anything that will hurt the likes of Lockheed Martin. India briefly displayed its 56-inch chest by sealing the S-400 deal with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, despite threats from Washington. Unfortunately, the defence minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, while in the US on an official visit, has repeated the request for a waiver. India should stop seeking waivers. India can do better, when and if it combines its projected self-confidence with mature, professional diplomacy. Inviting Trump as chief guest for the Republic Day did not show a professional approach.

We should also recognise that despite the talk about multi-polarity, there is virtual unipolarity in the international financial sector. It is unjustifiable for US to dictate that other countries stop doing business with Iran. While EU has signalled its willingness to let others use the SPV, so far India has not shown any interest. In a more rational world, India would have entered into in-depth talks with the EU and other countries in order to dismantle the unipolar structure of US domination. That would have been a 56-inch foreign policy.

Trump's decision also displays a lamentable inability to understand Iran's mindset. However, this is not the first time that a US president has displayed such ignorance of Iran. In November 1979, when the deposed Iranian Shah sought political asylum in US, then president Jimmy Carter granted him asylum against the advice of his ambassador in Iran and that of the secretary of state. Subsequently, militants in Tehran took over the US embassy, and Carter lost his bid for a second term to Reagan, who was in touch with Iran for the release of the embassy hostages. Iranians will also recall that in 1953, when Iran was on its way to becoming a democracy, it was the CIA that at a cost of $10,000 deposed the popular prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh and re-instated the same Shah to whom Carter gave asylum.

Let’s look at the big picture. India is not seeking to change the regime in Iran or to weaken it. We need a strong relationship with Iran as only through Iran—via Chabahar—can India get access to Afghanistan and Central Asia, given that Pakistan has blocked India's land trade routes. India has invested heavily in the improvement of the Chabahar port, as well as in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), initiated by India, Iran, and Russia in 2002. If India has the ambition to be a great power it should not be seen as accepting any US diktat without taking care of its vital interests. After all, diplomacy is the art of punching slightly above one’s weight. The Ministry of External Affairs should have a life-size statue of Chanakya in the Jawaharlal Nehru Bhawan, presumably before its name is changed.