In My View

Iran on a diplomatic overdrive

Riyadh. Sharm Al Shaikh. Abu Dhabi. Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s diplomatic sweep in the recent months seems to say something to the people of West Asia on the one level and the world, on another. The message he has driven is radically different from what the West Asians have heard almost since the Second World War – that the region belongs to them. And they do not need others – outsiders - to put their house in order.

Ironically, the message in bold relief – West Asia for West Asians – is being delivered by a Teheran that the West is still seeking to isolate and punish. And yet, Ahmadinejad is getting a resonance in the capitals of the region. In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, he extracted a promise from King Abdullah that the countries would jointly fight “conspiracies’ against the region. They vowed to increase efforts for unity in the Islamic world and “block discord amongst Islamic sects.”

Iran walked a tougher tight rope in its preparation for meeting the other parties in the Iraq conflict at Sharm al-Shaikh, Egypt. Courted by many like the hosts, the Egyptians, the Iraqis and the Saudis to definitely attend the summit, Iran had begun with a few concerns.

It had felt that the meet could turn into a ‘indict Iran’ kangaroo court where the US and its allies would seek to lay the blame for the ills of Iraq at Teheran’s door.

Or the meet, more specifically its much hyped sideline tete-a-tete between the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice and the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manourchehr Mottaki could lead the Americans to up the ante in the nuclear stand off. The exchange between two representatives of the country could allow the US President, George W. Bush to argue that he walked the extra mile only to be deadlocked by the Iranian intransigence on the nuclear issue.

And third, Iran felt that the meeting was being organised as a “consequence of the US attempt to lay the heavy burden of running Iraq's affairs on the shoulders of other countries and urge its neighbors to support the Iraqi government," as the Iranian news agency, IRNA had reported.

Some in Iran had wanted the government to set preconditions for attending the talks. Their logic ran thus: If the USA refused to fulfill the conditions Iran could not have attended the conference and thus walk the minefield. Or if the US did acquiesce, the latter could then begin the meet as a winner.

The next stop of Ahmadinejad in Abu Dhabi and Oman was pure theatre smacking of major power politics. He snapped at the heels of the US Vice President, Dick Cheney, who visited the region just days before entreating the nations to create roadblocks for an Iranian dominance of West Asia.

The rhetoric that emerged was equally florid on the other side. The Iranian president asked the Americans to pack their bags and leave. He addressed three public events in Abu Dhabi, including one at a football stadium, where thousands chanted anti-American slogans as he gave marching orders to the USA.

From the government of UAE, heavily in collusion with Washington, he extracted a promise that they would be neutral in Iran’s stand off with the West. But curiously they also talked of establishing regional security. Again, the message was about inter-sect peace and stability.

At Abu Dhabi, Ahmadinejad did not fail to deliver the almost triumphant message: that Iran will be talking with the USA directly on a bilateral basis in the near future, of course, for the cause of bringing peace to Iraq!

Here is a nation that was being pilloried daily by the USA and its main Western ally, the UK, as being led by a pariah regime seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. And here they are engaging each other in a dialogue that could prove important for the region, if not just for Iran.

Of course, both the USA and the Iranians are approaching each other with great caution and trepidation. American domestic opinionmakers are busy clarifying the fact that the dialogue would be limited only to the extent of Iraq and not any other issue, read nuclear. And Ahmadinejad has gone on record to say relations between two nations are based upon “justice, equality, and peace.” And the present conditions between the two do not match up to that standard.

India’s External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, was in Teheran only a few months ago amidst much speculation about the state of Indo-Iranian relation. Recently, a few US Senators even wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh about how not to run that relation in light of the growing strategic relations between India and the USA.

Yet, not one quite appreciated an area of strategic convergence between Iran and India, and even the USA. Mukherjee in his press statement issued from Teheran had barely touched upon it in one sentence. “I expressed our appreciation of the cooperation extended by Iran to our assistance projects in Afghanistan,” Mukherjee had said.

With sections in Pakistan’s establishment seeking to raise the Taliban once again from the abyss it was in 2002, and with sections of the Bush Administration even seeking to open channels of communication with the new Taliban for supposedly ‘stabilising’ Afghanistan, Iran, India and the sensible sections of the USA have interests in shoring up those ruling sections of the Afghan elite whose mortal enemy are the Taliban.

Not surprisingly, Indian Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas, Murli Deora, known for his links with the West, sounded so strident in favour of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, only a few days ago. When built the pipeline would be a guarantee that neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan ever becomes a safe haven for an Osama Bin Laden and his fellow travelers. That would in turn go a long way to stabilise West Asia, whether the Americans choose to believe so or not.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kolkata. He writes on Strategic Security issue. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in .