India and Pakistan today share an identical experience, something they have very rarely done in the past 58 years. They are both under growing pressure to side with the United States in its escalating diplomatic-political confrontation with Iran, and in particular, to abandon the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline. They are also being offered inducements to "sweeten" the coercion.

Pakistan and India should do everything within their power to resist Washington’s pressure. This Column argues that not doing so would deeply compromise the interests of their own peoples, besides closing avenues to long-term cooperation between South Asia, and West, Southwest and Central Asia, with all its tremendous potential benefits.

Iran has become a test case for Indian and Pakistani diplomacy, and for the independence of both states’ foreign policies. The reason is simple. The US has unilaterally decided that Iran is—like Iraq was 15 years ago, and again, three years ago—hell-bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Washington is going all-out to isolate Iran and have its nuclear activities referred to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. The crunch could come next Monday when the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets in Vienna. It alone can refer Iran to the Security Council.

There are two differences between the Iranian and Iraqi cases. The US has demonised the Iranian government right since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, regardless of the political changes under way there, especially in recent years. It declared Iran a "rogue state" just as it was emerging from the shadow of Ayatollah- style Islamic extremism.

By contrast, Washington backed Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, passed on vital intelligence to him, and condoned his use of chemical weapons against civilians—before turning against him.

Secondly, the US, with Britain’s collusion, built up some sort of a case in 2002-03 that Iraq had, or was about to make, WMD. Most sensible people didn’t fully believe this or the sexed-up intelligence on which it was based. They were soon vindicated. Now, even Colin Powell says he regrets having made a false report on Iraq’s WMD.

However, not even a remotely plausible case has been made that Iran has WMD or that its nuclear programme has a military component. The IAEA has repeatedly given Iran a clean chit. In its latest reports, it concludes, on the basis of tests, that the traces of enriched uranium detected two years ago at Iranian nuclear facilities are attributable to equipment imported from Pakistan. Repeated inspections have found no evidence that Iran is running a clandestine nuclear weapons programme. But the US dismisses these and the fact that Iran, unlike Saddam’s Iraq, has cooperated with the IAEA.

It’s perfectly legitimate to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other laws. Iran could of course use enriched uranium for military purposes in the future. But that’s a matter of intention. Negotiated ways could be found to prevent Iran from realising that intention. But the US has already pre-judged Tehran’s intentions as unalterable, and decided that sanctions are indispensable.

Washington is being profoundly, paranoically, irrational. It has seriously misjudged the international mood. Unlike Saddam’s Iraq, Iran enjoys a fair amount of goodwill the world over. It won’t be easy to isolate it. Regrettably, Washington is encouraged by the pusillanimity of the European Union-3 (Germany, France and Britain) and the inconsistent approach they showed in their two years- long negotiations with Iran.

In 2003, the EU-3 persuaded Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran also signed the IAEA’s tough Additional Protocol that year. But the EU-3 missed an agreed deadline (this past July 31) to propose a political and financial incentives-based deal to Iran. Actually, the EU-3 had developed a package on the assumption that Ali Akbar Rafsanjani would win the presidential election. When he lost, they hardened the deal’s terms and demanded that Iran permanently renounce uranium enrichment. Iran refused.

The crisis worsened when the IAEA reported Iran had produced seven tonnes of uranium hexaflouride gas at Isfahan. (The gas can feed enrichment centrifuges at another facility, in Natanz. But Iran has not started enrichment yet.)

The EU is reluctant to refer Iran to the Security Council. So are two-thirds of the IAEA’s 35-member board—including Pakistan and India, besides 13 other Non-Aligned countries. Russia and China are even more reluctant to sanction Iran. Russia is building a nuclear power station at Bushehr and says Iran hasn’t violated the non- proliferation regime. The IAEA has always taken decisions by consensus—which won’t be possible on Iran. So the US is pushing for a change in procedure, to voting.

To do this, Washington must split the Non-Aligned Movement group in the IAEA board, currently headed by Malaysia. NAM adopts a unanimous position at the IAEA. It defends Iran’s "right" to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Malaysia declares this to be "basic and inalienable".

The Iran issue has become a symbol of Third World defiance of bullying by the First World, led by a power which has no intention of disarming its own nuclear weapons. It goes without saying that Iran should not make nuclear weapons. But its legal right to civilian nuclear energy must be defended—whatever one’s reservations about nuclear power as an energy technology, often expressed in this Column.

The US is mounting pressure on India, Pakistan and other states to change their stand on Iran. It has challenged India, with Russia and China, to take the leadership in isolating Iran. It has reportedly offered incentives to Pakistan through civilian nuclear cooperation. Both governments have shown signs of vacillation, especially on the IPI pipeline. India’s vacillation became evident during Prime Minister Singh’s July visit to Washington, when he questioned the pipeline’s feasibility on the ground of high investor risk.

India and Pakistan must stand firm behind Iran and the pipeline—on principle. They should know that Washington is overplaying its hand and will probably fail at the IAEA board. The nuclear allurements Washington is holding out to India and Pakistan cannot possibly promote economically viable or environmentally sustainable energy paths.

The IPI pipeline makes a lot of sense—with energy conservation caveats added. It will deliver natural gas at less than half the cost of gas pumped from Turkmenistan. The IPI pipeline is not just an economic project. It will open new political vistas through fruitful cooperation between West and Central Asia, on the one hand, and South Asia, on the other. It will spur closer integration of these regions. Ultimately, it’s in such integration that India’s and Pakistan’s future lies, not in subordinate partnerships with the US.

A final word. The US is already facing enormous difficulties in occupied Iraq. If it attempts a diplomatic-political, and especially military, misadventure against Iran as well, its plans for Empire could come crashing down. Iran is a strong middle power, has a vibrant economy, and the second largest known oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. Culturally, Iran is flourishing. Democracy has imparted some popular legitimacy to its government.

The US will find it hard to humble Iran through coercion. Pakistan and India would be disastrously mistaken to overestimate American power. That’s one more reason for standing firm.

Copyright 2005 The News International