WITH the UN-imposed, August 31 deadline for the suspension of Iran’s nuclear programme having passed, prospects of greater hostility and possible confrontation between Iran and the US appear quite real. Not only was Iran’s response considered inadequate and unsatisfactory by the US and its allies, they were particularly peeved that Iran had inaugurated a heavy water plant only days before the deadline.

The demand was not that Iran halt operations at the plant or at a reactor nearby that it is building for heavy water use. Instead, it focused on uranium enrichment, which is seen as a matter of greater urgency. Nevertheless, US and European officials have repeatedly called upon Iran to stop work on the heavy water facility, fearing it could be used to acquire greater quantities of enriched uranium.

The Bush administration’s desire to bring about a regime change in Iran is an open secret. But the situation is not simple. Notwithstanding some provocative statements issuing from it, the Iranian leadership conducts itself with considerable skill and intelligence. Its policies are in tune with the sentiments of the country’s overwhelming majority. Western diplomats based in Tehran acknowledge that even those Iranians who are not supportive of the regime are committed to the country’s nuclear programme.

Iran’s negotiating tactics with the major powers are directed towards ensuring that it retains the support of its core friends with special emphasis on reinforcing ties with Moscow and Beijing. Tehran recognises that while both capitals are opposed to the weaponisation of its nuclear programme, they are not to the country’s nuclear programme. It, therefore, denies any ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, but insists on maintaining the right to uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes.

This was evident in Iran’s response to the UN deadline. It neither accepted nor rejected the UN conditions. Instead, it called for more talks and sought clarifications on what it characterised as “ambiguities” in the package. The result was that the deadline came and went without any immediate crisis and became, instead, another event in the current confrontation with the West.

In fact, in the days leading to the deadline, Iranian officials worked feverishly to try to split the European coalition and to ensure Russian and Chinese support for its position. Not only do these countries have many economic and energy interests in Iran, but more importantly, they wield veto power in the Security Council and this is what is critical for Iran.

At home, the regime has demonstrated public disdain towards any possible sanctions, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stressing that Iran was neither “fearful nor concerned”, because it was able to “protect its interests.” Iranian officials have also claimed that the nuclear issue is only an American excuse to force the country to walk the road of unilateral concessions, to make it susceptible to pressure on other fronts, including human rights, support for Hezbollah and even the Islamic character of the regime. Iranian officials claim that while the US favours a confrontation, Europe wants to avoid such a scenario and is agreeable to “a face-saving deal” for both sides.

In the meanwhile, as the deadline approached, nuclear inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that since April when Iran began enriching uranium, it has produced about six kilograms of uranium to levels consistent with an energy programme. But inspectors observed that there have been substantial pauses in the programme as well, which led experts such as David Albright, president of the Institute of Science and International Security in Washington, to state that the Iranian programme had slowed down, “whether it is because of technical problems, or restraint, but the US cannot deliver on its promise to get hard sanctions, when Iran is barely progressing.”

It would be recalled that since his January 2002 State of the Union speech, when he singled out Iran as part of the “axis of evil”, President Bush has focused his energies on rolling back Tehran’s nuclear energy programme on the plea that it is a cover for nuclear weapons’ development. Under Secretary Nicholas Burns warned after the August 31 deadline that the US would press for immediate sanctions. But President Bush, in a speech that very day, stated that the US would consult its allies to find a diplomatic solution, while insisting that Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

The reason for this caution is obvious. For one, the US has failed to get what it considers as adequate support from major capitals, many of which, while sharing US suspicions about Iran’s intentions, have profound differences with the Bush administration over how to respond to this threat. They are particularly apprehensive about the administration’s public warning that “all options are on the table” in dealing with Tehran.

Robert Einhorn, an assistant secretary in the Clinton administration, wrote recently that the Bush administration’s negotiating tactics “suggest that regime change is the real objective”, and that this hurts US efforts at diplomacy, as have some of Bush’s recent speeches that resembled the language used with reference to Iraq before the March 2003 invasion of that country. This has hurt American diplomatic effort against Iran.

So we are back to a situation that could unravel prospects for a dialogue. While the Americans and their allies are genuinely worried about the impact of a nuclear-armed Iran on the region, the Iranians are convinced that they are a great power historically and deserve to be treated as such. The sharp contrast in the manner in which the US has treated the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran has convinced Tehran that their salvation lies in possessing nuclear arms. The more pressure the US exerts on Iran the more its people rally round the nuclear platform. There is the realisation that had Iraq been in possession of nuclear arms, the US would have dealt with Saddam Hussein far more cautiously.

Of course, the current situation in Iraq reinforces Iranian confidence, for in their view the US is presently stuck in a quagmire. Kayhan Barzegar, a professor of international relations, observed in a recent paper that the Iranian leadership believes that it has the upper hand in the current turmoil in Iraq. He argued that the US needs Iran’s assistance which can only be achieved through dialogue. In Barzegar’s words: “Iraq is the momentous moment, where the two countries can work with each other in tangible ways.” In his view, Iran can play a decisive role not only because of its links with the Shia government and militia groups in Iraq, but also because Iran is the region’s dominant economic, political and cultural power.

Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the Kayhan newspaper, is of the view that the US is in an impossible bind in Iraq. Washington’s policies have brought power to Iraq’s Islamic parties that are fundamentally opposed to American interests, he states. In other words, while the US is in physical possession of Iraq, it is Iran that has been the main beneficiary of Saddam Hussein’s ouster.

Hezbollah’s success in challenging Israel to a military stalemate in Lebanon, thanks to Iranian assistance and weapons, has not only emboldened the Iranian leadership, it has made Iran’s neighbours aware of the emergence of a new power centre in the region. In the words of George Perkovich, director at the Carnegie Centre in Washington: “Lebanon makes it worse because it creates an environment where the Iranians can say: ‘if you push us, we can cause real trouble and heartache for you’.” He adds that the Iraq war has demonstrated the peril of going after strong regimes and Israel’s failure to destroy Hezbollah “erased any doubt people had about what happens when you get real tough with bad actors,” he said.

In fact, recent events have convinced Iran that it is a rising power in the region while the US is on the decline. There is now less talk in Washington of a military option, even though it is not being ruled out altogether. US officials continue to portray their coalition as united and reject suggestions that the group could fracture, but support for tough sanctions, at the moment, is weak. The most that the US can hope for is the passage of another resolution, with cosmetic measures, such as curbs on Iranian import of nuclear-related technology and restrictions on travel of Iranian officials, etc.

Russia and China, in particular, would be opposed to measures aimed at Iran’s energy sector. Iran sits on some of the world’s largest known oil and gas reserves and both China and Russia have energy companies investing billions of dollars there.

The very fact that Washington has reacted with great circumspection to the “unsatisfactory” Iranian response to the UN deadline is evidence of the weakened hand of the Bush administration. Tehran has demonstrated that a popular government enjoying political legitimacy can galvanise its people, especially on an issue which enjoys the overwhelming support of the masses. Thanks to its millennium-old experience in diplomacy, Iran knows how to conduct negotiations with skill.

But, most significantly, there is little domestic support in the US for fresh adventures, as the electorate sees Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon in unceasing turmoil. This has become a major inhibiting factor for the Bush administration, especially with mid-term elections coming up. But still, it continues to up the ante by characterising extremist Muslims as Islamic fascists. Nevertheless, there is no appetite in the US for another war, at a time when body bags continue to be flown in every day from Iraq. Edward Glick, a well-known defence analyst, has warned that the US military faces the problem of “too many global conflicts and commitments — and too few soldiers.”

Interestingly, former Iranian President Khatami is on a five-city tour of the US where he is giving talks at some religious and academic institutions. Khatami’s presidency was marked by a serious effort by Tehran to promote a softer image and to advocate dialogue and reconciliation with the West, and in 1998, he had urged to end the “wall of mistrust” between Iran and the US. He had also made an overture to the West by calling for a “dialogue of civilisations”. While the Bush administration has stated that it will not hold official talks with Khatami, what the former Iranian leader, a genuine Iranian moderate, has to say should provide valuable input to the Americans.

In this continuing confrontation between the US and Iran, Pakistan has to tread with extreme caution and circumspection. While we have both historic and strategic interests in maintaining good relations with Tehran, we cannot afford to alienate Washington either, especially as it has become a major provider to us of economic assistance and advanced weaponry. The current situation will require all our skill and acumen to maintain both relationships without arousing misgivings in either capital.

The writer is a former ambassador.

IT is question not confined to a place, city or country. It concerns us all in South Asia, wherever we are living. Money, or more aptly the mafia, with the help of corrupt public servants is destroying our natural heritage of forests and fields.

This is supposed to be modernisation. I have nothing against it, except that what is being built looks hideous. My real complaint is that as the land in cities becomes scarce, forests, parks, in fact any green patch, are being blotted out to make room for concrete contraptions. Where does the environment figure?

Dazzled by the skyscrapers of Europe and America, we have come to prefer bricks to plants, opulence to simplicity, buildings to nature. When I travel through India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal, I find tall buildings devouring open spaces which are supposed to be the lungs of our habitations. Most of us are indifferent to what is going on but we will regret the loss of greenery some day.

India is the worst example. The green cover has already come down to 6.5 per cent from 15 per cent in the last 50 years. An eight per cent annual growth is not only bulldozing dissent on development but doing worse. The government itself is a party to the changing complexion of India through its use of steel and cement. Unfortunately, it is thoughtless, inept and crass development. One example in Delhi will bear this out. There is a ridge, older than the Himalayas. It has been cut and re-cut many a time to accommodate colonies. The worst was when the government wanted to build 11 hotels at the bit of forest left on Vasant Kunj. I petitioned the supreme court and got a stay order.

Worse followed when the court itself released a part of the forest land. I wrote a letter to the Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dixit six years ago to request her to notify the ridge under the Environmental Act and stop the “construction and felling of trees.” There was not even an acknowledgment. I was then a member of parliament.

Subsequently — by then I had retired from the Rajya Sabha — I wrote a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to draw his attention to the havoc being played with the environment in the ridge area. There was no reply from him either. That probably has encouraged grasping builders and corrupt authorities to start raising plazas, destroying even the source that recharges water. Although obliged to get permission from the ministry of environment, the builders disdainfully ignored the rules.

Some days ago an international workshop at Delhi passed a resolution that “If construction is not reversed in this area (the Vasant Vihar-Mahipalpur ridge) it will amount to giving a licence to builders to build anywhere — be it Lodi Garden or Corbett Park.” But this is bound to happen sooner than later. Much will depend on the prime minister who has been sent a copy of the resolution.

In the case of the ridge, the Indian army is equally to blame. Out of an area of 640 hectares, the Delhi Development Authority possesses 315 hectares and the army 325. The latter’s plea at a public hearing was that it had to have tenements near the airport (where the ridge is) to be able to respond quickly to a surprise attack on India. When I asked a question in parliament on the construction at the ridge, the then defence minister George Fernandes said that it was “in the public interest.” To vandalise the decades old trees indiscriminately and to build without the environment ministry’s clearance is not in the public interest. It is simply a blatantly illegal activity. But since the army is a sacred cow in every South Asian country, it can get away with anything even in a democratic set-up.

India has another racket going on in the name of progress. It involves the SEZ (special economic zone). The government acquires a large chunk of agricultural land at a cheap price and passes it on to big business houses to set up industries. The zone is a free enclave and considered as a “foreign territory for the purpose of trade preparations,” where duties, tariffs, etc. are exempt.

One specific instance is that of the Haryana government allotting 25,000 acres of cultivable land to an industrial house. An internal assessment of the finance ministry is that the central government will lose Rs90,000 crore in direct and indirect taxes over the next four years. Punjab and UP are in the midst of concluding similar ventures with known industrial houses. Some 140 SEZs will come up across the country.

Is this what development is all about? I have heard of robbing Peter to pay Paul. But I have not known Peter robbing Paul and that too with the help of the government. The 70 per cent people living in the countryside — the mainstay of our democratic structure — are the milching cows. They are being ousted from their homes and lands for the expansion of industry and business, the signposts of progress. Whether they are the oustees of mines in Orissa, of the Narmada Dam in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh or of SEZs in Haryana, Punjab and UP, they tell the same story: the government has decided to eliminate the poor, not poverty.

The prime minister has been prompt in convening a meeting of the states where the “Naxalite menace” has been on the increase. I wish he had called a meeting for discussing the deteriorating plight of farmers and others in the countryside. He and his advisers should have seen at Delhi the exhibition where the children of destroyed jhuggis and jhopris expressed their agony and helplessness through the depiction of clay huts and bribe-taking officials. This may be the beginning of “political” art, but it tells a story of the marginalised sections of society.

The prime minister promised development with a human face. But it has turned out to be an ingenious way to further exploit the exploited. Development will be judged from the journey the lowest in the land have made on the road to progress, not from malls and plazas. Jawaharlal Nehru said once that India might have tall buildings, big factories and modern laboratories but they would be of no consequence if the country had lost its spiritual heritage in the process.

The government is on the wrong track when it permits the destruction of the ancient ridge in Delhi and does not provide land from the land-for-rehabilitation so that it can create SEZs, the sources of political corruption. What shocks me is the connivance of the Left. I think they are getting vicarious satisfaction from being in power. This was their best opportunity to expose the government, but they have become part of it.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.