Simmering Iran-US tensions

PRESIDENT BUSH’S rating at home is at an all-time low. His administration is virtually sailing rudderless. The Democratic-controlled Congress has stymied his domestic agenda, while his foreign policy initiatives, which mean primarily the war on terror, are going nowhere. And now, Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales has been accused of nepotism.

While all this has led to panic in the Republican Party, the president’s unyielding conviction born out of monumental ignorance has stood him in good stead, and he appears unruffled. Vice-President Dick Cheney has gained greater influence regarding foreign policy and national security matters.

In the meanwhile, the US National Intelligence Estimate has claimed that the US has failed to crush Al Qaeda and that the latter may have recouped its losses from “safe havens” in Pakistan’s tribal belt. There is, however, no acceptance, much less admission, that it is the US occupation of Iraq that has provided a powerful fillip to Islamic extremism and turned that country into a breeding ground for terrorists.

Instead, the Bush administration remains convinced that the deployment of additional American troops would not only pacify the county but also set it on the road to democracy.

Statements of senior US officials and their neo-con supporters indicate that Washington’s appetite for further adventures has not been satisfied. The Bush administration has upped the ante in its confrontation with Iran. The administration, which had been accusing Tehran of providing weapons to its adherents in Iraq, is now making similar charges with reference to Iran’s role in Afghanistan. US and British officials recently claimed to have discovered Iranian-made weaponry, including C-4 plastic and mortars, with the Taliban militia in Afghanistan.

Iranian officials have vehemently denied these charges, pointing out that the Taliban are primarily a Sunni organisation that pursued an anti-Iranian policy when in power. Tehran has also recalled that its support to the Northern Alliance was instrumental in preventing the Taliban from sweeping the country. Tehran has poured some $200 million in reconstruction projects in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the British embassy in Kabul has warned “any Iranian links to illegal armed groups either through supply of munitions, training or funding would be unacceptable.”

The neo-cons in the US as well as some independents, such as Senator Joseph Lieberman, have called upon the Bush administration “to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq.” Lieberman has claimed that if the US fails to take action against Iran, the latter would “take that as a sign of weakness” and America would “pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home.”

While the pro-Israel lobby in Washington has welcomed these remarks, they have set off alarm bells amongst those who fear that such talk could prove provocative. Senate majority leader Harry Reid suggested that, instead of carrying out surgical strikes against Iran, the administration should endorse the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations, because “the invasion of Iran is only going to destabilise that part of the world.”

Israel has been at the forefront of those who believe that a massive surgical strike against Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities should be the preferred course of action. Israeli officials have claimed that Washington and Tel-Aviv share a common strategy on dealing with Tehran and that this consists of three elements: a united international front against the Iranian nuclear programme; sanctions against Iran, and “a very clear signal and statement that all options are on the table.”

The so-called threat from Iran has had its inevitable fallout on US-Russia relations as well. The Americans have sought to place missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter what they claim is the likelihood of Iranian missiles hitting European targets. The Russians, recognising that this is only a ploy to station more missiles around their country, have proposed that, instead, the US be given access to data from a Russian early warning radar unit in Azerbaijan.

President Putin’s proposal makes sense for it would not only end the diplomatic row over the Eastern European plan but could be a more effective check on Iran, if that is what the US wants. This is because the technical features of the Russian radar system complement those of US missile defence radar systems now being set up in Alaska.

In this context, it would be recalled that after having stated that the administration was not convinced of the validity of the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation that the US open dialogue with Iran, Washington finally agreed to an ambassador-level meeting in Baghdad some time ago, thus breaking a 27-year diplomatic freeze.

Although the two sides said the meeting was “positive”, the Americans accused Iran of arming and financing militants attacking US and Iraqi troops. It was emphasised that the meeting was confined to Iraq and that neither side mentioned Iran’s nuclear programme nor raised other issues.

A second round also took place last week. However, after the talks, US Ambassador Ryan Crocker accused Iran of stepping up its support of militia groups fighting in Iraq and claimed that the US had “actually seen militia related activity with Iran’s support go up and not down.”

The Iranians recognise that the US is seeking only a limited dialogue, restricted to solving its problems in Iraq, without adopting a constructive approach that could lay the foundation for mutually advantageous relations between them. No less significant is the fact that only days before the Baghdad meeting, Washington launched a vicious media campaign alleging that Iran was planning a summer offensive against US forces in Iraq, linking Al Qaeda and Sunni militants to Tehran’s “Shia militia allies”.

Around the same time, US television networks revealed that the CIA had received secret presidential approval for mounting an operation to destabilise the Iranian government.

It is the attitude of Congress that is most surprising because while many legislators are vocal in their opposition to the war in Iraq, Congress has cooperated with the administration on the issue of Iran, by passing every bill or resolution that has been initiated by the highly influential Israeli lobby AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

This would indicate that Congress is even more hawkish on the issue of Iran than the administration. Only recently, evidence of this was provided by the unprecedented 97 to zero votes in the Senate for a resolution proposed by the leading proponent of a war against Iran, Senator Joe Lieberman.

The resolution stated that the murder of US military personnel by a foreign government was an intolerable act against the US. It demanded that Iran “take immediate action to end all forms of support it is providing to the Iraqi insurgents.”

At the same time it was reported that Vice-President Cheney was pushing for an attack on Iran. According to The Guardian, “the balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before Bush leaves office.” The paper cited well-placed sources that “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”

It reported that while Cheney and the conservatives favoured this option, the Pentagon was not too enamoured of it, aware that its resources were already stretched beyond an acceptable limit.

Patrick Cronin, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggested that if Israel was determined to attack then “the choices available to the US are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job or do the job yourself.” According to Cronin, the administration would prefer to do the job itself, as it was “reluctant to let Israel carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.”

One would have expected that with the administration facing serious problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would have been more amenable to resolving its differences with Iran. Instead, the administration is stiffening its opposition to the Islamic regime in Tehran.

If only America could recognise that if it has major interests in a stable and peaceful Iraq, Tehran, too, has important interests in that country. Tehran has tried to impress on the US and countries in its region that it is not in its interest to destabilise Iraq.

There are quite a few American specialists on Iran who believe that Tehran’s interests do not necessarily differ from those of the US. For example, Dr James Russell, a specialist on security issues in the Gulf, has said that history of their tortured relations and the differing agendas of their domestic constituencies continue to cast a shadow on the policies of both.

Moreover, in the case of the US, there may be a “constituency for attacking Iran.” He is nevertheless of the view that the two countries do share common strategic interests in Iraq, “at least in terms of the rational and realistic definition of their strategic interests.”

James Dobbins, a former US ambassador to Afghanistan, is also of the view that Iran is not trying to destabilise Iraq as the “Iranians don’t see anything to be gained by Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq.”

As regards Iran’s assistance to the Shia militias in Iraq, this goes back to many years and has been a constant factor in Iran’s policy towards Iraq, certainly ever since Saddam Hussein’s ouster opened the way for Shias to gain power in Iraq. In the words of Dobbins, the Iranians are “trying to hedge their bets” because they are not sure who is going to prevail in Iraq.

Recent reports to the effect that the US military command has prepared a detailed plan for a significantly enhanced American role in Iraq would be a matter of concern to Tehran. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki pointed this out in his speech at the World Economic Forum in May, where he charged that US military presence was a cause of instability rather than a solution for Iraq. He added “we believe that sooner or later they will have to decide to withdraw their troops from Iraq because that is the cause for continuation of terrorist activities.”

And now, the Bush administration’s announcement that it intends to sell to Israel, Saudi Arabia and other “moderate” Middle East regimes a massive arms package to counter what it claims is a threat to them from Iran, will certainly not promote peace and stability in the region. If anything, it will further exacerbate tensions among the neighbours, while providing a powerful fillip to the US defence industry at a time when US politicians need to expand their “war chests” for the coming electoral battles.

Moreover, the massive arms package will generate greater support and sympathy for Iran, while reinforcing the Islamic regime’s quest for matching weapons systems and possibly, even nuclear arms. When will Washington discover that it is not Iran that worries the Arab youth, but its own pro-Israel, pro-repressive Arab regimes that are enhancing Iran’s credibility and that of organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, while also generating increasing hostility towards America in the Middle East?

The writer is a former ambassador.

Is Indian press independent?

THE press in India has teased or even irritated the government but has enjoyed freedom. Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s first prime minister, said that the government disliked the liberties taken by the press.

Yet, committed to democratic values as he was, he said: “I would have a completely free press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated press.”

Unlike her father, Mrs Indira Gandhi was easily upset by press criticism. She was the one who clamped censorship for the first time in free India when she imposed the emergency (1975-77). Today, there is no emergency or censorship. But conformism has taken over the press. It is too nice, too afraid and ever ready to leave out.

The government, too, sees to it that the press, by and large, does not cross the line which the establishment has in view. The modus operandi generally involves pressure exerted on the proprietors.

I know of an influential English daily editor who is in the bad books of the government. He criticises the establishment too often for its liking and carries too many articles which are critical of it. The management is under pressure.

The BJP-led government of Atal Behari Vajpayee was no better. The residence and the business premises of a weekly’s proprietor were raided after it had carried a photograph of “someone” in “certain company.” The editor had to meet the high-ups to have the government off his proprietor’s back.

The states are worse. They use all methods, including the denial of government advertisements, to force newspapers to fall in line. In some cases, a chief minister makes the paper’s defiance a personal issue. Eenadu, a leading Telugu daily from Andhra Pradesh, had to suffer in the process.

The paper published a story about the chief minister’s men buying at a pittance 376 acres of land belonging to farmers. The government first issued a land acquisition notification for building an outer Ring Road. Later, the land was de-notified to benefit the chief minister’s men. What they bought at Rs15 lakh to Rs25 lakh an acre was sold at Rs10 crore.

Sensing that action against Eenadu could boomerang, the chief minister resorted to underhand methods. He had the Margadarshi Financers, an outfit connected with Eenadu, which accepted deposits from people, raided. The Reserve Bank of India had cleared the company. This did not matter to the chief minister. The Supreme Court stepped in and gave the financers a stay.

When the ruling party slips, it knows no bounds. Take the current instance of highhandedness in Kerala. The state CPI (M) is after a Malyalam daily, Mathrubhumi, and its editor. The paper published that the party’s official organ, Deshabhimani, had received two crore rupees from two sons of a lottery king facing several criminal charges.At the behest of Prakash Karat, the CPI (M) secretary-general, the state committee decided to return the money. This only angered its functionaries who threatened the editor and the paper from public platforms.

The Editors’ Guild condemned the harassment meted out to the paper and its editor. Yet, the party’s central politburo did not utter a word of criticism. What use is the freedom of expression, which the constitution guarantees, when the establishment exerts pressure on the press? In a free society, the press has a duty to inform the public without fear or favour.

At times, it is an unpleasant job, but it has to perform because a free society is founded on free information. If the press were to publish only government handouts or official statements, there would be no one to pinpoint lapses, deficiencies, mistakes or frauds.

My feeling is that the press, like other institutions, has not regained the vigour and the dedication it reflected before the emergency. Till then, New Delhi would scrupulously avoid any measure which suggested even remotely restrictions on the press. Rajiv Gandhi’s was the last effort to control the press in the name of the anti-defamation bill. There was such protest throughout India that he had to withdraw the measure.

Yet, the same journalists caved in during the emergency. I recall as many as 103 scribes turning up at the Press Club in New Delhi within three days of the imposition of the emergency to condemn censorship.

But, subsequently, they developed cold feet and literally danced to the tune of V.C. Shukla, Indira Gandhi’s Goebbels. The Pakistani journalists, who faced martial law, proved to be of sterner mettle. They bore the punishment of lashes in their struggle to uphold the freedom of the press.

After the emergency, the Indian press were at hammer and tongs over the excesses committed by Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay Gandhi, an extra-constitutional authority. This was the catharsis of journalists for their cowardly silence at a time when they should have spoken out. Yet, nearly every journalist “claimed” to have “sabotaged” the emergency from within as he was a Trojan horse, not a collaborator.

This is when the management began to play a bigger role. It had seen through the courage of the paper tigers. The management took direct interest in the editorial side of the paper. What was once a profession changed into a business. The Working Journalists’ Act, legislated by Nehru to give a permanent tenure to scribes, was substituted by a contract system. Journalists who had a poor record of standing up to challenges did not have the courage to oppose the measure.

Today, our print media is suffering from a mad disease which has played havoc with newspapers. I will call it the tabloid syndrome. You open any paper in the morning. The pages are full of pictures of young models, super models, actors and actresses and fashion designers — names you have not even heard of — garnished with “information” on what they love to eat, what kind of dress they like to wear, what they do when they relax, what they think of love and sex and such trivia.

This shallow, unthinking attitude gets reflected even in the news stories and articles that are printed in the papers. Reporters do not always cross-check the information they get. They often write one-sided versions of events and about people who do not matter — absolute non-entities.

Often good stories are not followed up properly. Planted stories make the front pages. Even factual information is often incorrect. Journalists have turned into politicians and newspapers into projectors of a particular point of view. News columns have come to be editorialised in the name of interpretative reporting. The press, no doubt, has clout, more than it ever had. It is free as well. But, is it independent?

The writer is a senior columnist based in New Delhi.

When China goes shopping

THE theatre of protectionism does not play well in Britain. Factories shut down as work gets farmed off to poorer countries and the British do not rise up against industrial decline –– but go shopping to celebrate cheap imported goods.

More commendably, football fans do not stoop to racism as the former Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra bids for Manchester City; a few merely wonder whether a prime minister who governed his country with scant regard for human rights is a "fit and proper" person to run a football club.

Other countries do not share the UK's openness. When China recently bought a £1.5bn stake in the American private-equity firm Blackstone, senators attempted to call in the watchdogs and get the deal at least delayed, if not derailed. In Britain, when a Chinese state-run bank last week shelled out another £1.5bn for a stake in Barclays, the chancellor, Alistair Darling, was blase: "It would be wrong for any government to step in and say: 'No you can't do this.'"

It would indeed be wrong - if that's all any government said, without giving a good reason. Beijing's purchase, on the other hand, is not business as usual; in dismissing it as such Mr Darling is displaying the usual behaviour of a Labour government so eager not to come across as big bad market interventionists that it will never even pipe up.

Faced with a fund manager taking a three per cent stake in their firm, most chief executives would get a bit nervous.

––The Guardian, London