American defence secretary Chuck Hagel’s remark that India “financed problems” for Pakistan in Afghanistan, as well as the new secretary of state John Kerry’s foray into Europe, select nations of West Asia and the Gulf, are signs that India-US relations are in a secondary slot.

These two worthies may be India lovers, but their pacifist and non-interventionist proclivities may be reflective of US President Barack Obama’s priorities in his second term. Undoubtedly, all capitals are monitoring this and adjusting policies accordingly.
A case in point is revived Iranian interest in India. The visits of the Iranian secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, who doubles as nuclear negotiator, in January, and Ali Larijani, the Majlis Speaker, last week assume significance. On hearing the former at the Observer Research Foundation and the latter on February 26 at the Indian Council of World Affairs, some conclusions can be drawn. At the latter function, I remarked that only a day earlier I had told the head of a US think tank that while they felt that Iran was reeling under the UN Security Council plus sanctions, Iran seemed to be concluding that the US was a retreating and declining power.
In reality, while the Iranian economy may be under strain, the national will and solidarity is far from cracking. Similarly, the US’ ability to rejuvenate and recalibrate its role in the world, riding the bonanza of cheap shale gas and the world’s best research and development, should not be underestimated. Many historical mishaps have been caused by such mutual misreads. As another Hegel, the German philosopher, said, “History teaches us that people have never learnt anything from history.”
This week’s Time magazine recounts the US administration debate on preventing nuclear weapon development by Iran versus containing an Iran with nuclear weapons. So far the US and Israel have retarded the Iranian nuclear programme through sabotage, cyber attacks and targeted assassinations. Resumed P5+1 dialogue with Iran at Almaty on February 26-27 has adjourned. Iranian tactics, since 2003, of dialogue to stave off pressure while ramping up its fuel-cycle capabilities, has incrementally enhanced its negotiating position. Bush administration red lines were that “not one” centrifuge would be permitted. Subsequently the Western negotiators first conceded a research reactor, then a cascade of centrifuges, further improved to allowing less than industrial production, and finally partial fuel cycle without 20 per cent uranium enrichment. At Almaty, reportedly, the offer has been further sweetened. Iran has improved its capabilities gradually, even installing newer and more efficient centrifuges, while keeping its 20 per cent enriched uranium below bomb-making quantities.
Two developments are emboldening Iran. One is the Democratic Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) defiance, reflected in its third nuclear test on February 11. Some reports speculate that Dr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iranian nuclear scientist, witnessed the test. Close links of both Iran and DPRK to the Pakistani clandestine network of A.Q. Khan are common knowledge. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in her biography recounts arranging the uranium-enrichment-for-missile-technology exchange between Pakistan and DPRK. Are DPRK’s nuclear tests a surrogate fine-tuning of Pakistani nuclear weapon designs? So far it is unknown whether the weapon was plutonium-based, of which DPRK has limited supply, or uranium-fed, which may be coming from a clandestine facility developed with Pakistani technology, Chinese endorsement and Iranian ore.
The second element is the perceived US retreat to its mainland, ceding strategic space to China, much as Great Britain did after the Second World War to the US. Mr Larijani confidently predicted the coming of a multipolar world of strategically independent nations, even when they were economically inter-dependent. Democracy and regionalism, he added, would be its two further attributes. He advocated elections in Syria and Bahrain, decrying unsuccessful US attempts to forcibly embed democracy. Ali Akbar Salehi, Iranian foreign minister, visiting Syria announced that President Bashar Assad will rule till elections in 2014. By knocking out two of Iran’s biggest foes, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the US opened up a seamless linkage of Shia rulers extending west from Iran till the Mediterranean, much like the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BC). Against it rubs the Sunni-dominated sheikhdoms/kingdoms from the south, with active conflict in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and now domestically in Pakistan.
The Iranian leadership is assessing if Indian nervousness over Afghanistan post-US withdrawal combined with incantations about energy cooperation and transit rights to Central Asia can be harnessed to reel India back towards it. At stake are critical global issues like non-proliferation, terrorism, Islam grappling with modernity and the role of China. This year’s Oscar-winning film Argo, about the escape of some US diplomatic hostages from Iran in 1980, when the bulk were held for 14 months, refreshes US memory of Iranian perfidy. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the then national security adviser, concludes in his biography that five months into the crisis “...the Iranians either had been negotiating in bad faith or were unable to deliver on promises”.
Mr Obama’s second term has opened sloppily. His excessive cogitation before decisive action is perhaps his style. He took till end 2009 to decide on a troop surge in Afghanistan. Will we see similar correctives applied to finesse the game in Syria, Afghanistan, seas to China’s east and south and then a return to where he began his presidency i.e. non-proliferation and major nuclear disarmament? India, distracted by domestic turbulence in Bangladesh, defiance in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, drift in Pakistan and constitutional stasis in Nepal, combined with a slowing economy and corruption allegations in defence deals, needs to reposition itself to temper Iranian bravado and encourage a continued American global role if Asia has to see a peaceful future.

The writer is a former secretary in the external affairs ministry