While the Bush Administration has been trying to wish it away and hoping that it won't ultimately complicate the consummation of the US-India civilian nuclear deal, Congressional concern over India's relations with Iran has not dissipated one iota and both the administration and Congressional sources acknowledge that it could come to haunt the final vote on the agreement when it does take place.
Though the administration has been arguing that India's relations with Iran are "no more, no less" than that of America's closest allies, even as Washington has been urging New Delhi to join its efforts to isolate Teheran, this has hardly alleviated the concern of members both in the US Senate and the House--including several who co-authored the enabling legislation to facilitate the nuclear deal--who have already written Prime Minister Manmohan Singh warning him that India's continuing close relations with Iran could jeopardize the agreement.
On May 5, just a day after Congress reconvened from its summer recess, two influential US Senators, Richard Durbin, Illinois Democrat and Assistant Majority Leader, and Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, wrote to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complaining that they are concerned "with certain policies of the Government of India regarding its dealings with Iran in the context of the 123 Agreement".
They said in their missive that "first, are the formal, government sanctioned military-to-military working groups and joint military training exercises that India conducts with Iran".
"Second, are reports of several incidents of proliferation of dangerous technologies that have their source in India," the lawmakers alleged.
They wrote, "For example, two Indian companies were sanctioned for selling Iran precursor chemicals for rocket fuel and chemical weapons."
They went on to recall that in 2004 "India was sanctioned by the US for nuclear proliferation violations when two former chairmen of India's state-run Nuclear Power Corporation were identified for "allegedly passing nuclear secrets to Tehran".
While the sanctions were dropped on one, they remain in effect against the other, they added.
They continued: "India apparently has helped Iran to develop more effective batteries for Iran's submarine fleet. This is particularly disturbing now that we have three United States Navy aircraft carrier battle-groups on station in the Persian Gulf."
The lawmakers also cited "detailed steps by the Indian government to enter into agreements to develop Iranian oil and gas reserves".
"While we understand India's reliance on external sources of natural gas," they informed Rice that "we know that the Iranian economy, its energy sector in particular, is extremely fragile".
Thus, "We would hope India would not provide just the economic support to Iran that the United States has been laboring to deny through passage of legislation including the Iran Sanctions Act, and with our allies, through passage of two UN Security Council Resolutions."
Saying these are of course troubling matters, Durbin and Kyl in a veiled warning, told Rice, "As supporters of the US-India Civil Nuclear Accord, we're apprehensive that the agreement could be sidetracked by what appears to be a growing relationship between Iran and India."
They said, "In an attempt to alert the Indian government to this potential problem, eight US Senators wrote to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh earlier this year asking whether India would break its military relationship with Iran. (But) Those Senators did not receive a response; and, of course, there has been no evidence that India will cease its military relationship with Iran."
The lawmakers said, "We suspect you find these issues as troubling as we do," and told Rice that "we look forward to discussing these concerns with you to ensure that it is the right time for Congress to be considering the 123 Agreement".
Congressional concern, which has been made overly public, with lawmakers writing to Prime Minister Singh and strongly bringing up the issue of India's relations with Iran, has caught Indian diplomats here in Washington as well as Bush Administration officials -- not to mention the India's lobbyists and the Indian American community activists-- pushing for the deal in a bind.
They argue and try to convince these lawmakers that they are making much more of India's relations with Iran that there really is and remind them that India has voted with the US and others both in the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations to censure Iran for its continuing pursuit of enriching uranium in violation of its nonproliferation treaty obligations.
At the same time, they try to convince the lawmakers that these kinds of public warnings and letters to Prime Minister Singh are considered an affront to India's sovereignty and only exacerbate the opposition parties in India as well as some of the coalition partners of Singh's Congress Party to go ballistic and declare that the US is trying to dictate India's foreign policy.
During this correspondent's visit to New Delhi last month, a senior government official in South Block denied the charge that the signing of the civil nuclear deal with the US would affect New Delhi's foreign policy, including its relations with Iran.
In an exclusive interview with rediff.com, the official, said, "I don't think India is going to allow another nation--even the United States of America--to dictate what should be its prescriptive rights in terms of its foreign policy."
He said that while he was in Washington recently, he had made clear that "India has had relations with Iran much more before the United States came into existence. That's something we cannot forget. But the question is not that. Ours is a very old relationship--sometimes very good, sometimes not so good. At the moment they are good, but certainly it could be warmer. We will do everything in our interest."
"I don't think it is on us to acknowledge or accept somebody else's right to determine our policy," the official said.
"I don't think any agreement or any adjustment can be captive to that. This is the condition that the prime minister has been saying and will say everytime it is needed," the official said.
Noting that India has old and civilization ties with Iran, the official said, "We have more Shias in our country than there are Muslims in the whole of Western Europe. (So) What are they talking about? We have the second-largest Shia population in the world and our relations with Shias are probably better than any other ethnic minority in a sense of the term."
"And, if our relations with Iran gets spoiled out of way not because of this one (perceived US pressure) but for something else, it has repercussions," he added.
In a recent interview, Burns, even as he has maintained that India's ties with Iran are no more, no less than US's closest allies, obviously cognizant of how the India-Iran ties could complicate the nuclear deal when it comes up for a vote, has been calling on New Delhi to help Washington isolate what he has described as "the nuclear outlaw" Iran.
He said, "We hope very much that India will not conclude any long-term oil and gas agreements with Iran. The Indians, as you know, have voted with us at the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors against Iran on two occasions. And, so I trust the Indians will maintain this policy of not in any way, shape, or assist the Iranian government in its nuclear plans."
