Why betting on a reformed Iran could be a mistake for India

The Print

2 days ago

A secular and liberal Reza Shah supplied Pakistan with arms , supported its war efforts against India by continuous supply of oil, and went to the extent of being an 'arms dealer' to keep the Pakistani Army going.
Let's unpack this argument. Last time when a secular monarch was ruling Iran—Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi—his regime supported Pakistan, providing them with weapons and oil, and even harbouring their aircraft during the 1965 India-Pakistan war.
With Iran and Israel locked in a military conflict, many experts, or non-experts, are giving different 'prophecies' of the war between the two West Asian countries. Some suggest the capitulation of Iran, backed by the West, would bring peace in the region and end all the bloodshed. Some predict it will make the invasion of Iraq look like a skirmish. Some even say Iran will be Balkanised. Amid all these so-called prophecies, Yusuf T Unjhawala, in an opinion piece in ThePrint, titled A reformed Iran is a valuable friend to India , argues that 'a secular and reform-oriented regime in Iran could be less prone to aligning with India's adversaries on ideological grounds'.
After the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, Pahlavi, in a stern message to India, had said, 'Iran has no aggressive intentions, but it will not accept any attempt to liquidate Pakistan. The USSR and India must be fully aware of our resolution. We do not want a new Vietnam on the frontier of Iran.'
Most importantly, can India ignore Donald Trump hosting Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir in White House for lunch on 18 June? Is that good news for India? Let's leave that to the Indian dispensation.
Unjhawala argues that after the fall of the current Islamic regime, post-war Iran would possibly re-integrated into the Western world, the sanctions on it would be lifted, and peace and business would prevail. However, this argument raises some pertinent questions. Who will rule Iran after the fall of the regime? Is there any party or a figure to shoulder the very diverse and civilisational state?
The answer is no. There is no visible opposition inside or outside the country. Israel and some Western countries are supporting 64-year-old Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the deposed monarch of Iran. Reza has given interviews to many news channels, with one BBC anchor asking him, 'Are you actually saying then that Israel bombing your country..civilians in Iran being killed is a positive thing?'
To this, Reza answered, 'I am not saying Israeli targeting was meant to hurt Iranian people. The targeting was meant to neutralise the regime.' A simple Google search will give the number of people killed in Iran in Israeli aerial campaigns. According to an Iranian government spokesperson, at least 224 Iranians have been killed in Israeli attacks, with most of them civilians.
Also read: Israel crushed Ayatollah's regime, but stopping Iran's nuke programme will need total overthrow
India-Iran relations post 1979 uprising
Both India and Iran have enjoyed a great relationship since the monarchy was overthrown in Iran in February 1979.
Iran has been extremely crucial for India regarding the Kashmir issue. Back in 1991, India, having mortgaged its gold reserves, was teetering on the edge of an economic collapse, while its long-time ally, Russia, was grappling with the aftermath of the Soviet Union's dissolution.
Meanwhile, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was advocating a resolution at the Office of the UN Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR), later renamed the Human Rights Council, to denounce India for alleged human rights abuses in Kashmir. If the resolution had passed, it would have been escalated to the UN Security Council, potentially triggering economic sanctions and other punitive measures against India. OIC decisions require consensus for adoption.
In 1994, it was Iran's vote in the OIC that killed the resolution. In Geneva, when Pakistan's envoy sought to advance the resolution, Iran's representative, following explicit directives from Tehran, declined to back it.
Now let's look at the trade between Iran and India. Despite harsh sanctions on Iran, it traded goods worth $2.3 billion in 2024 with India, which could reach $10 billion within a couple of years, according to Indian Ambassador Rudra Gaurav Shresth. Iran was a key oil supplier for India until 2019, when US sanctions pushed it to look for alternatives
Now, consider India's strategic interests within the Islamic Republic of Iran. India and Iran are jointly developing the Shahid Beheshti Port at Chabahar, Iran. It is crucial for India's access to Central Asia and Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. A 10-year agreement was signed in May 2024, granting India the operations of the Shahid Beheshti terminal. It is key to the International North–South Transport Corridor, a 7,200-km-long multi-mode network of ship, rail, and road routes for moving freight between India, Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, Central Asia, and Europe.
Both Iranian and Indian leaders have paid visits to each other's countries. India, on multiple occasions, has supported Iran's 'peaceful nuclear ambitions' while opposing the Islamic Republic's ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. During his November 2009 trip to Washingon, former Prime Minsiter late Manmohan Singh said, 'As a signatory to NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) it (Iran) has all the rights that flow from the NPT for the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it has obligations that go with its membership.'
During his 2012 Tehran visit, then-External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee backed Iran's right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Then, during PM Narendra Modi's 2016 visit to Tehran, he said that 'India and Iran are not new friends. Our 'dosti' (friendship) is as old as history,'
PM Modi even in 2016 called Iran to be the first country to respond for India's help during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake.
So betting on an Iran which is 'reformed' or 'secular' at this time is bizarre. On several occasions, India chose the wrong side or put all the eggs in one basket, which haunted the country or still casts shadows over its strategic outlook. Like after the fall of Sheikh Hasina's Awami League, chief of Bangladesh's interim government, Muhammad Yunus in China said, 'The eastern part of India, known as the Seven Sisters, is landlocked. They have no access to the ocean. We are the only guardians of the ocean in this region. This opens up huge possibilities.'
In the case of the fall of Mohammed Najibullah's rule in Afghanistan during the late 1980s and early 1990s, it proved fatal for India's strategic ties with Afghanistan. Later on, the Taliban, supported by Pakistan, captured Kabul which created serious security ramifications for New Delhi as it influenced the rise of terrorism in the Kashmir valley in the 1990s.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)