Slippery when left - Part II

President of Iran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

This post is about Left's stand on Iran. And the world's stand on Iran. I have to state that certain ideas mentioned in this post are not mine but I endorse them completely. I read an article recently on Iran that provided a very good argument to support my stand. Here I go.

Left is completely opposed to India voting against Iran. Essentially they are against anything the US does and since this vote is mooted by US, they are against the voting. Their arguments: a) It is like intervening on another nation's liberties. b) Iran's stand is that they are doing only civil nuclear research c) We need to be friendly with Iran for the gas pipe deal and voting against them might impact the pipe plan d) If India could go nuclear why should we be agitated when Iran wants to go nuke?

Many of these arguments are quite naive. Iran's nuclear research is not another nations liberties. We should remember that Iran has a history of atrocities against their own people, their neighbours and others. Rushdie had to go underground for almost a decade because of hundreds of Iranians going in the hunt. Their own revolution curtailed the liberties of sunni minorities and other communities. Their economy took a tumble dive when they went for a war with Iraq. Quite recently Iran's premiere swaggered that Iran will help wipe Israel out of world map. Such a threat of Hitlerish nature cannot be ignored by others. Additionally, we should consider that Iran has acquired its preliminary nuke technology from the infamous Abdul Qadir Khan, the disgraced scientist from Pakistan. So the relationship Iran and Pakistan has in this nuke transfer is of immense concern to us.

Under these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that Iran is only doing research for civilian purposes. When you want to wipe out a nation of the world map, won't you be tempted to stash away a bowlful of uraniam aside? Just in case? And who can possibly lay their hands on that bowl?

And I don't understand why the gas pipe deal should suffer because we are voting. Does it mean that Iran can blackmail us with the gas pipe carrot? So can the US with various sops and the amount of sops US can offer us will be much more? Is left intending to say that it's okay to yield to Iran's blackmail but it's cowardly to yield to America's conditions? To me, I'd rather not want that gas pipe if I can get much better benefits elsewhere.

Some people ask why should India oppose Iran's nuclear aspirations when we ourselves went nuke against world's intentions. It's because we announced to the world of our intentions when we refused to sign CTBT. We lost a bagful of goodies from UN because we refused to ink. But Iran signed CTBT and due to which enjoyed a lot of economic benefits denied to us. In sports terms it's called foul.

And I particularly consider left's stand on this ironic because the CPI and CPM went around screaming foul when Pokhran II happened. Lakshmi Pundit, the candidate propped by left against Abdul Kalam said that it will be a national insult if we tell the world that the man responsible for our nuclear capability is becoming our president. It is as if our nuclear capability is something to be embarassed about. If India's nuclear aspirations are bad, are Iran's intentions noble and not to be opposed?

And it might help to know that even countries like France and Russia, who have much closer tie-ups with Iran are voting. And China who doesn't have to yield to US pressures is voting. Cuba, Siria and Nigeria are not voting. Do you want our country's name to be in this list?

Note: Ideas for paragraph four and five are borrowed from Cho Ramasamy, editor of Thuglak, a political magazine in Tamil