We see the same situation differently

Submitted by Pat (United States), Nov 6, 2006 at 20:34

Why did India have to be pushed into referring Iran to the Security Council? It was not an easy decision. India had a natural affinity for Iran by virtue of the non-aligned movement and your government was prepared to sacrifice the nuclear protocols so as not to antagonize Iran.

Russia, France and China had business deals with Iraq and they left the US and Britain to assume the responsibility of policing UN-declared no-fly zones. Only after the invasion did we discover that they all opposed action because they were deep in Saddam's pockets and the UN Secretariat had also been compromised and Iraqis had made mincemeat of the sanctions. We should have left the UN right then.

India has signed deals with Iran for hundreds of tons of natural gas. I guess I just find it difficult to believe that India would endanger its relations with another member of the nonaligned movement or that you would let world order get in the way of a business opportunity. Iraq is my frame of reference.

It's great that you "supported" the war against Iraq, but actions speak louder than words.

The US doesn't have the resources to be the world's policeman any longer. It's time for others to step up. The countries with the greatest interest in the stability of the Middle East are those that have the most business contacts with them. Now, India is on that list. You have your own military. You don't need the US.

Now we're natural allies? What happens then to India's role in the non-aligned movement?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".