Iran Sanctions and...Afghanistan

By Steve Hynd

Kevin Drum passed on a piece from the LA Times today that suggests sanctions on Iran aren't working out too well.

Efforts by the United States and its European allies to build a united front to halt Iran's nuclear program are facing increasingly bold resistance from China, Russia, India and Turkey, which are rushing to boost their economies by seizing investment opportunities in defiance of sanctions imposed by the West.

....The U.S. sanctions prohibit petroleum-related sales to Iran, yet China and Turkey have sold huge cargoes of gasoline to Tehran, and Russian officials say they will begin shipping gasoline as well later this month, according to industry officials. The four countries also have signed deals or opened talks on investments worth billions of dollars in Iran's oil and gas fields, petrochemical plants and pipelines.

You can add Iraq into the mix too, with news today that it intends allowing Iranian natural gas exports via a new pipeline through its territory. Still, don't worry. Testosterone-fuelled posturing from the pro-Israel right and realist assumptions of the efficacy of "strategic ambiguity" aside, America isn't going to green light an attack anytime soon.

But for many of these nations, the opportunity to make a buck or two from trade with Iran isn't the only motivation. Russia, China and India in particular are also purchasing goodwill in Iran as the Western occupation of Afghanistan heads for its endgame.

Today, General Petraeus held the door open so that Pakistan's General Kayani - the real power in Pakistan - could meet with President Karzai. America's backing of a Pakistan-driven solution in Afghanistan has the neighbours worried about its potentially destabilizing effects and looking to bring Iran on board as part of a strategy to mitigate Pakistan's coming "win". None more so than India. Recent talks between Iran and New Delhi aimed at a co-ordinated approach to Afghanistan and to Taliban reconcilliation.

Both countries agreed that the Afghan Constitution would be the �basis and pillar for any action,� Fathollahi said at a press conference. Both sides want to accommodate only those militia groups that accept the suzerainty of Kabul in governing Afghanistan.

India is willing to spend money on Iranian infrastructure, not just buy Iranian energy.

The issue of modernisation of Iranian port of Chabar, to give a fillip to economic activity in Afghanistan was also discussed in detail. �This issue is of great importance to the Indian side as well. The details of cooperation with India were discussed today. In future there will be fundamental developments regarding the position of Chabar,� he noted.

India has proposed expanding the capacity of the port, currently working at its full handling capacity of 2.5 million tonnes of cargo per year from two active berths, by five times and linking it to the Iranian town of Bam, on Afghan border, with a railway line. From there goods are proposed to be taken to Afganistan through the Zaranj-Delaram road, built by India, which in turn links up with the garland highway connecting all major Afghan cities.

As Jeremy Khan puts it in today's Newsweek online:

With the likelihood in-creasing that NATO will withdraw without decisively defeating the Taliban, New Delhi wants to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a Pakistani proxy state. Tehran could help. During Afghanistan�s civil war, Tehran supported the ethnic Hazaras�who are Shiite Muslims�against the Pashtun Taliban, Sunnis backed by Pakistan. India, meanwhile, funded ethnic Uzbek and Tajik warlords. New Delhi may seek to create an alliance of these non-Pashtun groups in Afghanistan to thwart Islamabad�s designs on Kabul. What�s more, India needs to maintain good relations with Tehran so that it can continue to send equipment and supplies for its aid mission in Afghanistan through Iran, since Pakistan will not permit Indian aid to pass through the country.

While Khan correctly points out that India badly wants a permanent Security Council seat too, and so far has been perfectly willing to be bought at every stage of the Iran nuclear game as long as that carrot is dangled, I'm not as confident as he that it wants that UNSC seat more than it wants to stick a spanner in Kayani's Afghan plans...and thus America's.

For Russia, which doesn't believe Iran wants an actual nuclear weapon since the "Japan Option" is a far more viable one for Iran, there's not even the brake of other carrots to restrain its interests in preserving good relations with Iran vis-a-vis Pakistan. China doesn't believe Iran wants a nuke in being either, but it seems to be balancing strengthening its client Pakistan's position versus India against the prospect of Pakistan losing control of too many extremists who would spill over into its own territory. Trade with Iran isn't just about money, it is about national interests and the geopolitical Great Game.

This is just one small part of the regional Gordian Knot that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq only further entangled. Sometimes its frustrating to read Western analysts and policymakers who seem to think there's no geopolitical connection between the two - perhaps confused because they're on two different pages in an atlas. (Does no-one ever wonder why Israel isn't worried by Pakistan's nukes, which are real and can already reach TelAviv?)  When you tease out one bit to untangle it, another bit just gets pulled tighter, and there's no sword sharp enough to cut it. Anyone (including myself) who puts forward a solution for one tangle without mentioning how their solution would make other bits of the knot more intransigent is just blowing smoke up their reader's asses.

But can we at least stop pretending that sanctions on Iran, and efforts to circumvent those sanctions, operate in a bubble of their own without knock-on effects?