No matter how true this statement may be I don't see it as the threat various media outlets are making it out to be. Iran is a hot topic in Washington and everyone there is anxious to build a consensus. Indians have expressed political reservations about agreeing with the United States regardless of how clear cut the issue is. I think those kind of politics are tough to rationalize sometimes and lead to more of the same. Between you and me, I am confident India will follow the law and refer Iran to the UNSC. Too much is riding on international democratic institutions to abandon them over a temporary energy deal.
I've mentioned before that Americans are aggressive in debate. This is not arrogance; rather it is confidence in the success that comes from rational compromise. Everything that I know about India and Indians suggests a similar approach to problem solving.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1387912.cms
US to 'encourage' India to vote for Iran referral
[ Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:11:23 pm IANS ]
WASHINGTON: The US has said it would "certainly encourage" India to vote to refer Iran's nuclear programme to the UN Security Council and hinted the way New Delhi acts would impact on the future of its civil nuclear deal with Washington.
State department spokesman Sean McCormack, while being guarded in his comments at a briefing, also hoped that India would be able to come out with a workable plan to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities before President George W Bush's visit in March.
Reacting to US Ambassador David Mulford's published interview in New Delhi, McCormack first said on Wednesday: "He (Mulford) was giving his personal assessment of how the Congress might react to such an action by India."
But even as he tried to deny that the Bush administration was tying India's vote on Iran to the civil nuclear deal, McCormack admitted the two were linked.
"Well, we deal with the Indian government on these two issues as separate issues," McCormack contended, but added: "Certainly, they come up in the same conversations, I'll tell you that.
"And we continue to encourage the Indian government to vote for referral. Ultimately, that is going to be their decision. And we also have been talking to them about the importance of making progress on their implementation plan for separating the civilian and military nuclear programmes."
Mulford indicated a negative vote by India at the IAEA meet Feb 2 would almost certainly dash hopes that the US Congress would pass any new law exempting India from the list of countries with whom Washington would not share nuclear technology and materials.
To this, McCormack said: "Let me be clear. Ultimately, how India votes on this matter is going to be a decision for the Indian government.
"They voted to find Iran in non-compliance the last time around and we certainly would encourage and hope that they vote for referral this time around.
"But I think what the ambassador was doing was talking about and reflecting the view that on Capitol Hill there are very strongly held feelings about Iran and the...need for the international community to act decisively and firmly and with a single voice concerning Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon."
For its part, Washington "would certainly encourage and we would hope that India would vote for a referral to the Security Council", McCormack admitted.
Asked of the implications if India did not vote against Iran, McCormack said: "We continue to work with the Indian government on implementation of the agreement that President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed during the prime minister's recent visit.
"We would certainly hope that we would be in a position to - before or as part of the president's visit to India - to make progress on this issue."
Part of making progress on this issue is for the Indian government to present a workable plan to separate its civilian and military nuclear programmes, McCormack noted. Those discussions are continuing.
The Iranian wackos had been making life rather easy for the Indian govt whatwith their comments on India's N-programme & threats to put Israel into an internal coma.Mulford's comments have created an unecessary strain of tension when he could have said the same thing & more to Indian officials in private.
About the KSA being a possible energy partner,well the big problem is that getting supplies from them would be far more expensive as there is no practical landroute,which would have made the Iranian pipeline costeffective in the longterm.Moreover,India is getting a lot of gas from Qatar,which is near the KSA & is pretty much a partner.Placing all your energy options into essentially one basket would'nt have been very smart,which is why Indian companies wanted the Iranian connection.Teheran did India's interests no good given that it has given CNOC of China a big stake in the Yadarvan fields,while ONGC of India has only a 20% stake.China is already a big player in Iran,It would be well nigh impossible for India to catchup even if it supports Teheran on the N-issue.