By visiting Tehran as a neutral intermediary, the Prime Minister could have reassured Iranians that India is a long-term friend which is keen to see the end of American sanctions regime

Given the deep-rooted enmity between the U.S. and Iran, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s ambitious diplomatic mission to Tehran in mid-June had little chance of being successful. However, the very fact that Mr. Abe took the most crucial step in transforming ‘confrontation’ into ‘dialogue’ should be interpreted as a success. This initiative could have easily belonged to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had he undertaken a high-profile visit to Tehran. It was a gamble worth taking.

Relations between the U.S. and Iran have been extremely tense since Washington withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and re-imposed punitive sanctions on Tehran. Here, Mr. Modi should have seized the opportunity and gone to Iran in order to defuse the crisis brewing between the U.S. and Iran, both of whom are India’s strategic partners.

When Mr. Abe landed in Tehran, he became the first incumbent Japanese Prime Minister in over four decades to have visited Iran. Mr. Modi, on the other hand, had already visited the Gulf nation in 2016 to boost connectivity, trade, investment and energy partnership. It was during this visit that he signed a trilateral agreement on Chabahar port, often seen as a strategic game-changer, with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Strong civilisational bonds

India, which enjoys traditionally sound ties with Iran rooted in civilisational bonds, has also deepened its political and military engagement with the U.S. in recent years. But still, New Delhi is not as closely aligned with Washington as Tokyo; Japan has a bilateral security alliance with the U.S. Since there was widespread perception that Mr. Abe was just a messenger of Mr. Trump, the former had to take pains to dispel this notion during his talks with Iranian leadership. Had Mr. Modi been in Mr. Abe’s place, there was no need for him to stress his neutrality.

The timing of Mr. Abe’s meetings with Mr. Rouhani and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was also significant, as he was to host a G20 summit in Osaka later in the month. As the wave of anti-globalisation sweeping across the globe puts a question mark over the very foundation of G20, Mr. Abe wanted to demonstrate that Japan, wedded to multilateralism, would continue to put the brakes on the slide towards unilateralism and conflict.

Moreover, he is going to lead the ruling Liberal Democratic Party into the Upper House election which is scheduled at the end of July. Despite securing a sweeping victory in the 2013 election, the ruling coalition still does not have a two-thirds majority in the Upper House. By exhibiting proactive diplomacy to defuse the Iran crisis, Mr. Abe tried to boost his image as a ‘problem solver’ who would do everything to defend the country’s energy security while also strengthening the cause of global peace.

Mr. Modi however did not face the compulsion of domestic elections; he had just registered an unprecedented electoral victory. However, he could have exploited this very fact that despite having no obvious domestic compulsions — except to demonstrate to India’s Shia community, the BJP’s core constituency among the Muslims, that his government shares its concerns — the primary objective of his mission would have been to help lower the political temperature and foster regional peace.

Mr. Modi would have had his own solid reasons to be in Tehran on a diplomatic mission. Recent developments in the Gulf have been alarming. Since India’s energy security requires a stable West Asia, New Delhi cannot afford a further ratcheting up of military tensions. More than that, the U.S. measures to undercut India’s strategic ties with Iran are going to pose serious challenges for India. India’s attempts to reach Central Asia are likely to receive severe setback if New Delhi’s ties with Tehran become a casualty of America’s arm-twisting behaviour. So far, the Trump administration has exempted the Chabahar port — which bypasses Pakistan to create a transportation corridor to Afghanistan — from punitive sanctions, but many in India remain deeply suspicious of America’s future intentions. If the Chabahar port stops receiving preferential treatment, it would be a classic case of short-term American unilateralism trumping long-term strategic thinking.

Therefore, aside from the symbolism of his trip, Mr. Modi would have redefined the parameters of Indo-American ties by giving a subtle message to the utterly transactional Mr. Trump that Chabahar is non-negotiable if India is expected to play a robust role in the Indo-Pacific region, America’s new strategic priority area.

Bringing them to the negotiating table

Conceding that there is no quick remedy to end the Iran crisis, the best Mr. Modi could have hoped to achieve was to convince both Washington and Tehran to come to the negotiating table at a neutral venue. Like Japan, India has also maintained broadly neutral ties with many West Asian countries, particularly with arch-enemies Iran and Saudi Arabia. Seasoned Indian diplomats would have ensured that Mr. Modi’s Tehran mission faced no powerful headwinds from Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of whom want Iran to be isolated.

By playing the role of a neutral intermediary, Mr. Modi could have reassured Iranians that India is a long-term friend and economic partner which is keen to see the end of American sanctions regime against Iran as the earliest. Had Mr. Modi told Tehran to avoid any miscalculation without securing firm commitments from Russia and China, he might have also allowed Mr. Trump to avoid a potentially devastating conflict in the Gulf, besides offering him an opportunity to make a deal.

Even though Mr. Modi’s diplomatic voyage was not supposed to yield vastly different outcomes than Mr. Abe’s, he would have cemented his position as a statesman. Rooted in moral realism, Mr. Modi’s mission to Tehran could have reminded the world that diplomacy is the best way to address problems, and of the importance of working together in pursuit of peace.

Vinay Kaura is Assistant Professor at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jaipur