India wary about Iran's nuclear project: Voted against in 2005, abstained in 2024
Almost 20 years after India voted against Iran's nuclear programme for the first time, Delhi's careful balancing act — between Israel and the US on one side and Iran on the other side — has come into play.
While India has always tried to walk the diplomatic tightrope walk, its discomfort over Iran with a nuclear weapon was apparent then. On September 24, 2005, India voted with 21 other countries on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) resolution (GOV/2005/77) which found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement.
This was seen as a departure from the past, as India had voted with the US and the western bloc against Iran, which was in its extended neighbourhood and with whom it has a historical and civilisational relationship.
This was the time when India had just started negotiating its agreement with the US on its civilian nuclear programme, and Washington was able to lean on Delhi to vote against Tehran. Delhi, which was keen to portray its responsible behaviour as a nuclear power, went along with the idea that voting against Iran's nuclear programme would burnish its reputation.
However, the resolution did not refer the matter immediately to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and India was one of the countries which urged the western bloc of European countries — UK, France and Germany (EU-3) — to keep the issue at the IAEA.
According to Indian officials, India voted for the resolution at that time, against the majority of NAM members who abstained, because it felt obligated to do so after having pressured the EU-3 to omit reference to immediate referral to the UNSC.
Months later, on February 4, 2006, India again sided with the US when the IAEA Board of Governors voted to refer Iran's non-compliance to the UNSC.
'As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has the legal right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with its international commitments and obligations… (But) it is incumbent upon Iran to exercise these rights in the context of safeguards that it has voluntarily accepted upon its nuclear programme under the IAEA,' then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Parliament on February 17, 2006.
Over the years, as India negotiated the nuclear deal with the US, Delhi came out of the pressure to vote against Tehran as the issue went to the UNSC. Sources said that once the matter went to the UNSC, India did not have to take any position on Iran's nuclear programme between 2007 and 2024.
In between, the US administration under President Barack Obama negotiated the JCPOA (joint comprehensive plan of action) with Iran in 2015 — which was a deal between P-5+1 and Iran. US President Donald Trump walked out of the JCPOA in 2017, and Iran's nuclear programme once again came under scrutiny.
India was forced to stop oil imports from Iran, although its Chabahar port project development was going on. While it did not have to take any firm position against Iran's nuclear programme, that changed last year when the US brought in a resolution against Iran.
In June 2024, India abstained from a vote at the IAEA regarding Iran. The vote, initiated by the US, aimed to censure Iran for its nuclear programme. While the resolution passed, with 19 out of 35 board members voting to censure Iran, India was among the 16 countries that abstained. This decision reflected India's balancing act between its deep defence and security relationship with Israel and its historical ties with Iran.
In September 2024, India again abstained from voting on a resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors that censured Iran for its lack of cooperation with the agency's investigations into its nuclear programme. The resolution, brought by France, the UK, and Germany (E3) along with the US, followed an IAEA report noting Iran's increased uranium enrichment.
In June this year too, India abstained on the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution strongly criticising Iran's nuclear programme and declaring it in breach of its 1974 Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. This time, India's decision to abstain from the vote reflected its balanced stance — recognising Iran's right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy programme while calling upon Tehran to adhere to its non-proliferation commitments.
While the change, from voting against to abstention, marks Delhi's shifting positions as geopolitical alignments changed, India's concern about the Iranian nuclear programme was evident.
Shubhajit Roy, Diplomatic Editor at The Indian Express, has been a journalist for more than 25 years now. Roy joined The Indian Express in October 2003 and has been reporting on foreign affairs for more than 17 years now. Based in Delhi, he has also led the National government and political bureau at The Indian Express in Delhi — a team of reporters who cover the national government and politics for the newspaper. He has got the Ramnath Goenka Journalism award for Excellence in Journalism '2016. He got this award for his coverage of the Holey Bakery attack in Dhaka and its aftermath. He also got the IIMCAA Award for the Journalist of the Year, 2022, (Jury's special mention) for his coverage of the fall of Kabul in August 2021 — he was one of the few Indian journalists in Kabul and the only mainstream newspaper to have covered the Taliban's capture of power in mid-August, 2021. ... Read More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran warns of ‘consequences' of silence and inaction over US strikes on nuclear sites
Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi on Monday said that silence and inaction over the US strikes on the country's three nuclear sites 'will have widespread consequences'. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, during an event recently.(REUTERS) In a conversation with his French counterpart, Jean-Noël Barrot, Araghchi condemned the US strikes on the Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz nuclear facilities, calling the military action a violation of all international laws and regulations, including the United Nations Charter. According to a statement issued on his Telegram channel, Abbas Araghchi stated that the 'silence and inaction' of countries in the face of the aggression will have widespread consequences and outcomes for all countries. The Telegram release added that Barrot expressed regret over the US strikes and denied any involvement in their planning and execution. The French foreign minister expressed his concern about the escalation of tensions in the region after the strikes and called for the continuation of talks between Iran and Europe. Iran considering bill to suspend cooperation with IAEA According to state media, a parliamentary bill to suspend Iran's cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is under consideration. The reports were confirmed by Ruhollah Motefakerzadeh, a member of parliament's praesidium. Iranian media also reported Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf stating that the proposed bill would suspend the country's cooperation with the IAEA until Tehran got objective guarantees of professional behaviour from the agency. "We in the parliament are seeking to pass a bill that would suspend Iran's cooperation with the IAEA until we have objective guarantees of the professional behaviour of this international organisation," Qalibaf said about the bill. The speaker added that Tehran was not looking to develop any sort of nuclear weapons. "The world clearly saw that the Atomic Energy Agency has not fulfilled any of its obligations and has become a political tool," he added.
News18
27 minutes ago
- News18
‘Violated Sovereignty': China Condemns US Airstrikes On Nuclear Sites In Iran
Last Updated: China warned that the airstrikes have 'exacerbated tensions in the Middle East and dealt a heavy blow to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.' China issued a sharp condemnation of the United States on Sunday over its military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, calling the actions a violation of international norms and a threat to global security. The statement came during an emergency session of the UN Security Council, following the U.S. attack on the three nuclear sites. 'China strongly condemns the US attacks on Iran and the bombing of nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA," said Fu Cong, China's permanent representative to the United Nations, according to a statement posted on the website of China's Permanent Mission to the UN. Fu added that the strikes 'seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law, as well as Iran's sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity." China also said that the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities has undermined Washington's credibility and expressed concern that the escalating situation 'may go out of control," according to a report by the country's state broadcaster, following Sunday's UN Security Council emergency session. The response came after President Donald Trump declared that the U.S. had 'obliterated" Iran's key nuclear sites, describing the operation as a decisive show of force. The coordinated offensive, carried out alongside Israel, marks the largest Western military action against the Islamic Republic since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. First Published: June 23, 2025, 13:32 IST
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Any Iranian closure of Hormuz Strait would be 'extremely dangerous', EU's top diplomat says
An Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz would be dangerous and "not good for anybody", the European Union's top diplomat said on Monday. "The concerns of retaliation and this war escalating are huge, especially closing of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran is something that would be extremely dangerous and not good for anybody," Kaja Kallas told reporters ahead of a meeting with EU foreign ministers. Iran's Press TV reported on Sunday that Iran's Supreme National Security Council needed to make a final decision on whether to close the strait, after parliament was reported to back the measure. About 20% of global oil and gas demand flows through the channel.
