West Asia News and Discussions

[jagbani]

Both side Pakistan and India commenting continuously, Yesterday heard that pakistan adding few new nuke weapon in its army and will target Indian few famous city and today our Air chief marshal said "Pak n-arsenal no concern, violent response if attacked"
check here http://www.punjabkesari.in/Punjab/fulls ... 08_133492-

So my question is that do Pakistan is capable of attacking India after adding these New nuke weapons..? and since America Aid is also banned so who is supporting Pakistan in this ..?

[shyamd]

Pakistan's Iran overtures test Saudi faith

By Malik Ayub Sumbal

ISLAMABAD - Saudi Arabian concerns over Pakistan's improving ties with Iran will likely be worsened by reports that Islamabad sent a secret delegation of hard-nosed and devout Sunni scholars to Tehran with the aim of fostering interfaith harmony with their Shi'ite counterparts.

Asia Times Online has learned that more than a dozen Wahhabis (hardline Sunni Muslims) from Pakistan were recently sent to Iran to meet with Shi'ite clerics, the majority faith in Iran. Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, is predominantly Sunni. Efforts to keep the religious dialogue secret were exerted at the government level.

The meeting occurred weeks before a high-profile delegation, including President Asif Ali Zardari, visited Tehran for an anti-terrorism summit, suggesting that Pakistan-Iran ties were rapidly improving. (See Pakistan, Iran become 'natural allies', Jul 19, 2011)

Speaking in Tehran on July 17, Zardari proposed a currency-swap agreement between Pakistan and Iran to strengthen trade and said the nations had the potential to undertake joint economic projects in Afghanistan. He said there was a chance of a "new era" of development in the two countries in particular, and in the whole region.

There are also plans for a gas pipeline that would link Iran's South Pars gas field to energy-staved Pakistan. Federal Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources Dr Asim Hussain said last week that the $1.2 billion pipeline project will be complete by 2014.

High-placed sources say the main objective of the religious delegation sent to Iran was to illustrate to Sunni and Shi'ite sects that "non-Muslim actors" are responsible for sectarian tensions between the two schools of thought in recent years.

Maulana Aamir Siddique, new custodian of the Red Mosque (Lal Masjid) in Islamabad, one of the young religious scholars who attended the confidential visit to Iran, told Asia Times Online, "The main objective of the delegation was to unite Muslim nations and narrow the differences among Muslim communities."

Siddique's mosque has been seen as a hotbed of Sunni radicalism. It was stormed by security forces in 2007 for providing a safe haven to militants under the protection of two brothers who were its then custodians, Maulana Abdul Aziz and Maulana Abdul Rasheed Ghazi. Ghazi was killed along with 153 others in the offensive. Abdul Aziz was arrested while trying to escape disguised as a female student. Ghazi was Siddique's nephew.

Saudi reaction to the recent blossoming of Iran-Pakistan relations has been swift, with King Abdullah inviting Zardari to Saudi Arabia last week, purportedly to discuss bilateral ties and the fight against militancy.

However, during the meeting Zardari was reminded about the longstanding political and religious ties between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. According to reliable sources, King Abdullah also emphasized to Zardari the important assistance Saudi Arabian has provided Pakistan in difficult times.

While Pakistan has benefited from such aid, Saudi funds have also fueled bloody sectarian violence between Shi'ites and Sunnis. The majority of jihadi organizations and all anti-Shi'ite elements have all received heavy funding from Saudi sources, particularly in the 1990s, when scores of innocent Shi'ites were executed by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan.

With 90% of the Pakistani populace comprised of Sunni Muslims, Pakistan has been under Saudi influence for decades, with Saudis wielding power over internal, political and religious matters. If Islamabad takes its embrace of Iran too far, it will face face increasing pressure from Riyadh.

Malik Ayub Sumbal is a freelance investigative journalist based in Islamabad, Pakistan. He has worked for more than eight years for a number of national and international newspapers, magazines, journals, wire services and television channels. He can be contacted at ayubsumbal@gmail.com

Zardari is on his way to china in the next few days. So Iran - Beijing - Pak axis is for Af-Pak and taking on US inthe back yard. Their interests converge and has been converging for a while. I think this is just a formalising a plan that has been under cover for a long time. Not surprised at all with this. This also suggests that Debka is being used by the Israeli's to drive a rift between the West and scare IRan.

[RamaY]

Where are all those ladies and gentlemen who thought PoK is not important to Indian interests?

[Agnimitra]

MKB on Israel, Arab Spring and sectarian politics:
Israel inherits the Arab Spring

In the case of Syria, Israel was even suspected to be secretly rooting for the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, seeing him as standing between Israel and the deluge of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover.

On Tuesday, Peres dispelled the strategic ambiguity at one stroke. "Assad must go. The sooner he will leave, the better it will be for his people," Peres said.

[...]

Israel's military intelligence chief Major General Aviv Kochavi made a stunning statement recently that Iran was secretly funding Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. In short, Israel cannot afford to be sanguine about the outcome of regime change in Syria.

Peres apparently had other calculations. What emerges is that Israel has made a cold-blooded assessment that regime change in Damascus is not in the cards.

[...]

The BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - along with Lebanon have smothered Western moves to even hold a discussion in the United Nations Security Council over Syria. The recent visit to Damascus by Arab League secretary general Nabil Elaraby showed that the regional wind is changing in favor of Assad.

[...]

Turkey snubs Israel, again
For a while in the most recent period, Israel pinned hopes on the revival of its moribund security ties with Turkey and on mounting a pincer move in the downstream against Syria from the north and the south. Things were indeed looking good in recent weeks for a normalization of Israel-Turkey relations as the diplomats of the two countries worked hard to get over the bitter legacy of the Israeli attack on the Gaza-bound aid convoy from Istanbul last year that killed nine Turkish citizens.

However, it now transpires that Ankara doggedly sticks to the insistence of a formal Israeli apology, which is not forthcoming as it is tantamount to indicting the Israeli army. The Turks are now threatening that they will punish Israel.

[...]

Ankara would know these are humiliating demands, which even if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might want to ponder over in a spirit of realpolitik or pragmatism, Israeli public opinion won't allow it. It is possible to discern that the Turks may just be deliberately making things very difficult for Israel to patch up the broken ties. The Turks seem to have suddenly lost the ardor for a "normalization" with Israel at the present juncture, which the Americans have been encouraging.

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Turkey 10 days ago and made flattering remarks about the country's larger destiny as the leader of the Middle East. The new head of the US Central Intelligence Agency, David Petraeus, made Istanbul his first port of call after leaving his command in Afghanistan. It all but seemed Turkey would bite the tantalizing proposition to act as the beachhead for a concerted intervention in Syria.

But, Ankara carefully weighed the advantages of becoming the instigator of regime change in Damascus and seems to have arrived at the conclusion that the dangers to its own territorial integrity far outweigh whatever geopolitical advantages Washington promises. Simply put, it doesn't suit Turkey to be seen holding the Israeli hand right now. Thus, Israeli hopes of breaking out of regional isolation by reinventing an axis with Turkey over Syria are dissipating.

The clincher for Ankara is that the Syrian developments are taking a dangerous turn toward a full-fledged, no-holds-barred, Lebanon-like religious war in the 1980s, which will be a dreadful thing to happen in its backyard.

The sequence of events triggered by the gruesome killing of three families from the Alawi tribe by Salafi extremists in the city of Homs close to the Turkish border testifies to the grave consequences of the danger of derailment of the democracy movement in Syria, which Ankara has been sponsoring in recent months.

A wave of anti-Salafi resentment is sweeping over the region among Shi'ites and Alawis. The backlash is rekindling dormant religious and sectarian passions. Ankara can sense that Salafi extremists, many of them al-Qaeda affiliates and battle-hardened veterans from the Iraq war, have infiltrated the demonstrations.

If a Lebanon-like civil war erupts in Syria, it will be a matter of time before Turkey too catches fire. The Shi'ites and Alawis in Turkey (who form close to 20% of the population) will instinctively get involved in the Syrian maelstrom. Alawi-Salafi tensions are lurking just below the surface in Turkish society.

The Alawi groups in Turkey have formed an umbrella organization known as the Alawi-Bektashi Foundation, which regularly brings out reports to sensitize the world community on the alleged "rights violations targeting Alawis on the basis of inequality and discrimination" and "hate crimes" by Salafi elements associated with the Fetullah Gulen community.

The latest Alawi report titled "The Alawis as Target of the Community" details that the Gulen community of Salafis in Turkey is waging "black propaganda against the Alawis" to the effect that Alawis have "taken over the judiciary and the military; in Turkey there is a sectarian secularism; an Alawi elite is allowed to rule the Sunni masses", et al.

Kurdish backlash
But what Turkey must really guard against is the near-certain Kurdish backlash of which the signs are already appearing. Turkey's support for the Syrian opposition has already brought about some proximity between the Kurds and Damascus.

Pressed against the wall, Damascus can retaliate against Turkish interference by granting Syrian citizenship to the Kurdish settlers in northeastern Syria, especially Qamishli, which will inevitably pose serious headaches for Ankara in the long term.

Clearly, the Kurdish parties are dissociating from the Salafis in northern Syria and are signaling their willingness to work with the Syrian regime. There is some talk that if the situation deteriorates, Damascus may be left with no option but to arm the Kurdish groups to counter the Salafis.

In sum, Ankara needs to be wary that it is skating on thin ice by pushing the Syrian regime to a point of no return. The plain truth is that the Kurds will invariably take an opposing stand to the approach that Ankara adopts. Abudllah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey, lived for many years in exile in Syria.

Turkish interference in Syria has prompted prominent Kurdish leaders Jalal Talabani (Iraq's president) and Massoud Barzani (Kurdistan Region president) to voice support for Damascus. (Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has also expressed solidarity with the Syrian regime by signing an agreement for the supply of 150,000 barrels of oil to Syria.)

Again, it was a historic victory of Turkey's "coercive diplomacy" that in 1998, Ankara amassed troops on the Syrian border threatening to invade and succeeded in literally brow-beating Damascus into agreeing to "demilitarize" the border regions with Turkey - and to expel Ocalan.

Now, against the backdrop of Turkish interference in the current situation, Damascus has dispatched its special forces to the Turkish border region after a gap of 13 years.

On top of this, Damascus chose to dispatch to the border the Fifteenth Division of its army, which is predominantly manned by Sunnis and is under the command of Sunni Syrian officers - rubbishing Ankara's facile assumption that the Syrian army's Sunni officers are about to desert the regime.

On the whole, Israel has rightly assessed that the Turks are beginning to get the Syrian message and are preparing to pipe down.

Ankara is winding down anti-Syria rhetoric and is gradually reviving its old platform of "zero problems" with its tough neighbors.

The irony is that Ankara is also compelled to revive the bonhomie with Iran and launch a concerted military offensive against Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq following the killing of 13 Turkish troops on July 14 in Diyarbakir province in eastern Turkey.

In a masterly move with impeccable timing, the Iranian army began operations on July 16 against Kurdish rebels in the Kandil mountains in northern Iraq. In a parallel move, the Turkish military also since began an operation in the Iraqi territory bordering Hakkari province in eastern Turkey.

Ankara is putting on a brave face and claiming that the Iranian and Turkish operations are not coordinated. That may be so in a formal sense. Tehran is not disputing the Turkish claim, either. But the Israelis are a smart lot and can sense perfectly well what is going on - that someone is jogging Turkey's memory that it still has an unfinished Kurdish problem of its own to prioritize, where it has a commonality of interests with Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Evidently, Israel has concluded that the Syrian-Iranian axis is very much intact despite the immense pressure from Saudi Arabia on Assad to break up with Tehran; the Syrian regime is nowhere near collapse despite the concerted pressure by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France and the US; and, Qatar, which among all Persian Gulf Arab states is always quickest on the uptake, anticipates that an Arab Spring in Syria is going to be a tough call, far tougher than Libya, and Doha shouldn't aspire to punch so absurdly far above its light weight.

Incidentally, Qatar has shut down its embassy in Damascus and pulled out following the attacks on the American and French embassies and the al-Jazeera office in the Syrian capital. Most important, Israel estimates that Turkey has begun gradually backtracking from the path of interference in Syria.

All in all, the specter that haunts Israel is that if the turmoil in Syria abates, the attention of the international community will inevitably revert to the Palestine issue. Abbas is reiterating his intention to seek UN recognition for Palestine at the forthcoming general assembly session in New York in September.

[shyamd]

Got a chance to speak to the advisor to the GCC again. We discussed Pak briefly amongst other things.
They don't see Pak as trustworthy at all. The paki's helped Iran go nuclear. But looks like at the time the GCC couldn't haul the Paki's in by the collar due to things they needed from Pak.
After AQK episode, ties suffered a lot and even now during this arab spring thing with Iran, looks like advisors to prince Bandar had told him not to strike a deal with Pak as they are untrustworthy.

Then also after this OBL episode, its just added fuel to fire. They don't understand how Pak was not aware of OBL's presence there (so he says) without pak state support.
I mentioned that pak has not done a thing for the GCC and has endangered them even more. He completely agreed. I also spoke about HuT influenced pak officers plotting to take over the peninsula and stuff.

They were saying after these 2 incidents, GCC is extremely wary of Pak, so now they are worried about pak getting close with iran, so they want to see if pak will change sides or what the hell they are doing.

Pak military etc are quite central to GCC security plans, so these guys are very concerned. So I think if Pak continues, we may see the GCC drift more and more to other states for security support such as India, indonesia, malaysia etc.

Its great for relations with India - at least for now. I think the arab news editorial above was put out to scare the paki's a little.

Let's see how this plays out.

[RajeshA]

Shyamd ji,

Perhaps you should let your GCC friend know, that if Pakistan had no border with Iran, they wouldn't have any strategic partnership with Iran either. In a strategic partnership, they can control the gates to Central Asia. Balochistan needs to be freed from Pakistani grip and either become independent, or accede to India.

Without Baluchistan as a bridge to Iran, Pakistan would again become dependent on Saudi support, and thus will be again available to do duty to win Saudi generosity.

Pakistani subservience to Saudi interests lies in Paki loss of Baluchistan!

[Rony]

Iraq to purchase 36 F-16 fighter jets from U.S.

The number is double what was initially planned; move aimed to bolster the weakest branch of Iraqi military, ahead of final withdrawal of U.S. troops at the end of the year.

[RamaY]

Shyamd ji,

Perhaps you should let your GCC friend know, that if Pakistan had no border with Iran, they wouldn't have any strategic partnership with Iran either. In a strategic partnership, they can control the gates to Central Asia. Balochistan needs to be freed from Pakistani grip and either become independent, or accede to India.

Without Baluchistan as a bridge to Iran, Pakistan would again become dependent on Saudi support, and thus will be again available to do duty to win Saudi generosity.

Pakistani subservience to Saudi interests lies in Paki loss of Baluchistan!

Excellent point RajeshAji.

[shyamd]

Shyamd ji,

Perhaps you should let your GCC friend know, that if Pakistan had no border with Iran, they wouldn't have any strategic partnership with Iran either. In a strategic partnership, they can control the gates to Central Asia. Balochistan needs to be freed from Pakistani grip and either become independent, or accede to India.

Without Baluchistan as a bridge to Iran, Pakistan would again become dependent on Saudi support, and thus will be again available to do duty to win Saudi generosity.

Pakistani subservience to Saudi interests lies in Paki loss of Baluchistan!

Baluch will be freed when the US decides to and the GCC is already cooperating on this. Most of the GCC Baloch population already support the BLA and so on. Want evidence? Just take a look on youtube and see how many Free Baluch videos there are. They reckon when they free Baluchistan, the GCC can't say no to it as they protected the GCC till tis day and they are respected citizens of the GCC.

The US knows that PRC/Iran/Pak have formed an alliance. Then all of a sudden - the US is beginning to ratchet up the pressure on all 3. New round of sanctions on Iran, Pak - Baloch appears to be on the boil, PRC - Taiwan/bomb blasts in Kashgar as a result of protests. This is all the US.

For the US this has become a matter of protecting its major interests in the Gulf. The Iranians want to remove the US from the ENTIRE region upto the Persian Gulf. PRC doesn't mind joining the alliance. Pak wants its strategic assets to live. So the US is now in direct conflict with these 3 entities. This is the new cold war.

In Chennai, Hillary asked India to be more assertive. Basically, they want us to be an active partner in their schemes. But we all know the US is there for ITS interests, not ours. India is playing good boy in the world arena and staying out of getting our hands dirty. However we are INDEPENDENT. Hence why we retain the option to join this alliance, but we don't want to be an overt partner. One can see this through our naval exercises and deals.

The lack of overtness is due to PRC. They are a neighbour and we want mutual interdependence of our economies and have a productive relationship with them in order to focus on development for our citizens.

Regarding Pak relations - I'll talk about it another time as I'm out of time. Round 2 of friends searching has started apparently and ideas to have an alternate to Pak security alliance has begun I think. So you may see a new role for security cooperation between India and the GCC and other nations.

[Samudragupta]

Shyamd ji

Is Turkey part of the new axis? Or has it moved towards the GCC...what does PRC think abt Turkey.....basically China is trying to rope everybody who has some influence in Central Asia...and shut out US from the chessboard...it has already created Tehran-Islamabad-Beijing axis....I believe it will try to rope in Ankara into the axis as well......it is trying to block all the routes to CA ....this new axis have the potential to boot out not just US but Russia as well from the "Pivot".....

[Virupaksha]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... T720110729

Bji's assertion that it is not the feb revolution that matters and how islamists WILL attempt to hijack it in 6-8 months after the initial bonhomie is coming through like clock work

[RajeshA]

shyamd ji,

thanks for your input!

[shyamd]

Shyamd ji

Is Turkey part of the new axis? Or has it moved towards the GCC...what does PRC think abt Turkey.....basically China is trying to rope everybody who has some influence in Central Asia...and shut out US from the chessboard...it has already created Tehran-Islamabad-Beijing axis....I believe it will try to rope in Ankara into the axis as well......it is trying to block all the routes to CA ....this new axis have the potential to boot out not just US but Russia as well from the "Pivot".....

I have explained this before. Thanks

See: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1121234 and http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1111237

[shyamd]

China to invest in Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline

Two stunning developments in China-Iran relationship over the weekend coincide with the rapid atrophying of India’s traditionally close ties with Iran and would draw attention once again to the shift of templates in the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf region, which India regards fondly as its ‘extended neighbourhood’.

First, the construction work on one of the world’s biggest petrochemical complexes for producing urea and ammonium fertiliser began in southern Iran on Saturday. The project is expected to be in completed in about 3 years’ time and would have a whopping production capacity of 4 million tonnes of fertiliser annually. The project involves an investment of 4 billion dollars and, interestingly, China is making 85% of the investment. More important, China is teaming up with the Iranian private sector as its partner in the project. Virtually, it becomes a Chinese-owned fertiliser project in Iran with buyback arrangement. (Iran exports almost half of its petrochemical products.)

Second, China is fast emerging as the front-runner for the construction of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline (on the Pakistani side), which is expected to begin by end-2011 soon after the German consultant completes the ‘route survey’. The Pakistan-China joint energy working group is meeting in Beijing on Monday. President Asif Zardari is also visiting China in the coming days. China may consider investing in the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project. The construction of the Pakistani side of the pipeline is estimated to cost 1.25 billion dollars, which is not a big amount for China to invest. Pakistan is obliged to complete the project by 2014 as any failure to receive the Iranian gas by that stipulated date will automatically trigger a heavy penalty clause in the agreement.

The big question is whether China will want to follow up a decision to invest in the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline with an interest to extend the pipeline to China, which Pakistan has been seeking. The factor that ostensibly discouraged India from participating in the project, namely, the security
situation in Baluchistan, doesn’t seem to deter Iran, Pakistan or China. Ironically, Tehran’s preference all through was to extend the pipeline to India rather than to China. But then, it takes two to tango. And in this case, arguably, it takes three to tango — including Uncle Sam.

Cementing the friendship. Will talk about this later when time permits.

[RajeshA]

shyamd ji,

gave my comments on the article and its purport here!

[ramana]

Going by the recent extensive NATO intervention in North Africa, if it weren't for Islam taking over that area, North Africa bordering the Mediterranaean Sea, would have been part of modern greater Europe.

[Paul]

I thought of that too, extending to the east....the borders of the roman empire extended to Armenia on the edges of the caucasus. Carthrage in North Africa was part of greater europe.

George Patton believed that in one of his previous incarnations he was a Carthrage general.

[ramana]

So is Europe exerting itself in its 'near abroad"? In other words is it Roman empire redux? If so what does it mean to the other areas?

[shyamd]

Going by the recent extensive NATO intervention in North Africa, if it weren't for Islam taking over that area, North Africa bordering the Mediterranaean Sea, would have been part of modern greater Europe.

The GCC perspective is very much different. The west see's things in a very different way to the Arabs. Got some interesting insight. Basically, some competent intel officers inthe GCC don't see it as islamisation. This is the same message I heard from a different source during bahrain saga. The west doesn't understand tribal politics of the arabs. Question is:Do you assume soldiers in the army do not pray or are not religious? The islamic movements are always the most organised because of the mosques as they gather together and talk in the community - so the westassume the Islamists are gaining power etc, protest together, but tribal loyalty is AS important - which western/non arabic speaking analysts don't understand. It played a very important role in Bahrain, Yemen and is doing so now in Syria/Iraq etc.

[shyamd]

So is Europe exerting itself in its 'near abroad"? In other words is it Roman empire redux? If so what does it mean to the other areas?

At the end of the day, the rule of economics will play its role. Nations like Libya will be kept in EU orbit. Not so much Tunis - unless thy have something other than tourism to offer. But I guess a pro EU govt in power will mean more FDI etc. The west tried to go to libya before, they don't care who they work with, as long as he is pro west and offers stability. They will go in. Gaddafi wasn't and using Saif they tried to work with Gaddafi regime.

[RamaY]

China to invest in Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline

I cant get this question outta my mind.

Why USA forcing India (thru its sanctions on Iran - Oil-payment issue) to let go of Iran? Isn't this weakening USA's hold on the region, as Pak and Iran going firmly into China alliance?

Is US's concerns over India so large that they don't mind Iran falling into PRC alliance?

Or is it something else?

Appreciate some gyan...

[svinayak]

I cant get this question outta my mind.

Why USA forcing India (thru its sanctions on Iran - Oil-payment issue) to let go of Iran? Isn't this weakening USA's hold on the region, as Pak and Iran going firmly into China alliance?

Is US's concerns over India so large that they don't mind Iran falling into PRC alliance?

Or is it something else?

Appreciate some gyan...

Very good question. Any global power has to have India in their side no matter what at all times.

If India does this kind of PRC arranagement then the game is over for the super powers. Once you understand this geo political fact then you will understand everything else.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4812906/India-and-Geopolitics

In his book `The Place of India in the Empire', published in 1909, Lord Curzon talks of India's geopolitical significance. ``On the West, India must exercise a predominant influence over the destinies of Persia and Afghanistan; on the north, it can veto any rival in Tibet; on the north-east and last it can exertgreat pressure upon China, and it is one of the guardians of the autonomous existence of Siam,'' he wrote.However, much one might dream about India's strategic future, this is notthe kind of role India can play now. Nor is the world going to parcel out the Indian Ocean littoral to India. New Delhi can, however, significantly contributetowards the advancement of the region through political cooperation with other great powers.

That precisely is what Mr. Kissinger was talking about when he referred to the ``parallel interests'' of India and the United States from Aden to Singapore. These shared interests include energy security, safeguarding the sea lanes, political stability, economic modernization and religious moderation.Lord Curzon's emphasis on the value of fixing boundaries, conceived in the context of expanding empires, remains very relevant for India. Settled boundaries can make India's frontiers into zones of economic cooperation rather than bones of political contention. The assessment that ``frontiers, which have so frequently and recently been the cause of war, are capable of being converted into the instruments and evidences of peace'' is even more true in a globalizing world


India s geopolitics is to keep South Asia divided, become the most important power and come to terms with other powers possibly China, the US, Russia. It is keeping its options open towards the United Europe.€ The next war for the re-division of the world will inevitably have India as an active player. Within that,all the big powers are very keen to see that India does not renew itself.Geo-political goals of the western major powers have been total domination of the Eurasian landmass, securing the oil resources and extending the covertempire for the new century and maybe even the millennium.

[RamaY]

Thanks Acharyaji...

I wonder why can't GoI create a SPV that acts as the money manager for all oil payments to Iran.

For example, Indian companies deposit their $ payments in the SPV. RBI will manage the FX, and the fluctuations are MTMed to the SPV. Iran can pay for its imports thru this SPV.

I know it amounts to going against UN sanctions but aren't they already broken by taking oil-imports?

[devesh]

Thanks Acharyaji...

I wonder why can't GoI create a SPV that acts as the money manager for all oil payments to Iran.

For example, Indian companies deposit their $ payments in the SPV. RBI will manage the FX, and the fluctuations are MTMed to the SPV. Iran can pay for its imports thru this SPV.

I know it amounts to going against UN sanctions but aren't they already broken by taking oil-imports?

that whole process is redundant. if RBI will be involved, then why not continue what was already taking place: RBI paying Iran directly??? that was happening anyway. why create a whole new process when an easy way already exists. all these SPV's etc are required only as "investment" vehicles. they are cumbersome processes for direct payments for transactions.

no, I agree with Acharya garu and Shyamd garu that India's recent behavior with Iran is about a much larger game. I don't think US has anything on he RBI to make it stop payments. and political class can't deliberately intervene for crooked reasons, especially when the news is such a hot item.

and now, apparently a deal was reached where the payment method has been settled on? unless, they came up with a revolutionary new payment process in the past month or so, the whole thing seems like a lot of back channel talks and lots of behind the scenes politicking.

[shyamd]

China to invest in Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline

Two stunning developments in China-Iran relationship over the weekend coincide with the rapid atrophying of India’s traditionally close ties with Iran and would draw attention once again to the shift of templates in the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf region, which India regards fondly as its ‘extended neighbourhood’.

First, the construction work on one of the world’s biggest petrochemical complexes for producing urea and ammonium fertiliser began in southern Iran on Saturday. The project is expected to be in completed in about 3 years’ time and would have a whopping production capacity of 4 million tonnes of fertiliser annually. The project involves an investment of 4 billion dollars and, interestingly, China is making 85% of the investment. More important, China is teaming up with the Iranian private sector as its partner in the project. Virtually, it becomes a Chinese-owned fertiliser project in Iran with buyback arrangement. (Iran exports almost half of its petrochemical products.)

Second, China is fast emerging as the front-runner for the construction of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline (on the Pakistani side), which is expected to begin by end-2011 soon after the German consultant completes the ‘route survey’. The Pakistan-China joint energy working group is meeting in Beijing on Monday. President Asif Zardari is also visiting China in the coming days. China may consider investing in the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project. The construction of the Pakistani side of the pipeline is estimated to cost 1.25 billion dollars, which is not a big amount for China to invest. Pakistan is obliged to complete the project by 2014 as any failure to receive the Iranian gas by that stipulated date will automatically trigger a heavy penalty clause in the agreement.

The big question is whether China will want to follow up a decision to invest in the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline with an interest to extend the pipeline to China, which Pakistan has been seeking. The factor that ostensibly discouraged India from participating in the project, namely, the security
situation in Baluchistan, doesn’t seem to deter Iran, Pakistan or China. Ironically, Tehran’s preference all through was to extend the pipeline to India rather than to China. But then, it takes two to tango. And in this case, arguably, it takes three to tango — including Uncle Sam.

Cementing the friendship. Will talk about this later when time permits.

Iran is already selling most of its oil/gas to PRC via pipelines through central asia and also via shipping. The whole point of IPI was to diversify away from China for Iran. For India it was a "peace pipeline" which goes on to what I was talking about living in peace and having an interdependent economy with pakistan for the benefit of both our citizens. However, Pak's actions with terror have stopped us from going forward.

Iran says that India's payments can be used to stabilise Balochistan. Well, its not currently in our interest to stabilise Balochistan and also we don't have the power to stabilise Baluch - as the US is calling the shots there.

PRC/Iran/Pak are cementing their alliance with this pipeline to remove the US from the entire region - from Afghanistan to Lebanon. The pipeline is not economically sustainable if it just went to Pak. PRC or India must buy it. India wants the gas, but because of the nuke deal and its direct links to relations with Tehran we can't go for it.

Also, if lets say AfPak falls to the Talebs. Basically, you will see a renewed front in Kashmir and renewed violence and perhaps a Kargil like situation again. So to divert all this, India is taking the war to Af-Pak. So Pak is spread thin and our borders remain SAFER and Kashmir is ok. As long as we open the front from the northern borders against Pak. Pak will be under huge pressure. So to prevent another war being fought we are joining the US/Russia to help stabilise Af-Pak with the Karzai govt.

An Indian presence in Af-Pak is a big no no as we can cut off ALL major oil and gas supply lines to PRC. So PRC can't really go to war with us. At the moment we can cut them off with relative ease because their trade routes go past India. The oil is sitting closer to us. So as an alternate PRC went big with Tehran and used central asian pipelines to get oil. So we need a presence in Central Asia for our own protection. I'll leave the rest left unsaid.

Anyway, why has ISI/IB kidnapping Baloch in Karachi and Balochistan? Because they know the US is gonna come down big on the TSP once Iran/PRC/Pak alliance is formed. So, the cold war has begun. The US/India and Russia are together. GCC is now looking at a pro Iran - Pakistan govt. And Pak was central to their plans of diverging from the US/West. The US is pooing its pants at the prospect of PRC being able to take the oil fields from them. So its pacifying the GCC. The GCC is looking red faced as it relies on Pak for its security. So the question in the GCC decision makers minds are - can I trust Pak after AQK and OBL? Ummmm.... unlikely. So Prince B is jumping on his jet and will be visiting other nations to get some friends.

PRC is going for this pipeline to cement the alliance between the 3, so they all need each other for money and gas - a long term alliance. US will have to disrupt supply on a regular basis via its non state actors who have received training from a GCC state.

GCC, US, India, Russia are slowly getting together. Russia is a pivot state due to Iran. But Russia wants a safe Af - Pak because of Chechnya - they are already suffering from an unstable AF Pak. Pak is a pivot state because the balls are literally held by GCC and Pak is central to GCC defence.

Its all happening... It will be an interesting time to watch.

As for Iran - India oil payments. Basically the US has authorised India to make the payments. Simple as that. Why do you think Reuters and otherswere interviewing the US treasury officials about OUR payments to Iran. Why did the US allow that? Was it because of Af-Pak - carrot stick policy that the US loves to use? Lets see.... Iran is central to our AfPak strategy so we need Iran on our side. I said many times before, India knows the solution to the payment crisis but is stonewalling on purpose. I think I know which route that we are using to pay Iran. Its because this state doesn't want to be identified.

India needs to talk to Khomeini and MA an understand what their position is on Af Pak.

------------------------
A very good article by the Super Atul Aneja

Oil payment row and India-Iran ties

Atul Aneja

The Hindu Green fuel emission control petrol Euro III and IV units of HPCL. File photo
As Indian firms line up behind Saudi Arabia and its Gulf partners, their moves are likely to invite Iran's hostility which could easily spill over into the political realm.

India's ties with Iran need urgent attention as an unresolved row over oil payments threatens to drag the relationship, once described as “strategic,” to a new low.

The problem arose in December 2010 when the Reserve Bank of India, under U.S. pressure, decided to no longer use a clearing mechanism to pay Iran for its crude. Washington and its western allies had exhorted India not to use the Asian Clearing Union (ACU) currency swap system to pay Iran. They argued that this mechanism, established at the initiative of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (ESCAP) and in operation since 1974, was disconcertingly opaque. Consequently, it was difficult to ascertain whether the money flowing into Iran's coffers was not used to fortify the country's nuclear programme. Faced with these objections, India, according to the Financial Times, began using the German bank, EIH, for making payments. However, this channel broke down in May 2011, after the European Union imposed sanctions on Iran.

Iran is India's core energy partner — its second largest oil supplier. Nearly 12 per cent of India's total demand, around 4,00,000 barrels a day, feeds India's refineries and petrochemical complexes. The Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MPCL) is the largest oil importer from Iran. The IOC, BPCL, HPCL and Essar are also major consumers of Iranian crude.

Because of the difficulties over payments, Indian companies have accumulated a debt of nearly $5 billion. With the payment row festering, Iran decided to halt supplies to Indian firms for August. However, as the deadline for the payments neared, both sides scrambled to achieve a breakthrough. On July 31, Iran's Oil Ministry website SHANA reported that the payment row had been settled. India would pay part of the debt “promptly” and the rest would be “gradually settled.” The Ministry's optimism notwithstanding, details of the inner workings of the new mechanism and the prospects of its durability remain far from clear. (Media reports say that India and Iran have finalised the settlement of dues through a Turkish bank arrangement.)

The possible collapse of Iranian supplies will have far greater ramifications than a mere commercial impediment in a buyer-seller relationship. Iran's decision not to supply oil, if implemented, will deliver a serious blow to the evolution of a robust geostrategic relationship between New Delhi and Tehran, of which a highly developed energy partnership has to be the core. Aware of the importance of establishing a strong political relationship, India and Iran, with Pakistan as the third party, had begun negotiations on the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline. Had the pipeline materialised, it would have not only generated obvious economic benefits but also imparted regional stability, premised on mutually beneficial interdependence.

Despite the unrealised potential of the IPI or any of its variants, Iranian officials privately concede that the energy relationship between India and Iran should move on. Before threatening to stop supplies, Iran had begun to show fresh interest in seeking Indian investments in its oil and gas sector. Alive to the recent Indian energy forays in neighbouring Central Asia, Iranians were also considering working with India on a possible fuel swap arrangement in the future. Under this mechanism, Iran could export energy to India from its terminals, in return for an equal amount of oil delivered across the border to Iran, which may have been tapped by Indian firms in Central Asia.

Quite recently, India's induction into the United Nations Security Council as a non-permanent member appeared to have led Tehran, to consider afresh, the need for reinforcing its ties with New Delhi. “We realise that India in the future is likely to play an ever-larger global role, and we want to position ourselves well as this process unfolds,” an Iranian academic in Tehran, who did not wish to be named, recently told this correspondent.

Apart from energy, there are two key elements that define the relationship. One of them is trans-continental transit. Iran's port of Bandar Abbas is the starting point of the north-south corridor which can ferry goods northwards towards the Caspian, and further into Russia and Europe. But, more critically, India needs Iran to physically access Afghanistan. It can do so from the Iranian port of Chabahar, from where a land corridor extends northwards before entering Afghanistan. For reasons of geography, Iran is central to India's Afghan policy.

The importance of Iran to fulfil India's aspirations in Afghanistan is bound to heighten as NATO, most likely without imparting much stability, begins to pull out of the country, in accordance with a three-year time table. In a likely political vacuum, there will be demands on India, Iran, its Central Asian neighbourhood and possibly Russia to play a proactive role in Afghanistan. That would, however, require a powerful vision and strategic cooperation, including intelligence sharing and political coordination at an unprecedented level, for which serious preparations have to begin right away. In fact, with western forces stepping out, in a manner not very different from the Soviet withdrawal from the country in 1989, India may find it necessary to initiate the evolution of a regional mechanism, where neither Pakistan nor China is left out, so that Afghanistan — a country prone to multiple influences — has a realistic chance to rebuild.

However, the manner in which the oil payments row is being handled suggests that New Delhi, far from strengthening ties with Tehran from a larger regional perspective, might have, after considerable deliberations and probably in line with the thinking in Washington, decided to scale down its ties with Iran. Alternatively, India-Iran ties, of which Afghanistan is a key component, might have become the victim of governmental drift, reflecting complete liberation from a larger strategic vision that should otherwise inform a vibrant relationship between the two countries.

It is, therefore, disappointing that India, instead of quickly arriving at a new payment agreement with Iran and defusing a major crisis, has apparently decided to place heavier reliance on Saudi Arabia as an alternative fuel supplier.

Reuters has quoted K. Murali, HPCL's head of refineries and international trade, as saying that the company has sought an additional supply of one million barrels in August from Saudi Aramco.

India's greater reliance on Saudi Arabia may not be temporary, confined to warding off its current difficulties with Iran. Indian refiners may already be restructuring their procurements by probing alternative suppliers, especially Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, to offset their dependence on Iran. In its annual report, MRPL has noted that given “the enhanced level of sanctions on Iran in future, [and] the non-resolution of the current payment crisis, the availability of Iranian crude may be difficult.”

As Indian firms appear to line up behind Saudi Arabia and its Arab Gulf partners, their moves are likely to invite Iran's hostility, which could easily spill over into the political realm. The decision to increase dependence on Saudi Arabia and reduce procurements from Iran is particularly ill-timed because of the rapid escalation recently of a Cold War between the two countries. Since the advent of the Arab Spring — the expression for the rising tide of pro-democracy movements since January that are sweeping across West Asia and North Africa — relations between Riyadh and Tehran have turned nasty. Saudi Arabia's decision in March to send troops into neighbouring Bahrain to quell, what was described by Riyadh as a pro-Iran Shia uprising, has added a sharp emotive edge to the Saudi-Iran rivalry. Iran's foes have also accused Tehran of fomenting the rise of the so-called “Shia crescent” in the region — a mythical Iran-led Shia alliance that allegedly is trying to foist a sectarian anti-Sunni agenda in the region.

By siding with the Arab petro-monarchies to meet its energy requirements, India has, inadvertently or otherwise, forced itself into the throes of the Saudi-Iran Cold War. For many influential Iranians, India's move would be seen as taking sides — a deliberate decision to join the anti-Iran camp led by the United States and its regional allies, chiefly Saudi Arabia. In highly politicised Iran, which is particularly on edge after the onset of the Arab Spring, this is combustible material, which can rapidly inflame public passions against India and eventually lead to the undermining of New Delhi's core interests in Afghanistan, compulsorily channelled through Iran.

Amid the fluidity of the Arab Spring and its accompanying firmament, India needs to navigate skilfully to establish parallel and independent relations with both Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, and Iran, its strategic partner, for the protection of its interests in Afghanistan and, later, in energy-rich Iraq, where Tehran's influence runs deep. But a balanced and vibrant relationship with the two regional giants will become possible only if India assesses its difficulties with Iran not as an isolated technical issue but as one which can define the contours of its influence in the region.

[Pranav]

^^^ Shyamd Garu, Iran has no choice but to go with China since the Jewish lobby will ensure that the US cannot reconcile with Iran. India can maintain access to Afghanistan via Iran only if India is not wholly in the US camp.

I have doubts about your take on Turkey. Yes, the army has been dominated by the Donmeh crypto-Jews, but it is getting purged. Just the other day, lots of senior defense personnel resigned, and many are in jail for coup attempts. So Turkey may go with China provided it can get over its reservations vis-a-vis Xinjiang.

[Suppiah]

AFAIK Indo-Iranian payments are in $$. That means any remittance basically is less one account in some US dollar denominated account of some bank (usually with Unkil land) and add similar value to another account with another bank (also in massa-land). In other words, Unkil sits on both choke points. If there are other ways they are also probably indirectly controlled by Unkil and/or its poodle across the pond.

The thing is to work out some other way of paying to get over the fact that India sells very little to Iran. What can that be?

I guess that complication is behind all these troubles...unlike the dire predictions by MKB the issue got resolved so quickly even before the ink on his column had dried. Which means India is balancing the two (Arab/Persian) as much as it can..without angering Unkil which seems a smart thing to do...

[Suppiah]

Re Turkey, IMHO whatever Attaturk started lasted almost a century and still controls the thoughts/actions of about 30-40 or more % of Turks. Let us see how long the impact of Ergodan/Gul lasts - the present 'strength' shown by Islamists is not ideological transformation of Turkey - it is basically the charisma of these two, combined with good economic performance. Add to that a weak opposition devoid of equally charismatic central figure. Just as all Bongs did not become Marxists...all turks have become Saudis.

Take one of the factors out of the equation, as is bound to happen sooner or later, I think we will see a different Turkey..

The army though, is not relying on charisma of one individual or two to hold on to its ideology/thought..generals seem to come and go...just as it is in TSP, of course, in their case it is fanatic barbaric animalism that is the army's ideology..

[Suppiah]

Survey on Turks' religious piousness..

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php? ... 2011-08-01

About 40% dont fast at all or fast irregularly whatever that means (perhaps like M. Karunanidhi, fasting from breakfast to lunch and then again from lunch to dinner)

KONDA’s report also asked Turks questions about their general feelings on religion. Some 68 percent (34 million) of Turks over the age of 18 said they consider themselves religious, while 16 million identified themselves as religious but said they do not practice regularly. Some 2.1 percent do not believe in religion, the survey said.

Actually the figures are far better than USA not to speak of TSP....

[shyamd]

^^^ Shyamd Garu, Iran has no choice but to go with China since the Jewish lobby will ensure that the US cannot reconcile with Iran. India can maintain access to Afghanistan via Iran only if India is not wholly in the US camp.

Of course, Iran - PRC have mijjile/total defence cooperation amongst others. US has been trying for a long time to reconcile israel and iran, but the current regime has refused. But watch when the Iranian system collapses.

I have doubts about your take on Turkey. Yes, the army has been dominated by the Donmeh crypto-Jews, but it is getting purged. Just the other day, lots of senior defense personnel resigned, and many are in jail for coup attempts. So Turkey may go with China provided it can get over its reservations vis-a-vis Xinjiang.

There is news for consumption of the public and then the real news. The Turks are allied with GCC. Did you see the moves by Turks during Bah crisis? Read SSS article on this very subject - he talks about the border areas in the south where there is a lot of shia and the army is buiilding sunni mosques

As for PRC - it was only a brief flirtation under one Foreign minister. The turks are tied too closely with US foreign policy and now more than ever before.

[ramana]

And pranav stop using racist undertones (crypto-**** etc.) in your posts. make your points without them if you please.
You can be paranoid, but at same time can you be civil?

[himadri]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4812906/India-and-Geopolitics

From the above source:

Almost 90 years before Samuel Huntington wrote his famous essay on the impending clash of civilizations and later developed it into a book with the sametitle, and decades before even the Hindu nationalism and organizations were formally organized in 1925 in India, Bipin Chandra Pal, a Hindu nationalist leader of India's freedom movement, had foreseen this clash among various civilizationsand predicted that Hindu civilization will side with the Judeo-Christian West inits war against Islamic and Chinese civilizations.Pal's essays and articles written almost a century ago make fascinating reading. A genuine thinker and visionary, Pal propounded his theories despite thefact that he considered the West as the greatest danger to humanity and was a great admirer of Islam's spiritual values. He thought that Islam was going to conquer large parts of the world, through its power of propaganda and not through war. He considered this inevitable. He was, however, scared of Islam's politicalmanipulation. He foresaw the dangers of political Islam, which he considered anaberration. For, in his view, Islam is not only "extra-territorial" in its ideology, but also "extra-political"

Very interesting

[Pranav]

And pranav stop using racist undertones (crypto-**** etc.) in your posts. make your points without them if you please.
You can be paranoid, but at same time can you be civil?

There is nothing offensive about the term crypto-Jewish. I can quote from the Jewish Encyclopaedia. Shabbatai Tzvi and his followers are an integral part of the history of the region. See for example this study about the background of Ataturk. But you can suggest another term if you like.

[ramana]

I dont want you to use such terms period.

We have enough baggage as it is.

Thanks, ramana

[shyamd]

Very interesting article - talks about the IRGC positon on Turkey
Iran draws the line with Turkey on Syria

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

In a sign of growing Iranian misgiving about Turkey's role in Middle Eastern affairs, Tehran has decided to throw its weight behind the embattled Syrian regime, even if that translates into a setback in relations between Tehran and Ankara.

Iran's move is bound to represent a new thorn in ties, with multiple potential side-effects, since it comes at a delicate time when Turkey is pressuring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government to adopt meaningful reforms and to give legitimacy to the Syrian opposition, which has repeatedly held meetings in Turkey.

Over the weekend, Tehran hosted Syrian Oil Minister Sufian Alaw for the signing of a major trilateral Iran-Iraq-Syria gas deal worth


billions of dollars, while showering the Assad regime with unconditional praise as the "vanguard of resistance" that was subjected to psychological warfare and Western-Zionist conspiracy.

Articulating Iran's steadfast support for its key Arab ally, Iranian first Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi used his meeting with Alaw to expel the slightest doubt about Iran's stance on Syria, by stating that "Iran and Syria are two inseparable countries and allies, and Iran will stand by its friend and Muslim [neighboring] country, Syria, under all circumstances".

In sharp contrast to Turkey's support for the Syrian opposition, Rahimi dismissed the current unrest in Syria as "guided by arrogant powers and the meddling of enemies".

Behind Iran's new Syria move is a calculated gamble that contrary to some Western perceptions, the Assad regime is not completely isolated and still enjoys a considerable mass following. This is reflected in huge pro-government rallies consistently ignored by the Western media, and that with sufficient internal and regional support, Damascus could survive and ride out the current storm.

Assad has been unable to crush the uprising despite a crackdown against ant-government protests in which activists say more than 1,600 people have been killed since mid-March.

A clue to the "new Iranian thinking" on the crisis in Syria and its regional implications emerged in a recent issue of Sobhe Sadegh, the weekly publication of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), written by Reza Garmabehry, that in unmistakable language warned that if Iran had to choose between Turkey and Syria, it would choose Syria. Titled "Iran's serious position vis-a-vis the events in Syria", the article implicitly criticized Turkey for serving Western and Zionist interests by siding with the opposition and thus weakening the regime in Syria.

Simultaneously, the IRGC has demonstrated Iran's hard power by conducting a successful counter-insurgency military campaign resulting in its incursion inside Iraqi territory in hot pursuit of a Kurdish armed group known as PJAK (Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan). This is a fresh reminder to Turkey of Iran's stability role with respect to the Kurdish problem besetting Ankara, in light of Iran's considerable clout in Iraq.

This coincides with a new Iranian naval strategy that focuses on "out of area" missions for the navy in "open waters" and with access to foreign ports such as in Syria (see Iran on new voyage of discovery Asia Times Online, February 24, 2011).

According to some Tehran analysts, Iran hopes that Turkey will adjust its Syria policy and rethink its stinging criticisms of the Assad regime.

If this does not happen and the policy contrasts between Iran and Turkey over Syria grow sharper, then we may witness a cooling period between Tehran and Ankara. Turkey is seeking a leading role in the deadlocked Middle East peace process, in light of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's planned visit of besieged Gaza, Ankara's hosting a Palestinian summit and reports of Turkey's intention to play a leading role in the upcoming United Nations debates on Palestinian statehood in September.

Much as Iran and Turkey may cooperate at the UN level on the Palestinian issue, given that Turkey-Israel strategic relations have remained essentially untouched by various negative developments, such as the murder of nine Turkish citizens on a Gaza-bound ship by Israeli commandos, Tehran continues to view with suspicion some of Turkey's regional moves that may come at Iran's expense.

Erdogan's three conditions for normalizing relations with Israel - an apology, compensation to the victims and the lifting of the Gaza siege - are considered rather lenient by Tehran, which would like to see the conditions widened to encompass the return of Arab lands, including the Golan Heights.

Assuming the Syria crisis lingers - which would mean more Syrian refugees in Turkey - the pressure on Ankara will likely increase and thus force Ankara to look to Iran for influencing Damascus. After all, contagion from Syria, as compared to Iran's distance from Syria, represents a minus for Turkey at the moment that adds to its vulnerability.

Playing hardball with Ankara, Tehran's new determination to stand behind Damascus no matter what in effect confronts Ankara with tough choices: ie, either continue with the current position tilted in favor of the Syrian opposition, and thus earn a substantial setback in relations with Iran, or emulate Iran and refrain from the hard push for reform inside Syria, and thus avoid a broadening of the arc of crisis engulfing Turkey's regional context.

According to Bahram Amirahmadian, a Tehran analyst who says Ankara has been exploiting "weak Iranian diplomacy", a more robust Iranian diplomacy is called for to avoid lagging behind Turkey in Middle East affairs. Apparently, the above-mentioned IRGC initiative is intended to address this issue, through a combination of soft and hard power that includes the carrot of economic (energy) incentives in league with Baghdad.

Thus, it is not simply Iran but rather the triumvirate of Iran-Iraq-Syria that Turkey, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization member, has to reckon with.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. He is author of Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) and his latest book, Looking for rights at Harvard, is now available.

[ramana]

This report was missed.

Nightwatch 26 July 2011

Iraq-Iran-US: Iran's increased arming of Shiite militant groups in southern Iraq is meant to create a "Beirut-like moment" by inflicting mass casualties on U.S. forces and send the message that they have expelled the United States from Iraq, U.S. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey testified to Congress on 26 July, citing his Iraqi contacts and other intelligence sources.

When asked what Iran should know about the plan, Dempsey said it would be a mistake on Iran's part to proceed without considering the U.S. response to Iran's aggression. Dempsey is the Obama administration's nominee to chair the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Comment: Tough talk. Strategists from Sun-zi to Liddell-Hart have cautioned against under-estimating an enemy. The Iranians have succeeded in installing the world's second Shiite-dominated government in Iraq, by not interfering with the application of US democratic precepts.

They are sophisticated and clever by any modern standards. They will do nothing to prolong the US military presence in Iraq. They need to send no message that has not already been sent resoundingly: Shiites control Baghdad.

There is zero probability that Iran would undertake at any time a "Beirut-like moment," considering that US forces will be out of Iraq in December 2011. Whoever credited and supplied such so-called "intelligence" did the US general a disservice and misunderstands Iran's goals and its appreciation of its achievements.

Syria-Israel: "Syrian leader Bashar Assad must step down," Israel's president declared Tuesday, sending his message to Israel's neighbor at an unprecedented news conference with Arab media. Israel's government has largely kept quiet as anti-government protests swept the Arab world in recent months.

Comment: The Israeli president needs to be careful what he asks for. A fundamentalist Sunni triumph in Syria would compound the threat from Iran exponentially. The destruction of Israel is a goal on which many Sunnis and Shiites, Arabs and Persians can come together.

The Sunni uprising against the Alawites in Syria has provided more security to Israel than anything since before the disastrous 2006 invasion of Lebanon. It has been a major setback to Iran and its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza.

The Israeli president no doubt wants to position Israel to be on both sides of the Syrian fight by showing sympathy for the Sunni activists or at least putting political distance between Jerusalem and Damascus.

Even Syrian experts recognize the Syrian opposition is too weak and the security forces too loyal for regime change to occur soon. Bashar al Asad is the figurehead for the Alawite military and political elite. A sock puppet would serve their purposes as well. If the Alawites fall in Damascus, the peril to Israel will be imminent, constant and close, with Persian support.

Egypt: Egypt's top reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei called Tuesday for the formation of a broad coalition of political forces, including the Islamists, to contest the first elections since the ouster of President Mubarak.

The call by the Nobel Peace laureate, whose supporters some have credited as important in Egypt's uprising three months ago, reflects growing concerns of less-organized opposition groups about a big win for the well-organized Islamists, primarily the Muslim Brotherhood.

Comment: For a generation, Egypt has had two parties, the government party and the outlawed Brotherhood. Before that there was the Nasser tradition. Egypt has no experience with democracy and no political culture of pluralism.


The government party is disbanded and that leaves only the Brotherhood and the military as organized mass political institutions, plus the professional government bureaucracy. El Baradei has not yet shown or been allowed to show the leadership skills to create broad coalition he advocates.


Only the Brotherhood seems capable of filling the political vacuum created by Mubarak's overthrow. The irony is that the Brotherhood is part of the Mubarak system -- the anti-Israel and anti-secular side.


Libya-Russia: For the record. A Russian Emergencies Ministry aircraft will deliver 36.2 tons of humanitarian aid to Tripoli, Interfax reported, citing the ministry. An Il-76 aircraft left the Ramenskiy airfield at 9 a.m. Moscow time carrying tinned milk products, baby food, sugar and rice for residents.


Comment: The Russians see profit in what US Admiral Mullen described today as a stalemate between Qadhafi and NATO, as if the US were not part of NATO? Russian action and Mullen's comment are extraordinary. Russia is working to ensure the survival of the Qadhafi regime, more to embarrass NATO than out of any affection for Qadhafi.

[Kanson]

China has plans for entire Asia, not just Central Asia and pipelines. Just as they make territorial claims based on past history, they are very much in establishing true "Middle Kingdom". Existing moves by Chinese are just a prelude to scheme of things to happen by next decade. Indians are slowly waking to this reality. Slowly becoz, most of our actions are mere hedging. Chinese machinations are very much similar to the rise of Third Reich. Second Reich for them is over.

BTW nice work Shyamd.

[shyamd]

^^ Thanks! and about PRC - Exactly!


'Funds for terror activities come from Saudi'

HYDERABAD: In early 1990s when Syed Salahuddin visited a hospital in the city where his relative was admitted, he was struck by what he felt was bias against his community. The nurse and other staff at the hospital did not respond to him the way they should have, he felt.


Growing up, he saw the demolition of Babri Masjid and soon joined the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), an organisation that was banned in 2001.

He became a prominent leader in SIMI and in 1999, became the all-India president of the outfit.

Presently in the custody of Andhra Pradesh police after he was brought from Ujjain jail recently, Salahuddin’s five-day custody came to an end on Tuesday.

Intelligence agencies grilled him on various aspects including his alleged role in Nov 2002 bomb blast at Sai Baba Temple at Dilsukhnagar.

Salahuddin denied involvement in the offence. “My name appeared in the media and I fled. But I do not know why my name was being linked.” Salahuddin fled to Dubai in 2002 and worked as a civil engineer before his arrest by Dubai authorities on charges of cheating.

He further told interrogators from counter intelligence cell, Intelligence Bureau and National Investigating Agency: “Most agencies think that Dubai is the hub for fundamentalists and terrorists but it is not. It is Saudi Arabia where all meetings take place and it is from here that all funds are received for terror activities.”

Narrating his experience while working as a civil engineer in Dubai, 40-year-old Salahuddin said that Dubai government keeps a strong surveillance on where religious gatherings are held. He added that the Dubai jails are pathetic. “In the jails, there is not even space to spread your legs. It is pathetic.”

Salahuddin, who says he is a Deobandi said that jihadis, including some former SIMI members and Indian Mujahideen are all Ahle-Hadees (who owe allegiance to Wahabi sect of Islam). He said he did not know about the present IM network but said that most members of the banned outfit have either joined Popular Front of India while some others have joined Wahadat-e-Islami. Salahuddin, who was earlier well known for his motivating speeches among SIMI cadres,termed the recent Mumbai blasts as “not correct”. “I want to do my bit to change the society for good. But the bias still exists everywhere in day-to-day life,” he said.

[krisna]

Reality in Syria: The Road to Damascus

Below is an excellent piece on the situation in Syria by Krishnan Srinivasan, a former foreign secretary. He was one of the finest head of the foreign office unlike many time servers with doubtful integrity. He speaks with experience in posts in Lebanon and Libya.

THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS - International tutelage and the making of liberal states

The attitude of Western states, led by the United States of America, to recent events in Syria is eerily reminiscent of the build-up to the second Iraq War of 2003 and the US-led invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The media frenzy about deaths, demonstrations and refugees, and the remarkable ‘discovery’ of a Syrian nuclear facility dating back to 2007, call to mind the then US secretary of state Colin Powell’s power-point presentation about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction at the United Nations security council that turned out subsequently to be a pack of lies. The present state secretary, Hillary Clinton, now weighs in against Syria with accusations and threats, and Iran, the West’s major bogey-man, is pictured as playing a role in sustaining the despised Damascus government.

Taken by surprise with the various popular movements in the Arab world this year, Washington hopes that a transition to democracy will bring certain countries into the Western orbit. This accounts for the regime change-directed no-fly zone in Libya, which has stalled for the moment, the robust propaganda against Syria, and the transparently hypocritical silence about Yemen and Bahrain, where similar demonstrations against the pro-West regimes have been suppressed with the utmost brutality. Basing their anti-Syrian invective on social networking sites, some of which now have been unveiled as perpetrated by Americans nowhere near Syria, President Bashar al-Assad’s promises to liberalize his polity have been brushed aside by the US and European Union as inadequate and non-specific.

The Syrian demonstrations began in the periphery of that country over two months after the Arab Spring started in Tunisia. It is well-established that arms have been inducted into Syria from Jordan and Lebanon, obviously not for the official security forces but for insurgents. Also well documented is that the US finances Syrian dissidents abroad, including circles linked to the Muslim Brotherhood like the London-based so-called Movement for Justice and Development, which are not aspiring to democracy but for an Islamist caliphate. All this begs the fact that the Assad regime, despite its many failings, is not unpopular and is regarded by many, if not most, Syrians as being the nation’s best hope to lead a reform programme. Assad himself has freed the internet, repealed the emergency, announced amnesties, liberated detainees and promised dialogue. But on the debit side, Assad is too cautious and surrounded by sycophants, and the Syrians have managed their public relations very badly. Assad’s initial hard-line approach was most ill-advised, and he has a reputation of non-performing on previous promises to open the political system. It was also a huge mistake not to keep Turkey closely onside.

The Assad regime may still survive, but eminent historians of revolutions all concur that an authoritarian regime is most vulnerable when it makes the first compromises

Now that more than a decade has passed since the neo-protectorates came into being, some stocktaking is possible. None of the new protectorates could have been established without the projection of US power or underwriting, but the US had no overall vision for management of the world order, and Moscow has turned the tables on the Responsibility to Protect doctrine by prising South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. By 2011, there is Western fatigue with such engagements and a downgrading of reformist agendas in favour of an exclusively security-related focus. The West found protectorate experiments costly and long-term and lacking in full legitimacy: even partial successes like the mini-states of Kosovo and East Timor are not exemplary, and Iraq and Afghanistan are in no way closer to being modern and cohesive liberal democracies. The new protectorates will turn out to be transient moments in the history of these societies and also of Western hegemony, belonging to the category of quixotic dreams of human improvement, with only heuristic value for understanding the period in which they came briefly into public prominence.

good article-hope this has not been posted.

[krisna]

Egyptians Turn Against Liberal Protesters

Mobs of ordinary Egyptians joined with soldiers to drive pro-democracy protesters from their encampment in Tahrir Square here Monday, showing how far the uprising's early heroes have fallen in the eyes of the public.

Squeezed between an assertive military and the country's resurgent Islamist movement, many Internet-savvy, pro-democracy activists are finding it increasingly hard to remain relevant in a post-revolutionary Egypt that is struggling to overcome an economic crisis and restore law and order.

Monday's turmoil in Tahrir followed a massive Friday demonstration on the same square by hundreds of thousands of Islamists, who called for transforming Egypt into an Islamic state—and railed against the liberal and secular youths who had helped motivate millions to rise up against Mr. Mubarak.

While the liberals and the leftists paint the military as a holdover of the old regime, the formerly outlawed Muslim Brotherhood and the more radical Salafi Islamist movement have taken pains not to criticize Egypt's ruling generals.

"The Egyptian citizen wants only two things—security and low prices," Mr. Shawky shouted. "The millions of Egyptians will do anything that the army tells us to do."