Iran News and Discussions

[vavinash]

There is no reason, why India should grudge Iranian greatness, even if it is at India's expense.


Patent rubbish. What greatness??? The persian civilization that was basically an offshoot of the vedic civilization was great. After 10th century it was merely arabized iranians showing the culture of their conquerors. The iranians also seem to forget the greeks and indians (ashoka etc) had them under their rule for a long time. Current iranian civilization is most famously known for stoning teenage girls to death or hanging them for adultery like their cousins to our west.

[Rye]

A lot of ignorant rubbish being spouted here. "The Iranians" by Sandra Mackey to is a good background for Iran's heritage, which is different from India's, though there may be some connection in the past. All the hindootva-first folks need to separate their fantasies from reality. King Cyrus and later King Darius and their Zoroastrian faiths are all native to Iran, BTW.

AshishRaval, Rajesh saar has already said what needs to be said --- Basically, unlike pakis, Iranians do not base their existence on hating India. They only need incentives to see why good relations withIndia is in their long-term best interests.

[RajeshA]

vavinash Ji,

Shiism sets the Iranians apart, and has helped the Iranians to isolate themselves from a full-scale Arabization. Islamic Empires, from the Ottoman to the Mughal based their court culture on that what the Persians had on offer, not necessarily how the Arabs behaved. That their culture and language was the used by Turkic empires bears witness to the greatness and appeal of Iranian culture. Begrudging them that goes against the facts and is a waste of time and waste of argumentative strength of one's own views and the pursuit of India's national interests.

In fact, Iran's own sense of greatness can be in India's interest as a bulwark against Saudi's own aggressive policies in the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere. Persian historical greatness also acts as a another component of the Aryan composite history and its achievements and strengthens the claims of Indo-Aryan greatness.

Disclaimer: Common Aryan greatness thing however has little relevance on India's future, and rightly so.

JMTs

[Rony]

I am totally against India joining either US side or Iranian side.If the Indian interest demand dismantling of Iranian nuclear programme , so be it. On the other hand, If the Indian interest demands IPI pipeline, so be it.

Having said that, purely from a piskology angle, i interact with iranians of all shades from the non-muslim iranians to islamic iranians and i can personally attest to the fact that there attitudes towards India and Indians is not good. Iranians can be divided into two types.One is the non-muslim 'persian pride' iranians whose attitude to India transcends from jelousy to racism and the islamised shia iranians who considers India as a unfinished business for not converting to islam fully.

Both the persian Iranians and muslim Iranians consider Nadir shah's looting of Delhi as both invitable and necessary to protect the persianised muslim elites of India. Make no mistake. Although non-muslim Iranians themselves were persecuted in Iran, they still take pride in iranian 'acheivements' like lotting of delhi by nadershah. Also Both the persianised Iranians and the muslim ones consider mughals as 'Persians' by using the logic that persian is the court language of mughals. Although Iran itself is overrun by mongols and Nadershah is a turk (and not a persian), Iranians (both persian and muslim vareities) consider him as an iranian hero. Iranians also approprite everything which is Indian from the concepts of 'Arya' and 'Aryan' to chess and algebra which the iranians insist are invented in iran and not in India.When someone tries to correct them, they use the logic that since Indians were many times 'invaded' by Iranian tribes (parthians, scythians etc), India got these things from them !

Whenever the Iranians(of both vareities) hear about any Indian success stories, a tinge of jelousy creeps in them.One of them in a middle of discussion (with a fit of rage) openly told me that even though India may be many times powerful than Iran, they cannot accept India as the dominant power (in middle east) as it will be beneath their dignity to 'accept' a country as superior which was under their 'rule' for many years.

Iranians fully beleive in the Aryan invasion theory(AIT) especially the 'persian pride' vareity iranians. Even the proff that the oldest Aryan book in the world is Indian Rigveda which is much older than the oldest Persian Ariyan proff, the behustian inscription (and as such the migrations would have been from India to Iran and not the other way round) will not convince them. As per them,the parsis of India are not 'persians' anymore since they mixed with the Indians for many centuries and lost their persianess.Of course but that does not stop them from appropriating the Tatas when ever they hear news of Tatas buying some gora company.

[RajeshA]

Iranians will learn to acknowledge and respect India in due time. There is no way, their naval or their economic strength in the next 30 years would even come close to that of India. The future of the IOR belongs to India anyway so why be bothered about how Iranians think of India. Even their views of India will be molded by the strength of Indian media and discourse.

[renukb]

However, I see renukb defending pakistan's interest yet again for some reason -- I like Iran as an ally, but all this eagerness displayed by renukb and others to "solve ISI" and taking India back to 1997 is disturbing. The democrats will change the game from the Bush playbook, and it will not be in India's interest

Rye, If you think that US govt is governed by what is written by renukb and others on BRF, then by now TSP would have been finished. US govt runs by their interests, and I would prefer GOI to run by our own interests. Going back to 1997, is better than going back to British raaj or American Raaj.

Only partly correct -- you leave behind the people who build these terror camps and they can rebuild all the ones they destroyed. Secondly, how do you know when ALL terror assets have been dismantled -- because unless there is that guarantee, all of these "destroying terror camps" is just a temporary setback for terrorist groups. They will regroup again when the public attention is distracted elsewhere.

Then what do you suggest we should be doing in order to take the gyarantee that all of these terror camps are destroyed? A mass genocide, kill every Pakistani citizen? My goal here is to prevent major harm to Indian citizens while keeping our neighbourhood cleaner. If Iran too can help India, in the name of IPI, then why not?

Who is sustaining them? What is this horsesh1t you are trying to spread here? That Pakistan can be pulled back from terror? Why would they start doing that now when they have not for the past 60 years? Because you say so?

Because it has started hurting them (TSP) back...Life is a full cycle, or by the pendulum theory, what goes up, has to come down.

And pakistan in its current form CANNOT be worked with...a point that just does not seem to sink into some people.

Who asked to work with Pakistan in its current form?

[ashish raval]

Rajesh
Nobody denies Persian Empire or their greatness. But what world fails to recognize is the fact that second most brutal genocide again humanity after Jewish exodus was unleashed on the descendents of Persian Empire by Mohammadians and hundred of thousands if not millions of them were either murdered or forced to accept Islam. The current Islamic Republic of Iran is in no way reflection of what Avestan Persia was in history which is same as current breed of Egyptians or Greeks in no way reflect the greatness of their civilization once ruled by Pharoahs or Hellenic or Minoan Greeks. I do acknowledge that we had cultural exchanges in the past but it is usally Master-Slave exchanges and not really the one of equals.
Islamic Republic of Iran is not even near to what Ancient persia was and their Attitude is reflected in Arrogance than pride.

[Rye]

renukb wrote:

Rye, If you think that US govt is governed by what is written by renukb and others on BRF, then by now TSP would have been finished. US govt runs by their interests, and I would prefer GOI to run by our own interests.

renukb, that is fine. Your pretense that a united pakistan is in India's interest is bogus. Period. Only a disintegrated pakistan will result in the destruction of the two-nation theory ideology. Nothing more, nothing less. However, this does not mean being nasty to the various tribes in pakistan, as Rajesh's post has nicely outlined.

Then what do you suggest we should be doing in order to take the gyarantee that all of these terror camps are destroyed? A mass genocide, kill every Pakistani citizen?

No, that is just your worthless hyperbole. Read Rajesh's post again, especially the part where he points out that none of this means committing violence against anyone in Pakistan. The point has always been to NOT take any action that will prolong pakistan's shelf life based on notions like "A United and Stable Pakistan is in India's interest" -- it is not and it will never be.

Because it has started hurting them (TSP) back...

So you want to remove their pain and help them focus their energies back on India? sheer brilliance.

Who asked to work with Pakistan in its current form?

I think you are doing that in your posts -- Pakistan "in its current form" means that the Pakistani army will have a prime role in running pakistan -- that needs to be reversed and the Paki army dismantled....how difficult is it for ISI-jihadis and their friends in the Pakistani army to pretend to be "sane and reasonable" until Pakistan gets out of the current hole? Are you claiming that such a thing cannot happen?

[Neshant]

I've found most of them to be hot headed. They detest that the arabs conquered them and imposed their religion on them. Yet they are compelled to worship arab culture aka islam and hate their indegenous zorastrian religion.

So they latch onto Persian history in an attempt to find something/anything of their own that the arabs have not (yet) forced them to hate/destroy.

However unlike pakis who cook up their history, Iranians actually do have a time in history when their country was a great power. What they have not come to terms with is the loss of that power.

[ashish raval]

Very well put up Rony. I agree with you cent percent.

[RajeshA]

As long as Oil & Gas rule energy markets, Iran would always believe in the miracle of resuscitation of their old grandeur, so the hope is not dead.

Once the world moves on away from Oil & Gas, only then would the current Iranians be forced to face the prospect of eternal inferiority unless they too change their ways from belief in Allah's Kindness of mineral wealth to something like India's or even China's way to greatness: hard work & innovation.

[RajeshA]

Whenever the Iranians(of both vareities) hear about any Indian success stories, a tinge of jelousy creeps in them.One of them in a middle of discussion (with a fit of rage) openly told me that even though India may be many times powerful than Iran, they cannot accept India as the dominant power (in middle east) as it will be beneath their dignity to 'accept' a country as superior which was under their 'rule' for many years.

They have accepted the Arabs as their superiors. That does not seem to be below their 'dignity'. All people have to accept reality, regardless of whether it is below or above their dignity.

[Paul]

A few points to be noted:

While Iran and India share ancient civilizational links, this does not mean we share common interests. Russia and India have had contact only for the last 200-300 years, but are best friends as we share common enemies.

Since the days Iran embraced the message of Zarathusthra they have been drifting away from us. They have some misplaced sense of superiority over Indians ( I have seen this with Parsis too. They are not very gung-ho on Pakistan, considering the suffering from Islam). Remember that book Bapsi Sidhwa or some other parsi writer from Lahore wrote up on Pakistan…She was blaming Sikhs for the partition riots in that book (Amir Khan, Nandita das etc. acted in the movie).

Nadir Shah was not a Iranian, he was a Turkomen nomad who usurped the throne of the safavids. Iranians have suffered more from him than India, but for H&D purposes Iranians do not mention this. I have seen Iranians in Hyderabad and Bangalore who came their to escape the blood letting of the Iran Iraq war and would turn up their noses at the dark skinned Indians.

It is for these reasons I have always agreed with MMS statements that it is not in Indian interests to see Iran have nuke weapons. The Narsimha Rao days were the only ones where we enjoyed a brief upturn in relations, and that too becuz Pakistan was turning the heat up in Afghania through the Taliban.

Khomeini in the pan Islamic spirit had always supported Pakistan inspite of Zia’s anti shia agends.

Finally, In the post Pakistan jostle for territories, they will take over Balochistan and Jostle with us for Sindh. This will be India’s opportunity to bring back Kandahar into India’s orbit and our old relations with Pakhtuns will help us gain the upper hand over the Magis.

[Paul]

Per JN Sarkar, Aurangzeb and the Persian kings have exchanged letters lamenting the free the Pahadi Chuha (Shivaji) was having in the mountains and the takleef itwas causing to the Momeen.

This at a time when Aurangzeb's jihad against the Shia heretics in Deccan was in full swing. Aurangzaeb spent 25 -30 years in the deccan campaigning against the shia kingdoms.

[renukb]

renukb, that is fine. Your pretense that a united pakistan is in India's interest is bogus. Period. Only a disintegrated pakistan will result in the destruction of the two-nation theory ideology. Nothing more, nothing less. However, this does not mean being nasty to the various tribes in pakistan, as Rajesh's post has nicely outlined.

I never said United Pakistan is in India's interest, that's your interpretation, strangly though... I only want that some parts of Pakistan be merged into India, when and if Pakistan disintegrates.

So you want to remove their pain and help them focus their energies back on India? sheer brilliance.

You are not able to understand what I am writing here, again your interpretation. Read what I have written in complete.

I think you are doing that in your posts -- Pakistan "in its current form" means that the Pakistani army will have a prime role in running pakistan -- that needs to be reversed and the Paki army dismantled....how difficult is it for ISI-jihadis and their friends in the Pakistani army to pretend to be "sane and reasonable" until Pakistan gets out of the current hole? Are you claiming that such a thing cannot happen?

Again your own interpretation and conclusions, I can't help for it.

May or may not happen, But can't act, based on guess works.

[Rye]

renukb wrote:

Again your own interpretation and conclusions, I can't help for it.

May or may not happen, But can't act, based on guess works.

Not really sure what you mean by guesswork --- all that is being done is working out the possible futures and the risks associated with each possible future. I am not sure what you are going on about. It is simple --- allowing the Pakistani army and the ISI breathing space without ensuring that their assets that can hurt India in the long term are completely destroyed is not a good idea. A future without those elements is likely to be better for India's long term.

Anyway, I think we are talking past each other -- you make no sense to me. Last post on this.

[renukb]

I think we are talking past each other

That's what I thought too.

[renukb]

Iran issues warning to American forces

TEHRAN, Nov. 5 (UPI) -- The Iranian military Wednesday issued a stark warning to U.S. forces in Iraq, saying it would respond "forcefully" to any violation of Iranian airspace.

The U.S. military said it has ramped up its efforts along the eastern Iraq border in an effort to stem the tide of foreign fighters entering the country from Iran. From their side, Iranian officials have complained of American helicopters approaching Iranian territory.

"Recently it has been seen that American army helicopters were flying a short distance from Iranian border areas, and it is likely to violate Iranian airspace," the military said in a statement published by the Islamic Republic News Agency.

"Iran's armed forces will forcefully respond to any attempts to violate the Islamic Republic of Iran's airspace," it added.

The statements follow a U.S. raid into Syria in October in pursuit of al-Qaida operatives along the border with Iraq. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the incursion a "barbaric act," as Syrian authorities claimed several civilians were killed in the operation.

The Iranian army statement said any similar action on its territory would be met with a swift response.

"Iran's armed forces will respond to any violation," the statement said. It also called on American forces to "change the route of the helicopter flights" to fly at a "safe distance from Iranian borders to avoid any trouble."

[Philip]

Will B.Hussein Obama grant Iran N-weapons? This report indciates that he will not pursue with as much vigour the "Cheney Iranian gambit".This will mean that the ball is now in Israel's court to despatch alone.Tough decision that with Israel itself in the throes of a political crisis.If Bibi comes back,you can bet your last dollar that Iran will be paid a vist by Israeli air "tourists"!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ident.html
Will Iran acquire a nuclear bomb with Barack Obama as US president?
If America ever goes to war with Iran, Mustapha Attaee will find himself uncomfortably close to the frontline.

Colin Freeman in Isfahan
Last Updated: 11:48PM GMT 08 Nov 2008

Just a few miles from the 42-year-old farmer's homestead on the outskirts of Isfahan is the city's nuclear research facility, viewed by the Pentagon as one of the key incubators for Iran's atomic weapons programme, and marked on its intelligence maps for a priority strike.

The plant's gleaming chimneystacks are strategically hidden behind a range of rust-coloured hills, but in the event of a strike with high-powered bunker-buster missiles, Mr Attaee fears the shock waves would do more than just rattle his windows.

"We are worried what damage would be done to our houses in the event of a strike," he said. "But we Iranians are used to threats after all these years."

As of last Tuesday, those threats seemed to recede with the presidential triumph of Barack Obama, a man who appears keener on dialogue with Iran than his rival John McCain and his predecessor George W.Bush, who both made no secret of their interest in the "military option".

But for all the optimism the Obama presidency may have inspired in America and elsewhere, it is not shared by Iran's hardline leadership. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have offered his belated "congratulations" to America's first black president on Thursday, but Tehran still sees Washington as fundamentally opposed to the Islamic regime's mere right to exist, let alone its right to become a nuclear power. The Great Satan's face has changed colour, but no more, as the hardline Kayhan newspaper made clear.

"Obama's view on talks with Iran is not strategic, it is a hostile tactic," warned an editorial last week, in an edition marking the anniversary of the storming of Tehran's US Embassy in 1979, after which America broke off diplomatic relations. "He does not regard talks as a means to reach a solution, but as a way to increase pressures on Iran."

In declaring business as usual, Kayhan was correct on one crucial point – Mr Obama is no keener than any other would-be US president on the prospect of the a nuclear-armed Iran. Not only would it be "unacceptable" for Middle East stability, to have it happen on his watch in the White House would deal a body blow to his credentials as a man America can trust with its security.

Yet every indication is that the crunch moment in Iran's long-running nuclear stand-off with the West is likely to come in during Mr Obama's tenure. Diplomats in Tehran say that between 2010 and 2011, the scientists at Isfahan, Natanz and other key Iranian nuclear plants will master the ability to enrich uranium, which could give them bomb-making ability. Sometime between now and then, America and Europe will have to persuade the mullahs to abandon their research - either by diplomacy or by force – or accept the potential of a nuclear-armed, and hostile, Iran.

"We are nearing that moment where Iran either develops nuclear capability, or where the question of military action is contemplated," warned one diplomat in Tehran. "Both of those scenarios are horrible and to be avoided."

A stroll around Isfahan, a city of Persian architecture regarded as Iran's finest, yields little sense of any impending doom. In a city centre park overlooking the elegant butterscotch arches of Choobi river bridge, most picknickers welcomed the prospect of an Obama presidency. There was, however, an insistence that they should have their own nuclear deterrent - a view that has prevailed here ever since the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when the West largely turned a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's aggression.

"Obama is a peace-loving guy and I think if he is elected he will pursue good relations with us," said Mitra Noruzi, 40, sat smoking a hookah pipe with her family. "But there is no reason why we shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, it will make us feel safer. Anyway, why should we be blamed for having them, when others do?"

So what are the options? While even Mr Obama has reserved the right to use military force as a last option, most experts agree that a US or Israeli military strike to flatten the likes of Isfahan is now unlikely, despite having been talked up relentlessly as a "when, not if" question during the latter Bush years.

For one, even the most powerful bunker-busting missiles would not be guaranteed to set back the programme indefinitely, given that the many of the techniques have already been perfected. For another, an attack would also unleash a wave of terrorist chaos from Iran's proxies in Israel, Iraq and Lebanon just when the world needs stability to cope with the financial crisis.

"The reaction will not be by us, but by proxies like Hizbollah against the US and its baby child, Israel," warned Dr Amir Mohebbian, a leading Iranian conservative thinker. "To attack us would be walking into a trap."

That leaves a continuation of the diplomatic route, an international good cop-bad cop act in which Iran been alternatively threatened and bribed to curb its nuclear ambitions. Six years after it started, it has largely failed. The regime has ignored "generous" deals offering trade incentives and a guaranteed supply of foreign enriched uranium for a civilian atomic program. And it remains undeterred by the increasingly punitive sanctions, which have imposed asset freezes on firms and individuals linked to the nuclear program, and prevented most Western banks doing business with Iran. Indeed, many diplomats privately suspect that Tehran sees the entire "talks" process as simply buying time to perfect bomb-making techniques.

Mr Obama hopes to break the mould by offering direct talks with Mr Ahmadinejad, although mindful of the PR drawbacks of sitting down with someone who has threatened to "wipe Israel from the pages of history", he has since suggested that he might seek out other Iranian leaders instead. Finding a more politically palatable figure to have meaningful discussions with, though, may prove difficult. While Iran's elections next year might well see Mr Ahmadinejad lose to a more pragmatic, reform-minded politician, the Iranian president does not really have much say on the nuclear question. That rests exclusively with Iran's all-powerful Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who belongs to the same hardline conservative camp as Mr Ahmadinejad.

Whoever he meets, Mr Obama's main weapon underneath the table is expected to be a threat to increase sanctions in tandem with Europe, hoping to make the regime's defiance on the nuclear question more painful for Iran's own people. But even that can have only a limited effect, warns Sir Richard Dalton, Britain's ambassador to Tehran until 2006.

"Sanctions are a factor in the unpopularity of the current government, but they will not change the fundamental decision making structures around the Supreme Leader," he said. "Even if the reformists won a big majority it might not persuade him to enter into serious negotiations."

A more daring option would be to restore diplomatic relations fully, re-opening the dusty Embassy in Tehran's tree-lined Talequani Ave, currently a museum known as the "US Den of Espionage". While such a move would be a tough sell politically for Mr Obama, it would carry huge symbolic weight for Iran, and remove one of the key justifications for recalcitrance on the nuclear question.

Yet the real hard-sell would be to the regime itself, which, ever since the Iran-Iraq war, has relied on Iran's international isolation to shore up its authority. For all that there may be new thinking the White House, unless it is matched by a similar change of mind in Teheran, the spectre of missile strikes on Isfahan is unlikely to recede completely.

Which, for some of Isfahan's more reform-minded picnickers, is no bad thing. "If America bombs us I will just sit and watch" said one young student, staring at the pedalloes on the river by the Choobi Bridge. "It is the only thing that might ever change this government."

[renukb]

Iran Returns to the Global Stage
November 10, 2008
By George Friedman


http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?opti ... Itemid=132

After a three-month hiatus, Iran seems set to re-emerge near the top of the U.S. agenda. Last week, the Iranian government congratulated U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on his Nov. 4 electoral victory. This marks the first time since the Iranian Revolution that such greetings have been sent.

While it seems trivial, the gesture is quite significant. It represents a diplomatic way for the Iranians to announce that they regard Obama’s election as offering a potential breakthrough in 30 years of U.S. relations with Iran. At his press conference, Obama said he does not yet have a response to the congratulatory message, and reiterated that he opposes Iran’s nuclear program and its support for terrorism. The Iranians returned to criticizing Obama after this, but without their usual passion.

The Warming of U.S.-Iranian Relations

The warming of U.S.-Iranian relations did not begin with Obama’s election; it began with the Russo-Georgian War. In the weeks and months prior to the August war, the United States had steadily increased tensions with Iran. This process proceeded along two tracks.

On one track, the United States pressed its fellow permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom) and Germany to join Washington in imposing additional sanctions on Iran. U.S. Undersecretary for Political Affairs William J. Burns joined a July 19 meeting between EU foreign policy adviser Javier Solana and Iranian national security chief Saeed Jalili, which was read as a thaw in the American position on Iran. The Iranian response was ambiguous, which is a polite way of saying that Tehran wouldn’t commit to anything. The Iranians were given two weeks after the meeting to provide an answer or face new sanctions.

A second track consisted of intensified signals of potential U.S. military action. Recall the carefully leaked report published in The New York Times on June 20 regarding Israeli preparations for airstrikes against Iran. According to U.S. — not Israeli — sources, the Israeli air force rehearsed for an attack on Iran by carrying out a simulated attack over Greece and the eastern Mediterranean Sea involving more than 100 aircraft.

At the same time, reports circulated about Israeli planes using U.S. airfields in Iraq in preparation for an attack on Iran. The markets and oil prices — at a high in late July and early August — were twitching with reports of a potential blockade of Iranian ports, while the Internet was filled with lurid reports of a fleet of American and French ships on its way to carry out the blockade.

The temperature in U.S.-Iranian relations was surging, at least publicly. Then Russia and Georgia went to war, and Iran suddenly dropped off the U.S. radar screen. Washington went quiet on the entire Iranian matter, and the Israelis declared that Iran was two to five years from developing a nuclear device (as opposed to a deliverable weapon), reducing the probability of an Israeli airstrike. From Washington’s point of view, the bottom fell out of U.S. policy on Iran when the Russians and Georgians opened fire on each other.

The Georgian Connection

There were two reasons for this.

First, Washington had no intention of actually carrying out airstrikes against Iran. The United States was far too tied down in other areas to do that. Nor did the Israelis intend to attack. The military obstacles to what promised to be a multiday conventional strike against Iranian targets more than a thousand miles away were more than a little daunting. Nevertheless, generating that threat of such a strike suited U.S. diplomacy. Washington wanted not only to make Iran feel threatened, but also to increase Tehran’s isolation by forging the U.N. Security Council members and Germany into a solid bloc imposing increasingly painful sanctions on Iran.

Once the Russo-Georgian War broke out, however, and the United States sided publicly and vigorously with Georgia, the chances of the Russians participating in such sanctions against Iran dissolved. As the Russians rejected the idea of increased sanctions, so did the Chinese. If the Russians and Chinese weren’t prepared to participate in sanctions, no sanctions were possible, because the Iranians could get whatever they needed from these two countries.

The second reason was more important. As U.S.-Russian relations deteriorated, each side looked for levers to control the other. For the Russians, one of the best levers with the Americans was the threat of selling weapons to Iran. From the U.S. point of view, not only would weapon sales to Iran make it more difficult to attack Iran, but the weapons would find their way to Hezbollah and other undesirable players. The United States did not want the Russians selling weapons, but the Russians were being unpredictable. Therefore, while the Russians had the potential to offer Iran weapons, the United States wanted to reduce Iran’s incentive for accepting those weapons.

The Iranians have a long history with the Russians, including the occupation of northern Iran by Russia during World War II. The Russians are close to Iran, and the Americans are far away. Tehran’s desire to get closer to the Russians is therefore limited, although under pressure Iran would certainly purchase weapons from Russia, just as it has purchased nuclear technology in the past. With the purchase of advanced weapons would come Russian advisers — something that might not be to Iran’s liking unless it were absolutely necessary.

The United States did not want to give Iran a motive for closing an arms deal with Russia, leaving aside the question of whether the Russian threat to sell weapons was anything more than a bargaining chip with the Americans. With Washington rhetorically pounding Russia, pounding Iran at the same time made no sense. For one thing, the Iranians, like the Russians, knew the Americans were spread too thin. Also, the United States suddenly had to reverse its position on Iran. Prior to Aug. 8, Washington wanted the Iranians to feel embattled; after Aug. 8, the last thing the United States wanted was for the Iranians to feel under threat. In a flash, Iran went from being the most important issue on the table to being barely mentioned.

Iran and a Formal U.S. Opening

Different leaks about Iran started to emerge. The Bush administration posed the idea of opening a U.S. interest section in Iran, the lowest form of diplomatic recognition (but diplomatic recognition nonetheless). This idea had been floated June 23, but now it was being floated after the Russo-Georgian War. The initial discussion of the interest section seemed to calm the atmosphere, but the idea went away.

Then, just before U.S. presidential elections in November, the reports re-emerged, this time in the context of a new administration. According to the leaks, U.S. President George W. Bush intended to open diplomatic relations with Iran after the election regardless of who won, in order to free the next president from the burden of opening relations with Iran. In other words, if Obama won, Bush was prepared to provide cover with the American right on an opening to Iran.

If we take these leaks seriously — and we do — this means Bush has concluded that a formal opening to Iran is necessary. Indeed, the Bush administration has been operating on this premise ever since the U.S. troop surge in Iraq. Two things were clear to the Bush administration in 2007: first, that the United States had to make a deal with the Iraqi Sunni nationalist insurgents; and second, that while the Iranians might not be able to impose a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, Tehran had enough leverage with enough Iraq Shiite factions to disrupt Iraq, and thus disrupt the peace process. Therefore, without an understanding with Iran, a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be difficult and full of potentially unpleasant consequences, regardless of who is in the White House.

The issue of Iran’s nuclear program was part of this negotiation. The Iranians were less interested in building a nuclear weapon than in having the United States believe they were building one. As Tehran learned by observing the U.S. reaction to North Korea, Washington has a nuclear phobia. Tehran thus hoped it could use the threat of a nuclear program to force the United States to be more forthcoming on Iranian interests in Iraq, a matter of fundamental importance to Iran. At the same time, the United States had no appetite for bombing Iran, but used the threat of attacks as leverage to get the Iranians to be more tractable.

The Iranians in 2007 withdrew their support from destabilizing elements in Iraq like Muqtada al-Sadr, contributing to a dramatic decline in violence in Iraq. In return, Iran wanted to see an American commitment to withdraw from Iraq on a set timetable. Washington was unprepared to make that commitment. Current talks over a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Washington and Baghdad revolve around just this issue. The Iraqi Shia are demanding a fixed timetable, while the Kurds and Sunnis — not to mention foreign governments like Saudi Arabia — seem to be more comfortable with a residual U.S. force in place to guarantee political agreements.

The Shia are clearly being influenced by Iran on the SOFA issue, as their interests align. The Sunnis and Kurds, however, fear this agreement. In their view, the withdrawal of U.S. forces on a fixed timetable will create a vacuum in Iraq that the Iranians eventually will fill, at the very least by having a government in Baghdad that Tehran can influence. The Kurds and Sunnis are deeply concerned about their own security in such an event. Therefore, the SOFA is not moving toward fruition.

The Iraqi Stumbling Block

There is a fundamental issue blocking the agreement. The United States has agreed to an Iraqi government that is neutral between Washington and Tehran. That is a major defeat for the United States, but an unavoidable one under the circumstances. But a U.S. withdrawal without a residual force means that the Iranians will be the dominant force in the region, and this is not something United States — along with the Iraqi Kurds and Sunnis, the Saudis and Israelis — wants. Therefore the SOFA remains in gridlock, with the specter of Russian-Iranian ties complicating the situation.

Obama’s position during the election was that he favored a timed U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, but he was ambiguous about whether he would want a residual force kept there. Clearly, the Shia and Iranians are more favorably inclined toward Obama than Bush because of Obama’s views on a general withdrawal by a certain date and the possibility of a complete withdrawal. This means that Obama must be extremely careful politically. The American political right is wounded but far from dead, and it would strike hard if it appeared Obama was preparing to give Iran a free hand in Iraq.

One possible way for Obama to proceed would be to keep Russia and Iran from moving closer together. Last week, Obama’s advisers insisted their camp has made no firm commitments on ballistic missile defense (BMD) installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, repudiating claims by Polish President Lech Kaczynski that the new U.S. president-elect had assured him of firm support during a Nov. 8 phone conversation. This is an enormous issue for the Russians.

It is not clear in how broad of a context the idea of avoiding firm commitments on BMD was mentioned, but it might go a long way toward keeping Russia happy and therefore making Moscow less likely to provide aid — material or psychological — to the Iranians. Making Iran feel as isolated as possible, without forcing it into dependence on Russia, is critical to a satisfactory solution for the United States in Iraq.

Complicating this are what appear to be serious political issues in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been attacked for his handling of the economy. He has seen an ally forced from the Interior Ministry and the head of the Iranian central bank replaced. Ahmadinejad has even come under criticism for his views on Israel, with critics saying that he has achieved nothing and lost much through his statements. He therefore appears to be on the defensive.

The gridlock in Baghdad is not over a tedious diplomatic point, but over the future of Iraq and its relation to Iran. At the same time, there appears to be a debate going on in Iran over whether Ahmadinejad’s policies have improved the outlook for Iran’s role in Iraq. Finally, any serious thoughts the Iranians might have had about cozying up to the Russians have dissipated since August, and Obama might have made them even more distant. Still, Obama’s apparent commitment to a timed, complete withdrawal of U.S. forces poses complexities. His advisers have already hinted at flexibility on these issues.

We think that Bush will — after all his leaks — smooth the way for Obama by opening diplomatic relations with Iran. From a political point of view, this will allow Bush to take some credit for any breakthrough. But from the point of view of U.S. national interest, going public with conversations that have taken place privately over the past couple of years (along with some formal, public meetings in Baghdad) makes a great deal of sense. It could possibly create an internal dynamic in Iran that would force Ahmadinejad out, or at least weaken him. It could potentially break the logjam over the SOFA in Baghdad, and it could even stabilize the region.

The critical question will not be the timing of the U.S. withdrawal. It will be the residual force — whether an American force of 20,000 to 40,000 troops will remain to guarantee that Iran does not have undue influence in Iraq, and that Sunni and Kurdish interests are protected. Obama promised to end the war in Iraq, and he promised to withdraw all U.S. troops. He might have to deal with the fact that he can have the former only if he compromises on the latter. But he has left himself enough room for maneuver that he can do just that.

It seems clear that Iran will now return to the top of the U.S. foreign policy agenda. If Bush re-establishes formal diplomatic relations with Iran at some level, and if Obama responds to Iranian congratulations in a positive way, then an interesting dynamic will be in place well before Inauguration Day. The key will be the Nov. 10 meeting between Bush and Obama.

Bush wants to make a move that saves some of his legacy; Obama knows he will have to deal with Iran and even make concessions. Obama also knows the political price he will have to pay if he does. If Bush makes the first move, it will make things politically easier for Obama. Obama can afford to let Bush take the first step if it makes the subsequent steps easier for the Obama administration. But first, there must be an understanding between Bush and Obama. Then can there be an understanding between the United States and Iran, and then there can be an understanding among Iraqi Shia, Sunnis and Kurds. And then history can move on.

There are many understandings in the way of history.

URL: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081110 ... obal_stage

[Nayak]

How to Put the Squeeze on Iran

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226540 ... lenews_wsj

If Barack Obama is to persuade Iran to negotiate away its illegal nuclear weapons program, he will first need to generate more leverage than what the Bush administration is leaving him with. The current U.N. sanctions have proven too weak to dissuade Tehran's leaders, and Russia and China seem determined to keep those sanctions weak. Meanwhile, the regime continues to insist there are no incentives in exchange for which it would halt or even limit its nuclear work.
[Commentary] David Klein

However, Tehran has an economic Achilles' heel -- its extraordinarily heavy dependence on imported gasoline. This dependence could be used by the United States to peacefully create decisive leverage over the Islamic Republic.

Iranian oil wells produce far more petroleum (crude oil) than Iran needs. Yet, remarkably for a country investing so much in nuclear power, Iran has not developed sufficient capacity to refine that crude oil into gasoline and diesel fuel. As a result, it must import some 40% of the gasoline it needs for internal consumption.

In recent months, Iran has, according to the respected trade publication International Oil Daily and other sources including the U.S. government, purchased nearly all of this gasoline from just five companies, four of them European: the Swiss firm Vitol; the Swiss/Dutch firm Trafigura; the French firm Total; British Petroleum; and one Indian company, Reliance Industries. If these companies stopped supplying Iran, the Iranians could replace only some of what they needed from other suppliers -- and at a significantly higher price. Neither Russia nor China could serve as alternative suppliers. Both are themselves also heavily dependent on imports of the type of gasoline Iran needs.

Were these companies to stop supplying gasoline to Iran, the world-wide price of oil would be unaffected -- the companies would simply sell to other buyers. But the impact on Iran would be substantial.

When Tehran attempted to ration gasoline during the summer of 2007, violent protests forced the regime to back down. Cutting off gasoline sales to Iran, or even a significant reduction, could have an even more dramatic effect.

In Congress, there is already bipartisan support for peacefully cutting off gasoline sales to Iran until it stops its illicit nuclear activities. Barack Obama, John McCain and the House of Representatives have all declared their support.

On June 4 of this year, for example, Sen. Obama said at a speech in Washington, D.C.: "We should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime -- from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran."

He repeated this sentiment during the presidential candidates' debate on Oct. 7: "Iran right now imports gasoline . . . if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need . . . that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them."

How do we stop the gasoline from flowing? The Bush administration has reportedly never asked the Swiss, Dutch, French, British or Indian governments to stop gasoline sales to Iran by the companies headquartered within their borders. An Obama administration should make this request, and do the same with other governments if other companies try to sell gasoline to Iran.

But the U.S. also has significant direct leverage over the companies that currently supply most of Iran's imported gasoline.

Consider India's Reliance Industries which, according to International Oil Daily, "reemerged as a major supplier of gasoline to Iran" in July after taking a break for several months. It "delivered three cargoes of gasoline totaling around 100,000 tons to Iran's Mideast Gulf port of Bandar Abbas from its giant Jamnagar refinery in India's western province of Gujarat." Reliance reportedly "entered into a new arrangement with National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) under which it will supply around . . . three 35,000-ton cargoes a month, from its giant Jamnagar refinery." One hundred thousand tons represents some 10% of Iran's total monthly gasoline needs.

The Jamnagar refinery is heavily supported by U.S. taxpayer dollars. In May 2007, the U.S. Export-Import Bank, a government agency that assists in financing the export of U.S. goods and services, announced a $500 million loan guarantee to help finance expansion of the Jamnagar refinery. On Aug. 28, 2008, Ex-Im announced a new $400 million long-term loan guarantee for Reliance, including additional financing of work at the Jamnagar refinery.

Or consider the Swiss firm Vitol. According to International Oil Daily, Vitol "over the past few years has accounted for around 60% of the gasoline shipped to Iran." Vitol is currently building a $100 million terminal in Port Canaveral, Florida.

Last year, when Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty discovered that an Indian company, Essar, was seeking to both invest some $1.6 billion in Minnesota and invest over $5 billion in building a refinery in Iran, he put Essar to a choice. Mr. Pawlenty threatened to block state infrastructure subsidies and perhaps even construction permits for the Minnesota purchase unless Essar withdrew from the Iranian investment. Essar promptly withdrew from the Iranian investment.

The Minnesota example is not the only precedent. U.S. outreach to foreign banks and to oil companies considering investing in Iran's energy sector has reportedly convinced more than 80 banks and several major potential oil-field investors to cease all or some of their business with Iran. Among them: Germany's two largest banks (Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank), London-based HSBC, Credit Suisse, Norwegian energy company StatoilHydro, and Royal Dutch Shell.

A sustained initiative may be able to convince most or all current and potential suppliers that the profits to be gained from continuing to sell gasoline to Iran will be dwarfed by the lost loan guarantees and subsidies and foregone profits they will incur in the U.S. from continuing to do business with Iran.

Last Sunday, a group of 60 Iranian economists called for the regime to drastically change course, saying that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "tension-creating" foreign policy has "scared off foreign investment and inflicted heavy damage on the economy." The economists said the current sanctions, as weak as they are, have cost Iran billions of dollars by forcing it to use middlemen for exports and imports. Halting Iran's gasoline supply could contribute to reaching a tipping point -- at which economic pressures and protests convince the regime its illicit nuclear program poses too great a risk to its grip over the Iranian people.

If the federal and key state governments in the U.S. were to make it their goal to achieve a halt by companies selling gasoline to Iran, it could be a game-changer. It may be our best remaining hope for peacefully convincing Iran to desist from developing nuclear weapons.

Mr. Kittrie is a professor of law at Arizona State University and a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He previously worked for 11 years at the U.S. Department of State, including as a specialist on nuclear nonproliferation and sanctions.

[ramana]

The prof doesn't know that Ambani is a Rockefeller baccha. And so to is Obama. All those credits are for a purpose. So back to drawing board.

[renukb]

Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline a natural thing to do: Kissinger

NEW DELHI (IRNA) -- The former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has indicated his support for the proposed Iran-Pakistan- India (IPI) gas pipeline which the Bush administration had objected to.


Speaking on “American Foreign Policy After Elections,” organized by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and Aspen Institute India in Mumbai, Thursday, Kissinger, answering a query on the multi-billion project, initially said he had no knowledge about every problem in the world, The Hindu reported here Friday.

Later, however, he said, “The pipeline will be a natural thing to do”.

He said he had always advocated negotiation with Iran.

“I expect the new administration

[to be headed by Obama] to begin discussions with Iran.” To a query on the energy problem, Kissinger said the urgency of the problem had lessened due to recession.

But he felt there would be competition for available energy and countries like China, India and the US should form an organization that should address the issue of allocation.


Also at

http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/21/stories ... 291500.htm

[Philip]

The latest "great White Hope" after Iraq's crook,Chalabi!

Once again the west is trying to unseat the Iranian govt. and establishment of the times by trying to unite dissident exiles groups under the son of the former tyrant the Shah! As usual,London is the venue for such confabulations,where the accomodating British govt. allows any kind of international anti-national activity on UN member states,other than any aimed at Britain or its closest allies,to flourish on its little island.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 28255.html

World Focus: Shah's exiled son bids to unite fractured Iran

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Friday, 21 November 2008
Reza Pahlavi, son of the former Shah of Iran

The scene is a London townhouse near Victoria. The heir to the throne of Iran, the eldest son of the late Shah, is holding court before a small audience of Iranian exiles and Middle East analysts crowded into the living room. It is a far cry from the sumptuous palaces of his father in Tehran, now transformed into museums by the Islamic Republic. But Reza Pahlavi (who answers to both "Your Majesty" and Mr Pahlavi), is plotting his return to the land he was forced to leave as a teenager when the 1979 revolution brought militant Shiism to power.

His strategy: to use the internet to link Iranians inside and outside the country and – with the help of international pressure – secure regime change. Mr Pahlavi recognises that the bitter memories of his father's rule, during which thousands of Iranians were imprisoned and killed by the Shah's notorious secret police, the Savak, have eclipsed his legacy. But although there may be residual nostalgia for the secular and modernising Shah, his 48-year-old son remains an unknown quantity. The wealthy US-based businessman seems remote from the concerns of the average Iranian and demonstrations that he organised in the past were harshly repressed.

Mr Pahlavi, who concentrated in the past on rousing the Iranian diaspora, is now placing his hopes in the young generation which makes up 70 per cent of the Iranian population. "We need to discover the new generation, the children of the revolution," he argues.

He hopes to unite under his umbrella the disparate movements that have been riven by ideological divisions. Like other opposition leaders, he believes that, although it will take time, the country is ripe for a campaign of civil disobedience. But the clerical regime has extended political repression into the social and cultural spheres. As a result, no credible Iranian opposition leader has emerged who is still living in Iran. "If you find anyone better than I, let me know. If you don't find anyone better, I'm your guy," he says.

As for restoring the monarchy, the heir to the "peacock throne" insists the people would decide in a referendum during a transition to parliamentary democracy.

But while Mr Pahlavi might have had an open door to the White House under George Bush, it is less likely the Obama administration will have the same enthusiasm for the exiled Iranian leaders, having offered diplomatic overtures to Tehran.

And hopes of mobilising young Iranians through the internet could be difficult. In the latest crackdown, Iranian authorities are said to have blocked access to Facebook and YouTube.

"What they are really afraid of is people finding a way to talk to each other, outside the official channels," said Hadi Ghaemi, a human rights activist.

[renukb]

India to feel 'little impact' of failed Iran gas deal
http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA ... l%20%20%20

20 November 2008
India would bank on a slowdown in the global economy and a resulting abundance in LNG consignments to offset the impact of Iran-India gas deal breaking down, authorities once closely involved with the deal have said.

"The impact may be a little less on us due to a global meltdown leading to a slight slowdown in the Indian economy. Due to a recession in the developed world, the prices of crude and LNG are expected to fall to 2004-05 level and the availability will also improve. No serious difficulty is envisaged in India accessing its energy resources," said S C Tripathi, former Secretary in the Ministry of Oil and Natural Gas, the Government of India.

Iran has backed out of a deal to supply Pakistan and India with natural gas, Pakistani media reported recently. There have been no official confirmations of the deal breaking down from India, Iran or Pakistan. Iran wanted new negotiations over prices before commencing construction of the $7.6 billion (Dh27.9bn) Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, a Pakistan- based newspaper reported.

While Iran was demanding a price of just over $ 8 per million British thermal units (mmbtu), India was willing to pay $ 4 per mmbtu. Spot prices for gas stood at $6.75 per mmbtu on Wednesday.

Tripathi maintains that the deal was never serious enough to face a breakdown. "It (Iran) has indeed walked out from a legally enforceable deal signed in June 2005 for supply of five MTPA of LNG to Indian state entities. So far a deal not having been negotiated, and much less contracted, Iran being in or out is both taken with a pinch of salt," he said.

The Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, called the 'Peace' pipeline, is a proposed to run over 2,775 kilometres. It was meant to supply natural gas from Iran to Pakistan and India. Iran is said to be interested in including China in the project.

The project was expected to meet rapidly increasing demand for energy in India. The world's second most populous country is predicted to more than quadruple its gas requirements in the coming years. India's hydrocarbon vision 2025 sets out India's gas requirements in stark terms. The country will require 146 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas per annum by 2025, up from 33 bcm per annum in 2005.

India has been increasingly relying on gas as it struggles to meet two objectives. A rising need for energy and a demand for clean fuel. The country's apex court directive forced the government to change the engines of all public transport vehicles to CNG run in late 1990s. About 10 per cent of the country's power output come from gas-run plants.

The country has increasingly looked for strengthening its relations with gas majors. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently visited Qatar, the largest exporter of LNG in the world. India is scouting for gas in its own territory and in that of its neighbours Bangladesh and Myanmar. "Energy security remain a key agenda of our diplomacy. And with countries like Qatar talks get down to energy security even if the top agenda seems different," said a senior official at the Indian embassy in Qatar.
By Shashank Shekhar

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran says $22 billion deal to sell 5mtpa LNG to India is dead: Iran has the world’s second largest oil and natural gas reserves

New Delhi: Iran says it has scrapped a $22 billion deal to sell 5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to India due to a dispute over prices and lack of required approvals.

The deal was signed in 2005 between National Iranian Gas Export Co., or Nigec, and Indian companies GAIL (India) Ltd, Indian Oil Corp. Ltd and Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

Iran later demanded a higher price than the $3.215 per million British thermal unit (mBtu), to which India raised objections.
Scrapped pact: A file photo of an Iraninan refinery complex. Iran has the world’s second largest oil and natural gas reserves. Jeff Kowalsky / Bloomberg“The deal is dead because the whole arrangement was based on the clause that unless the National Iranian Oil Co’s (NIOC) board of directors approve the deal, it will not be approved. The board of directors did not approve it,” an Iranian government official told Mint in New Delhi. The official didn’t wish to be named as he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It was just a primary agreement signed between Nigec and three Indian companies. Though on record the talks are still on, for all practical purposes the deal is off.”
NIOC is the parent company of Nigec.

“Recently, there have been some positive developments after the Iran visit of our external affairs minister,” said a top official in India’s ministry of petroleum and natural gas, who also didn’t want to be named. “Discussions will again take place for the LNG deal. These are international negotiations and nothing can be said until it is formally communicated to us.”
External affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee was in Tehran recently to attend the meeting of the India-Iran joint commission, which promotes bilateral cooperation.

The proposed $7.4 billion Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project is also expected to fall through, even as Iran faces economic sanctions by the US and its allies over its nuclear programme, which Washington suspects is aimed at developing nuclear weapons but Teheran says is designed to produce electric power.

“While Oman is negotiating with Iran to import gas for converting it into LNG to re-export it in the international market, India wants to import gas from Oman at a higher price than Iran. There is some pressure from the West on India,” the Iranian government official claimed.

India imports 7.5 mtpa of LNG in spot markets, which is sourced by Petronet LNG Ltd and Shell India Pvt. Ltd.
Iran has the world’s second largest oil and natural gas reserves. India is short on natural gas that is expected to last till 2012—the country needs at least 180mscmd of gas, and the supply is at 81mscmd. India imports some 12mscmd of gas bought in spot markets. State-owned NTPC Ltd, the country’s largest power generation utility, is in talks with Iran to buy 5 mtpa of LNG as reported by Mint on 12 November.

“Had India been able to secure the deal even at $5 per mBtu, it would have been a great deal. However, not converting it into an assured supply at current crude prices, will be a big miss,” said Prayesh Jain, an analyst at stock market research firm India Infoline Ltd.

[renukb]

Kissinger indicates support for Iran, India gas pipeline
Sunday, 11.23.2008, 10:28pm (GMT-7)
http://www.indiapost.com/article/india/4552/

MUMBAI: Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has indicated his support for the proposed Iran-India gas pipeline which the Bush administration had objected to.

Speaking on "American Foreign Policy after Elections", organized by the Confederation of Indian Industry and Aspen Institute India here, Kissinger, answering a query on the multi-billion project, initially said he had no knowledge about every problem in the world. Later, however, he said, "the pipeline will be a natural thing to do."

While he maintained that Iran should be persuaded into not becoming "revolutionary", he sounded more reasonable about US's relation with Tehran. Kissinger, the winner of the 1973 Nobel peace prize and a one-time India-basher, said the American policy was to isolate Iran due to its nuclear programme.

He, however, said he had always advocated negotiation with Iran. "I expect the new administration (to be headed by Obama) to begin discussions with Iran." To a query on the energy problem, Kissinger said the urgency of the problem had lessened due to recession.

But he felt there would be competition for available energy and countries like China, India and the US should form an organization that should address the issue of allocation. He listed issues like the Iraq war, Iran's nuclear programme and climate change which the Obama administration would need to handle on a priority basis.

The Democratic administration should create a structure and timelines to solve them, Kissinger said. Kissinger welcomed the reported move to appoint Senator Hillary Clinton as the new US Secretary of State. "She is a strong leader. She is strong-minded."

On Obama's election, Kissinger said "an African-American elected as President is a turning point. The enthusiasm of the younger generation was moving. This election has created a new approach to the problems of race." About Obama's stance on outsourcing, a key issue for India, he admitted there was a trend towards protectionism.

Referring to the on-going global credit crisis, he said the financial system dominated by the US had failed and financial responsibility would now be distributed. On China, he said the US and the Communist nation depended on each other.

"While America depends on China for financing its deficit, China depends on the US for exports," said Kissinger who had played a key role in establishing diplomatic ties between Washington and Beijing in early 1970s.

[renukb]

So India has started to wait for the commands to be issued from the Wash DC?

‘India is delaying due to pressure from US’
Under the current circumstances, the nuclear deal is more important than gas from Iran

http://www.livemint.com/2008/11/2321315 ... due-t.html

New Delhi: Iran has accused India of delaying the final decision on developing its Farsi gas block because of “pressure” from the US, which has imposed sanctions on the West Asian nation over its nuclear programme.

This allegation follows the National Iranian Oil Co. approving the gas commercial viability report submitted by a consortium led by Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd’s (ONGC) overseas subsidiary; ONGC Videsh Ltd, or OVL.

“We are still awaiting the ONGC’s final decision on the Farsi block, which has 12.5 billion cu. ft of gas reserves, even as our approval came in October itself. It has been more than a month but still there is no decision. If it (ONGC) were a fully private company, they would have communicated its approval within a week. There is some pressure from the West on India,” a senior Iranian foreign ministry official based in India who is close to the situation told Mint. “The Chinese and the Malaysians have been pressurizing us for the same gas field.”

OVL is the operator in the Farsi block with a 40% stake; it had won the bid in 2002. The other stakeholders in the block are Indian Oil Corp. Ltd and Oil India Ltd, with 40% and 20% stakes, respectively.

A senior ONGC executive, who didn’t want to be named, denied the charges.

“Our team is working on the proposal and (it) is in talks with various agencies for the Farsi block,” he claimed.
Iran has the world’s second largest oil and natural gas reserves. India is short on natural gas that is expected to last till 2012—the country needs at least 180 million standard cu. m per day, or mscmd, of gas, and the supply is at 81mscmd. India imports some 12mscmd of gas bought in the spot markets.

“If they (OVL) want to make a liquefied natural gas, or LNG, terminal to transport the gas, it will require an investment of $8-9 billion (Rs40,000-45,000 crore). In case they want to invest only for exploration and production work, it will cost them around $3-4 billion,” the Iranian foreign ministry official added.

Iran faces economic sanctions by the US and its allies over its nuclear programme, which the US suspects is aimed at developing nuclear weapons but Teheran says is designed to produce electric power.
While India signed a historic civilian nuclear agreement with the US, several Iran-related Indian projects have either been put on hold or dropped.

An oil and gas industry analyst at a Mumbai-based brokerage firm, who did not wish to be identified because of commercial considerations, said, “Under the current circumstances, the nuclear deal is more important than gas from Iran. Anyway, the domestic gas capacity will increase due to production from the Krishna-Godavari basin and there will also be a substantial LNG capacity coming online within (the) next three years. This will make sourcing cheaper and easier.”
While the proposed $7.4 billion Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project is expected to fall through, Iran has said it has scrapped a $22 billion deal to sell 5 million tonnes per annum of liquefied natural gas to India due to a dispute over prices and lack of required approvals as reported by Mint on 17 November.

[renukb]

India emphasizes deeper ties with Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=76 ... =351020102

India says it considers its own national interests and wants to develop relations with Iran without being intimidated by political pressure.

"Iran and India could develop relations not only in the field of energy but also in new industries, mineral products and banking activities," Indian Ambassador to Iran, Manbir Singh said Sunday in a meeting at Tehran's chamber of commerce.

The minister stressed that India would not let outside political pressure distract the developing relations between the two countries.

Iran and India have recently approved several memorandums of understanding including the declaration of Bandar-e Shahid Rajaei and Jawaharlal Nehru port as sister cities and cooperating in agriculture and trade.

Tehran and New Delhi are have also expressed commitment to continue talks on the huge 2,775-kilometer pipeline project that will transfer 60 million cubic meters of natural gas per day from Iran to Pakistan and India.

This is while some media outlets had speculated that New Delhi is being influenced by US pressure to quit the project. According to the speculations, the country is not willing to carry out the gas pipeline project, as New Delhi is now a nuclear nation.

The Indian Ambassador to Iran rejected the speculations: "India is a big energy consumer and we are interested to see the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline built."

Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee had said earlier in November that the US-Indo nuclear deal would have no impact on energy ties with Iran.

Nuclear power "is one source of energy, the other important source is the IPI gas pipeline. One is not exclusive to the other," Mukherjee said.

[Philip]

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/j ... _1_n.shtml

New missile marks 'significant leap' for Iran capabilities
By Lauren Gelfand and Alon Ben-David

Iran announced on 12 November that it had test-fired a new medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) with a stated range of 2,000 km.

The missile, a two-stage solid-fuel system known as Sajil, was launched from a site in western Iran near the Iraq border towards a target 800 km away, according to Western intelligence sources. As Jane's went to press it was still unknown whether the launch was completely successful, although it appeared that the separation marking the two stages did occur.

"This is a whole new missile," Uzi Rubin, former director of Israel's Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation, told Jane's . "Unlike other Iranian missiles, the Sajil bears no resemblance to any North Korean, Russian, Chinese or Pakistani [missile technology]. It demonstrates a significant leap in Iran's missile capabilities.

"Regardless of the success of the test, this missile places Iran in the realm of multiple-stage missiles, which means that they are on the way to having intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities," he added.

In statements released by state media, Iranian Defence Minister Brigadier General Mustafa Mohammad Najjar hailed the launch of the Sajil missile as "very fast", adding that it would be easy to produce. Tehran's Al-Alam television reported that the new missile utilises "composite solid-propellant fuel" and that unlike the Shahab-3 MRBM, which is launched only vertically, the Sajil could be launched "at a variable angle".

Video released by Iranian state media clearly shows a two-stage missile with a guidance system on the second stage and a triconic re-entry vehicle identical to that of the Shahab-3. However, the Sajil's diameter appears greater than the 1.25 m of the Shahab. Intelligence sources consider the Sajil to be a new name for Iran's Ashura MRBM, which failed to deploy its second stage in an unsuccessful launch in November 2007.

With a purported range of 2,000 km, the Sajil brings Moscow, Athens and southern Italy within striking distance from Iran. It is this kind of threat that has spurred the US development of a missile defence shield in Europe - most recently seen with the planned placement of interceptors in Poland - despite objections from Russia.

"This is a growing threat and we need to be able to deal with future missile attacks from Iran," said US State Department spokesperson Robert Wood. "This is something of concern to the international community, and I'm including Russia in the international community here. And so we think missile defence is in the interests of not only the United States and its European allies, but also Russia."

422 of 748 words
© 2008 Jane's Information Group
End of non-subscriber extract

[renukb]

Iran tests new missile from warship: reports
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNew ... CO20081207

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's military test-fired a new surface-to-surface missile from a warship as part of exercises along a strategic shipping route, state media reported on Sunday.

Iran launched six days of naval war games on Tuesday in the Sea of Oman and the Gulf region amid tension with the United States and Israel, which have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to end a row over Tehran's nuclear work.

Iran has said that, if pushed, it could close the Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf and through which about 40 percent of the world's traded oil passes.

"The surface-to-surface Nasr-2 missile was tested in the (Sea of) Oman operational region," state radio reported, adding that the test took place on Saturday.

"The Nasr-2 was fired from a warship and hit its target at a distance of 30 km (19 miles) and destroyed it," the official news agency IRNA said, adding it was the first test of the new, medium-range missile.

The West accuses Iran of seeking to build nuclear warheads, a charge Tehran denies. It insists that it wants to master nuclear technology to generate electricity so that it can export more of its huge oil and gas reserves.

Washington, which has its navy Fifth Fleet based in the Gulf Arab state of Bahrain, has pledged to keep shipping lanes open. Experts say Iran's navy would be no match for U.S. technology but could still create havoc in the waterway.

(Reporting by Hashem Kalantari, writing by Edmund Blair)

[renukb]

Head of nuclear watchdog calls efforts against Iran 'a failure'
Mohamed ElBaradei urges dialogue between the West and Tehran. He says Obama has given him 'lots of hope.'


http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... 1483.story

Reporting from Vienna -- The chief of the world's nuclear weapons watchdog organization considers five years of U.S. and international efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions a failure, as Tehran moves ever closer to obtaining the means to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The United Nations Security Council has imposed three sets of sanctions to try to get Iran to halt uranium enrichment and other activities, while the United States and Europe have offered economic and security incentives. Yet Iran continues acquiring nuclear technology and stockpiling sensitive material.

"We haven't really moved one inch toward addressing the issues," said Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. "I think so far the policy has been a failure."

The 66-year-old Egyptian diplomat and 2005 Nobel Peace Prize laureate also urged world leaders to address broader unease about security, poverty and perceived injustice rather than zero in on narrow security concerns, such as nuclear weapons.

"Now, I am talking more and more about poverty, HIV/AIDS" and other matters, he told The Times this week during a rare one-on-one interview at the agency's headquarters in Vienna. The nuclear issue "is the tip of the iceberg."

Still, atomic energy remains the focus of his U.N.-related agency and ElBaradei said he felt optimistic about an eventual U.S.-led settlement between Tehran and the West.

He said U.S. President-elect Barack Obama gave him "lots of hope" after he inserted a proposal to abolish all nuclear weapons in the Democratic Party platform and advocated opening diplomatic dialogue with rivals.

"He is ready to talk to his adversaries, enemies, if you like, including Iran, also [North] Korea," he said, adding that the Bush administration was reluctant to do so. "To continue to pound the table and say, 'I am not going to talk to you,' and act in a sort of a very condescending way -- that exaggerates problems."

During 11 years as head of the agency, ElBaradei has sparred frequently with the Bush administration, which sought unsuccessfully to deny him a third term in 2005. That move was the result of the bitter dispute he had with Washington over its insistence that Iraq had a nuclear program. Its nonexistence vindicated him and earned him and his agency the Nobel.

Still, some Western diplomats accuse his agency of not being tough enough on the nuclear ambitions of countries such as Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Others criticize him for veering off his mandate by offering the West unsolicited diplomatic advice and political commentary instead of focusing on the agency's core activities: monitoring and inspecting member states' nuclear programs and reporting back to its governing board.

Experts say he's walked a tightrope of criticism from both Iran and U.S. allies such as Israel.

"From a Western perspective, he's been too quick to give the benefit of the doubt to Iran and shade his reports sometimes in ways that sometimes downplayed Iran's violations and lack of cooperation," said Mark Fitzpatrick, an arms control expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

But ElBaradei has received accolades for getting Iraq right, insisting that it had no nuclear program even in the face of U.S. criticism.

"When he's done well is when he's led an agency of technical experts," Fitzpatrick said. "When he's done poorly is when he's exceeded the technical requirements of the job and taken on a larger political aura. He's been criticized for trying to cast himself in a mediator role."

During the interview, ElBaradei, who is scheduled to retire in about a year, shed his severe public persona, punctuating freewheeling comments about weapons proliferation, world peace and contemporary politics with laughter. He sat surrounded by his collection of African art while wearing a gray pinstriped suit and a bright orange Salvatore Ferragamo tie.

He spoke of possibly living in southern France, where he recently purchased a home.

"It's nice to try something else," he said. "All I know is, I think I would like to continue to do public service."

A New York University law student and professor during the 1970s and '80s, he closely follows American foreign policy debates. He cited recent opinion pieces in U.S. newspapers, and said he hoped those advocating engagement with Iran and other alleged nuclear scofflaws such as Syria and North Korea would prevail over those arguing for containment and isolation.

Iran is one of the incoming Obama administration's main foreign policy puzzles. Not only has it refused to stop producing enriched uranium, which can be used to build a bomb as well as fuel a power plant, but Tehran has also consistently sidestepped questions about evidence suggesting it was operating a secret weapons program until at least 2003.

In retrospect, the sanctions may have led to "more hardening of the position of Iran," ElBaradei said. "Many Iranians who even dislike the regime [are] gathering around the regime because they feel that country is under siege."

One hope of a diplomatic solution, he said, was for the U.S. and Iran to meet to begin talking, not just about nuclear technology but also about grievances that stretch from the 1950s, when the U.S. helped overthrow a democratically elected government, to the present, when Iranian and American surrogates vie for supremacy in several Middle East battlegrounds.

ElBaradei argued for a "grand bargain" between the West and Iran that recognizes Tehran's role in the region and gives it "the power, the prestige, the influence" it craves.

As an Egyptian who has spent the bulk of his tenure as IAEA chief grappling with the nuclear ambitions of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya, he has had a unique understanding of the "psychoses" of Middle Easterners, he said.

"I am able to communicate to them in their own language," he said. "I understand some of their myths, like the conspiracy theories, like a sense of being victims."

He brushed aside the argument of some U.S. analysts who describe Iran as a messianic state determined to obtain nuclear weapons to launch a war against its archnemesis, Israel.

"When I go to Iran I see . . . that there are all different shades and colors in Iran, from atheist to religious zealots," he said. "So Iran is no different than any other country. I mean, they are connected with the rest of the world."

ElBaradei contended that the best route to avoiding the spread of nuclear weapons is building international trust.

"The system should not be based on, 'I am powerful militarily,' " he said. "The system should be based on, 'What contribution do I make to world civilization?' "

Daragahi is a Times staff writer.

[renukb]

Iran in media different to Iran in reality!

Interview by Kourosh Ziabari and Ahmadreza Tavassoli

The Cinema Verite International Documentary Film Festival, which was held in Iran on the third week of October 2008, was undoubtedly an occasional opportunity for documentary filmmakers from 75 countries worldwide to congregate for a landmark event and share their precious artistic experiences together and become acquainted with the obscured and disputatious culture of Iran.

The festival, which was inaugurated by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance of Islamic Republic of Iran, has hosted a stack of artists, journalists, filmmakers and analysts from US; which is not in an official friendly and impartial stance toward Iran these days, though is considered as a close cultural and scientific ally of Iran on behalf of its independent and non-governmental organizations and communities.

Shannon Kelley, who is the Director of Programming of the Morelia International Film Festival in Morelia (Mexico), was among the guests who attended the festival from the United States and attracted many reporters, audiences and festival curators, as well.

Kelley is an independent movie consultant and has worked for the Sundance Film Festival as Associate Short Film Programmer since 1997; where presently she is serving as the Festival Senior Consultant to the Documentary Program.

The following is the text of interview with Shannon Kelley where we discussed a variety of art-related topics and explored her perceptions of being in Iran to attend the 2008 Cinema Verite Film Festival for the very first time.

You are promoting yourself as an "independent" movie consultant; however nowadays, being independent is made difficult and the political lobbies do not tolerate your being non-aligned to them, even if you are not political at all. In other words, the state-affiliated powers are trying their best to abuse all of the artistic, cultural, religious, and social means to fulfill their desires and plans. What to do if somebody wants to resist against them and not to be stymied by them, too?


There are different ways to understand "independence." None of us enters the world entirely free, and it's because of this that the stories we tell can be potentially interesting. My use of "independence" in this case refers to film artists who work without the financial or logistical support, nor any commitment, from a distributor, and thus, without any guarantee of their film ever being widely seen. Such artists assume tremendous risk and act on personal commitment, as opposed to artists whose risk is ameliorated by someone else, and who may - if they choose- depend on the commitments of the sponsor or the job, without having to generate a commitment of their own.

I'm not sure every state entity is out to get artists or co-opt their work. In some cases they have so much contempt for the arts they ignore them entirely. This can create an interesting space, or vacuum, in which to speak. One has to be resourceful and artful to do so, but then, that's a recipe for good filmmaking anyway.

So it seems that you don't provide technical and special consultations, but help the directors to develop strategies and programs for a successful production and output. Would you please explain the details of such strategies? Are they somehow related to the content of movies, or "how-to"s for attracting more audience?


This can be very simple. Deciding which festivals are priorities, and which distributors may be especially important to a project, and when the approach to a particular festival, company or person should take place, in what order, and at what pace.

Should you show your rough cut? Should you give away your premiere to this or that festival? Such decisions have real consequences that impact the life of a film. Should you adapt your filmmaking to these parameters? There may be compromises you don't mind making; you simply should be conscious of every compromise. Also, you may choose to concentrate on one project as opposed to another, based on the availability of resources or apparent prospects.

One should always make a movie one believes in, but it is well also to look out for yourself and your career. Taking care of yourself is a good way to take care of your film. If you cannot survive, your film probably cannot be realized.

Having all you said in mind, which is the paramount, in your view; the public approach and prosperity of a movie or the loyalty of producer and director to principles and essentials? Do you call a movie with the less tickets sold and more professional virtues as successful? Can we estimate the values of a movie by considering its attractiveness on the booth?


These are entirely relative values, because it depends whom you ask. "Popular" movies have their place; something is happening between members of a public at a movie that they "like." but I concentrate on supporting the vision of artists who have something new and risky to offer. Such a person, and such a project, simply offers the promise of a previously unknown breakthrough in conversation or even consciousness. It's just the most interesting area of film culture, to my way of thinking. And it can, occasionally, lead to "box office success," so one need not necessarily choose between the distinctions you mention.

But we see that most of the modern generation filmmakers, under the flag of giant media companies, assume it is necessary to add violence and immorality to movies for gaining the public fortune and obtaining more spectators, purchasing more tickets and reaching more profits.

........more............
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iran-i ... 5-137.html

[renukb]

India still needs Iran gas link via Pakistan
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndu ... 1520081210

BARCELONA, Dec 10 (Reuters) - India still needs Iran to build a gas export pipeline across Pakistan for the long term, although its demand is set to drop, an executive from Indian importer Petronet LNG (PLNG.BO: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) said on Wednesday.

Indian demand for imported gas is likely to fall sharply in the next two years as domestic production rises and demand wanes, Amitova Sengupta said.

Sengputa, finance director at the joint venture set up by the Indian government to import liquefied natural gas, said that security concerns rather than discussions over price were the main obstacle facing the $7.6 billion project.

"I don't think that price is a major concern," he told reporters on the sidelines of the CWC World LNG Summit in Barcelona. "The major concern is Pakistan sitting in between."

But Sengupta said last month's attacks in Bombay, blamed on Pakistan-based militants, had not significantly changed an already difficult security risk facing the project.

"We know that Pakistan doesn't have control over the tribes through which the pipline will pass," he said, adding that Iran's refusal to guarantee delivery as far as the Indian border was a major sticking point.

Sengupta told the conference that Indian demand for LNG would fall sharply in 2009-2010, partly because of the economic slowdown but also because of rising domestic gas production and competition from other fuels.

"India is going to be a very soft market for LNG," he said, adding that demand for the fuel could rise from 2011 and that the economic slowdown was less important than rising India gas output.

"It's not a major factor," he said of the crisis.

If the problems over security are resolved soon, work on the Iran-India pipeline may start next year and could be finished by 2012.

The pipeline is expected to initially transport 60 million cubic metres of gas (2.2 billion cubic feet) daily to Pakistan and India, half for each country. The pipeline's capacity would later rise to 150 million cubic metres.

(Reporting by Daniel Fineren)

From the UPI.com
-----------------
India keen on IPI pipeline

NEW DELHI, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Iranian media reports suggest top officials from India have expressed their interest in pursuing negotiations on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.

Initially proposed in 1989, the IPI pipeline from the Iranian South Pars gas field has hit repeated setbacks due to disputes over pricing mechanisms, transit fees and concerns over the security of the 1,600-mile route.

The Iranian Press TV reported that Indian Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee told lawmakers a trilateral meeting to move forward with IPI would help his country satisfy its growing energy demands.

Demand for gas in India is expected to rise at a rate of at least 7 percent per year, with forecasts predicting a need for 1.4 billion cubic feet per year by 2025.

Amitava Sengupta, finance director for Indian importer Petronet LNG, said concerns over the proposed route through Pakistani tribal areas was of particular concern in the wake of the November terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

"I don't think that price is a major concern," he said. "The major concern is Pakistan sitting in between."

The IPI pipeline is expected to carry around 2.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from Iran.

[renukb]

Iran's good times may be ending
Isolated nation's economy may crash along with its main export — crude oil

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/6162681.html

TEHRAN, IRAN — Visiting a mall full of high-end electronics shops in the Iranian capital one recent day, printing shop owner Mohammad Torabi was in the market for surveillance cameras to protect his property. He expressed satisfaction at the selection: stack after stack of Asian-made close-circuit TV cameras designed to work in daylight or darkness.

"God bless China!" declared Torabi, 54, sneering at the U.S.-led economic sanctions that are meant to crimp Iran's economy and force its leaders to abandon any effort to develop nuclear weapons.

Buoyed by a vast pool of oil income as prices soared to nearly $150 a barrel, Iran has until now been able to blunt the sanctions' pain. And, all but cut off from the world financial system thanks to the U.S. Treasury Department, it's watched the global economic crisis from splendid isolation.

Oil money has fueled runaway imports of foreign goods and services, $75 billion worth this year alone. In upscale north Tehran, BMWs, Mercedes and SUVs share the streets with rows of Peugeots and Kias made domestically. Late-model Japanese high-definition TVs replay the animated movie Ice Age in shop windows. Some familiar U.S. and European consumer brands are said to be cheaper here than in the U.S. or Europe.


Low oil prices wreak havoc
For Torabi and 70 million other Iranians, however, the good times are about to end.

Crashing prices for crude oil — Iran's main export — will ravage the country's economy in 2009, according to Iranian economists and businessmen, and European diplomats.

With oil now hovering around $40 a barrel (and Iran's lower-quality crude selling even cheaper), bad news is just over the horizon, they say. Foreign imports will be throttled, incomes will drop, Iran's currency will weaken and inflation will grow even worse. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's populist spending programs, which have bloated the government budget but bolstered his popularity with poor Iranians, could sputter to a halt.

"We will start feeling the shock in the next three to four months," predicted Mehdi Fakheri, the vice president of international affairs at Iran's Chamber of Commerce.

"We will face social unhappiness," he said, and if the global crisis persists and oil prices stay low, "maybe social unrest."

Rocky Ansari, a managing partner at Cyrus Omron International, which advises international and Iranian firms on doing business here, said Iran's government "should really act now rather than later" to deal with the coming crisis.

In fact, he said, "It may be a bit too late."

Iran's economic future is of intense interest to the incoming Obama administration and European governments. Washington has led the drive that imposed sanctions in a bid to stop Iran's enrichment of uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons.


Surrender is unlikely
The U.N., European Union and unilateral U.S. sanctions are designed to pinch Tehran's access to high-tech military goods and the international financial system. (U.N. sanctions do not specifically target consumer goods. U.S. sanctions bar most companies, with exceptions such as food and medicine, from doing business here, but U.S. products are readily imported from nearby Dubai and elsewhere.)

No matter how tough conditions get, few observers here expect Ahmadinejad and Iran's supreme religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in such matters, to surrender on the nuclear issue.

"The regime cannot afford to say, 'OK, we give up,' " said a Western diplomat, who requested anonymity. Nuclear development is "the only topic on which they have a national consensus."

High oil prices, along with the U.S. removal of Iran's two neighboring enemies, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, also have fueled Iran's increasing assertiveness. It backed Lebanon's Hezbollah in its 2006 war with Israel, supported anti-U.S. militias inside Iraq and has courted U.S. antagonists such as Russia, Venezuela and Cuba.

Oil funds 60 percent of the government budget, economists say, supporting billions in public subsidies of goods such as gasoline, sugar and bread. A research center affiliated with Iran's parliament reported last week that the government depends on oil at $80 a barrel to keep its accounts balanced.

Iran's oil income has dropped from $300 million to $100 million a day, and if oil prices stay in the $30-$40 a barrel range, the country could see more than $70 billion in expected funds evaporate, economists say.

"It's a huge oil shock in reverse for Iran," said oil historian Daniel Yergin, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of oil. "It places tremendous pressure on the Iranian economy."

[renukb]

From UPI.com
Iran's leaders don't want better relations with the U.S.


WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 (UPI) -- Given Russia's increasingly confrontational behavior and threats to retaliate for international criticism of its invasion of the former Soviet republic of Georgia in the Caucasus, the U.N. Security Council is sure to remain ineffective in addressing the Iranian nuclear issue because of the threat of a Russian veto.

Moreover, Russia is upgrading its ties with Iran. On Sept. 18 Russia announced plans to sell more military equipment to Iran, including new anti-aircraft missiles that Iran could deploy to protect its illicit nuclear weapons program.

The incoming Obama administration needs to recognize that attempts to negotiate a diplomatic deal with Iran represent the triumph of wishful thinking over past experience.

Under current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's predecessors, Iran concealed and lied about its nuclear program for two decades before admitting it had built a secret uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz in 2003. When confronted, Tehran agreed to suspend its uranium-enrichment program, undoubtedly out of fear of a U.S.-led intervention after America took military action to remove regimes in neighboring states led by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Iran engaged in a halfhearted charade of negotiations with the EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- in which it temporarily froze its uranium-enrichment efforts, only to resume such dangerous activities after Ahmadinejad was installed in power in 2005 and the perceived threat of a possible U.S. military strike diminished.

Tehran perceived that the international situation had shifted in its favor. The United States faced deteriorating security conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan, in part because of Iranian meddling; oil prices surged, insulating Iran from the threat of sanctions; and Iran cultivated Russia and China to fend off effective sanctions at the U.N. Security Council.

Despite this, there are continuing calls for further attempts to reach a "grand bargain" in which Iran would pledge to abandon its nuclear efforts and support for terrorism in exchange for various economic carrots and security guarantees. However, the prospects for such a grand bargain are grossly overstated and ignore the past history of U.S. diplomatic efforts to reach an accommodation with Iran, which exploited and sabotaged U.S. efforts at engagement during the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations.

Hopeful talk about a new effort at rapprochement represents the triumph of wishful thinking over disappointing experience. The simple truth is that Iranian hardliners do not want genuinely improved relations with the United States.

Not only do they see the United States as the "Great Satan," but they fear the temptations that the "Great Satan" can offer.

--

[renukb]

Analyst Urges Acceptance of Iranian Enrichment Program
Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2008

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/g ... 9_8192.php

The international community should accept Iran's growing uranium enrichment capabilities and concentrate on preventing the Middle Eastern state from tapping the program to develop a nuclear weapon, a nonproliferation analyst wrote in a report published yesterday by the Institute for International Strategic Studies (see GSN, Dec. 9).

Iran defends its uranium enrichment program as an effort strictly aimed at producing nuclear plant fuel, but the United States and other Western powers worry that it could generate a key nuclear bomb ingredient. International sanctions and incentives offers have focused on persuading Iran to halt the program completely.

"During 2009, Iran will probably reach the point at which it has produced the amount of low-enriched uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb. ... But being able to enrich uranium is not the same as having a nuclear weapon," Mark Fitzpatrick wrote in the report, titled The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Avoiding Worst-Case Outcomes.

The report marks a wider trend among proliferation analysts toward advocating the acceptance of Iran's uranium enrichment program, which includes roughly 5,000 centrifuges actively generating low-enriched uranium, the Los Angeles Times reported. To produce fuel for a nuclear weapon, Iran would have to "break out" of international safeguards and run the material through its centrifuges again for at least several months.

"It seems very doubtful that we're going to get rollback to zero centrifuges," Ftizpatrick told the Times."A more realistic question is, 'How are we going to build up reasonable barriers to breakout?'"

Fitzpatrick expressed certainty that Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce weapons, but he contended that accepting Iranian enrichment would discourage Tehran from rejecting international audits aimed at preventing it from routing nuclear material to a military program.

A military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would give Tehran a pretext to break out of the nonproliferation system, he warned.

"In the aftermath of an unprovoked attack," the report says, "Iran could be expected to withdraw from the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] and engage the full resources of a unified nation in a determined nuclear weapons development program" (Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 9).

Meanwhile, a high-level Russian diplomatic official said Iran still lacks the ability to build a nuclear bomb, Agence France-Presse reported today.

"One cannot say today that Iran can create nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them," Interfax and ITAR-Tass quoted Russian Foreign Ministry official Vladimir Voronkov as saying. "This information is confirmed by all the services responsible for the collection and analysis of information," he said.

Addressing Russia's approach to Iran's nuclear program, he said: "the difference is that our [Western] partners want to use instruments of pressure. We do not consider such instruments to be always effective" (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, Dec. 9).

Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani today cautioned U.S. President-elect Barack Obama against adopting his predecessor's policies on Iran. Obama has called for "tough but direct diplomacy" with Iran, offering incentives for halting disputed nuclear work while ratcheting up pressure to comply with U.N. demands.

"I don't expect someone who considers himself to be originally from Africa and a member of the oppressed black race in America to repeat what (George W.) Bush has to say," Rafsanjani said in a state radio broadcast. "I advise (Obama)... we don't want your incentives and your punishments will not stop us either. ... "It's better for you to be reasonable and not to deprive Iran of its rights" (Agence France Presse II/Spacewar.com, Dec. 9).

[renukb]

Russia Sells SA-20 to Iran

Dec 12, 2008
By David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 0to%20Iran

Irrespective of Kremlin denials, Iran is buying the Russian-built SA-20 strategic-range air defense system, say senior U.S. government officials.

Deployment of the system - a threat previously thought to be only a bargaining tool - would mark a capability leap in the Middle East and considerably improve Iran's ability to defend its nuclear facilities. Western officials are concerned that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

"The Iranians are on contract for the SA-20 [which NATO designated ýýýGargoyle']," says one of the U.S. government officials. "We've got a huge set of challenges in the future that we've never had [before]. We've been lulled into a false sense of security because our operations over the last 20 years involved complete air dominance and we've been free to operate in all domains."

The proliferation of so-called double-digit surface-to-air missile systems - such as the Almaz Antey SA-20 (S-300PMU1/S-300PMU2) - poses an increasing threat to nonstealthy aircraft, and will force changes in tactics and operational planning. The SA-20 has an engagement envelope of roughly 100 mi., and Iran may be signed up for the S-300PMU-2 variant with even greater range.

Russia could use Belarus as the route for a sale, allowing Moscow to deny any direct involvement, says a U.S. official. It would likely take the Iranian armed forces as long as 24 months to become proficient in the operation of the SA-20; however, any deal would almost certainly cover training support in the interim. Israel might be tempted to preemptively strike suspected nuclear sites prior to the SA-20 becoming operational, or even try to hamper delivery.

"The beginning of proliferation of double-digit SAMs is more of a concern than the potential air threats [such as Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 and China's Chengdu J-10] that are coming into service," says the government official.

The presence of Russian double-digit long-range SAM systems in the region during the recent Georgian incursion had a direct impact on NATO planning - resulting in a decision not to use the Boeing E-3 AWACS for surveillance.

The SA-20 and, even more so, the SA-21 Growler (S-400) now entering service pose an increasing problem for mission planners using conventional strike aircraft. While low-observable aircraft offer greater latitude for operations, they are not totally immune to air defenses.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 with its all-aspect, -40-dBsm. radar cross-section signature can operate within the engagement envelope of the SA-20 and SA-21. But the Lockheed Martin F-35 with its -30-dBsm. signature, but not all-aspect stealth, is at greater risk. The rear quadrant of the F-35, particularly around the engine-exhaust area, is not as stealthy as the F-22.

Because of its aging stealth design, the Northrop Grumman B-2 also has limitations in the amount of time it can spend within the range of double-digit SAM systems, since small signature clues can become cumulative and offer a firing solution. The U.S.'s next-generation bomber program is aimed at developing a low-observable platform capable of operating irrespective of the threat from systems of the SA-21 class.

During the recent conflict between Georgia and Russia, the caution with which double-digit SAMs are treated was obvious. NATO wanted to monitor the fighting and refugee problems and track combat forces with its fleet of recently updated E-3 AWACS surveillance aircraft. They were banned from the area because the Russian attack columns included mobile SA-20 batteries. From their location in the Georgian breakaway region of Abkhazia, these SAMs covered airspace over the eastern Black Sea where the E-3s would have needed to operate.

"If a coalition organization wanted to establish [surveillance or reconnaissance] flights or a no-flight zone in an area populated by double-digit SAMS, you couldn't do it with nonstealthy aircraft," the government official says. "These modern weapon systems are going to deny us strategic and operational options that in the past we haven't had to worry about."

The Iranian deployment of the SA-20 would most directly be a threat to Israel's fleet of advanced, but nonstealthy, F-15Is and F-16Is. Israel would need to rely on countermeasures - such as airborne jamming, false-target creation and network attack - rather than on platform survivability to counter the introduction of the Gargoyle.

More capable point-defense systems - which would likely be used to protect SA-20 sites, for example - are also being introduced into the region. Syria is acquiring the SA-22 Greyhound (KBP Pantsyr), which uses a vehicle-mounted combination of cannon and missiles intended to provide defense against aircraft, helicopters, precision-guided munitions and cruise missiles.

New threats, involving advances in commercially available electronics, continue to rapidly mutate in the area of secure communications and command and control, as demonstrated in Mumbai, India. During the recent attack, gunmen talked by cell phone and Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) to their commanders in Pakistan for orders about avoiding police, attacking additional sites, and selecting hostages for execution.

And during the 2006 fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the non-state group was able to set up command-and-control networks - using commercially available, Chinese-built, high-power cordless phones - to shift combatants and rocket launchers. These messages could not be intercepted by the Lebanese or Israeli governments.

"[Part of the threat is] the new phones that are coming out with GSM, Satphone, Bluetooth, 80211G and 80216 [technologies] all built into one handset," says an electronic warfare specialist in the U.S. aerospace industry. "It's already happened. A multifunction handset switches you through all the options to find a usable route. If your GSM link goes out, it will automatically hook up to the nearest 80211G link, get the message to an Internet node and then go VOIP. That kind of connection technology is here, and it's cheap for the bad guys. All you have to do is be clever about how you use it for command and control."

Recent pictures of the interior of a new Chinese surface-to-air-missile command-and-control vehicle show two Lenovo laptops and the commander of the integrated air defense system talking on a Blackberry. In the battery's briefing vehicle, there's a VOIP connection. These are all good, cheap commercial products.

Defense officials say that with the new telecommunications used by opponents, U.S. planners have to be much more detailed about how electronic attack is conducted against certain networked, computer-controlled threats such as integrated air defenses.

The question arises: Is there any good news in this scenario? Perhaps there is at the intersection of electronic attack and cyberwarfare (a new specialty called special-purpose electronic attack, or SPEA) and at the overlap of electronic attack and high-power microwave weapons (called nontraditional electronic attack, or NTEA).

SPEA moves into cyberwarfare because operators are looking at more than jamming external emissions. They are dealing with affecting layers of digital instructions, called protocols, that run the network. They are using electronic attack, but it is against a computer network and not just a radar or radio signal. So there are new procedures that can be used in the electronic attack domain that are special and unique. NTEA involves producing long-lasting, instead of temporary, effects on enemy electronics.

"It's not solely about effective radiated power [for jamming] anymore, it's about control," the EW specialists says. "It's about what part of the protocol stack can you get to and, possibly, take control of. A lot of it is not about preventing them from communicating; we're just controlling it in some way."

[renukb]

Russia Confirms Defense Deal with Iran
Written by The Media Line Staff
Published Thursday, December 18, 2008

http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_d ... wsID=23642

Russia has confirmed the sale of a controversial weapons system to Iran, a move that could thwart Israeli or American plans to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Russia is selling S-300 air-defense systems to Iran, the Russian RIA Novosti reported, quoting unnamed sources.

In October, Russia's Foreign Ministry denied the deal was underway, explaining at the time that Moscow did not wish to sell such equipment to "troubled regions."

But the sources said that after Russia met its obligations of supplying Tehran with the short-range Tor-M1 systems, it was implementing a contract to deliver the S-300.

There was no official confirmation of the report.

Iran's acquisition of the S-300 will be a source of concern for both Israel and the United States, neither of which have ruled out a military strike against Iran.

The most advanced version of the S-300, an anti-missile and anti-aircraft surface-to-air system, can intercept missiles and aircraft from more than 120 kilometers (75 miles) away.

Israel sent a senior defense official to Moscow on Wednesday to explain Israel's position on the deal.

Amos Gilad, a Defense Ministry official, is trying to persuade the Russians to cancel the deal, on the grounds that it could upset the balance of power in the Middle East.

The advanced defense system could help Tehran counter any Israeli or U.S. attack on its soil.

Iran has been under international pressure for more than six years over its nuclear program, which Western countries suspect is being used to covertly build nuclear bombs.

Iran denies the program has any military aspect and insists it is for the peaceful purposes of producing nuclear energy only.

Diplomatic pressure and sanctions have so far not stopped Iran from continuing its uranium enrichment activities.

Russia has existing economic and defense deals with several countries in the Middle East, including Iran. Moscow is helping Iran build the Bushehr nuclear facility, which is expected to be operational by early 2009.

Moscow is exerting increasing influence in the Middle East through weapons deals, political clout and economic agreements. Though analysts say talks of a renewed Cold War are far-fetched, the U.S. is concerned about Russia's relationship with countries that are U.S. foes, such as Iran and Syria.

[vavinash]

Israel would want the F-35's or even F-22's soon. Of course if US and saudi keep the oil prices at below $ 50 a barrel for a year or two iran and russia will be in severe financial trouble.

[renukb]

Let Russia Stop Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini ... an.html?em

NINE months have passed since the United Nations Security Council approved its most recent resolution imposing sanctions on Iran. That resolution, like its two predecessors, has failed to deter Tehran, which will soon be in a position to create a working nuclear weapon. Western intelligence establishments estimate that date as not later than mid-2010.

The problem with any Security Council resolution is that Russia and China, two of the five permanent members, have refused to adopt biting measures. Without tougher sanctions, there is no hope that Iran will reconsider its determination to make a bomb and finally begin to negotiate seriously with the West. Sanctions that would hurt Iran, like an embargo on its imports of gasoline, could deter Tehran from pursuing the bomb.

The key to a tougher Security Council resolution is Russia, and this provides an opening for Barack Obama. After taking office, he should offer Moscow a grand bargain. For its part, the United States would suspend or even cancel its plans to set up the missile defenses in Eastern Europe that the Kremlin adamantly opposes, and also adopt a more cautious stance as far as admitting into NATO the countries that Russia views as part of its zone of influence.

Russia’s side of the bargain would be to join in the West’s tougher stance against Iran’s nuclear military program and to stop supplying Iran with conventional weapons, many of which then find their way to Hezbollah in Lebanon and other militant groups in the region.

If Russia were to support much stronger economic pressure on Iran, Mr. Obama could proceed on a double track: first to put the threat of military intervention back on the table, but also to offer to conduct direct talks with Iran without preconditions. What would be asked of Tehran initially would be a gesture of good faith: it would, three months after the start of the negotiations, have to make an implicit commitment to halt its enrichment activities. (Tehran would not be required to make a public declaration, which it fears would make it look weak in the eyes of its populace and its neighbors.)

Negotiations would have to deal with issues that go beyond the nuclear file. Iran views itself as a regional power, proud of its history, its rich culture and its military and technological capacity. The dialogue would involve the Persian Gulf security situation in general, the future of the American presence in Iraq, Syria’s role in Lebanon, and efforts to settle the unrest in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If such a three-way deal could be pulled off, everyone wins with very little loss of face. The United States would gain a leading role in the international arena, reversing years of questionable Bush administration decisions. And, as it claims the missile defense system is intended primarily to defend against an Iranian nuclear attack, the deal would obviate its need.

Russia would give up its weapons and some commercial sales to Iran, but there is much more profit for Moscow to be made trading with a respectable Iran than a pariah state. The American reversal on missile defense would be portrayed as a victory for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and Moscow would gain international respectability by helping to avert the serious crisis that would occur should Iran develop the bomb.

Iran, in exchange for relinquishing its nuclear dreams, would avoid painful sanctions, be readmitted to the international community and eventually gain the economic and political benefits of being recognized as a regional power.

Unless something changes the dynamic soon, Iran will become a nuclear power, which will put the Obama administration in a terrible bind. Not only would it complicate America’s projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would also certainly derail any peace negotiations among Israel and its Palestinian and Syrian neighbors.

The United States and Israel will both welcome new political leadership next year. We hope that the new prime minister of Israel can see the wisdom of such a deal among America, Iran and Russia, and persuade Mr. Obama that it could transform the Middle East and the entire international scene. The alternative is more stalemate and an Iran that grows more menacing by the day.

Oded Eran is the director of the Institute for National Security Studies. Giora Eiland, a retired major general in the Israeli Army, and Emily B. Landau are senior research associates at the institute.