Iran Prez arrives tomorrow; IPI, LNG likely to figure
Apr 28 2008, New Delhi
In the first visit by Iranian Head of State to India in five years, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be here tomorrow during which the two sides will review the progress on trilateral gas pipeline and bilateral Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project. Issues surrounding Iran's controversial nuclear programme are also expected to figure prominently when Ahmadinejad holds talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the brief four-hour visit.
This will be the second meeting between Singh and Ahmadinejad in nearly two years as the two leaders had last met in September 2006 in Havana on the sidelines of NAM Summit. Ahmadinejad, the first Iranian President to visit India after January 2003 when Mohammad Khatami was the Chief Guest for Republic Day, will also meet President Pratibha Patil.
Notwithstanding the brief trip, the Indian government is keen to make a success of the visit during which the top leaders of the two countries will review the bilateral ties. Singh and Ahmadinejad are expected to review progress on ambitious Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline which has failed to take-off because of differences over cost factors.
The project was mainly stuck because of differences between India and Pakistan on the transit fee. Some progress was reported on the project last week during talks in Islamabad.
The 22 billion dollar LNG deal, which was signed during Khatami's visit, is also likely to come up, with the Indian side expected to press Iran to honour the agreement. The deal also could not be implemented so far because of differences on the cost of gas.
Iran News and Discussions
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/302376.html
THE INDIAN EXPRESS
The truth about Tehran
K. Subrahmanyam
Posted online: Monday, April 28, 2008 at 2318 hrs
Its history of nuclear proliferation brings up a few skeletons in America’s closet too
The American spokesperson’s advice to India to impress upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his visit to Delhi, that he desist from going ahead with Iran’s uranium enrichment programme has with some justification infuriated many of our members of Parliament. Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee has given a measured response that the responsibility for determining whether Iran had deviated from the path of peaceful application of uranium enrichment vests with the International Atomic Energy Agency. But he has discreetly omitted to mention that the IAEA has not yet found itself in a position to give a clean chit to Iran. In all this controversy, the Indian public has not yet been given a clear picture of Iran’s nuclear effort and why India, very rightly, voted against Iran in the IAEA in 2006 and 2007. Nor has the central figure in this issue, Dr A.Q. Khan, received adequate attention in this country.
Iranian efforts to acquire a clandestine nuclear-weapon capability go back to 1987. At that time, Iran was fighting the last year of its eight-year war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Saddam’s aggression was supported by the United States and many Arab countries. The Muslim Ummah, the world over, did not condemn Saddam’s aggression and his use of chemical weapons on Iran, or the hundreds of missiles he sent raining on that country. The Indian government of that day did not worry about Shia feelings. When Iran took the issue of the use of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations, the US and European countries sat on their hands and took no action against Saddam. At that stage, Iran approached Khan to help it with the uranium enrichment programme.
While the US started talking to Pakistan in the late ’90s about Khan’s links with North Korea, the Iranian secret enrichment programme came to the notice of the IAEA only in 2001 as a result of the disclosure of some expatriates. Whether the US inaction on Khan and Iranian proliferation was the result of the total incompetence of the CIA or was a policy decision is not clear at this stage. Iran dodged the IAEA for some time and finally admitted dealing with Khan.
The 2005 and 2006 IAEA resolutions were about the inadequacy of Iranian cooperation with the IAEA in clearing up the uranium enrichment issue involving Khan. For other countries of the world (including the various Islamic countries), it was an issue of proliferation in some distant country. For India, it was a case of clandestine proliferation involving Pakistan, Khan, the US and various West European countries which were the sources for Khan’s proliferation. India would have made a laughing stock of itself if it had ignored Khan’s activities. According to the former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (a disclosure he repeated during his visit to the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses two months ago), Khan had been allowed to go free by the Dutch authorities, after his arrest twice in 1975 and 1986, on the intervention of the CIA. Therefore, it is a fair assumption that the US knew what Iran and Khan were up to in 1987. Further, the Pakistani chief of army staff told a US assistant secretary in 1990 that Pakistan would sell its uranium enrichment technology to Iran if the US invoked the Pressler Amendment.
A.Q. Khan and Iran signed two deals for the supply of centrifuges to Tehran. The Iranians did not report this programme to the IAEA but kept it a secret in total violation of their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US also did not disclose (and has not disclosed till today) its interest in Khan. While Khan was the agent and mastermind, the entire source of the supply of equipment and technology for Iranian proliferation was West Europe. The Indian foreign secretary at that time, Shyam Saran, raised the issue of countries being permissive of the supply side of proliferation and focusing entirely on the recipient.
The US has not been serious in pursuing the involvement of the Pakistani state, army chiefs or A.Q. Khan in the Iranian proliferation. The West European countries have been lax in clamping down on their own firms which supply equipment and technology to Iran. Last year in the US Congress, there were complaints about the US not extraditing Urs Tinner, a notorious Swiss proliferator, for prosecution in Switzerland.
Given this record, neither the US nor the West European countries are in a position to preach to India. At the same time, it is a totally mistaken perception to argue that India’s policy on Iran’s nuclear effort is dictated by the US. On the other hand, those who are against the Indian vote in the IAEA are trying to protect Khan and his patron, the US, and his sources of supply in the West European countries. The US is trying to shield its past proliferation sins and patronage of Khan by bullying Iran to stop its enrichment activity. It appears to think that exaggerating the Iranian threat to West Europe is the best way of applying global pressure on Iran.
The right step at this time for Iran is to satisfy the IAEA that its enrichment programme is entirely peaceful. This can be done by throwing open all its facilities to IAEA inspection. Dr ElBaradei is an independent-minded IAEA chief who had stood up to American bullying. The IAEA is persisting in its efforts to have an overall perspective on the Iranian nuclear activity to be in a position to certify that Iran has no nuclear weapons programme. Latest reports indicate that both Iran and the IAEA are finding common ground to solve the issue. Meanwhile, last December, the American intelligence community produced a unanimous report that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons programme, not its uranium enrichment programme, in the fall of 2003 when Khan’s involvement in proliferation to Iran and Libya became public.
There is nothing wrong in the US giving advice to India on the Iranian nuclear issue. That is part of international diplomacy. What is unfortunate is that our diplomats, our parliamentarians and our political leaders do not talk back and give the US sound advice in their own national interest. This lack of self-confidence reflects a still lingering colonial mentality. Instead of getting angry with the Americans, why do we not tell the American public and legislators all the things they had done to be permissive of nuclear proliferation?
The writer is a senior defence analyst
ambimani@gmail.com
THE INDIAN EXPRESS
The truth about Tehran
K. Subrahmanyam
Posted online: Monday, April 28, 2008 at 2318 hrs
Its history of nuclear proliferation brings up a few skeletons in America’s closet too
The American spokesperson’s advice to India to impress upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his visit to Delhi, that he desist from going ahead with Iran’s uranium enrichment programme has with some justification infuriated many of our members of Parliament. Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee has given a measured response that the responsibility for determining whether Iran had deviated from the path of peaceful application of uranium enrichment vests with the International Atomic Energy Agency. But he has discreetly omitted to mention that the IAEA has not yet found itself in a position to give a clean chit to Iran. In all this controversy, the Indian public has not yet been given a clear picture of Iran’s nuclear effort and why India, very rightly, voted against Iran in the IAEA in 2006 and 2007. Nor has the central figure in this issue, Dr A.Q. Khan, received adequate attention in this country.
Iranian efforts to acquire a clandestine nuclear-weapon capability go back to 1987. At that time, Iran was fighting the last year of its eight-year war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Saddam’s aggression was supported by the United States and many Arab countries. The Muslim Ummah, the world over, did not condemn Saddam’s aggression and his use of chemical weapons on Iran, or the hundreds of missiles he sent raining on that country. The Indian government of that day did not worry about Shia feelings. When Iran took the issue of the use of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations, the US and European countries sat on their hands and took no action against Saddam. At that stage, Iran approached Khan to help it with the uranium enrichment programme.
While the US started talking to Pakistan in the late ’90s about Khan’s links with North Korea, the Iranian secret enrichment programme came to the notice of the IAEA only in 2001 as a result of the disclosure of some expatriates. Whether the US inaction on Khan and Iranian proliferation was the result of the total incompetence of the CIA or was a policy decision is not clear at this stage. Iran dodged the IAEA for some time and finally admitted dealing with Khan.
The 2005 and 2006 IAEA resolutions were about the inadequacy of Iranian cooperation with the IAEA in clearing up the uranium enrichment issue involving Khan. For other countries of the world (including the various Islamic countries), it was an issue of proliferation in some distant country. For India, it was a case of clandestine proliferation involving Pakistan, Khan, the US and various West European countries which were the sources for Khan’s proliferation. India would have made a laughing stock of itself if it had ignored Khan’s activities. According to the former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (a disclosure he repeated during his visit to the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses two months ago), Khan had been allowed to go free by the Dutch authorities, after his arrest twice in 1975 and 1986, on the intervention of the CIA. Therefore, it is a fair assumption that the US knew what Iran and Khan were up to in 1987. Further, the Pakistani chief of army staff told a US assistant secretary in 1990 that Pakistan would sell its uranium enrichment technology to Iran if the US invoked the Pressler Amendment.
A.Q. Khan and Iran signed two deals for the supply of centrifuges to Tehran. The Iranians did not report this programme to the IAEA but kept it a secret in total violation of their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US also did not disclose (and has not disclosed till today) its interest in Khan. While Khan was the agent and mastermind, the entire source of the supply of equipment and technology for Iranian proliferation was West Europe. The Indian foreign secretary at that time, Shyam Saran, raised the issue of countries being permissive of the supply side of proliferation and focusing entirely on the recipient.
The US has not been serious in pursuing the involvement of the Pakistani state, army chiefs or A.Q. Khan in the Iranian proliferation. The West European countries have been lax in clamping down on their own firms which supply equipment and technology to Iran. Last year in the US Congress, there were complaints about the US not extraditing Urs Tinner, a notorious Swiss proliferator, for prosecution in Switzerland.
Given this record, neither the US nor the West European countries are in a position to preach to India. At the same time, it is a totally mistaken perception to argue that India’s policy on Iran’s nuclear effort is dictated by the US. On the other hand, those who are against the Indian vote in the IAEA are trying to protect Khan and his patron, the US, and his sources of supply in the West European countries. The US is trying to shield its past proliferation sins and patronage of Khan by bullying Iran to stop its enrichment activity. It appears to think that exaggerating the Iranian threat to West Europe is the best way of applying global pressure on Iran.
The right step at this time for Iran is to satisfy the IAEA that its enrichment programme is entirely peaceful. This can be done by throwing open all its facilities to IAEA inspection. Dr ElBaradei is an independent-minded IAEA chief who had stood up to American bullying. The IAEA is persisting in its efforts to have an overall perspective on the Iranian nuclear activity to be in a position to certify that Iran has no nuclear weapons programme. Latest reports indicate that both Iran and the IAEA are finding common ground to solve the issue. Meanwhile, last December, the American intelligence community produced a unanimous report that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons programme, not its uranium enrichment programme, in the fall of 2003 when Khan’s involvement in proliferation to Iran and Libya became public.
There is nothing wrong in the US giving advice to India on the Iranian nuclear issue. That is part of international diplomacy. What is unfortunate is that our diplomats, our parliamentarians and our political leaders do not talk back and give the US sound advice in their own national interest. This lack of self-confidence reflects a still lingering colonial mentality. Instead of getting angry with the Americans, why do we not tell the American public and legislators all the things they had done to be permissive of nuclear proliferation?
The writer is a senior defence analyst
ambimani@gmail.com
That is two recent articles by KS with same message. US must do more to curb their own sources of proliferation before preaching to India. These two articles mark a change in direction of KS. Wonder whats going on? Some sort of defiance is being articulated. Add to this the recent US talk of IPR issues with India something is not right.
Iran's president visits India for gas pipeline talks
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, Associated Press Writer Wed Apr 30, 1:35 AM ET
NEW DELHI - A $7 billion gas pipeline that would link Iran and India topped the agenda Tuesday as the Islamic republic's president made his first visit to New Delhi, despite strong U.S. objections to the project.
ADVERTISEMENT
The trip came as India and the United States are struggling to finalize a landmark nuclear energy deal.
India's desire to build on its long-standing ties to Iran highlight New Delhi's eagerness to avoid taking sides in international disputes and work with as many countries as possible — even if its partners disdain each other.
Its willingness to seek energy supplies from both Tehran and Washington is one example of New Delhi's desire to play the middle. Another is its developing relationship with Iran's archenemy Israel. Earlier this year India launched an Israeli spy satellite, which is in part intended to monitor Iran's nuclear program.
Menon said Ahmadinejad did not bring up the satellite during his time in New Delhi.
-
Nayak
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2553
- Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
- Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.
Israel, at 60, shows admirable grit
Our newspapers and 24x7 news channels went gaga over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stopover in New Delhi last Tuesday. Given the exuberant, almost fawning, media coverage accorded to Mr Ahmadinejad, it would seem as if a great friend of India had come visiting although we didn't quite deserve this honour, having stabbed Iran in the back, so to say, at the behest of the 'Great Satan', otherwise known as the United States of America.
Such is the Left's influence on the media and the awesome disregard of our intellectuals -- or what passes for intellectuals -- who straddle newspapers and television channels, for India's strategic interests, that nobody has bothered to point out that a nuclear armed Iran is something we can do without. If Mr Ahmadinejad, with more than a little help from Russia and China, not to mention Pakistan's rogue nuclear establishment, is able to enrich sufficient uranium to produce an arsenal of nuclear warheads, Israel alone won't have reason to worry.
We have also elected to ignore the fact that Iran has been consistent in voting against India at the OIC even while pretending to be a 'friendly' nation. At the UN, rare is the occasion when Iran has made common cause with India, although the reverse is not true. It does not require evidence collated by the US to assert that Iran is currently forging a Shia brand of radical Islamism, much more insidious and potent than the pernicious ideology bequeathed by Sayyid Qutb to the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, with the purpose of becoming the dominant Islamic state by displacing traditional Sunni powers. In the short term this may not affect India, but in the long term it is bound to scorch us.
Nor has anybody bothered to point out that while India needs Iranian oil (and perhaps also Iranian gas), an increasingly isolated and cash-strapped Iran needs an emerging market to mobilise resources. At a time when Western democracies are loath to do business with Mr Ahmadinejad's regime, selling oil and gas to India makes eminent sense for Iran. Yes, it also makes eminent sense for India to leverage Iran's troubles to its advantage, but that would require a certain craftiness which is absent in those who preside over India's destiny. If this is true of the Congress, it is equally true of the BJP. The Left, of course, craftily conspires against India's national interests. The others really do not matter.
Meanwhile, Amit Baruah, writing in the Hindustan Times about Mr Ahmadinejad's visit, mentions something that does not figure in the other glowing reports that appeared in last Wednesday's newspapers. "In his opening remarks, Mr Ahmadinejad once again questioned the extent of the Holocaust against the Jews in World War II and felt this was used as a pretext to occupy Palestine," Amit Baruah says in his report, adding, "He also raised questions about the 9/11 terrorist attacks and felt these acted as an excuse to occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan."
Amit Baruah is a senior journalist and there is no reason to doubt the veracity of his report. Indeed, the fact that others chose not to incorporate Mr Ahmadinejad's odious anti-Semitic rant in their reports tells a story by itself -- of how our media is careful to excise those comments that may reflect poorly on individuals it places on a high pedestal. Not surprisingly, Amit Baruah's report has been picked up by Islamist Websites.
The man who now leads and inspires born-again Nazis and would like to see the remaining Jews exterminated and Israel "wiped off the face of the world" is not as daft as some people make him out to be. He used his stopover in New Delhi to repeat his outrageous lies -- that the Holocaust is Jewish fiction, Jews masterminded 9/11, and Israel is an illegitimate entity -- steeped in anti-Semitism on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day. He needed a platform and we, to our abiding shame, provided him with one.
Will we now onward allow any and every visitor to berate another nation from our soil? What if someone were to use his or her interaction with the media to denounce China and question the legitimacy of its occupation of Tibet? Have we become so soft a state that nothing matters any more? Is our foreign policy now bereft of all morals, scruples and ethics that were once considered central to our civilisational identity as a nation, as a people?
In sharp contrast to our inability to stand up and be counted, and thus be courted for our inherent strength and power, Israel remains firm as a rock in its determination to succeed against all odds. Unlike India, it is just a dot on the map, a small country that can be traversed between sunrise and sunset. Yet it is a giant among nations, ferocious in war and magnanimous in peace. In the last 15 years, ever since we established diplomatic relations, it has done nothing that can be even remotely considered to be against India's interests. Yet we are reluctant to acknowledge this friendship and stand by it.
On May 8, Israel will celebrate the 60th anniversary of its independence. During these six decades, indeed, from the time David Ben-Gurion declared Israel's independence, it has been at war with its implacable Arab foes, fighting for its survival. But that has not stopped it from emerging as a power to contend with, a David among Goliaths who won't rest till the last drop of Jewish blood has been shed. It has been the victim of unceasing calumny and perversion of history by those who blindly support the tribe of Mr Ahmadinejad and endorse their anti-Semitism.
British journalist and author Melanie Phillips, in a scintillating essay published in the latest issue of the Spectator, pithily sums up Israel's heroic struggle: "On the day after Ben-Gurion declared (Israel's) independence, six Arab armies invaded and tried to wipe it out. With the current exception of Egypt and Jordan, the Arab and Muslim world has been trying ever since... At present, the situation looks particularly ominous. Israel is menaced on several fronts...".
It is Iran which has taken over from the Arabs. In Lebanon, it is funding and arming Hizbullah whose leader Hassan Nasrallah is sworn to Israel's destruction. In Gaza, it is nursing Hamas whose army of fanatics has declared it won't rest till the last Jew is dead. In Syria, Iran is working over time to keep anti-Israeli sentiments alive. All this while building a Bomb to "wipe Israel off the face of the world" and achieve what Nasser failed in achieving 60 years ago.
Such is the 'friend' of India our media fetes.
AHMEDINEJAD'S VISIT: IN PERSPECTIVE
By B.Raman
By B.Raman
In response to an invitation issued by President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka during his visit to Teheran in November,2007. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad of Iran paid a two-day official visit to Sri Lanka on April 28 and 29,2008.
2. Since last year, Sri Lanka has been facing economic difficulties due to the drying-up of economic assistance from countries of the European Union (EU) such as Germany because of what they perceive as the indifferent attitude of the Rajapaksa Government to complaints regarding the violation of the human rights of the Tamils and its refusal to seek a political solution to the problem.
3. Instead of succumbing to the EU pressure on the subject, the Rajapaksa Government turned for increased assistance to other countries such as China and Iran, which did not raise human rights issues as a condition for such assistance. Assistance from Iran was of crucial importance to Sri Lanka because of the Government's inability to pay for its increasingly costly oil imports.The Goverenment of Ahmadinejad readily agreed to provide oil at concessional rates to Sri Lanka and to train a small team of officers of the Sri Lankan Army and intelligence in Iran. It also agreed to provide a low-interest loan to Sri Lanka to enable it to purchase defence-related equipment from China and Pakistan.
4. In addition, it agreed to invest US $ 1.5 billion in energy-related projects in Sri Lanka. One of these projects is for the production of hydel power and the other to double the capacity of an existing oil refinery in Sri Lanka. Work on the construction of the hydel project started during Mr.Ahmadinejad's visit. Iranian engineers have laready been preparing the project report for doubling the capacity of the refinery and for modifying it to enable it to refine in future Iranian crude to be supplied at concessional rates. The existing capacity is 50,000 barrels a day.
5. The interest shown by Iran in Sri Lanka since last year is attributed to its desire to counter the Israeli influence in Sri Lanka and to use Sri Lanka as a base for monitoring the movements of US naval ships between the Pacific and the Gulf. Since Mr.Rajapaksa came to power, the visit of US naval vessels and officers to Sri Lanka has increased. Even before he came to power, Israel had emerged as an important supplier of military equipment, particularly for the Sri Lankan Air Force. The fact that even at the risk of misunderstanding with Israel, Mr.Rajapaksa chose to approach Iran and accepted its ready offer of assistance underlined the serious economic situation in which Sri Lanka found itself.
6. In view of the operation of a NATO Naval task force in the Gulf to provide logistics support to the NATO's military operations in Afghanistan, the officers in charge of Ahmadinejad's security were not in favour of his aircraft flying over the seas on his way to and back from Colombo. They reportedly decided that his aircraft should fly to Colombo over Pakistan and India and use the same route for its return journey.
7. The Iran Air Force has aircraft which can fly directly from Teheran to Colombo without the need for any intermediate halt. However, they are in a poor state of maintenance due to difficulties in procuring spare parts because of the sanctions imposed by the UN and the US against Iran. It was, therefore, decided that his aircraft should stop over briefly in Islamabad on his way to Colombo and in New Delhi on his way back. It is learnt that the initiative for stop-over visits came from Teheran because of considerations relating to the security of Mr.Ahmadinejad's plane.
8. Pakistan, which has not been worried about any adverse reaction from the US, welcomed the proposal and extended to him a high profile welcome while he was on his way to Colombo on April 28.His engagements in Islamabad included separate meetings with President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and a lunch hosted by the Prime Minister. While the local media hype focussed on the reported forward movement in the negotiations for a gas pipeline to supply Iranian gas to Pakistan and India----- a proposal, which has been under periodic discussions since Benazir Bhutto's second term as the Prime Minister (1993-96) withn ups and downs in hype and euphoria--- the real reason for the satisfaction of the Pakistani leadership was the Iranian President's positive response to Pakistan's request for urgent economic assistance.
9. The Pakistani economy has been in a bad shape since the beginning of this year due to shortages of food grains, flour and electricity. The shortages in foodgrains and flour have caused acute economic hardship to the people. The erratic electric supply has affected industrial production,which has also been affected by frequent disruptions in the supply of gas from Balochistan due to attacks on the pipelines from Balochistan to Punjab by the Balochistan Liberation Army(BLA). In response to reportedly desperate requests from Musharraf and Gilani,
10. On the question of the gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan, there were contradictory versions of the outcome of the talks despite the orchestrated atmosphere of optimism which Mr.Ahmadinejad himself tried to spread in Islamabad and New Delhi. While the "News" and the "Daily Times" gave an optimistic assessment as if all issues involving India, Pakistan and Iran had been sorted out on matters like price, the transit fee etc during the visit of Mr.Murli Deora, the Indian Petroleum Minister, to Pakistan before the Iranian President's visit, the "Dawn" of Karachi, which is better informed and which has its feet firmly on the ground, gave a more guarded picture. Quoting what it described as "diplomatic observers", the "Dawn" (April 29) said: "Several contentious issues remain to be addressed." It did not specify what were those contentious issues.
11. The 'Hindu" of Chennai was even more cautious than the "Dawn". It reported as follows on April 30,2008: " Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon reaffirmed Mr.Ahmadinejad's optimism, but cautioned that a long road lay ahead to ensure that the project was commercially viable, financially acceptable to India and all security concerns were taken care of."
12. There are various dimensions to this castle-building in the air over the gas pipeline from Iran. Among them, the following:
Financial: Both India and Pakistan are reported to have made it clear that Iran has to raise the funds (about US $ 7.5 billion) for the construction of the pipeline. Where is it going to get it when it has been facing difficulty for years in raising in the international market the funds required by it for the modernisation of its own oil and gas industries. The Americans are determined to see that unless and until it winds up its nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz, it is not able to raise a single cent in the international market.
Technical: The proposed pipeline will pass through earthquake prone areas on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border. Iran does not have the required technology for its construction. Only Western pipeline construction companies and those in Russia and China have it. The Western (including Australian) companies would not help because of the US pressure and the UN sanctions. Russia might help, but would want to be paid for it in cash. China would be prepared to help provided it is paid in kind in the form of a share of the gas to be transported. If Iran agrees to it, it would become a four-party project involving Iran, Pakistan, India and China and the entire proposal will have to be re-negotiated.
Security: The pipeline has to pass through Baloch majority areas on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border. The Balochs in Iran, who are Sunnis, are being assisted by the Americans through organisations such as the Jundullah to destabilise the border areas of Iran. The Balochs in Pakistan have also risen in revolt against the Government in Islamabad and are fighting for an independent Balochistan. They are demanding that they should also be a party to the gas pipeline project, which will pass through their homeland, and that they should get a share of the transit fee, which Pakistan hopes to get from India.
13. None of these really major issues has so far been addressed. The only issues addressed so far are the price of the gas and the transit fee to be paid by India to Pakistan. These are the least complex and the least difficult of the issues. The above-mentioned issues are much more complex and difficult. Iran, Pakistan and India have been misleading public opinion by creating an impression that just because an agreement has been reached on the pricing and transit fees, the pipeline is for tomorrow. It is not. There is still a long road ahead.
14. Spins, meant to generate an unwarranted atmosphere of optimism, are not confined to the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. The spins also cover the proposed oil/gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan. Iran is not involved in this project, which has the total blessing of the US. The idea of this project was originally initiated by the UNOCAL of the US in 1994, when Benazir was the Prime Minister. Since then it has been under discussion. After the Taliban captured power in Kabul in September,1996, UNOCAL lost interest in the project. After 9/11, most Western companies lost interest in the project because of the on-going military operations against Al Qaeda and the Neo Taliban in the area. Only the Asian Development Bank (ADB), which is keenly interested in the project, kept the talks going even though there were no takers from major Western pipeline construction companies.
15. In the case of the Iranian pipeline, there is neither money nor construction offers. In the case of the Turkmenistan pipeline,money is available, but concrete construction offers are not forthcoming due to the security situation. As per the current proposal, the pipeline will pass through Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. While the security situation in Herat is improving, that in Kandahar is as bad as ever. Till Al Qaeda and the Neo Taliban are decisively defeated by the NATO forces, this pipeline is unlikely to take off. In response to an invitation from the sponsors, India has also joined this project and Mr.Deora participated in discussions on this project also during his recent visit to Pakistan. The US was also keen that India should join this project as it could provide an attractive alternative to the Iranian pipeline project. When both the projects are struggling to take off, the question of an attractive alternative does not arise.
16. The "Dawn" wrote on April 19,2008: "Pakistan had planned to start work on the (Turkmenistan) project in 2007 and complete it by 2011. But the target was missed. The project is now envisaged to be completed by 2018."
17. India had no difficulty in accepting Iran's proposal for a stop-over visit by Mr. Ahmadinejad to New Delhi. In view of the slowing-down of the operalionalisation of the India-US nuclear co-operation deal due to opposition from the Communists, likely US sensitivities on Iran were not an inhibiting factor in the way of inviting him. However, caution dictated a low-profile visit, which would not be too jarring to the US. While Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh hosted a private dinner for the Iranian President, he avoided any public fraternisation with him similar to the fraternisation which one saw in Islamabad and Colombo. However, the Iranian Embassy in New Delhi succeeded in giving to the visit a higher profile than what the Government of India had wanted. Mr.Ahmadinejad fully utilised his press conference, which was not attended by the Indian Prime Minister, to taunt and ridicule the US as a bully and a decaying power.
18. As one saw Mr.Ahmadinejad doing it, one's mind went back to the period before 2003 when another West Asian leader was using similar language against the US. He and his country paid a heavy price for it. His name was Saddam Hussein.
19. As one witnessed the demeanour and heard the anti-US rhetoric of Mr.Ahmadinejad during his diplomatic foray into South Asia, one got the impression that he feels that he no longer has to fear any US intervention in Iran over the issue of its uranium enrichment project.More by coincidence than by design, two reports, which should be worrisome for the Iranian leadership, came from Washington DC before the diplomatic foray of Mr. Ahmadinejad. First, the US decision to send a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. Second, a briefing for a Congressional Committee by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on a mysterious bombing of a construction site in Syria in September, 2007, by an unidentified aircaft. The CIA confirmed what was being speculated about since then, namely, that the construction site was destroyed by an Israeli aircraft because it was to be a nuclear reactor being set up by Syria with North Korean assistance.
20. Was it a message to Mr.Ahmadinejad that what Israel did to Iraq by destroying the Osirak nuclear construction site in the early 1980s and to Syria last September, it could do to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz in Iran. Of course, it won't be that easy. In Iraq and Syria, the Israelis bombed a construction site and not operational nuclear reactors. Natanz is not a project under construction. It is an already constructed and operational set-up located underground. The Iranians feel confident that Israel will not be able to damage or destroy Natanz. Their confidence also derives from the fact that Iran is a much stronger military power than Iraq or Syria and that the US, in their perception, has to depend on Iran for restoring normalcy in Iraq.
21. But the history of Israel shows that when it genuinely fears a threat to it and its people from the potential nuclear capability of an adversary state, it finds a way of neutralising that threat, whatever be the difficulties. Mr.Ahmadinejad's self-confidence may prove to be short-lived.
Personal sanctions: blacklisted by my bank for living in Iran
By Fredrik Dahl
Friday, May 09, 2008, Daily Star, Beirut
First person by Fredrik Dahl
TEHRAN: "Your account has been blocked because of your address ... It's not personal." The bank employee in Brussels sounded almost apologetic when she told me my business was no longer wanted since I live in Iran, which is under tightening United Nations and US sanctions over its nuclear program.
I argued with her over a scratchy phone line: "But I'm a European Union citizen."
It was in vain.
The account I had opened with Banque Bruxelles Lambert (BBL) when I worked in the Belgian capital in the mid-1990s was frozen, and I must move my money elsewhere.
Iran was among countries on a "black list" the bank had, she told me: "It is impossible to work with your address."
Based in Tehran over the last year, this was the first time I was personally affected by financial and other sanctions on the world's fourth-largest oil producer.
With Western banks cutting ties with the Islamic Republic, it is becoming more and more difficult to transfer funds to the country of 70 million people.
Tehran's increasing financial isolation is forcing some to bring in money by hand in thick wads of $100 bills on the plane from Dubai, the Gulf's financial center, or elsewhere. Iranian friends and other expatriates I know also complain they are no longer able to open or hold dollar accounts abroad.
But I was still surprised to receive a call from Dutch financial services group ING, which bought BBL in the late 1990s, informing me there was a problem with my account. I had thought it was safe as it was in euros and I had never used it to transfer money to or from Iran.
We were cut off, so I called the branch in Brussels which I have dealt with for more than a decade.
"It's international politics from what I understand," the bank employee explained after confirming the news.
An ING spokesman in Amsterdam, Raymond Vermeulen, gave me more details. He said that the bank took a "business decision" last year to stop most dealings linked to Iran but that the number of clients this decision affected was limited.
"There is a whole set of international regulations and sanctions and they require extensive screening procedures and compliance processes," he said. "This has led to vastly increased costs for processing transactions with a country like Iran."
ING's annual report for 2007 also said it was halting business with North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria and Cuba - all of which face various US punitive measures.
Washington is spearheading a drive to isolate Iran over work it suspects is aimed at making nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran rejects, but Vermeulen declined to say whether US pressure had played a role in ING's decision.
I toyed with the idea of challenging the bank but opted in the end to send my money to another bank in Europe, while reflecting over how my modest financial assets had been caught up in a deepening standoff over Iran's nuclear program.
Western banks including Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Credit Suisse have either stopped transactions with Iran in United States currency or severed ties altogether.
Anecdotal evidence suggests there are still ways around the restrictions: A fellow Swede says he can transfer money to Iran from his bank in the Nordics and an Iranian woman I know receives funds from France via a third country. Others give their bank addresses outside Iran to keep their accounts open.
But the net seems to be tightening, with fewer and fewer banks willing to engage in any Iran-linked business.
"In reaction to United States and multilateral actions, the world's leading financial institutions have largely stopped dealing with Iran, and especially Iranian banks, in any currency," senior US Treasury official Stuart Levey said last month.
Iran, which says it earned $70 billion from oil exports over the last year, has shrugged off the impact of the sanctions.
But for me, at least, they are starting to bite.
Fredrik Dahl is a Reuters correspondent in Iran.
By Fredrik Dahl
Friday, May 09, 2008, Daily Star, Beirut
First person by Fredrik Dahl
TEHRAN: "Your account has been blocked because of your address ... It's not personal." The bank employee in Brussels sounded almost apologetic when she told me my business was no longer wanted since I live in Iran, which is under tightening United Nations and US sanctions over its nuclear program.
I argued with her over a scratchy phone line: "But I'm a European Union citizen."
It was in vain.
The account I had opened with Banque Bruxelles Lambert (BBL) when I worked in the Belgian capital in the mid-1990s was frozen, and I must move my money elsewhere.
Iran was among countries on a "black list" the bank had, she told me: "It is impossible to work with your address."
Based in Tehran over the last year, this was the first time I was personally affected by financial and other sanctions on the world's fourth-largest oil producer.
With Western banks cutting ties with the Islamic Republic, it is becoming more and more difficult to transfer funds to the country of 70 million people.
Tehran's increasing financial isolation is forcing some to bring in money by hand in thick wads of $100 bills on the plane from Dubai, the Gulf's financial center, or elsewhere. Iranian friends and other expatriates I know also complain they are no longer able to open or hold dollar accounts abroad.
But I was still surprised to receive a call from Dutch financial services group ING, which bought BBL in the late 1990s, informing me there was a problem with my account. I had thought it was safe as it was in euros and I had never used it to transfer money to or from Iran.
We were cut off, so I called the branch in Brussels which I have dealt with for more than a decade.
"It's international politics from what I understand," the bank employee explained after confirming the news.
An ING spokesman in Amsterdam, Raymond Vermeulen, gave me more details. He said that the bank took a "business decision" last year to stop most dealings linked to Iran but that the number of clients this decision affected was limited.
"There is a whole set of international regulations and sanctions and they require extensive screening procedures and compliance processes," he said. "This has led to vastly increased costs for processing transactions with a country like Iran."
ING's annual report for 2007 also said it was halting business with North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria and Cuba - all of which face various US punitive measures.
Washington is spearheading a drive to isolate Iran over work it suspects is aimed at making nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran rejects, but Vermeulen declined to say whether US pressure had played a role in ING's decision.
I toyed with the idea of challenging the bank but opted in the end to send my money to another bank in Europe, while reflecting over how my modest financial assets had been caught up in a deepening standoff over Iran's nuclear program.
Western banks including Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Credit Suisse have either stopped transactions with Iran in United States currency or severed ties altogether.
Anecdotal evidence suggests there are still ways around the restrictions: A fellow Swede says he can transfer money to Iran from his bank in the Nordics and an Iranian woman I know receives funds from France via a third country. Others give their bank addresses outside Iran to keep their accounts open.
But the net seems to be tightening, with fewer and fewer banks willing to engage in any Iran-linked business.
"In reaction to United States and multilateral actions, the world's leading financial institutions have largely stopped dealing with Iran, and especially Iranian banks, in any currency," senior US Treasury official Stuart Levey said last month.
Iran, which says it earned $70 billion from oil exports over the last year, has shrugged off the impact of the sanctions.
But for me, at least, they are starting to bite.
Fredrik Dahl is a Reuters correspondent in Iran.
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/05/13/stor ... 891000.htm
Good move by GoI in pushing the IAEA as a potential solution to the Iran issue.
[quote]
Pranab calls for deeper global engagement with Iran
Atul Aneja
“This can help promote peace and stability in Iraq, Palestineâ€
Good move by GoI in pushing the IAEA as a potential solution to the Iran issue.
[quote]
Pranab calls for deeper global engagement with Iran
Atul Aneja
“This can help promote peace and stability in Iraq, Palestineâ€
It is by no means a given that Zbig will have any part in BO's administration (if BO becomes president etc.), but BO does speak/think very highly of Zbig, which is very relevant. ZB endorsing BO does not seem relevant in terms of BO's policy direction. There is no "guilt by association" w.r.t. ZB -- his views on Iran a quite a bit mellower than that of the current admin.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7203/iran.html
Too long to post in entirety -- some interesting excerpts.
GATES is BOB GATES ex-CIA head.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7203/iran.html
Too long to post in entirety -- some interesting excerpts.
GATES is BOB GATES ex-CIA head.
ZB: Broadly speaking, we advocate engaging with Iran in a direct dialogue on specific issues of regional stabilization, to encourage a constructive Iranian posture in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also urge Washington to play an active role in the Middle East peace process, and to press Arab leaders to support that process and any ultimate agreements, as these efforts will help marginalize the destabilizing forces that Iranian hard-liners continue to support. Thank you.
GATES: I would just— I would add one additional point in terms of what's changed, and that is that the United States over the past two-and-a-half years has eliminated two of Iran's greatest security threats, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. American forces are now on both of Iran's borders, east and west, with 140,000 American troops just to the west. That alone, I think, has created a different situation, a different environment in the region, and potentially creates an opportunity where Iran might see its own interests advantaged by engaging in a dialogue. But as I indicated in my remarks, there is no assurance that these changed circumstances will lead to progress, but we think they create the opportunity to at least try.
GATES: I think it basically is embracing reality. They are going forward with this program. They are going forward with it with the help of France and Russia. We have tried for more than 10 years to stop it. When I was director of central intelligence and in Moscow in 1992, I took them on directly about their Russian help— Soviet help and Russian help for the Iranian nuclear program, and it was clear that they had no intention of abandoning it. And they have continued that.
So if that is the reality that we face, then what role can we play in trying to make sure that that program is in fact used for peaceful purposes and not for nuclear weapons? Our ability to stop that program, for the reasons that I suggested earlier, is very limited.
QUESTIONER: Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service. I wanted to know whether you thought, on balance, the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation and current situation in Iraq has weakened or strengthened the U.S. position vis-Ã -vis its influence on Iran?
FEINSTEIN: OK. And we'll make this the final set of questions.
GATES: OK. First, we had considerable discussion of the political forces at work in Iran and the different hues of conservatives in the regime, including some discussion of pragmatic conservatives. I remember considerable discussion in the mid-1980s in the U.S. about pragmatic conservatives and various others.
Clearly, there are differences in shadings among the different conservatives in the regime. But I think that what we have to wait and see is if it has— if that emergence or if their voice has an impact on the proposed engagement that we advocate.
In terms of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, I think it probably— my personal opinion is that it has probably strengthened our position vis-à -vis Iran. After all, we've— we now have a military presence on both sides of Iran. We have 140,000 troops next door. Clearly the Iranians have to look at that and see that the strategic situation in their neighborhood has changed in a significant way.
The road to peace in Iraq runs directly through Tehran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... /iraq.iran
Hysteria over this week's arms report is misplaced, and US attempts to cast Iran as the villain of the region can only backfire
Jonathan Steele The Guardian, Friday May 30 2008
Article history
Guessing whether Washington's Iran policy is moving nearer or farther from military attack is almost as hard as guessing what is going on in Tehran. A debate is under way in both capitals but the signals are obscure. As Winston Churchill purportedly said about power struggles in the Kremlin: "It's like watching two bloodhounds fighting under a carpet. You can detect a furious battle but you have no idea who's winning."
On the downside, take the US reaction to the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran, which Gregory Schulte, the chief US delegate, describes as "stonewalling" and a "direct rebuttal" of Iran's argument that it has already satisfactorily answered all nuclear questions. Take also the comments from John McCain, the Republican contender for the White House, accusing his rival Barack Obama of being naive in even offering to talk to Iran.
On the plus side comes the announcement that Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, is to travel to Tehran shortly with a package of incentives for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment. The Bush administration will not send one of its officials with Solana's group of Europeans but has endorsed the new offer.
Another broadly positive development was Wednesday's landslide victory for Ali Larijani when the Iranian parliament elected a new speaker. According to experts, Larijani is not a member of the ruling elite's reformist or pragmatic camps. He remains a hardliner. But analysts point to his resignation as chief nuclear negotiator in October, apparently in protest at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's abrasive international statements. Larijani's re-emergence in a powerful post is seen as a possible signal of a more sophisticated Iran, even though in his acceptance speech Larijani warned the IAEA that Iran would limit its cooperation if the agency produced another "deplorable" report.
Epithets aside, the IAEA report was the usual mixture of good and bad points. Contrary to most western news accounts, it was not unusually harsh. It did not express IAEA frustration or accuse Iran of a willful lack of cooperation. In fact, it said all activities at Iran's fuel-enrichment plants remained under IAEA containment and surveillance. It then outlined a series of areas where Iran needed to provide answers. Many relate to the "alleged studies", a shorthand phrase for material given by US intelligence agencies to the IAEA, which the IAEA is not allowed to pass on to Iran except in broad outline. While claiming the material is forged, the Iranians have begun to provide answers on some points. Although news accounts described Iran's behaviour as "a matter of serious concern", the IAEA used these words for the allegations, not Iran's response to them.
To some, this may all sound like dancing on a pinhead. But Scott McClellan, Bush's former press secretary, has just accused his former boss of manipulating the truth and mounting a dishonest propaganda campaign against Iraq before the invasion. We ignore similar efforts against Iran at our peril.
That said, the Iranians are probably waiting, like everyone else, to see whether Obama wins the White House and makes good on his promise to open a comprehensive dialogue with Iran. Direct talks between Washington and Tehran offer a far greater hope of detente than anything Solana is bringing. What Iran wants above all is an end to US hostility, and reliable guarantees that Iran's security concerns in the region are recognised. This is not likely to come in the dying months of Bush's presidency or from McCain, as they try to stoke Sunni-versus-Shia hostility throughout the Gulf.
Neither man is willing to admit that Iran has legitimate interests in Iraq. Iran was attacked by Iraq in the 1980s and has no wish to see the current regime signing up to an agreement for the US to have bases there. Hence Tehran's assiduous wooing of the government in Baghdad. Tehran also has close links to Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, but avoids having to choose between these two allies. It was largely thanks to Iran's good offices that a ceasefire quickly ended the recent fighting in Basra between the Iraqi army and the Mahdi army.
Indeed, the irony of today's Baghdad is that Iran has an embassy there while none of Bush's Arab allies, neither Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, do. This was underlined in Sweden yesterday at a conference of international donors, which was attended by the Iranian foreign minister but boycotted by most of his Arab counterparts. Condoleezza Rice pleaded in vain for them to come.
Washington is caught in a bind. On the one hand, for the purpose of showing its occupation has "worked", it does all it can to boost the status and authority of Iraq's government, even though Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his sectarian party remain firmly against sharing power with Sunnis. Worse still, in its zeal to exclude Sadr, the US is forcing al-Maliki more closely into the arms of the Kurdish parties and the other main Shia party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. They support the idea of a loose federalism that could lead to the breakup of Iraq - an outcome which many in Tehran would welcome.
On the other hand, in order to minimise anti-occupation resistance from Iraq's Sunni nationalists, Washington is financing new Sunni militias and encouraging anti-Shia and anti-Iranian prejudice among them. On the international stage it pursues the same strategy by trying to create an anti-Iranian alliance of Sunni-led Arab states. If Iran can be portrayed as a regional threat, it will be easier - so the thinking goes - for the US to pose as the indispensable policeman in the Gulf.
A new US approach is urgently needed. Peace and stability can only be reached in Iraq with Iran's cooperation, and this will not happen until the US president announces a timetable for leaving Iraq. As for stability in the region, this will not be decided by a few adjectives in an IAEA report, nor by UN security council sanctions. Whatever one's view of Iranian intentions, even the most sceptical analyst does not believe Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it for several years.
The more immediate danger is that the Gulf becomes a theatre for artificial Sunni-versus-Shia tensions, deliberately stoked by outsiders. There is no axis of evil. There is no arc of crisis. There is just a series of states which need sovereignty and mutual respect, and the chance to trade and work together.
· Jonathan Steele's book, Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq, was published earlier this year
j.steele@guardian.co.uk
PS:As Steele says,Iran will never tolerate US bases in Iraq and will hedge its bets until there is movement on withdrawal of US+ forces.However,what cannot be ruled out is a US attack before Bush demits office.Toxic lunatics like Dick Cheney,who has covertly been running the neo-imperialist show,is all for attacking Iran in force over its nuclear ambitions.The latest revelation by AQ Khan,that he lied under pressure from Musharraf about Pak's proliferation and that the west also helped sell nuclear tech to Pak is an acute embarrassment for the US too.Israeli PM Olmert,who called for a naval blockade is almost out,thanks to a corruption scandal and elections may be round the corner,making any attack/blockade on Iran more difficult.
An earlier report this year about Iran's two stage "satellite launcher",effectively a long range liquid fuelled missile,cast suspicions of N.Korean assistance.It cannot be dismissed that Iran has in the past and perhaps right now as well,has received substantial assistance from Pak,N.Korea and China,with its nuclear and missile programmes.In fact it serves China best to have a well armed Iran at the mouth of the Gulf,right next to nuclear Pak to insure supplies of petro- prouducts from the Gulf to China.Treating Iran like a pariah state,as the US is doing, only steels its resolve not to be bullied.Dialogue is essential.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... /iraq.iran
Hysteria over this week's arms report is misplaced, and US attempts to cast Iran as the villain of the region can only backfire
Jonathan Steele The Guardian, Friday May 30 2008
Article history
Guessing whether Washington's Iran policy is moving nearer or farther from military attack is almost as hard as guessing what is going on in Tehran. A debate is under way in both capitals but the signals are obscure. As Winston Churchill purportedly said about power struggles in the Kremlin: "It's like watching two bloodhounds fighting under a carpet. You can detect a furious battle but you have no idea who's winning."
On the downside, take the US reaction to the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran, which Gregory Schulte, the chief US delegate, describes as "stonewalling" and a "direct rebuttal" of Iran's argument that it has already satisfactorily answered all nuclear questions. Take also the comments from John McCain, the Republican contender for the White House, accusing his rival Barack Obama of being naive in even offering to talk to Iran.
On the plus side comes the announcement that Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, is to travel to Tehran shortly with a package of incentives for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment. The Bush administration will not send one of its officials with Solana's group of Europeans but has endorsed the new offer.
Another broadly positive development was Wednesday's landslide victory for Ali Larijani when the Iranian parliament elected a new speaker. According to experts, Larijani is not a member of the ruling elite's reformist or pragmatic camps. He remains a hardliner. But analysts point to his resignation as chief nuclear negotiator in October, apparently in protest at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's abrasive international statements. Larijani's re-emergence in a powerful post is seen as a possible signal of a more sophisticated Iran, even though in his acceptance speech Larijani warned the IAEA that Iran would limit its cooperation if the agency produced another "deplorable" report.
Epithets aside, the IAEA report was the usual mixture of good and bad points. Contrary to most western news accounts, it was not unusually harsh. It did not express IAEA frustration or accuse Iran of a willful lack of cooperation. In fact, it said all activities at Iran's fuel-enrichment plants remained under IAEA containment and surveillance. It then outlined a series of areas where Iran needed to provide answers. Many relate to the "alleged studies", a shorthand phrase for material given by US intelligence agencies to the IAEA, which the IAEA is not allowed to pass on to Iran except in broad outline. While claiming the material is forged, the Iranians have begun to provide answers on some points. Although news accounts described Iran's behaviour as "a matter of serious concern", the IAEA used these words for the allegations, not Iran's response to them.
To some, this may all sound like dancing on a pinhead. But Scott McClellan, Bush's former press secretary, has just accused his former boss of manipulating the truth and mounting a dishonest propaganda campaign against Iraq before the invasion. We ignore similar efforts against Iran at our peril.
That said, the Iranians are probably waiting, like everyone else, to see whether Obama wins the White House and makes good on his promise to open a comprehensive dialogue with Iran. Direct talks between Washington and Tehran offer a far greater hope of detente than anything Solana is bringing. What Iran wants above all is an end to US hostility, and reliable guarantees that Iran's security concerns in the region are recognised. This is not likely to come in the dying months of Bush's presidency or from McCain, as they try to stoke Sunni-versus-Shia hostility throughout the Gulf.
Neither man is willing to admit that Iran has legitimate interests in Iraq. Iran was attacked by Iraq in the 1980s and has no wish to see the current regime signing up to an agreement for the US to have bases there. Hence Tehran's assiduous wooing of the government in Baghdad. Tehran also has close links to Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, but avoids having to choose between these two allies. It was largely thanks to Iran's good offices that a ceasefire quickly ended the recent fighting in Basra between the Iraqi army and the Mahdi army.
Indeed, the irony of today's Baghdad is that Iran has an embassy there while none of Bush's Arab allies, neither Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, do. This was underlined in Sweden yesterday at a conference of international donors, which was attended by the Iranian foreign minister but boycotted by most of his Arab counterparts. Condoleezza Rice pleaded in vain for them to come.
Washington is caught in a bind. On the one hand, for the purpose of showing its occupation has "worked", it does all it can to boost the status and authority of Iraq's government, even though Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his sectarian party remain firmly against sharing power with Sunnis. Worse still, in its zeal to exclude Sadr, the US is forcing al-Maliki more closely into the arms of the Kurdish parties and the other main Shia party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. They support the idea of a loose federalism that could lead to the breakup of Iraq - an outcome which many in Tehran would welcome.
On the other hand, in order to minimise anti-occupation resistance from Iraq's Sunni nationalists, Washington is financing new Sunni militias and encouraging anti-Shia and anti-Iranian prejudice among them. On the international stage it pursues the same strategy by trying to create an anti-Iranian alliance of Sunni-led Arab states. If Iran can be portrayed as a regional threat, it will be easier - so the thinking goes - for the US to pose as the indispensable policeman in the Gulf.
A new US approach is urgently needed. Peace and stability can only be reached in Iraq with Iran's cooperation, and this will not happen until the US president announces a timetable for leaving Iraq. As for stability in the region, this will not be decided by a few adjectives in an IAEA report, nor by UN security council sanctions. Whatever one's view of Iranian intentions, even the most sceptical analyst does not believe Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it for several years.
The more immediate danger is that the Gulf becomes a theatre for artificial Sunni-versus-Shia tensions, deliberately stoked by outsiders. There is no axis of evil. There is no arc of crisis. There is just a series of states which need sovereignty and mutual respect, and the chance to trade and work together.
· Jonathan Steele's book, Defeat: Why They Lost Iraq, was published earlier this year
j.steele@guardian.co.uk
PS:As Steele says,Iran will never tolerate US bases in Iraq and will hedge its bets until there is movement on withdrawal of US+ forces.However,what cannot be ruled out is a US attack before Bush demits office.Toxic lunatics like Dick Cheney,who has covertly been running the neo-imperialist show,is all for attacking Iran in force over its nuclear ambitions.The latest revelation by AQ Khan,that he lied under pressure from Musharraf about Pak's proliferation and that the west also helped sell nuclear tech to Pak is an acute embarrassment for the US too.Israeli PM Olmert,who called for a naval blockade is almost out,thanks to a corruption scandal and elections may be round the corner,making any attack/blockade on Iran more difficult.
An earlier report this year about Iran's two stage "satellite launcher",effectively a long range liquid fuelled missile,cast suspicions of N.Korean assistance.It cannot be dismissed that Iran has in the past and perhaps right now as well,has received substantial assistance from Pak,N.Korea and China,with its nuclear and missile programmes.In fact it serves China best to have a well armed Iran at the mouth of the Gulf,right next to nuclear Pak to insure supplies of petro- prouducts from the Gulf to China.Treating Iran like a pariah state,as the US is doing, only steels its resolve not to be bullied.Dialogue is essential.
The Iranian Pres,Ahmed-is-a-joke,has once again displayed his anti-Semitism,this time at the World Food summit in Rome.The Iranian leader by his repeated attacks against Israel,only serves to make the global community wary of Iran's nuclear ambitions and reinforces the suspicion that Iran under its current pres. has more sinister plans for its nuclear programme.The genuine rights of Iran or any other nation to pursue a peaceful programme for nuclear technology is totally overshadowed by his distasteful remarks.The nuclear "cloud" of distrust that hangs over Iran is almost entirely due to its curent joke-in-a-jacket.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Rome.html
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacks Jews at UN food summit in Rome
By Malcolm Moore in Rome
Last Updated: 2:49PM BST 03/06/2008
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has used his first trip to Western Europe to launch a new attack against Jews.
AFP/GETTY
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives at the UN food summit in Rome
Arriving in Rome for a United Nations summit, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "The people of Europe have suffered the most harm from Zionists and today the costs of that falsified regime, whether political or economic, are on Europe's shoulders."
He added: "I do not believe my statements [at the conference] will cause any problems. People love what I say because they are trying to save themselves from the oppression of Zionists."
Mr Ahmadinejad visited both Belarus and New York last year, but this is his first trip to a major European nation. Italy has refused to hold any talks with him, but was powerless to deny him entry because of United Nations rules regarding the summit.
"In the name of God, I love the Italian people, who are so rich with civilisation and history. Our two people have much shared history," he said.
Hundreds of Roman Jews protested against his presence outside the Colosseum.
Around 40 heads-of-state attended the first day of the Food Summit in Rome and Mr Ahmadinejad was due to be given the opportunity to address them and to hold a press conference on Tuesday afternoon.
Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, was also due to get the opportunity to make a speech on Tuesday afternoon and could use the opportunity to lambast the West. At a previous UN food summit, in 2005, Mr Mugabe labelled the United States and Britain as "terrorists".
His wife Grace, who, at 42, is half his age, accompanied him to the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organisation where the summit is taking place. Instead of her customary shopping trip, she is expected to attend a lunch inside the building for the wives of the heads of state.
Neither Mr Ahmadinejad or Mr Mugabe have been invited to a banquet this evening at Villa Madama for the other heads of state. The dinner is being hosted by Silvio Berlusconi and Ban Ki Moon, the secretary general of the UN. To avoid the embarrassment of not gaining entry, Mr Ahmadinejad will leave Rome this afternoon.
As the summit kicked off, the head of the United Nations called for farming to increase by 50 per cent by 2030. Jacques Diouf, the head of the FAO, warned leaders that the amount of money spent on food aid for the third world had more than halved in real terms from £4 billion in 1980 to £1.7 billion in 2004.
"Resources to finance agricultural programmes in developing countries are decreasing, not rising," he said. He said his attempt to draw attention to the problem last December, and to ask for £800 million in grants for fertilizer and seed in the third world, had been ignored.
He also criticised the emphasis placed by Western countries on global warming but the lack of attention to food. "Nobody understands how a carbon market of $64 billion can be created in developed countries to offset global warming, but that no funds can be found to prevent the annual deforestation of 13 million hectares.
"Nobody understands how $11 billion to $12 billion a year subsidies in 2006 have had the effect of diverting 100 million tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for fuel for vehicles," he said.
He called for the world to find £15 billion a year to give 862 million hungry people the right to food.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -Rome.html
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacks Jews at UN food summit in Rome
By Malcolm Moore in Rome
Last Updated: 2:49PM BST 03/06/2008
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has used his first trip to Western Europe to launch a new attack against Jews.
AFP/GETTY
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives at the UN food summit in Rome
Arriving in Rome for a United Nations summit, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "The people of Europe have suffered the most harm from Zionists and today the costs of that falsified regime, whether political or economic, are on Europe's shoulders."
He added: "I do not believe my statements [at the conference] will cause any problems. People love what I say because they are trying to save themselves from the oppression of Zionists."
Mr Ahmadinejad visited both Belarus and New York last year, but this is his first trip to a major European nation. Italy has refused to hold any talks with him, but was powerless to deny him entry because of United Nations rules regarding the summit.
"In the name of God, I love the Italian people, who are so rich with civilisation and history. Our two people have much shared history," he said.
Hundreds of Roman Jews protested against his presence outside the Colosseum.
Around 40 heads-of-state attended the first day of the Food Summit in Rome and Mr Ahmadinejad was due to be given the opportunity to address them and to hold a press conference on Tuesday afternoon.
Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, was also due to get the opportunity to make a speech on Tuesday afternoon and could use the opportunity to lambast the West. At a previous UN food summit, in 2005, Mr Mugabe labelled the United States and Britain as "terrorists".
His wife Grace, who, at 42, is half his age, accompanied him to the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organisation where the summit is taking place. Instead of her customary shopping trip, she is expected to attend a lunch inside the building for the wives of the heads of state.
Neither Mr Ahmadinejad or Mr Mugabe have been invited to a banquet this evening at Villa Madama for the other heads of state. The dinner is being hosted by Silvio Berlusconi and Ban Ki Moon, the secretary general of the UN. To avoid the embarrassment of not gaining entry, Mr Ahmadinejad will leave Rome this afternoon.
As the summit kicked off, the head of the United Nations called for farming to increase by 50 per cent by 2030. Jacques Diouf, the head of the FAO, warned leaders that the amount of money spent on food aid for the third world had more than halved in real terms from £4 billion in 1980 to £1.7 billion in 2004.
"Resources to finance agricultural programmes in developing countries are decreasing, not rising," he said. He said his attempt to draw attention to the problem last December, and to ask for £800 million in grants for fertilizer and seed in the third world, had been ignored.
He also criticised the emphasis placed by Western countries on global warming but the lack of attention to food. "Nobody understands how a carbon market of $64 billion can be created in developed countries to offset global warming, but that no funds can be found to prevent the annual deforestation of 13 million hectares.
"Nobody understands how $11 billion to $12 billion a year subsidies in 2006 have had the effect of diverting 100 million tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for fuel for vehicles," he said.
He called for the world to find £15 billion a year to give 862 million hungry people the right to food.
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2007/Aug ... yAug07.asp
India's nuke dance with Iran by PR Kumaraswamy.
India's nuke dance with Iran by PR Kumaraswamy.
Tx Rye for that interesting paper.Here is the latest "red flag" assessment from Israel,which will in all probability take place before Bush demits office,while Cheney can still call the shots.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/israel.iran
Israel and the Palestinian territories
11.15am BST'Unavoidable' attack on Iran looms, says Israeli minister.Haroon Siddique and agencies guardian.co.uk, Friday June 6 2008
An Israeli minister has said an attack on Iran's nuclear sites will be "unavoidable" if Tehran refuses to halt its alleged weapons programme.
In the most explicit threat yet by a member of Ehud Olmert's government, Shaul Mofaz, a deputy prime minister, said the hardline Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "would disappear before Israel does".
"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Mofaz, who is also Israel's transport minister, said in comments published today by the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.
"Attacking Iran in order to stop its nuclear plans will be unavoidable."
Iranian-born Mofaz is a former army chief and defence minister. He is a member of Olmert's security cabinet and leads regular strategic coordination talks with the US state department.
Iran denies trying to build nuclear weapons and has defied western pressure to abandon uranium enrichment.
The leadership in Tehran has threatened that if attacked the country will retaliate against Israel - believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal - and American targets in the region.
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map since becoming president. On Monday, he said Israel was "about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene".
Olmert met the US president, George Bush, on Wednesday to discuss concerns over Iran. The Israeli prime minister, who is being pressured to resign over a corruption scandal, has said that Iran's nuclear threat "must be stopped by all possible means".
Israeli planes bombed Syria in September, destroying what the US administration said was a partly built nuclear reactor using North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility. UN inspectors announced this week that they would be visiting Syria to investigate the American claim.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/israel.iran
Israel and the Palestinian territories
11.15am BST'Unavoidable' attack on Iran looms, says Israeli minister.Haroon Siddique and agencies guardian.co.uk, Friday June 6 2008
An Israeli minister has said an attack on Iran's nuclear sites will be "unavoidable" if Tehran refuses to halt its alleged weapons programme.
In the most explicit threat yet by a member of Ehud Olmert's government, Shaul Mofaz, a deputy prime minister, said the hardline Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "would disappear before Israel does".
"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Mofaz, who is also Israel's transport minister, said in comments published today by the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.
"Attacking Iran in order to stop its nuclear plans will be unavoidable."
Iranian-born Mofaz is a former army chief and defence minister. He is a member of Olmert's security cabinet and leads regular strategic coordination talks with the US state department.
Iran denies trying to build nuclear weapons and has defied western pressure to abandon uranium enrichment.
The leadership in Tehran has threatened that if attacked the country will retaliate against Israel - believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal - and American targets in the region.
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map since becoming president. On Monday, he said Israel was "about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene".
Olmert met the US president, George Bush, on Wednesday to discuss concerns over Iran. The Israeli prime minister, who is being pressured to resign over a corruption scandal, has said that Iran's nuclear threat "must be stopped by all possible means".
Israeli planes bombed Syria in September, destroying what the US administration said was a partly built nuclear reactor using North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility. UN inspectors announced this week that they would be visiting Syria to investigate the American claim.
More warnings from Israel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ju ... nians.iran
Israeli threat to attack Iran over nuclear weaponsIan Black, Middle East editor The Guardian, Saturday June 7 2008 Article historyIsrael "will attack" Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons, one of prime minister Ehud Olmert's deputies warned yesterday. Shaul Mofaz, a former defence minister and a contender to replace the scandal-battered Olmert, said military action would be "unavoidable" if Tehran proved able to acquire the technology to manufacture atomic bombs.
Mofaz is Israel's transport minister, but he is also a former chief of staff, privy to secret defence planning as a member of the security cabinet, and leads regular strategic talks with the US. He implied that any attack on Iran would be coordinated with Washington. "If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it," he told the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot. "The UN sanctions are ineffective."
Mofaz was born in Iran, giving his remarks extra edge after repeated threats against Israel from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has also denied the Nazi Holocaust. Ahmadinejad "would disappear before Israel does", Mofaz said.
Mofaz's remarks came at the end of a week of intense US-Israeli talks on Iran. They were also the most explicit threat yet against the Islamic Republic from a member of the Israeli government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should UN sanctions be deemed to have failed.
Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, told pro-Israeli lobbyists this week that the military option against Iran remained on the table, though he also offered "meaningful concessions" if it bowed to international demands.
Ehud Barak, the defence minister and Labour party leader, said Israel needed to do everything possible to ensure that the Iranians did not obtain nuclear power.
Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, is shortly to lead a team of high-ranking diplomats from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, who will present a package of incentives to persuade Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran has rejected it in advance.
Experts doubt whether Israel could destroy Iran's extensive and heavily defended nuclear facilities without American help. In 1981 Israel bombed and destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor. Last September its planes bombed a site in Syria that the US said was a nuclear reactor built with North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility. Israel is believed to have an arsenal of 150-400 nuclear warheads. Unlike Iran, it has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Iran denied seeking to develop nuclear weapons and insisted it would not abandon enrichment. But the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, has demanded "full disclosure" from Tehran over allegations that it covertly studied how to design a nuclear weapon. Iran has dismissed intelligence on this as baseless, forged or irrelevant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ju ... nians.iran
Israeli threat to attack Iran over nuclear weaponsIan Black, Middle East editor The Guardian, Saturday June 7 2008 Article historyIsrael "will attack" Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons, one of prime minister Ehud Olmert's deputies warned yesterday. Shaul Mofaz, a former defence minister and a contender to replace the scandal-battered Olmert, said military action would be "unavoidable" if Tehran proved able to acquire the technology to manufacture atomic bombs.
Mofaz is Israel's transport minister, but he is also a former chief of staff, privy to secret defence planning as a member of the security cabinet, and leads regular strategic talks with the US. He implied that any attack on Iran would be coordinated with Washington. "If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it," he told the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot. "The UN sanctions are ineffective."
Mofaz was born in Iran, giving his remarks extra edge after repeated threats against Israel from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has also denied the Nazi Holocaust. Ahmadinejad "would disappear before Israel does", Mofaz said.
Mofaz's remarks came at the end of a week of intense US-Israeli talks on Iran. They were also the most explicit threat yet against the Islamic Republic from a member of the Israeli government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should UN sanctions be deemed to have failed.
Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, told pro-Israeli lobbyists this week that the military option against Iran remained on the table, though he also offered "meaningful concessions" if it bowed to international demands.
Ehud Barak, the defence minister and Labour party leader, said Israel needed to do everything possible to ensure that the Iranians did not obtain nuclear power.
Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, is shortly to lead a team of high-ranking diplomats from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, who will present a package of incentives to persuade Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran has rejected it in advance.
Experts doubt whether Israel could destroy Iran's extensive and heavily defended nuclear facilities without American help. In 1981 Israel bombed and destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor. Last September its planes bombed a site in Syria that the US said was a nuclear reactor built with North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility. Israel is believed to have an arsenal of 150-400 nuclear warheads. Unlike Iran, it has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Iran denied seeking to develop nuclear weapons and insisted it would not abandon enrichment. But the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, has demanded "full disclosure" from Tehran over allegations that it covertly studied how to design a nuclear weapon. Iran has dismissed intelligence on this as baseless, forged or irrelevant.
There is nothing much iran can do to israel if attacked.
The people + mullahs will just run out into the streets, shout slogans until they are exhausted and nothing more. They might perhaps lob a few inaccurate missiles at israel which will have no effect.
Saudis and others will gladly fill the iranian opec quota under the table to keep prices low while eyeran's nuke infrastructure is taken out.
The biggest thing they can do to strike back is to withdraw from the NPT when this happen and proclaim themselves the 9th nuclear state some years later after they test a bomb.
The people + mullahs will just run out into the streets, shout slogans until they are exhausted and nothing more. They might perhaps lob a few inaccurate missiles at israel which will have no effect.
Saudis and others will gladly fill the iranian opec quota under the table to keep prices low while eyeran's nuke infrastructure is taken out.
The biggest thing they can do to strike back is to withdraw from the NPT when this happen and proclaim themselves the 9th nuclear state some years later after they test a bomb.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Britain: EU agrees to freeze Iran bank's assets
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_ ... itain_iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_ ... itain_iran
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Iran withdraws $75 billion from Europe: report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iran_assets_ ... JokgsDW7oF
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iran_assets_ ... JokgsDW7oF
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
This could possibly be because of this report.If Israel hits Iran,it will be with the backing of the US and the EU,who are getting quite fed up with Ahmed-is-a joke and his inability to come to an equitable compriomise with the intl.community.Russia has offered to enrich Iran's fuel and it is a worthwhile offer.Iran for the sake of appearances could be allowed to further its own enrichment research at home in a limited way with some IAEA monitoring to see that it is not diverted for weapons purposes.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/0 ... ran_1.html
Will Israel bomb Iran?
Reports of Israeli plans to attack Iran have surfaced yet again
June 20, 2008 10:28 AM
Reports that Israel has plans for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities refuse to go away. The New York Times today carries a story on a major military exercise Israel carried out this month, described as a "dress rehearsal" for such a raid.
Such reports surface periodically. Back in 2005, the Sunday Times ran a big story with details of how Israeli forces practised destroying a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the Negev desert.
Virtually a year after the Sunday Times story, the New Yorker's ace investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, wrote a cracking tale about how George Bush had increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack to stop Iran's nuclear programme.
As timing is everything, the question that poses itself with the latest incarnation of this "plan to attack Iran" story is why now?
This week, Gordon Brown announced new sanctions against Iran, including financial measures already agreed in principle by the EU and a vaguer reference to oil and gas sanctions yet to be decided on. Brown appeared to have bounced the EU into the new measures as Brussels had not agreed on their timing.
Be that as it may, the EU has now adopted a harder line towards Iran, as the US has been urging for some time. But is George Bush losing his ardour to hit Iran? A recent interview with the Times indicated that America's lame duck president had "mellowed" after eight years in office - talking up multilateral diplomacy instead of military action as a way out of the Iranian nuclear impasse.
Yet the recent resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of US forces in the Middle East was seen as a victory for the hawks in the administration as he was perceived to be an opponent of military action. But if we take Bush's comments to the Times, a US military strike seems less likely than before.
There have been signs that Israel, which is widely believed to have nuclear weapons of its own, is none too pleased that the US has backed off its hawkish stance. Israel publicly disagreed with the America's recent national intelligence estimate which concluded that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, although it continued to enrich uranium.
The New York Times report indicates that Israel is keeping the military option open. Whether it will actually go ahead with a strike is another matter, given the difficulties of ensuring success, not to speak of the political repercussions should there be massive civilian casualties.
But it can be surmised that Israel wanted its dress rehearsal to be leaked to serve as a clear warning to Tehran of the risks it faces should it pursue uranium enrichment, which can lead to a nuclear bomb. Such a tough line is no bad thing politically for Ehud Olmert either as the Israeli prime minister is currently engulfed in a corruption scandal. Being tough with Iran also protects him against accusations that he is being weak in agreeing to an Egyptian-brokered truce with Hamas in Gaza.
In any event, Israel is not just relying on leaks to the New York Times to get its message across to the Iranians and everyone else about its resolve in stopping Iran developing an atomic weapon. Israel last September bombed what was alleged to be a covert nuclear reactor in Syria being built with North Korean help.
According to the New York Times, Iran is taking the risk of an Israeli attack seriously enough to be strengthening its air defences. Israeli sabre-rattling and bluster may have an unintended consequence. It could speed up Iran's bomb. North Korea showed that if you have bomb, people are more inclined to talk to you rather than attack you.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/0 ... ran_1.html
Will Israel bomb Iran?
Reports of Israeli plans to attack Iran have surfaced yet again
June 20, 2008 10:28 AM
Reports that Israel has plans for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities refuse to go away. The New York Times today carries a story on a major military exercise Israel carried out this month, described as a "dress rehearsal" for such a raid.
Such reports surface periodically. Back in 2005, the Sunday Times ran a big story with details of how Israeli forces practised destroying a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the Negev desert.
Virtually a year after the Sunday Times story, the New Yorker's ace investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, wrote a cracking tale about how George Bush had increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack to stop Iran's nuclear programme.
As timing is everything, the question that poses itself with the latest incarnation of this "plan to attack Iran" story is why now?
This week, Gordon Brown announced new sanctions against Iran, including financial measures already agreed in principle by the EU and a vaguer reference to oil and gas sanctions yet to be decided on. Brown appeared to have bounced the EU into the new measures as Brussels had not agreed on their timing.
Be that as it may, the EU has now adopted a harder line towards Iran, as the US has been urging for some time. But is George Bush losing his ardour to hit Iran? A recent interview with the Times indicated that America's lame duck president had "mellowed" after eight years in office - talking up multilateral diplomacy instead of military action as a way out of the Iranian nuclear impasse.
Yet the recent resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of US forces in the Middle East was seen as a victory for the hawks in the administration as he was perceived to be an opponent of military action. But if we take Bush's comments to the Times, a US military strike seems less likely than before.
There have been signs that Israel, which is widely believed to have nuclear weapons of its own, is none too pleased that the US has backed off its hawkish stance. Israel publicly disagreed with the America's recent national intelligence estimate which concluded that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, although it continued to enrich uranium.
The New York Times report indicates that Israel is keeping the military option open. Whether it will actually go ahead with a strike is another matter, given the difficulties of ensuring success, not to speak of the political repercussions should there be massive civilian casualties.
But it can be surmised that Israel wanted its dress rehearsal to be leaked to serve as a clear warning to Tehran of the risks it faces should it pursue uranium enrichment, which can lead to a nuclear bomb. Such a tough line is no bad thing politically for Ehud Olmert either as the Israeli prime minister is currently engulfed in a corruption scandal. Being tough with Iran also protects him against accusations that he is being weak in agreeing to an Egyptian-brokered truce with Hamas in Gaza.
In any event, Israel is not just relying on leaks to the New York Times to get its message across to the Iranians and everyone else about its resolve in stopping Iran developing an atomic weapon. Israel last September bombed what was alleged to be a covert nuclear reactor in Syria being built with North Korean help.
According to the New York Times, Iran is taking the risk of an Israeli attack seriously enough to be strengthening its air defences. Israeli sabre-rattling and bluster may have an unintended consequence. It could speed up Iran's bomb. North Korea showed that if you have bomb, people are more inclined to talk to you rather than attack you.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Philip, I think the stuff about the new AQK designs is quite disturbing. I think the Iranians turned some TSP stuff after 2003 to get out of the hotseat while retaining the other stuff. The fact that its on electronic files means there could be copies in a lot of places. Its a very intiresting times. I wonder where is PRC in all this? They have proliferated in areas to create new areas of unstability to challenge existing world order.
-
Raju
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
two videos from Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrXFuemGCo8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LJBDNucAws
did not realise that 15000 Iranian volunteers fought in the SS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrXFuemGCo8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LJBDNucAws
did not realise that 15000 Iranian volunteers fought in the SS.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
From today's NY Times.
Israeli exercise - rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Israeli exercise - rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
<snip..Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.
More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.
The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.
<snip>
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
To me the latest US agreement with North Korea, to have them scrap their reactor, is the most damning evidence that there's going to be an imminent strike against Iran:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080627/ts_ ... a_north_dc
Shoring up ties to stabilize the North Korean front is a telltale sign that the Americans are going to make a destabilizing move on the Iranian front.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080627/ts_ ... a_north_dc
Shoring up ties to stabilize the North Korean front is a telltale sign that the Americans are going to make a destabilizing move on the Iranian front.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
I think you are right dude.
The US has invested massive amounts of money into its conventional military power. They are not about to let be it get neutralized by some country like Iran producing nukes.
But ultimately the Iranian nuclear program can only be slowed down by bombings, not stopped. If the hope is to bomb them and then force them to the negotiating table, it will surely backfire just like Saddam's plan to conquer them through a quick invasion in the 80s.
Any nation that is determined to get the bomb will eventually get it.
The US has invested massive amounts of money into its conventional military power. They are not about to let be it get neutralized by some country like Iran producing nukes.
But ultimately the Iranian nuclear program can only be slowed down by bombings, not stopped. If the hope is to bomb them and then force them to the negotiating table, it will surely backfire just like Saddam's plan to conquer them through a quick invasion in the 80s.
Any nation that is determined to get the bomb will eventually get it.
-
pradeepe
- BRFite
- Posts: 741
- Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
- Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
In that case expect oil to hit 300USD.Sanjay M wrote:To me the latest US agreement with North Korea, to have them scrap their reactor, is the most damning evidence that there's going to be an imminent strike against Iran:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080627/ts_ ... a_north_dc
Shoring up ties to stabilize the North Korean front is a telltale sign that the Americans are going to make a destabilizing move on the Iranian front.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
India would benefit from a US strike on Iran, as a conflict between the 2 would inevitably escalate and could only end with regime-change there. An Iran that is returned to the pro-US camp would totally deprive Pakistan of its strategic worth, as was the case prior to the 1979 revolution.Neshant wrote:I think you are right dude.
The US has invested massive amounts of money into its conventional military power. They are not about to let be it get neutralized by some country like Iran producing nukes.
But ultimately the Iranian nuclear program can only be slowed down by bombings, not stopped. If the hope is to bomb them and then force them to the negotiating table, it will surely backfire just like Saddam's plan to conquer them through a quick invasion in the 80s.
Any nation that is determined to get the bomb will eventually get it.
That is the key benefit to India, although we also don't need more Islamic nukes in the region.
A nuclear-armed Iran would only mean that every Arab country will rush to similarly develop its nuclear arsenal.
(Come to think of it, this would also destroy that rotten NPT in the process, but still, we would face increasing threats.)
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
[ur=http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080628/ts_ ... rds_oil_dc]Iran to Commandeer Shipping Lanes If Attacked[/url]
-
ashish raval
- BRFite
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
I think Iranians are overconfident of their capabilities to inflict the damage to American forces. Guess they have never thought about the amount of firepower that US forces uses in "Shock and Awe" move. This time it will be America+Israel+Nato combined. They dont stand a chance for more than 1 month and i am sure all their missiles + air defense systems will be located and destroyed with blink of an eye. They may not survive the barrage of cruise missiles that will come from afghanistan, arabian sea, israel, saudi arabia, caspian sea, turkey, kuwait and iraq. American forces have transferred unprecedented firepower in the region to subdue Iran because they that they are going to deal with not just iran but syria, hamas and hizbollah together.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
> India would benefit from a US strike on Iran, as a conflict between the 2 would inevitably
> escalate and could only end with regime-change there.
Regime change in Iran is not to the benefit of India.
If Iran fell to the US, America would effectively be in control of vast amounts of the world's energy resources (Iraq + Iran + bunch of gulf sheikdoms) and India's energy security would be in trouble. This is not even counting Canada which is an ally of the US. If for any reason US wanted to harm India, all it would have to do is get its energy allies to halt shipments of oil/gas to India temporarily and that would be enough to screw the economy.
US essentially wants a monopoly over energy resources of the world and thereby control both India and China.
India is not affected by Iran, Arabs, North Korea or others getting nukes. US & China have already damaged India's security by selectively leaking the bomb to Paksitan.
> escalate and could only end with regime-change there.
Regime change in Iran is not to the benefit of India.
If Iran fell to the US, America would effectively be in control of vast amounts of the world's energy resources (Iraq + Iran + bunch of gulf sheikdoms) and India's energy security would be in trouble. This is not even counting Canada which is an ally of the US. If for any reason US wanted to harm India, all it would have to do is get its energy allies to halt shipments of oil/gas to India temporarily and that would be enough to screw the economy.
US essentially wants a monopoly over energy resources of the world and thereby control both India and China.
India is not affected by Iran, Arabs, North Korea or others getting nukes. US & China have already damaged India's security by selectively leaking the bomb to Paksitan.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
In the short term. But in the long term India needs a stable ME so that it can get energy pipe inside India.Neshant wrote:> India would benefit from a US strike on Iran, as a conflict between the 2 would inevitably
> escalate and could only end with regime-change there.
Regime change in Iran is not to the benefit of India.
Indians could travel from India over land to Iran and further into Turkey and Europe. Some americans/eu told me remember that they could do it before 1970s.
Connecting the asian landmass is the final frontier and major powers dont want this.
In the short term yes. But It will invite other powers into this region including EU, Russia, China and Japan. India cannot count on only Iran for energy supplies. It has to spread it among few countries.If Iran fell to the US, America would effectively be in control of vast amounts of the world's energy resources (Iraq + Iran + bunch of gulf sheikdoms) and India's energy security would be in trouble. This is not even counting Canada which is an ally of the US. If for any reason US wanted to harm India, all it would have to do is get its energy allies to halt shipments of oil/gas to India temporarily and that would be enough to screw the economy.
Read the new book in the book thread - Rising powers and Shrinking Planet. This question is answered. US wants to make sure that ME off limits to other countries.
This is true.US essentially wants a monopoly over energy resources of the world and thereby control both India and China.
Nukes have their own dynamics. They can unite people and countries.India is not affected by Iran, Arabs, North Korea or others getting nukes. US & China have already damaged India's security by selectively leaking the bomb to Paksitan.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
From what I wrote earlier on March 17th:
.....The two ISI bosses reached an agreement with the Americans: they would launch destabilization operations in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchistan, where Sunnis form the majority of inhabitants, by inciting a number of violent groups like the Jundallah to stage attacks, particularly against the Revolutionary Guards (Pasdarans).Jundallah claimed responsibility for a bomb attack against a bus at Zahedan, capital of Baluchistan, on Feb. 14 that killed 11 Pasdarans in what was the first strike in the Pakistani offensive. It was indeed interpreted by Tehran as a Pakistani operation because Iran reacted immediately by rounding up hundreds of Baluchi's (a suspected perpetrator was hanged in public on Feb. 19). Then, on Feb. 18, a suicide bomber blew up a courtroom in Quetta, capital of the Pakistani part of Baluchistan, killing 16.
MI-6 and British special forces carried out an attack against the Revolutionary Guards University in the center of Ahwaz, in the iranian part of Khuzestan, on Feb. 7. The British have been infiltrating the area since 2003 with the help of Sunni Arabs who are the majority in the area. The Feb. 7 operation, like others in Dezful (which houses a major military base) and in the port of Abedan, were hushed up by the Iranian authorities. American policy planners can also count on the possibility of activating some 5,000 members of the People’s Mudjihideen, which fiercely opposes the Iranian regime and trains under the protection of the US Army at a base 120km north of Baghdad.
U.S. escalating covert operations against Iran - report
.....The two ISI bosses reached an agreement with the Americans: they would launch destabilization operations in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchistan, where Sunnis form the majority of inhabitants, by inciting a number of violent groups like the Jundallah to stage attacks, particularly against the Revolutionary Guards (Pasdarans).Jundallah claimed responsibility for a bomb attack against a bus at Zahedan, capital of Baluchistan, on Feb. 14 that killed 11 Pasdarans in what was the first strike in the Pakistani offensive. It was indeed interpreted by Tehran as a Pakistani operation because Iran reacted immediately by rounding up hundreds of Baluchi's (a suspected perpetrator was hanged in public on Feb. 19). Then, on Feb. 18, a suicide bomber blew up a courtroom in Quetta, capital of the Pakistani part of Baluchistan, killing 16.
MI-6 and British special forces carried out an attack against the Revolutionary Guards University in the center of Ahwaz, in the iranian part of Khuzestan, on Feb. 7. The British have been infiltrating the area since 2003 with the help of Sunni Arabs who are the majority in the area. The Feb. 7 operation, like others in Dezful (which houses a major military base) and in the port of Abedan, were hushed up by the Iranian authorities. American policy planners can also count on the possibility of activating some 5,000 members of the People’s Mudjihideen, which fiercely opposes the Iranian regime and trains under the protection of the US Army at a base 120km north of Baghdad.
U.S. escalating covert operations against Iran - report
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday.
The article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issue, centers around a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which by U.S. law must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees.
"The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money."
Hersh has written previously about possible administration plans to go to war to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including an April 2006 article in the New Yorker that suggested regime change in Iran, whether by diplomatic or military means, was Bush's ultimate goal.
Funding for the covert escalation, for which Bush requested up to $400 million, was approved by congressional leaders, according to the article, citing current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. U.S. Special Operations Forces have been conducting crossborder operations from southern Iraq since last year, the article said.
These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in Bush's war on terrorism, who may be captured or killed, according to the article.
But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which include the Central Intelligence Agency, have now been significantly expanded, the article said, citing current and former officials.
Many of these activities are not specified in the new finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature, it said.
Among groups inside Iran benefiting from U.S. support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to al Qaeda.
The article said U.S. support for the dissident groups could prompt a violent crackdown by Iran, which could give the Bush administration a reason to intervene.
None of the Democratic leaders in Congress would comment on the finding, the article said. The White House, which has repeatedly denied preparing for military action against Iran, and the CIA also declined comment.
The United States is leading international efforts to rein in Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, although Washington concedes Iran has the right to develop nuclear power for civilian uses.
Re: Iran News and Discussions - 11 December 2007
Acharya: This is an area, where I think, India should adopt to approach of sleeping with the enemie(s).Acharya wrote:In the short term. But in the long term India needs a stable ME so that it can get energy pipe inside India.Neshant wrote:> India would benefit from a US strike on Iran, as a conflict between the 2 would inevitably
> escalate and could only end with regime-change there.
Regime change in Iran is not to the benefit of India.
Indians could travel from India over land to Iran and further into Turkey and Europe. Some americans/eu told me remember that they could do it before 1970s.
Connecting the asian landmass is the final frontier and major powers dont want this.
In the short term yes. But It will invite other powers into this region including EU, Russia, China and Japan. India cannot count on only Iran for energy supplies. It has to spread it among few countries.If Iran fell to the US, America would effectively be in control of vast amounts of the world's energy resources (Iraq + Iran + bunch of gulf sheikdoms) and India's energy security would be in trouble. This is not even counting Canada which is an ally of the US. If for any reason US wanted to harm India, all it would have to do is get its energy allies to halt shipments of oil/gas to India temporarily and that would be enough to screw the economy.
Read the new book in the book thread - Rising powers and Shrinking Planet. This question is answered. US wants to make sure that ME off limits to other countries.
This is true.US essentially wants a monopoly over energy resources of the world and thereby control both India and China.
Nukes have their own dynamics. They can unite people and countries.India is not affected by Iran, Arabs, North Korea or others getting nukes. US & China have already damaged India's security by selectively leaking the bomb to Paksitan.
In the short term, it will allow India to paly an ACTIVE role in the ME, on the sunni side, where the west is most weak. Allow, India to sit pretty on "shrinking" oil supplies by gaining a firm foot hold in Iran and maybe in Iraq, even if under American eyes. Allows India to be partner to the west, to ensure Iran does not go nuclear. Gives a message to TSP that India's relations with Persia are not hostage.
Medium Term: India can start playing a meaningful independent role in the ME. Off stump China in the process.
Long Term: As the power of oil recedes, so will the interest of the west and this is where India can step in to control the Asian land mass.
I think India, should exploit the Sunni/Shia divide and counter balance the wests' dependence on Sunnis.