Page 69 of 82

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 03 Jun 2016 14:15
by wig

Two Weeks in January: America's secret engagement with Khomeini
excerpts posted here. the article is long but IMVHO a good read. and could be of some help in deciphering Persian thought
On 27 January, 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - founder of Iran's Islamic Republic, the man who called the United States "the Great Satan" - sent a secret message to Washington.
From his home in exile outside Paris, the defiant leader of the Iranian revolution effectively offered the Carter administration a deal: Iranian military leaders listen to you, he said, but the Iranian people follow my orders.
If President Jimmy Carter could use his influence on the military to clear the way for his takeover, Khomeini suggested, he would calm the nation. Stability could be restored, America's interests and citizens in Iran would be protected.
At the time, the Iranian scene was chaotic. Protesters clashed with troops, shops were closed, public services suspended. Meanwhile, labour strikes had all but halted the flow of oil, jeopardising a vital Western interest.
Persuaded by Carter, Iran's autocratic ruler, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, known as the Shah, had finally departed on a "vacation" abroad, leaving behind an unpopular prime minister and a military in disarray - a force of 400,000 men with heavy dependence on American arms and advice.
Khomeini feared the nervous military: its royalist top brass hated him. Even more worrying, they were having daily meetings with a US Air Force General by the name of Robert E Huyser, whom President Carter had sent on a mysterious mission to Tehran.
The ayatollah was determined to return to Iran after 15 years in exile and make the Shah's "vacation" permanent. So he made a personal appeal.
In a first-person message, Khomeini told the White House not to panic at the prospect of losing a strategic ally of 37 years and assured them that he, too, would be a friend.
"You will see we are not in any particular animosity with the Americans," said Khomeini, pledging his Islamic Republic will be "a humanitarian one, which will benefit the cause of peace and tranquillity for all mankind".
Khomeini's message is part of a trove of newly declassified US government documents - diplomatic cables, policy memos, meeting records - that tell the largely unknown story of America's secret engagement with Khomeini, an enigmatic cleric who would soon inspire Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Americanism worldwide.
This story is a detailed account of how Khomeini brokered his return to Iran using a tone of deference and amenability towards the US that has never before been revealed.
The ayatollah's message was, in fact, the culmination of two weeks of direct talks between his de facto chief of staff and a representative of the US government in France - a quiet process that helped pave the way for Khomeini's safe return to Iran and rapid rise to power - and decades of high-stakes tension between Iran and America.
In the official Iranian narrative of the revolution, Khomeini bravely defied the United States and defeated "the Great Satan" in its desperate efforts to keep the Shah in power.
But the documents reveal that Khomeini was far more engaged with the US than either government has ever admitted. Far from defying America, the ayatollah courted the Carter administration, sending quiet signals that he wanted a dialogue and then portraying a potential Islamic Republic as amenable to US interests.
To this day, former Carter administration officials maintain that Washington - despite being sharply divided over the course of action - stood firm behind the Shah and his government.
But the documents show more nuanced US behaviour behind the scenes. Only two days after the Shah departed Tehran, the US told a Khomeini envoy that they were - in principle - open to the idea of changing the Iranian constitution, effectively abolishing the monarchy. And they gave the ayatollah a key piece of information - Iranian military leaders were flexible about their political future.
What transpired four decades ago between America and Khomeini is not just diplomatic history. The US desire to make deals with what it considers pragmatic elements within the Islamic Republic continues to this day. So does the staunchly anti-American legacy that Khomeini left for Iran.
Message to Kennedy
It wasn't the first time Khomeini had reached out to Washington.
In 1963, the ayatollah was just emerging as a vocal critic of the Shah. In June, he gave a blistering speech, furious that the Shah, pressed hard by the Kennedy administration, had launched a "White Revolution" - a major land reform programme and granted women the vote.

Khomeini was arrested. Immediately, three days of violent protests broke out, which the military put down swiftly.
A recently declassified CIA document reveals that, in November 1963, Khomeini sent a rare message of support to the Kennedy administration while being held under house arrest in Tehran.
It was a few days after a military firing squad executed two alleged organisers of the protests and ahead of a landmark visit by the Soviet head of state to Iran, which played into US fears of Iran tilting towards a friendlier relationship with the USSR.
Khomeini wanted the Shah's chief benefactor to understand that he had no quarrel with America.
"Khomeini explained he was not opposed to American interests in Iran," according to a 1980 CIA analysis titled Islam in Iran, partially released to the public in 2008.
To the contrary, an American presence was necessary to counter the Soviet and British influence, Khomeini told the US.
The embassy cable containing the full text of Khomeini's message remains classified.
It's not clear if President Kennedy ever saw the message. Two weeks later, he would be assassinated in Texas.
A year later, Khomeini was expelled from Iran. He had launched a new attack on the Shah, this time over extending judicial immunity to US military personnel in Iran.
"The American president should know that he is the most hated person among our nation," Khomeini declared, shortly before going into exile.
Fifteen years later, Khomeini would end up in Paris. He was now the leader of a movement on the verge of ridding Iran of its monarchy. So close to victory, the ayatollah still needed America.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 14 Jun 2016 21:47
by sivab ... 0211909632

Amir Taheri ‏@AmirTaheri4 37m37 minutes ago
KHASH- Iranian border guard Muhamad Chah-Chakandi buried after martyrdom ceremony. Was killed in gunbattle with terror group from #Pakistan.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 16 Jun 2016 20:06
by Kakkaji
The execution of the plan has already started 8)

India to export $150 million rails for Chabahar port next month

NEW DELHI: Indian steel companies will export rails worth $150 million to Iran next month as part of a pact between the two countries for developing railway and other infrastructure at strategically important Chabahar port.

"The maiden consignment of rail from India worth $150 million would be sent to Iran in July," a top official told PTI after Ambassador of Iran to India Gholamreza Ansari called on Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari today.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 31 Oct 2016 09:15
by arun
X Posted from the Islamism thread.

Commonwealth Games gold medallist Heena Sidhu stands tall to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s bullying of Non-Mohammadden Women and resists Iran’s insistence that female participants clothe themselves in attire compliant with Mohammadden belief by boycotting the Asian Airgun Shooting Championship in Tehran.

Disgustingly the Sports Association that administers Shooting in India, the National Rifle Association of India (NRAI), has adopted a Dhimmi like stance in this affair and has not taken Mohammadden Supremacist behavior of imposing Hijab dress code head on boycotting the tournament.

Indian sports star boycotts Iranian competition over Hijab requirement : 'You follow your religion and let me follow mine,' says Heena Sidhu

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 31 Oct 2016 20:01
by arun
X Posted from the Islamism thread.

Gathering around Pre-Mohammadden tomb of founder of the Achaemenid Empire, Cyrus the Great and chanting what prosecutor of Shiraz, Ali Salehi, terms “unconventional slogans” and which Mohammadden Cleric Ayatollah Nouri Hamedani amplifies means “chant the same slogans (about Cyrus) that we chant about our supreme leader” gets a bunch of people arrested:

Iranians arrested after celebrating ancient Persian king Cyrus the Great

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 22 Dec 2016 00:23
by Austin
Russian companies to invest $35-40 bln in Iranian projects


© AP Photo/Vahid Salemi
MOSCOW, December 21. /TASS/. Possible investments that Russian companies can make in projects in Iran in the near future are estimated at $35-40 bln, Deputy Economic Development Minister Alexander Tsybulsky said on Wednesday.

Speaking at a meeting of the international issues committee at the Federation Council (upper chamber of parliament) he said:

"In general we estimate Russia’s potential of investments in the Iranian market in the near future at $35-40 bln," he said.

Talking to a TASS correspondent the Deputy Minister said that he was speaking about the next 10 years.

Tsybulsky said that now large companies such as Tekhnopromexport, Russian Railways, Zarubezhneft, Inter RAO and Power Machines are taking active steps to enter the Iranian market.

He noted that Gazprom, Rosneft, Rosseti, RusHydro, Gazprom Neft, Inter RAO Export and Novatek companies are now studying options for investments in Iran.

On Wednesday, the Federation Council made a favorable conclusion with regard to the federal draft law on ratification of the agreement between Russia and Iran on promotion and mutual protection of investments.


Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 29 Dec 2016 02:17
by Agnimitra
Iran, Russia See Opportunity to Encircle the US in Afghanistan

Signs of Iran-Russia-Pakhanastan axis in Afghanistan.
The Iran-Pak affair was already cooking when Paki Gilani visited his 'ancestral hometown' Rasht during his Iran trip. Now Russia.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 09 Jan 2017 08:40
by abhishek_sharma

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 11 Jan 2017 18:53
by ricky_v
In the last days of 2016, Mehr News Agency (an Iranian press agency), posted a series of stories about the unfolding spat. On December 30, Mehr reported that an official from the Petroleum Ministry said a new gas deal had been signed between Turkmenistan and Iran. The report contained this bit of drama:

This morning, due to Turkmens’ persistence on threating [sic] to cut gas exports to Iran over claims of a $2 billion debt, the Iranian delegation left the negotiating table to return home. At the airport, Turkmenistan’s officials persuaded the Iranian delegation to come back to the negotiating table in hopes for reaching an agreement on gas delivery to Iran.

On December 31, Mehr reported that a deal still had not been made but that Iran’s Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh “stressed that international arbitration on the issue is not on the table for now…”

January 1, according to Mehr, all was settled with a headline declaring, “Iran to import Turkmen gas for 5 years.” Later that day, Mehr reported that gas delivery had been halted and on January 4 that Tehran would take the issue to international arbitration.

NIGC’s January 1 release, and subsequent press releases on January 3 and January 8, make it clear that Turkmenistan has indeed halted gas exports to northern Iran.

Iranian sources paint Turkmenistan as the villain in this dispute. The January 1 NIGC release says that “Iran has fully settled its debts to the Turkmen side” and that talks had begun on settling of delayed debts. The Iranians also claimed there have been “quality and quantity loses in the deal.”

Because the deal is not public, we can only speculate on what the terms were regarding quantity, quality, and payment; up to January 3, Ashgabat said nothing about the spat.

On January 3, Turkmenistan issued an official comment on the issue. As reported by EurasiaNet:

What the [Turkmen Foreign Ministry] statement does claim is that the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC) had stopped paying its arrears for gas deliveries since 2013.

“As a result, Iran’s debts accumulated substantially, creating problems in the routine operations of Turkmen gas transportation infrastructure required to deliver gas to Iran in accordance with the long-term contract,” the statement said.

In view of a “lack of positive responses from the National Iranian Gas Company to constructive initiatives proposed by Turkmenistan and its passivity in the search for a mutually acceptable solution, it became necessary to restrict deliveries of Turkmen gas to Iran from January 1, 2017,” the foreign ministry statement said.

Ashgabat’s dramatic cut-off doesn’t seem likely to yield the desired result. Turkmenistan may be starved for cash, but Iran isn’t lacking for gas of its own. Imports from Turkmenistan, as Bruce Pannier pointed out, were necessary in winter months in northern Iran “because Iran’s internal gas-pipeline network has not sufficiently connected the gas-rich regions of southern Iran to the northern part of the country.” Initiatives to address this weakness may have been slowed by sanctions, but “[s]ometime in the near future, Iran will no longer require Turkmen gas.”

A January 8 NIGC press release assures that the company “has altered its strategy in gas supply to northern provinces in order to ensure gas supply to the region now that Turkmenistan has cut off its gas flow to the region.”

The threat of international arbitration may peel back some of the opacity that clouds Turkmenistan’s gas dealings. Then again, previous gas spats — particularly with Russia’s Gazprom — which have entered into arbitration have been seemingly resolved with little additional information seeping out. In 2015 Gazprom filed a suit against Turkmengaz in a Swedish arbitration court, seeking $5 billion in payments, but the case has since been suspended.

With regard to Iran, Turkmenistan reportedly is seeking $2 billion in unpaid debts stemming from the sanction years, though Ashgabat’s official statements have not included numbers.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 03 Feb 2017 22:32
by Agnimitra

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 11 Feb 2017 02:28
by Agnimitra

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 14 Feb 2017 06:45
by Kashi
Chabahar Port expected to open in a month: Afghan Consul General

NAGPUR: The strategic port of Chabahar in Iran+ which is being developed to build a transport-and-trade corridor through Afghanistan giving India an access to global markets is expected to be opened in a month's time, said Afghanistan Consul General Mohammad Aman Amin.

"The port is likely to open in a month's time and it will provide impetus to the trade between India and Afghanistan," said Amin here today.
Amin spoke to media on the sidelines of the inaugural ceremony of 10-day training programme for the officers of the Afghanistan Revenue Department (ARD) at National Academy of Direct Taxes (NADT) in Nagpur.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 14 Feb 2017 07:53
by OmkarC
US Sanctions on Iran are always good for Indian strategic interests wrt Iran, they should be averse to double cross us given lack of trading options.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 14 Feb 2017 19:09
by Bhurishravas
^^ +1
Gwadar port is/was a disaster with or without Chabahar.
As an independent project IMHO, Chabahar`s viability is doubtful too. Hopefuly the gas and fertilizers projects will make the investment worthwhile.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 17 Feb 2017 23:12
by ricky_v
A pdf on the Iranian warfare strategy, posting an excerpt.
This study lays out how formal and informal structures in Iran create strategy and doctrine, which institutions or individuals matter in shaping doctrinal ideas, and the historical and ideological factors that drive IRI thinking about military power. This model conceptualizes the nature of IRI defensive and offensive doctrines and aims to explain how and why Iranian strategy and force posture may evolve as restrictions on resources and conventional weapon acquisitions are relaxed under the JCPOA. Rather than attempting to provide Tehran’s operational manual, this study demonstrates how to conceptualize and study IRI military doctrine.

Historical experience, religious ideals, and ideological concerns shape the IRI’s approach to war and military doctrine, but they do not determine it. Across many historical periods, from the Persian Empire, through the Islamic conquest, the Safavid dynasty, the 19th-century Qajar dynasty, the Pahlavi shahs in the 20th century, and the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian state struggled with its relationship to modernity and its religious and political nature. Many of these unresolved issues carried over into postrevolutionary era, even as new ideological concepts became dominant and Iran faced two external existential threats—Iraq and the United States. The IRI’s split military structure, which is divided between the conventional Artesh and the ideologically driven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and its current military thinking centered on defensive and asymmetric warfare against the United States are arguably reactions to these overlapping factors.

There is explicit incorporation of foreign military thinking and capabilities, especially US doctrines, although ex post facto ideological and Islamic moral justification from the supreme leader for any doctrine is still required. The Artesh and the IRGC’s competing military structures will remain an inherent feature of Iranian doctrine and strategy, even as the IRI leadership engages in stronger efforts to improve interoperability.

As a revolutionary state constantly worried about potential instability and counterrevolution triggered by its adversaries during conflict, the IRI sees war in 360 degrees. Iranian doctrines reflect this porousness across the spectrum of offensive and defensive operations, when an external Artesh campaign may need to quickly transition into an internal one, or when IRGC actions may move from regime defense to deterrence to power projection then back to deterrence or attempt to achieve all three objectives simultaneously.

Together these concepts can be used to form a working model of the IRI’s existing doctrines, showing how they align against Tehran’s defensive and offensive objectives, indicating areas of particular doctrinal strengths and weakness, and pointing to potential future directions for the Iranian military. The IRI military is still dominated by defensive doctrines oriented around four primary objectives:
regime security,
territorial defense,
demonstrative deterrence (or shows of force),
and retaliatory deterrence.

The IRI’s offensive doctrines are designed primarily around exporting the revolution and Iranian influence abroad while ensuring the creation and maintenance of proxy forces that can employ retaliatory deterrence against opponents, such as Lebanese Hezbollah. These doctrines have notably remained almost entirely unconventional. The IRI generally continues to lack classic offensive doctrines to project conventional military power aiming to coerce an opponent; seize ground, air, or maritime space; or defeat or destroy an enemy’s forces. However, the IRGC has increasingly integrated conventional capabilities and war-fighting concepts into its unconventional campaigns in the current Syria and Iraq conflicts.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 04 May 2017 06:03
by Bhurishravas ... 478629.cms

India cuts oil import plans from Iran by a quarter over gas field row

So much for Indian investment in Iran

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 05 May 2017 22:38
by Bhurishravas ... men-Salman
Salman also said that any struggle for influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia has to take place "inside Iran, not in Saudi Arabia,” without elaborating on the remark.
He stressed that talks with Iran were impossible as Tehran’s goal was to “control the Muslim world.”

Very naice from Salman al Saud

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 13 May 2017 08:11
by chetak
Bhurishravas wrote:

India cuts oil import plans from Iran by a quarter over gas field row

So much for Indian investment in Iran

These headstrong and arrogant iranians are still in the bully India mode, even after all these centuries of dealing with India and now reduced to jealously watching India's economic and military rise, knowing that they have been left far, far behind.

the iranians also shamelessly continue to play their islamic card while fully expecting India to ignore its own supreme national interests.

Adding fuel to the fire, some in Tehran say that like the United States, India has "problems with the Islamic world, and Iran is an Islamic state."

Modi has also strategically divested the Ruia's Essar oil assets to Rosneft who bought a 49 per cent stake in Essar Oil’s refinery, port and petrol pumps, while Netherlands-based Trafigura Group Pte, one of the world’s biggest commodity trading companies, and Russian investment fund United Capital Partners split another 49 per cent equity equally.

This gives the russians a direct stake as also direct access of their own oil to India's growing energy market. The iranians are also quite miffed by this derisking by India as it vastly reduces iranian influence and forces them to be more competitive in pricing and terms.

this also gives India additional leverage with the russians for their other exports to India.

Iran Refuses To Sideline China And Pak, Irking India

Iran Refuses To Sideline China And Pak, Irking India

Published: May 05, 2017

For major regional partners that consistently declare a strong friendship based on civilizational ties, India and Iran seem to have hit a bumpy patch - one that has the potential to expose serious differences between Tehran and Delhi, as the sheen of Prime Minister Modi's May 2016 visit to the Iranian capital wears off.

While Iran drags its feet on awarding a crucial contract for gas exploration in its Farzad B offshore field to ONGC Videsh, India has decided to cut back on oil imports from Iran by 3 million tons (roughly 25 percent) in the current financial year. (India imports over 6% of its oil from Iran, making it Iran's second-largest customer of crude oil)

Now, the already tense situation has taken yet another unpleasant turn, with Tehran retaliating by reducing Delhi's window of payment for crude purchases from 90 days to 60 days, and reportedly cutting freight discounts offered to Indian state -owned oil companies by the National Iranian Oil Company. Both benefits have made Iranian crude attractive to Indian companies in the past, and in fact, Iran has consistently given oil to India on credit earlier, too.

On their own, as global crude prices fall, these developments seem to be routine: tough price negotiations between two regional heavyweights aimed at ensuring both get the best deal possible. While Iran is looking for strong, competitive bids on a gas field that India has dragged its feet on for at least seven years, India is driven by a search for the best prices for its fuel imports that supply 80 percent of its energy needs. An Economic Times report quotes sources as saying that India was wary of inviting western sanctions against ONGC Videsh Ltd if it went ahead with developing the gas field. But against a wider backdrop of global developments where India is fighting hard to offset China's regional expansionism via the Belt and Road Initiative by working on its own trade and connectivity routes, and a relatively sanctions-free Iran is suspiciously eying Delhi's overtures and warmth towards a belligerent US President and his unambiguous treatment of Iran as a rouge, terror sponsor, could the recent sparring be more than just negotiation tactics?

During Prime Minster Modi's visit to Tehran last year, India committed $500 million towards the Chabahar port project amid much pomp and ceremony, and along with Afghanistan, signed a trilateral agreement for the construction of key road and rail links connecting the port. Iranian scholars who study bilateral ties argue that Delhi's dragging its feet since then is encouraging voices that call Chabahar a sister port to Pakistan's Gawadar to look for ways to involve both Pakistan and China in future phases of its development. In fact, soon after PM Modi's visit to Tehran, Iranian diplomats ruled out exclusivity for India in Chabahar. During that visit, retired Iranian diplomats at the government-backed Tehran think tank, the Institute for Peace and International Studies, said other countries were welcome to bid for future phases. They brushed off suggestions that China's inclusion in Chabahar would be a thorn in India's side, saying India and China must find ways of "changing their mindset" and not use Iran's development as a pawn in their battles for regional supremacy.

As Beijing plans its massive Belt and Road Initiative conference next week, they argue that Tehran faces fewer problems with the Chinese, eager to edge India out of its regional sphere of influence. Iranian commentators are quick to point out that Modi's visit to Iran in 2016 took place after many other major international players. Chinese President Xi Jinping was the first major leader to visit Tehran once its new nuclear deal with world powers including the US, Germany and Russia was signed - a fact not lost on Tehran.

PM Modi signed a historic deal with Iran to develop the Chabahar port
Iran's strategic heft, due mainly to and oil and gas power, has long been a major consideration for India's foreign policy makers. Yet, it was only after the landmark nuclear deal between the P5 1 and Iran in 2015 under the Obama administration, and the subsequent lifting of Iran's international pariah status, that India finally inched forward on the much-awaited Chabahar port project, 13 years after it was first agreed upon. But today, America's threat to review the very deal that brought Iran back into acceptability poses a conundrum for Delhi that is eager to both ensure warm ties with the new US President, as well as continue its strategic and economic engagement with Iran.

New Delhi finds itself in a spot. The message between the lines is that as he plans his meeting with Donald Trump later this year, Prime Minister Modi might be cautious to avoid any steps that could raise eyebrows in Washington. Adding fuel to the fire, some in Tehran say that like the United States, India has "problems with the Islamic world, and Iran is an Islamic state."

Now, as Iran readies for a Presidential election on May 19, and the Ayatollah backs hardliners who accuse President Rouhani of pandering to foreign interests, especially to modernize its oil and gas sector, India has its own list of complaints - accusing Iran of reneging on its promises, even though Delhi has been a steadfast partner throughout the sanctions regime.

Delhi's anger is understandable. Iran is refusing to budge on the gas field India covets even after ONGC Videsh has revised its development plan and costs. In addition, Iran's President Rouhani recently reiterated support for "trusted brother" Pakistan as he announced the completion of the Iranian section of a pipeline to carry natural gas to Pakistan.

Whether the Iranians are expressing their displeasure over the slow progress at Chabahar, or India is doing the same for the delays over the Farzad B gas field contract and being cautious before a crucial US bilateral, the result is a gridlock for the moment. Iran has nearly 10 percent of global oil and over 18 percent of global gas reserves, and as its oil minister said, is confident of other customers for its resources if India cuts back. But while Iran argues its case, Tehran must also realise that India of late has pursued aggressive diplomatic engagements with other oil and gas rich countries in the gulf- Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other GCC countries, and can offset the shortfall from Iranian crude by increasing imports from these.

Delhi will not hesitate to use its new-found leverage with Iran's Sunni neighbours to push for a better deal for itself. Hard fought price negotiations, indeed.

Maya Mirchandani is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation and Consulting Editor for NDTV's show, India Matters.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 13 May 2017 09:31
by Neshant
chetak wrote:These headstrong and arrogant iranians are still in the bully India mode, even after all these centuries of dealing with India and now reduced to jealously watching India's economic and military rise, knowing that they have been left far, far behind.

the iranians also shamelessly continue to play their islamic card while fully expecting India to ignore its own supreme national interests.

They only have oil & gas as their bargaining chip so they are bargaining hard with what they have.
Nothing wrong with that except they tend to over-estimate their bargaining position.

That being said, Iran has never harmed India militarily.
The mullahs by and large keep out of India's affairs and are more into stirring up a ruckus in the Middle East.

They are not easy to deal with.
I'm skeptical they will stick to any deal they sign with India.
It makes any significant investment in their country a risk.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 13 May 2017 18:39
by Bhurishravas
Chabahar was/is a mistake by woolly eyed hindi-muslim bhai bhai gang. There is no investment that India can make in islamic world which is not risky. Be it Iran or Afghanistan.
We need to have realpolitik west of India. Economics east of India.

If India`s solar plans take off, by 2030, India would be using solar power for about 40% of its needs. The sooner we cut off the gas and oil dependency, the better for us.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 13 May 2017 21:58
by Bheeshma
Solar, Hydro and Nuclear all three are important going forward. The Lithium-ion battery initiative for automobiles is a good initiative by Modi Govt.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 14 May 2017 04:01
by chetak


Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 18 May 2017 18:50
by Philip
The next flashpoint? This could bring about utter devastation to an already devastated region,epicentre of global petro production. ... -war-iran/
Deadly rhetoric: Saudi Arabia opens war of words with Iran
Sharmine Narwani
Published time: 16 May, 2017 10:44

Deadly rhetoric: Saudi Arabia opens war of words with Iran

For years the Saudis have waged proxy battles against Iran, with little success. Now, despite this history of losses, Riyadh appears to be mobilizing for an ill-conceived confrontation with the Islamic Republic.
"We know we are a main target of Iran," speculated Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) in an interview early this month.

Then came the threat. "We are not waiting until there becomes a battle in Saudi Arabia, so we will work so that it becomes a battle for them in Iran and not in Saudi Arabia."

These are fighting words indeed. The Iranians certainly thought so, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan responding with unusual ferocity: “We warn them (Saudis) against doing anything ignorant, but if they do something ignorant, we will leave nowhere untouched apart from Mecca and Medina.”

In other words, if the Saudis launch direct aggression against Iran, this will be Riyadh’s last war anywhere, ever.

It’s an important line to draw. The Saudis, after all, have been in meltdown since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran saw popular protests dethroning a King (gasp).
And so, for the past 38 years, we have witnessed an increasingly aggressive Saudi Arabia in the region, chasing down Iranian/Shia enemies where there were none. Just look at Yemen, where the two-year Saudi bombing blitz has killed over 10,000 civilians, or Bahrain, where Saudi troops and tanks snuffed out dissent in the Shia-majority state, or Syria, where Saudis send weapons, cash and support to ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other head-chopping extremists. This Saudi hysteria has now touched every corner of the world, and by the $100+ billion Riyadh has invested in radical schools, mosques, and propaganda to indoctrinate an entire generation of Muslims in Wahhabi-style intolerance.

But while the Saudis are hell-bent on thwarting Iranian influence – real or imagined – Riyadh has never dared to take on the Islamic Republic directly.

As former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates famously noted in a 2010 WikiLeaks cable, the Saudis always want to "fight the Iranians to the last American.” To which he then added, “it is time for them to get in the game.”

Now perhaps, under the direction of a 31-year old princeling, the Saudis are planning to do just that.

Read more
Sunni tribal fighters. (Reuters/Stringer)​The Mideast’s S-U-N-N-I Problem
Saudi Arabia vs. Iran
Some perspective first on these two Persian Gulf “rivals,” in which I borrow heavily from an earlier interview of mine:

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are rich in energy resources and have used this rentier wealth to advance their national goals, albeit with vastly differing results. Iran’s economy is focused on diversification away from the energy sector, developing self-sufficiency and becoming a net exporter. Saudi Arabia is import-focused. Iran spends $15 billion per annum on its military – compared to Saudi’s $80 billion – yet has one of the most competent military forces in the region and builds its own hardware. The Iranian political system is Constitution-based, diverse, and representative, with loudly competing political blocs that come with their own media and constituencies. The Saudi monarchy is based entirely on the rule of one family, with no meaningful elections or contesting political bodies, and little freedom of expression in the media. Regarding power projection, Iran favors the soft power tools of diplomacy, trade, and alliance-building based on common worldviews/objectives, whereas the Saudis have expanded their influence far and wide by spreading Wahhabi doctrine through schools, mosques, media and other institutions globally – and by blatantly buying the loyalty of allies.

In the past few years, we have clearly observed how Iran and Saudi Arabia’s nation-building approaches have affected the success of their geopolitical strategies. Both states have experienced existential fears and threats, and their respective alliances have now confronted each other on a few battlefields. Iran has approached the matter of its strategic depth carefully and built alliances with partners that genuinely share the common values of independence, self-determination, and resistance against imperialism. The Saudis, on the other hand, have forged their external alliances with hegemony or dominance as the primary objective – irrespective of the divergent interests and values of allies. There is little contest – one side is a nation- and region-building, while the other flails about with unreliable alliances, propped up by petrodollars and all the strategic brilliance of a sledgehammer.

How can this relationship be classed as a rivalry, when the two don’t even operate on the same playing field? Would Tehran even notice Riyadh outside of OPEC meetings if it weren’t so belligerent at every turn, on every border?

But MbS’s promise to bring “the battle” to Iran must be taken seriously because it will not be launched alone. The Saudi prince’s chest thumping comes courtesy of an upgrade in relations with Washington. US President Donald Trump is enthusiastically pushing billions of dollars in weapons sales to the Saudis, and has chosen Riyadh as the destination for his first official foreign visit, championing the establishment of an "Arab NATO” that partners with Israel to confront Iran.

Whitewash warning: Saudi-led ‘Muslim NATO’ teams up with major PR firm (Op-Edge by @MartinRJay)
9:16 AM - 4 May 2017

Whitewash warning: Saudi-led ‘Muslim NATO’ teams up with major PR firm — RT Op-Edge
Riyadh’s plan to muster a coalition of mainly Sunni Arab countries – ostensibly to fight ‘terrorists’ – appears to be a ploy to boost Saudi Arabia’s clout in the region following the crashing oil...

Don’t expect a conventional military confrontation as the opening gambit, however. The US, Israel and Saudi Arabia are experienced in subversion and sabotage activities against the Islamic Republic, and this is where they are likely to focus their initial efforts.

Last week, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warned of foreign interference in the lead-up to Friday’s presidential poll: “the security of the country should be fully protected during the elections. Anyone who violates this should know he will certainly be punished."

Calling for public vigilance, Khamenei outlined short, medium and long-term “enemy” goals in Iran: “to distort the country’s security and trigger chaos and sedition… targeting issues like that of the economy and living conditions of the people…(and) an effort to change the system.”

So how will the Saudis play a role? Riyadh’s hand in this “battle” will likely be seen on and inside Iran’s borders, in the same form we have witnessed in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters flooded with Saudi-backed militants.

Stirring up minority populations
Demographically, Iran is around 60 percent ethnically Persian, followed by a mix of Azeris, Kurds, Lurs, Turkmens, Arabs, and others. Some 99 percent of Iranians are Muslim, more than 90 percent of these Shia, the rest Sunni, and the remaining one percent a mix of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and others.

The main pockets of Kurds are in the northwest on the Iraqi/Turkish borders and in the north-east bordering Turkmenistan – Iranian Kurds are both Sunni and Shia. The second largest ethnicity, Azeris, who are mainly Shia, are also in the northwest on Iran’s border with Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Iranian Arabs who are concentrated in the south near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf – as well as around the Strait of Hormuz – are also mostly Shia. Iranian Sunni populations consist mainly of Kurds, Turkmens, and Balochis, and this is the demographic where signs of foreign interference are most notable today.
In recent years, thousands of Iranian security forces have been killed on the border of Iran’s Sistan and Baluchistan province with Pakistan – most recently in April when ten Iranian border guards died in a cross-border terrorist raid.

Reportedly, the operation was conducted by Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice), a sectarian terrorist group the Iranians say is being directed by the US and Saudi Arabia. The US has traceable ties to some of these groups, notably Jundallah which received Bush-era funds from Washington before being listed as a terrorist organization. That “terrorist” designation, Iran knows, means little. The Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) was listed by the State Department for decades, but then de-listed in 2012 and is today being actively courted by US officials.

Jaish al-Adl is an offshoot of Sipah-e-Sahaba, an anti-Shia extremist group banned in Pakistan, but which appears to continue to enjoy both Saudi and Pakistani support. Sipah leaders are ferried around the border areas with Pakistani guards, and fill their ranks with young graduates of Saudi-funded Deobandi madrassahs rife inside the Pakistani border.

US hands are all over the minority map in Iran too. Media, think tanks and politicians highlight and encourage aspirations of Iranian minorities at every opportunity, and will undoubtedly take a more active role in stirring divisions as tensions escalate.

Cue the Kurds. Both US and Saudi fingerprints are all over this project of inciting a Kurdish rebellion inside Iran. Last June and July, for the first time in 20 years, Kurds in Iran’s northwest clashed with Revolutionary Guards, killing several on both sides.

The Kurdish group involved was the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), a longtime Iranian-designated terrorist organization that announced in 2015 it would take up arms against the state. Not surprisingly, that declaration came shortly after PDKI leader Mustafa Hijri visited congressional leaders in Washington.

A vigilant Iran
American dirty tricks are certainly not new in Iran. Former Kennedy-era State Department official Richard J. Barnet wrote in 1968: “The (US) intervention in Iran in 1953 to unseat Premier Mohammed Mossadeq was America's first successful attempt in the postwar period to subvert a nationalist government.”

According to Barnet, “Five US agents and seven Iranian intelligence operatives” led by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt “plotted the coup from a Tehran basement.” They were responsible for “recruiting street mobs to oppose the Mossadeq supporters… With the help of substantial sums, which Roosevelt used for hired demonstrators to whip up the growing anti-Mossadeq mobs, and the support of the Iranian army, heavily dependent on US equipment, the insurgents were able to turn the tide against the intractable premier and to drive him from office.”

Iran is intimately familiar with these foreign machinations and has been vigilantly countering them in the decades since the Islamic Revolution.

This is not the compliant Shah’s Iran – this Iran, today, is an independent, sovereign nation-state that came through an 8-year foreign-imposed war with Iraq and built with its own hands a formidable military deterrent.

As we have seen with Iran’s activities in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, the country’s ‘strategic depth’ is a red line – its national borders even more so. After warning the Iraqi government in 2014 that it would take decisive action if ISIS came within 40 kilometers of its border, the Iranian air force – for the first time since the Iran-Iraq war – used F-4 Phantom fighter jets to conduct airstrikes in Diyala province on its western border.

Iran’s armed forces chief Mohammad Hossein Bagheri has also now threatened military action on Pakistani territory unless Islamabad takes control of its borders, saying: “Unfortunately, the Pakistani border area has turned into a refuge and training ground for terrorists hired by Saudi Arabia, with the approval of the United States.”

In a letter this month to the UN Security Council, Iran’s UN Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo addressed the Saudi threats: "We have no desire, nor any interest, in an escalation of tension in our neighborhood...We continue to stand ready for dialogue and accommodation to promote regional stability, combat destabilizing extremist violence and reject sectarian hatred…We hope Saudi Arabia will be persuaded to heed the call of reason."

The Saudi princeling Mohammad bin Salman made a novice’s mistake by threatening to bring war to Iran – he put the world on notice. Any Iranian reaction now bears the full legitimacy of international law for a measured retaliation. The Saudi borders are long, its populations restive, and its soldiers have not seen this kind of war. We may yet live to see a Saudi royal eat his words.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 20 May 2017 01:26
by Rudradev
Iran’s semi-official agency publishes exit polls despite ban

Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency, close to conservatives has published its early exit polls despite legal ban.

The agency claimed that presidential election exit polls until afternoon suggest that the reformist candidate Hassan Rouhani enjoys the lead in 12 Iranian provinces while Ebrahim Raisi, representing the conservative camp, is ahead in the poll in 15 provinces.

Meanwhile the capital city of Tehran, which has an effective role in results, is dominated by Rouhani supporters, according to the agency’s estimates.

Reportedly so far over 32 million Iranians have voted in election, which means about a 57 percent turnout.

There are four candidates seeking presidency in the polls, including incumbent President Hassan Rouhani, Ebrahim Raisi, Mostafa Hashemitaba, and Mostafa Aqa-Mirsalim.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 23 May 2017 14:18
by Philip
Rouhani's thumping win signals a vote for reform.However,Trumpeting war is the Donald ,while guest of his Saudi buddies who're buying hundreds of biillions of weapons with which to go to war .Sorry,they won't go to war,they want America to go to war with Iran! Good Paki tactrics.

Donald Trump focuses fire on Iran's support for 'terrorists and militias'
Theme emerges as US president visits Israel during first international trip, saying Iran must cease ‘funding terrorists’ and never obtain nuclear weapons ... ani-israel ... -iran-war/
Trump's Mideast Tour Paves the Way for War With Iran, Ex-CIA Official Warns © REUTERS/ Jonathan Ernst
07:01 23.05.2017
US President Donald Trump’s warm support for Saudi Arabia and Israel and his harsh words against Tehran should be seen as signs that the United States and its allies are heading towards war with Iran, former CIA intelligence officer Phil Giraldi told Sputnik.

"I fear that we will be looking at war with Iran before too long as it is clear that Trump and his advisers are already completely in the Israeli and Saudi pockets on the issue," Giraldi, a former CIA Case Officer and US Army Intelligence Officer said on Monday.

US President Donald Trump bids farewell before he and first lady Melania Trump board Air Force One to depart for Israel from King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia May 22, 2017.
Trump in Riyadh: President Managed to Create Unified Front With Key Arab Allies
Giraldi described Trump’s repeated hostile rhetoric against Iran in both Saudi Arabia and Israel a "depressing" indication of the likely future direction of US policy in the Middle East.

"The most depressing part of the performance was the vilification of Iran as the source of all terror and evil in the region, a tune which was replayed immediately upon arrival in Israel with the pledge that Tehran will never have a nuke," Giraldi said.

In reality, Iran was a far more open and moderate society than Saudi Arabia, Giraldi pointed out.

"Iran holds elections, which the Saudis do not do, and it is far outgunned by its enemies in the region. It is no threat to anyone but it is convenient to pretend that it is to support policies that would otherwise be unpalatable," Giraldi said.

When You’re a Star, They Let You Do It? Melania’s Not Having Trump’s Attempt to Hold Hands (VIDEO)
Trump’s lack of experience of the history, military conflicts, politics and societies of the Middle East had made him easy to manipulate, Giraldi cautioned.
"Trump is too ignorant to realize that what he is saying is nonsense," he said.

The Saudis ordered around $100 billion of new weapons from US companies during Trump’s visit allowing him to present the meeting as a major success, Giraldi observed.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 01 Jun 2017 10:29
by Philip
Enemy of My Enemy: Trump’s Anti-Iran Coalition Crumbles as Muslim Allies Balk ... -crumbles/

Some Xcpts:
Saudi Arabia's King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (R) presents U.S. President Donald Trump with the Collar of Abdulaziz Al Saud Medal at the Royal Court in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia May 20, 2017Enemy of My Enemy: Trump’s Anti-Iran Coalition Crumbles as Muslim Allies Balk © REUTERS/ Jonathan Ernst
01:30 01.06.2017
During US President Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East, he outlined his vision of the region’s future: to build an alliance of Muslim states to contain Iran and bring stability to the Arab World. But this plan has already shown cracks, as the would-be coalition members have already begun to bicker or pull out from the alliance.

"Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve," Trump said in a May 28 speech in Riyadh.

The Washington Post claimed that Trump's ideal was a sort of mini-NATO comprising the US-friendly Arab nations. A NATO-style alliance would mean a NATO-style constitution, most notably something like Article 5, which would make an invasion of one member state an invasion of all of them.

The $110-billion defense deal Trump signed alongside Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdulaziz showed the financial incentives of membership in such an alliance. The Saudis, eager to bolster their own standing the region and diminish their arch-rival Iran, certainly seemed receptive to the idea.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but Iran doesn't seem to be the enemy of all US allies. Qatari state media sources claimed that Qatar's emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani cautioned against butting heads with Tehran, and have expressed support for Iran-backed groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

This brings Qatar into conflict with the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates, both of whom consider Iran to be their primary foe.
Doha claimed that the report was falsified, but the Saudis didn't buy it and continuously decried Qatar in their own state-run media. "Doha's insistence in denying the issue is marginal because in reality, on the ground, Qatar confirms it adopts the policies that it is now trying to deny," read a Monday editorial in Saudi-owned newspaper Al-Hayat.

Qatar has always been the black sheep of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): while the Kingdom and the UAE consider the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, Qatar has traditionally backed them. When the Brotherhood seized control of Egypt after the 2011 Arab Spring, this caused a ripple effect that has soured Qatar's relationship with the Saudis and Emiratis.

With dissent in the ranks of their rivals, Iran is laughing their way to the bank. Pro-government Iranian newspaper Kayhan wrote that the bickering was evidence of the Saudis inability to "form an alliance against Tehran."

A US diplomat in Doha worried that, if the row continues, "the GCC could harm it own interests in this fight and is at risk of becoming more vulnerable to Iranian encroachment." Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani will be meeting with Saudi emir counterpart Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah in Kuwait to try to ease tensions.

The hesitation wasn't limited to Qatar. Iraqi foreign minister Ibrahim al-Ja'afari said that his country "would never join the anti-Iran coalition" in an interview with Spanish newspaper ABC. Instead he pointed to Turkey, which he accused of illegally maintaining a military presence in Iraq since 2015. Iran, the old enemy of Iraq, is a comparatively insignificant challenge according to al-Ja'afari.

Twenty-five hundred miles away in Pakistan, Islamabad has been unreceptive to Saudi and American offers to join an anti-Iran alliance. Pakistan's government initially was happy to participate in the Saudi-led Islamic Military Alliance against Terrorism (IMAT), but they pumped the brakes on that decision when the Saudis suggested IMAT would counter Iran as well.

Pakistan threatened to pull out of the alliance entirely if that is indeed the case. "We are very clear that we will join this alliance only to fight terrorism," said an anonymous Pakistani official to The Express Tribune. Pakistan is unwilling to involve themselves in Middle Eastern intrigue, but they also have benefited from a strategic alliance with the Saudis that they are unwilling to jeopardize.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 07 Jun 2017 13:21
by Bhurishravas

TEHRAN (FNA)- Four unknown male assailants fired several rounds at the guards protecting the parliament building in Tehran, wounding seven in the hallway on Wednesday morning.

According to initial reports, the assailant opened his way into the parliament building while shooting at the guards, leading to the injury of one of the IRGC guards and six civilians.

The six civilians were reportedly citizens from different constituencies who had come to visit their deputies.

The male assailant escaped the building, but a ranking member of the parliament told FNA that he was captured as he was on the run.

Senior member of the parliament's Presiding Board Akbar Ranjbarzadeh said that the assailant was arrested at the parliament's hallway.

Meantime, Elyas Hazrati, a senior MP, said that three assailants attacked the parliament, carrying 2 Kalashnikov rifles and a handgun.

Contradictory reports are coming from the parliament as one of the deputies said the assailants were three and have been trapped in the offices of the deputies.

"Clashes still continue at the parliament building," he said.

A number of legislators said that the parliament guard who had been wounded by the assailants was martyred.

Ranjbarzadeh added that the assailants were four and 8 people were wounded in the attack.

Reporters outside the parliament said that the guards are dispersing people but the sound of shooting is still heard from inside the parliament's building.

Meantime, several assailants raided the holy shrine of the late founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, South of the capital Tehran on Wednesday morning, killing one and wounding two people in a bomb attack and a shooting spree.

Several Arab media outlets claimed that ISIL has been in charge of the attacks, but removed the news report from their websites after half an hour.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 07 Jun 2017 16:14
by Philip
The timing of this attack is so "coincidental",coming oat the same time as the Saudi "ultimatum" to Qatar. It is so clear that it is the handiwork of the S audis,using proxies just like Pak.With Iran promising food supplies to Qatar by ship,and no real enmity between Qatar and Iran,both supporters of the Hiz,the Saudis (sponsors of ISIS) have to neutralise Iran while they make their move against Qatar.By attacking the Iranian parliament,they will stop its proceedings for days,preventing any work being done,decision to support Qatar openly,etc.,etc. The Iranians should in return forcefully accuse the saudis of the terror attacks and warn it to desist from violating the sovereignty of other Guilf states or face the consequences. The cowardly Saudis can only shoot from another's shoulder,and will balk at invading Qatar. ... ini-shrine
Iran: several dead in suicide attacks on parliament and shrine in Tehran
Multiple deaths reported in twin attacks on parliament and tomb of late revolutionary leader in Iranian capital
A man hands a child to a security guard from Iran’s parliament building during the attack in Tehran.

Nadia Khomami and agencies
Wednesday 7 June 2017 11.15 BST First published on Wednesday 7 June 2017 07.51 BST
Gunmen and suicide bombers have carried out apparently coordinated attacks on Iran’s parliament and the tomb of the revolutionary founder Ruhollah Khomeini in Tehran, killing a number of people.

Four gunmen burst into Tehran’s parliament complex with rifles and a pistol, and one of the attackers blew himself up on the fourth floor, the semi-official ISNA news agency reported, putting the death toll at three.

Tasnim news agency said unconfirmed sources on the ground were reporting that seven people including a guard had been killed. There were further, unconfirmed reports that a number of MPs had been taken hostage.

It is unclear how the attackers got past security checkpoints to enter the parliament building. Police helicopters were circling over the building, entrance and exit gates were closed, and mobile phone lines from inside were disconnected.

Reporters inside the chamber, where a session had been in progress, were ordered to remain there.

Members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard secure the area outside the parliament building. Photograph: Hossein Mersadi/AFP/Getty Images
Witnesses said the attackers were shooting from the fourth floor of the parliament building down at people in the streets below.

Ebrahim Ghanimi, who was passing by the building when it was attacked, told the Associated Press: “I thought that children were playing with fireworks, but I realised people were hiding and lying down on the streets.”

About half an hour after the initial attack at parliament, three to four people entered the western entrance of Khomeini’s tomb complex and opened fire, before one of the attackers detonated a suicide belt. A security guard and a gardener were reportedly killed, and at least four people injured.

A Jamaran News image said to be of the moment the attacker detonated a suicide belt at the Khomeini shrine.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Iran’s intelligence ministry said it had foiled a third plot and asked people to avoid public transport. The state broadcaster Irib quoted the ministry as saying: “Members of a third group were arrested before being able to carry out any attack.”

Islamic State used its Amaq news agency to claim responsibility for the attacks.

Shia Iran has been singled out as a target by Sunni jihadis, including Isis, but has largely escaped attacks within its urban centres. Iran provides ground forces to fight Isis and other rebel groups in Syria and Iraq.

Isis published a rare video in Persian in March, warning that it would “conquer Iran and restore it to the Sunni Muslim nation as it was before”. The group and other extremists consider Shias to be apostates, and the video accuses Iranians of persecuting Sunnis over the centuries.

Militant groups are also known to operate in Iran’s south-eastern Sistan-Baluchistan province, which borders Pakistan and has a large Sunni community.

Jaish-ul Adl (Army of Justice), which Tehran accuses of links with al-Qaida, has carried out several armed attacks inside Iranian territory in recent years.

Khomeini launched the Islamic revolution in 1979 and was Iran’s leader for 10 years.

Agence France-Presse contributed to this report

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 07 Jun 2017 16:43
by Bhurishravas
The style of attack very much looks like the Pakistani TTP. I wouldnt be surprised to hear ISIS of Khorasan to be involved in this.

If it were ISIS of Levant, then they would ve driven a huge VBIED at both the places.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 01:34
by Rony

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 02:01
by Lisa
^ Really and he knows not of how the Shias are faring in the part of Kashmir illegally occupied by pukistan. Hypocrite!

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 09:17
by shashankk
Lisa wrote:^ Really and he knows not of how the Shias are faring in the part of Kashmir illegally occupied by pukistan. Hypocrite!

Maybe he is talking about killing Sunnis who are oppressing minority Shias in Kashmir. :rotfl:

on serious notes its plain stupid of us to trust any country from Muslim world. All are vessels without bottom, keep on rolling here and there.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 10:02
by DrRatnadip
Iranis are banking too much on russian and chinese support..

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 10:27
by Pathik
jews and hindus are eternal enemies of even the most moderate muslims. Never forget that

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 10:32
by Vikas
Pathak Ji: +100

I think we are better off with laying our bets with Sunni Arabs than Shia Iran. These Mullas of Iran think of world revolving around Iran. They are just evolved form of Pakis.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 10:50
by ricky_v
Actually saar, it is the pakis who are wannabe iranians with a sunni mould and not the other way around what with their mughal inheritance and their persian gardens.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 11:04
by Austin
Saudis are known to openly fund madrasas in Kashmir according to many IB reports and they with Paki bretheren were actively promoting Wahhabism in Kashmir.

Saudis openly state the Paki nukes are nothing but Saudi ones and has been known to bankroll their program.

Saudi connection with Paki run deeper ( note how recently Saudi asked Paki soldiers to be deployed for Yemen ops ) and you cant get a worst brand of Islamic Terror Nation than Saudis are with their Wahabi mentality.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 11:12
by Austin
years of sanctions has helped Iran build a local defence industry that would be envy of any nation in ME most of them who any ways import from West

Islamic Republic of Iran’s RMA Analysed-1

Islamic Republic of Iran’s RMA Analysed-2

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 11:48
by Philip
Iran is gradually getting p*ssed off with India,whose diplomacy is like that of a drunk trying to walk on a straight line.One day we;re all gung-ho about Chahbahar,then its progress crawls,we buy less oil from Iran tx to US pressure,etc.Remember Oran controls the gateway to the Persian Gulf through which most of our oil and gas (Qatar) comes from. It is also "my enemy's enemy",Pak,with whom it has anything but a close relationship. Therefore,an action plan/policy from which we must not deviate under any circumstances, must be ensured so that Iarn stays on our side and allows us to trade with Central Asia through its land/sea corridor.

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Posted: 27 Jun 2017 14:13
by jagga
India needs to destroys Pakistan completely or at minimum take back Kashmir, otherwise all and sundries will keep playing their dirty little games. And, this Bhaichara with mullah countries won't take us anywhere. Idiots in GOI keep parroting that we have centuries old cultural ties with these countries. Somebody ask these fools what kind of ties? The ties I know are barbarians Invading and looting Bharat. Barbarians persecuting minorities like zoroastrians and we giving them asylum. In simple words, throw emotions away when dealing with any mullah country in ME.