periaswamy wrote:Obama regime had a deal going with Iran, so it is not impossible at all. US is already using all the IMF/world bank clout against pakistan, without results so. India already has an india-supporting constituency in Afghanisthan. Just go back a few pages on this very thread and catch up with Afghanisthan news. KSA and Israel were on opposite sides of the fence after arab-israel wars but have decided to be on the same side of the fence these days -- nothing is impossible in diplomacy and politics in general. Interests can change and alliances can shift along with them.
Obama signed a deal with Iran to stop it acquiring nukes short of war. It is a long way from there to start using Iran transit route.
Yeah, nothing is impossible in diplomacy and politics. India and Pakistan will become friends and soon, India and Pakistan will solve Kashmir.
Please talk sense rather than regurgitating crap for the heck of it.
Trade/economics is very much at the heart of strategic calculation. What exactly is the Waasenaar agrement all about? Denying strategic items as part of normal trade is the aim of that agreement. Trade related to energy is at the core of most strategic decisions of countries: India got into the 123 deal with the US for access to nuclear fuel. India purchases from Russia, US, Saudi and Iran (all of them are adversaries) to spread the risk of not suffering oil shock due to instability in one of these suppliers. So your contention that "there is nothing strategic about trade" is not supported by reality.
Wassenaar agreement and 123 agreement etc are inherently strategic in nature dealing with nukes and dual use goods.
What is strategic about Indian trade with Afghanistan? Wheat ? Iran did not allow dynamite sticks from India to traverse its territory. There is nothing strategic about the port except it can be used for trade and that too with benevolence of Iranians.
India's afghan strategy is to win public support via trade and reconstruction efforts, and this has had a lot of effect. India's one weakness was its inability to trade with afghanisthan because of refusal of over-land transit by the Pakis. That is why back in 2003-2005 India started to work on this alternate route to Iran, and it has reached completion a decade afterwards. India is not going to "take risks" and put Indian troops on the ground, and definitely not as a sepoy army for the US, like the paki army. There are many ways to stabilize afghanisthan without doing such a thing.
Hindu India will win support from Islamic hordes in Afghanistan through trade. Really?!
India needs to play some realpolitk in the west. It has no friends in Afghanistan. But it can align with interests of some constituents in the country. US and India will fail in stabilizing Afghanistan. US will leave after some years. India needs to act in the west. If it doesnt, all its billions will be wasted, much like how US money has been or getting wasted in Iraq/Afghanistan. Delhi does not have to be a junior partner in Kabul. But it must ensure that repeat of Taliban takeover doesnt happen. Trade alone wont stop that.
India purchases from Russia, US, Saudi and Iran (all of them are adversaries)
US is already using all the IMF/world bank clout against pakistan, without results so.
DO you even read what you write?! Or have you decided to overwhelm others with volume alone.