West Asia News and Discussions

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Apr 2011 19:19

What happens if Iran falls and is back in the US sphere of influence?

Suddenly Chabahar might become the US's main point of access to Afghanistan. Pakistan might lose what little leverage it has on the US.

And the idiot pakistanis are actively participating in this entire plan! There is little else that they can do, they are in deep debt and completely bankrupt and at the mercy of the GCC and the US.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Apr 2011 19:22

What Pakistan might do is to destabilize the area around Chabahar using Jundulla and some such group.

They had already started this, when India started on it Chabahar - Zaranj - Delram route to hurt India and pre-empt any Indian military deployment in Afghanistan.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 06 Apr 2011 19:40

The juggernaut is on roll, Gagan praji.. and this time, even the devatas of swarga won't be able to stop it.. Paki RoPers have made the choice.. those who have not, are in process of making it.. And choice is, they will become pure and by pure means muslim>sunni>deobandi/wahabi/ahle hadis. Kufr has to go. The zia's generation is coming of age and is becoming increasingly assertive. the public outcry in TSP over their team's defeat has not been as "deafening" as it was expected.. what does that tell? IMO, it tells us that the very definitions of Pakistan, Islamiat, and "kufr" are slowly changing.. the people who felt the pinch were pakjabi elite and other pakjabis. there is no need of feeling bad from mullah's perspective because kirkeet is kufr and people who play it are rich munafiqs onlee; the daadhi bearing tablighis are no longer part of this current tsp team (except for afridi, perhaps). so why feel bad if kafirs beat munafiqs in kufr game? while that is the case, the people are getting more religious and islamic and hence arabicised.

The problem of patriotism as prophecised by maulana madani in his "composite nationalism and Islam" is slowly showing its presence.. this has rather tricky effect on India. while "idea of pakistan" is slowly being questioned and discredited by pakis (elite and mango) themselves, what replaces that idea is what will determine the fate of India in next 20 years. If Nazariya e pakistan is replaced by pan islamism, then it would be difficult to handle that sort of pressure without having a serious repercussions in Indian territory. Is there any other ideology which can replace this nazariya e pakistan and is less rabid than islamism? none that I can see. Somehow, jinnah had, out of his "misplaced sense of self-righteousness", given Indics a breather to regroup and find strength.. that "break" is coming to an end, IMO..

As it is common knowledge on brf, stable tsp isn't in our interest. but disintegrated tsp with hordes of people spilling in India out of universal brotherhood isn't good for India as well.. while IA is perfectly capable of stopping such migrations into India, I am not sure of the GOI who, out of their perpetual need of pleasing IM constituency, allows such migrations (of people, ideas, and influences) into ROI by forcing the IA and intelligence agencies to stay put with their D*ck in their hands.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Apr 2011 19:55

A major blood shed was long in coming anyway, via a clash of civilizations or otherwise, isnt the best way to defuse the clash for other civilizations is for one civilization to internalize the clash and leave others to pick up the pieces.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 19:58

Last few hours, I have been busy working on whats going on. Basically, GoI need to wake up from slumber - our very civilisation may be at stake. One way or another the news has been fed to GoI. But the military walla's still dont really understand the mood in Riyadh & Manama - they are still like GCC is not serious, no stomach for this bla bla. The truth is now the mood in the capitals are very VERY different.

Basically, GoI and US have cornered PRC wrt Oil supplies (we have good Naval presence in east asia along with USN presence). So this deployment of forces in PoK is for following reasons:
1) Energy security since it is the shortest route to bring in fuel for PRC
2) Pak has requested this. This is so that if GCC exercise the agreements, the Pak is required to attack Iran. Someone is watching PoK etc. The presence started because US was forcing TSPA to take on talebs.
3) PRC obviously want to keep their ally against India.
4) PoK is crucial to PRC energy security.

But anyway - people left out Iraq and where it sits in all this. Basically, from what whispers I am getting, Maliki is Iran's stooge (which GCC leaders are quoted as saying), so Maliki and shia's will ally with Iran. But US has the Ministry of Defense under their thumb. So certain assets sitting with MoInterior, the US wants it transferred to MoD by the end of this year, i.e before they pull out. Complicated, long story. But the geography of the region can look quite different if shit does hit the fan.

So whats the next move? Make Iran an offer it couldn't refuse. Iran has only one way, thats to denuclearise or risk a major conflict - where it WILL DEFINITELY come out the loser (for one reason or the other).

--------------------------------------
Admin please bold as necessary and x post. Thanks.
Islamists prepare for new role

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

LONDON - The great 2011 Arab revolt has changed the dynamics of the Muslim world, especially in the thinking of anti-Western Islamic groups operating in the Middle East and North Africa that are now finding common ground with the democratic forces in their countries.

The magnitude of the change is such that it has set off fierce debate among Western policymakers on a key question: what are the chances of peace if Islamic groups are allowed to engage in mainstream political processes? And further, in what way might this affect al-Qaeda?

"Al-Qaeda is considered an organization that is against all nation states of the world," a senior British counter-terrorism official told

Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity when asked of the possibility of Western intelligence agencies opening up channels of communication with al-Qaeda, like they have done with the Taliban.

"However, we have seen that some Arab states have not only communicated with al-Qaeda, they have at times struck successful deals with them which have continued for many years. This shows that al-Qaeda is not opaque and is amenable to major policy shifts," the official said.

The major developments in Egypt within Islamist camps following the ouster of president Hosni Mubarak have forced Western capitals to review their thinking on al-Qaeda.

Egypt is the motherland of neo-Islamists, the home of Muslim Brotherhood societies and underground militant groups that gravitated to Afghanistan to form an "Egyptian camp" that became al-Qaeda's linchpin. (See Al-Qaeda's unfinished work).

The revolt in Egypt was a major windfall for the neo-Islamists released from jail in large numbers. They include leaders like Abboud al-Zumar, the founder of the Jamaatul Jihad that assassinated president Anwar Sadat in 1981 and which was led by al-Qaeda's ideologue, Egyptian Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, in the 1980s.

Not everyone believes, however, that the Islamists will necessarily triumph. Abboud al-Zumar, a former colonel and military intelligence official, spent 30 years in jail and believes democracy will prevent Islamists from ever again taking up guns against the state.

"I speak almost every other day to Zumar," Yassar al-Sirri told Asia Times Online. Sirri is an Egyptian dissident based in London and is the director of the Islamic Observation Center.

"He [Zumar] cast his vote in the recent referendum in Egypt [on constitutional reform] which shows his trust in democracy. I and many other friends have recommended to him to contest in the next presidential elections [in September]. Whether he agrees with that or not, he will certainly take part in the election process by supporting somebody else," said Sirri, who in 1994 was sentenced to death in absentia for his alleged involvement in a failed assassination attempt on former Egyptian prime minister Atef Sedki, in which a young girl was killed.

Sirri denies the charge. He was also accused in the British media of being involved in the September 9, 2001, assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the Afghan Northern Alliance, which was carried out by al-Qaeda hitmen. Sirri is wanted by United States as well as Egyptian authorities. He was arrested by the British government to be passed on to the Americans but a United Kingdom court ordered his release.

Only a few militants remain in Egyptian jails, including Rafah Taha of the International Islamic Front.

"At the moment, there is a bid for all detained Islamists - whichever group they belong to and even those that are run by the likes of Showki al-Islambouli [allegedly involved in an attempt to murder Mubarak and who is believed to be in the regions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran] - to be cleared of the false charges under which they were tried and sentenced," Sirri said.

"All major Islamic groups are now in consultation for a joint strategy in this regard. The outcome will be very positive, that is, all Islamists will lay down their weapons and will continue their struggle through democratic processes." Sirri added that their earlier struggles were peaceful but repressive Middle Eastern regimes, especially in Egypt, choked all arteries for them to operate through peaceful political means.

"Even organizations like al-Qaeda turned against Western governments because they facilitated tyrant Muslim regimes," said Sirri, who has contacted the Egyptian Embassy in London to obtain a passport so he can return to Egypt.

“I will not write an apology and nor will I request an amnesty because all the charges against me were false. I will simply go back to Egypt and play a role in politics," Sirri said.

Sirri attempted to save the life of British citizen Kenneth Bigley, who was abducted by an extremist group led by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2004 in Iraq. At Sirri's request, Bigley was spared for several weeks, unlike the two Americans who were abducted with him. However, when the Americans launched operations against Zarqawi, he killed Bigley before escaping.

Sirri believes that if the present trends continue and militants are dealt with as human beings, he would welcome people like Zawahiri back Egypt to be a part of the political process.

"Now, all Islamic groups are in consultation and they have developed a consensus for a few broader aims, These are welfare, the need for dawa [missionary activities] and peaceful political struggle," Sirri said.

Earlier, al-Qaeda ideologues issued 20 guidelines for jihad in which they emphasized the need for the political mainstreaming of al-Qaeda and urged reconnection with Islamic political groups and the Muslim intelligentsia. (See Broadside fired at al-Qaeda leaders Asia Times Online, December 10, 2010.)

For Western capitals, talking to al-Qaeda remains out of the question at this stage. Nonetheless, it is an issue that for the first time is being given some consideration; Egypt was a major catalyst in the change of thinking.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of upcoming book Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban, beyond 9/11 published by Pluto Press, UK. He can be reached at [email protected]

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 06 Apr 2011 20:06

Pakis are going to sing Hallelujah but will not actively participate in any war between KSA and Iran, reason being they are shit scared of leaving any local flank open which gives India the opportunity to attack and grab a piece of Pakistan. They have whipped up so much frenzy in their minds that they themselves have started believing in the myth which Pakis have perpetuated.
As for whoring out, They already have personal posted in KSA and maybe in other Gulf countries.

The other reason might be the fear of Iranians. End of the day Pakis have Inferiority complex with Arabs and Persians so fighting with Persians directly might not be the most optimum scenario, Pakis might jump in to feed on the carcass once the war settles down though with clear victor.

India need not take any side since we don't have a dog in the fight. We can preach love and peace while they fight but my gut feel is that all this fight will be thru proxies and not direct battle unless Unkill decides to show up with intentions of emptying the war inventories.
Wonder what side China will chose in this conflict.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 06 Apr 2011 20:07

I am not only talking about the migration of people sanku ji, but migration of idea which will replace idea of "pakistan" and which may potentially unite IM with erstwhile pakis in principle. The "idea of pakistan" is definitely going.. Will it be replaced by sindhi-punjabi nationalism? ghee shakkar in your mooh, if that happens.. Pakistan was a "temporary haven" for regrouping and creating a workable template of administration in modern times according to Sharia.. they have been trying that by "trial and error" means.. 3 constitutions, each one increasingly purer than previous one.. when long term end goal is clear in minds of all mango men and activists, steps are taken accordingly by subsequent generations.. one does not need to micromanage every aspect of the movement..

this is what Indians need to learn.. this is one of the fundamental deracinations that has happened to Indics.. over to gdf

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Apr 2011 20:11

Atri-ji,
My do naya paisa on this:
1. The idea-e-pakistan is more than half buried. Every action by the RAPE military and the Jihadis there pours more earth on the corpse. Janaza-e-pakistan is in full flow.

Most people who had sympathies with the idea of Pakistan in the past (the GCC nations, Indian Muslims & Kashmiris, 3.5 friends), it seems have either chosen sides, or are in the process of doing so.

Whatever else one may say about the current party that constitutes GoI, they have brought about an Indian identity that the BJP will find hard to make. IMs are majorly 'in' with an Indian identity, and being astute people like everyone else, want the idea of a secular India to succeed. Economic success has its rewards and we are witnessing it here.

2. Pakistan splitting won't necessarily be bad for India. It doesn't have to mean that Jihadis will suddenly change direction to India.
In fact I would argue that the Jihadis will find the idea of taking over smaller nations that are carved out of Pakistan a far more achievable goal than to take on India. There will be munafiqs to kill, small countries to take over, some spare nukes lying around, naked meat and riches to grab and plunder in pakistani punjab and elsewhere.

RAW can merrily spend its time funding one group after the other to keep them busy with each other for a generation.

Why fear pakistan?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Apr 2011 20:14

Atri-ji; like B-ji I have always held that moments which force people to chose sides are good, and the sooner the better. More in GDF.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Apr 2011 20:15

Civilizations that wanted to sit aside and sip beer and enjoy popcorns will get drifted into irrelevance. Every nation has to act towards their vision instead of hoping for things to fall on to their laps. Even minute nations in GCC are working towards their national goals.

India has to make a choice, a right choice to ensure that no one side comes out victorious in this new game. For that it has to enter the game.

I seriously doubt shias hurt Indian interests more in the past 60 years. So why help punishing them?

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 06 Apr 2011 20:22

Gagan ji, My fear is about lack of preparedness on Indian side.. pakistan as an idea is goner.. I am worrying about its potential successor. when an idea goes, some other idea replaces it.. if there are host of smaller nations which are formed, you are assuming that ideas of regional/linguistic nationalisms, tribal affiliations etc have won (like it happened in 1971).. If that happens, as I have answered to sanku ji, ghee shakkar in your mooh as well

.. it is my wish that *that* alone happens and nothing else..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2011 20:24

Sanku, Chanakya was the original one who said one should create situations which force people to choose sides.

When one cant create one must seize the opprotunity whenit shows up is my addition.

Folks one request and if not heeded a warning.

Do not whine about "India should have done this or that in this thread!"

There are many threads for that line of thought.
Thanks, ramana

ShyamD, my thoughts in another post.

Can some one post a map of West Asia which shows the borders?

Rohitvats, Whats the TSPA infrastructure in Balochistan? Can it support ops westwards? I dont think so but am ready to be corrected.

And do you expect Iran to move into Balochistan? Again I dont think so.

And where do Turks expect to deploy or they plan to be a NFZ operator?

All India has chosen right now. It wont be obvious yet. Its to let TSP into West Asia.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Apr 2011 20:29

Atri wrote:I am not only talking about the migration of people sanku ji, but migration of idea which will replace idea of "pakistan" and which may potentially unite IM with erstwhile pakis in principle. The "idea of pakistan" is definitely going.. Will it be replaced by sindhi-punjabi nationalism? ghee shakkar in your mooh, if that happens.. Pakistan was a "temporary haven" for regrouping and creating a workable template of administration in modern times according to Sharia.. they have been trying that by "trial and error" means.. 3 constitutions, each one increasingly purer than previous one.. when long term end goal is clear in minds of all mango men and activists, steps are taken accordingly by subsequent generations.. one does not need to micromanage every aspect of the movement..

this is what Indians need to learn.. this is one of the fundamental deracinations that has happened to Indics.. over to gdf

THis is correct in one sense and the trend is accurate.
But the fundamental history needs to be understood since the intervention of the British/Anglo Saxon in the Islamic history dates back to 1880s. The IM experience has been forged by the policies of the British. This will loose momentum and the IM have to find their own. Pak kind of IM have credibility problem in the sub continent and they will be confined to only in the Pak region.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Apr 2011 20:31

I was actually thinking even further back. This will fix the issues of Panipat et al.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Apr 2011 20:35

shyamd wrote:
Basically, GoI and US have cornered PRC wrt Oil supplies (we have good Naval presence in east asia along with USN presence). So this deployment of forces in PoK is for following reasons:
1) Energy security since it is the shortest route to bring in fuel for PRC
2) Pak has requested this. This is so that if GCC exercise the agreements, the Pak is required to attack Iran. Someone is watching PoK etc. The presence started because US was forcing TSPA to take on talebs.
3) PRC obviously want to keep their ally against India.
4) PoK is crucial to PRC energy security.

This is interesting. The situation for Pakistan is really critical and the ground situation in POK may be total alienation from the Pak.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Apr 2011 20:37

I don't think that Pakistan is a gone just yet.
I strongly suspect that Pakistan is getting that bail out of prison that it gets once every decade.

There is no way the GCC will lose this one. The regime in KSA sees this as a life and death matter - and once they see it that way, hell hath no fury like them.

The Shias are far from being a unified group - hell this is not even Shia vs Sunni thing yet. This will be quelled I feel if there is a regime change in Iran.

The US having opted out of Libya could mean that they want to concentrate their energies on the Iran thing. It might even give Gaddafi a reprieve - who knows?

The GOAT - war against terror wasn't making much headway of late. I wonder if Al-Qaida has agreed to 'renounce violence' if its political goals are met?

The Chinese will sit by the sidelines on this one. They have already played their bit by nuclearizing Pakistan, KSA, Iran (to what extent?). Now whoever wins, once the dust settles they can come in and give duhai of their past support. But for now, in the interests of 'non-interference' in a war zone, they'll hold back taking sides. Soon they'll see who's winning, and then they'll make moves.

Pakistan has received several layers of assurance that it will be safe from any Indian onslaught for this period. The US, the GCC have spoken to the GoI, the PLA is in POK. This tells this abdul that GoI has had some plans wrt POK on the drawing board for some time now.

I for one don't have enough information to be able to judge exactly what's going on, and what GoI should do. For now the safe side seems to be to sit tight and make moves as the situation demands. I don't think that our armed forces are going in at any point. We might as well spend time protecting our corporates' investments in the Middle east.

JMT

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 20:40

Ramanaji! Please note confirmation:

West Does Nothing at Its Own Peril

Through three months of Arab revolt against autocratic leaders, it’s become commonplace to say that the only clear strategic winner from the changes so far is Iran, supposedly picking up windfall political fruit as if sitting in an armchair.
Related

Condensed, the argument goes like this: There has been only profit for Iran from the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, who represented an Arab bulwark against Tehran’s nuclear weapons ambitions and the mullahs’ allies, Hezbollah and Hamas. Conversely, and beyond its hopes for democracy in the Middle East, the United States and some of its Western friends have reaped potential grief in the destabilization their old regional power relationships.

On the ides of March 2011, that assessment appears incomplete and almost mild. Rather, there’s a developing sense of foreboding.

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has increasingly real chances of putting down the rebellion against him in Libya. Before his boss could try to paper over what he said last week, James R. Clapper Jr., President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, testified before Congress that the dictator’s forces “will prevail” in the long term.

Apart from twisting the neck of the theories of inexorable popular rage certain to engulf all the region’s tyrants (Just you wait, Tehran!), this shard of very possible truth places the West’s hesitant, stuttering position on Libya parallel to its halting response to the threat of Iranian nukes — and reassures Iran’s leaders of their wisdom in moving to crush their own protesters.

A second naïve premise is also collapsing.

It was the Pollyanna-ish (and calming) assumption of some analysts that while pocketing the disarray from the Arab upheaval, Iran was too clever to meddle in creating more of it. Now, for the first time, we’re told this isn’t so.

Over the weekend, after a visit to Bahrain, home port of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet just across the Gulf from Iran, reporters on the airplane of Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates were informed by an unnamed senior defense official that U.S. intelligence had evidence Iran was working to persuade the hard-line Shiite opposition in Bahrain to reject the government’s offer of a political dialogue.

This account of active Iranian troublemaking in Bahrain, a country of basic strategic importance to America, is significant. Add to that a surge of new notions of Western impotence — plus an emboldened Iran — if the Libyan colonel prevails.

And this: Last month, Britain provided a new urgency in the assessment of Iran’s nuclear weapons timetable. Defense Minister Liam Fox has said “it is entirely possible” that Iran could produce a nuke in 2012.

{What if they might be on the Paki route and already have some thing. Hence the boldness. All those centrifuges are a charade!}

So what to do? No decisive response on Iran, the ultimate Middle Eastern issue, is coming from Western capitals.

Their lack of focus on it, their nervousness about linking the Arab revolts with Iran through urging young Arab democracies to back Iran’s protest movement, is striking. Indeed, there’s a real possibility of new, coalition-of-the-willing sanctions based on the Iranian regime’s human rights violations. But they may not be backed by enough Western will to nullify a statement by the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, that the possibility of new sanctions “has been exhausted.”

This generalized timidity is not escaping attention. Bernard Kouchner, the former French foreign minister, put his finger on it in a conversation last week.

He said, “We’ve got to ask young Arabs to extend their hands” to their Iranian counterparts challenging the mullahs. “The French government should propose it. The question of Iran and the Arab revolt has not been joined as one.”

In Washington, Senator Lindsey Graham was part of a bipartisan group of senators pressing the administration to make its position clear on Chinese energy and banking firms the group named as apparent violators of U.S. sanctions regulations on Iran.

Members of the group have stressed that there was only a single case of sanctions being imposed by presidential order in the 15 years such power has been available to the White House. Mr. Graham told me that if there was no reaction soon, Congress should start oversight hearings on the enforcement of U.S. sanctions — a potential political embarrassment to Mr. Obama.

Senator John Kyl, part of the same group of Republicans and Democrats, accused the administration of failing to go beyond “the first grade” level in assisting the Iranian opposition in the manner the United States had helped Poland’s Solidarity protesters in the years before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The truth is, the United States, and allies like Britain and France, have been extremely wary in expressing just what kind of democracy they would like to emerge in Egypt and Tunisia, and how the voices of those countries might support their counterparts’ struggle in Iran and blunt the mullahs’ drive toward nuclear confrontation.

Cynically, Western governments can dismiss such boldness as hasty, futile or insufficiently realpolitik. But it is supported by a new and still unaccustomed kind of democratic reality:

Without fanfare, Tunisia’s government on Saturday refused to authorize three new Islamist parties — citing a constitutional requirement that political organizations pledge rejection of all forms of violence, fanaticism and discrimination.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 06 Apr 2011 20:43

^^^
Atri ji,

in above scenario, a GoI headed by manchurian candidate is India's greatest problem. the very fact that Pak is becoming Arabicized can be used to our advantage. we can exploit the trend to drive an irrevocable blade between IM's and Pakis.

we need to adopt a 2-pronged approach:

1. drive wedge between IM's and Pakis. as Pakis become arabicized, IM's need to be reminded regularly and with ever increasing tempo of their language, culture, history, and traditions. RSS can play a huge role here. more shakhas in urban centres with Muslim populations with encouragement to IM's to join in and take part. regular reminders and constant tempo of messages can drive an irreversible wedge between IM's and Sunni Ummah. Paki arabicization is useful b/c it will destroy last vestiges of IM's to identify with outside Muslims based on language, etc.

2. keep the more rabid and arabized dogs from entering Bharat. form an Iron curtain from Guj to Kashmir and rain hell on anybody who tries to get through. this is extremely important to keep effects from spilling over. we want to insulate IM's and India from Paki arabization.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 20:45

Also seasoned watchers of B'stan - US has got the Baloch liberation parties/forces to steadily building up popular support without using mil tactics. Kayani operations reflect this (coming from a fairly serious source).

I am happy that we are having these discussions today, it took SSS to really kick things off. I've been trying to kick start these discussions for the last week or so!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Apr 2011 20:51

Sanku wrote:I was actually thinking even further back. This will fix the issues of Panipat et al.

In the middle east the British started their debate in 1880 on the Islamic world and with WWI they destroyed the Ottoman empire. The Indian project started during the same period and they coopted them with formation of ML in 1905

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 20:57

Ramanaji, check mail - just sent.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Apr 2011 20:59

Between Turkey, KSA's AF resources and Paki human resources the GCC alliance is well placed to impose an effective NFZ on Iran. How much protection S-300s (assuming they exist on the ground) can provide for Iran has to be seen.

This would be a replay of GWI in my opinion. It will positively halt Iran's nuke program (stupid Ahmadinejad to rake up Israelis so early in the game) and destroy its Mil-Ind complex for at least 15-20 years. I do not think GCC has the capacity to occupy any Shia lands.

Is an almost defeated Iran in Indian interests?
***

ramana wrote:All India has chosen right now. It wont be obvious yet. Its to let TSP into West Asia.

Ramanaji,

Would it bring the expected dividends even if TSP happens to end up on the winning coalition? I am assuming here that Paki nuke program is in fact real and TSP-owned (if not all).

What happens to Afghanistan? What would Unkil/Nato do while GCC and Iran are busy with each other? What happens to Karzai and Talib equation?

***

India's interest areas
GCC - Expatriates, FDI remittances, Energy security, Geopolitics, Pakistan +Ve
Iran - Energy Security, Geopolitics, Afghanistan, Pakistan -Ve
Pakistan - War spoils, Balochistan, POK
Bangladesh - Why are they not invited to GCC coalition - they too can send some bodies for money. How BDs view this? Does it make BD socio-economic unification with India?
China - POK (Have we given up this to China?), Paki Nukes
Russia - Is SCO dead even before it is born or is it limited to its members only? What is India's equation with such a SCO?
USA - Which side are they? I bet they are on GCC side. Of course they will make money irrespective of the outcome.
NATO - Second colonization of NA thru Libya?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Apr 2011 21:14

The Balochistan movement is FIRMLY in the US's hands.
I suspect that India has only a supporting role. And even then not much given MMS's attitude to reassure pakistan at all costs. MMS won't rollback RAW like IKG did, but he can put his foot down on any increases in their allocated briefs.

The Pakistanis are really pissed with the americans, and that is why Raymond Davis kind of episodes happen. The US is effectively harbouring the baloch leadership in Afghanistan.

Poor Pakistan, they can't even openly say that the US is doing things there, they can only shout out in impotent rage and blame "India" for everything. Balochistan and NWFP/KP is slowly slipping out of Pakistani hands. That is why the pakistanis are talking of further dividing their provinces to ultimately have close to a dozen provinces - divide them along ethinic lines or so.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 21:24

Gagan wrote: Poor Pakistan, they can't even openly say that the US is doing things there, they can only shout out in impotent rage and blame "India" for everything. Balochistan and NWFP/KP is slowly slipping out of Pakistani hands. That is why the pakistanis are talking of further dividing their provinces to ultimately have close to a dozen provinces - divide them along ethinic lines or so.

US are doing the dirty work. India plays NO part in this whatsoever. All I can say is India is aware of what the US is doing. Can't say any more.

More than ever, India needs a tough leader, who is ready to do the necessary.

Hopefully we'll use these years to heavily modernise, improve everything etc. We need to start focusing on our airforce, PAD, AAD etc. Priority number 1 is Air Force and Submarine fleet. Desh cannot wait for Arihant etc. We need to move fast. We need MRCA asap and long term 5th gen fleet to totally outfox our likely enemies.

Hopefully, Russkies will come back with alliance with Desh. But it may take some moves in Chechnya.

What you must understand is the rulers have formed an alliance with AQ to take on the Shia (priority 1). See the latest intel on OBL's moves - read SSS March 25th article on OBL.

Anyway, I hope US or someone like Desh can grab Iran by the ear and say de-nuclearise. Here is your bag full of $$$'s and a LOT of H&D. This is the only way out of the scenario.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Apr 2011 21:37

shyamd wrote: Anyway, I hope US or someone like Desh can grab Iran by the ear and say de-nuclearise. Here is your bag full of $$$'s and a LOT of H&D. This is the only way out of the scenario.

Cant we promise them to hold their arsenal for them in trust? So that they can show the world that they are clean? We provide security?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 21:37

Marten wrote:What is Israel's position on the developments?

Does it see the oncoming situation as an opportunity to clean out the Shia nuke bomb or does it see it as an opportunity for a Shia nuke to be used against a Sunni nuke, and for Israel to wait and then settle scores with the winner?

Our only natural and true ally will be Israel (owing to our mutual interest in surviving the nuclear shadow).

It will stay quiet. Assad tried to kick off a conflaguration to deflect on internal unrest in Syria.

Israel needs to lay low, because any moves in Gaza or WB will cause Egyptian foreign policy to change track into anti yahudi. Basically assad is merging the palestinian movements and now aim is to kick off anti israeli mood and get everyone to head to the Golan's, to save himself. Assad got Hamas to launch rockets, then the terror attack in jerusalem bus. Assad did this with permission from KSA. He is now getting them to enter talks on reconciliation. Israel cant afford any agressive moves because the Mossad and AMAN got it soo wrong, the entire israeli/egyot border is unguarded.

This is what will happen to India in 4 or 5 years as TSPA, AQ etc look to save themselves. 26/11 was about this. India held back because of this - while we whined that we were being scared (element of truth in it but still...)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2011 21:39

Muppala made a post yesterday about the constraints on US(economy, imperial over reach etc., etc) or Israel(unites ummah etc.) to take on Iran.
So from their point of view better appear to wring hands while letting Turkey (a Nato member) and the GCC (post CENTO) take on Iran.

if Turkey gets whacked can use the alliance to rally round it. Same with GCC.

But all these are balance of power games of weak power. Its the demographics and modern ideas at the core now.

Sunni power uniting under modern rubric is a throwback to olden times. And goes against the Westphalian states construct of West Asia post WWII.

Its like back to the back instead of future.

One thing is its demographics in the end. Arabs might get an inital boost from Muhammad (past) or oil (now) but in the end they are at mercy of demographics as they don't have the numbers. PBUH allowed conversions to address this but it got lost in their hubris.
One hundred years after Battle of Cestiphon, the Arabs were confined to the desert and Persians and Turks took over the West Asia. Now in less then 70 years, we see a repeat where KSA again has to seek Turks and Paki (Turco-Afghan-Persians) troops.

--------

POK: PRC got into POK way beofre the turmoil. I think they wanted to secure their energy and shipping route. The Dutch scholar had written many times about that. I think they rushed in as they thought US was going to declare a new state with Kashmir and NA as contiguous regions after the events last year. So if GOI appeared to be lax they wanted to create ground truths. And TSPA allowed PRC in as they couldn't have forestalled such a move by US.
BTW this prevents the TSP nuke use theory of using it in POK. TSP had this dream of using nukes in Kashmir to make it unihabitable in case India attacks there and would get massa to endorse it as not escalatory.

So lets not confuse the issue with POK.

I want to hear from rohitvats before deciding who is the winner.

So Iran could have two front war if it gets hot.

What if it stays cold but becomes a pressure cooker?

--
Gagan,
Offcourse Indian never had anything to do with BLA. Hence the MMS SeS offer to discuss the matter. The book on "Great Game Revisited" by Brobst documents the US desires for Balochistan right after WWII. Most likely the TSP was advised to grab Kalat before it got support from US.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 21:40

Sanku wrote: Cant we promise them to hold their arsenal for them in trust? So that they can show the world that they are clean? We provide security?

You see folks, this conflaguration is actually totally against the US plans! US CANNOT AFFORD A WAR ECONOMICALLY, NEITHER CAN THE EU! IT is a death stab of their economy. Keep this in mind. So ultimately US and Iran will settle mutually. There is no 2 ways about it imo.

Sanku, Russia will probably pull something off before we do. We are still an underdog - but we are rising. Best thing to do is ally with US and bring Iran to the table and let this all pass off peacefully.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 21:45

Ramanaji - Good source tells me, Either Pak will go all guns blazing or not at all. (trustworthy source close to GoI).

Perhaps - we should see to it that no power becomes more powerful than the other. Then GCC will continue to need us.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2011 22:04

If TSP and Turkey get involved on GCC side, then Iran faces a nuke power and a power in an alliance with nukes. This makes the security argument very persuasive for Iran.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 06 Apr 2011 22:06

If i would have been in Tehran i would have hit India using Pak Jihadis...to stop Pak div in Gulf.....

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 22:07

Ramana, See what you just wrote ties into what SSS said - "Backdoor negotiations on Turkey's position...". So sounds like they'll join only if turkey joins.

Turkey FM and Iran FM had a meeting yesterday - Called for "peaceful solution". So basically - times up, either settle peacefully or we'll gun you down.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 06 Apr 2011 22:10

shyamd wrote:Ramanaji - Good source tells me, Either Pak will go all guns blazing or not at all. (trustworthy source close to GoI).

Perhaps - we should see to it that no power becomes more powerful than the other. Then GCC will continue to need us.

Shyamd saar,
Would you please elaborate on these? Specially the first one.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 06 Apr 2011 22:13

ramana wrote:Do not whine about "India should have done this or that in this thread!"

There are many threads for that line of thought.
Thanks, ramana

Good that you put this explicitely. GoI has access to far more credible data than any one in this forum. Delegates from different countries meet GoI officials and we have no idea what transpires there. I feel like laughing when I see people, based on their tiny share of data from less reliable sources, say that GoI should do this and that. The discussion here helps us, aam brfite, understand what is happening in MENA but it will be foolish to expect GoI to act based on our discussion.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 06 Apr 2011 22:23

Shyam garu,

That GOI has more/better info is given and it is also given that what we discuss here has zero impact (if any) on GOI decision making.

Suggestions on what GOI should/shouldn't do are also part of understanding MENA developments and their impact on India and Indians. Laying down all possible strategies and their probabilities, possible outcomes and their probabilities, and value of those outcomes to given players (India and Bharat) is part of that understanding.

It is also possible that some of those strategies may never get executed due to the quality/world-view of the leadership irrespective of the probabilities/outcomes/value. Posts on that line of thought are indicators of that unavoidable variable.

What is the point of any discussion if we agree that we know nothing/very-little and can do nothing about the problem? Very MENA-ish thought process, I would say, to be a (sacrificial) lamb {follow thy ruler blindly} in national affairs.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 22:24

Gagan wrote: Shyamd saar,
Would you please elaborate on these? Specially the first one.

Basically, this source said if Pak really desires to be some great defender of Sunni islam, then it HAS to join and if they want the position they have to go in with full force. So he sees the 2 div's being ready to reassure KSA that they are serious (shows credibility) and obviously solves the immediate financial constraints that Pak has - as you know I think Pak want to get $5bn from IMF. KSA already promised to give deferred payments for oil etc.

But at the same time, it is going in only if Turkey goes in based on SSS article. So this is just one of those cases where you are going to jump into a room full of terrorists and your partner says - you go in first, and you say no you go in. UMMMm OKay together! TSP doesnt want to be left alone, if you get my drift. It wants to make sure Turkey is serious if they want to go in. GCC is serious, so this is a 3 front war.

The 2 divisions is for internal security duties in Eastern province, Bah & Yemen.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2011 22:27

ShaymD, Will those TSP troops get radicalized by deployment in West Asia?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2011 22:35

Think about the data in this post and forget the polemics:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1065201

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 06 Apr 2011 22:39

^^ Lets say they do radicalize.... AND? The royals aren't worried about the radicals, there is always a way to get them to align. Like now it is Shia's. Next Israel. Next India etc etc. AQAP etc were a problem at one point, but they have "aligned for a bigger cause". This is why Yemen border became a lot safer all of a sudden and a sudden decrease after Mhamed bin nayef was targeted.

I am not sure you got my drift but KSA controls OBL, he is their boy. I got this message after reading the SSS article and how OBL is basically preparing for the US pull out. Because war with iran can only happen after US pulls out you see. Only after this crisis in Bah started did the US announce they are going to pull out from Afg. Now I am hearing in Iraq that US embassy last week is shouting at Maliki for not transferring all the assets to the US controlled MoD. Its all in prep for Iran. They wanted to weaken the shia's basically as the US was forced to take sides with GCC. It needs more analysis of why US embassy renewed the urgency last week. Sadr has already threatened to send militia to the south. Kuwait/KSA border. Basically Iran showed its hand. All the Shia want to side with IRan on this one. Iran has a good control in the South - Maliki will probably be forced to side with Iran.

SSS is just playing to the western audience just to maintain the cover story that he is preparing something big bla bla, CIA is chasing his tracks bla bla. You don't think US knows who he is already? Its just all drama for public consumption imho.

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 06 Apr 2011 22:41

British Pawn Saudi Arabia Moves To Incite Sectarian Bloodbath

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisp ... px?id=1710