Iran News and Discussions

[sanjaykumar]

India is unnecessarily getting sucked into the whole mess.

Given the Islamic and Judeo-Christian subtexts involved, yes: India does not have a god in this fight.

[sooraj]

Trita Parsi said in an interview yesterday that he thinks India may join up with Turkey to create a successful mediator role between Iran and the US. Japan failed, Turkey wasn't able to get a 'yes' from the US, but India+Turkey may be able to.

From an Indian PoV I don't understand how involving Turkey in our relations with Iran computes in the larger scheme of things.

Meanwhile:
Iran to announce new nuclear projects Wednesday

We need a bunch of decent negotiators to achieve something of that sort .

Include Oman in that list.

[arun]

Iran could hit back. But why would they do it in Delhi: Dr Trita Parsi:

^^ Either Iran is really dumb and TSP like( which i doubt) when it uses its own citizens( which is almost like a smoking gun) to target Israel in 3rd countries( like Thai, India etc) instead of using proxies or there are a load of wheels within wheels here with multiple false flag ops also getting into the picture.

Going by what Thailands Police Chief is quoted as saying, Iran just could really be dumb and acting in the same manner as the Islamic Terrorist supporting Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Note reported similarity between the New Delhi and Bangkok bomb:

Iranian Suspects ‘Targeted’ Israelis: Thai Police

By Daniel Ten Kate and Suttinee Yuvejwattana - Feb 15, 2012


Iranians arrested after blasts on a Bangkok street aimed to attack Israeli diplomats, and the devices used were similar to bombs targeting Israelis in India and Georgia this week, according to Thailand’s police chief.

“The suspects targeted Israeli diplomats in Thailand,” Priewphan Damaphong told reporters in Bangkok yesterday, hours after he confirmed that the Bangkok bombs contained magnets designed to attach to vehicles. India’s initial investigations suggest that a magnetic device was attached to an Israeli diplomat’s car on Feb. 13 in New Delhi seconds before it exploded injuring the woman, the city’s police commissioner, B.K. Gupta, has said.

“The type of explosive device is similar to the incident in India,” Priewphan told reporters in Bangkok. The men “were not targeting a place.” .............................

Bloomberg

[Kati]

Lot of hot air is being released about suspected iranian involvement in targetting israelis, but not a fraction of that energy has been spent when israelies targetted iranian scientists or kidnapped their diplomats overseas.

[SwamyG]

Lot of hot air is being released about suspected iranian involvement in targetting israelis, but not a fraction of that energy has been spent when israelies targetted iranian scientists or kidnapped their diplomats overseas.

That is because everybody knows Israel is the ONLY great democratic responsible country in that region, while the rest of the countries are rabid ones.

[A_Gupta]

Israel should be thinking will enmity with Iran spoil relations with India? Should 7 million people or 1200 million people worry about the other side?

[Rony]

Lot of hot air is being released about suspected iranian involvement in targetting israelis, but not a fraction of that energy has been spent when israelies targetted iranian scientists or kidnapped their diplomats overseas.

From a Indian perspective, Israel and Iran can do whatever they want for all i care but India should not be a playground for them. In all likelihood it seems Iran broke that rule and is making more harder for India to resist Western pressure. Unfortunately, the Iranians correctly guessed that they could get away with anything on Indian soil.

[CRamS]

I don't think India should go out of its way to antagonize Israel, or indulge in useless moralizing. India should maintain an ultra diplomatic posture so as to not alienate Israel, while continuing its relationship with Iran. SDRE diplomats must get into full gear and put forth India's case to Israel. I, for one, due to colonial aspect I explained above, do not not see India Israel relations go beyond a certain point, so India need not prostrate and acquiesce to everything US/Israel demand. On the other hand, if de-nuking TSP, and chemotherapy on TSP is prescribed to cleanse it of anti-India pigLeTs is on the anvil, then its a different story.

[krisna]

It is good for eyeraan to be quiet on India front instaed of trying to scr*w India. Same goes with isssraael.
If india does find out who the perpetrators either one of them then what can India do about it-
whatever we think of ourselves as a nation and berate oursleves for our shortcomings, This image is not so on the non Indians to certain extent.

options-
1) Assuming Eyeraan did it - then it becomes all the more easier for India and its khan pasand loving to go along BO. sanctions will go into place with SA and others helping in oil. net result is eyeraan losing out on one big ally who is capable of defying sanctions imposed by uncle(at least for now). It is a net loss for them.

2) Assuming issrael - India will have little more trouble than the option 1). But things will be difficult due to the ever widening trust gap that will one day manifest at our biding. In the whole of asia the least country issrael will piss of is India.

3) Other elements are more plausible- Anyone of the baki based groups with local contacts could have targetted the issrealis in india copying the eyeraanian scientist killings, giving a handle to western media about eyeraan. India will be in a korner unless the legenedary spine of stands firm. Here it is diffifcult to for India to identify anyone involved due to domestic compulsions involved also. Remember the previous terrorirsts killings which were whitewashed in the name of kummanal piece. It is a win win for the bakis for now. Also shows the importance of handling India through proxytute.

Among all the options the 3) looks the best bet. Bakis will be rewarded well for their help in putting India on the mat.
Heard BO giving some arms to beggarsitan. have to see other trends also.

[Agnimitra]

Some more info about the ethnic Iranians apprehended in Bangkok. Are they agents of the Iranian regime? Sure looks like it. Also some interesting tidbits about modus operandi.

Iranian bomb gang defused in Bangkok

Thailand is still searching for an Iranian women named Rohani Leila. She allegedly rented the house where the four suspects stayed, a few blocks from Iran's government-run Cultural Center in an upscale Bangkok neighborhood where many Thai Muslims live.

The man arrested in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia's capital, allegedly used an Iranian passport, numbered M20305701, which identified him as Masoud Sedaghatzadeh. He was born in Tehran on February 12, 1981, as the son of Abbas Sedaghatzadeh, according to a published scan of the document.

He was caught trying to fly from Kuala Lumpur to Tehran on Wednesday after changing a previous booking scheduled for February 25 on that same route, Thailand's Nation newspaper reported. Sedaghatzadeh arrived in Malaysia on Tuesday evening, hours after the alleged bomb-making gang's plot unraveled during a bizarre and bloody afternoon on Bangkok's crowded streets.

[...]

Thai police, meanwhile, hoped to question another Iranian man, Saeid Moradi, who is still recovering in a Bangkok hospital after losing both of his legs when his explosive device bounced back at him in the street on Tuesday.

A third Iranian man, Mohammad Hazaei, was arrested at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi international airport on Tuesday during his failed attempt to also board a flight south to Malaysia.

[...]

In each of those attacks, a bomb equipped with a magnet was stuck onto an Israeli Embassy vehicle to be detonated. The explosion in New Delhi injured an Israeli diplomat's wife and driver in her car. The device in Georgia was discovered and defused while attached to a vehicle.

[...]

"I think that terrorism looks for soft targets, and Thailand being so open a country and friendly, it is also a very, very soft target," the Israeli ambassador said on Wednesday. "People come here, and they feel they can do whatever they want. And we think that probably this is one of the reasons why the terrorists have chosen Thailand," Shoham told Thailand's Nation TV.

[Rony]

'India won’t act tough even if Iran’s hand proven'

Kamna: Israel has blamed Iran for attacks in India, Georgia and now Thailand. Do you think Israel just jumped the gun, or has it logic to back up its accusation?

Dr Sahni: Israeli intelligence is usually very good, and they have a strong reputation on this, which they are unlikely to jeopardise by completely fabricated claims. The circumstantial evidence around this case, particularly including the nature of the explosive device and the near simultaneous developments in Tbilisi and Bangkok, is also fairly compelling. In Bangkok, particularly, Iranians have been arrested in connection with the incidents, and there were also antecedent intelligence warnings regarding the threat of Iran-linked terrorist incidents. Despite the very obvious difficulties of understanding why Iran would go for such an operation on Indian soil at this juncture, the Israeli allegations will have to be taken very seriously. It is not possible to say more than this, at present, and investigations will hopefully provide a more accurate picture of what actually happened, and the conspiracy and linkages that underpinned the incident.

Kamna: If Iran is to be blamed for this attack, why did it choose Indian soil? Anyways, why would Iran want to antagonise one of its last-standing major trading partners? And if it is not Iran, which did other agencies carry out such an attack?

Dr Sahni: This is the real imponderable here. There is no rational strategic or tactical calculus apparent in this attack, if it emanates from any state entity in Iran. On the other hand, Iran-linked non-state actors, most prominently the Hezbollah, could have acted within a more comprehensible calculus. Such operations could have been undertaken without specific state sanction by such non-state groups, under the wider and ongoing mandate that such agencies enjoy. It is significant that, just days before the attack at New Delhi, on February 3, 2012, Ayatollah Khamanei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the country’s highest authority, had described Israel’s “Zionist regime” as a “cancerous tumour that should be cut and will be cut”, and had declared, further, “we will support and help everyone who opposes the Zionist regime”. Such broad exhortations may have been the provocation for the actions undertaken in Tbilisi, New Delhi and Bangkok.
Virtually every Islamist terrorist grouping operating on Indian soil, including all the Pakistan-backed groups, moreover, is anti-Israel and anti-Semitic in its ideological stance and pronouncements. Thus almost any one of these groups would also have the motives for such an attack, or may be tempted to cooperate with others who provoke such attacks. Of course, there is a wide gulf between these groups – all of whom are fundamentalist Sunni in orientation – and the Iranian regime or Hezbollah, who are fundamentalist Shia, and willing collaboration here is unlikely. A purely mercenary local actor could also have been recruited to execute the attack, creating another ‘circuit breaker’ that will make it difficult to trace the link back to the primary conspirators. The problem with the discourse in India is that we are quick to judge, even without sufficient evidence, but very ambivalent in our condemnation and response. I think we should be very slow in our judgements and relentless in our condemnation and our response, once responsibility has been clearly established. Even if an Iranian hand is eventually proven by the investigations, it is unlikely that the Government will take any strong line. After decades of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism on Indian soil, our leaders still continue to spout rubbish about a ‘strong, stable and prosperous Pakistan’ being in our best interests, and constantly pursue conciliatory policies towards what is essentially a deeply criminalized rogue state.

Kamna: A number of reports claim that Israel did warn Indian authorities of a possible attack in New Delhi. Why did India fail to avert the attack despite such warnings and that too near the PM's residence?

Dr Sahni: First, there are claims of precedent intelligence warning after every terrorist attack. Unless we know the character and content of such warnings – especially how general or specific they were – no judgement can be made on whether there is any failure to respond appropriately.

Second, and more significantly, preventing soft target attacks is very difficult, and there is no reason to believe that no miscreant can approach the public roads around the Prime Minister’s residence. Tens of thousands of vehicles pass the Prime Minister’s residence on a daily basis without let or hindrance, and unless some one of these demonstrates a suspicious pattern of activity, or attempts to breach the security perimeter around PM House, the Police have no reason to intervene.

A broader issue is crucial here. Just days ago, a young woman was abducted and raped in a moving vehicle for three continuous hours, while the car was being driven around the city. No one detected this protracted crime and intervened. This was only the latest in a long series of such incidents. And yet, we expect that the Police will have the capacities and the capability to prevent a terrorist attack that could have taken no more than a few seconds in its execution. This is absurd. You cannot have a police force that acts like Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, all rolled into one, when it comes to counter-terrorism; but it is inept and incompetent in dealing with all other crimes as well. Unless the capacity, quality and character of general policing and intelligence improve exponentially, our counter-terrorism responses will remain as poor as they presently are.

Kamna: What does the attack mean for India, Iran, Israel, and the US?

Dr Sahni: The implications of this attack, in itself, on India’s relations with the US, Israel and Iran, will be marginal, if this proves to be a ‘one off’ incident. However, if this is the beginning of a new trend, the impact will, obviously, amplify with each new incident. It is far too early, at this stage, to get into the business of prediction of the precise content of such an impact.


Kamna: India is in a catch-22 situation as it has diverse interests with Iran and Israel. What strategy should New Delhi adopt now to come out of this quagmire?

Dr Sahni: Whatever the outcome of investigations, this single, relatively minor, incident will have no decisive impact on relations with either country. There is, at present, no quagmire here. There are certainly some tensions, and India has been managing these in the past. Unless there are extraordinary future developments, such as a rising wave of similar incidents, there is no reason to believe that India will be confronted with an intractable crisis.

Kamna: Why does India seem to be wary of taking the US help in the probe into the Israeli car blast?

Dr Sahni: If we want to strut around claiming to be an emerging great power, we can’t go running to Uncle Sam every time we have a little problem. We would be saying we don’t have the capability to investigate this incident on our own soil, but want to sit on the table as permanent members of the UN Security Council?

[Agnimitra]

Ok China is turning around on Iran:

UPDATE: National Iranian Oil Co., China Reach Agreement On 2012 Crude Supply

BEIJING (Dow Jones)--National Iranian Oil Co. has reached an agreement in principle with China International United Petroleum & Chemical Corp., known as Unipec, for a long-term supply contract to supply crude oil in 2012, a person familiar with Iran's oil sales said Thursday.

The deal paves the way for the resumption of ...

[uddu]

From the interview, i like this part
"After decades of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism on Indian soil, our leaders still continue to spout rubbish about a ‘strong, stable and prosperous Pakistan’ being in our best interests, and constantly pursue conciliatory policies towards what is essentially a deeply criminalized rogue state. "
Not only MMS even Pranab da way back in 2007 has made such a comment of stable Bakistan.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... waz-sharif
Seems policy of the UPA govt to see Prosperous and stable Pakistan. They act as if the People of Pakistan elected them.

[krisna]

INDIA MUST HOLD ITS GROUND ON IRAN by KANWAL SIBAL

Iran is India's second largest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia, providing about 12% of its annual requirments worth about $12 billion. India can potentially obtain pipeline gas or LNG from Iran if security and sanctions issues can be overcome. Iran's geographically proximity makes it a logical source of hydrocarbons for energy deficient India which today imports 70% of its needs and will import 90% in the years ahead.

China's Security Council membership and financial clout give it more leverage than we have with Iran as well as the US. It can more easily enter into barter arrangements as it exports much more than us to Iran. Looking ahead, India must not lose ground in Iran irretrievably to China.

India is unable to gain access to Afghanistan through Pakistan and Iran, therefore, is a logical alternative. India built the Zaranj-Delaram road segment in Afghanistan to complete a road link between Chabahar port in Iran to Kabul. Iran, unfortunately, has not given sufficient priority to this strategic project. Now, with tightened sanctions, external investments have become more problematic. The Chabahar route has become even more important for India in view of its planned investments in the Hajigak iron ore project in Afghanistan.

India's political and economic interests in Iran are transparent, whether in terms of energy security, access to Afganistan, countering a Taliban take over of Afghanistan backed by Pakistan, leveraging contradictions in Iran-Pakistan relations, maintaining a balanced posture on the Iran-Saudi Arabia and Shia-Sunni divide wracking West Asia etc. India has no hidden Indian agenda of encouraging Iran to defy the West or bolstering its capacity to do so.

India is against Iran going nuclear. While recognizing its right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, India has asked Iran to clarify IAEA queries about its nuclear activities. India is mindful of the consequences of Iran going nuclear for the Gulf region where it has vast energy, trade, manpower and remittance interests, but the US should not expect India to share its apocalyptic view of Iran's nuclear ambitions. India, which has itself long suffered US nuclear sanctions, lives with a much more direct threat to its security from Pakistan's nuclear capability developed with Chinese support and US indulgence. Even now Pakistan's conduct in nurturing and supporting jihadi groups against India and Afghanistan under cover of its nuclear capability escapes sanctions. Instead, engaging Pakistan is advocated, but with Iran the approach is coercive.

A strategic partnership has to be two-way. If India is to take cognizance of US strategic concerns, the US should accommodate India's concerns too. If Pakistan is not a black and white case for the US and its policy towards the former has to take into account its larger regional interests, Iran is not a black and white case for India either and its Iranian policy too has to be adapted to its broader regional interests.

India is often faulted by foreign and domestic critics for unwillingness to accept global responsibilities that come with an enhanced international status. These jibes are made when India resists siding with the US/West on Iran, Libya, Syria and, until now, on Myanmar. India's rising global role should not require it to give up independence of judgment or always endorse western policies. Assuming responsibilty at the global level should mean supporting or opposing policies in the interest of an equitable functioning of the international system.

It is not Iran earnings from sale of oil to India that will determine its nuclear decisions. Iran's political judgment on the advantages and disadvantages of going nuclear would be the key factor. On the face of it Iran is being pushed to the limit by western policies of economic warfare and miltary intimidation to go nuclear. When will it look for nuclear protection against regime change?

[krisna]

China is paying Iran by yaun. It is in a better position to withstand uncle on sanctions. it also has veto power so uncle has to gubo panda.
India is now starting to pay a part of its payments in rupees, but has no veto power.

[Agnimitra]

Certain sections of Iranian public opinion also seems to think that India's need for Iranian oil and Iranian strategic co-operation is inelastic. They even think that Iran deliberately chose Delhi as a venue for attacks against Israel.

[Christopher Sidor]

Lot of hot air is being released about suspected iranian involvement in targetting israelis, but not a fraction of that energy has been spent when israelies targetted iranian scientists or kidnapped their diplomats overseas.

If Israel has targeted Iranian scientist, then it has done so inside Iran not inside India. That is a matter between Israel and Iran.

If Iran has a hand, whether direct or indirect, in the Delhi blast then it targeted Israeli citizens inside India. And we have at least 3 Indian national injured as a consequence. I don't want Indians becoming collateral damage in a war which does not concern India.

Further more Israel has not targeted Iranian citizens in India nor the Iranian establishment in India. Israeli targeting Iranian scientist does not harm any Indian citizen. The same cannot be said w.r.t Iran.

Please do not link these two issues. If Iran is angry with israel then it would be better that it should fight the war somewhere else and not in India.

[pgbhat]

Idea of India and Iran

There is a curious divide between the popular Indian view of the relationship between New Delhi and Tehran — and how it is perceived within official circles in New Delhi.

The former view is of India and Iran as bosom buddies, close friends who help each other diplomatically and economically. This view likes to speak of the “civilisational” ties between the two countries and believes that if only we could get the Americans and other obstructionist types off our back there would be no stopping Indo-Iranian ties. This is the Taj Mahal school, a vision of an Indo-Persian construction of ethereal beauty.

The latter view is hardly hostile to Iran, but it knows from experience that Iran is a difficult, very self-interested nation who has no problem in playing hard ball or turning on India if it believes it will benefit by doing so. In other words, a good old player of realpolitik. Which is fine, that is the norm in the world anyway. However, they know there is no “special relationship” between India and Iran, just one based on specific shared interests and a number of divergent interests.

The economic relationship is actually quite threadbare. India doesn’t import a drop of natural gas from Iran. The key petroleum relationship was that India refined Iranian crude and sent it back go Iran or to other third countries. The Reliance Corporation pulled the plug on that last year. India does import oil, but much of that is fungible — we can get it from somewhere else.

India’s imports from Iran peaked in 2009-10 and have fallen precipitously since then. I suspect Indian imports will fall to as little as 200,000 barrels per day by summer. That’s nearly a fifth of what was being shipped in 2009-10. Iran is actually more desperate because there are only three or four countries who can refine its sour crude.

So why is India struggling to ensure relations with Iran aren’t deep-sixed? Partly because it sees the utility of Iran rising as the United Statets moves towards withdrawal from Afghanistan. Partly because it doesn’t want to be seen as following the US’s unilateral moves. But a lot of its motives lie in a belief that whatever happens Iran is heading to become the dominant power of the Persian Gulf in a decade or so. By then the US will not be the country most affected by disrupted oil and gas supplies through the Straits of Hormuz. It will be India and China. So keeping the Persians happy will be essential.

India owes Iran no favours and vice versa. But they have common interests and when they work on those they can get a fair amount of good things done. The constructive behaviour takes place best when there are no illusions that India and Iran are brethren.

[pgbhat]

Diplomacy: No certainty attack will alter India-Iran ties

Most Israelis took as a given Iran’s hand in the attacks – either directly or through its Hezbollah proxy – including the one in India that injured Tal Yehoshua-Koren, the wife of an Israeli diplomat.

The reasons for the certainty: because the attacks took place a day after the fourth anniversary of the killing of Hezbollah’s shadowy commander Imad Mughniyah; because Iran had vowed to avenge the assassinations of a number of leading nuclear scientists; and because the explosive device used against Yehoshua-Koren’s car was similar to the magnetic explosive devices – “sticky bombs” – that were used against some of the Iranian scientists.

In India, however, things were not so cut-and-dried.

Though intelligence sources were anonymously quoted in various papers there as pointing a finger toward Iran, government spokesmen on the record – from the foreign minister on down – were very careful not to cast blame.

A day after the attack, the Press Trust of India quoted Union Home Secretary R.K. Singh as saying “we have no evidence to name any country. It’s premature to taken any country’s name.”

Everyone knows about India’s huge oil interest in Iran, but it also has common strategic interests with Tehran in Afghanistan that are less obvious. India is very concerned about what is happening in its nearby neighbor to the north, and about Pakistani influence there. As a result, the Indians have cooperated with Iran on certain projects there to reduce Pakistan’s sway and weaken the Taliban.

Indeed, how India views Iran must be seen through the prism through which it views the entire world: Pakistan. While Iran under the shah supported Pakistan, Iran under the ayatollahs does not – something appreciated in New Delhi and something India does not want to see changed.

BUT HARSH reality – in the form of Monday’s attack – may force India to decide where its allegiances lie.

“There are three basic conflicts in the Middle East, all centered around Iran,” Paul said, citing a recent opinion piece in his paper written by noted Indian foreign policy analyst Raja Mohan. “Iran and the west, Iran and Israel and Iran and Saudi Arabia. And India, even if it does not want, will soon be dragged into it.”

Apart from Israel and the US pressing India to take a firmer stance against Iran, pressure is also coming from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf countries, which Paul said have been pressing India “for a long time to join against Iran.” And, indeed, there are huge Indian interests there as well, including oil and some 6 million Indian workers in the Arab world.

“The Indians have a lot of terror problems already with the Pakistanis,” he said. “They will ask why the Iranians are sponsoring a terrorist bomb within spitting distance of the prime minister’s residence. They will ask what they are doing setting up a terrorist cell that can operate inside India. They have enough problems already, and don’t need this.”

The consequences of the anger the may result could go in many different directions. It could be relegated to an angry meeting with Iran’s envoy in New Delhi or it could take on more severe forms.

“India is an important, respected voice in the IAEA and other international forums, and if the Indians conclude that the Iranians are not being helpful, and that it may be useful to isolate Iran, they could put Iran in a difficult situation,” he said.

[ramana]

Kanwal Sibal was Ambassador to US and also was MEA Secy. Its as high as it gets in Indian babucracy.

[pgbhat]

Kanwal Sibal was Ambassador to US and also was MEA Secy. Its as high as it gets in Indian babucracy.

If that is the view of establishment, we should be just fine.

[ramana]

No he is not part of the establishment. Its his brother, who is, not him.

[KLNMurthy]

Everyone seems to be saying Iran is not so dumb as to attack Israelis in India. But how smart or mature is a country, whose top leaders, withot even having nukes, constantly froth at the mouth and shout that they will eliminate Israel which already has nukes and has a stated "never again" policy?

[shyamd]

He hit the nail on the head with that article. Shah was part of CENTO/US alliance. TSP asked for help against India - no one gave much, only just enough to keep TSP alive. TSP quit the alliance after that.
But neverthe less, Unkil/KSA will extend their alliance from Israel to Syria to Turkey to Iran/Iraq to TSP. We will be surrounded by US/KSA alliance just as the 70's.

The question is what shall we do?

Will India be comfortable with the US arc alliance? Will US promise TSP to change its terror ways?

Israel and Iran will go back to cooperating against sunni threat.

Will the US alliance Tehran cooperate in Afghanistan? I think so. The very reason for Taliban existence was to be used against Iran but TSP was happy to use it as a terror base to be used against India. Will the KSA/ISI drop their support for the taleban in exchange for free Iran? Will the US force them to do so if Tehran joins the US alliance?

These are questions that need brainstorming. The thing is India and the US have a joint interest in counter terror, security in the pacific/east asia to Straits of Hormuz and even the Suez. Hence why we purchase US Boeing surveillance systems for monitoring the coast and also PRC. But the US is not stupid, it doesn't want india to become the predominant power in the area. So TSP problem is not going to go away. India needs to develop its own systems and utilise the US tech to further improve our own equipment.

PRC/TSP/KSA are on one side with Taleban.
India/Iran/ISAF/Russia are kind of on the same side with Karzai today. But will the US shift back to the 90's and back Taleban to the detrement of our security?

My take on this future scenario:

TSP and KSA will not give up Taleban as they need to use it against india, PRC, Russia and Iran if one of them misbehaves. US will be fine with this arrangement so long as another 9/11 does not take place - the US/ISAF response to this is to base SF in Afghanistan to use the stick if necessary.

Lets think long term perspective. If mullah Iran exists - they will be our friend to prevent Taleban ruling. the last time the Taleban came to power - Iran was having hell, they were close to going to war. 200-300k troops drilling against 50k or so Taleban. So this is no joke for them.

If Karzai stays and a free Afghanistan flourishes, the Pakhtun could re-draw their borders one day (use it as a threat). Pak would totally have to reorient their defence strategy. This would mean expanding their infrastructure to deal with ANA etc. This means a safer J&K for 10-15 years provided we can keep Mullah Iran, Karzai and ANA alive.

If Iran has a change of system, Taleban will have a free run while Iran is headless to finish off Karzai. In fact the more we think about this, Karzai LONG TERM survival is very much dependent on 2: Russia and Iran. It sounds like it is imperative Iran survives.

The negatives are Khamanei's rhetoric on Kashmir - which you are not really going to change unless you get someone like Ahmadinejad in control or even Rafsanjani. Khamanei is the biggest problem to Indo-Iranian relations - he was the problem even when ABV was trying to talk to him about Talebs. The biggest problem is this duel foreign policy in Iran. BUt we know Khamanei calls the shots in Iran.

[Agnimitra]

Khamanei is the biggest problem to Indo-Iranian relations - he was the problem even when ABV was trying to talk to him about Talebs. The biggest problem is this duel foreign policy in Iran. BUt we know Khamanei calls the shots in Iran.

The reason Khamanei thinks he can treat India like that is because a substantial section of opinion in Iran believes India is dependent on them. Its not just the energy resource, but India's whole Afghanistan strategy depends on Iran, and we have made significant investments towards that in Iran and Afghanistan. These are sunk costs.

Iran going back to co-operating with Israel against Sunnis is not going to happen as long as the current dispensation persists. Contrary to half-baked opinions flying around that Iran is actually "nationalist" and only uses Islam/Shi'ism, the fact is that core regime elements have a much bigger vision. Yes, they use nationalism as well as Shi'ism selectively whenever it is useful, but that does not cancel out their real vision. They have shown in many other ways that they are willing to sacrifice wealth, resources and power in the interest of general Islamization - Islamization that is independent of American influence.

Note that even important Islamists in Turkey have very favorable attitudes towards Iran, some of them having spent years in Iran studying. Even going back 100 years to the time of Said Nursi (their theological Imam), he incorporated several Persian and Shi'ite practices into his pattern, which is now standard fare amongst Gulenists. These macro-trends need to be noted and understood in order to have insight into the game being played in the Middle East. The face off between states like Turkey, Iran, etc is secondary, and merely an evolutionary round of elimination to serve this macro-vision, in which civilizational roles evolve and rotate. The medium term goals are the elimination of Western influence in the ME/CA.

[RajeshA]

shyamd ji,

We have understood that we need an independent Pushtun power to build up in Afghanistan, free of TSP and KSA. That is why we are also channeling much of our aid to the Pushtun areas also.

Also if US Special Forces stay on in Afghanistan, one could expect that Taliban would not be getting the sole keys to the country! That is good reassurance to know that we can continue to build up independent Pushtun power.

I have said earlier also, India needs to raise an Afghan Regiment within the Indian Army, and get Pushtuns and Tajiks to come serve in it, and then later go back, build their country and become India's veritable arms in Afghanistan. We also need to continue providing Afghans with Medical Attention in India and Afghanistan and that too very visibly, so that the sympathy remains. Hindi language knowledge would also help, but many Afghans already have that through Indian serials and the Urdu from Pakistan.

It is the combined power of Pushtun from Afghanistan and Baluch from Pakistan that would help us drill a hole all the way to Central Asia, thus becoming independent of both Pakistan and Iran.

Among the Taliban also, there are many who are willing to sell their services for money. These need to be turned around and used to keep Pakistan off-balance.

So we need at least one power which keeps a check on ISI-led Taliban's expansion in Afghanistan, it can be USA or it can be Iran or it can be Russia.

I don't think it really matters whether Iran keeps its regime or not. Under whatever regime, they will keep on resisting Talibani takeover of Afghanistan. But as I said, one power needs to stay in Afghanistan!

[Philip]

India has to carve out its own diplomatic space and assert its influence by itself.Riding "piggy-back" or "puppy-dog" style like the UK ,is a demeaning way in which to achieve our interests.There is no need for us to lick a*se at all.Our interests must be relentlesly pursued to benefit bi-lateral relations with the nations whom we consider as our friends.Iran is a "full term" key nation with whom mutual friendship will benefit India immensely.The US must politely and firmly told to "buzz off".If it persists and continues to try and pressurise India, them stronger cruder lingo which it seems to understand better is needed.

If any genuflecting or prostrating is required,let the Yanquis prostrate themselves at the Chinese and lick their backsides.They're doing very well licking Paki backsides for practice!

Meanwhile the "gunslinging" west ,plan for the military offensive against Iran.This time they will shoot from Israel's shoulder.Watch for more terror attacks and other mysterious Irano-Israeli spats.A reason has to be fabricated for an asault on Iran's N-facilities just as was done in the case of Saddam and Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... ary-action

US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely

• Growing view that strike, by Israel or US, will happen
• 'Sweet spot' for Israeli action identified as September-October
• White House remains determined to give sanctions time

Xcpts:

Officials in key parts of the Obama administration are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, and believe that the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.

The president has made clear in public, and in private to Israel, that he is determined to give sufficient time for recent measures, such as the financial blockade and the looming European oil embargo, to bite deeper into Iran's already battered economy before retreating from its principal strategy to pressure Tehran.

But there is a strong current of opinion within the administration – including in the Pentagon and the state department – that believes sanctions are doomed to fail, and that their principal use now is in delaying Israeli military action, as well as reassuring Europe that an attack will only come after other means have been tested.

"The White House wants to see sanctions work. This is not the Bush White House. It does not need another conflict," said an official knowledgeable on Middle East policy. "Its problem is that the guys in Tehran are behaving like sanctions don't matter, like their economy isn't collapsing, like Israel isn't going to do anything.

"Sanctions are all we've got to throw at the problem. If they fail then it's hard to see how we don't move to the 'in extremis' option."

The White House has said repeatedly that all options are on the table, including the use of force to stop Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, but that for now the emphasis is firmly on diplomacy and sanctions.

But long-held doubts among US officials about whether the Iranians can be enticed or cajoled into serious negotiations have been reinforced by recent events.

"We don't see a way forward," said one official. "The record shows that there is nothing to work with."

Scepticism about Iranian intent is rooted in Iran's repeated spurning of overtures from successive US presidents from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, who appealed within weeks of coming to office for "constructive ties" and "mutual respect" .

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim this week that Iran loaded its first domestically-made fuel rod into a nuclear reactor, and Iran's threat to cut oil supplies to six European countries, were read as further evidence that Tehran remains defiantly committed to its nuclear programme. That view was strengthened by the latest Iranian offer to negotiate with the UN security council in a letter that appeared to contain no significant new concessions.

If Obama were to conclude that there is no choice but to attack Iran, he is unlikely to order it before the presidential election in November unless there is an urgent reason to do so. The question is whether the Israelis will hold back that long.

Earlier this month, the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, told the Washington Post that he thought the window for an Israeli attack on Iran is between April and June. But other official analysts working on Iran have identified what one described as a "sweet spot", where the mix of diplomacy, political timetables and practical issues come together to suggest that if Israel launches a unilateral assault it is more likely in September or October, although they describe that as a "best guess".

However, the Americans are uncertain as to whether Israel is serious about using force if sanctions fail or has ratcheted up threats primarily in order to pressure the US and Europeans in to stronger action. For its part, the US is keen to ensure that Tehran does not misinterpret a commitment to giving sanctions a chance to work as a lack of willingness to use force as a last resort.

American officials are resigned to the fact that the US will be seen in much of the world as a partner in any Israeli assault on Iran – whether or not Washington approved of it. The administration will then have to decide whether to, in the parlance of the US military, "pile on", by using its much greater firepower to finish what Israel starts.

"The sanctions are there to pressure Iran and reassure Israel that we are taking this issue seriously," said one official. "The focus is on demonstrating to Israel that this has a chance of working. Israel is sceptical but appreciates the effort. It is willing to give it a go, but how long will it wait?"

Colin Kahl, who was US deputy assistant secretary of defence for the Middle East until December, said: "With the European oil embargo and US sanctions on the central bank, the Israelis probably have to give some time now to let those crippling sanctions play out.

"If you look at the calendar, it doesn't make much sense that the Israelis would jump the gun. They probably need to provide a decent interval for those sanctions to be perceived as failing, because they care about whether an Israeli strike would be seen as philosophically legitimate; that is, as only having happened after other options were exhausted. So I think that will push them a little further into 2012."

The White House is working hard to keep alive the prospect that sanctions will deliver a diplomatic solution. It has pressed the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to quieten the belligerent chatter from his own cabinet about an attack on Iran. The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, general Martin Dempsey, was dispatched to Jerusalem last month to talk up the effect of sanctions and to press, unsuccessfully, for a commitment that Israel will not launch a unilateral attack against Iran.

Dennis Ross, Obama's former envoy for the Middle East and Iran, this week said that sanctions may be pushing Tehran toward negotiations.

But in other parts of the administration, the assumption is that sanctions will fail, and so calculations are being made about what follows, including how serious Israel is in its threat to launch a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear installations, and how the US responds.

But Iran's increasingly belligerent moves – such as the botched attempts, laid at Tehran's door, to attack Israeli diplomats in Thailand, India and Georgia – are compounding the sense that Iran is far from ready to negotiate.

Feeding in to the considerations are the timing of the American election, including its bearing on Israeli thinking, as well as the pace of Iranian advances in their nuclear programme.

Obama has publicly said that there are no differences with Israel on Iran, describing his administration as in "lock step" with the Jewish state.

But the US and Israel are at odds over the significance of Iran's claim to have begun enriching uranium at the underground facility at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom, and therefore the timing of any military action.

Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, has warned that Iran cannot be allowed to establish a "zone of immunity" at Fordow where it is able to work on a nuclear weapon deep underground protected from Israel's conventional weapons. Earlier this month, Barak said Israel must consider an attack before that happens.

The Americans say there is no such urgency because the facility is just one among many Tehran needs to build a nuclear weapon, and that other sites are still vulnerable to attack and sabotage in other ways. The US also has a more powerful military arsenal, although it is not clear whether it would be able to destroy the underground Fordow facility.

Kahl said part of Washington's calculation is to judge whether Israel is seriously contemplating attacking Iran, or is using the threat to pressure the US and Europe into confronting Tehran.

"It's not that the Israelis believe the Iranians are on the brink of a bomb. It's that the Israelis may fear that the Iranian programme is on the brink of becoming out of reach of an Israeli military strike, which means it creates a 'now-or-never' moment," he said.

"That's what's actually driving the timeline by the middle of this year. But there's a countervailing factor that [Ehud] Barak has mentioned – that they're not very close to making a decision and that they're also trying to ramp up concerns of an Israeli strike to drive the international community towards putting more pressure on the Iranians."

Israeli pressure for tougher measures against Tehran played a leading role in the US Congresss passing sanctions legislation targeting Iran's financial system and oil sales. Some US and European officials say those same sanctions have also become a means for Washington to pressure Israel not to act precipitously in attacking Iran.

The presidential election is also a part of Israel's calculation, not least the fractious relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, who has little reason to do the US president any political favours and has good reason to prefer a Republican in the White House next year.

There is a school of thought – a suspicion, even – within the administration that Netanyahu might consider the height of the US election campaign the ideal time to attack Iran. With a hawkish Republican candidate ever ready to accuse him of weakness, Obama's room to pressure or oppose Netanyahu would be more limited than after the election.

"One theory is that Netanyahu and Barak may calculate that if Obama doesn't support an Israeli strike, he's unlikely to punish Israel for taking unilateral action in a contested election year," said Kahl. "Doing something before the US gives the Israelis a bit more freedom of manoeuvre."

Obama is also under domestic political pressure from Republican presidential contenders, who accuse him of vacillating on Iran, and from a Congress highly sympathetic to Israel's more confrontational stance.
Others are critical of sanctions for a different reason. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said this week he fears sanctions are less about changing Tehran's policy than laying the ground for military action. He warned that "the latest drum beat of additional sanctions and war against Iran sounds too much like the lead-up to the Iraq war".

"If the crippling sanctions that the US and Europe have imposed are meant to push the Iranian regime to negotiations, it hasn't worked," he said. "As the war of words between the United States and Iran escalates it's more critical than ever that we highlight alternatives to war to avoid the same mistakes made in Iran.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/?source=refresh
Iran risks nuclear Cold War

Iran's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is threatening to trigger a “new Cold War” that poses an even greater threat of nuclear conflict than the stand-off between the USSR and the West, William Hague warns.

By Robert Winnett, and Benedict Brogan
17 Feb 2012

Dealing with the Iranian nuclear programme is a “crisis coming down the tracks” which could lead to military conflict in the Middle East, the Foreign Secretary warns.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the Foreign Secretary says that Iran is threatening to spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East which could be more dangerous than the original East-West Cold War as there are not the same “safety mechanisms” in place.

“It is a crisis coming down the tracks,” he said. “Because they are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme…If they obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons.

“And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilising effects in the Middle East. And the threat of a new cold war in the Middle East without necessarily all the safety mechanisms…That would be a disaster in world affairs.”

[krisna]

Iran warships enter Mediterranean as tensions with Israel grow

State television presenters in Tehran were triumphant after Iranian ships passed through the Suez Canal for only the second time since the Islamic revolution in 1979.

He claimed that Iran was showing its “might” to regional countries - with Israel the one the Iranians most want to impress. The admiral also made the unconvincing claim that the mission sent a “message of peace and friendship.” Israel immediately put its navy on alert.

[shyamd]

shyamd ji,

We have understood that we need an independent Pushtun power to build up in Afghanistan, free of TSP and KSA. That is why we are also channeling much of our aid to the Pushtun areas also.

Also if US Special Forces stay on in Afghanistan, one could expect that Taliban would not be getting the sole keys to the country! That is good reassurance to know that we can continue to build up independent Pushtun power.

True! But I am not convinced that the SF is enough to guarantee peace. They want the Taliban to have full reigns, nothing will suffice as Karzai is pro iran.

I have said earlier also, India needs to raise an Afghan Regiment within the Indian Army, and get Pushtuns and Tajiks to come serve in it, and then later go back, build their country and become India's veritable arms in Afghanistan. We also need to continue providing Afghans with Medical Attention in India and Afghanistan and that too very visibly, so that the sympathy remains. Hindi language knowledge would also help, but many Afghans already have that through Indian serials and the Urdu from Pakistan.


It is the combined power of Pushtun from Afghanistan and Baluch from Pakistan that would help us drill a hole all the way to Central Asia, thus becoming independent of both Pakistan and Iran.

Yes why not.

So we need at least one power which keeps a check on ISI-led Taliban's expansion in Afghanistan, it can be USA or it can be Iran or it can be Russia.

I think reality is that it will be all of these countries who will contribute. Russia's gesture to let the US use their bases to transport equipment is a good sign.

I don't think it really matters whether Iran keeps its regime or not. Under whatever regime, they will keep on resisting Talibani takeover of Afghanistan. But as I said, one power needs to stay in Afghanistan!

Agreed but the problem is Iran will be weak/possibly totally unstable to actually be able to use its military might to influence the events there if the regime falls in the next few months. Thats what I was getting at. I'd be quite happy if Israel or the US just blitzed their nuclear sites and let the regime survive.

-----------------------------
New Delhi to go ahead with trade team visit to Iran

Special Correspondent
Share · Comment (1) · print · T+

Not letting the recent bomb blast in front of the Israeli Embassy in Delhi hamper its relationship, India is firm on sending a high-level business and official delegation to Iran this month-end to explore trade and export potential after imposition of sanctions by the U.S. and European Union.

Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said India's trade relations with Iran would not be affected by the bomb attacks.“We are determined to go ahead with the crucial visit of the trade delegation. We are looking at Iran as a potential investment and trade destination and the delegation will seek to enhance the economic engagement with Tehran,” he added.

Iran is India's second-largest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia, providing around 12 per cent of crude oil needs. India says it will abide only by UN sanctions, and will not implement those by individual nations. Indian trade lobbies have said Iran offered huge potential for export of products and commodities worth over $10 billion annually. The Commerce and Industry Ministry is already working on the proposed visit and the composition of the delegation.

State-owned oil marketing companies (OMCs) have also indicated that they will continue to source their crude oil supplies from Iran and see no reason to tap any other market. Only last week, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) signed a deal with Iran for supply of 3 million tonnes of crude oil for 2012-13.

[Philip]

If the US and Russia cooperate together on Afghanistan,Pak will be stymied.This is exactly what the old "Cold War" warriors in the US establishment do not want to happen.They are most uncomfortable with the post CW scenario,which they do not understand,a sea change in the balance of power where nations like China and India are asserting themselves more,especially China,which sees it self as the replacement for the US as the global top dog.These diplomutts and dinosaurs with their fossilised mindset,are actually trying hard to bring about a return to the CW with the stationing of US missiles in Eastern Europe,and using the disgraced billionaire oligarchs wwho are enjoying their exile in the west,doing all they can to see Putin defeated and removed from the Russian political scene,because he has restored to a large extent Russia's power and prestige in world affairs and despite corruption still existing in significant form in Russia,cracked down on the shameful Yeltsin era of crony capitalism that brought Russia down to its knees .

Similarly,the US and Russia if they work to a common agenda can resolve the Iranian nuclear Q.Iran can send its fissile material to Russia to be reprocessed,not turned into warheads,and remain true to its international obligations.But here again the US wants regime change in Iran and is using a huge network of covert agents and operators to destabilise Iran from within.Inserting agents into Iran through Pak and the possible use of Paki territory to wage war against "Shiite" Iran, is one reason why the Yanquis are totally unwilling to give up Pak".and thus allowing Pak by default to continue wag a covert war with India.

[pgbhat]

India Lets U.S. Down on Iran ---- R Nicholas Burns

[sum]

India Lets U.S. Down on Iran ---- R Nicholas Burns

Hope one of our top Mandarins writes a article titled: US lets down India on TSP ( again)

[Pranav]

India Lets U.S. Down on Iran ---- R Nicholas Burns

Hope one of our top Mandarins writes a article titled: US lets down India on TSP ( again)

India could make some comforting noises and dangle some carrots (orders to Boeing, or purchase of nuclear power plants, e.g.) to encourage the US to burn their bridges with the Paks. But hold back until the bridges are completely burnt.

[Suppiah]

India Lets U.S. Down on Iran ---- R Nicholas Burns

Hope one of our top Mandarins writes a article titled: US lets down India on TSP ( again)

US funds terrorism to the tune of $20b would be a more appropriate headline..

[Dilbu]

India Lets U.S. Down on Iran ---- R Nicholas Burns

Dear Mr. Burns,
US has let India down innumerable times in the past on many issues including terrorism emanating from its Major Non Nato Ally, Pakistan. More over India does not owe anything to US on this issue. Being a 'close strategic partner' does not mean saying yes to every policy US cares to come up with irrespective of one's own national interest. Any way I won't blame you for reaching such a conclusion based on the behaviour of some of your current ''close strategic partners'. India is different. So please quit whining and start looking at things more realistically. Thank you.

[sukhish]

Chutiyyyya. What does he thinks of himself. Dont't create noise , otherwise we will
Cody up with china

[member_21708]

'CIA shares intel info on Delhi blast'

Agencies : Washington, Sun Feb 19 2012, 12:38 hrs

The CIA is believed to have shared information with its Indian counterparts on the last week bomb attack in New Delhi on an Israeli diplomatic car, including on alleged Iranian links.

Informed sources claimed that the Indian intelligence agencies have confirmed and corroborated the intelligence information on the bombing shared by the CIA.

The sources expressed "surprise" that despite the alleged Iranian links, India has kept mum on it, which they claimed is mainly due to its diplomatic implications and its impact on India-Iran ties.

They, however, did not comment on how credible the information is.

Lisa Curtis, a former CIA analyst and now a Senior Research Fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, says that last Monday's attack on the Israeli diplomat in New Delhi has shined an uncomfortable spotlight on Indo-Iran ties.

"If evidence revealing an Iranian hand in the attacks builds, the Indian government will have no choice but to condemn it. India would likely limit its reaction to condemnations, however, and stop short of taking other actions like expelling Iranian diplomats from the country," said Curtis.

"India will find it increasingly challenging to balance its interest in maintaining cordial relations with Iran and avoiding tensions with the US over the Iranian nuclear stand-off as the situation intensifies," Curtis said, adding that there are no easy solutions for New Delhi.

The US State Department, so far, has maintained that it is awaiting the results of the Indian investigations, but has observed that it would not be surprised if the attacks are traced to Iran.

"We wouldn't be surprised if the fingerprints and the trail lead back to Iran but we're not in a position to assess until the investigations of the host governments are complete," State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, had said Friday.

Notably, soon after the attack, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had blamed Iran.

"Iran is behind these attacks; it is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world," Netanyahu had said.

"The Government of Israel and the security services will continue to act together with local security forces against such acts of terrorism. We will continue to take strong and systematic, yet patient, action against the international terrorism that originates in Iran," he had said.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cia-s ... t/914011/0

[Pranav]

India Lets U.S. Down on Iran ---- R Nicholas Burns

Dear Mr. Burns,
US has let India down innumerable times in the past on many issues including terrorism emanating from its Major Non Nato Ally, Pakistan. More over India does not owe anything to US on this issue. Being a 'close strategic partner' does not mean saying yes to every policy US cares to come up with irrespective of one's own national interest. Any way I won't blame you for reaching such a conclusion based on the behaviour of some of your current ''close strategic partners'. India is different. So please quit whining and start looking at things more realistically. Thank you.

It's more complex than that - one has to take into account the deterioration between the US and the Paks, and also the Indo-Israeli relationship.

The "west" has been helping the Paks but they generally try to play all sides.

The question is how to move forward from here.

The India-Iran relationship should continue. But one has to acknowledge concerns of the other side and take a middle path. At the same time use the occasion to get some commitments vis-a-vis the Af-Pak theatre.

[skumar]

India Lets U.S. Down on Iran ---- R Nicholas Burns

Dear Mr. Burns,
US has let India down innumerable times in the past on many issues including terrorism emanating from its Major Non Nato Ally, Pakistan. More over India does not owe anything to US on this issue. Being a 'close strategic partner' does not mean saying yes to every policy US cares to come up with irrespective of one's own national interest. Any way I won't blame you for reaching such a conclusion based on the behaviour of some of your current ''close strategic partners'. India is different. So please quit whining and start looking at things more realistically. Thank you.

Well put. "Either you are with us or with them" will not work with everyone everytime.

[RajeshA]

But one has to acknowledge concerns of the other side and take a middle path.

This middle path thing is actually a wrong prescription, because it allows others to determine your path. If any side swerves to the right, your middle path too would turn rightwards. This is giving others the power to influence your policy.

Best path is one that takes you to your goals! That is provided one has any goals!!!