West Asia News and Discussions (YEMEN, gulf)

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 03 Apr 2015 23:11

Tuvaluan, anybody who sincerely adheres to any treaty with the US, expecting reciprocity, is screwed. From Chief Sitting Bull to Salman of KSA (see my post on previous page!)

To add to what you have pointed out above, look at the cards Iran still holds. It has very organized, well-armed, well-motivated and *locally entrenched* militias in Syria/Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Sadr-ite groups), Yemen (Houthis) and quite a bit of indirect influence on some Kurdish groups as well. Its proxy militias operate under a very well orchestrated and highly disciplined chain of command, from the governing council in Teheran via the Quds force (an intelligence outfit unmatched in WA/NA except possibly by Mossad, and with much more expansive reach than Jewish Mossad for obvious reasons). All other powers, Arab and Israeli and Western, have to have big internal debates before hesitantly putting "boots on the ground" in theatres of interest. Iran already HAS very formidable boots on the ground in any number of theatres, and has controlled them for decades in many cases.

Compared to Iran the KSA/GCC look like bumbling amateurs when it comes to maintaining control of their proxies... ISIS pretty much does whatever the hell it wants, same for the jihadi types who deposed Gaddafi in Libya. And their "intelligence" service? The greatest and most lauded achievement of Bandar bin Sultan is apparently persuading Clinton not to slam the White House door in Nawaz Sharif's face during Kargil!

So now that there is a "nuclear deal", Iran has essentially given up a bum program which they may or may not even have been running successfully. This is their "top card" that they have played in exchange for sanctions relief. This can be viewed as a chanakyan move, especially as no one really knows how close Iran actually was to testing an N-weapon. In effect the Iranians have given up this hypothetical N-weapon while keeping full control of all their *real* and far more effective weapons, the proxy militias, and getting sanctions relief in exchange. Even as the N-deal was being finalized their Houthi proxies were running the Yemeni president out of Aden! Meanwhile the West has already played a valuable "top card"... the ability to coerce through sanctions, without getting any assurance that Iran will stop pursuing its goals through proxy militias... the weapon which Iran has been able to use most successfully of all.

What if Iran kicks its proxy efforts into overdrive? Again there will be a clamour from Israel and the KSA/GCC types for more "sanctions". If the West re-imposes sanctions, Iran can always say "Ok, fug you clowns, we're going back to our N-bomb program then." The custodians of Iran's LEU (who I believe will be the Russians) would then be happy to oblige and say "OK, here is your potential fissile material back."

I think Iran is not in an unenviable position at all.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 03 Apr 2015 23:55

Rudrdev, Iran's centrifuges for all the hullaballoo about them, were not producing bomb grade material...after all they were based on Xerox Khan's cr@p from Pakistan, so that is not too surprising. By refusing to back down on enrichment that was not even the level of purity required for nuclear power plants, they seem to have created a great card to negotiate, the perceived value of the card is far less useful to Iran than it is to its adversaries who "sealed the deal".

They are opening Iran up to investment and people with the end of sanctions -- that is a double edged sword, one that can hurt them if they become too dependent on western investment that does not build any local assets (the kind that hurt Russia recently), but then I am sure the Russians will have a thing or two to tell the Iranians on that front. This is also a fine time for them to start their oil trade outside of the US dollar system and take other such actions to defend themselves against future sanctions. Their actions in the coming months/years will inform us surely.

Kerry is very pleased with himself on this "deal" obviously.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 04 Apr 2015 06:55

Saudi now can go actually buy working NUke from Israel . Who will guarantee the Paki Nuke's full potential to destroy Iran. Now we will see Paki Israeli Saudi Sleeping together to needle Iran.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Apr 2015 07:10

I remember the photo of john kerry dining with Assad ... even at the time, US was funding what became the ISIS

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 04 Apr 2015 07:48

KLNMurthy wrote:
SSridhar wrote:Left to themselves, without external assistance, KSA would collapse quickly just based on an assessment of their armed forces in the face of a determined attack by the Houthis.
An off-the-wall scenario of unintended consequences : al qaeda fighters who just escaped from Yemeni prison thanks to Saudi bombing become the nucleus of ISIS in Yemen; after disposing of or holding off the ill-supplied Houthis, ISIS targets the corrupt and hedonistic House of Saud next door.

I've always believed that if push comes to shove, the KSA will bet on the AQAP types to get more bang for buck. Its far easier to kill these useful idiota by drone strikes or other means by showing the locns etc to US intel / attack the fellas themselves once the contracted act has been committed.

Easy, aint it. I will not be surprised if the AQAP release was a KSA instigated act. There was one more a few wks back remember. Aden will surely become more murky in the days fwd. Not less.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 04 Apr 2015 07:51

What matters more for Iran currently is that it has leaders. With ball$. Te courageous types. If that works, then most stuff will work. Someone like Qassem Suleimani and one can be assured that all US plans will be thwarted atleast at the basic level. If not immediately, then perhaps eventually. If Iran goes with the current set of leaders with a bit of opening, it will become a free for all leading to absolute chaos.

They need a firm hand on the economic front too. If bread prices rise too much in too short a time...

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 04 Apr 2015 07:54

LokeshC wrote:KLNM,

Even though Singha saars scenario is a long shot, I do think Iran just became US/West's next *****. Islamist divisions in Iran will now be amplified by the usual "NGO style" front end leading to a weakening of the state apparatus.

Atrocity literature charlatan gang will infest Iran the moment they open up a little more.

I don't have enough of a feel for Irani internal situation but I am guessing that it is different from the time of Mossadegh in 1953 (when the West pulled a similar trick to the one you outlined.) I think the ayatollahs are going to hold on to control and won't let things come anywhere near 1953.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 04 Apr 2015 08:07

To add more points on top of the discussion:

this deal is inevitable. Why? Its also because a nation an only run so much on the idea of a revolutionary means. And to put it shortly; Iran has run its course there. There are simply not a lot of leaders anymore to take up that cause and ensure that the same things which happened in the 60/70/80 will happen now. Iran has understood it and done the smart thing. BTW, this deal has been in the making for about 12 years now, IIRC. At least seven times earlier, Iran has moved and have been rebuffed and this time around, it has moved on to the next level. So, its not as if Iran doesn't want it. Rather its in their good too and they have been playing it smartly... to the extent that they used the near term deadline of the Mar 31st against the Americans and Obama asked the fellas to continue talks and the deal got done about a day back. So no doubt there have been discussions and negotiations which went to overdrive and have culminated. Now the more difficult aspect of selling it to the hardliners on both the countries remain. That is a pretty tricky path there and it remains to be seen how Zarif can succeed in that.

There is the other aspect of Ayatollah getting even older and possibly all set to croak quickly too? It becomes even more difficult for a newer leader to look outside / outward and get a deal done with the US (the enemy) while he is trying to get more powers to have the seat more secure for himself. Simply too difficult for a newer leader to get the same stuff done that this fella can do before he dies.

The Iranian people are getting impatient too. They need an economy which is working and can employ more people. Not a sputtering one. Because if its the newer revolution, then its curtains for the current style of govt.

So; simply put, there is the TINA factor. They are lots more arguments to make but they will also take the same color as the above mentioned ones.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 04 Apr 2015 08:08

Tuvaluan wrote:I think Singha's POV that Iran is basically screwed is sound, not least because this current rapprochment seems largely tactical, as the US plays both sides in the shia-sunni bloodletting. If this rapprochment is just tactical then it means that there will be no support for it in Iran internally (and certainly not from the clerics council) that can only mean the rise of another Ahmedinejad type leader in a future election and all of these new sanctions kicking in -- the question is whether Iran will have increased its ability to be unaffected by US sanctions when they come into effect down the line.

If the KSA Sunnis openly declare pakistan's nukes as their sunni bomb, and Israel's open secret is made more open, then Iran will be pressed to respond. This treaty seems to say that Iran cannot take any steps for its survival against the sunni bomb -- I fail to see why they would consider than an acceptable choice at that time, with the treaty with the US blocking all other choices. Again, if this is a tactical move, it measn that Iran needs some breathing space to get its affairs in order until the eventual inevitable withdrawal from this treaty.

Well, if US turns around and stabs them in the back with a sunni bomb fait accompli, Iranians will just have to swallow sanctions and do what they need to do for their security.

An Iranian once said to me that India is lucky to have no oil, thus being driven to develop human resources as the only choice. Oil and the expectations of a first-world lifestyle have made Iranians lazy and corrupt according to this person.

Ultimately people have to be ready to pay the price for what they want their country to achieve. If they think nuke deal (not yet settled) is going to make America their godfather, they will pay the price for such thinking.

Bhurishrava · Post by **Bhurishrava** » 04 Apr 2015 09:41

IMHO, the problem is not with the deal but with its implementation. Its quite possible that the fire eating neocons in Washington DC would plant spies in the teams that are supposed to monitor Iran`s nuclear programme.

These geniuses would then get too intrusive and demand to search Ayatollah`s toilet and declare how the yellow shit found there is evidence of Iran having WMDs. Bin Powell and Iraq anyone?

The American intelligence and media will stir up a hysteria and all the good work done will be undone. Unless there is a change in discourse regarding Iran in idiotland of US & A, this is the more likely course.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Apr 2015 11:40

Iran nuke deal: Implications for Islamo-fascism, Shia-Sunni conflict, and India

A good writeup by R Jaggi, about what the potential of this deal is.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Apr 2015 13:40

If the US and Iran flesh out their N-agreement and Iran once again finds favour in Washington,then it will be an all-out war to restore Saudi primacy of bum-chumming in the next US pres. elections with another (Jeb) Bush waiting in the wings! The well-known Bush-Saud business relationship ,one of the key factors in the entire Middle East/War on Terror led to failed US policies in the region.These actually made trillions for the warmongers and oil producers,the Bush and Saudi business alliance,who cared b*gger all for the millions of affected peoples of the region and who will do everything possible to sabotage the Iranian N-deal. Expect more dangerous warmongering in the region apart from Yemen,in attempts to widen the conflict further.

http://www.independent.co.uk/

Robert Fisk

Friday 3 April 2015
Iran nuclear deal: A powerful Tehran turned into America’s policeman in the Gulf? It could happen
This week’s Lausanne deal could trigger a political earthquake.

Iran was reborn as a major Middle East nation when it agreed to limit its nuclear ambitions. Despite the “ifs” (if Iran complies with the “key parameters”, if Iran’s Revolutionary Guards don’t try to wreck the agreement, if Israel does not batter Iran’s nuclear facilities in a rogue nation attack) the framework could one day return the 36-year-old Islamic Republic to the status of a regional superpower which last existed under the Shah.

Which is why the Saudis are so angry. For Iran as America’s new best friend may seriously damage Saudi Arabia’s privileged alliance with the United States. A kingdom that violates human rights in its treatment of women and fails to adapt to any form of free speech was never a “natural” ally of Washington, even if America’s friends have always included some extremely nasty states.

If Iran and the West keep their word, however, and the distrust which even Secretary of State John Kerry admits still exists, turns into mutual confidence, then this week’s compromise agreement – and compromise is admittedly a very dodgy piece of machinery in the Middle East – could have an enormous political effect on the region. Iran could, over time, become America’s “policeman in the Gulf” as it was under the Shah’s reign.

And who would be surprised if the US begins to re-examine its relationship with the Wahhabi Saudis who gave the world Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11? Their state religion is the same as that of the Taliban and, alas, of the more gruesome rebels in Iraq and Syria. Saudi Arabia as a state will do its best to pose, as usual, as the symbol of the local “anti-terrorist” struggle. But the times they are a-changing, albeit slowly.

Egypt needs American assistance in the billions. Former Field Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (now President Sisi) knows very well that US orders must be obeyed – that’s why Egypt cut off its alliance with Hamas, to isolate Israel’s enemies. Qatar and the Emirates will have to accept any American final agreement. As for Iran’s only Arab ally, Syria – and Iraq has not yet reached that status – the Lausanne agreement looks like the best news Bashar al-Assad has had in Syria since the Russians prevented America’s air raids on his regime. Indeed, more and more Arabs will be inclined to believe that his life expectancy could be as long as that of his father, Hafez. Unless, of course, Iran can now impose a ceasefire on Syria. Certainly Lausanne may one day be a key to the future of a country whose conflict has become one of the greatest Arab tragedies of modern times.

Every media lad and lass has been telling the world of Israel’s displeasure. And we all know how Israel’s friends among the Republicans in Congress could go into wrecking mode. But no one has asked about that other great tragedy of the Middle East, the Palestinians. How soon will Iran suggest that a Palestinian state should be an important part of its new relationship with America? In which case, Kerry’s utter failure in Israeli-Palestinian talks – symbolised by “Palestine’s” new membership of the International Criminal Court – may come back to haunt him after his greatest political achievement.

Unless. Unless Damascus falls to Isis or the soldier-killers of Sinai bring their trade to Cairo or the Saudi assault on Iran’s Shia friends in Yemen turns into a fiasco. The dangers are obvious. And whenever Washington boasts of its Middle East achievements – we do not need to recall “Mission Accomplished” – a debacle usually follows.

Yet history often turns in circles, even in little Swiss cities. Lausanne is where the Ottoman Empire was finally closed down in the last century – it is something to which Osama bin Laden used to allude – and where caliphates came to an end before the modern Arab dictators recreated them with their own families. Perhaps the Iranian empire, or a modern version of it, will one day come to believe its rebirth occurred in the same Swiss town. So watch out for the next political earthquake in the Middle East. But remember all those “ifs”.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Apr 2015 20:20

Vijaykarthik, Philip et al.... \
A book written in 2007 shows the road map.

Christopher Layne, "The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present"
English | ISBN: 0801474116, 080143713X | 2007 | 304 pages |

In a provocative book about American hegemony, Christopher Layne outlines his belief that U.S. foreign policy has been consistent in its aims for more than sixty years and that the current Bush administration clings to mid-twentieth-century tactics—to no good effect. What should the nation's grand strategy look like for the next several decades? The end of the cold war profoundly and permanently altered the international landscape, yet we have seen no parallel change in the aims and shape of U.S. foreign policy. The Peace of Illusions intervenes in the ongoing debate about American grand strategy and the costs and benefits of "American empire." Layne urges the desirability of a strategy he calls "offshore balancing": rather than wield power to dominate other states, the U.S. government should engage in diplomacy to balance large states against one another. The United States should intervene, Layne asserts, only when another state threatens, regionally or locally, to destroy the established balance. Drawing on extensive archival research, Layne traces the form and aims of U.S. foreign policy since 1940, examining alternatives foregone and identifying the strategic aims of different administrations. His offshore-balancing notion, if put into practice with the goal of extending the "American Century," would be a sea change in current strategy. Layne has much to say about present-day governmental decision making, which he examines from the perspectives of both international relations theory and American diplomatic history.

So we are seeing the fruits of the research done seven years ago....

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Apr 2015 20:26

From Spinster:

KLN said

An Iranian once said to me that India is lucky to have no oil, thus being driven to develop human resources as the only choice. Oil and the expectations of a first-world lifestyle have made Iranians lazy and corrupt according to this person.

Ultimately people have to be ready to pay the price for what they want their country to achieve. If they think nuke deal (not yet settled) is going to make America their godfather, they will pay the price for such thinking.

The truth is
India has oil and a lot of gas too, it's mostly under ground thanks to ONGC and (self) Reliance!

Ambanis are monopoly and manipulate the production rates a la Al Saud family

Kindly post this

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Apr 2015 20:59

X_post from GDF...

Karan M wrote:
ramana wrote:No one predicted Iran nuke deal....
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1822504
Ramana, it was discussed as far back as Dec 2013.

In fact, I replied to your post mentioning it
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1547361
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1550719

Your posts

Two back to back articles in TOI by Chidananda Rajghatta

US Iran clinch interim deal-Blow to israel, KSA and releif for India
Mostly on BRF lines:

Quote:
WASHINGTON: The United States plus five world powers reached a landmark deal with Iran on Sunday to curtail the Persian country's purported march towards nuclear weapons.

The agreement, when fully realized, has the potential to dramatically alter the geo-political landscape of the Middle-East, Gulf, and South Asia, affecting the strategic outlook and orientation of major countries from Israel to India and in between.

Under the first phase of the agreement, clinched in a 3am signing ceremony in Geneva, Iran will stop enriching uranium beyond five per cent, effectively giving up the higher levels of enrichment needed to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons. It will also divert or convert its stockpile of 20 per cent enriched uranium into an oxide form so it cannot be used for military purposes.

Iran will also not install any new centrifuges nor start up any that are not already in operation or build new enrichment facility, while submitting to daily international inspections that will make it almost impossible for it to work towards making nuclear weapons.

In return, Iran will get to keep its existing centrifuges, be able to enrich uranium below five per cent for civilian nuclear uses, and receive relief from crippling US-led sanctions (including getting some revenues seized by past sanctions) for the next six months, during which a more detailed, longer term agreement will be negotiated.

At a broader level, it will begin the process of recasting strategic alignments in the region. Untrusting Israel, haunted by an existential crisis that comes from a (mutual) pathological fear of a nuclear-armed rival, straightaway rejected the deal, suggesting US and its allies had been suckered by Teheran. Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia, which fears its cozy equation with Washington being eclipsed by a Shia-dominated Iran returning to the US sphere of influence, also lashed out at the agreement.

Nearer home, the US-Iranian detente provides an exit route for the United States from landlocked Afghanistan while reducing its dependence on extremist Pakistan, which is extracting a ransom for the 2014 drawdown from Afghanistan.

It will also come as a big relief for India, which has had to do juggle and balance four aspects — its growing strategic partnership with the US, its strong military relationship with Israel, its economic and social investments in Afghanistan, and its civilizational ties with the Persian power. An Indian-built road from the Afghan border town of Zaranj to the Iranian port of Charbahar suddenly comes into play.

Eventually, India may also be able to resume normal trade relations with Iran, which the US-led sanctions had put a crimp on.

The US-led deal is interim in nature and there is much that can go wrong in the six months during which the concerned parties will negotiate a more comprehensive deal. For now though, both sides exulted on having broken new ground, and both claimed to have gained from the accord, effectively pointing to a win-win situation.

"It is important that we all of us see the opportunity to end an unnecessary crisis and open new horizons based on respect, based on the rights of the Iranian people and removing any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program," Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, who played a key role in the talks, told reporters. "This is a process of attempting to restore confidence."

President Obama, speaking from the State Dining Room in the White House, said diplomacy "opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure — a future in which we can verify that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon."

But disquiet and unease were evident in the reactions from Israel and Saudi Arabia, although Obama pledged that as negotiations go forward, US will retain steadfast in its commitments to "friends and allies — particularly Israel and our Gulf partners, who have good reason to be skeptical about Iran's intentions."

That skepticism was aired openly. "What was concluded in Geneva last night is not a historic agreement, it's a historic mistake," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters. "It's not made the world a safer place. Like the agreement with North Korea in 2005, this agreement has made the world a much more dangerous place."

Netanyahu maintained that Iran would be "taking only cosmetic steps which it could reverse easily within a few weeks, and in return, sanctions that took years to put in place are going to be eased."

But US interlocutors appeared confident that they had the lock on Iran's route to a nuclear weapon. "It will make our partners in the region safer. It will make our ally Israel safer," secretary of state John Kerry, who led the US-allied talks, said.

Sad that he sees only a mercantile ascpect of the deal for India while it has many other benefits. But then he writes for mainstream Indian paper and has to mind the sensibilities of the owners.

Nov 26th:

India connect of the US-Iran deal

He means connection not connect.

Quote:
WASHINGTON: When the US led by President Richard Nixon and his foreign policy major domo Henry Kissinger cut a deal with communist China using Pakistan as a conduit in 1970, India was left out of the loop in a detente that changed the geopolitical dynamics of the region. Some four decades later, India is front and center in the American reconciliation with Iran, an event that when fully realized is likely to bring about an even greater seismic shift in Asia.

New Delhi may not have directly played errand boy or secret channel in the latest diplomatic upheaval that Pakistan's Yahya Khan played in 1970. But almost every interlocutor who worked on the US-Iran agreement has an India connection — from William Burns, the deputy secretary of state who initiated and led the secret talks (he also wrapped up the US-India nuclear deal) to Puneet Talwar, the White House national security council staffer who did the grunt work for the agreement, to Thomas Pickering and Frank Wisner, both former US ambassadors to New Delhi, who opened the back channel with Teheran going back to the Bush administration.

{Sorry but this appears like the rat gloating when the she elephant was announced to be expecting!}

More important than the personnel involved, however, the reconciliation carries multiple benefits for India, which has the second largest Shia Muslim population in the world after Iran. In fact, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Indian officials has often pointed this out during discussions with US officials whenever the subject of Washington's difficult relationship with Teheran came up, suggesting that a reconciliation would redound to the benefit of all sides — from making US draw down from Afghanistan smoother to relieving India, which has close civilizational ties with the Persian power, from suffocating pressure on the energy front.

The US-Iran deal, which is currently of an interim nature with much more groundwork to be done before it is set in stone, has other profound consequences for India and the region. For one, its extricates Washington from the Sunni stranglehold that had cast the US as an unremitting ally of Sunni-dominated countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt against mostly Shia-dominated Iran, Iraq, and Syria. India, which has about a 70:30 Sunni-Shia mix, has an exemplary record of intracommunal harmony, and there were lurking fears that this might be disrupted if the Sunni-Shia conflict in the Muslim world expanded eastward.

Nuclear weaponization

On the nuclear front too, US exceptionalism is being applied to two countries with civilizational underpinnings (India and Iran) vis-a-vis their artificially created rivals (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). Although the US-Iran deal precludes Teheran having nuclear weapons, and is in fact designed to avert its nuclear weaponization (unlike in the case of India where Washington implicitly recognized India's right to retain its nuclear weapons), the agreement is seen as being as bold a move by the Obama administration as the Bush administration's nuclear deal with India.

The nuts and bolts of this agreement, which still has many missing parts and is clearly a work in progress, was put together by Puneet Talwar, an Indian-American White House staffer whose formal designation is special assistant to the president and national security council senior director for Iran, Iraq, and the Gulf states. A long-time Washington DC political wonk, Talwar was a senior staffer on the Senate foreign relations committee, chaired by then-senator Joe Biden, with whom he came to the NSC when Biden became vice-president.

Even as a Senate staffer, Talwar was among the few Washington pols (former US envoys to India Frank Wisner and Thomas Pickering were two others) who kept open back channel contacts with Iranian officials during the Bush era, when the US capital was a war-mongering haven for neo-cons in a town where the Israeli lobby and the House of Saud had combined to successfully put Teheran in the doghouse. When President Obama came to office in 2009 determined to chart a different course with Iran and initiated the first secret outreach, Talwar was a natural choice to continue the back channel grunt work — this time with official White House imprimatur.

Again taking credit for the hardwork of an Indian American who is working for US govt.
My older post
Re rapprochment betwen US and Iran. A few points if I may.

1. It reduces Indian influence in that we lost an opportunity to be the sole/useful assist for Iran when it was under an international vice. But given how confused our foreign policy generally is, and how US pasand MMS led GOI currently are (for better or worse, they will not defy any US diktat), this was a stretch at best. Plus Iran has been hostile too (attacks on Indian soil)
2. Its really good for India in that
1. Iran - India energy ties will boom (we should be careful to prevent MMS led Pak pappi jhappi being part of this, with overground lines etc). We save money and more opportunities for Indo-Iran ties to bloom. Balances and in fact overhauls 1
2. India stops being a proxy warground for Israel-Iran. The attacks in India were a step too far.
3. Some in Israel and most in KSA will be gnashing their teeth
1. Pragmatists/centrists in Israel will be happy that Iran stops n-weaponization. Extreme right wing will be unhappy Iran is now in US orbit and conventional capability may increase
2. KSA for many reasons will loath this announcement.

Kudos to Obama for pulling this off, if this was indeed his initiative. Will reshape middle east if carried out.

kudos to BRF for thinking this so early on....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2015 22:19

Obama spearheaded the deal with Iran ( its more of his internal issue ) while the rest EU. China , Russia Germany provided the meat for the deal.

I suspect in past 4-6 years Obama would have got good intel on Israel and Saudi on why they would like US to be in perpetual enmity with Iran and would convinced him to go with the deal.

There is an offline video of Netanyahu talking on how he can Shepard American Congress which was humiliating.

Obama certains deserves credit for thinking out of box on this deal but the hard work now remains for him to convince the congress

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 04 Apr 2015 22:58

For the US, the revival of its relationship with Iran is a necessity and for Obama it is his legacy. Washington has nothing to lose from this. Allies who have been taking it a bit too much for granted for some time now, will have to learn to stand in line again. Fun times for them ahead.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Apr 2015 05:27

Bomb them and then give them humanitarian relief.
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cf ... 0405239342

RIYADH — The coalition forces command on Saturday formed a committee to expedite and organize the process for humanitarian work in Yemen through recognized humanitarian organizations, announced Brig. Gen Ahmad Al-Asiri, spokesman of the coalition forces and adviser at the office of the minister of defense.

Addressing the media here on Saturday, Asiri said that coalition forces were carrying out humanitarian and evacuation work, and opening the way for humanitarian organizations to coordinate with pertinent authorities to provide assistance to the needy.

The spokesman denied any delays in allowing the Red Cross to carry out humanitarian work. The Red Cross flights are scheduled for tomorrow (Sunday), he said, adding that the Red Cross changed its method for handing over the shipments as well as its flight take-off locations.

Asiri said relief supplies should reach the needy and not the terrorists.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Apr 2015 05:33

http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php/sid/231668193

India has evacuated 1,800 of its nationals from Yemen, including about 800 who were brought out of the strife-torn country on Saturday, the government said.

External affairs ministry spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin said India had also helped some nationals of Bangladesh, Djibouti, Nepal, Pakistan and Uganda.

"Even as v evacuated 1800 of r citizens from Yemen we also helped some from Bangladesh, Djibouti, Nepal, Pakistan amp; Uganda so far," Akbaruddin tweeted.

"By air in the morning (322) By sea in the afternoon (370 amp; counting) Evacuation today from Yemen to touch 800," he added.

About 1,300 Indians have been brought back from Yemen in the last four days.

"All evacuated from Sana'a to Djibouti depart for home. AI 777 leaves Djibouti for Kochi with 322 pax. ETA Kochi 2230 hrs," Akbaruddin had said in a tweet earlier in the day.

Two Indian Air Force flights carrying 334 Indian nationals evacuated from Yemen had landed in Mumbai on Friday night.

A total of 330 Indians had arrived on an Air India flight in Kochi early on Saturday.

Yemen has been engulfed in strife, as Shia Houthi rebels continued their advance against exiled president Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi's loyalists who are being supported by Saudi Arabia-led air strikes.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 05 Apr 2015 06:17

ramana wrote:From Spinster:

The truth is
India has oil and a lot of gas too, it's mostly under ground thanks to ONGC and (self) Reliance!

AdA barse spinsteruDu saab. As always, you sir, bring a big smile and lighten up mood of yours truly.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Apr 2015 07:25

Found this book review that I thought was interesting
http://www.thehindu.com/books/book-revi ... 068500.ece

The rise of Islamic State- ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution: Patrick Cockburn; LeftWord Books, 2254/2A Shadi Khampur, New Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi-110008. Rs. 250.
The Arabs opposed the Ottomans and sided with the allied powers in the First World War in the hope of getting the right to self determination.

Veteran foreign correspondent Patrick Cockburn (65), who has reported from the Middle East since 1979, has three full-length books on Iraq already to his credit. This monograph on the rise of the ultra-jihadist Islamic State builds on his reportage for The Independent and long-form writing for the London Review of Books.

It attributes the birth of IS to the belligerence shown by the West following the 9/11 attacks. It makes clear that it was not 9/11 but the reaction of U.S and its allies to the attacks that made al-Qaeda’s rise and expansion inevitable, giving birth to other splinter groups, including the most recent and the most violent one. Cockburn says that if the West’s war on terror has been a spectacular failure, it is because of its failure to target the epicentres of jihad -- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Two recent developments that Cockburn says provided fertile breeding ground for the IS are: marginalisation of the Sunnis in Iraq; and the hijacking of the Syrian uprising by jihadists. In both cases, Wahhabi Islam, a puritanical form patronised and exported by the House of Saud, provided the ideological fuel.

It is clear from the pessimism expressed by the book about the future of the region that questions behind the rise of the groups like IS need to go beyond those merely focused on security and stability: they need to take into account colonial ambitions that were instrumental in creation of the nations as such. For, isn’t the rise of non-state actors in the Middle East a product of the way the states were organised there 100 years ago?

The Arabs opposed the Ottomans and sided with the allied powers in the First World War in the hope of getting the right to self determination. However, they were used as strategic bargaining chips by the victors. The application of Sykes-Picot line to divide the region into French and the British spheres of influence was matched in its mendacity only by the Treaty of Versailles signed a few years later. The people of the region were left betrayed.

As written by T.E. Lawrence -- Lawrence of Arabia -- and quoted by Robert Fisk in The Great War For Civilisation, the Arabs did not risk their lives in battle simply to “change masters.” They wanted independence of their own.

Their experiments with puppet administrations started in 1922 when Britain installed King Feisal — neither an Iraqi nor a Shia — in Shia-majority Iraq. Robert Fisk calls this “our first betrayal of the Shias of Iraq.” There were more betrayals in store, resulting in societies, with a glorious record of coexistence, getting split further along sectarian lines. Cockburn foresees balkanisation of the region into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish enclaves where the ‘other’ is targeted. Here, he fears we may see a repeat of the carnage that accompanied India’s partition. However, military interventions in the form of air strikes continue, in the hope of defeating the enemy. Assuming that IS can be defeated by military means, a question that arises is: What could be done to prevent the future emergence of such groups? This book doesn’t provide many answers but the corpus of literature on the region does.

The West needs to attempt a genuine reconciliation with its erstwhile colonies and present-day clients. The next year will mark a century since the Sykes-Picot pact was signed. Serious reflection on what went wrong with the re-organisation of the states in the region needs to take place. This has to involve acceptance of historical blame.

The superpowers need to learn from history that Iraq and Syria are progenies of civilisations which a rich culture of tolerance and state building. The Mesopotamian civilisation, as fabulously documented by Jared Diamond in the rambunctious read, Guns, Germs and Steel, had a centralised state as early as 3500 BC.

The rich Mediterranean climate of Tigris and Euphrates valleys and the emergence of writing and irrigation technologies led to the formation of complex political organisations. What explains the irony that, in a region which has inherited such a sophisticated system of state building, the most popular party is a non-state actor?

The prime reason is the encumbrances thrown in the path of nationalist movements, first by colonial powers like Ottoman Turkey and Britain and later by post-colonial ones like U.S. and Soviet Union, which prevented the rise of modern institutions. Alas, U.S. and its allies show collective amnesia when it comes to history. The IS has numerous enemies but, as Cockburn says, they are disunited and have varying ideologies. IS is neither Islamic nor a state but to “degrade and ultimately destroy” it, as President Barack Obama put it, the West has to allow the organic evolution of genuine states, where Islam and democracy can both be allowed to play a role and where national aspirations, not external interests, provide the binding force.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 05 Apr 2015 08:08

^^^ interesting review of Cockburn's book, thanks for posting it.

IMO, the British would have left India in the same mess as the Middle East, and did sponsor Muhammadan separatism; but Indian culture meant that generally speaking, Indians would not drop everything and fight each other as readily as those in the Middle East.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Apr 2015 08:37

Tuvaluan wrote:I think Singha's POV that Iran is basically screwed is sound, not least because this current rapprochment seems largely tactical, as the US plays both sides in the shia-sunni bloodletting. If this rapprochment is just tactical then it means that there will be no support for it in Iran internally (and certainly not from the clerics council) that can only mean the rise of another Ahmedinejad type leader in a future election and all of these new sanctions kicking in -- the question is whether Iran will have increased its ability to be unaffected by US sanctions when they come into effect down the line.

If the KSA Sunnis openly declare pakistan's nukes as their sunni bomb, and Israel's open secret is made more open, then Iran will be pressed to respond. This treaty seems to say that Iran cannot take any steps for its survival against the sunni bomb -- I fail to see why they would consider than an acceptable choice at that time, with the treaty with the US blocking all other choices. Again, if this is a tactical move, it measn that Iran needs some breathing space to get its affairs in order until the eventual inevitable withdrawal from this treaty.

Faced with a Sunni Bum & Israeli bum, Iran can & should turn to Bharat for nuclear protection!

http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/2012/ ... vious.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Apr 2015 09:08

Without a noko type demo explosion iran has no leverage. They only have themselves to blame.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 05 Apr 2015 09:41

Faced with a Sunni Bum & Israeli bum, Iran can & should turn to Bharat for nuclear protection!

Would be pretty silly for India to waste its political capital by providing nuclear cover to Iran. Iran is on its own.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Apr 2015 10:06

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ interesting review of Cockburn's book, thanks for posting it.

IMO, the British would have left India in the same mess as the Middle East, and did sponsor Muhammadan separatism; but Indian culture meant that generally speaking, Indians would not drop everything and fight each other as readily as those in the Middle East.

Arun - it strikes me that both India and Iran remained "intact civilizations" that were not fragmented in the way the Caliphate was fragmented and split up between British, French and Arabs. The intact cores have remained stable but those parts that were fragmented by European colonization are in turmoil. Those fragments are all inhabited by Musilms.

European games are only one part of the story I guess - Islam is a second part. Europe found out very soon that Islam is no glue and that Muslim empires could simply be set up to fight each other and others. Islam has been set up to fight India since the middle of the 20th century, but that fight has changed now.As long as Islamic nations fight each other I would be happy to sit and watch and I would be quite happy for them to fight the West as well.

Too much dependence on fake respect being paid to "secularism" prevents the world from stating the obvious - Islamic governments simply do not know how to rule Muslims. They make laws that discriminate against non Muslims, which Muslims like, but they cannot stop the murder that is then committed in the name of Islam. The minute an "Islamic state" is set up it is licence for someone or the other to start killing someone else in the name of Islam. This is so blatantly obvious that everyone knows it but it is never stated in the official diplomatic language used by member nations of the UN. Such fake sensitivity would be laughable if so many people were not being killed.

I wonder if a "duh" moment will even come to the ummah.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Apr 2015 10:15

Tuvaluan wrote:
Faced with a Sunni Bum & Israeli bum, Iran can & should turn to Bharat for nuclear protection!
Would be pretty silly for India to waste its political capital by providing nuclear cover to Iran. Iran is on its own.

This "nuclear cover" business makes me laugh as I recall the sophistry of the west in the use of the term "ally". For the European/Christian/North Atlantic "West" - an ally means that the ally will_definitely_join any war that a nation fights. For them "ally" means family. One's own blood. But any other non European nation that is an "ally" is expected to join European/US wars, but those European countries will not join wars started by non-European allies.

So Pakistan, as an "ally" did not get the US to join in its war with India even as Pakistan joined every war that the US wanted it to join. Arabs have allied with the US but have never got the West to fight Israel. They have, on the other hand fought alongside the West in the wars that the West wanted to fight.

India has no business protecting Iran with nuclear cover. We look after ourselves, period. Expect nothing and give nothing. No one is on our side. Only we can be on our side.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Apr 2015 10:45

I think that the Iranians can look after themselves. We don't need to provide them with any "cover".No one really knows how close they are to developing/building an N-device. The current "agreement",which as an analysts said on the Beeb,meant different things in the 4 different langauges/texts used,is stretchable,flexible,from the Persian grammar! Some of their N-sites are outside inspection from this deal,and one can be sure that the most prized assets will be moved to them before Iran starts the process of intl. inspections.

However,close Indo-Iranian relations are vital for India.Iran is the policeman or brigand of the Gulf,whichever viewpoint you prefer.It can cause immense damage to tanker traffic.Secondly,it offers us a viable route for trade into Central Asia/Russia and since it strategically borders both Baluchistan and Afghanistan from Pak's vulnerable backside,can cause problems for Pak should it choose to do so.In the event of a conflict with Pak,Indian merchant shipping gaining access to Iranian ports would be of immense help. The Iranians can also help sabotage any attempt by Pak to take over Afghanistan with Taliban help,by causing covert chaos in its rear assisting the Kabul govt.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 05 Apr 2015 10:45

What does "nuclear protection" mean anyway? Think about it like this

If a nuke-less Britain is about to be nuked by Russia, does anyone seriously think the US will nuke Russia and risk its entire homeland. Britain is smaller than many, if not most, US states... Plus, how does a comprehensively nuked Britain, Russia AND US benefit anyone?

menon s · Post by **menon s** » 05 Apr 2015 11:06

GCC cant take out Yemeni Air defense Systems!

A leaked audio recording allegedly from a closed meeting at the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency (GIP) in Riyadh shows how Saudi high command is hopeless in destroying Yemeni anti-aircraft system amid the Saudi-led aerial campaign against the Yemeni army and the local volunteer forces.

We hear in the audio recording:
“ … UAE sent 30 fighter jets, Kuwait and Bahrain both participated with 15 jets, while Qatar took part in the campaign with 10 airplanes and of course, Jordan sent few aircrafts but we do not have pilots … and here we have Yemeni air defense system and F-16 jets are more capable to evade anti-aircraft system,” al-Jabouri allegedly says in the surreptitious meeting.

There are no F-16 jets in Royal Saudi Air Force, al-Jabouri added, and due to the grave problems we and our other Gulf States are facing, it is better to use Israeli F-16 jests as they know how to deal with these Shiites, but the only problem we have is that there is no air ports in Saudi Arabia where Israeli jets can land, hence we must use Bahraini runways and U.S. fifth fleet in Bahrain and Americans promised us to help, concluded al-Jabouri.

http://whatsupic.com/news-politics-worl ... 12393.html

The Arab street opinion, here in Dubai, is that, King Salman planned this attack, over Yemen to cover up or distract, palace mutinies, gathering storm, between Saudi prince-lings.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 05 Apr 2015 11:16

^^the vast sums of cash handed out to the public in recent months was itself an indication that the new ruler was shoring up public opinion in his favour. Still too early to call though, I give it another 2-3 years, of course unless he dies of natural causes.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Apr 2015 11:29

...and to prove to the Muslim world that he is the "keeper of the two holy pieces"!
After having proven that he possesses his manhood,by bombing civilians in the Yemen,the Arab world in particular is waiting to see how his "tilt" at Yemen succeeds.If his gambit fails,and he may be in for a long innings there,with partners departing for some excuse or the other,will we see Paki beardies entering into the fray? That should be welcomed as the Pakis have never ever scored a victory anywhere and will p*ss off Iran no end, perhaps accelerating Iranian support for the Baluchis and Afghanis.Let's wait and watch.

wig · Post by **wig** » 05 Apr 2015 11:31

Saudi King Salman’s defence minister and head of the royal court, his son Mohammed bin Salman, aged about 30 ‘Destroyer of Shiite Rejectionists and their Persian Backers in Yemen’
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-y ... 56167.html

A succession of crucially important military and diplomatic events are convulsing the political landscape of the Middle East. The most significant development is the understanding between the US and five other world powers with Iran on limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in return for an easing of sanctions. But the muting of hostility between the US and Iran, a destabilising feature of Middle East politics since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, may not do much to stem the momentum towards ever greater violence in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

In any case, the benefits of a US-Iran agreement may be slow to come, if they come at all, as the Republicans in Congress, the Saudis and Israel try to torpedo it. And even if an accord is ratified and implemented, President Obama could be hedged in by its opponents from further co-operation with Iran in other parts of the Middle East. In contrast to this snail’s pace rapprochement, the crises in Yemen and Syria are getting worse by the day and, in Iraq, for all the government’s claims to have captured Tikrit, its forces are still only nibbling at the outer defences of Islamic State (Isis).

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies have the greatest self-interest in maintaining the status quo in the region, something they have been fairly successful in doing in the past. Who would have predicted in the late 1950s that Arab nationalist and socialist movements would pass away but Saudi Arabia would remain the theocratic absolute monarchy it has always been? What is striking about developments in the past few weeks is that it is Saudi Arabia that is seeking radical change in the region and is prepared to use military force to secure it. In Yemen, it has launched a devastating air war and, in Syria, it is collaborating with Turkey to support extreme jihadi movements led by Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate that last week captured its first provincial capital.

The Saudis are abandoning their tradition of pursuing extremely cautious policies, using their vast wealth to buy influence, working through proxies and keeping close to the US. In Yemen, it is the Saudi air force that is bombarding the Houthis, along with Yemeni army units still loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh who was once seen as the Saudis’ and Americans’ man in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital. As with many other air campaigns, the Saudis and their Gulf Co-operation Council allies are finding that air strikes without a reliable military partner on the ground do not get you very far. But if Saudi ground forces are deployed in Yemen they will be entering a country that has been just as much of a quagmire as Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Saudis are portraying their intervention as provoked by Iranian-backed Shia Zaidis trying to take over the country. Much of this is propaganda. The Houthis, who come from the Zaidi tribes in Yemen’s northern mountains, have an effective military and political movement called Ansar Allah, modelled on Hezbollah in Lebanon. They have fought off six government offensives against them since 2004, all launched by former President Saleh, then allied to the Saudis. Saleh, himself a Zaidi but drawing his support from the Zaidi tribes around the capital, Sanaa, was a casualty of the Arab Spring in Yemen but still has the support of many army units.
Why has Saudi Arabia plunged into this morass, pretending that Iran is pulling the strings of the Shia minority though its role is marginal? The Zaidis, estimated to be a third of the 25 million Yemeni population, are very different Shia from those in Iran and Iraq. In the past, there has been little Sunni-Shia sectarianism in Yemen, but the Saudi determination to frame the conflict in sectarian terms may be self-fulfilling.

Part of the explanation may lie with the domestic politics of Saudi Arabia. Madawi al-Rasheed, a Saudi visiting professor at LSE’s Middle East Centre, says in the online magazine al-Monitor that Saudi King Salman’s defence minister and head of the royal court, his son Mohammed bin Salman, aged about 30, wants to establish Saudi Arabia as absolutely dominant in the Arabian Peninsula. She adds caustically that he needs to earn a military title, “perhaps ‘Destroyer of Shiite Rejectionists and their Persian Backers in Yemen’, to remain relevant among more experienced and aspiring siblings and disgruntled royal cousins”. A successful military operation in Yemen would give him the credentials he needs.

A popular war would help unite Saudi liberals and Islamists behind a national banner while dissidents could be pilloried as traitors. Victory in Yemen would compensate for the frustration of Saudi policy in Iraq and Syria where the Saudis have been outmanoeuvred by Iran. In addition, it would be a defiant gesture towards a US administration that they see as too accommodating towards Iran.

The Houthis, who come from the Zaidi tribes in Yemen’s northern mountains, have an effective military and political movement called Ansar Allah, modelled on Hezbollah (EPA) The Houthis, who come from the Zaidi tribes in Yemen’s northern mountains, have an effective military and political movement called Ansar Allah, modelled on Hezbollah (EPA)

Yemen is not the only country in which Saudi Arabia is taking a more vigorous role. Last week, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria suffered several defeats, the most important being the fall of the provincial capital Idlib, in northern Syria, to Jabhat al-Nusra which fought alongside two other hardline al-Qaeda-type movements, Ahrar al-Sham and Jund al-Aqsa. Al-Nusra’s leader, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, immediately announced the instruction of Shia law in the city. Sent to Syria in 2011 by Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to create al-Nusra, he split from Baghdadi when he tried to reabsorb al-Nusra in 2013. Ideologically, the two groups differ little and the US has launched air strikes against al-Nusra, though Turkey still treats it as if it represented moderates.

The Syrian government last week accused Turkey of helping thousands of jihadi fighters to reach Idlib and of jamming Syrian army telecommunications, which helped to undermine the defences of the city. The prominent Saudi role in the fall of Idlib was publicised by Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and adviser to the government, in an interview in The New York Times. He said that Saudi Arabia and Turkey had backed Jabhat al-Nusra and the other jihadis in capturing Idlib, adding that “co-ordination between Turkish and Saudi intelligence has never been as good as now”. Surprisingly, this open admission that Saudi Arabia is backing jihadi groups condemned as terrorists by the US attracted little attention. Meanwhile, Isis fighters have for the first time entered Damascus in strength, taking over part the Yarmouk Palestinian camp, only ten miles from the heart of the Syrian capital.

Saudi Arabia is not the first monarchy to imagine that it can earn patriotic credentials and stabilise its rule by waging a short and victorious foreign war. In 1914, the monarchs of Germany, Russia and Austro-Hungary had much the same idea and found out too late that they had sawed through the branch on which they were all sitting. Likewise, Saudi rulers may find to their cost that they have been far more successful than Iran ever was in destroying the political status quo in the Middle East

menon s · Post by **menon s** » 05 Apr 2015 11:34

King Salman is 80, and reportedly suffers from Alzheimers, the next in line is Prince Muqrim, who is 69. Muqrims mother was a Yemeni Concubine and not a full fledged Saudi Princess! And there ends the line of the 45 sons of Ibn Saud. The next is a hundred or so grandsons!!!!

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 05 Apr 2015 13:47

^^thanks for that timely reminder ... Should put us all in mind about the upcoming clusterf**k on the land of the two holy places.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 05 Apr 2015 17:24

I seem to remember seeing yesterday an item saying "(KSA) pledges to Protect Mecca and Medina!"
Wonder why. Isn't that like POTUS Dubya saying "USA pledges to Protect Disneyland and Six Flags!" as the US proceeds to Liberate, say, Grenada?
What are they shivering in their jalabyas for, hain? The Houthis don't have a single airplane nor any hope of surviving in their own cities, much less invade KSA!
Or... are they thinking of ISIS?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 05 Apr 2015 18:46

^^^ There is an apparent shaking of the sheikhs of So.(o)thia because the Zaidis or the Hoothis have revenge on their heads. They have always been fighting and the Sheikhs have always outsourced their fighting.

Now if an armchair warrior like the Sheikh had to defend against the battle hardened Hoothis what would he promise the mercenaries (Pookies / Poothies) who he wants to fight for him? Mecca and Medina of course.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Apr 2015 19:05

JE Menon wrote:What does "nuclear protection" mean anyway? Think about it like this

If a nuke-less Britain is about to be nuked by Russia, does anyone seriously think the US will nuke Russia and risk its entire homeland. Britain is smaller than many, if not most, US states... Plus, how does a comprehensively nuked Britain, Russia AND US benefit anyone?

That's the whole point

People, as always, think/want India to behave different from other super powels! India will behave exactly the same way other world powers behave in similar situations.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 05 Apr 2015 22:07

Easter at See Enn Enn

Meanwhile,, brought 2 u courtesy of the Dubyan Liberation of Eyerak

But these reports are beginning to look a bit suspicious: Look at the name.

militant named Abu Anas Al-Libi

Either they have a shortage of names among leading terrists, or they are recycling names at See Enn Enn HQ.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Apr 2015 01:26

RamaY wrote: Faced with a Sunni Bum & Israeli bum, Iran can & should turn to Bharat for nuclear protection!

And what do the Iranians think about that proposition!! They believe that they will protect India, as according to them the Indian subcontinent is meant to be part of their Persian empire!!

Iran's Grand Strategy

Last month, a senior adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke at a conference in Tehran on “Iran, Nationalism, History, and Culture.” The adviser made clear that Iran’s ambition is to become a regional hegemon — in short, to reestablish the Persian empire.

The adviser, Ali Younesi — who was head of intelligence for former president Mohammad Khatami — told conference attendees, “Since its inception, Iran has [always] had a global [dimension]. It was born an empire. Iran’s leaders, officials and administrators have always thought in the global” dimension.

Younesi defined the territory of the Iranian empire, which he called “Greater Iran,” as reaching from the borders of China and including the Indian subcontinent, the north and south Caucasus and the Persian Gulf. He said Iraq is the capital of the Iranian Empire — a reference to the ancient city of Babylon, in present-day Iraq, which was the center of Persian life for centuries.

“We are protecting the interests of [all] the people in the region — because they are all Iran’s people,” he said. “We must try to once again spread the banner of Islamic-Iranian unity and peace in the region. Iran must bear this responsibility, as it did in the past.”

Younesi said that the aim of Iranian actions in “Greater Iran” was to ensure the security of the people there, adding that Saudi Arabia has nothing to fear from Iran’s actions because the Saudis are incapable of defending the people of the region. He also said that anything that enters Iran is improved by becoming Iranian, particularly Islam itself, adding that Islam in its Iranian-Shiite form is the pure Islam, since it has shed all traces of Arabism.