Iran News and Discussions

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 23 Jul 2010 17:17

Every time I check out this thread...I feel strong and proud..

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Jul 2010 02:05

Sanctions slow development of huge natural gas field in Iran

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 33_pf.html

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 24 Jul 2010 06:38

How any other country reacts and conducts has no bearing on the action of India. India looks for its interest. Our interest differ from those who are willing to trade with Iran. India too can do that(showing middle finger and we have done that since 70s). But any relationship is based on give and take principle. You can do trade with Iran but doing so India is in very delicate position not to affect its other relations. India is looking for removing of its premier institution from the entity list. It is not comparable in the light of what others are doing.
What India doing with Iran is some what similar to what Karzai is doing with Iran. We are playing geo-political chess with AF-PAK, & US and Iran are important peices. Lets see what India gains.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 24 Jul 2010 07:45

Venkarl wrote:Every time I check out this thread...I feel strong and proud..

Of what specifically?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 Jul 2010 10:52

Iran aims to send man into space by 2019

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country plans to send a man into space by 2019, official state media report.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 24 Jul 2010 13:14

Carl_T wrote:
Venkarl wrote:Every time I check out this thread...I feel strong and proud..
Of what specifically?

Carlji...AFA my observation, discussions in most threads in strategy forum, I see a shadow of Indian leadership bending to US..this thread, with recent news of agreements between India and Iran against the wish of US, is demonstrating that India's policies w.r.t Iran are independent of what US warns/tells/etc...this trend of showing some spine slowly gives me some satisfaction..I hope this fashion maximises to other spheres of decision/policy making in New Delhi.

Ambar · Post by **Ambar** » 24 Jul 2010 15:00

Sanjay M wrote:Iran aims to send man into space by 2019

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said his country plans to send a man into space by 2019, official state media report.

I hope its the grand ayatollah himself with a one way ticket!

sampat · Post by **sampat** » 24 Jul 2010 17:41

Iran and Turkey sign pipeline deal- aljazeera

Iran has signed a $1.3bn pipeline deal to ship gas to Turkey, the Iranian oil minister has said.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 24 Jul 2010 19:55

Venkarl wrote: Carlji...AFA my observation, discussions in most threads in strategy forum, I see a shadow of Indian leadership bending to US..this thread, with recent news of agreements between India and Iran against the wish of US, is demonstrating that India's policies w.r.t Iran are independent of what US warns/tells/etc...this trend of showing some spine slowly gives me some satisfaction..I hope this fashion maximises to other spheres of decision/policy making in New Delhi.

Thanks for clarifying, I also think India should have been consistently cultivating Iran over the past few years, but I don't feel it is realistic anymore.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 24 Jul 2010 20:05

Carl_T wrote:.... I also think India should have been consistently cultivating Iran over the past few years, but I don't feel it is realistic anymore.

Why? I am under the impression that the game has just begun...

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 Jul 2010 23:17

Iran launches nuclear fusion program, says atomic energy chief

somehow I think Iran's nuclear fusion program will be similar to North Korea's nuclear fusion program

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Jul 2010 02:52

^^ lets just hope they don't create a chernobyl with the winds blowing down stream onto NW India.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jul 2010 08:56

The 'unravelling relationship' between Russia and Iran (BBC)

if this is the case, then does anyone think it's mainly due to Iran's latest gambit thru Turkey and Brazil which has alienated Russia by attempting to sideline it?

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 25 Jul 2010 08:58

Venkarl wrote:
Carl_T wrote:.... I also think India should have been consistently cultivating Iran over the past few years, but I don't feel it is realistic anymore.
Why? I am under the impression that the game has just begun...

What can Iran exactly offer India that exceeds the goodies the US and Israel will dangle? Surely in the future Israel will also try to pressure India against a relationship with Iran...Will India say no to Israel then?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jul 2010 10:07

Well, we do need Iran's help to fight Pakistan/Taliban in Afghanistan - although we could partner with Russia as well.

Together, the 3 of us can beat Pak by keeping Northern Afghanistan out of its hands.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Jul 2010 11:43

Sanjay M wrote:Well, we do need Iran's help to fight Pakistan/Taliban in Afghanistan - although we could partner with Russia as well.

Together, the 3 of us can beat Pak by keeping Northern Afghanistan out of its hands.

Whether Iran has ever committed to India , in the past, that it would help India to fight Pakistan/Taliban. I don't remeber any.
Such a proposition does not exist. The relation with Iran needs to be cutivated seperately but as Carl_T pointed out, it does not seem realistic , at least , for some time. What could be the reason for India not hopping on to IPI pipeline while Iran was dragging its feet on Gas pricing issue. Pakistan would be in for trouble on this deal once the Refree shows them red card.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 25 Jul 2010 12:50

^^^ How do you think Taliban was fought last time?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 25 Jul 2010 13:24

Sanjay M wrote:^^^ How do you think Taliban was fought last time?

well, why not enlighten me. and which last time ??

lets not forget it was USSR+Iran at the receiving end.What do you think Iraq was doing with Iran and at whose behest?
With Unkil against Iran, its role now in fighting Taliban would be doubtful. Iran would not risk dismemberment of pashtun areas ( aka Turkey for Kurdistan). It will be a significant player but serving its own interest.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Jul 2010 06:45

UK to press India to back Iran deterrence

David Cameron, the British prime minister, will press India to support the international community’s efforts to deter Iran from building nuclear weapons during his visit to New Delhi this week.

Mr Cameron’s new government wants India to be more vocal about Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium, in breach of United Nations resolutions, according to a UK official in New Delhi.

Britain believes that India is ideally placed to deliver a message, including to Iran’s own people, that concern about their regime’s nuclear ambitions is global and not merely the preserve of the west.

“We hope Indian interlocutors can unpick the Iranian system and explain what the concerns are,” the official said.

Mr Cameron is being accompanied by William Hague, the foreign secretary, and six other UK cabinet ministers on what will be his first visit to Asia – aside from a trip to Afghanistan – since taking office in May.

But S.M. Krishna, India’s foreign minister, travelled to Tehran this month to discuss energy partnerships with Iran. New Delhi is considering joining a controversial pipeline project that would supply Iranian gas to India and Pakistan.

Mr Krishna held talks with Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president, about bilateral co-operation and regional stability. Trade between Iran and India stands at $14bn (€11bn, £9bn) a year. But the foreign minister made no remarks about Iran’s nuclear programme, which Tehran insists is for civilian use.

“What good are energy projects and pipelines if Iran is in flames?” asked the British official.

UK officials say India should be concerned not just about the immediate consequences of Iran becoming a nuclear power. Of equal worry, they say, is the possible response of a country like Saudi Arabia, which would view a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat and may seek atomic weapons of its own, with the help of Pakistan and other countries.

Nicholas Burns, a former US undersecretary of state who is leading an American dialogue with India, said this week that New Delhi’s stance on Iran would be a test of its suitability for a bigger role at the UN. India wants a permanent seat on the Security Council. “We need India’s shoulder behind this wheel,” said Mr Burns. “The world, including China and Russia, will be tested. We can’t stop Iran just with nice words.”

But India’s foreign ministry doubts how effective it can be.

One senior Indian official said that Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, had informally offered to mediate between Tehran and the US before his state visit to Washington last year. But Iran had not shown any interest.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 26 Jul 2010 07:12

shyamd wrote:One senior Indian official said that Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, had informally offered to mediate between Tehran and the US before his state visit to Washington last year. But Iran had not shown any interest.

First ask Iran whether they want India meddling in their affairs, then offer mediation. Don't put the cart before the horse.

Offering mediation without asking them first is barging into their affairs and they won't like it. US selectively proliferated nukes to Pakistan, Israel and South Africa, kind of ironic they now find there are consequences for that.

This may be a good opportunity to talk about global nuclear disarmament (elimination of these weapons not just an eyewash) as the position of some countries having nukes and telling others not to have it is unsustainable.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 26 Jul 2010 07:23

Notice how they're dangling the UN card in front of India again.

They really need to promise whether they'll keep Afghanistan from becoming a Pak satellite state, and thus a nest for terror operations against India.

If they can't deliver that, then India has no choice but to collaborate with Iran to counter Pak conquest of Afghanistan.

And so that's maybe the real motivation behind Uncle's sudden rush to shove Pak around. It's not so much because of any time imperative on the Afghan conflict, but rather due to a time imperative on Iran's advance toward nuclearization.

In that case, Pak will see that time is on its side. The longer it holds out against US pressure, the closer Iran will get to nuclearization in the meantime, and the more the Iran nuclear issue will overshadow any Afghan considerations.

US would have to wrap up its Afghan military conflict before getting into any confrontation with Iran, otherwise the complexities arising from cross-interaction between the 2 conflicts would present a minefield to US policymakers.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 26 Jul 2010 10:44

Sanjay M wrote:Notice how they're dangling the UN card in front of India again.

As if the UN permanent seat was theirs to give! China is the one blocking a permanent seat for us, not the west. If the west had any real influence (or need) to grant it to India, they would already have.

US needs a war to fuel its military-scientific research, its capitalistic economy and its jobs. Vietnam, the gulf war, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran. Unlike Afghanistan which is land-locked, Iran offers more direct access - lot of oil and gas opportunities for its corporates. This has got nothing to do with Iran's nuclear status.

Unfortunately for the US, Iran has woke up earlier than Iraq could. Any misadventure from them would be resulting in bigger losses for them.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jul 2010 11:39

1) India should continue to repeat that we do not want more nuclear weapons in the neighborhood. Iran's nuclear program should be resolved through dialog.

2) Tell US we would abide by the UN sanctions.

3) Increase cooperation with Iran across the board. Bust sanctions where possible, in gray areas. Give Iran the confidence that we are on their side.

4) Cooperate with Iran on Afghanistan, Gas.

5) Repeat the above.

There is absolutely no reason to either take US side, nor complicate our position by offering mediation. When India offers mediation, we are telling every side, that we are on the side of the other. This is more stupidity. Leave the mediation to others. This is like we used to cry global nuclear disarmament before we went nuclear.

Does it really matter, if Saudi Arabia goes nuclear. If Pakistan has nuclear weapons, so do Saudi Arabia. What is the net gain in danger?

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 26 Jul 2010 13:37

I have doubt that there would be much cooperation with Iran on fighting against Pak in Afg, but I see much merit in RajeshA's advice. Probably India would be doing that most of the time.

However the relations should not be allowed to get into pincer.

I have a feeling that unkil would not get out of AFG ( notice recent statements of Military commanders, pretraeus and mullen)
It would squeeze Iran from three sides Iraq, Afg and PK. Gulf is already heavily monitored by them.

Things would be getting hotter for Iran once Unkil feel confident of situation in AFG. Turning heat on Haqqani's is part of that strategy and sooner or later unkil would operate deep in PK, militarily. For Iran operation they would also set up bases in PK. Region is going to be hotter thanks to stupidity of PK and it would be their undoing.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 26 Jul 2010 23:07

Make it clear that India is far more directly affected by Pakistani sponsored terrorism against India, than the US is by Iran assisted terror. Yes, India doesn't want more nukes in the neighbourhood including Iran, but if the US really desires Indian cooperation on that issue, much more has to be done, and must be seen to be done, against Pakistani supported terrorism, and yes, against Pakistani nukes. Tell the US, IOW, that it's absolutely ludicrous for India to get more concerned and excited about Iranian nuclear capability and support for terrorism, than it is for Pakistani terror and nuclear ability.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Jul 2010 07:14

Iran fuel imports nosedive as sanctions bite-source

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOil ... 26?sp=true

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Jul 2010 07:14

Iran, U.S. Send Positive Signals on Nuclear Talks

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/07/ ... -iran.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Jul 2010 07:17

Conditions still apply for nuclear talks - Ahmadinejad

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20100728/ ... abf6c.html

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Aug 2010 06:48

Indian market; a target for Iran

Tehran Times Economic Desk

TEHRAN -- The Iranian commerce minister met Indian ambassador to Tehran and relayed the Islamic Republic’s private sector’s readiness to carry out technical and engineering projects in that country.

Mehdi Ghazanfari expressed his satisfaction with the positive trend in the two sides’ political and economic relations, IRNA news agency reported.

He pointed out that exchanging delegations in specialized fields of trade and industry, increasing banking cooperation and furthering marine transportation will help foster relations.

The Iranian official pointed out that Iran has relations with many countries worldwide and noted that even some European countries which have claimed to boycott Iran have not totally severed their ties with Tehran.

The Indian envoy to Tehran Sanji Singh stated that firms from his country are keen to invest and cooperate in Iran’s oil, gas and mine sectors.

The Delhi diplomat mentioned that a delegation made up of members of the Indian Confederation will visit Iran in September to enhance trade links between the two nations

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 01 Aug 2010 10:14

shyamd wrote:Indian market; a target for Iran
Tehran Times Economic Desk

TEHRAN -- The Iranian commerce minister met Indian ambassador to Tehran and relayed the Islamic Republic’s private sector’s readiness to carry out technical and engineering projects in that country.

Mehdi Ghazanfari expressed his satisfaction with the positive trend in the two sides’ political and economic relations, IRNA news agency reported.

He pointed out that exchanging delegations in specialized fields of trade and industry, increasing banking cooperation and furthering marine transportation will help foster relations.

The Iranian official pointed out that Iran has relations with many countries worldwide and noted that even some European countries which have claimed to boycott Iran have not totally severed their ties with Tehran.

The Indian envoy to Tehran Sanji Singh stated that firms from his country are keen to invest and cooperate in Iran’s oil, gas and mine sectors.

The Delhi diplomat mentioned that a delegation made up of members of the Indian Confederation will visit Iran in September to enhance trade links between the two nations

About bloody time. This should have been done a long time ago. We need to engage with Iran, irrespective of what US/UK/Europe tell us or seem to think about it. Though belated, but still good.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Aug 2010 10:44

Brzezinski on Iran:

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 01 Aug 2010 10:48

shyamd wrote:Indian market; a target for Iran

Tehran Times Economic Desk

TEHRAN -- The Iranian commerce minister met Indian ambassador to Tehran and relayed the Islamic Republic’s private sector’s readiness to carry out technical and engineering projects in that country.

Old link but still very relevant.

Caution is best when dealing with the iranians.

Their support to India is more imagined than factual.
shia iran support to a sunni pakistan is unfathomable specially when the paki agenda is saudi driven.

http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/may/ ... o-iran.htm

India and Iran have long held significantly different perceptions of the global nuclear order. Iran was not supportive of India's tests in 1998 and backed the United Nations Secuiry Council's resolution that asked India and Pakistan to cap their capabilities by signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Iran has repeatedly called for a universal acceptance of the NPT, much to India's discomfiture.

Though Iran has claimed that this was directed at Israel, the implications of such a move are far-reaching for India. Iran's position on several other issues crucial to India has been against Indian interests. India's position on the Iranian nuclear question is relatively straightforward. While India believes that Iran has thea right to pursue civilian nuclear energy, it has insisted that Iran should clarify the doubts raised by the IAEA on its compliance with the NPT. India has long maintained that it does not see any further nuclear proliferation as being in its own interests. There is no need to be apologetic about India's position on the nuclear issue.

The issue of the $7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline was also on the agenda as India remains keen to gain access to Iranian energy resources. Not only has Pakistan already signed the deal with Iran, China is starting to make its presence felt in Iran in a big way. It is now Iran's largest trading partner and is undertaking massive investments in Iran, rapidly occupying the space vacated by western firms. India is right to feel restless about its own marginalisation in Iran despite its civilisational ties with the country. The problems with the IPI pipeline, however, remain difficult to overcome. India has differences over the pricing of the gas even as ensuring the security of the pipeline in the restive Balochistan makes it difficult for India to accept the deal in its present version.

India indeed would like to make its presence grow in the Iranian energy sector but there is little evidence, so far, that Iran would be a reliable partner in India's search for energy security. A number of important projects have either been rejected by Iran or have yet to be finalised due to its changing of terms and conditions. Despite Krishna's best attempts, no date could be agreed upon for the next meeting of the bilateral joint commission, which hasn't met since November 2008, suggesting Iran's continued reluctance to move on crucial economic issues.

The crucial regional issue where India and Iran need each other is the evolving security situation in Afghanistan. America's Afghanistan policy in particular has been causing consternation in Indian policy-making circles. A fundamental disconnect has emerged between US and Indian interests in Af-Pak. The Obama administration has been systematically ignoring Indian interests in the crafting of its Af-Pak priorities. While actively discouraging India from assuming a higher profile in Afghanistan, for fear of offending Pakistan, the US has failed to persuade Pakistan into taking Indian concerns more seriously.

While the US may have no vital interest in determining who actually governs in Afghanistan, so long as the Afghan territory is not being used to launch attacks on US soil, India does. The Taliban [ Images ] -- good or bad -- are opposed to India in fundamental ways. The consequence of abandoning the goal to establish a functioning Afghan state and a moderate Pakistan will be greater pressure on Indian security. To preserve its interests in such a strategic milieu, it is in Indian interests to coordinate more closely with states like Russia [ Images ] and Iran.

But that can happen only if Iran is also interested in stabilising Afghanistan. If Tehran's interests are primarily driven by its desire to see America's withdrawal, then New Delhi will have to rethink its approach towards Iran. In any case, India should have enough self-confidence to engage Iran on its own terms and on the basis of a clear understanding of its national interests. That's the only way of achieving stability in bilateral ties.

[/quote]

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 01 Aug 2010 21:33

Sanjay M wrote:Well, we do need Iran's help to fight Pakistan/Taliban in Afghanistan - although we could partner with Russia as well.

Together, the 3 of us can beat Pak by keeping Northern Afghanistan out of its hands.

I agree that India and Iran have shared interests in Afghanistan, but if common strategic interests end right there, then I don't see either nation investing too much in ties. Especially when we have strong relations with Israel which gives Israel leverage over us, I don't think they will be happy with India wooing Iran.

OTOH China has the same interests in Afghanistan and at the same time may pursue broader economic and military partnerships with Iran, which will damage Indian interests there. So I think any overtures towards Iran are short term and tactically minded.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 01 Aug 2010 22:14

chetak wrote:Their support to India is more imagined than factual.

x2.

Anyhow.....
Iran ladies rugby team makes European debut playing in veils and tracksuits

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Aug 2010 23:27

Carl_T wrote:I agree that India and Iran have shared interests in Afghanistan, but if common strategic interests end right there, then I don't see either nation investing too much in ties. Especially when we have strong relations with Israel which gives Israel leverage over us, I don't think they will be happy with India wooing Iran.

OTOH China has the same interests in Afghanistan and at the same time may pursue broader economic and military partnerships with Iran, which will damage Indian interests there. So I think any overtures towards Iran are short term and tactically minded.

I think that one limitation is that China doesn't really have a border with Afghanistan, nor any proxies there. Waqan Corridor is occupied by Pak anyway.

I'm thinking that since the conflict over Iran's nuclearization is about to come to a head, then this will automatically place a cap on the level of ties between India and Iran.

India will be under heavy Western pressure not to pursue such ties, and to cooperate in isolating Iran.
If we go along with that, then we need to ensure that we get back something in return.

Pak would try to exploit the limitations in Indo-Iranian cooperation, to gain advantage in Afghanistan.
Presumably, Pak wouldn't be able to make strong overtures to Iran on jointly controlling Afghanistan, because Saudi wouldn't be happy over any Pak-Iran cooperation.

Btw, I've always wondered - when Pak proliferated centrifuges and the warhead design to Iran, what was Saudi's reaction? How did that affect Pak-Saudi ties? What is Saudi's position on the pardon given to AQ Khan? Pakis are ecstatic about it, but how do Saudis feel? Have Saudis had any private discussions with Pak over its proliferation to Iran? Have they made any demands that Pak not repeat this in the future?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Aug 2010 23:54

Another thing related to the video posted above, is that Brzezinski fatuously claims that nuclear deterrence will work against Iran. I find this absolutely preposterous

To me, the biggest sin you can commit is to allow another enemy to get nukes. Once they have them, once they build up enough of them, then you're extremely handicapped on how you can deal with them.

Given that all the nearby sheikhdoms have large restive Shiite populations, it's pretty obvious that they would be completely destabilized, and left in a situation of constant insurgency war. Iran's experience with Hezbollah would quickly translate into mushrooming rebellions all across the Gulf.

Just because Iran could be deterred from carrying out full-blown Saddam-Kuwait style invasions of smaller countries nearby, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be able to hammer them by sponsoring insurgency. The Persian Gulf would become Iran's own Persian Lake.

My question to everyone here is - will Iran be allowed to go nuclear?

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 02 Aug 2010 15:47

Iran sanctions open door wider for China

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 02 Aug 2010 16:07

What about the shiites in India? Will we see more of RoP on RoP violence?

Kamboja · Post by **Kamboja** » 02 Aug 2010 20:44

India has every reason to strengthen relations with Iran.

- Civilizational (no need for explanation here I assume).
- As a bastion of Shia (Persian) Islam, Iran is naturally opposed to the 'pure' tendencies of the likes of the Packees and their spiritual mentors, the Saudis; in this we have a common interest. Also, it's perhaps not well known how much of a Shia 'sanctuary' India is -- we are one of the few countries in the world that has a Shia minority that feels safe from persecution at the hands of Sunnis, because the Sunnis themselves are a minority and because the country is secular. Indian Shias are quietly grateful for this protection from the Indian state, and we should not underestimate the goodwill this generates in Iran.
- They have enormous natural gas reserves, we are a growing economy - so what if they are not 100% reliable as an energy supplier? No source of energy can be considered wholly reliable, that's why we must diversify our sources of energy - and Iran is an obvious choice to do so.
- In the long run, for the same reasons that Iran and India are natural allies against the Wahhabis (Pakis, Saudis, Talibunnies), Iran and the West are also natural allies against the same set of civilizational foes. The only reason that the US and Iran are at loggerheads is because of the regime in Tehran -- the Vilayet-i-Faqih -- and their hostility not only to the US but also to Israel. In the long run, the US, Israel and Iran have more to gain from working together than opposing each other, and I don't doubt that they will move closer. If India can cultivate ties with Iran now, we have the chance to gain a preeminent relationship with them now, and will be able to leverage that relationship as Iran grows out of its current isolation and builds bridges with the West and Israel.

JMT.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 03 Aug 2010 06:07

Are there any prominent Shia militant groups in India in the way of simi etc?