Iran News and Discussions

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5881
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by krisna »

Russia pushing back on tougher sanctions against Iran
Moscow is rallying developing countries to oppose unilateral sanctions on Tehran by the U.S. and its allies. The move raises questions about efforts against Iran, and U.S. ties with the Kremlin.
Russia supported weak United Nations sanctions approved in June to pressure Iran over its nuclear program. But it has strongly objected to tougher sanctions added individually by the United States, the European Union and four other countries. It fears those sanctions may end up hurting Russian companies that do business in Iran.
In a Wednesday meeting with diplomats from China, India and Brazil, the Russians raised the prospect of a U.N. General Assembly resolution that, while not binding, would send a loud signal from countries eager to seize opportunities in Iran's energy sector — and probably weaken the ability of the U.S. and its allies to get other nations to go along with their tougher approach.
All four countries oppose the unilateral sanctions. Another important opponent is Turkey, which has signaled a keen interest in additional energy deals with its neighbor Iran.
But Moscow fears that the U.S. sanctions could prevent Russian companies from doing business with the United States if they also are doing business in Iran. Another concern is that multinational companies based in other countries might shy away from dealings with their Russian counterparts for fear that they too will face punishment from Washington.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34845
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by chetak »

[quote="Philip"]How to lose friends and disgust people.

Ahmadinejad accuses US of 'orchestrating' 9/11 attacks to aid IsraelIranian president triggers walkout in UN general assembly after comments described by diplomats as 'abhorrent and delusional'.
[quote]

Whichever way you wish slice it, this is the dominant and common view of the muslim abdul on the street as also the ummah at large.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

^^ I think the CIA and Mossad are trying all the soft kill mechanism possible to disable/defunct the nuclear reactor without the risk involved in going for a hard kill.

Its a lesson for us considering we operate or will operate a large number of Western reactor if they do not come with some kind of soft kill switch or the unsafe guarded reactor that could be prone to soft kill.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

I am wondering what could/will be a measured response from Iran if Israel/US attack Iranian Nuclear facility and not a major scale conflict.

Will Iran go for a measured response and say attack only Israel Negev Nuclear Research Center as a response to attack only specific target and not opt for a full scale conflict.

So like you hit my reactor and I will hit yours.

I think the Shahab and the advanced Sejil-2 IRBM with ~ 2500 km range with 1 T conventional warhead can hit these sites in a strike.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

It has to threaten a full scale response, just to deter everyone. That means attacks on US troops in Iraq, restarting conflict in Northern Yemen, possibly attacks on oil tankers, blocking the Straits, suicide attacks in the GCC (of which Kuwait has identified 50 cells who are trained in sabotage and given medium to small arms training, hostage taking), and of course response from Hamas and Hezbollah.

Threatening full scale war will mean: US has to spend serious $$ which it can't afford. Israel is scared to piss off its key supporter at this time when public opinion is anti war, israel doesnt want to lose its only strong supporter (financially and other) which is the US.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

^^^ The problem with full scale war is Iran can start it but will not be able to control its outcome nor will it end in favour or atleast in a fair manner because of the control US has over UN ( sanctions etc ) and many Arab states will support US in this cause.

A measured response ( you hit my Nuclear facility and i will hit your facility ) will be seen as a minimum just response by many and it will create the rite ripple in Intl Oil Market and shoot up the price due to uncertainity ( what happens next ? )

If the Iranians are half as smart as they are then they would probably having their weapons facility at some safe location,
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

Austin wrote:^^^ The problem with full scale war is Iran can start it but will not be able to control its outcome nor will it end in favour or atleast in a fair manner because of the control US has over UN ( sanctions etc ) and many Arab states will support US in this cause.
Of course they are probably going to come out worse off in a war in many ways, but just the threat of a prolong all out war is enough to deter the west from doing anything. Whether the iranians will go all out is a diff matter altogether, but in order to deter the west, the generals and senior leadership need to keep making threatening statements. US can't afford a war both socionomically and physically - statement made time and time again by Larijani and the others. Confidence in Obama is at all time lows, economically they are in the doldrums, they can't afford Afghanistan, Iraq to continue, how are they going to start a minor conflict with a big risk of going into an all out war.
A measured response ( you hit my Nuclear facility and i will hit your facility ) will be seen as a minimum just response by many and it will create the rite ripple in Intl Oil Market and shoot up the price due to uncertainity ( what happens next ? )
No, the nuclear program is a symbol of defiance and pride for the Iranians. Their actions/reprisals are always over the top, thats just the attitude of the Iranians. Also, why bother with you hit my nuclear facility, I hit yours? Its cheaper just to say, I am going to go all out if you touch any of my facilities because I know you can't afford a major war. So, the US/Israel are thinking twice before doing something.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

Shyamd in Iranian context the only country that wants a full scale war with Iran is Israel , because they see Iran a long term threat the Nuclear episode is pressing and immediate but the state of Iran is itself a long term threat for Israel and its security.

So the better they get rid of Iran under the guise of Nuclear threat the better it is for them , the other threats like Syria and Lebanon are manageable ones.

An all out war with Iran will weaken it and subsequent long term sanction will just put her in the same basket state as Iraq is today and that is what Israel wants to do.

All the selective leaks of imminent strike on Iranian facility are sponsored news by CIA/Mossad and they would expect Iran to do something wrong and then subsequent US/Israel strike and sanctions will follow to deliver a crippling blow.

It is in Iran interest to restrain even if their Nuclear facilities are attacked and strike key selective targets in Israel like their Negev Nuclear Facility , so that most of the West Asian state who certainly do not like Israel will see it as a measured response.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

But Israel also has to think about US public opinion. Because the Iranians will hit back at the US if Israel strikes. Sure, Iran will come out worse in any conflict, but the matter here is deterence. By threatening all out war, which can cause Havoc for the GCC, Israel, US and oil interests, the Iranians are able to deter ANY strike against nuclear facilties. There have already been special forces raids into IRGC HQ in Ahwaz. But these incidents have been kept quiet by both sides. Again, Iran has the power to damage the withdrawal plans for the US. Iran is sitting comfortably. Sure Israel has to deal with a nuclear Iran, but the US is restraining them and to be frank if Israel does something, the risk of attacking US interests and dragging the US into a conflict that it cant afford at this time, is extremely high. So in short, no strikes will occur.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

shyamd wrote:But Israel also has to think about US public opinion. Because the Iranians will hit back at the US if Israel strikes. Sure, Iran will come out worse in any conflict, but the matter here is deterence. By threatening all out war, which can cause Havoc for the GCC, Israel, US and oil interests, the Iranians are able to deter ANY strike against nuclear facilties. There have already been special forces raids into IRGC HQ in Ahwaz. But these incidents have been kept quiet by both sides. Again, Iran has the power to damage the withdrawal plans for the US. Iran is sitting comfortably. Sure Israel has to deal with a nuclear Iran, but the US is restraining them and to be frank if Israel does something, the risk of attacking US interests and dragging the US into a conflict that it cant afford at this time, is extremely high. So in short, no strikes will occur.
Well I do agree with you on the fact that no imminent strikes will occur because of many reason one of which is Intl Community and UN is engaging Iran and there are countries like Russia that has warned of any unilateral military adventure over UN response.

Israel as a country from past experience will first think about their own interest and then about US opinion , they probably think the Jewish lobby in US will take care about their interest with good PR exercise to back it up.

Since Israel and Iran do not share any border they can only plan for limited strikes at key location and a full scale war with Iran will need logistics of the kind we have seen during GW 1 , so with all assets of US and Israel they can just plan for limited strikes on Iran nuclear installation and supporting facilities located across Iran , that would also justify the cause that we are only after Iran not going nuclear.

What we are discussing is if such a strike indeed happens what will be the best way for Iran to respond either go for an all out approach which i think is not good for Iran interest in the long run due to threat of sustained sanctions or opt of limited strikes across Israel Nuclear Facility using their new long range IRBM like Sejil-2 or Shabab which will be considered as measured but equal response by Intl community due to pre-emptive strikes on Iranian facility.

Even these limited strikes will have impact lasting couple of months on Oil Prices as they will soar due to uncertainity and posturing that both parties will take post such strikes.

I feel going for an all out war if that ever happens is falling into Israel trap which is what I feel Israel thinks is the best way to deal with Iran make it into another basket state like Iraq which is in perpetual turmoil.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

Austin wrote:
Israel as a country from past experience will first think about their own interest and then about US opinion , they probably think the Jewish lobby in US will take care about their interest with good PR exercise to back it up.
They will when the climate is right. But the question is "what if" the Iranians take it out on the US and the GCC who at the end of the day have to allow the Israelis to fly over. Its just too much of a risk. Know this about Iran, they have a heavy pride, any action by anyone will be met with a strong response. No one can afford another war.
I feel going for an all out war if that ever happens is falling into Israel trap which is what I feel Israel thinks is the best way to deal with Iran make it into another basket state like Iraq which is in perpetual turmoil.
Perhaps but Iran is not Iraq. Iran is still trading with the world despite sanctions.


Shell increases oil trade with Iran – despite sanctions
Oil giant stepped up orders of Iranian crude while others halted trade amid sanctions imposed by UN, EU and US

* Robert Booth
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 27 September 2010 18.37 BST
* Article history

Iran's oil depot at Kharg Island Iran's oil depot at Kharg Island, the country's main export terminal in the Persian Gulf. Oil is a major export for Iran. Photograph: Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil giant, paid the state-owned Iranian oil company at least $1.5bn (£0.94bn) for crude oil this summer, increasing its business with Tehran as the international community implemented some of the toughest sanctions yet aimed at constricting the Islamic republic's economy and its lifeline oil business.

Sensitive trading documents seen by the Guardian show the UK-registered company stepped up its orders of Iranian oil at a time when other major buyers, including BP and Reliance Industries, India's largest conglomerate, halted orders amid impending trade sanctions aimed at curbing Tehran's perceived desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

Shell is not accused of acting illegally because the sanctions – enforced by the US, UN and EU – stopped short of banning the import of Iranian oil. But its trades with the state-owned oil company, a major contributor to the finances of a government which has made its nuclear programme a priority, are likely to expose Shell to growing political pressure.

Following the UN and EU sanctions, William Hague, the British foreign secretary, reaffirmed that the UK does not encourage trade with or investment in Iran because of "serious concerns about the nature of Iran's nuclear programme".

"We have made this clear when briefing companies operating in Iran, and will rigorously enforce sanctions," a Foreign Office spokesman said last night. "We are serious about intensifying the pressure on Iran to return to the negotiating table."

US President Barack Obama has said the new sanctions on finance, shipping and insurance were meant to demonstrate "the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons".

Shell would not comment on the trades but insisted it is doing nothing illegal. "We do not comment on our trading activities but would underline that we continue to comply with all legislation," a spokesman said.

The US, UN and EU sanctions imposed in June and July are aimed at persuading President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back to the negotiating table to reach an agreement with the international community on his country's nuclear programme.

"Washington tends to shine a spotlight on companies' behaviour after sanctions and this could get them into trouble," said Sam Ciszuk, Middle East energy analyst at IHS Global Insight.

Traders began to notice effects in the market for Iranian crude in the months before the sanctions were enforced. An analysis of purchases for Stasco, Shell's trading company, shows that from May to August, instead of buying less oil from Iran as the sanctions were agreed, it ordered over $100m a month more than in the previous three months, a 27% increase.

Shell also enjoyed an increased discount on the index price as demand fell and some analysts warned of "reputational risk" for foreign companies trading with Iran. The flight of some buyers from trading with the National Iranian Oil Company is thought to have been a key factor in causing a floating backlog of tankers carrying unsold Iranian oil in the Arabian Gulf and Red Sea this summer, forcing the price down.

The trading figures show that buyers staying in the market were able to enjoy a greater discount on Iranian cargoes than in the three months to May, partly, industry insiders believe, because of the effect of the sanctions.

According to the details of one purchase by Shell, on 3 March, before the fresh sanctions, Stasco bought a 2.1m barrel load with a discount of $2.85 per barrel on the index price. On 5 July, after the imposition of fresh EU and US sanctions, it repeated the transaction with the same volume, grade of oil and transport route, but with the discount almost doubled to $5.50 per barrel. Consumer demand for oil-based commodities and the complexities of different firms refining cycles also affect the discount.

Shell said it buys Iranian crude at the official selling price, which is expressed as a discount to the benchmark oil price, and has not negotiated a further price reduction. It said it bought the same quantity of Iranian crude in the 12 months to August 2010 as it did a year earlier.

Iran is the world's fourth largest oil exporter. The trade in crude represents 80% of exports, the US government estimates. The latest sanctions have made it harder to do business with Iran, targeting entities involved directly in nuclear, ballistic or missile activities, as well as banks, insurers and shippers who support Iran's oil trade.

As the sanctions were passed into law, oil traders reported demand for Iranian crude began to fall; it became harder for buyers to obtain letters of credit from banks required to complete transactions with Iran and insurers became reluctant to cover cargoes for fear of falling foul of the toughened sanctions.

The data shows French and Italian oil companies, Total and API, also lifted more Iranian crude between May and August than in the previous three months, up 12% and 70% respectively. They also enjoyed greater discounts.

A spokeswoman for Total in Paris said the company would not comment on "market sensitive" trading data.

"When purchasing crude oil, we buy at market prices," she said. "We have no intention to take advantage of sanctions. We respect international regulations and have stopped the sale of refined products to Iran, but currently the sanctions that have been applied by the UN and EU, when translated into French law, do not concern the trading of crude oil."

A spokesman for API said: "The Iranian crude discount increased during the mentioned period just because of market conditions and refers to official prices in force. No sanction decided so far by the EU is relevant to importing crude oil from Iran; moreover, Iranian crude price evolution follows market conditions. Therefore crude importers are not commercially benefiting from any international sanctions."

He added: "API will be, as always, absolutely firm in respecting any applicable law."
So the US will allow european firms to buy more crude, while they send threats to Indian companies for buying Iranian crude. Double standards of the west once again.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

Osama bin Laden’s spokesman freed by Iran
By Thomas JoscelynSeptember 28, 2010

Gaith-bin-Laden-Zawahiri.jpg

Sulaiman Abu Gaith, Osama bin Laden, and Ayman al Zawahiri, from an al Qaeda propaganda tape. Image from BBC/AP.

Iran has allowed an al Qaeda terrorist who served as Osama bin Laden’s spokesman to return to Afghanistan. Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a Kuwaiti preacher who gained worldwide infamy after the September 11 attacks, had lived in Iran since early 2002, and was reportedly held under a loose form of house arrest beginning in 2003.

Abu Ghaith’s departure from Iran was first reported by the Kuwaiti press, which has long tracked the influential cleric because of his following inside Kuwait and beyond. The preacher was stripped of his Kuwaiti citizenship in late 2001 after promising another al Qaeda strike on America during an appearance on Al Jazeera.

Al Watan, an online Kuwaiti newspaper, reported earlier this month that three batches of al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists have been released by Iran in exchange for the release of Heshmatollah Attarzadeh, an Iranian diplomat who was kidnapped by the Taliban in northern Pakistan in 2008. Abu Ghaith was among the terrorists released in the third and final batch.

US intelligence officials contacted by The Long War Journal say the account is credible. But, these officials say, Ghaith’s “house arrest” was really a form of safe haven.

Post-9/11 threats

Abu Ghaith garnished widespread media coverage in the weeks following the September 11 attacks. In a statement released in October 2001, he praised the 9/11 hijackers and threatened more attacks. “The actions by these young men who destroyed the United States and launched the storm of planes against it have done a good deed,” the Kuwaiti said, according to a transcript published by BBC News.

“The Americans should know that the storm of plane attacks will not abate, with God's permission. There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live.”

Abu Ghaith’s praise for the September 11 attacks is not surprising. The 9/11 Commission found that there was a schism within al Qaeda in the summer of 2001 over the impending attacks on New York and Washington. Several high ranking al Qaeda members objected to the operation, fearing that it would compromise al Qaeda’s safe haven inside Afghanistan by provoking a significant American reprisal. Abu Ghaith was not one of the terrorists who objected, however. The Kuwaiti preacher gave the operation his blessing.

While living in Iran in 2002, Abu Ghaith posted a screed on the Internet in which he said al Qaeda has “the right to kill four million Americans, including one million children, displace double that figure, and injure and cripple hundreds and thousands.”

US intelligence officials took notice. In his book At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, former CIA Director George Tenet says that it “would have been easy to dismiss his ranting as the hyperbole of a deranged man,” but US officials “had to consider the possibility that Abu Ghaith was attempting to justify the future use of weapons of mass destruction that might greatly exceed the death toll of 9/11.”

Ghaith’s threat is one of several made by al Qaeda in this vein. Obviously, al Qaeda has failed to launch an attack utilizing WMD. But the terrorist group has long sought such a capability and had active biological and chemical weapons programs in pre-9/11 Afghanistan.
Gaith.jpg

Sulaiman Abu Gaith, from an al Qaeda propaganda tape. Image from BBC/AP

Faylaka Island attack on Marines

On October 8, 2002, two al Qaeda operatives opened fire on US Marines who were training on the Faylaka Island in Kuwait. One Marine was killed and another was wounded. As explained by Stewart Bell in his book, The Martyr’s Oath, the gunmen were recruited and indoctrinated by Abu Ghaith.

One of the gunmen was a Kuwaiti named Anas al Kandari, who was killed in the firefight. According to declassified documents produced at Guantanamo, a current detainee named Faiz al Kandari is related to Anas al Kandari. In addition, the two received training along with Abu Ghaith at one of Osama bin Laden’s training camps in pre-9/11 Afghanistan.

In a memo prepared for Faiz al Kandari’s case, US military officials explained:

The detainee is related to one of the al Qaeda members responsible for the attack on U.S. Marines on [Faylaka] Island, Kuwait on 8 October 2002. This relative is considered by his peers as among the best al Qaeda cadre. Additionally, the detainee, Salayman Abu Ghayth, and the detainee’s relative attended an airport training camp near Qandahar.

A DC district judge denied Faiz al Kandari’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus earlier this month. US intelligence officials at Gitmo concluded that Faiz, who was given the internment serial number 552, was an influential al Qaeda recruiter and advisor with ties to Osama bin Laden.

“House arrest” as a form of safe haven

According to Al Watan, Saad bin Laden, Osama’s son, and Saif al Adel, one of al Qaeda’s most senior military planners, were also part of the deal for Heshmatollah Attarzadeh. Both reportedly left Iran after receiving refuge there since late 2001.

Saad left Iran in 2008 and was reportedly killed in a US airstrike in northern Pakistan in 2009. But in conversations with the Long War Journal, US intelligence officials cautioned that Saad’s death has yet to be confirmed.

Al Qaeda typically releases martyrdom tapes when senior terrorists are killed. No such tape has been released for Saad, the officials pointed out.

Although Abu Ghaith, Saad bin Laden, Saif al Adel and other senior al Qaeda terrorists were reportedly under “house arrest,” it was a loose form of detention. “House arrest is a convenient cover for high-level meetings,” one US intelligence official explained.

Iran also continues to allow the al Qaeda network to operate on the mullahs’ soil.

Saad bin Laden and Saif al Adel were implicated in terrorist attacks in 2002 and 2003. Saad was implicated in the April 11, 2002 bombing a Tunisian synagogue, as well as the May 12, 2003 attacks on three separate apartment complexes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saif al Adel, who received training from Hezbollah and Iran in the early 1990s, was also implicated in the Riyadh attack. The pair was in contact with the al Qaeda cells that pulled off the operations.

After the Riyadh bombings, American and Saudi officials complained about the al Qaeda network operating on Iranian soil. It was after these complaints that Iran placed a cadre of al Qaeda leaders under “house arrest.” But the al Qaeda leaders continued to meet and plan on Iranian soil, while being careful not to raise international scrutiny once again. There is evidence that al Qaeda operatives continue to receive training inside Iran, along with Taliban fighters, as well.

The Iranians have been coy when pressed about their al Qaeda guests. The State Department has repeatedly noted in its Country Reports on Terrorism that Iran remains “unwilling to bring to justice senior al Qaeda members it has detained, and has refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.”

In addition, “Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al Qaeda detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for trial” and “fail[s] to control the activities of some al Qaeda members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.”

In March of 2010, General Petraeus discussed al Qaeda’s presence in Iran in written testimony delivered to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Al Qaeda “continues to use Iran as a key facilitation hub, where facilitators connect al Qaeda’s senior leadership to regional affiliates,” Petraeus explained. “And although Iranian authorities do periodically disrupt this network by detaining select al Qaeda facilitators and operational planners, Tehran’s policy in this regard is often unpredictable.”

Iran’s behavior can be explained by way of analogy. Like a corrupt cop in league with the mob, the Iranians have been willing to clamp down and turn over small-time operatives, while allowing bigger players to operate with impunity.

And some senior al Qaeda terrorists, like Abu Ghaith, have now gone free. The terms of the supposed quid pro quo for the kidnapped Iranian diplomat remain murky. And the timing is suspicious. According to the US Treasury Department, which designated several members of al Qaeda's network in Iran, Saad bin Laden may have left Iranian custody as early as September 2008. But Heshmatollah Attarzadeh was reportedly kidnapped two months later, in November 2008.

So, it seems unlikely this was really an exchange of hostages. It is possible that there is more to the deal than meets the eye, just like the Iranians’ concept of house arrest.


In any event, Abu Ghaith has now left Iran for Afghanistan. “He won’t stay there for long,” one US intelligence official surmised, “because he knows he will be hunted.”
Read more:
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by RajeshA »

Published on Sep 29, 2010
By Vladimir Radyuhin
Russia's U-turn on arms sale: Hindu
Moscow has banned supply of S-300 air-defence systems to Tehran even though they do not fall under the category of offensive weapons banned by the U.N. resolution. But the ban will have dire consequences for Russia, critics say.
Russia has thrown its defence ties with Iran on the altar of its “reset” with the United States. President Dmitry Medvedev last week imposed a sweeping ban on defence sales that goes beyond even the international sanctions on Iran and is likely to have a long-term negative impact on Moscow-Tehran relations.
Iran, I feel is playing a useless game. It has managed to build up some support for itself in the Muslim World - Hamas, Hezbollah, Mahdi Army in Iraq. Syria and Turkey perhaps. So Iran may have support of around 10-13 % of the Muslim population in the world, who are Shi'a. Of this, only about 55% at the most are really in Iran and Iraq. The rest are in countries whose foreign policies or domestic policies are not much dictated by Shi'a interests - India, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc. Some neighboring Muslim countries support Iran due to strategic reasons, even though they are not Shi'a - Syria, Lebanon, Palestine. Some support is available from Turkey.

So the pro-Iranian coalition is still small. Iran's Muslim card (anti-Israel card) does not really bring in that much benefit for Iran, but constricts Iran's influence. So why throw away this posture and build its identity on its Persian Civilization. It can reap a lot more understanding and sympathy that way.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

^^^ I just wonder if the overt ban by Russia has been supplemented by covert assistance by them, the rise of qualitatively better offensive system in IRBM domain and other weapons systems inspite of all the sanctions and very close monitoring by Western/US and Israel intelligence can be considered as very spectacular achievement by Iran.

One really needs a good infrastructure and scientific man power or good amount of outside assistance to build a capable IRBM as Iran as shown with Sejal and Shahab , clearly the oft repeated Noko assistance does not hold much ground as even Noko has to demonstrate such capability.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Iran slams India over J&K protests, India hits back, issues demarche

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/iran- ... he/691411/
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by RajeshA »

abhishek_sharma wrote:Iran slams India over J&K protests, India hits back, issues demarche

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/iran- ... he/691411/
It would be interesting to know, who in Iran is responsible for this criticism of India and what is their agenda!
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

Iran 'Arrests Nuclear Cyberspace Spies'
Intelligence minister Heydar Moslehi has now been quoted as saying his department was fully aware of the activities of "enemies' spy services".

He did not, however, reveal exactly how many people were arrested.

Mr Moslehi said Iran had discovered the "destructive activities of the arrogance (of Western powers) in cyberspace, and different ways to confront them have been designed and implemented".
ManjaM
BRFite
Posts: 1217
Joined: 15 May 2010 02:52
Location: Padvaralli

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by ManjaM »

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=228097
The Embassy of India along with Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) organized a seminar entitled “India-Iran Trade and Investment” Thursday morning at the Parsian Evin Hotel. Businessmen and officials from both countries were in attendance to promote their countries’ potentials in technology, investment and trade.
Managing Director of Heavy Industrial Minerals India Pvt. Ltd. Chitranjan Kapur was the CII mission’s co-leader and presented the speakers.
Iran is India’s second largest crude supplier and India is Iran’s third largest market
Mineral reserve is another asset for Iran which boasts 195,000 mines presently and producing some 230 million tons of mineral products per year.
ManjaM
BRFite
Posts: 1217
Joined: 15 May 2010 02:52
Location: Padvaralli

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by ManjaM »

http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20101009064232

more on the "India-Iran Trade Investment Forum"

Iran reached a positive trade balance with India in the first two quarters of the current Iranian year (started March 21). The trade balance was negative from 2004 to 2009.

According to the statement of Trade Promotion Organization of Iran, the country has exported commodities worth over $700 million to India during March 21-September 22, while has imported $500 million.

Head of Indian Trade Delegation, Chitranjan Kapur, attributed this to rise in imports of oil from Iran.

Speaking at a seminar themed as "Iran and India Trade-Investment Forum" which was held in Tehran on Thursday, he said since Indian industries are growing, the country needs more oil.

"We should also increase our trade in non-oil commodities in spite of banking problems," he added.

India imported close to $10 billion worth of oil and petrochemical products in the year to March 2010, he said, adding the figure has a rising trend.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Johann »

RajeshA wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:Iran slams India over J&K protests, India hits back, issues demarche

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/iran- ... he/691411/
It would be interesting to know, who in Iran is responsible for this criticism of India and what is their agenda!
This is Ahmadinejad's crew - the professionals from Rafsanjani and Khatami's era have almost entirely resigned in disgust or been chased out. The old guys would never burn bridges so flagrantly, whatever the differences over the nuclear question.
Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Shankk »

What is quite interesting is the ability of US to rally around more and more countries for her cause. It has been their mantra when dealing with adversaries. They adopted the same approach against Soviet Union who retaliated with Warsa pact but then it was more based on SU's domination than being partners in the cause. China too is being subjected to similar build up of adversaries around her and they are responding by building a chain of poodles like North Kora, Pakistan etc. which is somewhat on the lines of USSR. Time will tell how they will fare if there is any serious conflict.

Coming back to India, we seem to have agreed to be semi poodles with the semblance of autonomy thanks to royal family. However there are not many shared values between the two other than the bullsh!t like democracy, secularism etc. that America never cared in other countries. You never had to be serious about those values to be an American ally. That begs a question about when there is no more meed for India's alliance America will rally its usual coterie (western countries) and other friends against India if we deem to get too uppity like too much whining about swollen a$$ from Pakistani blows. What is India going to do about it?

As such alliance with US is costing India unpopularity in Islamic world that US happily shared a bed with like Saudis. Indian Muslims are not very thrilled with this alliance either causing heartburn amongst them. Traditional allies like Iraq or Iran are either destroyed or turning into neutral countries or worse into adversaries. All this is happening while US is keeping intact its core group of allies and India is forced to distance from her traditional allies. What this effectively ensures is that India has to be dependent on US on many things including furthering her foreign policy goals in future. That means if necessary India will have to compromise her interests just because such an action is not in American interest like for example retaliating against Pakistan for terrorism.

It is an extremely important factor for Americans to be in control because that way they extract their pound of flesh from both the parties by using their leverages. As Americans love to say they like to be in driver's seat.

One way to control American brazenness when they are at top is to force America to be at constant loggerheads with European countries preferably wage a limited war against them if that is possible some way. America should be forced to severe it's ties with her traditional allies of white countries like they are forcing India to loose our traditional allies.
Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Vikas »

However there are not many shared values between the two other than the bullsh!t like democracy, secularism etc. that America never cared in other countries.
How about respect of Law and individual ? How about not chanting "Death to infidels" at the drop of a hat. How about not burning embassies ?
Wonder what are the shared values that we share with other regimes ?
Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Shankk »

^^^^Absolutely, your point is very valid, though you should acknowledge that India hardly ever had allies based on shared civilizational values. There are less such entities available today or even yesterday thanks to the history of millennium of religions espousing my God has bigger d!ck than your God. Regarding alliance with Iran and Iraq it too was a marriage of convenience with both parties scratching their back but the very big difference is India had fair amount of autonomy to chart her course. These two countries had relatively less hooks into India to influence our behavior.

Just to make it clear I am not advocating India defy the international mood and start trading with Iran like she used to do before or support their ambitions for nuclear weapons. The thrust of post was that India is aligning with America so much that it is going to create apprehensions and unease within a huge chunk of Indian population (IMs). To be honest majority of IMs being patriotic citizens will welcome any partnership with America if it is deemed to be helping our country however if such a partnership is seen to be harming Islamic countries or Islam in general they will be caught between a rock and a hard place. Then there are enough useful idiots who can be incited to act to save Islam. See what is happening in Pakistan. Their populace is sharply divided due to their unmindful support to earlier American initiatives. That support helped create a constituency within their country that is now inimical to their own interest and whom American agencies and other agencies inimical to Pakistan are using to wreck havoc. Case with India is somewhat different but unmindful support to America will still help create a constituency that will be shamelessly used by America in future if Indian actions are not in American interests.

Besides as you pointed out there are few shared values between India and rabidly Islamic countries but then the same question arises regarding US. The kind of civilizational values US shares with Europe are simply missing with India. Just take China out of all equations and then see what is the bedrock of ties between the two countries. Obama's first year in office comes to mind when as per Brzezinski's plan he tried rapprochement with China. With less need for India's assistance to further American goals America would not hesitate to support religious freedom in India.

Coming back to my previous post my point is that I do not mind alliance with America but at the same time we should also be mindful of the fact that they are covering their bases in this alignment with the support of their traditional allies and India does not have any. All I am saying is that it is fine for India to put many eggs in American basket but at the same time ensure that America too does not have many other baskets to keep their eggs and they are dependent on India to a great extent.
Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Johann »

India not "just" faced with American diktat on the Iranian nuclear question. This is far more than a case of chosing America over Iran.

In reality it is also faced with requests from Israel, a major strategic partner, as well the EU, its largest trading and investment partner, and not to mention all the GCC states who are also major energy sources, plus of course other Arab states like Egypt and Jordan.

If you were an Indian government of any party, how would you weigh your interests in a Iran vs. US+Israel+EU+GCC+Egypt+Jordan conflict?

Especially if the IAEA itself admitted that Iran was not in compliance with its obligations? Or that they documented that Iran, Pakistan and North Korea traded missile and centrifuge technology, and possibly more during the 1980s and 1990s?

Would there be compelling reasons to stick its head quite that far out just for Iran?

Most Iranians that I've met do not blame India for Iran's all-round diplomatic isolation. Instead they blame Ahmadinejad; Iran had managed to avoid such isolation under Rafsanjani and Khatami even though the Islamic Revolutionary Guard was running the same programmes. Today you have a situation where even allies like Russia and China are voting for and enforcing UNSC sanctions.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by RajeshA »

If the world wants Indian cooperation in placing sanctions on Iran, then the world also needs to give India something in return - a permanent UNSC seat could be a start, otherwise India gets nothing out of sanctions on Iran.

I am not convinced that GCC is really that anti-Iran, or at least not all of the countries. India's friends in the GCC are Oman and Qatar. UAE may have some problems with Iran as was apparent from the statements attributed to UAE's Ambassador to USA with regard to Iran. But let's be honest. OIC has been passing anti-India resolutions on Kashmir, without giving India's concerns on that any attention, so I don't see any reason to be pro-GCC here either. It is a question of interests. India supports Iran because of the Afghan-Pakistan equation, and not because of West Asian geopolitics. That is their business, and India should not involve ourselves in that.

The world has not given any responsibility to India, say through a UNSC permanent seat to take global concerns into considerations when formulating policy.

India is a friend of Iran because of our cultural and historical relationship with them, putting it into diplomatese. Otherwise we are bound to Iran because of the AfPak calculus and energy. Both are of utmost importance to us. China could sit back after they have garnered Oil & Gas from Myanmar, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Russia and elsewhere. India cannot afford the luxury of turning away from Iran.

If the Iraqi Oil for Food Program was so severely botched up, so too would Iran's sanctions too. India has to find ways and means to support Iran, and corner some gas reserves there while the going is tough for them.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by RajeshA »

X-Posted from India and Japan: News and Discussion Thread

Published on Oct 14, 2010
By Chico Harlan
Japan to consider relaxing weapons export ban: Washington Post
There is also the matter of differences regarding Iran. Japan withdrew from an oil-drilling project in Iran this month, bowing to U.S. pressure to impose sanctions over Tehran's nuclear development program. Since Japan's Inpex Corp. backed away from the Azadegan oil field project, however, China National Offshore Oil Co. has worked to fill the void. :eek:

"That portion that Japan gave up was taken up by China," Maehara said.
China is not going to implement the sanctions against Iran. India should under no circumstances give up any of our projects there, because they too would be captured by the Chinese.

If USA pushes India too much on this, they can be told to first make China retreat from its projects in Iran, and then India could consider it.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7100
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by shyamd »

Imo, India should continue to trade with Iran. China and Russia are not implementing sanctions. Why should we? We need an energy resource plus cooperation on afghanistan/pak which Iran continues to provide.

Evidently, shell is still trading fuel to Iran.

There is going to be no war between the GCC countries or the US or Israel.

Look at Ahmadinejad's cocky visit to Bint Jbeil. The US was worried that a provocation maybe caused.

india should proceed as normal with iran.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Ex-official: Obama wrote Khamenei twice, Ahmadinejad wrote Obama twice

http://www.politico.com/blogs/lauraroze ... twice.html
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Delhi wakes up to pipeline, Tehran cold

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Delhi-wak ... 14371.aspx
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by RajeshA »

X-Posting from Managing Chinese Threat Thread

Published on Oct 18, 2010
By John Pomfret
Chinese firms bypass sanctions on Iran, U.S. says: Washington Post
The Obama administration has concluded that Chinese firms are helping Iran to improve its missile technology and develop nuclear weapons, and has asked China to stop such activity, a senior U.S. official said.

During a visit to Beijing last month, a delegation led by Robert J. Einhorn, the State Department's special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, handed a "significant list" of companies and banks to their Chinese counterparts, according to the senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue in U.S.-Chinese relations. The official said the Obama administration thinks that the companies are violating U.N. sanctions, but that China did not authorize their activities. {This is the biggest bunkum one can think of. Chinese state companies are involved in Iran but China did not authorize them}

The Obama administration faces a balancing act in pressing Beijing to stop the deals and limit Chinese investments in Iran's energy industry. U.S. officials say they need to preserve their ability to work with China on issues ranging from the value of its currency to the stability of North Korea. {There are many more issues on which US feels it needs to cooperate with China. China is working outside the international system because it is broken. USA may want to put powder on UN's face to hide the cracks, but major countries like China are not listening to US anymore} But the administration also wants to make progress in efforts to dissuade Iran from building a nuclear weapon and to convince other powerful states that China is not receiving lenient treatment because of its energy needs {Over the next months and years, everybody would know that US is impotent, that it can bully only its allies and weaker countries to follow suit, but not China}.

"My government will investigate the issues raised by the U.S. side," said Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy. {That is diplomatese for '**** off'}

Einhorn's trip is part of a worldwide effort by the Obama administration to persuade countries to push Iran to enter into negotiations over its nuclear program, which the Islamic Republic says is peaceful. The Obama administration has cobbled together a growing network of countries and companies that have announced measures to cut investments in Iran.

China's involvement in Iran's energy sector and the role that some of its companies are believed to be playing in Tehran's military modernization could disrupt U.S.-Chinese relations. In a recent meetings on Capitol Hill, China's outgoing deputy chief of mission, Xie Feng, was told that "if he ever wanted to see Congress united, Democrats and Republicans, it would be on the issue of China's interaction with Iran," one participant said, speaking on condition of anonymity to disclose a private discussion. {Nobody is trembling in Beijing}

After the U.N. Security Council authorized enhanced sanctions against Iran in June, the United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Canada passed laws to further restrict investment in Iran's energy sector. The U.S. law authorized the president to sanction any company found to be selling gasoline to Iran or that had invested $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. INPEX, the Japanese energy giant, announced last week that it was pulling out of Iran.

China thus becomes the last major economy with significant investments in Iran's energy industry.] Russia does not have major investments there and recently canceled the sale of an advanced antiaircraft missile to Iran, refunding the $900 million sticker price.

"China now is the only country with a major oil and gas industry that's prepared to deal with Iran," the U.S. official said. "Everyone else has pulled out. They stand alone." {The guy is saying this as if US has achieved something remarkable! Getting China and Russia to pull out of Iran was the only real test of US diplomacy and they have failed.}

Each nation, particularly permanent members of the Security Council such as China, is responsible for abiding by the U.N. sanctions.

If one country does not, others can point out those failures, which is what Einhorn did. Other nations can also ban their companies from doing business with the wayward firms. The U.S. government did that at least 62 times with Chinese companies during President George W. Bush's first term, generally regarding missile-technology deals with Iran.

The U.S. official speaking anonymously said U.S. intelligence thinks that Chinese companies and banks have been involved in providing restricted technology and materials to Iran's military programs. He said that these deals occurred both before and after the enhanced U.N. sanctions were approved in June.
The thing to carry from this for the Indians is that U.S. is becoming a paper tiger. It is pushing its own allies and friends from looking after their strategic interests and allowing China to take over lost strategic space. India has lost Myanmar to China, because of India's tendency to support Western causes, and now India has lost Iran also.

Hopefully this doesn't increase American dependence on Pakistan.

Originally posted by abhishek_sharma
Published on Oct 17, 2010
By Jayanth Jacob
Delhi wakes up to pipeline, Tehran cold: Hindustan Times
The dates for the meeting had been conveyed between May 24 and 29 for the meeting. But at the last moment, Iran insisted the meeting be held in Tehran as the last meeting of the group was in Delhi, government sources said.

India didn't cite any objections, and both sides then agreed to scout for a convenient date in September. "Since Tehran was hosting the meet, they were to inform us about the modalities. But there is no communication from them yet," said an official.
Central Asia is now closed to India.
Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1340
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Nihat »

This is just stupid, if we are really serious about the pipeline then why insist on the rather ridiculous proposition of IPI instead of just by-passing TSP by going underwater. Certainly it would cost much more but the long term strategic benifits would be immense.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by RajeshA »

Nihat wrote:This is just stupid, if we are really serious about the pipeline then why insist on the rather ridiculous proposition of IPI instead of just by-passing TSP by going underwater. Certainly it would cost much more but the long term strategic benifits would be immense.
Yes, it would be great if the SAGE pipeline becomes possible, but India needs to show that we are serious about it and speed up the project. Gas is not going to come to India, with projects that gather dust in papers.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

What is most interesting is that while the US is in decline,both economically and militarily,India under Dr.Singh,is desperate to embrace it,forgetting nations and old friends like Iran,that are getting more powerful by the day.Just see how the Iraqi leader goes to teheran to seek Iran's blessings and Iran's advice to him! The US no longer calls the shots in Baghdad,the game has swung in favour of Teheran.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... erica.html

Iran tells Iraqi prime minister 'get rid of America'
Iran has demonstrated its hold over the future of Iraqi politics, telling Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to "get rid of America" as he arrived to ask Tehran's blessing for a second term in office.
By Richard Spencer, Middle East Correspondent
Published: 18 Oct 2010

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, left, has an audience with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Photo: AP Mr Maliki, who is on a tour of Middle Eastern capitals to drum up support for his bid to stay in power, had an audience with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Two weeks ago, the Iranian leadership negotiated backing for Mr Maliki from the militant Shia grouping, the Sadrists, who had previously been deeply opposed to his candidacy.

Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr appears in public for first time in two years"The Iraqi nation is vigilant and aggressors cannot dominate this country again," Mr Khamenei told Mr Maliki, according to a statement put out by his office. "May God get rid of America in Iraq so that its people's problems are solved."

Mr Khamenei's aggressive stance, while seeming to give his blessing to Mr Maliki, whose secular Shia State of Law party came a close second in Iraqi elections in March, will alarm the Americans.

They already face losing their influence after their troops pull out of Iraq next year – an outcome that would once have been unthinkable after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the loss of so many American lives.

Now they risk seeing the creation of a government brokered by their greatest rivals in the region.

Iran has not overtly backed Mr Maliki, but officials on Monday said he would be a "suitable" choice.
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3513
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Rony »

Rare footage of Iranian speed boats attacking civilian oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq war in 1985

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aoWNyKYX6o
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Iran News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

Rony wrote:Rare footage of Iranian speed boats attacking civilian oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq war in 1985

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aoWNyKYX6o
Interesting footage , this is the same iran-iraq tanker war back then when US support iraq in this war.
Post Reply