Iran News and Discussions

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Nov 2010 13:06

U.S. designates Jundullah as terrorist group

http://www.politico.com/blogs/lauraroze ... group.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Nov 2010 15:41

Iran: "US never acts for good of other nations"

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Nov 2010 04:00

Looks like an informal alliance between Iran, Syria and Turkey is coming into play just like in historical times.

i.e. Persian, Assyrian and Hittites!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Nov 2010 13:11

ramana wrote:Looks like an informal alliance between Iran, Syria and Turkey is coming into play just like in historical times.

i.e. Persian, Assyrian and Hittites!

This is the core of the new Caliphate. This will enlarge to create a geo political block in the region.

Today somebody talked to me about possible war in Straits of Hormuz. This is going to drive the oil prices above $200 pbl

This war is to break this alliance and get the sunnis to counter the Iran block.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ng-irans-/

http://www.iranian.com/main/2010/nov/ir ... eparations

The monumental expansion of arms sales and the buildup of naval and air power in the Arabian Sea region are unprecedented. They are also alarming to the highest degree.

A quarter of the world's nuclear aircraft carriers will soon be in the Arabian Sea.

The Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Abraham Lincoln arrived in the region on October 17 to join the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group, which in turn had arrived there on June 18 as part of a regular rotation.

The Charles de Gaulle, flagship of the French navy, the country's only aircraft carrier and the sole non-American nuclear carrier, will soon join its two U.S. counterparts. The U.S. possesses half the world's twenty-two aircraft carriers, all eleven supercarriers (those displacing over 70,000 tons) and eleven of twelve nuclear carriers.

Regarding the unscheduled deployment of a second American aircraft carrier to the region, a CBS News report stated:

"Air strikes in Afghanistan are up 50 per cent and now Defense Secretary Gates has ordered a second aircraft carrier, the USS Lincoln, into the fight.

"Two carriers operating off the coast of Pakistan means about 120 aircraft available for missions over Afghanistan. And that's not counting U.S. Air Force missions flown out of Bagram and Kandahar." [1]

The countries bordering the Arabian Sea are Somalia, Djibouti, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Pakistan, India and the island nation of Maldives.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 16 Nov 2010 18:20

"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

Well, there goes the regional compact with Iran. I can now see (and appreciate) why the Israelis want to bomb Iran. Go IDF!

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 16 Nov 2010 19:41

Cosmo_R wrote:"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

Well, there goes the regional compact with Iran. I can now see (and appreciate) why the Israelis want to bomb Iran. Go IDF!

This news should fill some sense in Indians who believe that Iran is our friend and we can counter Pakistan by being cosy with Iran.However for Iranians ummah is the supreme and India being a land of Infidels is not part of that.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Nov 2010 19:46

I think Khamenei is a man who has been bought by China. He is acting as an Azeri and not as an Iranian in Iran's national interests. More on this will follow!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Nov 2010 10:58

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... inpex.html
WASHINGTON —

The Obama administration has decided not to seek sanctions on Japan's leading energy explorer over its dealings with Iran.The State Department said Wednesday it would not investigate the Inpex for possible violations of the Iran Sanctions Act based on the company's decision last month to withdraw from a $2 billion deal in Iran's South Azadegan oil field.The State Department said Inpex also pledged not to engage in activity in Iran's energy sector that could draw U.S. sanctions.The department statement welcomed Inpex's steps and encouraged other foreign firms to join suit. The Japanese government owns 19 percent of Inpex, which had a 10 percent stake in the Azadegan project.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 18 Nov 2010 11:33

Cosmo_R wrote:"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

Well, there goes the regional compact with Iran. I can now see (and appreciate) why the Israelis want to bomb Iran. Go IDF!

Lalmohan (in J&K thread) wrote:^^^ that speech is 98% directed against the US, 1% against Israel, and possibly 0.05% against India

jiteshn · Post by **jiteshn** » 18 Nov 2010 11:47

I cannot understand the infatuation of BR members with iran. Just because you happen to meet a few self-exiled iranians abroad who display a liberal mindset doesn't paint the country like such.

Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.

The persians apply the right amount of taqiyaa in every field. No matter how liberal some islamic states are, they just can't stop kissing ummahs a$$ and these aspirations of becoming a "caliphate" one day.

Kamboja · Post by **Kamboja** » 18 Nov 2010 12:25

jiteshn wrote:Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.

In '65 it was the Shah's regime, which was a US puppet, so it's not surprising they would assist another US puppet. That changed significantly after the '79 revolution. The post-revolutionary government has helped India on occasion - see
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/03spec1.htm

jiteshn wrote: The persians apply the right amount of taqiyaa in every field. No matter how liberal some islamic states are, they just can't stop kissing ummahs a$$ and these aspirations of becoming a "caliphate" one day.

I think it's oversimplification (and is actually a very Pakistani way of looking at things) to think of the 'ummah' as some kind of global monolith. There is no one Ummah, there are just Iranians, Gulf Arabs, Mediterranean Arabs, North African Arabs, Turks, Indonesians, Indians, Nigerians... and of course our favorite Pakistanis. There are very real differences of interest and opinion between some of these nations, and there are serious differences between Shias and Sunnis. Just talk to any Saudi about the Iranians and you'll hear the hostility between the two.

Another thing that has changed since '65 and '71 is that Pakistan has taken a major turn for the worse in terms of tolerance for Shias, and has embraced Wahabandism and all its hatred for the Shias. Iran is THE bastion of Shia Islam, and the fact that Pakistan and Iran are on divergent paths is obvious in the proxy war that they played out (along with us, the US and Russia) in Afghanistan - India and Iran were on the same side in backing the Northern Alliance (mostly Shia IIRC), while the Pakis backed the Sunni Pashtun Taliban.

Bottom line: don't wear Paki-tinted glasses, see the 'Islamic world' for what it really is, and make use of those differences to advance Indian interests. I still think Iran fits very well into those interests as a natural ally of India... although I have to admit this latest statement including Kashmir is disquieting.

Kamboja · Post by **Kamboja** » 18 Nov 2010 12:33

I would humbly suggest that BRFites who have not done so, read up on the basics of the history of Shia vs. Sunni Islam... it will go a long way towards explaining some of the dynamics we see today in the middle east. Most importantly, why Iran is very unlikely to seek a 'caliphate' because the latter is a historically Sunni institution. Basically the Sunni world view is to establish a temporal power in the shape of the Caliphate, whereas the Shias are still waiting for their deliverer in the form of the Mahdi - very similar to Christians waiting for the return of Christ.

Vali Nasr's Shia revival (http://www.amazon.com/Shia-Revival-Conf ... 0393062112) is a good read, for instance.

Let me reiterate: Indians should not make the mistake that Pakis make in thinking that the 'Ummah' is a global institution. It is, but only to the extent that 'Christendom' is a global institution. In other words, factional, tribal, national interests divide up the Muslim world, and it is imperative that we understand that and position our own foreign policy accordingly.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 18 Nov 2010 12:39

Kamboja wrote:
jiteshn wrote:Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.
In '65 it was the Shah's regime, which was a US puppet, so it's not surprising they would assist another US puppet. That changed significantly after the '79 revolution. The post-revolutionary government has helped India on occasion - see
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/oct/03spec1.htm

There's more to it than even the article says. Iran was an indispensable conduit to the Northern Alliance for India, during the days of Taliban/ISI rule in Kabul. Even today, they provide our only non-Pakistani route of access to the Indian presence in Afghanistan, via the Persian Gulf and the Zaranj-Delaram highway.

The Shah on the other hand, supplied Pakistan with (American made) F86 Sabres and F104 Starfighters during the 1971 war... providing American weaponry when Washington couldn't directly do so, because Pakistan was a belligerent under military embargo at the time.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 18 Nov 2010 18:47

jiteshn wrote:I cannot understand the infatuation of BR members with iran. Just because you happen to meet a few self-exiled iranians abroad who display a liberal mindset doesn't paint the country like such.

Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.

The persians apply the right amount of taqiyaa in every field. No matter how liberal some islamic states are, they just can't stop kissing ummahs a$$ and these aspirations of becoming a "caliphate" one day.

Lots of BR members like me are not leaders of men but followers of women.

The iranian women are truly spectacular and hence the infatuation.

The ayatollahs and ahmadinejads are an international joke and our friendly overtures to these bearded baboons is diplomatic in that it keeps our shias quiet and happy.

This confuses our sunnis. Look at their two divergent views on the babri issue.

We need their oil and we hedge our bets accordingly. As a islamic country we well know where they stand on many matters. We would be very foolish to assume otherwise.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 19 Nov 2010 18:38

jiteshn wrote:I cannot understand the infatuation of BR members with iran. Just because you happen to meet a few self-exiled iranians abroad who display a liberal mindset doesn't paint the country like such.

Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.

The persians apply the right amount of taqiyaa in every field. No matter how liberal some islamic states are, they just can't stop kissing ummahs a$$ and these aspirations of becoming a "caliphate" one day.

Many of us don't have an infatuation with IRAN. IRAN is not a friend/ally of India. What various people have objected to is the ganging up on Iran on behest of some deal or somebody else. This is what has been done in the recent past. If certain countries have issues with Iran let them handle it themselves. We should not partner with them against Iran. This should not be misconstrued as an infatuation or any liking or affection with IRAN.
Iran as a theological regime is no different from Saudi Arabia. People like to point out that one is shia the other sunni and so on. But dig a bit deeper, the situation is the same. A cabal of mullahs/mulana running the show. And both of these countries are no friends of India. Irans past actions, even if you exclude the recent statements by the supreme leader of Iran, are proof enough.

arun · Post by **arun** » 19 Nov 2010 20:36

Cosmo_R wrote:"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

India serves demarche on Iran over Kashmir remarks

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 19 Nov 2010 21:44

arun wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

India serves demarche on Iran over Kashmir remarks

is Iran signaling to India in anticipation of India cooperating with US on security council over sanctions?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 Nov 2010 22:26

Pranav wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:"TEHRAN: The Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged the Islamic Ummah to sympathise and provide assistance to Kashmir, and called the United States an arrogant, "self-styled commandant of the Islamic region and the real sponsor of the Zionist regime". (Read: UN removes J&K from disputed list, Pak objects)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 935375.cms

Well, there goes the regional compact with Iran. I can now see (and appreciate) why the Israelis want to bomb Iran. Go IDF!

Lalmohan (in J&K thread) wrote:^^^ that speech is 98% directed against the US, 1% against Israel, and possibly 0.05% against India

Will they accept a 0.05% slam against them on a territorial issue by India?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 Nov 2010 22:37

jiteshn wrote:I cannot understand the infatuation of BR members with iran. Just because you happen to meet a few self-exiled iranians abroad who display a liberal mindset doesn't paint the country like such.

Iran supported the pakistani's in every one of the indo-pak wars. Doesn't that give you a clue? All of a sudden, the iranians feel shocked when india voted against it at the IAEA.

The persians apply the right amount of taqiyaa in every field. No matter how liberal some islamic states are, they just can't stop kissing ummahs a$$ and these aspirations of becoming a "caliphate" one day.

Exactly. Also does anyone remember the amount of domestic (Indian) politics they indulged in by mobilizing the Indian Shias on the IAEA vote? Does anyone think they would have tolerated similar interference by India?

Some here say we need their gas and oil—true but not at the prices they want.

As to Iranian wimmenz, they will flock to India for bit parts in Bollywood to show off their bit parts (Negar Khan for example). Besides, we have our own desi "Iranis" such as Perizaad Zorabian who proudly proclaim their "Iranianess".

If you think the Pakis have a "Mughalistan" complex up their Musharraf about India belonging to them, wait till you listen up to an Eyeranian—they're into Nadir Shah big time.

Vendors of hydrocarbons yes. Strategic allies no. Some may see them being on our side in Afghanistan. Truth is they have their own game and it's not always the same as ours.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 19 Nov 2010 23:06

Why is the act of Shah of Iran supporting TSP in wars considered as if he was an alien ruling Iran. His actions were anti-Indian and he represented Iranian people at that time. Like it or hate it.
So If GoI bombs Tehran today and tomorrow NDA govt claims that It was UPA and not them. Would it fly ?
Iran being conduit to the Northern Alliance for India was no favor to India. We all i.e. Russia, Iran and India were in the same boat as far as Talibani rule in Kabul was concerned.
All that I hear about Iran helping India out is in some obscure UNHRC in Geneva. What about the number of times India voting in favor of Iran on various forums. Why doesn't anyone bring that up.
It is not as if Iran was doing us a favor all the time with no reciprocation. Lets not forget that Iran has very few friends left in the world and with Crazy Mullahs ruling the roost, The odds of Iran making new friends are remote in near future. They better not force India into distant camp.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Nov 2010 00:16

Cosmo_R wrote:As to Iranian wimmenz, they will flock to India for bit parts in Bollywood to show off their bit parts (Negar Khan for example). Besides, we have our own desi "Iranis" such as Perizaad Zorabian who proudly proclaim their "Iranianess".

Aruna Irani!!!

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 20 Nov 2010 03:03

VikasRaina wrote:Why is the act of Shah of Iran supporting TSP in wars considered as if he was an alien ruling Iran. His actions were anti-Indian and he represented Iranian people at that time. Like it or hate it.
So If GoI bombs Tehran today and tomorrow NDA govt claims that It was UPA and not them. Would it fly ?

With all due respect your analogy doesn't fly either. In India, does the NDA replace the UPA government in a bloody revolution, with mass executions and total purges of the old guard administrative circles? Do they enact a completely new constitution of India? Is the UPA a puppet administration for a foreign power, and does the NDA after the revolution take a 180-degree policy shift to become a sworn enemy of that foreign power?

In the Shah's actions supporting Pakistan during the India-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971, he wasn't representing the Iranian people. He was representing his chief ally, the United States of America. Like it or hate it.

Iran being conduit to the Northern Alliance for India was no favor to India. We all i.e. Russia, Iran and India were in the same boat as far as Talibani rule in Kabul was concerned.
All that I hear about Iran helping India out is in some obscure UNHRC in Geneva. What about the number of times India voting in favor of Iran on various forums. Why doesn't anyone bring that up.

Boss, which country on earth (except maybe Nehru's India) does "favours" for other countries on the basis of bhai-chaara as the sole motivating factor and nothing else? It is always a two way street based on common interests. Yes, Iran supported Indian interests and India supported Iranian interests... it was co-operation, not charity in either direction.

The point is that co-operation existed, to the benefit of both India and Iran, and now that is being undermined. India acted against Iranian interests in the IAEA, and now Iran is upping the ante with its pronouncement on Kashmir.

Some posters may insist on framing the entire situation as if it is a lover's quarrel based on emotional betrayal. That is, to say the least, a juvenile perspective.

Everything is based on the perception of interests. If Indian and Iranian interests have *actually* diverged compared to the past, then there would be no surprise that cooperation had ended, causing mutually antagonistic policies to be followed. However, if India alienated Iran because the present GOI puts too much stock in its "strategic partnership" with the USA, giving up cooperation with Iran while increasing Washington's leverage over India... that is a problem.

Let the US re-impose full nuclear sanctions and aid restrictions on Pakistan, before it demands that we vote for IAEA sanctions against Iran. That should have been our policy, but it has not been. The results are an antagonistic rather than a cooperative relationship with Iran. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

It is not as if Iran was doing us a favor all the time with no reciprocation.

Has anybody ever said that they were?

Lets not forget that Iran has very few friends left in the world and with Crazy Mullahs ruling the roost, The odds of Iran making new friends are remote in near future. They better not force India into distant camp.

The Iranians did not force us to vote against them in the IAEA.

Someone else is forcing India into a camp that is distant from many other nations where we have a legitimate interest.. not just Iran, but also Myanmar. It's time we opened our eyes to what is really going on.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Nov 2010 17:58

X-Posting from Internal Security Watch Thread

Published on Nov 20, 2010
Terrorists Believed to Be Planning Attack in Berlin: Spiegel Online

The US federal police, the FBI, sent a cable to the BKA two weeks ago noting another possible further attack. A Shiite-Indian group known as the "Saif," or sword, is believed to have engaged in a pact with al-Qaida and to have sent two men to Germany to carry out an attack there.

Both were believed to be traveling to the United Arab Emirates on Nov. 22, where they would be supplied with new travel papers so that they could continue on to Germany. The suspects allegedly already posess visas for Europe's Schengen zone of visa-free travel. The FBI has named Mushtaq Altaf bin-Khadri as the man behind the attack plans.

The man believed to be trying to smuggle the would-be terrorists into Europe is 54-year-old weapons dealer Dawood Ibrahim, who the United Nations believes is a major backer of terrorism. He is considered to be one of the men behind the terror attacks perpetrated in Mumbai in Novembner 2008.

WTF, Now they are trying to recruit Indians for terror!!!

Has Iran now decided to enter a pact with Al-Qaeda, and to besmirch India's reputation in the West and make India a target of West in the GWOT!

I don't think, there would be many extremist Shi'ite Groups in India who would not be somehow connected to Tehran!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 20 Nov 2010 20:41

India's vote against Iran at the IAEA in 2009 was the quid pro quo for the NSG support lent by the US in 2008. That was the deal. Besides, the resolution India voted for at the IAEA rapped Iran for keeping an enrichment plant secret when it was bound to allow inspectors.

^^^RajeshA: Difficult to believe a Shiite group allying itself in any way with a Wahhabi Al-Qaida let alone an Indian one. If it is an Indian Shiite group, it does not necessarily mean Iran is involved—our western 'naybors' would be more likely to indulge.

The other thing I have problem believing is Der Speigel's observation about Dawood Bhai and 26/11. I mean we've all read about Sajid Mir and Headley scouting targets. If DCompany was involved, why would they need 'scouts'? That lot probably has intricate maps of every building in Mumbai.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 20 Nov 2010 21:10

Iran need not be supported by India. It's going the Paki way and no way we must support such a trend. Nowadays even the Arabs seems much more cultured than the Iranian mullahs. So it's time for the liberation of Iran from the clutches of the Ayatollahs.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Nov 2010 22:45

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^RajeshA: Difficult to believe a Shiite group allying itself in any way with a Wahhabi Al-Qaida let alone an Indian one. If it is an Indian Shiite group, it does not necessarily mean Iran is involved—our western 'naybors' would be more likely to indulge.

Well the Saudi Royal Family, USA and Israel are a thorn in the side of both Iran and Al Qaeda, so even if a strategic partnership seems difficult to imagine, a tactical partnership could very well be on the cards.

No Shi'ite group in India would look up to Pakistan for guidance. The guidance would come directly from Iran. Considering the fact that that Azeri Khamenei has called upon the Muslims to support Kashmiri secession from India, I wouldn't put it out of his scope to try to pull India into the storm of global terrorism, by pushing the Shi'ites in India to undertake terror attacks in the West.

Khamenei is not happy that India and USA are getting closer and would want to nip this bonhomie in the bud! If some attack can be sourced to India, then the West would put up barriers against India as well and our business would suffer. When the West puts up barriers, India would be mighty pissed off, putting an end to Manmohan Singh's strategy of making space in the world for Indian business and getting investment into India.

Khamenei could have built a strong partnership, a friendship between India and Iran, by accepting our compulsions and our efforts to ward off sanctions against Iran, but he has instead chosen a path of conflict and tension with India. Too bad. But then he doesn't have the brains of Khomeini, and he is no Grand Ayatollah. He is just a mediocre cleric, and that too with Azeri interests at heart and not that of the Iranian people.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 Nov 2010 22:54

Could Khomeni's statements in response to Indian cozzying to KSA?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Nov 2010 13:03

RamaY wrote:Could Khomeni's statements in response to Indian cozzying to KSA?

India was always cosy with the KSA. We depend on them for smooth haj pilgrimages for our concerned minorities as well as the oil.

Which is why we let them walk all over us.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 21 Nov 2010 13:22

RajeshA wrote:Terrorists Believed to Be Planning Attack in Berlin: Spiegel Online
The US federal police, the FBI, sent a cable to the BKA two weeks ago noting another possible further attack. A Shiite-Indian group known as the "Saif," or sword, is believed to have engaged in a pact with al-Qaida and to have sent two men to Germany to carry out an attack there.
WTF, Now they are trying to recruit Indians for terror!!!

Has Iran now decided to enter a pact with Al-Qaeda, and to besmirch India's reputation in the West and make India a target of West in the GWOT!

I don't think, there would be many extremist Shi'ite Groups in India who would not be somehow connected to Tehran!

Could that be an error? Instead of Shiite-Iranian group they wrote Shiite-Indian group.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Nov 2010 14:20

Raghavendra wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Terrorists Believed to Be Planning Attack in Berlin: Spiegel Online
WTF, Now they are trying to recruit Indians for terror!!!

Has Iran now decided to enter a pact with Al-Qaeda, and to besmirch India's reputation in the West and make India a target of West in the GWOT!

I don't think, there would be many extremist Shi'ite Groups in India who would not be somehow connected to Tehran!
Could that be an error? Instead of Shiite-Iranian group they wrote Shiite-Indian group.

I would be surprised if it were Shi'ite Iranian group because in Iran everything to do with Shia is under the direct control of the Supreme Leader, at least everything that is extremist, because he is supposed to the Supreme Extremist. The only groups not in control are the ones asking for more liberty.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 21 Nov 2010 16:01

Where in the article does it say that Iran or Iranian intel recruited the 2 indian shi'ites? The article said Dawood ibrahim recruited the individuals, who could easily be part of his network, which we know has muslims both sunni and shia, as well as hindus, christians.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 21 Nov 2010 17:45

Wow, the Germans also seem to know the travel plans of the vermin. I suppose they also know that our truly secular Dawood Bhai is living a lavish life in Pakistan sharing his harem and swimming pool with OBL. Wonder if the report should be taken with a bucket of salt
That Ayathollah Comedy seems to have his musharaff fingered by the slow but sure rise of India's standing in the league of nations, if they keep antagonising friendly regimes they may end up having no body to sell their haraam oil and gas to.
As far is the Iran-Beggarstan-China pipeline is concerned, US will not let it happen

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Nov 2010 00:21

shyamd wrote:Where in the article does it say that Iran or Iranian intel recruited the 2 indian shi'ites? The article said Dawood ibrahim recruited the individuals, who could easily be part of his network, which we know has muslims both sunni and shia, as well as hindus, christians.

The article says that Dawood Ibrahim would be smuggling them into Europe, even as the article says that the terrorists already have valid Shengen visas!

Nowhere does the article says that Dawood Ibrahim recruited the two Shi'ites. It does say they belong to a Shi'ite group. Now Dawood has a gang with all kinds of people in it, but AFAIK he does not sit over a SHI'ITE GROUP!!!

Nowhere does the article mention Iran. That was me reading between the lines using my own specs. It is just that I don't believe there are Shi'ite groups outside Iran and Iraq, who do not observe allegiance to Iranian regime.

Iraq has its own separate independent Shia clergy, but which was for such a long time under the control of Saddam, that I don't think they would be having political influence over other Shi'ite groups in third countries. Only Iran is in the game long enough and has sufficient resources to be playing the strategic game. So most probably, this Shi'ite group "Saif" (Sword) is also ultimately under Khamenei's control.

My reasoning can of course be wrong, but I am just presenting my reading of the matter.

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 22 Nov 2010 10:15

RajeshA wrote:
Raghavendra wrote:Could that be an error? Instead of Shiite-Iranian group they wrote Shiite-Indian group.
I would be surprised if it were Shi'ite Iranian group because in Iran everything to do with Shia is under the direct control of the Supreme Leader, at least everything that is extremist, because he is supposed to the Supreme Extremist. The only groups not in control are the ones asking for more liberty.

Al-Qa'ida attack on Reichstag feared http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 40319.html

The informer claimed the cell consisted of six people, two of whom were believed to be staying in Berlin. The remaining four – a German, a Turkish national, a North African and another unidentified member – were planning to travel to Germany to carry out the attack. He said the attackers planned to take hostages and create a "bloodbath" with automatic weapons.

See no mention of shiite indian connection. Must have been a mistake

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Nov 2010 13:08

RajeshA, there are reports of networks/IRGC cells in India.It is quite possible, however I just don't think the Iranians will launch terror attacks on the west. Its cheaper and easier to cause that trouble in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There is a lot of collaboration between shi'ite groups in lebanon and sunni terror groups in that region, they leave the religius views to the mullah's to debate.
I doubt Dawood has much to gain from targetting the west. If this attack did go through, his position would become even more precarious and he'd be forced to be handed over to the west.
So he is happy targetting India, I don't think he'd back any sort of attack against the west.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Nov 2010 15:52

shyamd wrote:RajeshA, there are reports of networks/IRGC cells in India.It is quite possible, however I just don't think the Iranians will launch terror attacks on the west. Its cheaper and easier to cause that trouble in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Iranians primary reason to participate in this operation may not have been to attack the West, but rather to push Indian Shi'ite groups into the global jihad, making India another front-line of terror, thereby sabotaging any nearing of India and USA. Khemenei has started calling India a 'Zionist' country and calling on Muslims to help "Kashmiris"! So the main target could have been the repercussions on India.

shyamd wrote:I doubt Dawood has much to gain from targetting the west. If this attack did go through, his position would become even more precarious and he'd be forced to be handed over to the west.
So he is happy targetting India, I don't think he'd back any sort of attack against the west.

In many respects, Ibrahim Dawood may not be having the final say on all operations. He is enjoying the hospitality of Pakistanis, of ISI, so IMO, if the ISI or LeT comes to him with some request, it would be impossible for him to say no. He is just as much a guest/prisoner of ISI as Mullah Omar.

Khamenei has called on Muslims to help Kashmir now at least 3 times between June and November this year. The Pakistanis may have taken Khamenei on his words and asked him, what he is willing to do, and made him some suggestions.

We should remember that both Germany and India have been Iran's good trade and political partners. It could be an effort to draw both these countries nearer to Iran asking Iran to use its good offices to restrain the Shi'ite groups or to help both with intelligence. If Pakistanis can use all sort of Sunni groups with a certain degree of plausible deniability, then Iran must have thought why not also use this successful business model using Shi'ites?!

India is being used for the plausible deniability. It the Shi'ites of Iran, Iraq or Lebanaon had taken part, it would be too obvious.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 23 Nov 2010 04:11

Rajesh A-ji,

I'm not sure it's as cut and dried as all that.

Firstly, there is no reason why a jihadi Sh'ia group of Indian-origin, should refuse sponsorship and assistance directly from the ISI. If the goal is to fight kaffirs, jihadis will cooperate with any Momeen. The kaffir is the greatest of all evils to a jihadi, and the ill-treatment of Sh'ias in Pakistan is a distant secondary consideration. If "Saif" could reach a pact with Al-Qaeda (per the Spiegel article), despite the massacres of Balwari Shi'as by OBL's cadres in the 1990s... why could it not affiliate itself with Pakistan?

Secondly, there is definitely a precedent for Indian Muslims of Sh'ia origin, committing terrorism under the orders of Pakistan's ISI (and not the Iranian government). A case in point is Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy, a Dawoodi Bohra (Sh'ia) software engineer living in Pune who sent the famous Indian Mujahedin emails. http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 106587.ece . There is no known connection between Iran and the Indian Mujahedin, but there is conclusive evidence that the group is Pakistan sponsored.

Thirdly, however much Teheran may wish it were so, Shi'as around the world do not automatically look to Iran for leadership. The Ayatollahs found this out when, time and again, they marched on Karbala and other holy sites in Iraq (during the 1980-88 war) hoping that Iraqi Shi'as would rise up against Saddam and join forces with the Pasdaran. They never did.

So even if a Shi'a Indian terrorist group known as "Saif" actually exists, there's no reason to assume that it must be Iranian sponsored or affiliated. Indeed, the very fact that they were smuggled into Germany by Dawood Ibrahim (per the Spiegel article) suggests that Pakistani/ISI sponsorship is far more likely than Iranian.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Nov 2010 21:34

Rudradev ji,

I think you missed the gist of my rhetoric.

I am saying, that if Shia groups in India are found to be involved in terrorism, the first suspicion would and should go on Iran. A terror attack would be extremely damaging for Iran diplomatically both from India and from Europe.

If Iran wants to avoid this suspicion, Iran should do their utmost to keep those Shia groups in India over which they have control quiet and peaceful on the one hand, and on the other hand stop pricking India in Kashmir. If Khamenei continues with his poorly thought out stance on Kashmir, he may just push Iran into complete isolation from both Europe and India, in case of a terror attack by an Indian Shia group or in Europe (or for that matter in India also). All this he would do for very little in return. He should forget that he could create some Hezbollah in India. He would only reap condemnation and push Iran into a civilizational conflict with India.

Instead he should improve Iran's relations with India and give India some leeway. Only if India rises, can it help Iran stave off pressure from Sunnis and West.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 27 Nov 2010 00:42

India changed its vote at U.N. for some other reason: Iran

Describing the English translation of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as “weak,” Iranian officials say India should not have changed its vote for this reason alone at a recent meeting of the United Nations committee on human rights.

“It is unfortunate but not unusual because the main text in Farsi was totally different from the English translation,” Iranian officials said, admitting that the rendition from Farsi on the web site of the Supreme Leader was “weak.”

“There were many differences when the English version gets compared with the original in Farsi. We admit accurate translation is very important. And it was not. On this basis, we asked India not to change its vote but we couldn't convince the [Indian] officials. That is why we believe that the mention of Kashmir as a nation in the translation might not be the main reason for India changing its stance,” the officials said.

The officials noted that India's changed stance was not highlighted in the Iranian media.

“In Iran, it was not published in all newspapers though it did appear on some web sites. Otherwise, it would have created a problem in managing public opinion.”

Iranian officials explained that the word used in the Farsi original was ‘millat,' which was totally different from nation in the political sense. Had the Iranian intention been to question India's sovereignty over Kashmir, it would have used ‘kishwar' or ‘hakimiyat.'

However, despite this difference of perception between the two countries, officials from both sides maintained that bilateral ties would remain unaffected. The Indian officials said they attached “high priority” to ties with Iran.

wig · Post by **wig** » 29 Nov 2010 10:28

wikileaks has some news regarding internal iran news

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emissaries also learn of a special "Iran observer" in the Azerbaijan capital of Baku who reports on a dispute that played out during a meeting of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. An enraged Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari allegedly got into a heated argument with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and slapped him in the face because the generally conservative president had, surprisingly, advocated freedom of the press.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 80,00.html