Bharat Rakshak

The telephone call by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday becomes a defining moment. New Delhi chose to keep it under wraps.

Obviously, Tehran views with disquiet the recent hurried visit by the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to New Delhi. Tehran is acutely aware of the propensity of the policymakers in New Delhi to leverage India’s ties with Iran to extract concessions form Washington within the framework of the US-India strategic partnership.

Alarm bells must be ringing, because the US-India Strategic Dialogue is taking place in Washington shortly and a US special envoy has descended on the Indian capital with a focused mission to erode India’s energy ties with Iran.

Ahmedinejed’s phone call came on the eve of the announcement of the Indian decision to reduce oil imports from Iran, which has been widely perceived as a sign of the Indian leadership succumbing to the US pressure to fall in line with its containment strategy toward Iran.

According to the Iranian news agency IRNA, Ahmedinejad stressed to Manmohan Singh that Tehran sets no limits to the broadening of the Iran-India relationship. He called it a “brotherly” relationship, a warm description that Tehran reserves as a mark of special affinity. However, Manmohan Singh, curiously enough, insisted that the bilateral relationship would be “on the basis of national interests.”

The Indian establishment almost instinctively resorts to the epithet “national interests” when it is hard-pressed to explain the raison d’etre of any policy shift. The government’s decision to cut back on oil imports from Iran is, arguably, one such poignant moment. No government would like to acknowledge that it is buckling under pressure from a foreign power and in this case, the Indian public opinion comprehends the importance of the relationship with Iran.

Besides, the ruling Congress party is sensitive to the Muslim opinion, which can swing election results in over a hundred parliamentary constituencies, which, of course, can prove lethal, as elections are due in 2014 – rumors are swirling that there could be a mid-term poll – and Congress party has a fight on its hands to retain hold on power.

The Indian Muslim takes a dim view of the US’ global policies. The Indian pundit may look at Iran as a Shi’ite country, but for the Indian Muslim, Iran signifies strategic defiance of the US. No matter the lavish funding of the Muslim ulema in India by the Gulf Arab monarchies – and the nexus between the ulema and political parties – average Indian Muslim opinion equates Tehran as the voice of justice, honor and resistance.

This is the crux of the Congress-led government’s predicament. It is not very different from the predicament of the Gulf monarchies on the Arab street where Iran’s shadow remains potent, despite their sustained campaign to orchestrate a Sunni-Shi’ite schism in the Muslim Middle East. The IRNA report is here.

abhischekcc wrote:Point #1 : The Anglo Saxon world is intensely threatened by the idea of a new silk route - because it will end the dominance of sea trade and with it, the sea dominance that the AS world has had since the 17/18 century will be gone.

Point #2 : There is another thing they fear as much - and that is an Arab-Persian rapproachement.

Point # 3 & 4 : If peace breaks out in the middle east, it will reduce the ability of the investment banks / international financiers to manipulate oil prices. Not to mention sell arms to all parties.

-----------
Shyamd ji,
The scenario you have outlined above will hit US/UK in the above mentioned 4 points. No way are they going to let that happen.

ramana wrote:shyamd, Suppose the unthinkable happens and Iran gets hit. By whom is immaterial. So what will be the fallout. We should understand all scenarios and not only the optimistic ones.

Roperia wrote:I refuse to buy this argument that Indian muslims attach so much sympathy to Iran for two basic reasons: -

1. Indian muslims care for what is good for India and not for what is good for Islamic Republic of Iran.
2. Most Indian muslims are Sunnis, even though the sectarian tensions haven't spilled over from Paki stan, I'd still guess that if there are any sympathies, they are for the Kingdom.

I take a dim view of India succumbing to US pressure but IMO this is the right thing. We can get oil from Iraq since its back as a supplier, plus we need to balance the risks of betting too much on Iran. I actually agree with ramana sir, an invasion of Iran will negate all our defiance since we won't be able to or can't intervene militarily to pick winners or losers.

We should reduce just as much to get the waiver and trade with Iran in areas that are not sanctioned.

shyamd wrote:

ramana wrote:shyamd, Suppose the unthinkable happens and Iran gets hit. By whom is immaterial. So what will be the fallout. We should understand all scenarios and not only the optimistic ones.

Hamas + Iran units stationed in Sinai will respond. Hezbollah will fire rockets from Lebanon. Syria would have been a threat but no longer.

Bahrain - massive protests outside US embassy in Manama - simultaneous disruption of critical National infra. Similar scenes in Kuwait. SCIRI, Jaish al mahdi will try and do something in Kuwait. UAe - Minimal. Oman - minimal effect - but there is a fear that armed groups will infiltrate via coast.

Iranians will launch attacks at tankers - possible scenario/block the straits. India and Oman have an agreement on security and freedom of the Hormuz for oil. So IN may be called in - for evacuation of 6 million people and secure oil supplies. UAE will launch attack to recover the straits. Qatar wants the rest of the gas field and had asked the US for it already.

Iraq - militia will target the little US presence. Same scenes in Afghanistan. If Iran start attacking the GCC. TSP and Turkey are required to invade. Turkey is doubtful due to Russia and will act in concert with NATO. TSP could pussy out saying shia sunni problem may become too serious. UAEAF can use base in Balochistan/RYK for air strikes.

US/UAE AF/KSA AF can't touch Bushehr but will have to demolish the Ir Navy with sending limited troops. USN Subs are under threat because Iranian SF could use people to place magnetic bum on USN (Lockheed is conducting research to resolve such issues).

Iranians have covert cells in major GCC ciites and could unleash some 26/11 type stuff.

I mean a whole host of stuff could happen and Iranians will have plenty of strategies up their sleaves. But what is clear in the minds of all the leaders is that any foreign attack against Iran will mean the people will unite under the govt in nationalistic sentiment. No one wants to give life to a dying regime!

Hope this helps.

Satya_anveshi wrote:

Roperia wrote: Most Indian muslims are Sunnis, even though the sectarian tensions haven't spilled over from Paki stan, I'd still guess that if there are any sympathies, they are for the Kingdom.

...

Shia Muslims are a large minority (1) among India's Muslims. - Per this wiki. you will see number of other references as well if you look.
You have some notion of "balancing" when you talk down the official stand with incorrect facts (2) and then go on to day "India succumbing" and add that it is a "right" thing (3).

Gunjur wrote: Pls let us know, without west stepping in directly can saudi & co really defeat iran. Yes, saudi and others have bought latest guns & planes which west have sold them. But even saddam with weaponry available from west, soviets could not defeat iran. Finally had to settle for a stalemate(though i am aware that untill 79 iran had purchased lot of arms from west and these were used in the war. Also even during war, secretly some arms were delivered to iran from west

Also if the regime in iran is not put down forcefully from outside, it may survive using brute force within iran similar to what saddam did post gulf war I. Chances of any persian spring removing the regime is less(either before the war or after).

shyamd wrote: And may be instead of using such insulting words such as '24 ct BS' 'propaganda' and other assorted words and pose a question in a manner that is used where you are interested in genuine debate then maybe I would reply. But it's clear you are just trying to twist things that people say. This is hardly the way people debate. I guess other people can judge your class and decency by this.

RamaY wrote: Sir,

Just because you write great poetry about a pig, it will not make the pig any better.

I wonder how the strategy, strength, power equations of GCC change with the question one asks. For example few posts above you mentioned that the GCC is building the coalition of colonizers to invade Syria and eloquently explained how/why/what role India is expected to play. And to another question you observed that emirates alone can handle Iran. Then for another query you say trade is the best way to resolve conflict. Then you proclaim that Syria and Iran are bad bad and must be taken out by GCC. Your sources tell you how much they love India and they want India to clean their mess. Indian emigrants in GCC nations are portrayed as rich and successful ambassadors, while they are denied cultural, social and political suppression (yah we know it is the bad bad agents that force them to live in inhumane conditions, deny their religious, social and political rights) and so on...

Did you ever ask if GCC funding and arming the minority anti-establishment militias in Syria and Iran is right, why is it wrong for Iran or Syria or even India to do the same? After all India can fund, arm and support the majority Indian immigrants in certain regions and establish democratic and secular enclaves in West Asia, right? Then they should have a right (first right if you ask MMS) on the natural resources, right?

Like I said before, we belong to the opposite sides of the debate. Don't take things personal if you want honest feedback. Your strategy is BS to me and vice versa.

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov speaks during a news briefing in the main building of Foreign Ministry in Moscow, December 15, 2008. REUTERS/Denis Sinyakov

By Gleb Bryanski

MOSCOW | Sun May 20, 2012 2:24pm EDT

(Reuters) - Russia's deputy foreign minister said on Sunday that military action against Iran over its nuclear program was being considered in some Western countries.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was speaking to reporters on a plane on his way back from the G8 summit in Camp David, where the G8 leaders signaled their readiness to tap into emergency oil stockpiles quickly this summer if tougher new sanctions on Iran threatened to strain supplies.

"It is one of many various signals coming from various sources that the military option is considered as realistic and possible," he said. "We are receiving signals, both through public and intelligence channels, that this option is now being reviewed in some capitals as more applicable in this situation".

"We are very worried about this. We do not want the region and the world to fall into...new divisions and bitter political arguments," he said.

Western countries suspect Iran's nuclear program is aimed at making a nuclear bomb, a charge Tehran denies.

A European Union embargo of Iranian crude takes effect in July and tough new U.S. sanctions come into force in late June. Iran's oil exports have fallen by more than a fifth this year.

Russia has adamantly urged Western nations not to attack Iran to neutralize its nuclear program, saying that threats would only encourage Tehran to develop such weapons.

Ryabkov dismissed suggestions that Russia, the world's biggest oil exporter, sought to keep tensions around Iran on the boil in order to benefit from higher global oil prices.

"It would be a simplification and possibly even a deliberate distortion of Moscow's position to believe that based on some wild, egoistic intentions, we want oil to cost $200 per barrel," Ryabkov said.

He said Russia wanted to keep oil prices stable at a level acceptable to consumers and suppliers. He said that any gains from the oil price spike would be short-lived.

A meeting between Iran and six world powers - Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and Germany - is scheduled to take place in Baghdad on May 23.

Ryabkov said Russia had drafted a set of proposals for the Baghdad talks, saying negotiations needed to produce evidence of progress to the international community.

Proposals included suggested steps for Iran to restore international confidence as well as incentives on cooperation, said Ryabkov, adding that any followup round of talks should take place within weeks in order to maintain the momentum.

"Practical results are needed that can be shown to the international community as evidence that we are moving forward," Ryabkov said.

TENSIONS OVER SYRIA

Much like with Iran, Moscow has long urged Western powers not to intervene in Syria over bloodshed in which the United Nations says more than 9,000 people have been killed.

At a G8 summit in France in May 2011, Russia successfully managed to water down a statement on Syria removing calls for action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Ryabkov said that this time part of the G8 statement which concerns Syria, which called for a "political transition leading to a democratic plural political system", fully satisfied Russia.

"Anything that will be a product of the process of national reconciliation and dialogue will satisfy the Russian side. We are nobody's advocates in this process," he said.

Ryabkov said Assad's departure from power in a scenario similar to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had been granted immunity from prosecution, was discussed at the G8 summit, but Russia opposed the idea.

shyamd wrote:How exactly will Iran win with little or no air support? GCC can always repulse aggressors on their own but they dont possess the capability to "invade" Iran. At best take over the 3 islands - which would be a likely objective in a war.

Iran and UN close to deal on nuclear programme as world powers meet for Baghdad talksAn Iraqi policeman mans a checkpoint during a heavy sandstorm in Baghdad today. World powers will meet in the city tomorrow Photo: AFP/GETTY
Damien McElroy

By Damien McElroy, in Istanbul

22 May 2012

Western powers are ready drop demands for a complete halt to all Iran’s nuclear work, provided the regime pledges to halt uranium enrichment to the crucial 20 per cent threshold, The Daily Telegraph understands.

The proposal would be a key element of a compromise deal, to be discussed by leading world powers in Baghdad on Wednesday, that could also see Iran open up its secret military facilities to United Nations inspectors.

In return, sanctions against Tehran would be eased, with some even suspended should the Islamic regime successfully prove that its intentions are peaceful.

Last night, a deal to resolve the impasse was said to be close. Yukia Amano, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said he expected an agreement to be signed “quite soon” that would allow inspectors greater access to the key scientists, documents and suspicious facilities.

Tehran’s nuclear ambitions have been subject to widespread suspicions that it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, with Israel fearing it would be the target of an Iranian strike. It has threatened a pre-emptive military strike in response.
Related Articles

UN nuclear chief expects deal with Iran soon
22 May 2012

Iran raises hope of nuclear talks breakthrough
21 May 2012

Iran hangs 14 for drug trafficking
21 May 2012

Ahmadinejad should 'open nightclubs’, says Iran MP
20 May 2012

US admits it has military plan to attack Iran
17 May 2012

Baroness Ashton, the EU’s chief foreign affairs representative, will on Wednesday lead representatives from six world powers - the US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany - in crucial negotiations that could prove a turning point on the issue.

The so-called “P5+1” grouping are due to meet Iranian representative, Saeed Jalili, in Baghdad.

Diplomats now expect the talks to yield an Iranian offer to suspend part of its nuclear programme in return for negotiations on dismantling the UN sanctions regime that includes the prospect of a US and European-driven oil embargo. This could include an offer to limit uranium enrichment to 3.5 per cent.

The hopes of a breakthrough follow two days of preliminary talks between Mr Amano and Mr Jalili in the Iranian capital.

Speaking as he returned yesterday, Mr Amano said: “The decision was made to conclude and sign the agreement ... At this stage, I can say it will be signed quite soon.

“We understood each other’s position better.”

The Iranian regime quickly made clear however, that any concessions must be immediately reciprocated - probably with an agreement “turn down the volume” on sanctions.

“It is of crucial importance that our cooperation will entail reciprocal steps, that is, our nation’s trust should be built in the trend of talks and cooperation,” Mr Jalili said.

The West’s main concern is Iran’s production of uranium enriched to 20 per cent, which is far higher than needed for regular energy-producing reactors. The US and its allies fear the higher-enriched uranium could be quickly boosted to warhead-grade material.

One Western official told The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday night: “The meaningful issue must be the 20 per cent enriched material - then some sort of pause on sanctions is not a difficult thing.

“The key thing is what is good enough and what prevents a third party strike on Iran.”

As part of any agreement, Mr Amano is focused on getting Iran to let UN experts into high-profile Iranian sites, including the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran.

Israel however, warned yesterday of the dangers of Iranian tactics.

“Iran wants to destroy Israel and it is developing nuclear weapons to fulfill that goal,” Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, said. “Against this malicious intention, leading world powers need to display determination and not weakness. They should not make any concessions to Iran.”

Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, has publicly denied she has eased the US stance in pursuit of President Barack Obama’s policy of talks with Iran.

It was Mrs Clinton’s husband, Bill, as president who first imposed restrictions on Iran over its nuclear programme banning companies from investing in Iranian oil and gas and trading with Iran in 1995.

The net has closed ever tighter with four rounds of UN sanctions between 1996 and 2010 and a raft of bilateral restrictions, including moves by the EU and US to impose a semi-global oil embargo by the end of June. As Opec’s second largest producer, Iran’s oil industry has been pitching into chaos by the embargo.

While fixated on the removal of sanctions, Iranian officials maintain the country has a legal right to nuclear technology. One diplomat close to the talks said that the ultimate success of the diplomacy would hinge on conceding this point to Iran so it can portray the negotiations as a victory at home.

“It’s a myth the West doesn’t accept their nuclear entitlement but it has be framed in a way that allows them to claim victory on this as a sweetener to real concessions,” the diplomat said.

Suppiah wrote:Austin-bhai, the FIRST thing we need is a war that destroys Iran or at least its troublemaking capacity for the next few decades. It is one of the two legs global jehadi terrorism stands on. The other leg, Saudi barbaria and is paid poodles can then be taken on more easily.

Iran has enriched uranium closer to the level required to arm nuclear missiles, according to evidence discovered at an underground facility by the UN’s atomic agency.
The concessions offered by Baroness Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief who is representing the international powers in the talks, are unlikely to satisfy the Iranians, who have always maintained their nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes Photo: Reuters
Alex Spillius

By Alex Spillius, Diplomatic Correspondent
25 May 2012

In its latest report on Iran’s nuclear activity, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it had found traces of uranium enriched up to 27 per cent at the Fordow enrichment plant near Qom.

That is substantially below the 90 per cent level needed to make the fissile core of nuclear weapons. But it is above Iran’s highest-known enrichment grade of 20 per cent, the level from which uranium can quickly turned into weapons-grade material.

Diplomats shown the report, which was distributed among the agency’s 35 member states today, said it was possible the centrifuges may have initially “over-enriched” at the start of their output. The IAEA said Iran had claimed the higher-grade enrichment may have happened “for technical reasons beyond the operator’s control”.

However, the finding will intensify concerns that Iran is merely using the current round of international talks to play for time while it pursues its nuclear ambitions.

The IAEA’s report also confirmed that Iran had added a further 350 centrifuges - capable of churning out 20 percent uranium - this year at the Fordow facility, in addition to 700 installed earlier.
Related Articles

Iran nuclear talks break-up without deal on nuclear stockpile
24 May 2012

Hague: Iran must takes 'urgent' steps before sanctions are lifted
24 May 2012

Can Israel end Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
24 May 2012

Iran navy saves US cargo ship from pirates
24 May 2012

The disclosures came the day after the conclusion of the first direct talks between Iran and the international community in years and will undermine confidence that a breakthrough can be reached when negotiations resume in Moscow on June 17-18.

The main bone of contention was – and will remain – whether or not the Islamic republic meets demands to stop 20 per cent enrichment and hand over its stockpile of uranium of that grade.

In exchange, Tehran expects some of the tough sanctions it is under to be relaxed. Convinced Tehran is moving towards building a nuclear bomb, the US and EU have targeted Iran’s oil exports and effectively barred the country from international banking networks. The EU is due to ban all Iranian fuel imports on July 1, shutting the door on almost one fifth of Iran’s market.

But the concessions offered by Baroness Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy chief who is representing the international powers in the talks, are unlikely to satisfy the Iranians, who have always maintained their nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes.

She reportedly offered measures such as supplying fuel for producing medical isotopes, technical assistance, easing restrictions on aircraft parts.

Analysts said that Iran and the world powers cannot afford to leave Moscow without clear progress, after what Trita Parsi, author of a recent book about US diplomacy towards Iran called the “calculated failure” of the Baghdad meeting.

Iran started enriching to 20 per cent last year, saying it needed the material to fuel a research reactor and for medical purposes, though it already has far more than it requires for either function.

Fordow is carved into a mountain, raising concerns that it would be impervious to attack from Israel or the United States, which have not ruled out using force as a last option if diplomacy fails to curb Iran’s nuclear ambition.