Iran News and Discussions

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 16 Mar 2008 00:14

shyamd wrote:Western intel are now using Iraqi Kurdistan along with the Moss aaad to infiltrate their spies into Iran. They have started recruiting Dari(primarily spoken in North western Iran) and Farsi speakers.

Are you sure about Dari being used in North-western iran? I thought it's being used in southeastern Iran, near the Afghan border area. Also, here is some news to ponder over. Unkil is going overboard to recruit second generation indian-american college graduates with foreign language skills and posting them in Islamabad, Kabul, and other middle-eastern countries. This effort has gone up significantly after 9-11. A few such ABCD kids who have learned Dari have been posted in kabul recently.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 16 Mar 2008 01:00

Kati wrote:Are you sure about Dari being used in North-western iran? I thought it's being used in southeastern Iran, near the Afghan border area. Also, here is some news to ponder over. Unkil is going overboard to recruit second generation indian-american college graduates with foreign language skills and posting them in Islamabad, Kabul, and other middle-eastern countries. This effort has gone up significantly after 9-11. A few such ABCD kids who have learned Dari have been posted in kabul recently.

Oops! Looks like there are 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari_(Zoroastrian)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari_(Afghanistan)
Highly likely to be the bottom. When I searched for it first time round, I only found the Zoroastrian one. Searched again and found the bottom one as well.

Pak complained last year to the brits about posting a high number of Indian origin officers in their consulates, this was reported in a Paki newspaper last year that was posted on BR.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 20 Mar 2008 21:38

A multibillion dollar gas deal between Iran and Switzerland has upset the US officials who are trying to put more pressure on Tehran

"We don't think that now is the time for people to be investing in Iran, not only in its petroleum or natural gas area, but in any sector of its economy," State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said on Wednesday.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=4 ... =351020101

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 23 Mar 2008 10:20

Saudi King Rejects Cheney's Belligerency

Saudi king rejects Cheney's belligerency
Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:24:58

US Vice President Dick Cheney in Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in a meeting with visiting US Vice President Dick Cheney has rejected any US military strike against Iran.

King Abdullah Expressed his opposition to any US military strike against Iran, Saudi official sources said.

Cheney who arrived in Saudi Arabia on Friday discussed Iran's nuclear program and its increasing influence in the Middle East with senior Saudi officials, DPA reported.

Saudi Arabia, along with other Persian Gulf Arab countries, sees negotiations as the best way to resolve the standoff between the US and Iran.

The king also told Cheney that the Middle East should be free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the sources added.

The Saudis say any nuclear non-proliferation efforts should include Israel, which is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East with around 200 nuclear warheads.

The US vice president's efforts to drum up support for Washington's war mongering policies against Iran comes as a recent NIE report declared that Tehran is not pursuing any nuclear weapons program.

The Islamic Republic says, as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), the country is entitled to use the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

DT/MMN
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=48 ... =351020104

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Apr 2008 13:07

With pals like China who needs enemies? So China has staretd ratting on Iran about its nuke ambitions,but who was willing to service Iran's ambitions in the first place?Pakistan,Iran,N.Korea and the dear Lord only knows who else China has been secretly helping spread WMD technology around the globe.This revelation by China indicates its moral bankruptcy,especially in the light of the Tibetan crisis which is scaring sh*tless the tribe of Gin & Tonic,which is trying to curry global favour for the godless ,communist regime by such acts of betrayal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... 2.xmlChina reveals Iran's nuclear secrets to UN
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:47am BST 03/04/2008

China has betrayed one its closest allies by providing the United Nations with intelligence on Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear technology, diplomats have revealed.

Concern over Tehran's secretive research programme has increased in recent weeks after officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, discovered that Iran had obtained information on how to manufacture nuclear-armed weapons.

A heavy-water nuclear facility in Arak and a security guard at an Iranian nuclear enrichment facility

Beijing is believed to have decided to assist the inspectors after documents seized from Iranian officials included blueprints for "shaping" uranium metal into warheads, the testing of high explosives used to detonate radioactive material and the procurement of dual-use technology.

Much of the new material was presented to the governors of the Vienna-based IAEA in February. That meeting is said to have triggered China's change of heart.

Ahmadinejad on National Nuclear Day
Diplomats described Beijing's decision to provide material related to Iran to the IAEA as a potentially significant breakthrough.

Chinese designs for centrifuges that refine uranium into a "weaponised" state have been found in Iran but these are thought to have come through a network controlled by the disgraced Pakistani scientist AQ Khan.

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, said suspicions over the leakage of technology from China to Iran had long centred on uranium enrichment technology and their bilateral ballistic missile trade.

A spokesman for the IAEA said it did not comment on intelligence it received from its members.

Beijing has long-established ties with Iran's clerical regime and has emerged as one of the country's biggest customers for oil and gas.

It has allied itself with Tehran's attempts to prevent the IAEA referring Iran to the UN Security Council, which can impose sanctions.

China has not used its veto powers to block US and British sponsored sanctions but it has ensured the measures were watered down.

advertisement
The council has levied three rounds of financial sanctions on Iran in an attempt to force the country to declare all its nuclear activities.

IAEA weapons inspectors report that Iran has not provided full co-operation.

An American intelligence assessment judged it likely that Iran stopped efforts to produce a nuclear weapon in 2003 but there are strong fears it has resumed the work under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Michael Hayden, the director of the CIA, said this week that he believed that Iran is still developing a nuclear bomb.

Meanwhile, Israel has accused Iran of setting up listening stations in Syria to eavesdrop on its military communications network.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 04 Apr 2008 07:15

Rumour has it that an attack on Eyeran is coming in the next 3 weeks.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Apr 2008 07:17

Neshant wrote:Rumour has it that an attack on Eyeran is coming in the next 3 weeks.

Get ready for stock market crash and inflation and oil shock

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 04 Apr 2008 09:41

Get ready for stock market crash and inflation and oil shock

Start buying Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed Martin stocks.

They will be doing brisk business selling weapons to the nervous Arabs after such an attack. Plus the US govt of course.

Most likely sign of an attack would be stepped up activity at Diego Garcia. That would be the most likely (only) air route US would "officially" take in attacking Eyeran. Arabs would definately not want USAF officially operating from their airbases for fear of retaliation now or in the future by Iran.

Perhaps a few UAVs might be secretly launched form Afghanistan or Pakistan to assess the damage or inflict some.

Hang on to your hats boys. This year is gonna be a blast

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Apr 2008 11:57

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html

Last week, five former US secretaries of state who served in Democratic and Republican administrations - Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright and Colin Powell - sat at a round-table discussion in Athens and reached a consensus to urge the next US administration to open a line of dialogue with Iran.

Looks like they have become serious on Iran

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Apr 2008 14:38

The problem for these old warhorses of the US establishment is that the current Bush dispensation cares bu**er all for their views! The Bush neo-con contingent led by Dick the pri*k Cheney,formed a power structure in the White House that was extreme right and beholden to the so-called "moral majority" of right wing fundamental, evangelical Christian outfits.Dubya Bush,totally in sympathy with these outfits did not need to be "converted" at all,he spearheaded the "Christian soldiers",preparing to launch them into new "crusades".

When Bush the second entered the White House,he saw to it that all his father's advisers and close associates where eased out of all positions of influence.Cheney,who had openly agreed with Bush the father about not going after Saddam in GW1,privately urged him to do so,and also wanted to settle scores with his pet hates,Powell,Scowcroft and Baker.Bush the son,handpicked men like John Ashcroft (attorney general) who had preached at Jerry Falwell's Baptist Church and was a member of the Assemblies of God church,known for charismatic practices like faith healing and speaking in tongues.Donald Rumsfeld,who had a bitter relationship with Bush the father, was chosen by the son as Sec. of Defence! James Baker even tried to intercede by telling Bush that "you know what he did to your daddy",but it was to no avail.Bush packed his entourage with the most right-wing ,fundamentalist individuals, totally opposed to the foreign policy of Bush the father.

To understand Bush's religious extremism that fuels him,take this example from his inaugural address,he quoted from the Old Testament.."do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" This was a reference from the book of Nahum,where God is described as being not only a just God but also a "furious and wrathful" God who "hath his way in the storms" .The passage asks,"Who can stand his indignation and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger?" Bush finished his address by saying,"This story goes on.And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."

The wise men led by Kissinger haven't a snowball's chance in hell if they think that they can deter Bush the son from his crusader convictions.Bush sees the world in black and white,you areeither with us or against us and if you area gainst us we will strike you down.Until he is out of office never discount the probability that Bush the son will strike at Iran and perhaps Syria also.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 05 Apr 2008 11:00

Now what is a B1 bomber doing in Qatar? There can be only 1 explaination. The US is getting ready to attack Eyeran.

This crash eliminates all deniability on the part of these Arab countries which will claim they had no part in the US bombing of Iran.

------

B1 bomber crashes in Qatar

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 07 Apr 2008 17:55

India ready to invest in Chahbahar

Indian minister due for IPI talks

Hmm...Sudden increase in negotiations with Iran, yet US/Israeli war signs are still looming. IPI talks are back on.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Apr 2008 04:45

In an interview in the German news magazine Focus that appeared on March 17, the head of Germanyâ€™s BND, Ernst Uhriau , hinted that it was his men who managed to steal a laptop computer from the Iranian delegation at the IAEA in Vienna in 2005.

abrahavt · Post by **abrahavt** » 10 Apr 2008 04:56

USS Abraham Lincoln is headed for the gulf and Israel is handing out gas masks and engaging in home defense drill. Act 2 of Bush Sr. is about to unfold before he leaves office.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 12 Apr 2008 09:49

U.S. patrol craft fires flare over Iranian boat

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast ... index.html

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 14 Apr 2008 01:25

Washington Opens Diplomatic Door to Tehran

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 14 Apr 2008 02:23

debka is 100% unreliable when it comes to these reports

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Apr 2008 18:03

Iran's President Ahmadinejad to visit India

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Apr 2008 18:21

Iranian, Afghan forces clash at southwestern border

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 Apr 2008 21:56

India starts talks for expanding Iran's Farsi gas block

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 21 Apr 2008 00:46

We have the second largest Shia population. So, it's not only a foreign policy issue, but a domestic issue.'

In my humble opinion, above was a very unfortunate statement from Narayanan.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/indiaabroad/20 ... 11f_1.html

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 21 Apr 2008 19:15

Yes it was. Surprising, coming from him.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 21 Apr 2008 20:34

Maybe this would take a lot of pressure off the Foreign Office to go fast on this issue with other powers, since this now has to be debated by the entire govt...being an internal issue and all.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 22 Apr 2008 10:47

US Asks India to Diminish Economic Relations with Iran

NEW DELHI: The US on Monday night asked India to "diminish" its economic relations with "nuclear outlaw" Iran and join the international community in dealing with "one of the most difficult security problems" facing the world.

"We hope that India, as well as all other states -- China, Russia, France, Britain and Japan -- will diminish their economic relations with Iran," US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said.

Talking to TV channels over phone from Washington, he said the US expected India to be part of the international community to "deal with one of the most difficult security problems we face internationally today."

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 22 Apr 2008 11:11

Karan Dixit wrote:
We have the second largest Shia population. So, it's not only a foreign policy issue, but a domestic issue.'

In my humble opinion, above was a very unfortunate statement from Narayanan.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/indiaabroad/20 ... 11f_1.html

First, it is factual.

Second, IMO, it is a good move to stake a claim within our region of influence. If anything, jingos should cheer this upping the ante by India and taking steps towards our energy security.

Third, if Nuke deal is punctured, we simply cannot offord to let go our access to the fossils in the region.

Fourth, alienating Iran at this point is simply gifting it to the west (read US), which is choking India of energy and sucking everyone dry.

I highly welcome this move (actually the first time with MKN). We should not miss forests for trees.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 22 Apr 2008 11:50

Satya,

Thanks! Now, that I look at it in a different angle, it makes sense.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 22 Apr 2008 19:37

US Asks India to Rein in Iran -- Left Fumes

If China is going to be the helpful middleman in NoKo...why not India with Iran? This should be interesting

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Apr 2008 21:16

Rye wrote:US Asks India to Rein in Iran -- Left Fumes

If China is going to be the helpful middleman in NoKo...why not India with Iran? This should be interesting

But China is a UNSC member and India is not

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 22 Apr 2008 21:39

Acharya wrote:

But China is a UNSC member and India is not

So what? Iran's relations with India exist outside of the UN's sphere of influence.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 22 Apr 2008 21:54

JE Menon wrote:Yes it was. Surprising, coming from him.

This is not the first time that a third rate comment was made MKN. It just baffles me what these bums get to be shaping Indias future.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 23 Apr 2008 01:21

I have a problem with the "domestic issue" part of the comment only - I don't know if it was an exact quote, we are going by media on this.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 23 Apr 2008 01:31

I agree with satya_anweshi. India is not unkil's poodle. And it makes perfect sense to keep the oil option open and not let unkil strangle us with the nuke 'deal'. If unkil finds pukes respectable when it is beneficial to them, we find Iran respectable if it benefits us. Equal-equal onree.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 23 Apr 2008 09:53

"India and Iran are ancient civilisations whose relations span centuries. Both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080422/wl ... 0422172430

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 23 Apr 2008 09:57

JE Menon wrote:I have a problem with the "domestic issue" part of the comment only - I don't know if it was an exact quote, we are going by media on this.

That is the part I had problems with too. But after Satya's explanation, I read it again and I think understand why the statement was made.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 23 Apr 2008 13:30

I don't. There is no cause on earth that should cause a serving GOI functionary to raise a domestic sectarian concern in an international setting, unless said setting is for raising such issues and other powers of all ranks do the same.

There is no reason for us to make excuses for our relationships, nor to offer explanations on such issues. No one is a designated arbiter. We are a considerable power. We should start behaving as one.

The response to the US statement on Iran was a good example, although, there too, IMHO, India erred by suggesting that "Both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention."

It should have been: "We are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of this relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention." This eliminates any suggestion that we speak for Iran, while leaving just a hint that we might.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2008 16:13

If the visit of the Iranian VVIP goes smoothly,we will be in the unique position of being able to launch an Israeli sat from our shores (which the Iranians criticised) and being able to work out a deal for Iranian gas/petroproducts (which angers the US and presumably makes the Israelis also uneasy).Would this be truly smart jugglery on the part of the diploducks of the MEA or is this just an accidental event?

Whatever the reasons,it precisely this-looking after India's interests first, that should be underscored in our foreign policy.Thereis no need to bow and scrape to anyone and the catcalls from the polecats of the State dept. should be ignored completely.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 24 Apr 2008 11:41

JEM,

I am the old generation.

(Not fully confident yet. But, I am glad to see clear thinking young folks on this forum.)

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 28 Apr 2008 05:17

KS on US Preaching to India on Iran

The truth about Tehran
K. Subrahmanyam
Posted online: Monday, April 28, 2008 at 2318 hrs IST

The American spokespersonâ€™s advice to India to impress upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his visit to Delhi, that he desist from going ahead with Iranâ€™s uranium enrichment programme has with some justification infuriated many of our members of Parliament. Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee has given a measured response that the responsibility for determining whether Iran had deviated from the path of peaceful application of uranium enrichment vests with the International Atomic Energy Agency. But he has discreetly omitted to mention that the IAEA has not yet found itself in a position to give a clean chit to Iran. In all this controversy, the Indian public has not yet been given a clear picture of Iranâ€™s nuclear effort and why India, very rightly, voted against Iran in the IAEA in 2006 and 2007. Nor has the central figure in this issue, Dr A.Q. Khan, received adequate attention in this country.
Iranian efforts to acquire a clandestine nuclear-weapon capability go back to 1987. At that time, Iran was fighting the last year of its eight-year war with Saddam Husseinâ€™s Iraq. Saddamâ€™s aggression was supported by the United States and many Arab countries. The Muslim Ummah, the world over, did not condemn Saddamâ€™s aggression and his use of chemical weapons on Iran, or the hundreds of missiles he sent raining on that country. The Indian government of that day did not worry about Shia feelings. When Iran took the issue of the use of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations, the US and European countries sat on their hands and took no action against Saddam. At that stage, Iran approached Khan to help it with the uranium enrichment programme.
While the US started talking to Pakistan in the late â€™90s about Khanâ€™s links with North Korea, the Iranian secret enrichment programme came to the notice of the IAEA only in 2001 as a result of the disclosure of some expatriates. Whether the US inaction on Khan and Iranian proliferation was the result of the total incompetence of the CIA or was a policy decision is not clear at this stage. Iran dodged the IAEA for some time and finally admitted dealing with Khan.
The 2005 and 2006 IAEA resolutions were about the inadequacy of Iranian cooperation with the IAEA in clearing up the uranium enrichment issue involving Khan. For other countries of the world (including the various Islamic countries), it was an issue of proliferation in some distant country. For India, it was a case of clandestine proliferation involving Pakistan, Khan, the US and various West European countries which were the sources for Khanâ€™s proliferation. India would have made a laughing stock of itself if it had ignored Khanâ€™s activities. According to the former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (a disclosure he repeated during his visit to the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses two months ago), Khan had been allowed to go free by the Dutch authorities, after his arrest twice in 1975 and 1986, on the intervention of the CIA. Therefore, it is a fair assumption that the US knew what Iran and Khan were up to in 1987. Further, the Pakistani chief of army staff told a US assistant secretary in 1990 that Pakistan would sell its uranium enrichment technology to Iran if the US invoked the Pressler Amendment.
A.Q. Khan and Iran signed two deals for the supply of centrifuges to Tehran. The Iranians did not report this programme to the IAEA but kept it a secret in total violation of their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US also did not disclose (and has not disclosed till today) its interest in Khan. While Khan was the agent and mastermind, the entire source of the supply of equipment and technology for Iranian proliferation was West Europe. The Indian foreign secretary at that time, Shyam Saran, raised the issue of countries being permissive of the supply side of proliferation and focusing entirely on the recipient.
The US has not been serious in pursuing the involvement of the Pakistani state, army chiefs or A.Q. Khan in the Iranian proliferation. The West European countries have been lax in clamping down on their own firms which supply equipment and technology to Iran. Last year in the US Congress, there were complaints about the US not extraditing Urs Tinner, a notorious Swiss proliferator, for prosecution in Switzerland.
Given this record, neither the US nor the West European countries are in a position to preach to India. At the same time, it is a totally mistaken perception to argue that Indiaâ€™s policy on Iranâ€™s nuclear effort is dictated by the US. On the other hand, those who are against the Indian vote in the IAEA are trying to protect Khan and his patron, the US, and his sources of supply in the West European countries. The US is trying to shield its past proliferation sins and patronage of Khan by bullying Iran to stop its enrichment activity. It appears to think that exaggerating the Iranian threat to West Europe is the best way of applying global pressure on Iran.
The right step at this time for Iran is to satisfy the IAEA that its enrichment programme is entirely peaceful. This can be done by throwing open all its facilities to IAEA inspection. Dr ElBaradei is an independent-minded IAEA chief who had stood up to American bullying. The IAEA is persisting in its efforts to have an overall perspective on the Iranian nuclear activity to be in a position to certify that Iran has no nuclear weapons programme. Latest reports indicate that both Iran and the IAEA are finding common ground to solve the issue. Meanwhile, last December, the American intelligence community produced a unanimous report that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons programme, not its uranium enrichment programme, in the fall of 2003 when Khanâ€™s involvement in proliferation to Iran and Libya became public.
There is nothing wrong in the US giving advice to India on the Iranian nuclear issue. That is part of international diplomacy. What is unfortunate is that our diplomats, our parliamentarians and our political leaders do not talk back and give the US sound advice in their own national interest. This lack of self-confidence reflects a still lingering colonial mentality. Instead of getting angry with the Americans, why do we not tell the American public and legislators all the things they had done to be permissive of nuclear proliferation?

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 28 Apr 2008 06:51

The blocked nuclear equipment "is in the framework of Iran-Russia cooperation" and there should be "no ban on it," he said about the shipment destined for a Russian-built nuclear reactor in the southern Iranian port city of Bushehr.

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/s ... 8089.story

satya · Post by **satya** » 28 Apr 2008 16:10

The truth about Tehran: KS

Its history of nuclear proliferation brings up a few skeletons in Americaâ€™s closet too .
The American spokespersonâ€™s advice to India to impress upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his visit to Delhi, that he desist from going ahead with Iranâ€™s uranium enrichment programme has with some justification infuriated many of our members of Parliament. Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee has given a measured response that the responsibility for determining whether Iran had deviated from the path of peaceful application of uranium enrichment vests with the International Atomic Energy Agency. But he has discreetly omitted to mention that the IAEA has not yet found itself in a position to give a clean chit to Iran. In all this controversy, the Indian public has not yet been given a clear picture of Iranâ€™s nuclear effort and why India, very rightly, voted against Iran in the IAEA in 2006 and 2007. Nor has the central figure in this issue, Dr A.Q. Khan, received adequate attention in this country.

Iranian efforts to acquire a clandestine nuclear-weapon capability go back to 1987. At that time, Iran was fighting the last year of its eight-year war with Saddam Husseinâ€™s Iraq. Saddamâ€™s aggression was supported by the United States and many Arab countries. The Muslim Ummah, the world over, did not condemn Saddamâ€™s aggression and his use of chemical weapons on Iran, or the hundreds of missiles he sent raining on that country. The Indian government of that day did not worry about Shia feelings. When Iran took the issue of the use of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations, the US and European countries sat on their hands and took no action against Saddam. At that stage, Iran approached Khan to help it with the uranium enrichment programme.

While the US started talking to Pakistan in the late â€™90s about Khanâ€™s links with North Korea, the Iranian secret enrichment programme came to the notice of the IAEA only in 2001 as a result of the disclosure of some expatriates. Whether the US inaction on Khan and Iranian proliferation was the result of the total incompetence of the CIA or was a policy decision is not clear at this stage. Iran dodged the IAEA for some time and finally admitted dealing with Khan.

The 2005 and 2006 IAEA resolutions were about the inadequacy of Iranian cooperation with the IAEA in clearing up the uranium enrichment issue involving Khan. For other countries of the world (including the various Islamic countries), it was an issue of proliferation in some distant country. For India, it was a case of clandestine proliferation involving Pakistan, Khan, the US and various West European countries which were the sources for Khanâ€™s proliferation. India would have made a laughing stock of itself if it had ignored Khanâ€™s activities. According to the former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (a disclosure he repeated during his visit to the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses two months ago), Khan had been allowed to go free by the Dutch authorities, after his arrest twice in 1975 and 1986, on the intervention of the CIA. Therefore, it is a fair assumption that the US knew what Iran and Khan were up to in 1987. Further, the Pakistani chief of army staff told a US assistant secretary in 1990 that Pakistan would sell its uranium enrichment technology to Iran if the US invoked the Pressler Amendment.

A.Q. Khan and Iran signed two deals for the supply of centrifuges to Tehran. The Iranians did not report this programme to the IAEA but kept it a secret in total violation of their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US also did not disclose (and has not disclosed till today) its interest in Khan. While Khan was the agent and mastermind, the entire source of the supply of equipment and technology for Iranian proliferation was West Europe. The Indian foreign secretary at that time, Shyam Saran, raised the issue of countries being permissive of the supply side of proliferation and focusing entirely on the recipient.

The US has not been serious in pursuing the involvement of the Pakistani state, army chiefs or A.Q. Khan in the Iranian proliferation. The West European countries have been lax in clamping down on their own firms which supply equipment and technology to Iran. Last year in the US Congress, there were complaints about the US not extraditing Urs Tinner, a notorious Swiss proliferator, for prosecution in Switzerland.

Given this record, neither the US nor the West European countries are in a position to preach to India. At the same time, it is a totally mistaken perception to argue that Indiaâ€™s policy on Iranâ€™s nuclear effort is dictated by the US. On the other hand, those who are against the Indian vote in the IAEA are trying to protect Khan and his patron, the US, and his sources of supply in the West European countries. The US is trying to shield its past proliferation sins and patronage of Khan by bullying Iran to stop its enrichment activity. It appears to think that exaggerating the Iranian threat to West Europe is the best way of applying global pressure on Iran.

The right step at this time for Iran is to satisfy the IAEA that its enrichment programme is entirely peaceful. This can be done by throwing open all its facilities to IAEA inspection. Dr ElBaradei is an independent-minded IAEA chief who had stood up to American bullying. The IAEA is persisting in its efforts to have an overall perspective on the Iranian nuclear activity to be in a position to certify that Iran has no nuclear weapons programme. Latest reports indicate that both Iran and the IAEA are finding common ground to solve the issue. Meanwhile, last December, the American intelligence community produced a unanimous report that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons programme, not its uranium enrichment programme, in the fall of 2003 when Khanâ€™s involvement in proliferation to Iran and Libya became public.

There is nothing wrong in the US giving advice to India on the Iranian nuclear issue. That is part of international diplomacy. What is unfortunate is that our diplomats, our parliamentarians and our political leaders do not talk back and give the US sound advice in their own national interest. This lack of self-confidence reflects a still lingering colonial mentality. Instead of getting angry with the Americans, why do we not tell the American public and legislators all the things they had done to be permissive of nuclear proliferation?

Bharat Rakshak

Iran News and Discussions

US annoyed by Iran-Switzerland ties

Saudi King Rejects Cheney's Belligerency