Bharat Rakshak

Carl wrote: Shyamd ji and other BR gurus, how does India's basic policy w.r.t Israel/Iran compare with the above? Similar?

Complicated to say the least. There has been a big reapproachment between Dilli and Tehran. Its due to a number of reasons. Iran and US have had some CBMs. We all know ultimately Taliban are allied with TSP - KSA and will actually be a thorn if there is a conflict against Iran.

So while Iran was helping the Talebs, AQ, that deal appears to be anulled as a result of last year, AQ suspects were quietly arrested and being handed over or something on that lines to the US. Hikers handed over plus US announced CBMs as US cant get into war now and it also wants a peaceful escape from Afghanistan. So looks like tehran agreed to it. But everyone knows that the Taleban is going to be back. taleb is anti Iran and pro KSA alliance against iran. So Iran will feel slightly surrounded. So, looks like they are agreeing to India's plans to send troops into Afg via Tajikistan. This time russia might be on board. This is what MMS's visits to CAS countries has been about - its quiet diplomacy. Our interests agree - albeit for different reasons. PRC will be interested in telling Tehran off, if this is the case as Tehran relies on PRC as a customer for O&G, They sell weapons to iran and support Iran in the UN. Will be interesting to see their position and Irans too.

Lets just say there India started its quiet diplomacy in 2009/2010. We are talking, but its essential to have Russia on the same page otherwise everything falls apart. Russia can use its clout over PRC also.

With regards to Israel - Iran ---> There will be no war against Iran. Its just talk for now. India won't take sides or they will just pay some lip noises to satisfy both sides. Its not like we are going to intervene. Our position is clear that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power.

----------------------------------------
PM to visit Iran to mend bilateral ties

While apprehensions of a power vacuum in Afghanistan post US withdrawal as well as energy dependence may have been the main drivers, India believes the need to engage Iran in the aftermath of the Arab Spring is more acute.

For the past couple of years Iran has invited Singh to be the chief guest for the Navroze celebrations but Singh has refused. The fact that Singh intends to visit Iran now signals India's concerns about the future of the region, and the belief that Iran needs to be engaged more intensively. The confidence between the two has also increased after an oil payments crisis earlier this year which both countries resolved together.

The rapprochement bid has fuelled the perception of a growing divergence between India and the US. For, even as the Manmohan Singh government warms up to Iran, there is no let up in the tension between the US and the theocrats in Tehran.

This became dramatically evident on Thursday when Ahmadnejad stuck to his routine of provoking the US. The Iranian President accused the Americans of being slave masters and colonial masters, and for using the "mysterious" 9/11 attack to launch wars against Iran and Afghanistan.

The provocation was followed up by an interview where he said that the twin towers could not have been brought down just by jetliners, insinuating that explosives must have been detonated.

Talking to media, Indian foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai brushed aside a question on the contrast between India's new found warmth for Iran and the latter's hostile ties with the US. He said that Prime Minister Singh's talks with President Ahmadnejad's were focused on bilateral issues.

But the fact remains that India's position on the evolving situation in West Asia and North Africa tracks closer to that of Iran than US's. Also, India is looking for a closer partnership with Iran in Afghanistan. It sees Iran as a stabilizing factor in Afghanistan, just as in West Asia and the Persian Gulf. Mathai emphasized the convergence between the two countries that Afghans should be in control of their country as they prepare for diminution of US presence.

Sources in the government explain the perception of divergence between India and the US, but emphasize that it was only inevitable. "We are not allies; only partners". They also say that the perception of a growing divergence is because relations have not settled and because of the heightened expectations in Washington DC post-the civil nuclear energy deal.

[/quote]
Then tie in the fact that India is going faster with plans in chabahar. Its clear - India may be basing troops in the region quite soon.

Ahead of that, Lok Sabha Speaker [ Images ] Meera Kumar will visit Tehran.

On the issue of India's [ Images ] reconstruction role in Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad supported New Delhi's [ Images ] role and told Dr Singh that he felt that there is need for more regular exchanges on the situation in Kabul.

The two leaders agreed that the dispensation in Afghanistan should be Afghan-led.

Shia Iraq has the other Islamic holy sites: Kerbala and Najaf. If the competition is between Sunni and Shia then there is balance in KSA's sites and Iran controlled. However its not just that.

Also Iran as the rising Islamist power, not as a civilizational power then their current antagonism towards Israel is to win points among the ummah.

If it were the other way then they would be allied to Israel. This was in effect during the Shah's days where they had defacto alliance.

Pratyush wrote:

ramana wrote:You are right. When it comes into contact with non Western states.

ramana ji,

The failure, if any, is more function of an inability of the "non western" society to accept the supremacy of the state. Rather then a conceptual weakness of the Westphalian state it self.

In Europe, Christianity which was a guiding principle is on retreat and with it many of the institutions that were developed from or to counter it.
The nation state system was latched on after end of Colonialism and as a speedy measure without understanding the factors that made it successful in Europe.
Now we are seeing the system slowly dissolve at the edges and ideas of greater abroad, sphere of influence are making a come back.

Look at PRC and its near abroad and zone of influence.

Ramana ji,

A quick read on the westphalian state and the system supported suggests that the territorial integrity of a state must be respected while no external intervention be made in the domestic affairs of a nation state.

The concept of non intervention has gone out of the window since Kosovo and to a limited extent the Indian liberation of Bangladesh and the presence of IPKF in SL. Before some one jumps at me, I am a supporter of BD liberation and will support any such intervention which frees human beings from oppression. The Indian presence in SL to put simplistically (For the purpose of this thread only )was an attempt to reform the state of SL while respecting its territorial integrity. It failed due to a lack of good faith of the warring parties.

It seems, that, if a society accepts the supremacy of the nation state over it self & the nation state is inclusive and just. The cause of intervention in the internal affairs will eliminated.

The concept of sphere of influence and near abroad is a product of a societies non acceptance of the nation state due to the lack of development of the particular nation state it self. You look at the Khan land in the 18th and the 19 th century and the Brits intervened in its internal affairs. But as the state developed and became more equitable the cause for external intervention in its affairs diminished.

The same situation is applicable in the WANA region today (The circumstance are different). The state as existing is not equitable and just. If it can evolve and become more open and just, you will see that the society will accept the nation state and the preservation of the Westphalian state system at least in the WANA region. If the nations and societies in WANA are not able to reform themselves in an equitable system in a time bound manner then the westphalian state system will collapse and you will see the emergence of a virulent Islamic Khaliphet.


JMTs and standard disclaimers apply.

Guru's, what should India do about the ongoing unrest in Syria. It has reached the point of no return. Should India continue to maintain support for Assad or should we support the Syrian opposition? Russia has begun talking to the opposition due to its base being there. Or do we play a similar role to what we did with Libya - i.e. support to Gaddafi until he was deposed or do we have a proactive policy?

Offer asylum to both Assad and Qaddafi. After all onlee in these ME dictator cases - we can drop the financial/growth/investments arguments, and go for high-flying philosophical and ethical justifications. India is strongly against destabilization of all regimes -by external or internal means, unless they happen to be inside India and in provinces that appear to deny supreme deification to the dynasty.

shyamd wrote:Guru's, what should India do about the ongoing unrest in Syria. It has reached the point of no return. Should India continue to maintain support for Assad or should we support the Syrian opposition? Russia has begun talking to the opposition due to its base being there. Or do we play a similar role to what we did with Libya - i.e. support to Gaddafi until he was deposed or do we have a proactive policy?

We should have a face to face talk with Israel. We should encourage the Israelis to look for solutions on the lines of Iraq in Syria, that a very weak central government with strong regional regimes - Alawite & Christian Latakia + North Central Syria, Syrian Kurdistan in Northeast Syria, Arab Sunni Central & South Syria.

We should consult Israel how they feel about extending Alawites support to set up their own new region.

Fact of the matter is that a regime change in Syria means the Alawites would never again come to power in united Syria. Their only hope is to have regional dominance and autonomy, perhaps sovereignty if possible. India should fully support a defacto partition of Syria, all in the name of peace.

Now that India is again making common cause with Iran, perhaps this is something we can deliver to the Iranians - saving a part of the old regime supported by them, and try to get some concessions from them somewhere else.

Saudis may be made happy that the Shia crescent has been broken by installing a Sunni regime in Damascus, even if it does not rule over the whole Syria.

Except for the Turks, everybody else would be satisfied with the solution!

So

1. Talk to Israelis
2. Talk to Iranians
3. Talk to Saudis
4. Talk to Assad, Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Syrian Kurds
5. Get 'Thomas Christians' to talk to the Syrian Christians
6. Arrange a Conference in New Delhi, and invite all parties (except the Israelis)
7. Make all to sign on to an Agreement of a Loose Confederation of Syria, with defacto sovereignty to Alawites & Syrian Christians in North-West/North-Central; Kurdish defacto sovereignty in North-East; Sunni Arab sovereignty in Central and South Syria. They can have a single currency, etc. etc.. They can have a Council of Three at the Central Level. Some decisions should be made two of the three. Let them hold a referendum in 3 years, whether these Syrian parts want to go their separate.
8. Then get the Alawites + Christians, and the Kurds to retract their claims on the Golan Heights, and to sign Security and Defense Agreements with the Israelis.
9. Offer to send peace-keeping troops under UNO to man the Turkey and Syrian Kurd border.
10. Establish an Indian Embassy in Latakia and Al Hasakah (Kurdish Area)!

Let's not forget Turkey did not invite us to the Afghanistan Conference held in Turkey!

ShyamD, India has a simple test for far away nation states. Support whoever comes to power and has he support of the majority of the people. You will see this applied everywhere they had to take a stance.

Omani Air Force Commander Due in Tehran Next Week

TEHRAN (FNA)- Commander of Oman's Air Force Major General Yahya bin Rashed al-Jomeh is due to pay a visit to Tehran next Saturday to discuss bilateral ties and cooperation in meetings with senior Iranian military officials.

The Omani air force commander is due to confer with top Iranian military commanders to exchange views on ways of bolstering mutual cooperation and discuss other issues of mutual interest.

Iran's Ambassador to Masqat Hossein Noushabadi confirmed bin Rashed's visit to Tehran, and said the Omani major general is due to travel to Tehran next Saturday.

During the visit, bin Rashed is slated to attend meetings with Chief of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces Major General Seyed Hassan Firouzabadi, Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi and several other top commanders of the Iranian Army and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).

The Air Force commander is also due to visit certain military zones of Iran as well.

Over the last few years, Iran and Oman have expanded military ties and cooperation specially over security in the Persian Gulf.

Tehran and Masqat have expanded cooperation in a variety of areas such as economy and defense since Iran's President Ahmadinejad took office in 2005.

The two countries signed a security agreement in August 2009.

Later in August 2010, the two Persian Gulf states signed an agreement to further boost mutual cooperation in the field of defense.

In December, the Iranian parliament approved a bill that allows Tehran to implement an agreement on security cooperation and coordination with Oman.

^^^ Folks, any idea what the status is on this project proposal?

India considering deepwater gas pipeline from Oman: Report

Sep 20, 2010
DUBAI: India is actively considering building a 2,000-km-long deepwater transnational gas pipeline from Oman for transporting natural gas sourced from Turkmenistan, Iran and Qatar, a leading industry official has said.

As I said, even in such innocent issues as "right to return", the future is kept open for further politics - and statehood, is just a first step! By their own admission:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politi ... z1Yiw97e00

The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state, an issue that has been much discussed. “They are Palestinians, that’s their identity,” he says. “But … they are not automatically citizens.”

This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”

Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees.

Neither this definitional status nor U.N. statehood, Abdullah says, would affect the eventual return of refugees to Palestine. “How the issue of the right of return will be solved I don’t know, it’s too early [to say], but it is a sacred right that has to be dealt with and solved [with] the acceptance of all.” He says statehood “will never affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees.”

The right of return that Abdullah says is to be negotiated would not only apply to those Palestinians whose origins are within the 1967 borders of the state, he adds. “The state is the 1967 borders, but the refugees are not only from the 1967 borders. The refugees are from all over Palestine. When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”

Actually, keeping the refugees where they are - is a good bargaining chip - and it is meaningful only if the leaders of the proposed Palestinian state really look upon this as a first step of territorial expansion.

By all means, the Lebanese civil war should be re-encouraged. Hezbollah have been showing their Islamist fangs and their taqyia smile alternatively - but their real issue is with expelling the deviant people of the book, and bringing all land they survey under their particular banner of Islam. Hezbollah's role in Harrii elimination has been highlighted recently again - and then they have started their "accidental" explosions.

There was perhaps a bigger background pressure on the Maronites to get a more placable Rai as the patriarch, and send him off on a Sudais like trip to reassure "unity". But behind it all Lebanon is ripe for a side-show of revival of violence. The Islamists must be territorially restricted. If they want "Partitions" so much to carve out territory from the kaffir and lost people of the book, why not formally Partition Lebanon into a Muslim south and Christian north - rather than allow them to continue to slowly squeeze out the non-Muslim from the entire region?

ramana wrote:Philip, Westhpalian construct of nation state is failing here when it comes with non-Western states.

Could this be dawn of civilizational state model? PRC has modeled itself in principle on this model. Can India make that shift? Of course that also means consolidation of middle east under Persians and Byzantium.

^^^ Dear Atri ji, could you explain a little more? How is China ahead of India in defining itself as a civilization state? Just by its Confucian gestures in recent times? What exactly would civilization state mean in modern times? Would it simply be a refashioning on the lines of ancient imperiums? Thanks.

Atri wrote:

ramana wrote:Philip, Westhpalian construct of nation state is failing here when it comes with non-Western states.

Could this be dawn of civilizational state model? PRC has modeled itself in principle on this model. Can India make that shift? Of course that also means consolidation of middle east under Persians and Byzantium.

PRC has created an artificial model of this
It is also supported by US and west regarding this.

India has been partitioned and DIE are completely removed from the civilizational identity

Now they ask "what civilization?"

paramu wrote:

Atri wrote:Could this be dawn of civilizational state model? PRC has modeled itself in principle on this model. Can India make that shift? Of course that also means consolidation of middle east under Persians and Byzantium.

PRC has created an artificial model of this. It is also supported by US and west regarding this.

India has been partitioned and DIE are completely removed from the civilizational identity

Carl wrote:^^^ Dear Atri ji, could you explain a little more? How is China ahead of India in defining itself as a civilization state? Just by its Confucian gestures in recent times? What exactly would civilization state mean in modern times? Would it simply be a refashioning on the lines of ancient imperiums? Thanks.

Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya wrote:यवनों ने भिन्न-भिन्न जनपदों के आस्था के भेद को नहीं देखा था. आक्रान्ताओं ने सभी के साथ एक जैसा व्यवहार किया था. दुर्भाग्य ही था की सभी जनपदों ने मिलकर यवनों का सम्मिलित रूप से प्रतिकार नहीं किया. क्यों?? क्योंकि हममे राष्ट्रीय चरित्र का अभाव था. यदि सभी जनपदों ने राष्ट्र के रूप में संगठित होकर यवनों का प्रतिकार किया होता तो क्या यवनों के लिए इस धरा पर विजय पाना संभव था? यदि सिन्धु की रक्षा का दायित्व सभी जनपदों के लिया होता तो क्या यवनों को सिन्धु को पार कर पाना संभव था? पर कठ, मद्रक, क्षुद्रक और मालव गणराज्यों को ये विश्वास नहीं हो रहा था की उनके प्रदेशों की सीमाओं का द्वार भी तक्षशिला हैं.

जहाँ तक हमारी संस्कृति का विस्तार हैं, वहां तक हमारी सीमाए हैं. हिमालय से समुद्र पर्यंत ये संपूर्ण भूमि हमारी अपनी भूमि हैं, हमारा अपना राष्ट्र हैं. और इस राष्ट्र की रक्षा हम नहीं करेंगे तो इस राष्ट्र की रक्षा कौन करेगा. यदि हमने अबभी संगठित होकर राष्ट्र के रूप में अपना परिचय नहीं दिया तो आक्रान्ताओं का पुनरागमन हो सकता हैं और इतिहास की पुनरावृत्ति. यदि हम अबभी संगठित नहीं हुए तो आक्रान्ताओं का मार्ग प्रशस्त हैं. आवश्यकता हैं हमें एक छत्र के नीचे एकत्र होने की. ताकि ये राष्ट्र सुदृढ़ और सक्षम हो, शक्तिशाली हो, गौरवशाली हो, और हम अमृत के अमर्त्य पुत्र कह सकें की प्रशस्त पुण्य-पंथ हैं, बढे चलो बढे चलो..

translation: It should be noted that the invaders did not distinguish between us based on our subtle differences in political frameworks and local traditions and culture. They identified all of us as Indians and treated everybody of us who came in their way with equal brutality and suppression. It was the misfortune of ths land that all the kingdoms and states did not put forth an united front against invading macedonian army. Had we done so, would it be possible for them to invade India and cross Sindhu River? But Kath, Malav, Kshudrak, Madrak, Kekay were unable to grasp this common-sense that Taxila is door to thier kingdoms as well.

The boundaries of our Rashtra lie as far as the expanse of our Sanskriti. This entire land from Himalayas to Indian ocean is our own Rashtra, is the seat of our own Sanskriti. It is nobody's but our duty to protect the sovereignty of this land. If we do not unite now, invasions will be recurring and the history will be repititive. What is required primarily is to unite politically under one umbrella, thus facilitating the rise and revival of this glorious Rashtra.

China understood this long ago (much before advent of Mao). The rise of China in 1920's under nationalists showed this expansionist streak based on reclaiming the regions of once powerful Qing dynasty. Qings themselves drew inspiration from Mongols (Yuan), which continues to remain an important aspect of CPC narrative.

The model of nation-state is compromise of North-central European countries to position themselves better between Russia and Romance nations. This is modern day Germany, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and balkans. The only imperium from this region which actually threatened Romance nations and Russia simultaneously was Nazi Germany. The formation of European common market is and was antithetical to interests of Britain and Russia (distantly). Hence creation of disunited Europe is in interest of periphery. While the triangle between Germany-France-Italy has always given rise to periodic movements which aim at creation of European common market. The Westphalian construct allows a solution to the language and dialect based tribal affiliations and identities to be at peace with each other.

In country like India, the westphalian construct gives rise to local satraps who cannot expand territorially, so they do it financially and commercially. This inability of satraps to win new territories compels them to extract more resources from nature which results in deforestation mafia or corruption as in India. THey have to spend to remain popular.

The modelling of ottoman and persian empire on this model has fostered few problems for ME and few solutions too. It dispersed power of caliphate. India is already at the fail safe point. They have to declare their sanskritik identity and club it together with dharma and rashtra. In order to exist, in this model , India (as a westphalian nation state) has to expand or it will fall too. The very grim question of whether westphalian model of state does not work in India, this means there are other screens.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 61462.html

Power struggle deepens divisions among Bahraini royal family
Police suspended for torture reinstated as hardliners seek to marginalise their 'liberal' prince
By Patrick Cockburn

Senior Bahraini police officers suspended for torturing detainees are being swiftly reinstated in a sign of a growing struggle for power within the al-Khalifa royal family over the extent of the repression to be used against pro-democracy protesters.


In addition, 90 Jordanian officers, serving in the Bahraini police force and alleged to have mistreated prisoners, are having their contracts terminated and are being sent back to Jordan, opposition sources have told The Independent. They say it is not clear if this is to purge the security forces of the worst offenders or to get rid of witnesses to the wholesale use of torture when the government crushed the Arab Awakening movement in Bahrain in March.

Increasing divisions within the Sunni royal family are becoming more blatant as statements by King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa aimed at conciliating the majority Shia community are not followed up by action. Though he told state and private companies to reinstate the 2,500 employees sacked for taking part in pro-democracy protests, many have been unable to get their old jobs back.

The government's actions are also contradictory. Earlier this month it suspended several senior police officers, some of them members of the al-Khalifa ruling family, after they were accused of being implicated in torturing prisoners. One officer held an important position at Riffa police station, notorious for the use of torture, and another was a section chief of the CID. Demonstrations by Sunni in Riffa in favour of the suspended officers were followed by the immediate reinstatement of at least one of the men.

The hardliners in the royal family are led by the army commander, Khalifa bin Ahmed, and his brother, the Royal Court Minister, Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed. They were once at odds with the Prime Minister, Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman, who has held his job for 40 years since the British left in 1971, but they closed ranks when the Arab Awakening started in February in Bahrain, sparked by pro-democracy uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

The ruling family – from liberal voice to hardline colonel

Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa

Seen as the most liberal member of the Khalifa family, the Crown Prince had sought an agreement with opposition parties before protests began. Now, increasingly marginalised by hardliners in the royal family, he has lost much of his authority.

King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa

Conciliatory moves from the king aimed at the majority Shia community have not been followed up by action. Despite ordering state companies to reinstate employees sacked for taking part in protests, many have not yet been able to get their jobs back.

Colonel Sheikh Khalifa bin Ahmed al-Khalifa

As the leading hardliner within the royal family, the army commander has benefited from the support of Saudi Arabia, which sent a military force to help crush protests in March. He has seen his influence grow as the crackdown continues. Richard Hall

Atri, thanks for that Chandragupta Maurya/Chanakya quote. Can you please identify the source?

JE Menon wrote:Atri, thanks for that Chandragupta Maurya/Chanakya quote. Can you please identify the source?

Its fictional.. from Chanakya TV series. But in line with what I wanted to suggest in response to Ramana ji's hint at failure of westphalian concept of nation state in non-European regions.

Thanks. A great quote nevertheless.

Atri wrote:जहाँ तक हमारी संस्कृति का विस्तार हैं, वहां तक हमारी सीमाए हैं.

The boundaries of our Rashtra lie as far as the expanse of our Sanskriti.

India is already at the fail safe point. They have to declare their sanskritik identity and club it together with dharma and rashtra. In order to exist, in this model , India (as a westphalian nation state) has to expand or it will fall too. The very grim question of whether westphalian model of state does not work in India, this means there are other screens.

Dear Atri ji, thank you. Is the necessary "expansion" primarily in terms of political suzerainty, or primarily Sanskritic? If the boundaries of the Rashtra are defined by the expanse of the Sanskriti, then how we choose to define our Sanskriti (culture, philosophy and laws of living) will determine what our boundaries are today.

Admittedly, sections of Bharat are compromised in terms of Sanskriti, and are therefore not available as resources in terms of our political economy. In order to draw those regions back into our field, would the strategic steps be in any particular order of (a) political power projection, (b) constitutional philosophy and civil law & order, (c) economic policy and investment power, and (d) culture/religion?

Historically, China has enjoyed a legacy of political continuity (enduring even through violent external takeovers), but they have seen drastic cultural shifts involving book burning and re-imaging. Somewhat in contrast, India has cultural continuity (enduring through violent external cultural aggression), but politically has gone through scatter-gather cycles.

China's recognition of its civilizational frontiers and usurpation of geographical buffer zones, etc is an understanding of the concept along the lines of the political economy factor and its significance. But what about culture and cosntitutional law and philosophy? They themselves have supposedly had a "cultural revolution", so what impact does that have on civilizational continuity?

What will be the differences and similarities, advantages and disadvantages in how China and India further the civilizational model of development of their core nation states?

JE Menon ji and Carl ji,

Rashtra is not just territory. Please go through this link.

India - A Civilizational state

In different places and times, different factors make peole come together as a rashtra. In europe that factor has been language since westphalia treaty times (broadly speaking). In China, that factor is race. In India, that factor has been dharma or sanskriti. In TSP, that factor was religion (of course that stands defeated now, but that is what was envisioned). The role of common sanskriti springing from dharmik traditions is the single biggest factor keeping India together. All regions where Indics are less than 50% in population are trouble spots. The dharmik states like nepal, bhutan, myanmay, sri lanka were not antithetical to concept of India (LTTE and Nepali Maoists are minor nuisance. If India declares itself as protector and upholder of "Dharma", I wonder how many nepali people or buddhists from SL, Myanmar etc will remain untouched).

Unlike westphalian states with unchanging boundaries where we require passport and visa regime, sanskritik state model does not require such considerations. Of course there were other methods in place in this model to avoid "contamination" of native life style (one of the measures being caste system). As an Indian who has roots in Indic sanskriti and way of life and trying hard to remove the deracination in my mind, I wonder why isn't Europe one country, for example. If India can exist as a nation-state, so can Europe. then I remember the differences.

A Maharashtrian guy will not complain about wealth generated by MH used up on regions like J&K, UP, Bihar, and other BIMARU states. Yes there are fringes who yell (RT et al) but they do not have issues with center using revenue generated in MH in BIMARU. Their concerns are more local (no jobs for locals and hence hate the migrants). RT (he is the extreme example in everyone's mind who shows such signs of extreme parochialism) does not oppose using the funds to develop BIMARU regions. This is starkly in contrast with Europeans. Take a German, or a Dane or a french for example. He is really pissed at Greeks, Spanish, Italians, Irish, Portuguese etc. While he is right that money he creates is used up for nincompoops of Mediterranean region, he not ready to allow it happen for larger good. IN exchange they want to control the policies of the PIGS region, which further pisses off the PIGS. A CM of MH won't expect that BIMARU frame their policies favorable to MH in response.

Why such behavior? because the glue of sanskriti is present in India and INdians know and cherish that glue. WHile this glue is present in Europe as well, they do not want to cherish or use it. Hence in current format, EU cannot exist as one rashtra, in spite of sanskritik unity. The local satraps in modern times cannot expand beyond the boundaries of westphalian state they are part of, this puts tremendous pressure on the frame of westphalian rashtra.

e.g. The forces which control or are part of kabul-karachi-mumbai-hyd-vizag-ASEAN drug trade route have been in this for centuries. Even after 65 years of partition the separation isn't complete. Yet, India tries to act as westphalian nation-state. But a nation-state modeled on this system should have taken all the measures to stop this trade route, which would have drastically reduced the terror incidents. For large part of history, we did not accept the partition. that gave pakis a taqleef in mushy. Now the younger generation is slowly breaking off from partition. the youngistanis who support aman ki asha are silent over prospects of having pakis amongst us in form of unified India. The fact that India and Hindus are slowly accepting partition in their minds and severing all emotional ties with Pakjab, is what is making pakis go suicidal, because this connection was nourishing their raison d'être.

But how does it fare to a complex system as that of India? IN this process, GOI is slowly becoming an "exchange" (akin to a grain exchange or a stock exchange). Various lobbies control their respective ministries instead fo vice-versa. (no matter who is in power, Mukesh Ambani controls petroleum ministry, for example).The cumulative effect of these lobbies shape the GOI policies (remember infy and reliance guys forcing ABV during Op Parakram. yes, there were other factors too, isn't this the sign of failing rashtriya machinery?) Contrast this with china. they seem to have declared that they will take back all those regions under their influence which they think are "china". And what is the motivation to do that? where to do turn to seek justification? history, of course. PRC is nation of hans, by hans, for hans.

What is India's reason of existence? I have asked this question time and again. GOI will have to come clean on this one and it better be a right answer. India is for Indians is a vague answer which none will believe given the recent behavior of politicians and babus. The typical answer found in preamble will not ease the situation as it is not consistent with actions of GOI ever since that preamble was written down. If they answer, India is rashtra of hindus, they have to define what hinduism is. Thus, even the opposition (the hindutva-vaadis of VHP and RSS and Bajrangis) are too part of same fallacy. They are identifying Rashtra with something which they cannot comprehend of define. When asked, the sarasanghachaalak says," what is need to define a Hindu?". It is needed as that is what they are asking for, to be declared India as "Hindu rashtra". Thus, in my humble opinion, the "genuine secularist" side and the "H" side are seen as two sides of same coin. (Genuine secularist is one who is not working on pay-role of Islamists, EJs and/or Communists. others are sickularists). We are slowly becoming a westphalian rashtra, but doing that will widen the fissures amongst us as well. those fissures may or may not be linguistic, but may be urban-rural for example.

Westphalian state require enormous centralization of power. Is this really necessary in the gram-swarajya vision of MKG? If India exists for welfare of Indians, how does centralization of power and economy help welfare of such vast and diverse set of people? It will be more efficient if government is decentralized and district size states are created. smaller the states, easier and more coherent is the administration. But this also gives rise to parochialism. These same questions are posed to Indian army as well. What is doctrine of Indian army? What is it that they are protecting? and against whom? Given the refusal of IA to fight against maoists and satyagrahis, show that this serious thought is being given by the army brass.

We find from this article that people usually have tough time in rising over their "jaati connections". The Indic scriptures give a model which might work for India, but has it been tested and do we have data? don't know. I had written a post few days ago on another forum which I deleted because I thought public there wasn't ready. BRF is I think, although I am not sure whether this is right thread. I will disseminate that idea here anyways, let the mods decide what to do with it and where to place it.

the discussion was on NM and I predicted that NM, if he manages to remain non-compromised, would be India's Sambhaji in modern times. I wish he does not have to suffer Sambhaji's death. India today is like MH in 1680 on the verge of Aurangzeb's invasion. Whatever they had fought for was to be severely tested. Dharma was what came out on the other side after 27 year ordeal. The values and mindset of Marathas under shivaji were different from those who emerged the other side. The values of Shivaji died along with the murder of his son. Along with him died all those who were in their mind loyal to Shivaji's vision of Hindavi swarajya. Those who emerged on the other end was a strange mixture of offense and compromise (ideologically speaking not tactically). No matter how good or bad they were, they were the one's who survived and impregnated the future of India. The H-vaadis who will emerge on the other side of that coming ordeal will be much different from the current crop of H-vaadis who are more reactionary. What their nature will be, I cannot comprehend. But if they are to survive, they will define India in much different manner than what GOI and Indian army are used to.

^
Good post Atriji. I think that RT example is incorrect.

The difference between RT and a common MH is that RTs focus too much on nation where as MH focuses too much on State. In India 85% of nation and state are the same. The differences are where nation and state are different. Some places nation exists where as in another places one sees only Rashtra.

Did RT (or his ilk) ever complain when the wealth of MH is spent to develop BIMARU states? I do not think so. His PoV questions when Rashtra spends that money on the anti-national (in his PoV) forces, causes and projects. This is same as a common MH or Telugu complaining when Rashtra spends $B on Pakistan or EU's problems.

This is related to Af-Pak. Is the green light back to open the second front?

India back again to woo Iran

Anupama Airy and Jayanth Jacob, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, September 27, 2011
Email to Author

Driven by energy, India is going all out to win Iran as the relationship between the two countries were muddied after New Delhi voted thrice against Tehran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the UN security council. A reset
that can irk Washington but signals New Delhi’s changing foreign policy imperative, Indian diplomacy is working hard to protect its oil and gas interests in Iran — one of the largest producer of gas and second-largest supplier of crude oil to India after China.

Worried over losing two gas-rich blocks in Iran — Farsi and South Pars 12, where ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) has equity stakes —New Delhi as part of its diplomatic efforts has asked the petroleum ministry to send “a team from OVL to visit Iran for talks and keep them engaged, so that there is no risk of Farsi block being cancelled or diverted”.

“In the past, they (Iranian authorities) have threatened cancellation of the block in case delay continues indefinitely,” according to a note for internal circulation of the petroleum ministry, a copy of which is with HT.

“Iran cancelled LNG deal with India after one such vote,” the note said, adding, “the challenge of the Indian diplomacy is to isolate adverse fallout of Indian vote against Iran in the IAEA/UN on Indian interest in having access to Afghanistan and Iranian crude.”

The two gas blocks in Tehran hold thrice as much the gas reserves as India’s largest gas field, the KG-D6 field of Reliance Industries Ltd. Also riding high on the changed scenario is a set of geopolitical factors — from Afghanistan to Pakistan on issues ranging from trade and transit to central Asia and beyond.

“Fresh efforts are on to see that India’s interests in the two massive gas blocks in Iran—the Farsi and South Pars 12 — are kept protected and that the blocks do not face any cancellation,” a ministry of external affairs official said.

“Iran is a factor of stability in the region,” the official said. “Iran does have a big role in our energy security plans.”

India imports 18 million tonnes of crude oil per annum from Iran and according to petroleum ministry, there is no alternate source which can supply such large volume of crude oil given the tight position in world market.

The South Pars Phase 12 block also has huge reserves and OVL has been offered a 40% stake in this block. OVL has been joined by Hindujas for the exploitation of this block, although their respective shares remain to be worked out.

Saleh shows up on surprise return, but things only get worse:
Saleh’s return deepens crisis in Yemen

The Greek literature does point to the size of India - several times the measurements were guesses; the writers got the Southern most point wrong or misplaced it somewhere else. Ignoring their wrong numbers, they did consider, the land mass what we now call as the sub-continent as India.

abhishek_sharma wrote:Mearsheimer responds to Goldberg's latest smear

This drama continues.

>>Rashtra is not just territory.

No dispute there. I have always felt so, and I think Jaswant Singh is the one who eloquently referred to it as the landscape of the mind as well, or something like that.

Iran tries to debunk Turkey's anti-Israel posturing:
Iran accuses Turkey on Israel policy

TEHRAN / NationalTurk- “Turkey’s gestures and stance against Israel are merely a facade, it has only political and strategical purposes and the Turks have maintained their relations with Israeli government behind the scene,” Major Safavi stated.

[...]

But despite these seemingly anti-Israeli policy by Ankara, analysts and officials of several regional states, including Iran and Syria, blast Turkey for its acceptance of a NATO missile shield which has been designed to more save the Israeli regime.

[...]

“The contradictory behavior of Turkey is not acceptable to the regional countries,” Vice-Chairman of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Esmae’il Kosari told FNA in mid September. Kosari declared Turkey implements a double-standard policy, and stressed that Ankara government led by PM Erdogan lost the reputation and prestige that it had gained through its recent positions in support of the Muslim countries, while the turkish leader assumes his influence and status in the Arab world has been solidified.

Things to come.
SOBHANI: Roots of a statehood stalemate
Unholy alliance between Arafat and Khomeini has blocked progress
7 Comments and 8 Reactions|ShareTweet|Email|Print|

By S. Rob Sobhani

When the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 planted a celebratory kiss on the lips of Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the act sealed the destiny of three peoples: Jews, Iranians and Palestinians.

For Iran’s Jewish community, it meant the beginning of executions and the escape of thousands of Iranian Jews from their homeland. For Israel, it meant the start of a campaign of terror by the new clerical regime in Tehran, both directly and through its proxies such as Hezbollah and, later, Hamas. The irony is that Iran’s secular rulers - from Cyrus the Great, who freed the Jews from their Babylonian captivity, to the late Shah of Iran, who believed firmly in a strategic relationship with the Jewish state - have always held a special regard for Jews and the nation of Israel. Sadly for the state of Israel, Khomeini’s kiss turned out to be a kiss of death, literally, creating a campaign of terror against Jews inside and outside of Israel.

For the Iranian people, the kiss between an avowed terrorist and an anti-modern cleric sealed the fate of a nation whose history goes back 2,500 years. First, Khomeini used Arafat’s thugs and terrorists to execute every remnant of the shah’s regime, including its once-powerful army, weakening Iranian defenses to such a degree that in September 1980, Saddam Hussein boldly attacked Iran. Over the past 32 years, the people of Iran have been hostages to a clerical regime that pays more attention, both financially and otherwise, to the Palestinian cause than to its own talented and creative people. According to a recent article in the HarvardInternationalReview, if the anti-Western, anti-Israel revolution had not happened in Iran, this energy-rich country would be the world’s fifth-largest economy and a member of the Group of Seven.

The Palestinian people were also victims of the kiss between Arafat and Khomeini. For the past 32 years, Palestinians have hitched their quest for statehood to a terrorist, Arafat, and then to his successors, who hijacked any legitimacy the Palestinian cause might have had. The alliance between the regime in Tehran and the PLO decoupled any and all moral authority for Palestinian leaders in their long quest for a state. It is notable that throughout the Arab world, Palestinians occupy positions worthy of any advanced nation. They serve as doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers and scientists in their host countries. What a pity that this creative people has been robbed of its right to a homeland, not by Israeli occupation, but by its own leaders’ mistakes, corruption and lack of vision.

The solution to a Palestinian state - one that has been supported by American Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama - must begin with decoupling Iran’s theocratic regime from its proxies in Palestinian territories. Israel cannot live in peace next to a Palestinian state as long as the clerical regime pursues a nuclear weapons program, calls for the destruction of Israel, funds terrorist organizations such as Hamas and violates the basic freedoms of its own people on a daily basis.

The road map to a Palestinian state is simple. First, Washington must unequivocally support the aspirations of the Iranian people for a new beginning free of the clerics who have robbed them of life, liberty and economic prosperity. A democratic Iran at peace with Israel is a fundamental prerequisite for the creation of a Palestinian state. Second, a blueprint for rebuilding a new Palestinian state must be adopted. This can be done by the participation of Palestinian professionals from all subspecialties. For example, roads can be built, its water can be treated, tourism can be established and, finally, the Gaza Strip, which abuts the blue waters of the Mediterranean, can be turned into a Singapore or “Dubai by the Med.” Third, a financial aid package from the rich Arab countries of the Persian Gulf is essential. This Marshall Plan for Palestine can be led by Saudi Arabia.

The strategic partnership that developed between the ayatollahs in Iran and Palestinian terrorists after the symbolic kiss between Khomeini and Arafat changed the landscape of the Middle East in our time. Today, the United States faces two options: Either we allow the status quo to continue and support the creation of a Palestinian state without any preconditions, thus jeopardizing the security of Israel, or we reach a grand bargain with all three peoples that would give Israel the security it requires. This grand bargain would involve offering moral support to the Iranian people, empowering them to remove the clerics who are choking opportunity for their own people and for the region. In the process, a two-state solution would be possible - the creation of a Palestinian state focused on good governance for its talented people and economic growth for its citizens.

S. Rob Sobhani is chairman of Caspian Group Holdings and author of “The Pragmatic Entente: Israeli-Iranian Relations” (Praeger Publishers, 1989).

Rob Sobhani is a very well connected individual and has meetings with heads of states in the GCC

WSJ

Libyans Loot Weapons From Desert Cache


By SAM DAGHER

SIRTE DESERT, Libya—Spread across the desert here off the Sirte-Waddan road sits one of the biggest threats to Western hopes for Libya: a massive, unguarded weapons depot that is being pillaged daily by anti-Gadhafi military units, hired work crews and any enterprising individual who has the right vehicle and chooses to make the trip.


In one of dozens of warehouses the size of a single-family home, Soviet-era guided missiles remain wrapped inside crates stacked to the 15-foot ceiling. In another, dusted with sand, are dozens of sealed cases labeled "warhead." Artillery rounds designed to carry chemical weapons are stashed in the back of another. Rockets, antitank grenades and projectiles of all calibers are piled so high they defy counting.

There are dozens of warehouses here, spreading for several miles across the desert 100 miles south of Sirte, in what Libya's interim rulers say is the largest known ammunition storage site in the country.

Convoys of armed groups from all over Libya have made the trek here and piled looted weapons into trailer trucks, dump trucks, buses and even empty meat trucks.

The site represents a major hazard for Libya's security and for hopes for reconstruction and democratization of the country in the post-Gadhafi era.

Boxes of weapons from a Gadhafi military arsenal, which included Soviet-era guided missiles and antitank grenades, are shown unguarded in Libya's Sirte Desert in photographs taken this week by The Wall Street Journal.

Across Libya, stores of weapons left behind by Col. Gadhafi's massive military are up for grabs by various former-rebel groups with disagreements that threaten to spill into factional fighting. Many of the region-based armed groups have competing agendas and are only loosely tied to interim authorities in Tripoli—and jostling for power is already under way.

The threat of such a volatile mix is compounded by the absence of a real army or police force capable of reining in the militia-like groups.

In addition, U.S. officials and defense experts have expressed concern that some of the estimated 20,000 man-portable surface-to-air missiles left behind by Col. Gadhafi's military could fall into the hands of terrorists, posing a threat to commercial airliners.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Tuesday that the U.S. is sending personnel to Libya to help the country's interim authority, the National Transitional Council, secure conventional-arms storage sites.

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), during a visit on Thursday to Tripoli with three other Republican senators, said securing Libya's weapons caches was "a very big topic."

"We have a game plan to secure the weapon caches, particularly biological and chemical weapons," Sen. McCain said, without giving more details.

Weeks after the fall of Col. Gadhafi, the longtime Libya leader remains at large and diverse military factions, with the help of aerial bombardment by North Atlantic Treaty Organization jets, are trying to seize the last loyalist redoubts, such as Sirte, so the NTC can say its victory is complete.

The NTC has also yet to secure at least two border crossings, according to Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the governing body's executive committee.


Several armed groups have been raiding the pile daily, including two anti-Gadhafi fighters, above, who loaded missiles into the back of a pickup truck Wednesday.

An end to the fighting would allow the NTC to begin the reconstruction of the country, which was a major oil exporter before the uprising that brought down Col. Gadhafi began more than seven months ago.

Officials from the city and military councils in Misrata, which report to the NTC, played down the danger of proliferation from leftover depots and expressed confidence that arms would be eventually handed over to a new national army, once one is formed.

"The rebels know how to handle it," said Mohammed Abdel-Kafi, a member of both councils. "No problem, God willing."

But weapons are already proliferating from this desert site off the al Ruwagha road, which connects the coastal city of Sirte to Waddan, some 400 miles southeast of Tripoli.

When the NTC announced the "liberation" of the region south of Sirte last week, it added that "one of the largest arms depots" was situated in the area.

Misrata-based forces loyal to the NTC also said at the time that they had secured a chemical weapons facility in al Ruwagha. They said they would guard it until the arrival of United Nations experts.

On a visit to the site his week by The Wall Street Journal, no guard or security of any sort was visible. Ammunition cases, numbering in the thousands, lay spread for miles on the desert floor outside the warehouses.

A Western security contractor who examined photographs of the storage site estimated it contained enough ammunition to enable "an insurgent or an al Qaeda-type group to wage a ground-to-air war" and sufficient explosives to plant roadside bombs every 10 miles along Libya's 1,100-mile coastline.
—Muneef Halawa in Tripoli contributed to this article.

With Israel getting large doses of German aid for its German built Dolphin subs,which are alleged to carry elements of Israel's N-assets,and wanting more subns and aid,Bibi's snub to his friends over settlements appears to be an own goal in the match with the Palestinians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 64720.html

Merkel reads Netanyahu the riot act over settlement plan
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem

Merkel reads Netanyahu the riot act over settlement plan
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Monday, 3 October 2011

Angela Merkel made Benjamin Netanyahu quite clear of her feelings in a personal telephone call

Israel has infuriated its most reliable West European ally, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, by announcing expansion of a Jewish settlement in Jerusalem in defiance of a US-backed warning to both parties in the Middle East conflict to avoid "provocative actions".

Ms Merkel's anger, expressed in unequivocal terms in a personal telephone call to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was all the greater because of the prodigious efforts she had made on Israel's behalf to thwart the Palestinians' UN recognition bid and persuade Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, to re-enter direct negotiations.

Israel yesterday formally accepted – albeit with "some concerns" – the statement by the international Quartet of the US, EU, Russia and the UN calling on both sides to hold direct talks. But the decision to build around 1,000 new homes in the Gilo settlement came as the Palestinian leadership was still deliberating on whether to do so. In the event, the Palestinians have stuck to their line that while there were encouraging elements in the Quartet's statement, they will not agree to return to negotiations without a settlement freeze. Mr Abbas's spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa yesterday that "returning to negotiations requires the commitment of Israel to halt settlement activities and to recognise the 1967 borders without any equivocation".

While that might have been the Palestinian position without the Gilo announcement, the expansion plan – condemned by the US and the EU – was widely seen by Western diplomats as a singularly ill-timed provocation, given the already extreme difficulty of persuading Palestinian leaders that talks with Mr Netanyahu would make any progress.

Ms Merkel was said by her spokesman Steffen Seibert, after her telephone call on Friday to Mr Netanyahu, to have had "absolutely no understanding" of how the expansion plan was allowed to go ahead. Mr Netanyahu had told the Jerusalem Post ahead of the Interior Ministry decision that he had no intention of intervening in it. An unnamed Israeli official was quoted in Haaretz yesterday as suggesting that a consequence of the row might be that Germany would change its mind and decide to support the proposal of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to upgrade the Palestinians' UN status to that of "a non-member state".

One option remains for the Palestinians to seek such status through the UN General Assembly if it fails to command the required nine state majority at the UN Security Council for full membership.

While the Quartet statement did not call for a settlement freeze, it did reaffirm the 2003 internationally agreed Road Map which called for a complete halt to settlement building and also referred to the Arab Peace Initiative, which specified that a Palestinian state should be based on 1967 borders.

Mr Netanyahu was said to have maintained to Ms Merkel that Gilo was an integral Jerusalem "neighbourhood" and that both sides had accepted in all previous negotiations that Gilo would fall within Israel if an agreement was reached. Most of the international community, including Britain, regards Gilo as built on territory occupied and then illegally annexed by Israel after 1967 and holds that fresh settlement building pre-empts future negotiations on a Palestinian state, which should have East Jerusalem as its capital.

Meanwhile, the hardline nationalist Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, repeated Mr Netanyahu's line to reporters on a tour of Gilo yesterday, but also added that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and cannot and will not be divided. [Gilo] is part and parcel of Jerusalem now and forever."

He added: "We have the highest appreciation and admiration for Angela Merkel. Germany has been among the best friends of Israel. But it is important for people to come here and see for themselves."

X-posting from Kurdistan thread:

First: PJAK "Surrenders" to Iran

Then, from a somewhat pro-Iranian Kurdish cause source:
Arab spring – Kurdish Autumn; Why southeastern Turkey might be next?

After Turkish military jets bombed the Qandil Mountains in Iraqi Kurdistan on the night of August 17 and the days followed intermittently continued, the long-standing Kurdish question in Turkey once more raises. Turkish military bombard has started after PKK’s attacks that killed about 40 Turkish soldiers. Yet, the horizon of Kurdish question is murky for many Kurds.

When Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to power in 2002, he promised to solve the Kurdish question; while previous governments were unable to even mention there is such a problem. This valor gave millions of Kurds impulse of hope; thereby Kurds mostly voted for Erdogan’s AKP. However, Erdogan’s promise apparently has become faint.

The AKP started a so-called “democratization process,” which mainly was an opening process toward Kurds through raising democratic standards. During the AKP era some steps have been taken; yet many more steps should follow for a radical solution of the decades-long Kurdish issue. However, when some bigoted nationalists tried to provoke the process, Erdogan pushed to halt the process.

Ironically, during last elections campaign Erdogan denied Kurdish question; he said “there is no such a problem”. This hesitation gradually deteriorated the ties in between AKP and many Kurds.

The new round of violence between Turkish state and PKK won’t change anything except more casualties.

According to some evidences PKK has used as a card by neighboring countries. Last attacks of PKK, before Turkish bombard starts, believe to be done under Syrian order. PKK ties withSyriahave a long history, but lately, it has worsened because of Syrian improved ties withTurkey; now it restored. In the last five months Abdullah Ocalan twice sent messages to Bashar Alasad, but the content of the messages remained unclear. Furthermore, last month, a group of Kurdish journalists visited Murat Karayilan, PKK’s top leader, he clearly told them, he doesn’t hope Asad’s regime to be toppled. Moreover, Kurdish weak participation in the protests against Al-Asad is mainly because of PKK; instead they are protesting to demand Erdogan’s removal. That’s why there are no attacks against protesters in the Kurdish areas. Paradoxically, Kurds inSyriasuffered the most by both Asad’s brutality.

Meanwhile, Jamil Bayik, one of the main figures of PKK secretly visited Iran, and he saw many high ranked officials, while Iran was bombing the borders with Iraqi Kurdistan. According to some sources close to PKK, Bayik leading a group called “Ankara group”, with both Mustafa Karaso and Duran Kalkan, two high figures inside PKK. This group has dubious contacts with both Iran and a group inside Turkeythat has links with Ergenekon a clandestine, Kemalist ultra-nationalist organization.

PKK’s suspicious links with some steps that are against peaceful solution raises questions about how serious is PKK regarding a solution for Kurdish question.

Recently, close sources from Kurdistan regional government (KRG) told me there are advanced negotiations between KRG and Turkish government to push PKK out of Iraqi Kurdistan borders, because PKK existence has made Turkish bombard legitimate. KRG might askTurkeyto solve Kurdish question without PKK, then probably PKK would be removed like Tigers of Tamil.

Some more thoughts to consider in evaluating ME:
Iran, Turkey allies but Iran dominates

“Nothing can be changed in the Near East without Iran, and believe me that the intelligence bodies of Iran work more productively than that of any other country in our region, in the Near East and in some European countries, etc.,” Sergey Shakaryants said today.

He mentioned that Turkey and Israel now are busy with tactical and political maneuvers as these two countries stage a performance for the Muslim world.

“Turkey and Israel are still allies,” S. Shakaryants mentioned.

Iran is not Turkey he says: Iran can use any Turk for its own interests and throw him away.

S. Shakaryants has noticed that the Turks and Jews have fear as the demographic conditions change, the Shiite community grows in any Arab country, strengthens and gets the support of Iran.

He mentioned that the Allowies of Syria have no other allies in the region except Iran that’s why they expect to get support in Tehran, and Iran supports them with pleasure.

S. Shakaryants stressed that Iran is used to reach its goals by the hands of the peoples that surround it. {Donation of $100 million to Pak and some more to Somalia recently}

He also said that Iran can use also a part of Azerbaijan, and they will do that when some part of Azerbaijan will start expressing Tehran’s opinion.

S. Shakaryants added that Iran now has several priorities, which are: the Arabic world, Afghanistan, Caucasus and Kurdistan as a policy of pressing on Turkey {RajeshA ji and others, please note} and another important country which is the USA.

Carl ji,

thanks for pointing out with Iran and Kurdistan!