Iran News and Discussions
-
Karan Dixit
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
U.S. patrol craft fires flare over Iranian boat
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast ... index.html
-
Karan Dixit
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
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
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
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3532
- Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37
First, it is factual.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
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
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
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
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 notRye 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
-
Karan Dixit
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
"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
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080422/wl ... 0422172430
-
Karan Dixit
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
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.
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.
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.
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
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
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 spokesperson’s advice to India to impress upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his visit to Delhi, that he desist from going ahead with Iran’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 Iran’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 Hussein’s Iraq. Saddam’s aggression was supported by the United States and many Arab countries. The Muslim Ummah, the world over, did not condemn Saddam’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 ’90s about Khan’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 Khan’s proliferation. India would have made a laughing stock of itself if it had ignored Khan’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 India’s policy on Iran’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 Khan’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
- BRFite
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
- Location: Calcutta
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
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/s ... 8089.story
The truth about Tehran: KS
Its history of nuclear proliferation brings up a few skeletons in America’s closet too .
The American spokesperson’s advice to India to impress upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his visit to Delhi, that he desist from going ahead with Iran’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 Iran’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 Hussein’s Iraq. Saddam’s aggression was supported by the United States and many Arab countries. The Muslim Ummah, the world over, did not condemn Saddam’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 ’90s about Khan’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 Khan’s proliferation. India would have made a laughing stock of itself if it had ignored Khan’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 India’s policy on Iran’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 Khan’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?
Iran Prez arrives tomorrow; IPI, LNG likely to figure
Iran Prez arrives tomorrow; IPI, LNG likely to figure
Apr 28 2008, New Delhi
In the first visit by Iranian Head of State to India in five years, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be here tomorrow during which the two sides will review the progress on trilateral gas pipeline and bilateral Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project. Issues surrounding Iran's controversial nuclear programme are also expected to figure prominently when Ahmadinejad holds talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the brief four-hour visit.
This will be the second meeting between Singh and Ahmadinejad in nearly two years as the two leaders had last met in September 2006 in Havana on the sidelines of NAM Summit. Ahmadinejad, the first Iranian President to visit India after January 2003 when Mohammad Khatami was the Chief Guest for Republic Day, will also meet President Pratibha Patil.
Notwithstanding the brief trip, the Indian government is keen to make a success of the visit during which the top leaders of the two countries will review the bilateral ties. Singh and Ahmadinejad are expected to review progress on ambitious Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline which has failed to take-off because of differences over cost factors.
The project was mainly stuck because of differences between India and Pakistan on the transit fee. Some progress was reported on the project last week during talks in Islamabad.
The 22 billion dollar LNG deal, which was signed during Khatami's visit, is also likely to come up, with the Indian side expected to press Iran to honour the agreement. The deal also could not be implemented so far because of differences on the cost of gas.
Apr 28 2008, New Delhi
In the first visit by Iranian Head of State to India in five years, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be here tomorrow during which the two sides will review the progress on trilateral gas pipeline and bilateral Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project. Issues surrounding Iran's controversial nuclear programme are also expected to figure prominently when Ahmadinejad holds talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the brief four-hour visit.
This will be the second meeting between Singh and Ahmadinejad in nearly two years as the two leaders had last met in September 2006 in Havana on the sidelines of NAM Summit. Ahmadinejad, the first Iranian President to visit India after January 2003 when Mohammad Khatami was the Chief Guest for Republic Day, will also meet President Pratibha Patil.
Notwithstanding the brief trip, the Indian government is keen to make a success of the visit during which the top leaders of the two countries will review the bilateral ties. Singh and Ahmadinejad are expected to review progress on ambitious Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline which has failed to take-off because of differences over cost factors.
The project was mainly stuck because of differences between India and Pakistan on the transit fee. Some progress was reported on the project last week during talks in Islamabad.
The 22 billion dollar LNG deal, which was signed during Khatami's visit, is also likely to come up, with the Indian side expected to press Iran to honour the agreement. The deal also could not be implemented so far because of differences on the cost of gas.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/302376.html
THE INDIAN EXPRESS
The truth about Tehran
K. Subrahmanyam
Posted online: Monday, April 28, 2008 at 2318 hrs
Its history of nuclear proliferation brings up a few skeletons in America’s closet too
The American spokesperson’s advice to India to impress upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his visit to Delhi, that he desist from going ahead with Iran’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 Iran’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 Hussein’s Iraq. Saddam’s aggression was supported by the United States and many Arab countries. The Muslim Ummah, the world over, did not condemn Saddam’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 ’90s about Khan’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 Khan’s proliferation. India would have made a laughing stock of itself if it had ignored Khan’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 India’s policy on Iran’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 Khan’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?
The writer is a senior defence analyst
[email protected]
THE INDIAN EXPRESS
The truth about Tehran
K. Subrahmanyam
Posted online: Monday, April 28, 2008 at 2318 hrs
Its history of nuclear proliferation brings up a few skeletons in America’s closet too
The American spokesperson’s advice to India to impress upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his visit to Delhi, that he desist from going ahead with Iran’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 Iran’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 Hussein’s Iraq. Saddam’s aggression was supported by the United States and many Arab countries. The Muslim Ummah, the world over, did not condemn Saddam’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 ’90s about Khan’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 Khan’s proliferation. India would have made a laughing stock of itself if it had ignored Khan’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 India’s policy on Iran’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 Khan’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?
The writer is a senior defence analyst
[email protected]
That is two recent articles by KS with same message. US must do more to curb their own sources of proliferation before preaching to India. These two articles mark a change in direction of KS. Wonder whats going on? Some sort of defiance is being articulated. Add to this the recent US talk of IPR issues with India something is not right.
Iran's president visits India for gas pipeline talks
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, Associated Press Writer Wed Apr 30, 1:35 AM ET
NEW DELHI - A $7 billion gas pipeline that would link Iran and India topped the agenda Tuesday as the Islamic republic's president made his first visit to New Delhi, despite strong U.S. objections to the project.
ADVERTISEMENT
The trip came as India and the United States are struggling to finalize a landmark nuclear energy deal.
India's desire to build on its long-standing ties to Iran highlight New Delhi's eagerness to avoid taking sides in international disputes and work with as many countries as possible — even if its partners disdain each other.
Its willingness to seek energy supplies from both Tehran and Washington is one example of New Delhi's desire to play the middle. Another is its developing relationship with Iran's archenemy Israel. Earlier this year India launched an Israeli spy satellite, which is in part intended to monitor Iran's nuclear program.
Menon said Ahmadinejad did not bring up the satellite during his time in New Delhi.
-
Nayak
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2552
- Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
- Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.
Israel, at 60, shows admirable grit
Our newspapers and 24x7 news channels went gaga over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stopover in New Delhi last Tuesday. Given the exuberant, almost fawning, media coverage accorded to Mr Ahmadinejad, it would seem as if a great friend of India had come visiting although we didn't quite deserve this honour, having stabbed Iran in the back, so to say, at the behest of the 'Great Satan', otherwise known as the United States of America.
Such is the Left's influence on the media and the awesome disregard of our intellectuals -- or what passes for intellectuals -- who straddle newspapers and television channels, for India's strategic interests, that nobody has bothered to point out that a nuclear armed Iran is something we can do without. If Mr Ahmadinejad, with more than a little help from Russia and China, not to mention Pakistan's rogue nuclear establishment, is able to enrich sufficient uranium to produce an arsenal of nuclear warheads, Israel alone won't have reason to worry.
We have also elected to ignore the fact that Iran has been consistent in voting against India at the OIC even while pretending to be a 'friendly' nation. At the UN, rare is the occasion when Iran has made common cause with India, although the reverse is not true. It does not require evidence collated by the US to assert that Iran is currently forging a Shia brand of radical Islamism, much more insidious and potent than the pernicious ideology bequeathed by Sayyid Qutb to the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, with the purpose of becoming the dominant Islamic state by displacing traditional Sunni powers. In the short term this may not affect India, but in the long term it is bound to scorch us.
Nor has anybody bothered to point out that while India needs Iranian oil (and perhaps also Iranian gas), an increasingly isolated and cash-strapped Iran needs an emerging market to mobilise resources. At a time when Western democracies are loath to do business with Mr Ahmadinejad's regime, selling oil and gas to India makes eminent sense for Iran. Yes, it also makes eminent sense for India to leverage Iran's troubles to its advantage, but that would require a certain craftiness which is absent in those who preside over India's destiny. If this is true of the Congress, it is equally true of the BJP. The Left, of course, craftily conspires against India's national interests. The others really do not matter.
Meanwhile, Amit Baruah, writing in the Hindustan Times about Mr Ahmadinejad's visit, mentions something that does not figure in the other glowing reports that appeared in last Wednesday's newspapers. "In his opening remarks, Mr Ahmadinejad once again questioned the extent of the Holocaust against the Jews in World War II and felt this was used as a pretext to occupy Palestine," Amit Baruah says in his report, adding, "He also raised questions about the 9/11 terrorist attacks and felt these acted as an excuse to occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan."
Amit Baruah is a senior journalist and there is no reason to doubt the veracity of his report. Indeed, the fact that others chose not to incorporate Mr Ahmadinejad's odious anti-Semitic rant in their reports tells a story by itself -- of how our media is careful to excise those comments that may reflect poorly on individuals it places on a high pedestal. Not surprisingly, Amit Baruah's report has been picked up by Islamist Websites.
The man who now leads and inspires born-again Nazis and would like to see the remaining Jews exterminated and Israel "wiped off the face of the world" is not as daft as some people make him out to be. He used his stopover in New Delhi to repeat his outrageous lies -- that the Holocaust is Jewish fiction, Jews masterminded 9/11, and Israel is an illegitimate entity -- steeped in anti-Semitism on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day. He needed a platform and we, to our abiding shame, provided him with one.
Will we now onward allow any and every visitor to berate another nation from our soil? What if someone were to use his or her interaction with the media to denounce China and question the legitimacy of its occupation of Tibet? Have we become so soft a state that nothing matters any more? Is our foreign policy now bereft of all morals, scruples and ethics that were once considered central to our civilisational identity as a nation, as a people?
In sharp contrast to our inability to stand up and be counted, and thus be courted for our inherent strength and power, Israel remains firm as a rock in its determination to succeed against all odds. Unlike India, it is just a dot on the map, a small country that can be traversed between sunrise and sunset. Yet it is a giant among nations, ferocious in war and magnanimous in peace. In the last 15 years, ever since we established diplomatic relations, it has done nothing that can be even remotely considered to be against India's interests. Yet we are reluctant to acknowledge this friendship and stand by it.
On May 8, Israel will celebrate the 60th anniversary of its independence. During these six decades, indeed, from the time David Ben-Gurion declared Israel's independence, it has been at war with its implacable Arab foes, fighting for its survival. But that has not stopped it from emerging as a power to contend with, a David among Goliaths who won't rest till the last drop of Jewish blood has been shed. It has been the victim of unceasing calumny and perversion of history by those who blindly support the tribe of Mr Ahmadinejad and endorse their anti-Semitism.
British journalist and author Melanie Phillips, in a scintillating essay published in the latest issue of the Spectator, pithily sums up Israel's heroic struggle: "On the day after Ben-Gurion declared (Israel's) independence, six Arab armies invaded and tried to wipe it out. With the current exception of Egypt and Jordan, the Arab and Muslim world has been trying ever since... At present, the situation looks particularly ominous. Israel is menaced on several fronts...".
It is Iran which has taken over from the Arabs. In Lebanon, it is funding and arming Hizbullah whose leader Hassan Nasrallah is sworn to Israel's destruction. In Gaza, it is nursing Hamas whose army of fanatics has declared it won't rest till the last Jew is dead. In Syria, Iran is working over time to keep anti-Israeli sentiments alive. All this while building a Bomb to "wipe Israel off the face of the world" and achieve what Nasser failed in achieving 60 years ago.
Such is the 'friend' of India our media fetes.
AHMEDINEJAD'S VISIT: IN PERSPECTIVE
By B.Raman
By B.Raman
In response to an invitation issued by President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka during his visit to Teheran in November,2007. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad of Iran paid a two-day official visit to Sri Lanka on April 28 and 29,2008.
2. Since last year, Sri Lanka has been facing economic difficulties due to the drying-up of economic assistance from countries of the European Union (EU) such as Germany because of what they perceive as the indifferent attitude of the Rajapaksa Government to complaints regarding the violation of the human rights of the Tamils and its refusal to seek a political solution to the problem.
3. Instead of succumbing to the EU pressure on the subject, the Rajapaksa Government turned for increased assistance to other countries such as China and Iran, which did not raise human rights issues as a condition for such assistance. Assistance from Iran was of crucial importance to Sri Lanka because of the Government's inability to pay for its increasingly costly oil imports.The Goverenment of Ahmadinejad readily agreed to provide oil at concessional rates to Sri Lanka and to train a small team of officers of the Sri Lankan Army and intelligence in Iran. It also agreed to provide a low-interest loan to Sri Lanka to enable it to purchase defence-related equipment from China and Pakistan.
4. In addition, it agreed to invest US $ 1.5 billion in energy-related projects in Sri Lanka. One of these projects is for the production of hydel power and the other to double the capacity of an existing oil refinery in Sri Lanka. Work on the construction of the hydel project started during Mr.Ahmadinejad's visit. Iranian engineers have laready been preparing the project report for doubling the capacity of the refinery and for modifying it to enable it to refine in future Iranian crude to be supplied at concessional rates. The existing capacity is 50,000 barrels a day.
5. The interest shown by Iran in Sri Lanka since last year is attributed to its desire to counter the Israeli influence in Sri Lanka and to use Sri Lanka as a base for monitoring the movements of US naval ships between the Pacific and the Gulf. Since Mr.Rajapaksa came to power, the visit of US naval vessels and officers to Sri Lanka has increased. Even before he came to power, Israel had emerged as an important supplier of military equipment, particularly for the Sri Lankan Air Force. The fact that even at the risk of misunderstanding with Israel, Mr.Rajapaksa chose to approach Iran and accepted its ready offer of assistance underlined the serious economic situation in which Sri Lanka found itself.
6. In view of the operation of a NATO Naval task force in the Gulf to provide logistics support to the NATO's military operations in Afghanistan, the officers in charge of Ahmadinejad's security were not in favour of his aircraft flying over the seas on his way to and back from Colombo. They reportedly decided that his aircraft should fly to Colombo over Pakistan and India and use the same route for its return journey.
7. The Iran Air Force has aircraft which can fly directly from Teheran to Colombo without the need for any intermediate halt. However, they are in a poor state of maintenance due to difficulties in procuring spare parts because of the sanctions imposed by the UN and the US against Iran. It was, therefore, decided that his aircraft should stop over briefly in Islamabad on his way to Colombo and in New Delhi on his way back. It is learnt that the initiative for stop-over visits came from Teheran because of considerations relating to the security of Mr.Ahmadinejad's plane.
8. Pakistan, which has not been worried about any adverse reaction from the US, welcomed the proposal and extended to him a high profile welcome while he was on his way to Colombo on April 28.His engagements in Islamabad included separate meetings with President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and a lunch hosted by the Prime Minister. While the local media hype focussed on the reported forward movement in the negotiations for a gas pipeline to supply Iranian gas to Pakistan and India----- a proposal, which has been under periodic discussions since Benazir Bhutto's second term as the Prime Minister (1993-96) withn ups and downs in hype and euphoria--- the real reason for the satisfaction of the Pakistani leadership was the Iranian President's positive response to Pakistan's request for urgent economic assistance.
9. The Pakistani economy has been in a bad shape since the beginning of this year due to shortages of food grains, flour and electricity. The shortages in foodgrains and flour have caused acute economic hardship to the people. The erratic electric supply has affected industrial production,which has also been affected by frequent disruptions in the supply of gas from Balochistan due to attacks on the pipelines from Balochistan to Punjab by the Balochistan Liberation Army(BLA). In response to reportedly desperate requests from Musharraf and Gilani,
10. On the question of the gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan, there were contradictory versions of the outcome of the talks despite the orchestrated atmosphere of optimism which Mr.Ahmadinejad himself tried to spread in Islamabad and New Delhi. While the "News" and the "Daily Times" gave an optimistic assessment as if all issues involving India, Pakistan and Iran had been sorted out on matters like price, the transit fee etc during the visit of Mr.Murli Deora, the Indian Petroleum Minister, to Pakistan before the Iranian President's visit, the "Dawn" of Karachi, which is better informed and which has its feet firmly on the ground, gave a more guarded picture. Quoting what it described as "diplomatic observers", the "Dawn" (April 29) said: "Several contentious issues remain to be addressed." It did not specify what were those contentious issues.
11. The 'Hindu" of Chennai was even more cautious than the "Dawn". It reported as follows on April 30,2008: " Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon reaffirmed Mr.Ahmadinejad's optimism, but cautioned that a long road lay ahead to ensure that the project was commercially viable, financially acceptable to India and all security concerns were taken care of."
12. There are various dimensions to this castle-building in the air over the gas pipeline from Iran. Among them, the following:
Financial: Both India and Pakistan are reported to have made it clear that Iran has to raise the funds (about US $ 7.5 billion) for the construction of the pipeline. Where is it going to get it when it has been facing difficulty for years in raising in the international market the funds required by it for the modernisation of its own oil and gas industries. The Americans are determined to see that unless and until it winds up its nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz, it is not able to raise a single cent in the international market.
Technical: The proposed pipeline will pass through earthquake prone areas on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border. Iran does not have the required technology for its construction. Only Western pipeline construction companies and those in Russia and China have it. The Western (including Australian) companies would not help because of the US pressure and the UN sanctions. Russia might help, but would want to be paid for it in cash. China would be prepared to help provided it is paid in kind in the form of a share of the gas to be transported. If Iran agrees to it, it would become a four-party project involving Iran, Pakistan, India and China and the entire proposal will have to be re-negotiated.
Security: The pipeline has to pass through Baloch majority areas on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border. The Balochs in Iran, who are Sunnis, are being assisted by the Americans through organisations such as the Jundullah to destabilise the border areas of Iran. The Balochs in Pakistan have also risen in revolt against the Government in Islamabad and are fighting for an independent Balochistan. They are demanding that they should also be a party to the gas pipeline project, which will pass through their homeland, and that they should get a share of the transit fee, which Pakistan hopes to get from India.
13. None of these really major issues has so far been addressed. The only issues addressed so far are the price of the gas and the transit fee to be paid by India to Pakistan. These are the least complex and the least difficult of the issues. The above-mentioned issues are much more complex and difficult. Iran, Pakistan and India have been misleading public opinion by creating an impression that just because an agreement has been reached on the pricing and transit fees, the pipeline is for tomorrow. It is not. There is still a long road ahead.
14. Spins, meant to generate an unwarranted atmosphere of optimism, are not confined to the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. The spins also cover the proposed oil/gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan. Iran is not involved in this project, which has the total blessing of the US. The idea of this project was originally initiated by the UNOCAL of the US in 1994, when Benazir was the Prime Minister. Since then it has been under discussion. After the Taliban captured power in Kabul in September,1996, UNOCAL lost interest in the project. After 9/11, most Western companies lost interest in the project because of the on-going military operations against Al Qaeda and the Neo Taliban in the area. Only the Asian Development Bank (ADB), which is keenly interested in the project, kept the talks going even though there were no takers from major Western pipeline construction companies.
15. In the case of the Iranian pipeline, there is neither money nor construction offers. In the case of the Turkmenistan pipeline,money is available, but concrete construction offers are not forthcoming due to the security situation. As per the current proposal, the pipeline will pass through Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. While the security situation in Herat is improving, that in Kandahar is as bad as ever. Till Al Qaeda and the Neo Taliban are decisively defeated by the NATO forces, this pipeline is unlikely to take off. In response to an invitation from the sponsors, India has also joined this project and Mr.Deora participated in discussions on this project also during his recent visit to Pakistan. The US was also keen that India should join this project as it could provide an attractive alternative to the Iranian pipeline project. When both the projects are struggling to take off, the question of an attractive alternative does not arise.
16. The "Dawn" wrote on April 19,2008: "Pakistan had planned to start work on the (Turkmenistan) project in 2007 and complete it by 2011. But the target was missed. The project is now envisaged to be completed by 2018."
17. India had no difficulty in accepting Iran's proposal for a stop-over visit by Mr. Ahmadinejad to New Delhi. In view of the slowing-down of the operalionalisation of the India-US nuclear co-operation deal due to opposition from the Communists, likely US sensitivities on Iran were not an inhibiting factor in the way of inviting him. However, caution dictated a low-profile visit, which would not be too jarring to the US. While Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh hosted a private dinner for the Iranian President, he avoided any public fraternisation with him similar to the fraternisation which one saw in Islamabad and Colombo. However, the Iranian Embassy in New Delhi succeeded in giving to the visit a higher profile than what the Government of India had wanted. Mr.Ahmadinejad fully utilised his press conference, which was not attended by the Indian Prime Minister, to taunt and ridicule the US as a bully and a decaying power.
18. As one saw Mr.Ahmadinejad doing it, one's mind went back to the period before 2003 when another West Asian leader was using similar language against the US. He and his country paid a heavy price for it. His name was Saddam Hussein.
19. As one witnessed the demeanour and heard the anti-US rhetoric of Mr.Ahmadinejad during his diplomatic foray into South Asia, one got the impression that he feels that he no longer has to fear any US intervention in Iran over the issue of its uranium enrichment project.More by coincidence than by design, two reports, which should be worrisome for the Iranian leadership, came from Washington DC before the diplomatic foray of Mr. Ahmadinejad. First, the US decision to send a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. Second, a briefing for a Congressional Committee by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on a mysterious bombing of a construction site in Syria in September, 2007, by an unidentified aircaft. The CIA confirmed what was being speculated about since then, namely, that the construction site was destroyed by an Israeli aircraft because it was to be a nuclear reactor being set up by Syria with North Korean assistance.
20. Was it a message to Mr.Ahmadinejad that what Israel did to Iraq by destroying the Osirak nuclear construction site in the early 1980s and to Syria last September, it could do to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz in Iran. Of course, it won't be that easy. In Iraq and Syria, the Israelis bombed a construction site and not operational nuclear reactors. Natanz is not a project under construction. It is an already constructed and operational set-up located underground. The Iranians feel confident that Israel will not be able to damage or destroy Natanz. Their confidence also derives from the fact that Iran is a much stronger military power than Iraq or Syria and that the US, in their perception, has to depend on Iran for restoring normalcy in Iraq.
21. But the history of Israel shows that when it genuinely fears a threat to it and its people from the potential nuclear capability of an adversary state, it finds a way of neutralising that threat, whatever be the difficulties. Mr.Ahmadinejad's self-confidence may prove to be short-lived.
Personal sanctions: blacklisted by my bank for living in Iran
By Fredrik Dahl
Friday, May 09, 2008, Daily Star, Beirut
First person by Fredrik Dahl
TEHRAN: "Your account has been blocked because of your address ... It's not personal." The bank employee in Brussels sounded almost apologetic when she told me my business was no longer wanted since I live in Iran, which is under tightening United Nations and US sanctions over its nuclear program.
I argued with her over a scratchy phone line: "But I'm a European Union citizen."
It was in vain.
The account I had opened with Banque Bruxelles Lambert (BBL) when I worked in the Belgian capital in the mid-1990s was frozen, and I must move my money elsewhere.
Iran was among countries on a "black list" the bank had, she told me: "It is impossible to work with your address."
Based in Tehran over the last year, this was the first time I was personally affected by financial and other sanctions on the world's fourth-largest oil producer.
With Western banks cutting ties with the Islamic Republic, it is becoming more and more difficult to transfer funds to the country of 70 million people.
Tehran's increasing financial isolation is forcing some to bring in money by hand in thick wads of $100 bills on the plane from Dubai, the Gulf's financial center, or elsewhere. Iranian friends and other expatriates I know also complain they are no longer able to open or hold dollar accounts abroad.
But I was still surprised to receive a call from Dutch financial services group ING, which bought BBL in the late 1990s, informing me there was a problem with my account. I had thought it was safe as it was in euros and I had never used it to transfer money to or from Iran.
We were cut off, so I called the branch in Brussels which I have dealt with for more than a decade.
"It's international politics from what I understand," the bank employee explained after confirming the news.
An ING spokesman in Amsterdam, Raymond Vermeulen, gave me more details. He said that the bank took a "business decision" last year to stop most dealings linked to Iran but that the number of clients this decision affected was limited.
"There is a whole set of international regulations and sanctions and they require extensive screening procedures and compliance processes," he said. "This has led to vastly increased costs for processing transactions with a country like Iran."
ING's annual report for 2007 also said it was halting business with North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria and Cuba - all of which face various US punitive measures.
Washington is spearheading a drive to isolate Iran over work it suspects is aimed at making nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran rejects, but Vermeulen declined to say whether US pressure had played a role in ING's decision.
I toyed with the idea of challenging the bank but opted in the end to send my money to another bank in Europe, while reflecting over how my modest financial assets had been caught up in a deepening standoff over Iran's nuclear program.
Western banks including Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Credit Suisse have either stopped transactions with Iran in United States currency or severed ties altogether.
Anecdotal evidence suggests there are still ways around the restrictions: A fellow Swede says he can transfer money to Iran from his bank in the Nordics and an Iranian woman I know receives funds from France via a third country. Others give their bank addresses outside Iran to keep their accounts open.
But the net seems to be tightening, with fewer and fewer banks willing to engage in any Iran-linked business.
"In reaction to United States and multilateral actions, the world's leading financial institutions have largely stopped dealing with Iran, and especially Iranian banks, in any currency," senior US Treasury official Stuart Levey said last month.
Iran, which says it earned $70 billion from oil exports over the last year, has shrugged off the impact of the sanctions.
But for me, at least, they are starting to bite.
Fredrik Dahl is a Reuters correspondent in Iran.
By Fredrik Dahl
Friday, May 09, 2008, Daily Star, Beirut
First person by Fredrik Dahl
TEHRAN: "Your account has been blocked because of your address ... It's not personal." The bank employee in Brussels sounded almost apologetic when she told me my business was no longer wanted since I live in Iran, which is under tightening United Nations and US sanctions over its nuclear program.
I argued with her over a scratchy phone line: "But I'm a European Union citizen."
It was in vain.
The account I had opened with Banque Bruxelles Lambert (BBL) when I worked in the Belgian capital in the mid-1990s was frozen, and I must move my money elsewhere.
Iran was among countries on a "black list" the bank had, she told me: "It is impossible to work with your address."
Based in Tehran over the last year, this was the first time I was personally affected by financial and other sanctions on the world's fourth-largest oil producer.
With Western banks cutting ties with the Islamic Republic, it is becoming more and more difficult to transfer funds to the country of 70 million people.
Tehran's increasing financial isolation is forcing some to bring in money by hand in thick wads of $100 bills on the plane from Dubai, the Gulf's financial center, or elsewhere. Iranian friends and other expatriates I know also complain they are no longer able to open or hold dollar accounts abroad.
But I was still surprised to receive a call from Dutch financial services group ING, which bought BBL in the late 1990s, informing me there was a problem with my account. I had thought it was safe as it was in euros and I had never used it to transfer money to or from Iran.
We were cut off, so I called the branch in Brussels which I have dealt with for more than a decade.
"It's international politics from what I understand," the bank employee explained after confirming the news.
An ING spokesman in Amsterdam, Raymond Vermeulen, gave me more details. He said that the bank took a "business decision" last year to stop most dealings linked to Iran but that the number of clients this decision affected was limited.
"There is a whole set of international regulations and sanctions and they require extensive screening procedures and compliance processes," he said. "This has led to vastly increased costs for processing transactions with a country like Iran."
ING's annual report for 2007 also said it was halting business with North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria and Cuba - all of which face various US punitive measures.
Washington is spearheading a drive to isolate Iran over work it suspects is aimed at making nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran rejects, but Vermeulen declined to say whether US pressure had played a role in ING's decision.
I toyed with the idea of challenging the bank but opted in the end to send my money to another bank in Europe, while reflecting over how my modest financial assets had been caught up in a deepening standoff over Iran's nuclear program.
Western banks including Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Credit Suisse have either stopped transactions with Iran in United States currency or severed ties altogether.
Anecdotal evidence suggests there are still ways around the restrictions: A fellow Swede says he can transfer money to Iran from his bank in the Nordics and an Iranian woman I know receives funds from France via a third country. Others give their bank addresses outside Iran to keep their accounts open.
But the net seems to be tightening, with fewer and fewer banks willing to engage in any Iran-linked business.
"In reaction to United States and multilateral actions, the world's leading financial institutions have largely stopped dealing with Iran, and especially Iranian banks, in any currency," senior US Treasury official Stuart Levey said last month.
Iran, which says it earned $70 billion from oil exports over the last year, has shrugged off the impact of the sanctions.
But for me, at least, they are starting to bite.
Fredrik Dahl is a Reuters correspondent in Iran.
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/05/13/stor ... 891000.htm
Good move by GoI in pushing the IAEA as a potential solution to the Iran issue.
[quote]
Pranab calls for deeper global engagement with Iran
Atul Aneja
“This can help promote peace and stability in Iraq, Palestineâ€
Good move by GoI in pushing the IAEA as a potential solution to the Iran issue.
[quote]
Pranab calls for deeper global engagement with Iran
Atul Aneja
“This can help promote peace and stability in Iraq, Palestineâ€
It is by no means a given that Zbig will have any part in BO's administration (if BO becomes president etc.), but BO does speak/think very highly of Zbig, which is very relevant. ZB endorsing BO does not seem relevant in terms of BO's policy direction. There is no "guilt by association" w.r.t. ZB -- his views on Iran a quite a bit mellower than that of the current admin.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7203/iran.html
Too long to post in entirety -- some interesting excerpts.
GATES is BOB GATES ex-CIA head.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7203/iran.html
Too long to post in entirety -- some interesting excerpts.
GATES is BOB GATES ex-CIA head.
ZB: Broadly speaking, we advocate engaging with Iran in a direct dialogue on specific issues of regional stabilization, to encourage a constructive Iranian posture in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also urge Washington to play an active role in the Middle East peace process, and to press Arab leaders to support that process and any ultimate agreements, as these efforts will help marginalize the destabilizing forces that Iranian hard-liners continue to support. Thank you.
GATES: I would just— I would add one additional point in terms of what's changed, and that is that the United States over the past two-and-a-half years has eliminated two of Iran's greatest security threats, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. American forces are now on both of Iran's borders, east and west, with 140,000 American troops just to the west. That alone, I think, has created a different situation, a different environment in the region, and potentially creates an opportunity where Iran might see its own interests advantaged by engaging in a dialogue. But as I indicated in my remarks, there is no assurance that these changed circumstances will lead to progress, but we think they create the opportunity to at least try.
GATES: I think it basically is embracing reality. They are going forward with this program. They are going forward with it with the help of France and Russia. We have tried for more than 10 years to stop it. When I was director of central intelligence and in Moscow in 1992, I took them on directly about their Russian help— Soviet help and Russian help for the Iranian nuclear program, and it was clear that they had no intention of abandoning it. And they have continued that.
So if that is the reality that we face, then what role can we play in trying to make sure that that program is in fact used for peaceful purposes and not for nuclear weapons? Our ability to stop that program, for the reasons that I suggested earlier, is very limited.
QUESTIONER: Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service. I wanted to know whether you thought, on balance, the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation and current situation in Iraq has weakened or strengthened the U.S. position vis-Ã -vis its influence on Iran?
FEINSTEIN: OK. And we'll make this the final set of questions.
GATES: OK. First, we had considerable discussion of the political forces at work in Iran and the different hues of conservatives in the regime, including some discussion of pragmatic conservatives. I remember considerable discussion in the mid-1980s in the U.S. about pragmatic conservatives and various others.
Clearly, there are differences in shadings among the different conservatives in the regime. But I think that what we have to wait and see is if it has— if that emergence or if their voice has an impact on the proposed engagement that we advocate.
In terms of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, I think it probably— my personal opinion is that it has probably strengthened our position vis-à -vis Iran. After all, we've— we now have a military presence on both sides of Iran. We have 140,000 troops next door. Clearly the Iranians have to look at that and see that the strategic situation in their neighborhood has changed in a significant way.