Iran News and Discussions

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 May 2010 08:36

Iran Angrily Defends Nuclear Program

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/world/04nuke.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 May 2010 14:59

AN INTERVIEW WITH AHMADINEJAD’S CHIEF OF STAFF

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... shaei.html

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 09 May 2010 22:27

Ahmadinejad (who is really just the public face of the Pasdaran) likes to claim that what he's done is revive the original spirit of Khomeini's Islamic revolution.

Yet in those days Khomeini did not emphasise tanks and aircraft, and conventional weaponry - all far too closely associated with the Shah, and his largely materialist approach to security, power and ideology. Instead the emphasis was on faith, mass-mobilisation, solidarity and innovation - lightly armed guerrilla forces at sea or in Lebanon, human waves against Iraqi minefields and artillery.

The contrast with the current leadership of the Pasdaran couldn't be starker. Although Ahmadinejad and hardline clerics repeatedly warn of the use of the oil weapon and unconventional warfare, the IRGC is *obsessed* with projecting an image of conventional strength on land, sea and air. They've gone as far as to photoshop images of missile launches, announce non-existant production breakthroughs with aircraft, armoured vehicles, conduct lots of very stiff looking formal parades, etc.

Its very TFTA, and seems aimed at two audiences in particular - the domestic audience (look at how strong I've made Iran!), and the regional (largely Arab) audience, the same two audiences the Shah aimed at.

In the Shah's time the Western role in the region meant that both pro and anti US Arab states didn't really have anywhere else to turn to, so they very reluctantly submitted to Iranian dominance of the region.

Today these displays are meant to show the Arabs that when the US role diminishes they will step in to the vacuum - but given the antagonistic US-Iranian relationship, and overwhelming US conventional superiority what this does is bind Iraq and the Arab states (other than Syria-Lebanon) even closer to the US.

This is exactly why the pragmatic nationalists of the Khatami and Rafsanjani years think that Ahmadinejad and the IRGC clique are foolishly undermining Iran's power and influence rather than enhancing it.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 13 May 2010 06:09

Amid Iran sanctions drive, U.S. lobbies foreign firms

...
On the world stage, the United States and its allies are aggressively pushing for new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. Out of the public eye, it has dispatched a top U.S. Treasury official to foreign capitals to talk to governments, financial regulators, banks and business leaders.
...
...
Since March a spate of foreign companies have announced plans to cut, suspend or curb ties with Iran, including oil majors Eni, LUKOIL and Royal Dutch Shell, Indian refiner Reliance Industries, U.S. construction and mining equipment maker Caterpillar and luxury German carmarker Daimler.

Accounting giants KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Ernst & Young have also declared themselves free of any business ties to Iran.
..
...

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 13 May 2010 16:47

Iran releasing al Qaeda operatives.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_ ... da_in_iran

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 May 2010 11:10

Iran to release French teacher, after France releases Iranian wanted by U.S.

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

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 May 2010 06:39

Af-Pak terrorism a common challenge to India, Iran: Larjani

http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/17/stories ... 501200.htm

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 May 2010 06:55

France Denies Deal With Iran for Teacher’s Release

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/world ... rance.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 May 2010 06:57

Turkey says deal reached with Iran

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

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 17 May 2010 06:58

Iran eases grip on al-Qaida

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9FLVTUG0

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 May 2010 07:06

Uranium Offer by Iran May Hinder Efforts on Sanctions

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world ... 8iran.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 18 May 2010 07:24

President Obama’s nuclear headache

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37367.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 May 2010 07:05

Major Powers Have Deal on Sanctions for Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/world ... tions.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 May 2010 14:13

India, Iran should replace ‘dying’ big powers: Ahmadinejad

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 433080.ece

Uri_T · Post by **Uri_T** » 20 May 2010 01:16

abhishek_sharma wrote:Iran eases grip on al-Qaida

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9FLVTUG0

I did not know had any grip om El Qaida

http://www.idf-armor.blogspot.com/

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 20 May 2010 01:23

abhishek_sharma wrote:India, Iran should replace ‘dying’ big powers: Ahmadinejad

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 433080.ece

Completely agree with Ahmadinejad, I think we should also work with Iraq to consolidate a Shia block in the mideast. We can offer to train Iraq's army in counterinsurgency techniques etc. We also really need to limit China's influence there too.

Newbie question - With that said, how friendly is the current Iran regime towards India? Why would a hardcore Islamist regime have friendly relations with infidels? I understand our relations have a history, it still seems strange though considering the Shah was opposed to us.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 20 May 2010 04:04

India really needs to up its game with Iraq, in terms of trade and oil. We are talking about the next Saudi Arabia and its going to need massive infrastructure investments. India should be getting right in there, at least in the safer areas such as Kurdistan. RIL has taken the first step there, but we need much much more and a more active policy towards Iraq.

Iraqi army is very strong right now and has taken over security of many areas. What India really needs to do is engage with businessmen in Iraq and bring them for trade shows in Delhi. They could build strong links with the KRG.

-----------
India and Iran are allies and have a common enemy. We should also use the brahmin Dutt (Hussaini Brahmin) card. That would work wonders and bring India and Iran closer.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 May 2010 07:59

Iran's missile to watch?

http://hoffman.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... e_to_watch

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 May 2010 09:07

U.N. sanctions loophole: Russia can send missiles to Iran
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-to-iran/

A

key provision in the resolution made public this week states that all U.N. member states will agree to block sales or transfers of weapons. It lists tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, warships and "missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms."
close reading of the missile section of the register defines those included in the ban as missiles and launchers for guided rockets, and ballistic and cruise missiles, and missile-equipped remotely piloted vehicles. However, the register states that the missile system category "does not include ground-to-air missiles," such as anti-aircraft missiles and anti-missile interceptors like the S-300. According to a CIA report to Congress on arms proliferation made public in April, Iran "continues to seek the advanced long-range S-300 air defense system from Russia." "We judge likely deployment locations for this system include Iran's nuclear facilities," the report said. Asked about S-300s, a senior State Department official said the draft "would not impose a legally binding obligation not to transfer S-300 to Iran" since the register does not cover defensive missiles.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 May 2010 08:37

Iranian Says Uranium Deal Off if Sanctions Are On

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/world ... 4iran.html

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 24 May 2010 13:04

Anyone think that Iran totally bluffing with this nuclear program? As in they have no real intention of developing nuclear weapons or destroying Israel, but this is all a broader strategic ploy to gain more respect and increase political leverage...

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 24 May 2010 14:48

India's course correction on Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar

The agreement between Iran, Turkey and Brazil for a swap deal on the stockpile of Tehran's nuclear fuel sets the stage for a diplomatic pirouette of high significance for regional security. The paradigm shift affects Indian interests.

The Barack Obama administration has hastily debunked the Iran-Turkey-Brazil deal, which was announced in Tehran on Monday, and announced its intention to press ahead with a United Nations Security Council sanctions resolution, claiming that a "strong draft" has been reached by the so-called "Iran Six" (the five permanent council members plus Germany). The grandstanding highlights that Washington's policy is at a crossroads as the cohesiveness of the "Iran Six" comes under renewed stress. The statements and innuendos - and, more importantly, the unspoken words - from Moscow and Beijing suggest the two capitals are quietly chuckling with pleasure over America's discomfort over Iran outsmarting the Obama administration's own best instrument of diplomacy in present-day world politics - "smart power".

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 May 2010 10:02

Iran and Russia Exchange Acerbic Barbs on Sanctions

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/world ... 7iran.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 May 2010 10:18

Secretary Clinton's cold shoulder on the Iranian fuel-swap deal

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... _swap_deal

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 May 2010 10:26

Sleepwalking with Iran

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... _with_iran

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 May 2010 12:23

The bitter cup of truth for the US is that NATO ally Turkey and friendly Brazil "conspired" with ungodly Iran to sign a deal on nuclear fuel reprocessing. This undermines the US's hegemonic stand on international policy vis-a-vis Iran,where two medium powers have engineered a diplomatic coup wthout even China or Russia,sympathetic to Iran from entering into the fray! The US has been given a royal snub by ally Turkey and Brazil being part of this heretic act is bound to send a signal to other S.American nations that would like to cock-a-snoop at the US more moral strength.

India which has major interests in Iran,especially as it is a nation at odds with Paki machinations in the region,cannot abandon its legitimite interests in Iran for the pleasure of fornication with Uncle Sam.A close strategic relationship with Iran protects us from Paki devilry,which will always have to look over its shoulder at Iran evena s it trys with the US's blessing to gain suzerainity oiver Afghanistan,a situation that India and Iran too cannot tolerate under any circumstances.It is abundantly clear that the US's policies in the region are massively detrimentla to India's interests and under a spineless administration of MMS is squandering our decades old goodwill with our important neighbours like Iran. We have virtually lost the energy pipeline deal to China and Pak and the current dispensation will have to suck its thumb in silence for solace.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 28 May 2010 10:27

Iran and Russia Exchange Acerbic Barbs on Sanctions

Not that it comes as any surprise but after selling reactors and weapons to Iran and collecting a few billion, Russians are jumping the fence hoping US bombs the Iranians and their oil exports get blockaided.

Slippery folks those Russians and India should be likewise careful.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 28 May 2010 23:45

President Obama Should Be Honest About the Iran-Turkey-Brazil Nuclear Dealhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/flynt-and-hillar ... 92886.html
Uncle, Auntie and Bhanja plan about Iran now look like " naati dhoti reh gayee, moonh pei makkhi beh gayyee" ( "Flickven", All washed and dressed up for nothing and left out with a fly on the face" )

Brazilian President Lula, Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan, and their foreign ministers have been too polite in their characterization of President Obama's role in the nuclear deal they mediated with Iran last week. For we now have documentary evidence that President Obama's Secretary of State and his White House spokesman are simply not telling the truth when they say that the Brazil-Turkey deal does not meet the standards that the United States has defined for an acceptable international arrangement on refueling the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). That documentary evidence comes in the form of a letter from Obama, dated April 20, 2010, to President Lula.
The bottom line: On April 20, roughly a month before the Joint Declaration between Iran, Turkey, and Brazil was announced in Tehran, President Obama conveyed, in writing, to President Lula that, to be acceptable to the United States, a deal to refuel the TRR would need to include Iran's shipment of 1,200 kg of LEU to Turkey for "escrow" for one year, pending the delivery of new fuel. In the deal they brokered with Iran, Brazil and Turkey delivered on every one of those points. Obama's letter says nothing about a U.S. requirement that Iran halt its enrichment program, or even stop enriching uranium at near-20 percent levels, which Obama Administration officials now claim are irredeemable flaws in the Brazil-Turkey deal. In his letter, Obama notes that he had promised his Brazilian counterpart a detailed response to Lula and Erdoğan's proposal to try to mediate an agreement on refueling the TRR, reaffirming that "the TRR is an opportunity to pave the way for a broader dialogue dealing with the more fundamental concerns of the international community regarding Iran's overall nuclear program." In Obama's own words, his letter is meant "to offer a detailed explanation of my perspective and suggest a way ahead."

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 May 2010 07:20

Obama letter on Iran fuel deal

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

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 29 May 2010 19:07

IOL:

Iran still maintaining friendship with the Sunni terrorists especially the guys who were holed up in Iran. Iran is happy to infiltrate the southern saudi border and stir up trouble there - keeping the pressure on. Bin laden's 5 sons lived in Iran from 97, and were briefly under house arrest near the Iran TSP border. The six close relatives of Bin Laden are now one by one leaving Iran.

Osama lived in Iran during 2003 in the Southern Province of Khorasan under protection of the IRGC before returning in 2006 to Waziristan for a short period.

IRGC is still continuing to protect sunni terrorists. One of the major initiators of this alliance is the current iranian defence minister.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 29 May 2010 19:12

Has the Iran Pakistan relationship significantly improved now with the pipeline deal? If so, baad baad news for Yindia.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 30 May 2010 07:40

no pipeline is economically viable without India.

pakistan cannot afford to buy it as it receives aid from the US and China's population is on the east coast. the only possible market for that is India.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 30 May 2010 21:13

Pacquis must have made some kind of deal on Abdulmalek Rigi, they surely didn't give him away for free

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 30 May 2010 23:37

India doesn't need to be apologetic to Iran over its stance on nuclear energy
http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/may/ ... o-iran.htm

India and Iran have long held significantly different perceptions of the global nuclear order. Iran was not supportive of India's tests in 1998 and backed the United Nations Secuiry Council's resolution that asked India and Pakistan to cap their capabilities by signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Iran has repeatedly called for a universal acceptance of the NPT, much to India's discomfiture. Though Iran has claimed that this was directed at Israel, the implications of such a move are far-reaching for India. Iran's position on several other issues crucial to India has been against Indian interests. India's position on the Iranian nuclear question is relatively straightforward. While India believes that Iran has thea right to pursue civilian nuclear energy, it has insisted that Iran should clarify the doubts raised by the IAEA on its compliance with the NPT. India has long maintained that it does not see any further nuclear proliferation as being in its own interests. There is no need to be apologetic about India's position on the nuclear issue.
The issue of the $7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline was also on the agenda as India remains keen to gain access to Iranian energy resources. Not only has Pakistan already signed the deal with Iran, China is starting to make its presence felt in Iran in a big way. It is now Iran's largest trading partner and is undertaking massive investments in Iran, rapidly occupying the space vacated by western firms. India is right to feel restless about its own marginalisation in Iran despite its civilisational ties with the country. The problems with the IPI pipeline, however, remain difficult to overcome. India has differences over the pricing of the gas even as ensuring the security of the pipeline in the restive Balochistan makes it difficult for India to accept the deal in its present version.India indeed would like to make its presence grow in the Iranian energy sector but there is little evidence, so far, that Iran would be a reliable partner in India's search for energy security. A number of important projects have either been rejected by Iran or have yet to be finalised due to its changing of terms and conditions.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 31 May 2010 02:45

Prem wrote:India doesn't need to be apologetic to Iran over its stance on nuclear energy

even though I agree that India should not be apologetic about anything (after all Iran voted against India over the Kashmir stuff at some OIC meeting past), there should be a general rule of not interfearing in each other's issues.

In that light, India should not have got involved in voting against Iran at the IAEA. US wanted that only to damage Indo-Iranian relations and MMS fell right into that trap. Supposedly that was a requirement for getting the nuclear deal from the US however IMO the nuclear deal is in their economic interest and that of others as well. Eventually the others would have broken ranks with the US on the issue if India had been tactful about it.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 May 2010 05:06

Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 31 May 2010 08:13

Declassified documents revisit secret U.S. overture to Iran

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

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 May 2010 12:39

Israel heightens tension with its planned stationing of three nuclear weapon armed German Dolphin subs close to Iran.With the tri-nation nuclear agreement,the chances of the US going to war/approving an attack against Iran is lessening something which an Israeli right wing govt. appears to be prepared for.The signs are that if the US and international community do not defang Iran in the manner that israel wants,it might very well attack Iran independently and if attacked by Iran could use its nuclear-weapon armed subs in response.

Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 140282.ece

Excerpt:

Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.

The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers.

The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.

The flotilla’s commander, identified only as “Colonel O”, told an Israeli newspaper: “We are an underwater assault force. We’re operating deep and far, very far, from our borders.”

Each of the submarines has a crew of 35 to 50, commanded by a colonel capable of launching a nuclear cruise missile.

The vessels can remain at sea for about 50 days and stay submerged up to 1,150ft below the surface for at least a week. Some of the cruise missiles are equipped with the most advanced nuclear warheads in the Israeli arsenal.

The deployment is designed to act as a deterrent, gather intelligence and potentially to land Mossad agents. “We’re a solid base for collecting sensitive information, as we can stay for a long time in one place,” said a flotilla officer.

The submarines could be used if Iran continues its programme to produce a nuclear bomb. “The 1,500km range of the submarines’ cruise missiles can reach any target in Iran,” said a navy officer.

Apparently responding to the Israeli activity, an Iranian admiral said: “Anyone who wishes to do an evil act in the Persian Gulf will receive a forceful response from us.”

Amidst Israeli intel reports of Syrina missile shipments to the Hiz, "Tel Aviv, Israel’s business and defence centre, remains the most threatened city in the world, said one expert. “There are more missiles per square foot targeting Tel Aviv than any other city,” he said.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Jun 2010 19:43

It is well known that the overthrow of the democratic Mosaddegh govt in 1953 was sponsored by western elites. There is an interesting book that describes how the overthrow of the Shah, and the installation of Khomeini too, was supported by the same forces.

Hostage to Khomeini by Robert Dreyfuss (1980). Available for download at http://www.archive.org/download/Hostage ... ostage.pdf

This book is particularly valuable for its close-up look at the techniques of revolution - provoking unrest, mass manipulation via the media, creation of economic crises, how the loyalty of key persons in the armed forces was turned, how uncooperative personnel were assassinated, how arms depots were captured, and how even those that cooperated with the revolution were liquidated in its aftermath.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 02 Jun 2010 20:28

Neshant wrote:
Prem wrote:India doesn't need to be apologetic to Iran over its stance on nuclear energy
even though I agree that India should not be apologetic about anything (after all Iran voted against India over the Kashmir stuff at some OIC meeting past), there should be a general rule of not interfearing in each other's issues.

I thought Iran has backed us on Kashmir in OIC....is this a new stance?