Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran regrets India’s launch of Israeli satellite

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I guess if India has to choose between Iran and US -to work together bring down Iran, it would be expected that India asks US to dump Pakistan - and to work together to bring down Pakistan.
    God is a cruise missile.

    Comment


    • #32
      [QUOTE]
      Originally posted by S-2 View Post
      "China has practically entrenched itself in Gwadar, where they have demanded quasi sovereign interest."

      Brigadier,

      Can you provide support (not evidence, mind you) that the PRC has, indeed, already "practically entrenched itself..."? My understanding is that Gwadar will be a commercial facility available for everybody
      When did the PRC demand "quasi sovereign interest" and in what form shall this take?.
      Here it is:

      When China finally agreed to offer financial and technical assistance for the project, it asked for "sovereign guarantees" to use the Port facilities to which Pakistan agreed, despite U.S. unease over it. Association for Asia Research- Gwadar: China&#039s Naval Outpost on the Indian Ocean

      I ask as I've some interest there, believing NATO's supply might be shipped through Gwadar rather than Karachi or, at least, augmented by that facility.
      I would not be surprised since the situation in Pakistan is so hoary that one does not know what is going to happen next.

      Pragmatically observing, it is in the interest of the US to ensure that the Chinese presence is diluted and there is close monitoring of China's activities in this region and over its strategy of the "string of pearls".

      The US policy on Iran and ME in general, has given China the opening to build up close relationships with countries that are hostile to the US or near hostile. They are, I believe, going to build a port in Iran with the same terms of agreement as Gwadar. In short, it will have two naval and electronic facilities in the Straits of Hormuz and will also be able to monitor US military activities including electronic traffic in the ME.

      In that context, while the US cannot have a toehold in Iran, the Indian presence in Chabahar plays an important role to counterbalance China in Iran and the neighbourhood.

      "All this is essential for India industrial and economic growth..."

      Sir I believe that ultimately Iran's possession of nuclear weapons puts them in a position to control the economic health of the modern world. An unassailed primacy of the Hormuz Straits by Iran, coupled with the demonstrated willingness to engage neutral vessels traversing the area (1988 tanker war) is sufficient to endanger the economies of many nations. This isn't a selfish interest of America designed to achieve "strategic advantage" unless securing the single-most important SLOC in the world for safe use by all nations would be a dubious nat'l objective. Under the circumstances, this is the primary underlying tenet to our concern.
      It would not be an unassailable position in its true sense since India's presence will be a sop.

      India's equation with Iran, which was good, will be a calming factor. I believe it was to this effect in the earlier hassle on the issue.

      There is no doubt that if Iran produces a nuke weapon and there is this tanker war in the Hormuz, it will not only affect the US, but the whole world.

      In view of this, the US has to have "bridges" between itself and Iran and India plays a role. This is more so important since India does not carry the baggage of the Shia Sunni suspicions. It may not be agreed by many, but the Shia Sunni divide is a vicious as the mongoose and the snake! The conclave of the Sunni Arabs, under the leadership of Saudi Arabia, against the growing clout of Iran, very well disguised at the same time it maybe stated, is a case in point.

      Thus, while the Islamic umbrella may make one feel that Iran will be supported by the other Islamic countries, it will be merely cosmetic with the dagger well hidden with their Arab flowing clothes.


      Brigadier, it should be India's concern as well. Unless you believe that Indian can sell to a global economy that's burdened by rising energy prices and the ogre of absolute abdication to Iranian hands on the oil-faucet knob, you'd realize that CAR won't, by itself, remotely assuage India's commercial ambitions.
      It is not only a concern for India, but for the whole world. One cannot have a temperamental regime armed with nukes!

      I do not disagree with you that the trade will not skyrocket India' economy. However, one has to look at economic growth by having an eye on the emerging markets and strat building the foundations. To that extent, CAR and Afghanistan (which had traditional economic ties with India) has to been looked at with growing interest by India.

      In so far as oil and gas is concerned, you should read the NIE report. India's growing economy cannot be sustained by the ME oil alone. Therefore, CAR, which has the largest untapped resource in oil and gas comes into play. This is the very reason why India is taking a keen interest in the solution of the Afghanistan problem and the growing fundamentalist trends in Pakistan. If the situation stabilises in Afghanistan and the fundamentalists crushed in Pakistan, the TAP will cut the transit costs and India will get more bangs for the buck! In the interim, as they say , "any port in stormy weather" if observed from a purely Indian economic standpoint.

      Strategically, it is important the India is not encircled by China. This is in the interest of India as also the free world. Therefore, India's interest in Iran and CAR. The Chabahar port and the SCO is pertinent in this case.


      You're still not yet a signatory to the NPT, thus have no formal role to play in development of IAEA assessments. From that India is safe from blowback regarding their judgements, etc. At some point, however, India may be called upon in the U.N. to declare it's willingness to accede hegemony of the Gulf to Persia or defend the rights of all to safe transit.
      There can be no hegemony in the Persian Gulf or any other place where there is an international interest. No country will support that be it the West, Russia, India or China. This is so because there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Today, if the hegemony is passed to Iran, there is no guarantee the next govt maybe favourable to those who handed over the hegemony.

      Brigadier, we're continue to take the heat for the rest of the globe including, evidently, India. I don't oppose the development of Indian-Iranian relations. That is, up to the point where it impedes the interests of the rest of mankind. At that point, sir, India needs to understand the implications of interrupting the status quo as a nuclear-armed Iran will do, particularly in the gulf and among key sunni arab nations such as Egypt.
      I will be frank. The stand of Egypt or any other Sunni Arab nation on issues with the Hezbs or Iran does in no way make me feel any better or worse than the stand of any other country. I do not take such views under the Islamic umbrella, I merely feel it is axiomatic in the narrow confines of Sunni Shia hostilities/undercurrent. Having experienced it throughout my life here in India, I am aware of the deep irreconcilable schism that exists.

      If you are meaning that Iran can play havoc in the ME with its nukes, of that I have no doubt that there comes such a possibility if Iran has the nuke.

      I am sure India is well aware of it and that is why she voted the way she did in the UN.

      I hope I have understood what you are aiming at. Somehow, I think I have not.

      India walks a tightrope of sorts between what's right and what's convenient. Clearly any Chinese/Pakistani argument would argue Gwadar's presence in light of your development at Chabahar. Two sides of the same coin.
      No doubt.

      Gwadar came first and India reciprocated in Chabahar!

      The game goes on.


      "While it is true that it would not be in the interest of the world if Iran had a nuke bomb, it is also true that India, purely from a strategic point of view, should have the best of relationship with Iran."

      I hope for India's sake it's an operational POV, not strategic. Generally I believe that strategic interests demand defense. Operational considerations may not. I'd hate for India to be on the wrong side of this issue when it goes down. Your "close" relationship with Iran can be best served by counseling your Persian friends on the dangerous folly of the current path before matters occur.
      I think I have not explained it correctly.

      Purely from the academic point of view, Iran is beneficial for India. Note: purely from the academic point of view.

      The Arabs are the strongest votary for the ummah. Iran is not because it being Shia would have no place in the power structure of such an ummah and given the Sunni majority will remain the underclass, even though as a group the Iranians are more intelligent and culturally advanced (if one sees them beyond the Najindad and Ayotallahs). Thus, they will always be away from the Islamic umbrella. That means a lot from the strategic point of view when one views India's strategic interests.

      At some point India will need to decide what's most important, maintenence of a globally-based economy or a secure route to CAR. I think that it's a no-brainer myself but we'll see.
      A trusim no doubt.

      It is of paramount interest of India and the world to have secure routes not only for oil but also for the growing economy spurred by the concept of globalisation.

      Therefore, it is in the interest of the powers that be to have conduits open for dialogue as was the case when Pakistan worked as the honest broker in the US closing in on China.

      We are talking the same language, but I reckon the accents are different! ;) :))


      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

      HAKUNA MATATA

      Comment


      • #33
        S 2,

        Turkey offers alternative to Iran pipeline-India-The Times of India

        Indicates that India is not putting all her eggs in one basket!


        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

        HAKUNA MATATA

        Comment


        • #34
          Sir,

          I know this for another thread, but there is a concept going around in the American intellgentsia, I cant get his name now, He is Irani-American, a supporter of WoT and an advisor to Bush. According to him USA needed a staging ground for WoT, therefore Iraq and WMD was a concern that presented a chance. Lets for a minute assume that this was actual truth. If so. Why did they choose Iraq and not Iran. As the last year has told us, it was Iran that was producing WMD, coupling their Nuclear program and Space program,

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cactus View Post
            The United States made some choices with very long-term implications viz Pakistan a long time ago, so it does not really have a ready choice today about being friendly or unfriendly with Pakistan. (Boy, would it like to have a real and ready choice today, though!) India, on the other hand, continually presents the US with a list of short-term pro-active choices* the US can choose from. On a regular basis it is quite annoying... but when major policy changes are being made it sure is good sometimes to not be shackled to previous policies.

            Not all long-term foreign policy choices are necessarily bad, but one must have extraordinary intelligence, wisdom and moral integrity to make them. Sadly not all choices made regarding Pakistan were founded on wise and moral principles (ref Cowles in 1947 and Blood in 1971 for example). Later what appeared to be choices regarding Pakistan were hardly real choices. Anyway, whats done is done; it doesn't do too much good to bode upon it, trust Yankee ingenuity to figure a way out of it.

            Now what lesson should you really learn from this? (Answer this correctly and I fly back to my tree, answer this incorrectly and you know the consequences... Sorry, couldn't resist a random Vikram Aur Betaal reference)

            * By pro-active choices, I mean choices the United States makes with India directly and solely kept in mind. As opposed to reactive or chain-reactive choices made with India being affected in a round-about fashion or in conjunction with other countries (common in Cold War geo-politics).
            Cactus, it seems the intent of my post has been misplaced. I am not quibbling about America's relationship with Pakistan. I am merely stating that India should not hijack its own national interests for the sake of pleasing others. The US-Pakistan relationship was given as an example of that (i.e. putting national interests foremost); not as a reason for an Indo-Iranian relationship! ;)
            Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
            -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Tronic View Post
              Cactus, it seems the intent of my post has been misplaced. I am not quibbling about America's relationship with Pakistan. I am merely stating that India should not hijack its own national interests for the sake of pleasing others. The US-Pakistan relationship was given as an example of that (i.e. putting national interests foremost); not as a reason for an Indo-Iranian relationship! ;)
              Ofcourse it has to, No doubt. Iran is the biggest supporter of Balochistan along with Balouch's of Oman and UAE(against creation of Gwadar). But at the same time Iran acquring a nuclear bomb capable of throwing it at everyone is not in India's interest.


              Imagine what happens if it Iran not friendly with India anymore? Nuclear Iran reduces the power of Pakistan as well as India's and the world as whole capacity to assert itself in the middle east, You can expect the Islamic world to play with Oil and choke the world. Exactly the reason we didnt vote. So it is in our Long term national interest which some coincides with American interests.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Adux View Post
                Sir,

                I know this for another thread, but there is a concept going around in the American intellgentsia, I cant get his name now, He is Irani-American, a supporter of WoT and an advisor to Bush. According to him USA needed a staging ground for WoT, therefore Iraq and WMD was a concern that presented a chance. Lets for a minute assume that this was actual truth. If so. Why did they choose Iraq and not Iran. As the last year has told us, it was Iran that was producing WMD, coupling their Nuclear program and Space program,
                I have written earlier about the rationale.

                Simplistically and there are other reasons too, Iraq is in the centre of the ME and adjoins many countries. Quite a few of the countries are inimical to US interests in the region.

                Saddam was the most tainted leader with his use of Chemical and Biological weapons as also ruthlessly suppressing the people. That helped morally.

                Iran is not in the centre of the ME, even though it is important to turn one's glad-eye to!


                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                HAKUNA MATATA

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Ray View Post
                  I have written earlier about the rationale.

                  Simplistically and there are other reasons too, Iraq is in the centre of the ME and adjoins many countries. Quite a few of the countries are inimical to US interests in the region.

                  Saddam was the most tainted leader with his use of Chemical and Biological weapons as also ruthlessly suppressing the people. That helped morally.

                  Iran is not in the centre of the ME, even though it is important to turn one's glad-eye to!
                  Sir,

                  Iran is not in the center of ME, but yet if they did carry out of the attack,

                  1. There will be no more threat to the straits of Hormuz
                  2. Though Saddam was tainted so where Iranian theocracy
                  3. It might have eased the pressure on Israel
                  4. The real WMD creators would have been stopped
                  5. And Oh, Iran has oil.

                  Somehow all these adds up to better value for effort than what is happening in Iraq, though I have become a fan of Gen.Petraeus. One of things I see might have happened in this scenario which is negative is,
                  Shia's are far more peaceful than sunni's, who are the real trouble makers. So why create situation that they will become one single entity with a single cause. But at the same time Sunni's might also support the Americans far more than their are supporting now. Everybody hates Iran, though when it comes to WoT they are not the real problem, Saudi and Pakistan is. But in case WMD, Iran is.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Wouldnt it just be better for the US to drop a bomb on Ahmedinejad - the goat and avoid all this buildup and tension with the iranians.

                    For all u know many iranians might be quite happy to get rid of him without having their houses bombed.

                    ofcourse once there is a full scale attack( like of iraq ) then the iranians will oppose the attacking country, whether they like ahmedinejad or not.
                    God is a cruise missile.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by FullTank View Post
                      Wouldnt it just be better for the US to drop a bomb on Ahmedinejad - the goat and avoid all this buildup and tension with the iranians.
                      Let me guess HOT SHOTS 2, Charlie Sheen drops A-BOMB on the sun-bathing Saddam, replace them with Bush flying a F-16 to do a drop one o A-jad.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Adux View Post
                        But at the same time Iran acquring a nuclear bomb capable of throwing it at everyone is not in India's interest.
                        Out of the question. If Iran wants the bomb, India can't do anything about it but sit and watch; if US wants to stop a nuclear Iran, it doesn't need India to do that. So the choices India has are; rant against Iran and kill whatever is left of Indo-iranian relationship or shut up and stay out of the Iranian affair and save the relationship from sinking any further. You decide which makes more sense.

                        Imagine what happens if it Iran not friendly with India anymore? Nuclear Iran reduces the power of Pakistan as well as India's and the world as whole capacity to assert itself in the middle east,
                        If you start playing with "buts" and "ifs", you're screwed no matter where in the world you go.

                        You can expect the Islamic world to play with Oil and choke the world. Exactly the reason we didnt vote. So it is in our Long term national interest which some coincides with American interests.
                        We didn't vote for what?

                        And thats a much larger geo-political picture you're presenting. Its not about Islamic world, its about Iran specifically and choking the world from oil? I don't think Iran would specifically ask to be hammered into the ground. ;)
                        Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                        -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by FullTank View Post
                          Wouldnt it just be better for the US to drop a bomb on Ahmedinejad - the goat and avoid all this buildup and tension with the iranians.

                          For all u know many iranians might be quite happy to get rid of him without having their houses bombed.
                          Who says Ahmednijad is the man with the power?
                          Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                          -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Ray Reply

                            Brigadier,

                            "Somehow, I think I have not."

                            Actually you have. I think that we're quite close. My questions about Gwadar were innocently asked. I wasn't even aware of Chabahar. I'll follow the link.

                            Thanks.
                            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                              Out of the question. If Iran wants the bomb, India can't do anything about it but sit and watch; if US wants to stop a nuclear Iran, it doesn't need India to do that. So the choices India has are; rant against Iran and kill whatever is left of Indo-iranian relationship or shut up and stay out of the Iranian affair and save the relationship from sinking any further. You decide which makes more sense.
                              I see your point



                              If you start playing with "buts" and "ifs", you're screwed no matter where in the world you go.
                              Not quite agree with that, We could have avoided quite a bit of the mess the world is in, if we have asked ourseleves buts and if's.



                              We didn't vote for what?

                              And thats a much larger geo-political picture you're presenting. Its not about Islamic world, its about Iran specifically and choking the world from oil? I don't think Iran would specifically ask to be hammered into the ground. ;)
                              Ofcourse it is, wait till we get more integrated to the world economy, having the middle east play fair price game more important to us, as time progress as long as we are interested in OIL.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                                Out of the question. If Iran wants the bomb, India can't do anything about it but sit and watch; if US wants to stop a nuclear Iran, it doesn't need India to do that. So the choices India has are; rant against Iran and kill whatever is left of Indo-iranian relationship or shut up and stay out of the Iranian affair and save the relationship from sinking any further. You decide which makes more sense.
                                Bang on Target.
                                @Adux
                                But at the same time Iran acquring a nuclear bomb capable of throwing it at everyone is not in India's interest.
                                Let me speak my heart out. Personally I don't believe that a Nuclear Iran would start lobbing bombs on her foe nations...most of which are Nuclear powers and very much capable of inflinching unacceptable damages to it. Iranians unlike their sunni bretheren are less violence lovers and infact quite intelligent and diplomatic. They also have a rich and long cultural etho and civilisational assets to protect rather than behalve like nation state hoodlums and bear unacceptable colateral damages.
                                Secondly, from a political utopian pov, I don't find any reasons why India should bother itself from stopping a stable nation like Iran from aquiring nuclear bombs, something that India itself has done on the grounds that 1.Our arch rivals, both of whom have waged war on us in the past, are nuclear powers.2.We have a population of 100 million to protect from an invading power.3. Our nuclear weapons are solely for self defence.
                                Why can't Iran do the same? Is nuclear Iran a bigger threat than a nuclear Pakistan...a threshhold failed state. Or a nuclear North Korea? I wonder...wouldn't a stable Iran...preferably a democracy...nuclear power...and yet well integrated with India and the rest of the free world be more preferable than a war torn Iran...devoid from its pursued nuclear weapons after a possible bloody war waged by the US or NATO?
                                sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X