U.S. May Sanction India Over Level of Iran-Oil Imports

[Double Edge]

Indian payment for Iranian oil goes through Turkish banks. Would US sanction Turkey/ Turkish banks as well?

Yep, this is why India & Iran struck a deal to settle payment in indian rupees.

India is now investing the payment by building infrastructure in Iran.

Right, this is the motivation for the Indian trade delegation going over to Iran next week. Iran does not import a lot from us so India has to find a way to bridge the deficit.

[Double Edge]

Just to reinforce a point to our Indian friends that this isn't just a U.S. thingy-

Global Network Expels as Many as 30 of Iran’s Banks in Move to Isolate Its Economy-NYT March 15, 2012

IIANM Swift will affect settlements between Iran & the west. Its unclear to me how much of a difference it will make for payments between Iran & Asia.

India is already at work with an alternative payments system, i have to believe its the same with China, Sk & Japan. This is the need of the hour. 6 months to a year from now will hopefully be different.

[commander]

She wants nukes. She leaves the NPT. She will NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET THEM WHILE UNDER THE NPT!

I understand sir. A country that signed NPT should not increase it's nuclear stockpile. If it does it shouldn't be in the NPT members list anymore. BUT another NPT member China alledgedly is increasing it's stockpile and no country has the guts to speak against it not even USA ??? Then why impose sanctions only on Iran ?? Then like Iranian prime minister said the Western Nations are bullying Iran.
Source: China expanding its nuclear stockpile

Please don't think of me trolling or being arrogant Sir , just trying to put my thoughts across the board in my way:red:

[Officer of Engineers]

PBUT another NPT member China alledgedly is increasing it's stockpile and no country has the guts to speak against it not even USA ???

Honestly? We really don't know. No one outside of China has gone in and counted their warheads and those that did are not saying anything.

What we do know.

The Chinese have increased the number of nuclear delivery vehicles. The problem with that is that they have dual roles in that they are normally mated to HE warheads, not nukes.

These new delivery vehicles cannot house the multi-megaton warheads. So, the Chinese have actually gone down in nuclear throw weight.

The Chinese are adament that they are the smallest arsenal of the N5.

The Chinese have stopped production of fissible materials since the 1990s. Based on that, they could have at most a 600 warhead arsenal.

Most open source materials point to a 200 warhead arsenal +- 20 warheads with a few knowledgeable observers pointing a 120 warhead arsenal.

Then why impose sanctions only on Iran ?? Then like Iranian prime minister said the Western Nations are bullying Iran.

Because the N5 are doing what they're allowed to do under the NPT. Iran is doing what she is not allowed to do under the NPT.

[Double Edge]

Why U.S. Sanctions on India For Iran Oil Are Unlikely | WSJ:India real time Blog | March 16, 2012

Tom Wright

There’s a lot of noise today in the Indian media about possible U.S. sanctions on India if it doesn’t reduce imports of oil from Iran. But this is extremely unlikely, and here’s why.

India is already complying with the U.S.’s latest push to squeeze Iran financially to get it to drop its nuclear program. (Iran claims it’s for peaceful purposes.)

Last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told U.S. Congress that India was doing more behind the scenes to comply with efforts to hurt Iran financially than its public pronouncements would suggest.

She didn’t get into details. But India, despite saying it needs Iranian oil, has in fact been reducing purchases, as statistics show. It’s also played a role in pressuring Iran, banning Indian importers in 2010 from using an Asian trade-finance clearinghouse to pay for Iranian crude.

And, more recently, reports say India’s state-run Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., the country’s largest importer of Iranian crude, is planning to cut its imports from Tehran by up to 44% in the financial year starting April 1, 2012.

India, sees the writing on the wall. Even if New Delhi wanted to increase its Iranian crude it would find it difficult to do so given U.S. efforts to shut down dollar payments for such trade.

An Indian government official on Friday downplayed talk of sanctions, sparked by a Bloomberg News report this week that said India has failed to reduce its imports and could face unspecified penalties by the summer if nothing changes. “We haven’t any such threat during interactions which we regularly have with the US,” the Indian official said. “We abide by all international legal commitments in our trade with all countries.”

The U.S., too, is unlikely to want to cause a rift with India, a country that Washington views as a crucial strategic partner in the region. A U.S. official in Washington said media reports about sanctions were “highly speculative.” The official added: “No decisions have been made and we continue to have productive conversations with India…We welcome statements from Indian officials that India is seeking to diversify its crude oil sourcing and encourage this positive trend.”

It’s true that India’s crude imports from Iran spiked to 550,000 barrels per day on average in January, up a third from December. But that was largely to take advantage of a pricing dispute between Iran and China which left supply available and goes against a decline over the past few years.

At $10.9 billion in the year to March 31, 2011, India’s overall imports of Iranian goods were down 5% from the previous year and 12.1% lower than fiscal 2009. The drop has been attributed to lower oil imports amid pressure from the U.S.

India’s import contracts with Iran are typically annual and run to March 31. Many of the reported reductions, such as those being considered by Mangalore Refinery, would kick in over coming months.

It’s unclear by how much the U.S. wants countries like India, China and Turkey to reduce their imports of Iranian crude – or face sanctions — but it seems New Delhi is moving to comply.

Despite Indian officials’ comments that the country needs Iranian oil, which makes up 12% of total oil imports, it’s not crucial to energy security. That’s because India refines more oil than it needs for domestic consumption and exports the remainder, giving it room to cut purchases or switch to supply from Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

In this context, the visit this month to Tehran by 70 Indian companies to drum up business for Indian exports appears somewhat of a sideshow.

The trip caused some anger in the U.S. as yet another sign of India’s support for Tehran. But it also shows that efforts to punish Iran, in which New Delhi has taken part, are hurting.

Iran needs to find Indian exports to buy because it agreed in February to receive payment in Indian rupees for just under half of its sales of oil to India. Tehran had to agree to this because of U.S. sanctions that made paying in dollars more difficult.

[S2]

commander Reply

"But Sir, I beg to differ .. The USA was the sole reason why there is a situation like this.. Because of USA's political clout EU followed the suit..."

I prefer thinking that sovereign nations in Europe, like India is also, came to the conclusion that Iran possessing a nuclear weapons capability would be unwise. SWIFT is required to comply with EU sanctions and so they are doing.

"...I also have a doubt here sir, When Bush declared war on Iraq stating Saddam had Chemical weapons the world knows what happened. Now Why can't this be a wrong move again by Obama..??"

Then why hasn't Iran complied with unfettered IAEA inspection requests?

"...Lets say Iran IS enriching Uranium for Nuclear warheads , If USA can pile Nuclear warheads why can't some other country for it's own safety and Interests ???"

The U.S. has dramatically REDUCED our nuclear stockpile as has Russia. More to the point, however, as the Colonel and others have repeatedly stated Iran is a signatory to the NPT. They did so to receive the benefits of the NPT in full recognition of foreswearing any pursuit of nuclear weapons.

It's quite straight-forward. Iran is free to resign from the NPT agreement but, so long as a member, they must adhere to NPT strictures-including inspections as deemed necessary. Iran, of course, understands that, at this point, a resignation would be tantamount to openly declaring their pursuit of nuclear weapons. In all reality, they'd be bombed for such. Instead they play a game of subterfuge, deceit and duplicity to achieve their end without penalty.

It's been determined that a nuclear capable Iran must not happen. They are not India. They are not Pakistan or even N. Korea. Their circumstances, geography and ambition are utterly different.

[Blademaster]

The US economy is 8 times the size of the Indian economy, it would be unfair to equate the two. The US can do much more damage in many important industrial sectors of India.

That said, it does not make sense for GoI to follow another country's law. It is totally against India's independent foreign policy. Apart from UN sanctions, India has no obligations to stop trading with another nation.

US's economy may be 8 times bigger than India in terms of GDP but in terms of closed economies, i.e., PPP, the scales are a lot closer than you think and India is well insulated from US's actions considering India's economy is domestic driven based economy not export driven economy and US is not India's largest trading nation and aside from grain, US has virtually nothing to offer that India needs and India can get grain from other countries. What India really needs to sustain her economy is oil and US does not have that much oil to spare with. Only the Middle east do.

Perhaps, if the Middle East took up as a whole bloc and threaten an oil embargo, perhaps that will have a very strong effect on India and something that India cannot ignore. But again, India has Russia which carries its own price.

Personally, I think India should forego the 123 India agreement which is a US-India bilateral treaty and deal with France and Russia only if US carries out its sanction threat. The 123 India agreement has outlived its usefulness.

[Blademaster]

I'm getting sick and tired of repeating this line.

BECAUSE IRAN, OF HER OWN FREE WILL UP TO AND INCLUDING THE CLERICS, SIGNED, RATIFIED, AND STATED THAT THEY WILL HONOUR THE NPT!

IRAN HAS NO RIGHTS TO NUKE. NONE. NADDA. ZILCH!

She wants nukes. She leaves the NPT. She will NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET THEM WHILE UNDER THE NPT!

Then will you allow Iran to leave the NPT?

[Officer of Engineers]

Then will you allow Iran to leave the NPT?

It's their right. Provided that they don't leave with a working warhead.

[Blademaster]

It's their right. Provided that they don't leave with a working warhead.

Which they don't have by admissions of the US intelligence agencies and other foreign intelligence agencies. They can have a working design but not a prototype.

And by the way, NPT offers no legal cover or ground for force. So you cannot use NPT as a casus belli. You need an impending and well defined external threat to justify use of force. I am not saying that US is estopped from using force. It is just that US won't get that moral support from majority of nations in absence of casus belli or impending well defined external threat.

[Officer of Engineers]

Which they don't have by admissions of the US intelligence agencies and other foreign intelligence agencies. They can have a working design but not a prototype.

They're not even allow to have that.

And by the way, NPT offers no legal cover or ground for force. So you cannot use NPT as a casus belli. You need an impending and well defined external threat to justify use of force. I am not saying that US is estopped from using force. It is just that US won't get that moral support from majority of nations in absence of casus belli or impending well defined external threat.

Of course the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France can. Who's going to stop them from using the NPT as legal justification?

[Doktor]

Which they don't have by admissions of the US intelligence agencies and other foreign intelligence agencies. They can have a working design but not a prototype.

And yet they don't ask to go out :bang:

And by the way, NPT offers no legal cover or ground for force. So you cannot use NPT as a casus belli. You need an impending and well defined external threat to justify use of force. I am not saying that US is estopped from using force. It is just that US won't get that moral support from majority of nations in absence of casus belli or impending well defined external threat.

Not obliging to IAEA inspections is enough casus belli. Why wouldn't anyone let IAEA inspectors in if everything is by the book?

BTW, USA never said we will bomb Iran, they always say all options are in. At the moment that means sanctions against Iran, some backed by UN, some unilateral.

[Blademaster]

Not obliging to IAEA inspections is enough casus belli. Why wouldn't anyone let IAEA inspectors in if everything is by the book?

No, it is not because there is no external threat coming from refusal of IAEA inspections. In Iraq, it was different because US and UN had legal grounds for force due to the cease-fire agreement at the end of Gulf War I. It was made clear to Iraq that they had to comply with IAEA inspections or risk further wrath. As part of the price for avoiding further conflict and damage, Iraq agreed to those conditions. Not the same with Iran.

BTW, USA never said we will bomb Iran, they always say all options are in. At the moment that means sanctions against Iran, some backed by UN, some unilateral.

By legal definition, enforced sanctions or embargoes are an act of war.

[Officer of Engineers]

No, it is not because there is no external threat coming from refusal of IAEA inspections. In Iraq, it was different because US and UN had legal grounds for force due to the cease-fire agreement at the end of Gulf War I. It was made clear to Iraq that they had to comply with IAEA inspections or risk further wrath. As part of the price for avoiding further conflict and damage, Iraq agreed to those conditions. Not the same with Iran.

Oh come on Hitesh. Name me one war outside the Korean and the Kuwait Wars that had UN authorization.

The threat is a nuclear armed Iran illegally using NPT benefits as a weapons development platform. The P5 can and will use the NPT as justification for war and if nobody likes it, they can't do anything about it. The P5 veto ensure the legal groundwork, however flimsy or solid, cannot be challenged.

[Blademaster]

Oh come on Hitesh. Name me one war outside the Korean and the Kuwait Wars that had UN authorization.

That is not the point. I am debating the point that NPT gives the legal ground. It doesn't.

The threat is a nuclear armed Iran illegally using NPT benefits as a weapons development platform. The P5 can and will use the NPT as justification for war and if nobody likes it, they can't do anything about it. The P5 veto ensure the legal groundwork, however flimsy or solid, cannot be challenged.

Ok you are referring to the P5. Do you mean in that context, that any one of the P5 is free to attack of its own accord and use NPT as justification? Or are you referring to passing the necessary resolutions? I m not sure where you are coming from.