Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #61
    Tronic Reply

    "I agree with you that sanctions will hurt India, but, India is not an export based economy, so loosing out markets in Europe and America is not as damaging as it may be to China."

    This shall not prove a relative comparison between India and the PRC. India exported $298B worth of goods in 2011. 12% ($35B) of that went to America. Add your European markets to that picture, factor mitigating circumstance and determine the risk.

    "The article overlooks the fact that Indian imports of Iranian oil had been increasing, not decreasing, up until 2010..."

    But not 2011 nor the remainder of this year. What the immediate future holds is unclear, I'm sure you'd agree.

    "...It downplays the fact that a recent Indian trade delegation signed a bilateral agreement aiming to increase trade to $25 billion within the next 4 years..."

    Do you foresee this dispute a continuing issue four years from now? I don't. If so, how might your increasing exports to America, now at $35B per year, be affected? Is that a net gain?

    "...It totally leaves out the fact that recently the Indian government has amended the Indian Income Tax Act, adding a clause which states, "to provide for exemption in respect of any income of a foreign company received in India in Indian currency on account of sale of crude oil to any person in India...,", providing, "receipt of money is the only activity carried out by the foreign company in India". A clause obviously aimed at making transactions with Iran tax free..."

    No. A law obviously aimed at making energy transactions, from wherever they may occur, tax-free.

    "...It also leaves out the fact that India's Oil and Natural Gas Corporation along with the Hinduja Group have investments in Iran of almost $8 billion for a stake in Iran's South Pars gas fields."

    Will that gas be piped through the "Peace Pipeline"?
    "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


    • #62
      One problem for India Which everybody overlooks is that several of the Indian refineries which process Iranian crude were originally built to process only that specific type of crude. It is not a trivial task to retool those refineries to accept crude from another source. If India suddenly cuts oil imports from Iran in lieu of oil from another US approved supplier a part of it's refining capacity will suddenly go offline. How is India supposed to overcome that? The govt. was having a hard time controlling inflation already. Imagine what will happen if the domestic fuel prices shoot up on account of this.

      The problem for the India is that if the balloon goes up in the middle east and oil supplies from Iran are disrupted, it will suddenly lose 12% of it's supply and fuel prices will skyrocket leading to the exact situation they were trying to avoid. No easy choices here.

      Of course changing oil suppliers right now to a US approved one gives no guarantee that the Americans won't develop a beef with them in the near future leaving us back at square one.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by S2 View Post
        I'll suggest to you that which I've suggested to Blademaster-India, judging by Double Edge's article, would seem to be lining up on the side of sanctions.
        As I have said, DE's article doesn't paint the full picture. Let's agree to disagree and let time tell.

        It is beside my point. Massoud was no enemy of India at any time. Nor were his fellow Tajikh kin. He fought the Soviet Union and their puppets as a committed nationalist-not an Islamist under the thumb of Islamabad...and the ISI treated him accordingly. The Afghan mujahideen was comprised of a broad polity transcending simply radical pashtun islamists.

        What transpired was of Pakistan's making with the assistance of the KSA. Assistance to the Afghan mujahideen came from nations like the PRC, U.K, France and W. Germany. I doubt you'll find many friends of the radical islamists among their governments then or now.
        I beg to differ. Ahmad Shah Massoud and Co. were an exception only owing to their Sufi Islamist leanings. They too were Islamists, but, fortunately, their brand of Islam differed from the more orthodox Deobandi and Wahabbi streams which the rest of their fellow Mujahideen followed. At the end of the day, they were still all Islamists, promoted by the CIA as the driving force for the fight against the godless Communists. The name "Mujahideen" itself suggests this much.

        I agree with you that the Taliban are purely a Pakistani and KSA creation, but the same cannot be said of the link with Hekmatyar. He had been propped throughout the 80s greatly by the CIA and KSA together, and was just as much a radical rabid extremist as the Taliban.

        I understand that view although I'm uncertain I agree. Certainly Pakistan didn't view your nuclear weapons in that light nor did they take heart in their "all-weather" friendship with the PRC.
        Fair enough.


        We had no enduring partnership with Pakistan-just a convergence of anti-Soviet interests along with other nations. We did have the Pressler Amendment as law. Presidential exemption waivers beyond Pakistan's temporal utility were no longer acceptable to our Congress and Pressler was finally invoked.
        Agreed, as I too have stated in my earlier post. We too have a convergence of anti-Taliban interests with Iran along with other CAR nations.

        No. Iran is not as important to India. The evidence is before you. Your government is neither supporting Iran in the face of the mounting sanctions nor preparing to deploy a concerted military presence into Afghanistan.
        Military presence into Afghanistan is not a constructive step. We differ on how to deal with the Afghan war.

        As for Iran, as I stated before, let's let time tell.

        Then you must write your government demanding they risk sanctions from your key economic markets to accomodate the Iranians. You wish to have it both ways and that won't likely happen to any great degree.
        I have never wished to have it both ways, and I would like you to point out where I have said anything leaving you with that impression! I have always maintained that America should do what it feels serves its interests, while I hope India maintains its relations with Iran, for the sake of it's own national interests. If America feels the need to sanction India, it can feel free while doing so.

        Perhaps you'll have your chance to do so. If so, it'll be ages before you can count on any meaningful development of Afghan resources or CAR access to India's benefit. Will those dubious prospects, therefore, be worth the risks which come with defying globally-mounted sanctions against Iran and access to real markets paying real money for Indian products?
        A stable resource rich Afghanistan being a gateway to CAR is a long term prospect. Sticking solely to these 'real markets' takes away the non-aligned freedom of choice India's foreign policy strives to maintain. This thread is already evident of India being coerced by these 'real markets' to toe their line. It only reinforces the importance of all the other "non-real" markets.

        Iran will be resolved long before Afghanistan-especially until the assistance scenario you foresee. India, judging by Double Edge's article, has already made its choice. Time for Indians here like Blademaster and yourself to see they're behind the curve, if true, or provide compelling evidence that India intends defying sanctions.
        Steve, DE's article proved nothing.

        Again, let time tell.

        Things will not be the same, I assure you. Meanwhile you've some letters to write.
        I would write those letters if I was sure GoI was indeed cowing down against Iran. However, I am not convinced.

        Thank you.

        You'll not have to worry about the intrigues or subterfuges played by those with ulterior motives unless India chooses to actively oppose that particular coalition.
        As long as it isn't, "either you're with us, or against us".

        Write your letters. It appears your government doesn't see things as you do unless you can provide more to substantiate your position than simply opinion. I don't consider Double Edge's article definitive but it's a damned sight closer than what I've seen from Blademaster or yourself.
        Good if you are convinced by that article. I am not.
        Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
        -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by S2 View Post
          This shall not prove a relative comparison between India and the PRC. India exported $298B worth of goods in 2011. 12% ($35B) of that went to America. Add your European markets to that picture, factor mitigating circumstance and determine the risk.
          European markets are worth about $46billion. Combined with the American, that's $85 billion total. As I said, this is not where India will hurt, if it will hurt, it is in it's technological development industries.

          But not 2011 nor the remainder of this year. What the immediate future holds is unclear, I'm sure you'd agree.
          Ofcourse.


          Do you foresee this dispute a continuing issue four years from now? I don't. If so, how might your increasing exports to America, now at $35B per year, be affected? Is that a net gain?
          From a business point of view, no. From a strategic point of view, yes.


          No. A law obviously aimed at making energy transactions, from wherever they may occur, tax-free.
          Which other countries does India pay in rupees for crude oil?

          Will that gas be piped through the "Peace Pipeline"?
          That was never going to happen. We don't trust your ally, Pakistan. ;)
          Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
          -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            Well, isn't that a contradiction.

            First i hear of a 1983 test, always thought the first was the one at Lop Nor in 1990.
            You're right. The claim was made by Tom Reed and Dan Stillmen in their book the Nuclear Express. There are a lot of problems with their claims.

            1) They said the Chinese never deny their claims when they confronted them and suggestively boast about it. Only thing is that the Chinese have denied it - officially.

            2) The 1990 test was nowhere close to the 1998 test in design. The Pakistani devices were a lot smaller and certainly not an evolution of the CICH-4 device which was gigantic.

            3) They make snap judgements on the thinking of Deng Xia Peng. Only thing was these were warhead designers, not historians.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
              Hitesh, be advised that there's only two people who claimed this and they weren't there during the 1983 test. There is absolutely no evidence that the Chinese tested a Pakistani device. In fact, 1983 and 1998 were totally different designs.

              These same two people also claimed that the US has broken the NPT by providing Israel with nuclear weapons knowledge.

              Both these claims are commonly publicly accepted ... only I found zero evidence to support these claims.
              Whether it is true or not, the point is that faced with a dire threat, imagined or real, how did the world respond to India's fears, specifically US? Nada zip zilch and USA is asking India to do something about it and expecting India to do the same.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                Whether it is true or not, the point is that faced with a dire threat, imagined or real, how did the world respond to India's fears, specifically US? Nada zip zilch and USA is asking India to do something about it and expecting India to do the same.
                Oh come on, Hitesh, that is extremely inaccurate and you know it.

                The Pakistani pursuit of the bomb was predicted, expected, and catered for by no other than Gen Sundarji himself. Once India got the bomb, it was entirely predictable and expected that Pakistan must follow. Only a fool would think otherwise.

                India was well prepared for the Pakistani bomb and well placed for an arms race with Pakistan. There was NO DIRE THREAT.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Oh come on, Hitesh, that is extremely inaccurate and you know it.

                  The Pakistani pursuit of the bomb was predicted, expected, and catered for by no other than Gen Sundarji himself. Once India got the bomb, it was entirely predictable and expected that Pakistan must follow. Only a fool would think otherwise.

                  India was well prepared for the Pakistani bomb and well placed for an arms race with Pakistan. There was NO DIRE THREAT.
                  The same could be made for Israelis nukes and Iranian nukes. Once Israelis refused to deny or prove they don't have nukes, what the hell did you think would happen???

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                    The same could be made for Israelis nukes and Iranian nukes. Once Israelis refused to deny or prove they don't have nukes, what the hell did you think would happen???
                    That Iran should live up to her word with her signature on the dotted line. Further more, Israel was Iran's ally during the Iran-Iraq War, supplying weapons that Iran used to drive to the gates of Basra. That existential horse puckey that Iran should get nukes because of Israel stinks to high heavens.
                    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Mar 12,, 16:22.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      You know it's funny. S2 and JAD-33 says that Iran is causing all of this. I digress. Israel is causing this. Israel has claimed that as a right to self defense, she will not throw away her options to have nukes and is allowed to get away with it regardless of being part of NPT or not. Based on that, Iran is following suit.

                      Just as India was forced to go nuclear based on her security considerations, Pakistan followed and India was forced to live with the result. Israel was forced to go nuclear based on her security considerations and Iran is presumably following based on the posts of WAB, in suit. Why should not Israel be forced to live with the result in the same way that India was forced by US and western allies to live with the result?

                      But no, Israel is allowed to go around and make a big hubaloo and start getting everyone involved whether they want to or not.

                      I mean, India cannot live without Iranian oil and escape unharmed. India has tens of millions of people living day by day on subsistence farming and depends on affordable oil and kerosene. GOI is subsidizing those oil imports at great costs in order to make living barely tolerable for tens of millions. Any sharp increase in oil prices would result in those tens of millions being unaable to afford those required oil and kerosene to sustain their subistence living. It would result in massive protests all across India. And in order to placate those tens of millions, GOI would have to shell out more.

                      And you expect India to pay more and shell out more in order to keep those tens of millions from starving or suffering because of Israel's or USA's concerns and wants to embargo Iranian oil when India's national security interests are not really at stake. Fuck that shit, especially, when India's affected population greatly outnumber Israel's population. I didn't see USA or Israel doing anything concrete to help out India in its hour of need when Pakistan was threatening with her nukes at detriment to their interests.

                      When it was detrimental to their interests, USA and Israel had no problem telling India to fuck off. Therefore, I see no problem with India telling USA and Israel to fuck off when sanctions would be detrimental to India's interests.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        That Iran should live up to her word with her signature on the dotted line. Further more, Israel was Iran's ally during the Iran-Iraq War, supplying weapons that Iran used to drive to the gates of Basra. That existential horse puckey that Iran should get nukes because of Israel stinks to high heavens.
                        Ok then why does Israel have problems with Iran having nukes then? I mean, Israel knew that the Iranian theocracy were mullahs and religious fanatics but that didn't stop them from allying with Iran. If Israel can live with itself when supplying arms to Iran at a time when the Iranian mullahs were shouting death to USA and Israel, then I am sure Israel can live with itself when Iran has nukes in response to Israeli nukes.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by S2 View Post
                          "Then American cannot escape the fact that she's the aggressor. I have no problem with America being the aggressor but you cannot go around and say that Iran caused this or that. Iran is responsible for this or that..."

                          Sure I can say"...Iran caused this or that...". Iran shall bring war upon itself if it fails to comply with the NPT strictures designed to determine the purpose of their nuclear program. For that Iran is thoroughly responsible. Easily-solved and IAW the requirements of NPT members to permit unfettered inspections where required. This Iran has not permitted. Why Blademaster?
                          No shit Sherlock Holmes. Based on your logical reasoning (or illogical shall I say?) I can make the same argument when I say, "Israel failed to convert to Islam. If only had Israel convert to Islam, then we wouldn't be having this terrible conflict. Therefore, Israel is causing this or that." That is a fallacious argument and does not bear legal scrutiny. Same thing with your argument.

                          Should Iran resign from the NPT, they'll likely bring war in any case. Resigning would be tantamount to an admission of a nuclear weapons intent. The President may well decide such openly broaches American red lines. As there'd be no way to absolutely confirm Iran's intent America incurs, in the absence of inspections, less risk from pre-emptive war than by allowing Iran to possibly acquire nuclear weapons.
                          That is America's choice. But it won't get moral support or the support of history, if history is any guide.
                          Because it's in the world's interests to make sanctions work in lieu of war. India can perhaps help.
                          Was Pakistan having nukes in the world's interests? Did the world impose sanctions upon pakistan? And one thing, I don't recall USA being the world. Are you claiming that USA speaks for the world? Wow that is a pretty big estimation of yourself. Talk about big egos right there, considering, that together China and India makes up 40 percent of the world's population. Throw in Russia and other central Asian countries and Iran, and pretty much, that is more than half of the world's population. Are you claiming that USA and European Union thus speaks for the world? Great logical thinking right there, Sherlock Holmes.


                          You wrote, "...America asking India to comply with sanctions..?" ASK is not TELL. Get it?
                          And based on the language of US senators and Hillary Clinton, they are not really asking. They are telling. So spare me with your syntax nonsense.

                          India may do as she wishes. There will be consequences to your choices, however. Side with Iran and you'll likely lose much of your largest markets in Europe and America. Side with those opposed to Iranian gulf hegemony via nuclear weapons and you'll incur Iran's (what's left of it) wrath.

                          India's choice.
                          How about this for real, Sherlock Holmes? India has tens of millions of people are living on subistence means and they depends on oil subsidies to make their lives barely tolerable. Now what does that mean when oil prices sharpy spike and it causes GOI great financial strain in maintaining the oil subsidies to its tens of millions? GoI would be caught between a rock and hard place. GoI would face massive protests all across the country clamoring for lower oil prices and would suffer the wrath of its OWN CITIZENS. Can you get that, Sherlock Holmes? It is like when oil prices reach $5 a gallon in America and everyone start cussing Obama and calling for Obama's head and you never hear stop Newt Gingrich and Rush Lumbaugh on how Obama and democrats are ruining the nation, blah blah BS blah blah.

                          It would be one thing if the oil prices spiking up would be out of GoI's control but when it occurs based on that GoI restricting Iranian oil from supply, then people has a big fucking problem with that.

                          So it is not US or Iranian that India has to answer but its own people and that is why nobody can speak for India but Indian people itself. I hope you can understand this basic tenet of the lesson of democracy in action. It is Democracy 101 and you really don't need to hone your debating skills in ad nauseum arguments to see the light.

                          Judging by Double Edge's posted article here it would appear that India has prudently chosen to support sanctions.
                          Read again Sherlock Holmes.


                          Well, you've managed to avoid explaining how India shall gain access to Afghanistan. Having a port of entry at Chabahar isn't the same as having a sustained security presence sufficient to keep India from being tossed out in the absence of ISAF. I assure you there will be war in Afghanistan between India and Pakistan should you post troops. A few won't get it done. You'll need at least as many as ISAF. Probably more as Pakistan will perceive a direct threat to its security. Remaining in Afghanistan as anything but a target for Islamabad's bad boys shall require more than India is evidently prepared to ante up...or haven't you noticed?
                          I am sorry but I must be missing something here. We are talking about sanctions against Iran, not access to Afghanistan. Besides if India really needs access to Afghanistan, she has options that need not be mentioned here because I would be going off on a tangent.

                          So Chabahar and Afghanistan are moot points unless India ratchets her presence beyond some road-building crews. Of course, you wouldn't already have a gnat's azz of a presence there but for America. Nor would you be accepted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group but for our sponsorship.
                          Judging by recent events, I m more convinced that 123 India is an useless agreement and there's no net gain at all. So no big loss if we get shut out of NSG.

                          India and America are engaged in developing a strategic partnership. It's recognition by America of India's growing importance and value. If that is something which you cannot value then take it up with your government.
                          If that partnership is the sort of relationship where it is "Do as I say, not do as I do" you are right, I don't see any value in that relationship.

                          As for my government, it is USA government.

                          Your anti-Americanism grievously clouds your thinking. Your government is already lining up on the side where its bread is best-buttered. That's NOT Iran.
                          Projecting Ann Coulter and Rush Laumbaugh, aren't ya? And that is where you are wrong. I am an American citizen. I am debating a certain group's thinking who proclaim to speak for the entire country when it is not the case. There is no anti-american thinking here. What I have is the anti-whatmacallit geo political strategic thinking here when it comes to Iran. By the way, dissent is a very American trait. So if you wanna go around on a McCarthyism or more recently, Rush Lumbaugh bent when I disagree with your line of thinking, just remember what happened to McCarthy and Ann Coulter and Rush Lumbaugh, they all get ridiculed in the end.

                          Can you imagine a time when your debating skills shall finally improve? I can't.
                          Ooooh big smack talk from you when considering that you use logical reasoning commonly associated with 3rd graders. I would like to see you in action in court to see your debating skills. But then again, if you want to see my debating skills, I charge $450 by the hour. Send me your address and I shall send you my bill and a retainer agreement. I expect $6000 upfront. I don't show off my debating skills for free.
                          Last edited by Blademaster; 18 Mar 12,, 17:05.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                            Ok then why does Israel have problems with Iran having nukes then? I mean, Israel knew that the Iranian theocracy were mullahs and religious fanatics but that didn't stop them from allying with Iran. If Israel can live with itself when supplying arms to Iran at a time when the Iranian mullahs were shouting death to USA and Israel, then I am sure Israel can live with itself when Iran has nukes in response to Israeli nukes.
                            The Jews have a recent saying. If someone says that he's coming to get you, believe him.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Maybe this would help to shed some light in this issue. I believe S2 was looking for a news something like this ???

                              India's Growing Ties To Iranian Oil Could Bust U.S. Sanctions

                              The goal of U.S. and European sanctions on Iran is to crush the rogue regime’s economy and reduce its oil exports. European nations have already slashed their purchases of Iranian crude, and other big importers like Japan are gradually following suit ahead of a June deadline.

                              Yesterday the Obama administration secured promises from Saudi Arabia to ramp up its own oil output to make up for Iranian barrels kept off the market. And this morning came a report that Washington was in discussions with the United Kingdom on a plan to tap strategic reserves.

                              Yet those actions (plus oil’s roughly $20 per barrel insecurity premium) are in expectation of sanctions preventing a meaningful fraction of Iranian oil from getting to market.

                              But what if Iranian oil still manages to find its way to eager buyers who simply reduce their own imports of say, Saudi oil, in order to buy more heavily discounted Iranian crude?

                              That’s the question that is emerging now in regards to India. Instead of scaring India off Iran’s oil, so far it appears that U.S. sanctions are only having the effect of bringing India and Iran closer together.

                              Last week Jaipal Reddy, India’s oil minister, reportedly told parliament, “We respect U.N. sanctions, but will not honor any other sanction.” Adding, “We have cordial relations with Iran and we continue to import oil from them.”
                              India buys some 300,000 bbl per day of Iranian crude (about 10% of its needs) worth roughly $12 billion a year.

                              Furthermore, according to the Thai News Service, senior Indian officials said this week “that the country will not reduce its imports from Iran and urged Washington not to make an example of Delhi.

                              Sanctions have complicated the Iran-India oil trade. According to Asian Age, Indian Oil had to cancel an order for a spot cargo of Iranian oil because European insurers wouldn’t cover its tanker. That’s unlikely to deter the tanker fleet operated by the National Iranian Oil Company. Iran produces roughly 3.5 million barrels per day, and exports 2.2 million bpd.

                              Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been discussing the issue with India, and recently said the U.S. is very serious about imposing sanctions on countries that continue to trade with Iran. After the sanctions’ June implementation deadline, the U.S. Treasury Department could move to close off access to the U.S. financial system to any Indian banks that continue to facilitate trade with Iran.

                              But is this just a hollow threat? U.S. officials have reportedly said that the Obama administration is unlikely to do anything to aggravate nuclear-armed and Iran-sympathizing India when what it needed is to drive a wedge between India and Iran.

                              Besides, there’s plenty of businessmen eager to find other workarounds. Last Friday, according to Asian Age, India’s Federation of Indian Export Organizations led a large 70-member trade delegation to Iran to seek new business opportunities. Growing commercial ties will enable the countries to form a trade block based on Rupees. Already India pays in rupees for some 45% of its Iranian crude. Nearly all other global oil transactions are done in dollars, but Iran has been leading efforts to change that, having launched the Iranian oil bourse in 2008. No U.S. banks needed. No dollars allowed.

                              Pakistan and India already have nuclear weapons. To what extent is it worth alienating India to prevent Iran from getting nukes too?
                              Source: India's Growing Ties To Iranian Oil Could Bust U.S. Sanctions

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                                You know it's funny. S2 and JAD-33 says that Iran is causing all of this. I digress. Israel is causing this. Israel has claimed that as a right to self defense, she will not throw away her options to have nukes and is allowed to get away with it regardless of being part of NPT or not. Based on that, Iran is following suit.
                                Iran has no rights to use NPT benefits to acquire nuclear weapons.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X