S-2

"Tell this to S-2..."

deltacamelately,

This phrase, vital nat'l interests, seems in vogue by those who wish license for their nation's behavior when exceeding the norms of freely entered agreement. I note a great deal of sympathy by Indians here to Iran. As such, the resentful comparisons to Pakistan are unusual.

In Iran's case, if you wish to assert that it's America's vital nat'l interests which cause our opposition to their acquisition of nuclear weapons, I'd agree if-

1.) that means the continued maintenence of a system of accords which govern our day to day intercourse. This system, of course, includes the NPT-freely entered by Iran.

2.) that means the internat'l global trading system upon which America derives so much of it's health, INDIRECTLY, through the economic well-being of it's neighbors deserves defense against the hegemonistic behavior of Iran. This, of course, was clearly demonstrated for all during the 1988 Tanker war. Unlike India, perhaps, America's nat'l interests often include the aspirations and needs of weaker nations less capable of their AND OUR defense of the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT WATERWAY in the world.

I don't object to India's close relations with Iran. It's not America's business until such time as those relations impede the interests of my nation. What's fascinating is the effort expended to do so at the expense of closer ties with Pakistan. At first glance, one would assume that the cost of shipping goods to CAR from India through Chadabar and then trucked north would far exceed goods trucked directly from India through Pakistan northward. Chadahbar represents a counter-weight to Gwadar, nothing more. It is not the preferred solution as it perpetuates the continuation of Afghanistan's manipulation by it's neighbors. The objective (access to Afghanistan and CAR) is desirable but hardly a market upon which a nation should squander it's moral capital.

That would require, of course, suspension of Indian meddling in Afghanistan-a deep suspicion of Pakistanis that seems reinforced by Indian commenters here at WAB. Neither nation seems interested in the development of a truly independant Afghanistan at the expense of a more malleable, corrupt and compliant institution.

I re-iterate that maintenence of a global system of agreements is in my nation's vital security interests as is the prevention of a nuclear-armed regional hegemon perfectly willing to assert it's new-found muscle over a SLOC vital to the economic well-being of the entire world.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Blademaster

We are sympathetic to Iran because they are Shias and do not follow the destructive Wahabbi doctrine and have a large minority group called the Balochs. Prior to the Partition, the Balochs wanted to stay with India but was not allowed to. The recently assassinated Baloch leader, Mugt Bugti was friendly towards India and wanted independence from Pakistan. He was assassinated precisely for this. Moreover, Iran refused to take sides in the conflict between Pakistan and India and has even recognized that Kashmir belonged with India. Another thing, Iran has offered a stable supply of oil at fixed rates to be changed annually in accordance with the market demand. But it doesn't mean that we support Iran's moves as with Israel and their support with Hezbelloh and we have made our displeasure known to the Iranian leaders. They know this and understand this.

However, I do say that the US deserve its measure of blame. In 2003, Bush received an unprecedented offer from the previous president of Iran to drop its nuclear program in exchange for normalization of trade and diplomatic ties, a proposal that had the implicit backing of the elite circle. Guess what happened? Bush turned them down and the previous president who was every bit a moderate lost face with the elite circle and was ultimately voted out of office. Bush had every opportunity to change the relations with Iran and he continued to piss those opportunities away with his "tough macho" talk such as saying Iran was part of the evil axis. That was [sic] really brilliant [sic]

As for Afghanistan, where do you get this absurd notion that India is only interested in a malleable corrupt institution in Afghanistan. That's *******s and you better damn well bring proof of this otherwise this is just a sly attempt at putting India in a bad light. Take a look at what India is doing in Afghanistan. India is helping Afghanistan rebuilding its civic institutions, building hospitals, schools, and social worker programs. How's that creating a malleable corruptable institution?

Tronic

I personally don't agree that it is in America's interests to be solely against nuclear Iran and no one else. As far as I can read of American policy; America is hostile to all states acquiring nukes unless they are needed to serve American interests. I would want India to have a similar policy.

Not true at all; that is why we do not support nuclear Iran (can't say about Delta). If there was no America, then sure, I would personally want India to step up. But in current scenario, India should sit out of this one and let the rest of the boys play their own games.

And as for aspirations of weaker nations go, then I believe India had blindly supported suppressed democratic forces; even if doing so put us in a weaker geo-political situation. But where was the international community then? Again, we don't support nuclear Iran, but if there is someone doing something about it; we're not needed. That is how the big powers have always played the game. What is so wrong of me to ask that India do the same?

No, it actually wouldn't. The last thing Pakistan wants is Indian-Afghanistan trading ties. That is why they have been very reluctant to let India ship goods through Pakistan to Afghanistan. Even now the amount traded is very small. Henc, the need for a more bulky route.

Afghanistan has no choice. They are a land-locked nation. No matter who they turn to, someone somewhere will see it as a manipulation by one of it's neighbour.

No, it is worth every little bit of moral capital. A great deal of the terrorists trained in Afghanistan were being trained to fight against Indian forces in Kashmir since the past 2 decades. India has waged this war lot longer then America, and "squandering" our moral capital on Afghanistan is every bit desirable to make sure it doesn't turn into a terrorist training camp again.

And what exactly is Indian meddling in Afghanistan? Having relations with the Afghan government? Shipping the Northern alliance with weapons to fight the Taliban? If that is Indian meddling; then that very well is there! Taliban is an Indian enemy which has trained terrorists to wage war against Indian forces in Kashmir. If Pakistan supported the Taliban for a decade, then we also currently support the Northern alliance to assist it to kill the filth. If that is Indian meddling, then it is no secret!

We are just working with a system which your government put in place. So if you take Afghanistan to be heading towards a more "malleable, corrupt and compliant institution", then the finger should be pointing to your own nation's government, not ours.

And anyone saying the opposite? It has nothing to do with America. The discussion was how India should sit on the Iran issue; and everyone has their opinions. Mines being that India should sit out.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Agnostic Muslim

Blademaster,

Its a bit dishonest to argue that Bugti was killed simply because he was "friendly with India". The man engaged in atrocities against sections of his own clan, drove thousands of them from their homes, tortured them, imprisoned them in his private jails. He was responsible for terrorist attacks against the state. Isn't all of this exactly why Indians label the kashmiri militants "terrorists"?

Bugti and his fellow Tribal Sardars are a large part of the reason why Baluchistan has lagged behind. Bugti got billions in revenue from Gas royalties - what was the development status in his little Dera Bugt? Absolutely nothing.
The thousands of Bugti clan members, returning after his death, have expressed nothing but joy and thanks - and guess who the "Baluch Freedom Fighters" are targeting in Dera Bugti now? Innocent Bugti clansmen who were not in "Sardar Bugti's favor".

The Sardars have led the fight for "more autonomy and higher royalties", and it has been a fight for purely selfish reasons. Pakistan should have acted to abolish the Sardari system long ago, instead of currying favors with them and earning their short term loyalty. They would have still turned to militancy, but it would have perhaps allowed for local development that would not have alienated the average Baluch as much as sticking with the Sardari system has.

PS: Enough of a digression from the topic by me, and I agree with your views on the US spurning repeated offers from Iran for god knows what reason. I need God to talk to me too...

__________________
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah

Tronic

No, it is because they set off bombs in markets, trains and other public places. Attack the parliament. And have even mass murdered non-muslims in villages and then hung their bodies from trees. So theres a bigger reason then to wage war against the security forces alone. And as for Bugti or the Balochis. I won't compare them to anyone as I don't know nil about the situation there. I'll just take your word for it.

Adux

I suspect, thats what you meant, I am perfectly fine that.


My dear sir,
I sincerely hope that you might want to look at the picture again,
There is two missile's, Nodong A and Nodong B, That picture by the way is from fas.org. And we didnt have discussions PF, quite one-sided, did you somehow forget what all was done to my posts, might explain my lack of civility. Anyways this wab, so lets try.

read above

You would be suprised to know that the chinese wont dance to your tunes, for everything. It has been said here from the good colonel that after signature of NPT by the chinese in 1992, and they have not coloborated with Pakistani, I suggest you read pakdef thread on Indian Nuclear energy where a very well respected over there takes a very critical view of Pakistani game with world Nuclear proliferation.

Adux

Gibberish, The same Pakistan which claims Ahmed Shah Masood was blood-drinking psychopath, while Taliban where the real nice boys of Afghanistan
You mean the Punjabi domination is just a myth.


Pakistan never invested in basic Infrastructure in Balochistan, and it is Oman, UAE and Iran who are the main supporters of Balouch movement.

PS: Enough of a digression from the topic by me, and I agree with your views on the US spurning repeated offers from Iran for god knows what reason. I need God to talk to me too...

Adux

Right on,

Killing innocent civilians, more people have died on the hands of IED, RDX laden trains than under any Indian Army action. Funny isnt, when you think about it, It is the same thing that is happening in Iraq, an country accused of have killed 600,000 people, when 90% of the people have died because someone putting a bomb in a crowded market. And the USA gets abused of Human rights abuses and gets blamed for deaths , HOW?

S-2

"...they are Shias and do not follow the destructive Wahabbi doctrine..."

I can construct a case that Khomeinists follow their own rather destructive doctrine.

"Prior to the Partition, the Balochs wanted to stay with India but was not allowed to."

I know this but you hint a rather radical border re-adjustment that I'm certain you know isn't going to happen, be accepted if so and, thus, is peripheral to Iranian-Indian relations. You also know, Blademaster, but don't mention the rather pervasive baluchi resistance present inside southern Iran. That, too, is a peripheral issue.

"Iran has offered a stable supply of oil at fixed rates to be changed annually in accordance with the market demand."

As expressed, an odd fixed-rate agreement...

"In 2003, Bush received an unprecedented offer from the previous president of Iran to drop its nuclear program in exchange for normalization of trade and diplomatic ties, a proposal that had the implicit backing of the elite circle."

Let's talk about this. It is here that your tone becomes increasingly vitriolic. Drop WHAT nuclear program? Let's be specific...peaceful NPT-governed and IAEA-supervised program? Or the parallel and undeclared program that went undiscovered for the nineteen years previous (1984-2003) before uncovered by the IAEA? That's the program which has raised such suspicion. You'll recall that the recent NIE indicated that there was a nuclear weapons program that was placed dormant in 2003 also. This may or may not have been the same as the IAEA discovery. All, however, in clear violation of agreed accords on transparency and agreed inspection disclosure standards.

So what's "unprecedented" about attempting to cash in on subterfuge by blackmailing the U.S. gov't? Do you understand the implications? No POTUS in his right mind could do so in light of what was revealed and not be HUNG by Congress. The Iranians understood this and postured the offer to deflect the intense scrutiny they experienced. 2003 was a VERY interesting year for Iran but you fail, by a country mile here, to make your case for more Bush bungling.

"Bush had every opportunity to change the relations with Iran and he continued to piss those opportunities away with his "tough macho" talk such as saying Iran was part of the evil axis."

Already disproved above. What your comment fails to address adequately is the multiple missed opportunities for Iran to do so since 2003. Often, these missed opportunities have been accompanied by "tough macho" talk from Ahmadinejad about Israel and America. Never mind that these opportunities since 2003 include offers from Russia, the EU-3 and, 2006, the United States in exchange for suspension.

It doesn't matter about Bush anyway. Iran's pursuit of the complete fuel-cycle in light of nineteen years of nuclear subterfuge removes trust. Until trust is re-established, Iran must not continue on it's path. Instead of forthrightly re-establishing trust by full and transparent compliance of requests by the IAEA since 2003, the Iranians have gone in the opposite direction. That's nobody's fault but Iran and the ultimate consequences could be severe. India needs to be prepared to recognize and support that if/when the time comes. Until then, I could care less.

Blademaster, I believe in the global trading system. I believe in free and fair market access for all, to especially include the Persian Gulf. I believe that Iran would enjoy hegemon status of that access with nuclear weapons. Those are big words that mean too much to those who'd reconsider 1988 with Iranian nukes. It's unacceptable to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and the G.C.C. states. That matters. It's unacceptable to two-third's of Iraq's population. I can't imagine how the Turkish gov't would find it acceptable either. Yeah, it's also unacceptable to Israel.

"...where do you get this absurd notion that India is only interested in a malleable corrupt institution in Afghanistan."

Indeed. I rather concur. Nonetheless, over at def.pk it's commonly accepted that RAW owns the afghani gov't because of it's close ties to the N.A. This has naturally led to unbridled speculation of RAW-funded baluchi insurgent camps/sanctuary established in the Kandahar area. Of course these notional camps might look suspiciously like taliban to the Canadians so they'd either know or one hell of a ruckus would ensue. As it hasn't ensued, they (and NATO) know. Or so the story goes...

Just wanted to poke a rib.

Agnostic Muslim

Adux,
Thank you for inserting the 'no'. It is what I meant.

We did indeed have the discussion on PFF, it was when I first joined the forum, and you were still in favor. I choose not to generalize people, and deal with them as they with me, so I would appreciate you not projecting your sentiments about whoever on me. We can disagree, but civil disagreement is not so bad a thing.

I looked at the picture several times, and perhaps I am missing something that you are not, but under the Nodong-A I see the words "Ghauri II", whereas next to the Shaheen I and II I see the words M-11 and M1-B respectively. The arrows drawn go from the cone of the DF-2 to the Nodong A, and from the DF-2 to the Shaheen I and II, indicating possibly shared design with the Chinese??

The Nodong B is compared to the Iranian missiles - I don't see any comparison with the Shaheen I and II in your image.

With regards to the Chinese, I never said they "danced to our tunes" on anything, I have merely hypothesized based on the theories presented by various "analysts" (including whoever did the image you posted) that perhaps China was the source of the Shaheen.

If China was not the source, then how can the same Nodong purchase yield a 1500 liquid fueled Ghauri, and the 800 km solid fueled Shaheen, by two different organizations in Pakistan?

I think I know which Gentleman on pakdef you refer to, and I have read his posts. He is highly critical of AQ Khan's role in proliferation and his unilateral usurpation of the "acclaim" for a program that involved several organizations and thousands of scientists. In fact the difference in our interpretation of his posts was another discussion we had in my initial PFF days. I do not remember him claiming that the GoP had given any official sanction to the proliferation. In fact he has argued the same point as myself, that the GoP was too lax in its oversight of AQ Khan and the program in general, and that Khan was answerable to no one.

Agnostic Muslim

Providing no reasoning or counter claim is gibberish. The Pakistani media has not pulled any punches when in has come to criticizing Musharraf's policies, and they have not spared him any criticizm over what they consider the deliberate killing of Bugti, or the dilapidated state of Baluchistan. The same media has also mentioned the abysmal conditions in Dera Bugti and the other Sardar enclaves.
You thrive for instigation don't you. I have posted my reasons, you can counter them. I had a discussion with Blademaster in the Ralph Peters thread (New map of Middle East) about the "Punjabi domination" issue. You could read my posts there and reply however you see fit.

I think I admitted the "not investing in Baluchistan part", but I also pointed out that a continuation of the Sardari system, which gives the Sardars complete control over development in their areas (not the GoP), also contributed to the decline.

I understand the linkages between Oman and the Baluch, but I am not certain that there is direct support for the BLA. Iran's support for the BLA could be in retaliation to allowing Jundullah to operate in Pakistan, but is unlikely to be significant in the long term, since an Independent Baluchistan would affect them as well.

Adux

Pakistan burned for 2 days on Bugti's death. They were not laughing as you said. You had a thread for that in PFF. And less about that forum the better. Shouting at Musharraf and Balouch movement is two different things for the pakistani media.

Only if you prefer to take it that way, Punjabi domination issue is voiced by various seperatist groups in Pakistan, Dont tell me it doesnt hold water.



The continuation of Sardari system is no different than Feudal systems prevalent in various others parts of Pakistan. So lets not blame the balochi's alone. The low investment also led to extension of the sardari system.

That is because you think Iran has nothing to gain. Al-Balushi's, Iranian Balochs doesnt want Balochi's to be part of Pakistan, as they dont consider to be a part of Pakistan on racial terms, though indepdence wasnt what Bugti asked.

JAD_333

S-2, I don't know who you mean by "those". On the presumption that you mean apologists "excusing" their nation's behavior, I think it is well to keep in mind that "vital national interests" is not, at least in the case of the US, a set of vague, always changing desires, but a short list of concrete first principles from which all policy flows.

For many years the annual report of the Secretary of Defense on the state of the military was prefaced with a reiteration of US vital interests because, obviously, the shape and direction of the US military is influenced by them. There were not 100, nor 50, nor 10 of them. There were just 3, and sometimes 4. Among them were to defend and protect our allies and to keep open the sea lanes connecting us to our allies and trading partners.

I mention these two because they come into play when considering Iran's putative nuclear program, its stated animosity to US allies in the ME, and its geographic location on the Straits of Hormuz, a vital waterway for the US.
If one wants to fathom or anticipate US moves and statements, one has to begin there. So, what you call "vogue" is just common sense of the informed.

Your implication that vital interests are cited as a "license" to exceed "freely entered agreements" would make for a good discussion on where the line should be drawn between infinate patience and the need to act. And, in fact, a good bit of the debate on these boards is just about such a line.

The question is, at what point does a country throw up its hands at the intransience of another country's attempts to circumvent those agreements to which you refer? At what point does a country decide to act when another country's actions are clearly to constrain its vital interests? Or, to put it in ordinary terms, at what point does an agreement become a worthless piece of paper?


You seem to appreciate the growing dilemma the US faces in dealing with Iran. Has the US reached the end of the rope? If not, what more can it do to alliviate the situation with Iran? At what point will it be too late to act?

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Agnostic Muslim

My comments were about the expelled Bugti clan members who were able to return after Akbar Bugti's death.
There is a difference between perception and what exactly exists on the ground. I am not denying that the perception about "Punjabi domination" exists in some quarters, but I attempted to address the reality behind it in my discussion with BM. Separatist groups will obviously use that argument to further their cause, whatever the reality behind it.

And at no point have I said that the Feudal system in Punjab and Sindh is any better. The most dismal conditions in those provinces exist in the Feudal areas primarily. I myself mentioned that Pakistan was also responsible for a "lack of investment", as was the Sardari system. So what are you on about?


I was referring to the BLA not Bugti, and what exactly do the Iranian Baluchis want?