Increasingly pressed by Washington’s dysfunctional Afghanistan policy and America’s high profile relationship with China, India may be moving closer to the Islamic Republic.
Of course, India has never been “anti-Iranian” in any meaningful sense. But, as the Singh government worked, during President George W. Bush’s second term in the White House, to consolidate a new strategic partnership with the United States—a partnership seemingly embodied in a new, Indo-U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement—New Delhi was prepared to distance itself from Iran to some degree, especially on nuclear matters.
In particular, since 2006, India has voted “against” Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors three times. (For a scathing critique, from an Indian perspective, of the most recent IAEA action of this sort that was endorsed by New Delhi, a Board of Governors resolution in November 2009 criticizing Iran over the Tehran Research Reactor and other issues, see this brilliant piece by our colleague Siddharth Varadarajan.
But now India seems to be moving closer to Iran, on a number of fronts. We hope to offer a deeper analysis of Indo-Iranian relations soon. But, in the meantime, we want to bring together a number of diverse media reports that, in our view, discuss some of the current dynamics in interesting ways.
First, it seems clear that energy and economics are an important strategic driver for India’s efforts to bolster its ties to Iran. On this point, there is this short but factoid-filled report, filed from New Delhi, by (U.S.) National Public Radio’s Corey Flintoff, see here, focusing on the extraordinary growth in Indo-Iranian economic relations, even as the nuclear issue has heated up as an international concern. A few noteworthy points from Corey’s report:
–Iran’s trade with India “has tripled in the past five years to around $15 billion a year”. [Note: Earlier this month, at a meeting in New Delhi of the India-Iran Joint Commission, co-chaired by India’s Minister of External Affairs and Iran’s Finance Minister, participants looked forward to Indo-Iranian trade expanding to $30 billion a year by 2015—with sectors such as oil and gas, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, textiles, and agriculture identified as high-priority growth areas—and signed several new economic cooperation agreements, see here.
--Iranian exports of oil to India continue to grow, as the Indian economy continues on its impressive high-growth track; currently, Iran “provides about 14 percent of India’s crude oil”.
--Indian companies “are heavily invested in Iran’s oil sector and likely to become more so as Western companies stay away because of the sanctions”. [Note: That statement is true and important. We would underscore, however, that Chinese companies are more important upstream players in Iran than their Indian counterparts.] Furthermore, India is also “looking at ways to tap Iran’s huge reserves of natural gas, including a proposed undersea pipeline”.
Second, current trends in Afghanistan motivate New Delhi to align its policies more closely with Tehran. In this regard, a Reuters piece by Sanjeev Miglani, see here, focuses on Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s outreach to the Taliban and Pakistan, in a way that complements some of our recent analyses of Iran’s Afghanistan policy; see, for example, here and here . Miglian aptly describes India’s strategy in Afghanistan and some of the challenges it faces there now,
“India sought to win Afghan support through a “soft power” approach, using some $1.3 billion to build roads, power lines and the Afghan parliament, raising the ire of Pakistan which frequently urged its ally the United States to lean on New Delhi to limit its presence. Pakistan complains India is trying to hem it in, and that a string of newly opened Indian consulates in Afghanistan were intent on stirring up discontent in Pakistan’s restive Baluchistan province just over its border.
But with the United States announcing plans to pull out its forces next year, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai turning to Pakistan to help bring the Taliban and other militant groups to negotiations, the tables appear to have turned against India…New Delhi has…engaged in a flurry of diplomatic contacts with Iran, the other regional player in Afghanistan which like India is strongly opposed to the Sunni Muslim Taliban. Neither Iran, nor India “wish to see the prospect of fundamentalist and extremist groups once again suppressing the aspirations of the Afghan people and forcing Afghanistan back to being a training ground and sanctuary for terrorist groups”, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said this month.”
A Reuters analysis from earlier this month, see here, emphasizes the risks of a regional proxy war in Afghanistan—and the common interests of India and Iran in managing and dealing with those risks.
“[T]he feverishness of the 21st century Afghan war, the perception (right or wrong) of a likely early American disengagement may be encouraging more, rather than less, zero-sum gamesmanship. The danger then is that far from moving towards a settlement in Afghanistan, regional players back different sides in the Afghan conflict, leading to de facto partition and renewed civil war.
With India now convinced Pakistan is pushing for a political settlement in Afghanistan which could return its former Taliban allies to power in Kabul, New Delhi in turn has renewed a drive to work with Iran to offset Pakistani influence there.
“I would today reiterate the need for structured, systematic and regular consultations with Iran on the situation in Afghanistan,” Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said in a speech this week to Indian and Iranian think tanks, posted on the Ministry of External Affairs website:
“We are both neighbours of Afghanistan and Pakistan and have both long suffered from the threat of transnational terrorism emanating from beyond our borders. India, like Iran, is supportive of the efforts of the Afghan government and people to build a democratic, pluralistic and peaceful Afghanistan. Neither of our countries wish to see the prospect of fundamentalist and extremist groups once again suppressing the aspirations of the Afghan people and forcing Afghanistan back to being a training ground and sanctuary for terrorist groups.”
India has bad memories of Taliban rule when Afghanistan was used as a base for training camps for militants fighting in Kashmir. Along with Iran and Russia, it supported the then Northern Alliance which opposed the Taliban government when it was in power from 1996 to 2001. It has since invested heavily in Afghanistan—raising hackles in Pakistan, which fears encirclement by its much larger neighbor.
So how will Iran respond? India’s once warm relations with Iran soured somewhat in recent years after Delhi gave some limited support to a U.S.-led drive to impose sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear programme. It has since begun to chalk out a position that is more independent of Washington, and spoken out against unilateral sanctions on Iran.
Pakistan meanwhile has been working to improve relations with Iran, including saying it helped Tehran with the arrest earlier this year of Abdolmalek Rigi, leader of the Baluch Sunni rebel group Jundollah, who was hanged in Iran last month. Yet relations between Tehran and Islamabad are also hostage to any fall-out in the row over Iran’s nuclear programme, particularly given Pakistan’s close ties to Iran’s main rival Saudi Arabia.
With fresh sanctions being imposed on Iran, some of the most explosive issues in global politics—from rivalry between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan and between Shi’ite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, to the row over Tehran’s nuclear programme, to the fate of Afghanistan and the battle against Islamist militants—are converging. We have known for some time that these issues would run into each other sooner or later—but maybe not quite so soon, and at a time when U.S. policy on Afghanistan is so uncertain. Predicting the likely outcome is harder than ever.”
Third, the recent opinion piece by Harsh Pant of Kings’ College, London, emphasizes the impact of blundering U.S. policy—toward India, Afghanistan, and Iran—in prompting New Delhi’s turn toward Tehran.
“[T]he Obama administration’s callous attitude toward India is pushing India toward Iran, and that could have grave geopolitical consequences.
America’s Afghanistan policy has caused consternation in Indian policymaking circles. A fundamental disconnect has emerged between U.S. and Indian interests with regard to Af-Pak. The Obama administration has systematically ignored Indian interests in crafting its Af-Pak priorities. While actively discouraging India from assuming a higher profile in Afghanistan, for fear of offending Pakistan, the U.S. has failed to persuade Pakistan to take Indian concerns more seriously.
While the U.S. may have no vital interest in determining who actually governs in Afghanistan—so long as Afghan territory is not used to launch attacks on U.S. soil—India does. The Taliban—good or bad—oppose India in fundamental ways. The consequence of abandoning the goal of establishing a functioning Afghan state and a moderate Pakistan will be greater pressure on Indian security. To preserve its interests in this milieu, India is now coordinating more closely with states like Russia and Iran.
During Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit earlier this year, India sought Russian support in countering what it views as a U.S.-Pakistan axis in Afghanistan. India is making a concerted move to reach out to Tehran. India’s deputy national security adviser, Alok Prasad, was in Iran a few weeks back trying to seek Iranian support in stabilizing the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, too, has held discussions with his Iranian counterpart, especially concerning the West’s plans for reintegrating “good Taliban” gathers momentum.”
Interestingly, a former director of policy planning at India’s Ministry of External Affairs makes an even broader point to Corey Flintoff about the impact of dysfunctional American policy on New Delhi’s strategic calculations:
“We thought we had a strategic relationship. But we see that at a strategic level you’re again taking the Pakistani line. Our interests in Afghanistan are not being considered. You are cozying up to the Chinese. We are not getting the technology that we thought we were getting as a result of the nuclear deal. So I think the government is right in saying enough is enough.”
It looks like India is becoming an increasingly interesting player in the “race for Iran”.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Liz,
Russia and China agree Iran has every right to its domestic nuclear power programme. The dispute is not about forcing Iran to give it up.
Iran has invested tens of billions of dollars on its nuclear program over the past 35 years. It would be foolish to give it up and in any case, as someone said before, it is far more than an issue of national pride, it is an issue of national sovereignty.
RS Hack,
I fail to see the efficiency of Iranian enrichment of LEU. I understand the elements of national pride and honour that are at work, but efficiency seems missing altogether. By diverting so investment funding and effort away from its oil and gas industries, into the nuclear power programme, Iran has significantly injured itself economically.
Israel has played a significant role in delaying the delivery of the S-300 missile systems to Iran. Perhaps France has also had a role (related to the Russian purchase of two high tech naval assault vessels.
Mr. Canning: “Do you seriously think Russia would suspend shipments of nuclear fuel to Iran?”
If offered enough of their own primary interests by the US, sure they would. They’ve delayed the S-300 defensive missile systems, which is direct proof, despite the fact that they would make major money selling those systems to Iran.
“Is Iran’s enrichment of LEU really just a means of ensuring the nuclear reactors will not have to shut down because a scheme emerged to cut off Iran’s nuclear fuel supply?”
Essentially. Also, it’s obviously more efficient to do everything in house than to ship stuff all over the place.
“Why would Russia cut off nuclear fuel shipments to Iran?” See above. Iran is not a primary concern to Russia. Relations with the US, among other things, is.
Richard Steven Hack,
Do you seriously think Russia would suspend shipments of nuclear fuel to Iran? Is Iran’s enrichment of LEU really just a means of ensuring the nuclear reactors will not have to shut down because a scheme emerged to cut off Iran’s nuclear fuel supply?
Why would Russia cut off nuclear fuel shipments to Iran?
I would further point out that the language of the NPT articles seemingly does NOT prohibit any non-nuclear state signatory from developing the technology and knowledge to build a nuclear weapon:
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.
Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state’s peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Article II states that the part must not “manufacture of acquire” nuclear weapons and not to “receive assistance” from nuclear weapons states to manufacture them. This says NOTHING about actually knowing how, or having the technology, to build nuclear weapons. It just says in essence “Don’t MAKE them!”
Article III merely states the country must comply with the IAEA and prevent diversion – both of which Iran has done completely, except for one small technical violation. As Wikipedia states: “Iran was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards obligations in an unusual non-consensus decision because it “failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time” to report aspects of its enrichment program”
In other words, the decision was not clear, and the only violation was Iran didn’t report certain aspects of its program in a timely manner. EVERYTHING ELSE is a matter of ginned up evidence of a non-existent weapons program, which as I’ve said repeatedly, at worst could be considered evidence of an intent to acquire the knowledge and technology to build a nuclear weapon – not to actually develop and deploy them.
I should of course point out that nothing I say in the previous post is meant to imply that Iran, having signed the NPT, is not obligated to abide by it – as it in fact has completely under the letter of the NPT. I believe there was one minor technical violation Iran committed which was resolved with the IAEA and that matter has been dropped. Everything ELSE that has come up between Iran and the IAEA is the result of US pressure and apparently forged documents which the US has not allowed the IAEA to provide to Iran for inspection even under controlled conditions.
However, I will go further than that and say that quite frankly if the US and the other nuclear powers are not going to disarm their arsenals rapidly as they agreed to do under the NPT, and if nations like Israel, India and Pakistan are going to be allowed to develop them just by virtue of NOT signing the NPT, then really all the other nations should under international law be allowed to acquire the knowledge and technology to build nuclear weapons as long as they don’t actually do develop and deploy them.
Mr. Brill: “Are you arguing that Japan, right now, could design and build a “nuclear explosive device,” as long as it doesn’t actually put nuclear material into the device – that that would not be a violation of Japan’s NPT promise “not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”?”
That isn’t the question. The question should be: Should Iran have the freedom to have the KNOWLEDGE and TECHNOLOGY to enable it to build a nuclear weapons should it decide to do so?
The obviously correct answer is: Yes, they should have that freedom, just like every other country in the world should have that freedom, including even North Korea.
This is not what is under discussion, as Arnold has pointed out. The US wants Iran to stop ENRICHMENT and thus essentially place its nuclear energy program under the control of other countries, thus denying Iran a sovereign right and rendering Iran susceptible to pressure from other nations who could then deny it a supply of nuclear fuel. This is and should be completely unacceptable to any sovereign state.
Arnold’s position that Iran has a right to have the capability to perform a nuclear weapons breakout, or a stance of nuclear weapons “ambiguity”, such as Japan and Brazil have, isn’t even the issue under discussion by the US. The US and Israel want Iran completely unable to even have the knowledge and technology to build a nuclear weapons, let alone the resources to actually build one, and not even the resources to insure complete control of a peaceful nuclear energy program.
As I’ve said before, Iran very possibly had a military program to acquire the knowledge and technology to build a nuclear weapons. This is perfectly reasonable for any nation’s military to do, especially one threatened by not one, but TWO, nuclear powers (or even three if you count Pakistan). Under what theory of international law is it right for any other nation to interfere in a sovereign state’s internal military affairs, absent a specified threat to any other nation? There is none. The mere possession of nuclear weapons, let alone the mere possession of the technology to build one, is no where described in any international law that I am aware of as proscribed to any nation absent that nation’s previous violations against its neighbors under international law (such as Saddam engaged in with Iran and Kuwait).
Therefore there is ZERO legal reason for the US to be doing ANYTHING about Iran’s nuclear program.
Arnold: “This whole exercise is just misdirection and deception in support of a position that is fundamentally unsupportable. Eric, on this particular issue you are amazingly wrong.”
Agree one hundred percent. He’s picking nits to put Iran on the defensive here when it is the US and Israel who should be on the defensive. There is absolutely NOTHING legal about the US – and the other members of the UNSC – is doing in the Security Council against Iran. There was no real legal authority to turn the IAEA Iran case file over to the UN in the first place, let alone get sanctions applied.
Eric continues to harp on “disclosure” – but he can’t even identify anything Iran needs to disclose. He ignores the fact that Iran DID comply with the Additional Protocol for several years without getting anything but a slap in the face. He also ignored the fact that there really is zero reason for Iran to comply with the Additional Protocol in the first place, since Iran can see clearly – if in fact it does not have any such program – that the entire crisis is made up. If that is true, and all the evidence indicates it is, then Iran gets nothing for complying.
Eric claims that if Iran did comply, it would be helping itself. But all the evidence proves the reverse – the more Iran complies, the more demands are made. The obvious intent, clearly stated by Obama during his Presidential campaign, is NO ENRICHMENT. This demand is ILLEGAL on the face of it under the NPT. Completely ILLEGAL. Obama has no legal authority to demand it at all, regardless of what issues the IAEA claims it may have about Iranian “intentions”. That’s the bottom line.
If Obama were to say to Iran, “Hey, let’s trade: you sign the Additional Protocol and whatever else the IAEA wants to do, we’ll agree to let you have enrichment and we promise to drop regime change.” Iran would jump at that in an instant. Does Eric have any notion that Obama is seriously considering such a deal? Of course not – but it’s not even conceivable that Obama would back off to that degree from the position Obama has established consistently up until now. So why the hell should Iran comply with US demands?
Eric just keeps harping on “more disclosure” on the premise that it would be helpful to Iran. It’s just nonsense.
DWZ,
Yes, hoax or colossal scam, or a combination, historically speaking. I find the history of the various migratory tribes in Central Asia and the adjoining European steppe to be very interesting.
So, many of the “Jews” living in Israel, are largely the descendants of a Turkish tribe. And the Palestinians, of course, are largely the descendants of the Jews and other people living in Palestine 2000 years ago.
DWZ,
I find Bernard-Henri Levy to be very tiresome and unconvincing on many issues.
Even assuming that a Turkish tribe provided much of the genetic makeup of many (or perhaps most) modern Jews, how does this affect the way one should regard Saudi Arabia? Iran wants justice for the Palestinians. So do the Saudis. They have 57 Muslim countries backing their peace plan.
The foreign ministers of Brazil, Turkey and Iran plan to meet soon to see how to move forward on the basis of the Tehran declaration. This makes very good sense.
kooshy,
Webster G. Tarpley mentions the “Anglo-American war party” in the piece you linked. Both Cameron and Hague are opposed to any attack on Iran, be it by Israel or the US. And British participation in such an act of utter idiocy, has a zero probability. Zero. The quasi-religious zealotry and delusional thinking of Tony Blair is a thing of the past.
Castellio,
If Israel in fact is doomed, as a “Jewish” state, if Israel fails to end the occupation of the West Bank, then those encouraging fanatical Zionists to keep all or most of the West Bank, are working against the continued existence of Israel as a “Jewish” state. Should the Tablet start alerting the world to the anti-Jewish Zionists?
DWZ,
Whiel I agree with you that a Turkish tribe contributed a good deal to the great increase in the number of Jews, in Eastern Europe 13 centuries ago, I do not see how those seeking or supposedly seeking a “world government” figure in the discussion.
Surely you were not cheering for John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign in the US. Or Hillary Clinton.
As most of us on this site probably know, the Tablet has accused a number of websites and the individuals running them of being anti-Semitic due to the comments on the blog, including Steve Walt, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald, Jim Lobe, and Philip Weiss.
See http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/new-battleline-tablet-calls-4-anti-israel-blogs-agents-of-influence.html
I think Walt’s site has been ruined by its commentators actually, and that he would be better off without them. (It’s clear that the hasbara crowd has targeted him.) The Angry Arab stopped all commentaries and it improved his site.
I appreciate Evans firmly drawing the line.
The idea is to stay reasonable and pursue justice for all.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-is-preparing-to-bomb-iran/
“If your aim was to discredit this website, that’s what you’d write. I won’t be interacting with you further.”
Arnold,
Its often hard to tell who is sincere but stubborn, and who is, in fact, a deliberate Agent Provocateur.
If your aim was to discredit this website, that’s what you’d write. I won’t be interacting with you further.
Really?
Yes, indeed.
Destroy the tribe of Zionist Khazari; otherwise these racists and murderers will destroy you.
Really?
The Iranian defence minister, Brig Gen Ahamd Vahidi, says the latest Republican draft reolution in the US Congress is part of the “climate of war” they are promoting for electoral advantage in the fall Congressional elections. All too true, of course!
Castellio,
I agree one can conclude there is an active conspiracy underway to set up yet another insane war in the Middle East. Many of the conspirators have a concealed agenda of seeking permanent oppression of the Palestinians, no matter how many trillions of dollars this costs the American taxpayers — who are too ignorant and stupid to pay attention to what is going on.
kooshy,
Isn’t it fair to say that Obama, or at least some of Obama’s advisers, wanted to engage with Iran, and that the trumped-up controversy over the election last year made it more difficult for them to move forward?
I think the controversy itself was created, and exploited, in part to prevent the improvement of relations between the US and Iran.
Arnold
I also think Iran need not to reveal anything more then what NPT requires her to do unless US is willing to publicly acknowledge Iran’s full rights (Japan or Brazil) to the treaty including a domestic full fuel cycle, as is evident, Information which was obtained by agency with Iran’s cooperation during the confidence building period and passed on to the US in the 2.5 years that the AP and code 3.1 was adopted in agreement with the EU3 was the bases for the confidence obtained in the 2007 NIE that Iran is not perusing a Military nuclear program. These findings were completely contrary to what the US political elites hoped the outcome will be, therefore they decided against their own agreement with the EU3. It will not change a thing if Iran offers a walking tour of all Iran’s military site except making targeting sites easier to access.
As is obvious to many including Steve Clemens (see my link yesterday) there are not many sound military options for US in Iran, and since a political rapprochement in current domestic US’s political environment is even less attainable therefore a regime change was the only way Obama could possibly adopt to resolve the three decade old stalagmite with regard to Iran’s dossier. After all his political decision was exact same approach that all other previous US administrations had adopted and failed.
“nuclear explosive device,” as long as it doesn’t actually put nuclear material into the device
This is really not a primary issue, what is a nuclear explosive device, because the US is trying to impose limits on Iran’s nuclear program drastically more stringent than that. But it in a way is a somewhat interesting question.
A gasoline engine has two characteristics – it consumes gasoline to achieve its purpose, and after the gasoline is consumed, it is ready for more gasoline to continue serving that purpose.
A diamond ring does not have either of those characteristics. Once the diamond is gone, it is no longer a diamond ring. To say I have a diamond ring, I just haven’t added the diamond is nonsense.
A fertilizer bomb uses fertilizer to make an explosion, but after the explosion, there is no bomb. How language is most commonly used, a fertilizer bomb, just without fertilizer, is not a fertilizer bomb. There is no such thing as a fertilizer bomb with no fertilizer.
A wine glass holds wine, and after the wine is gone can take more wine.
A glass bottle does not consume glass, it is glass. Take away the glass and you don’t have a glass bottle.
A black-label bottle does not use black labels to accomplish some function. Take away the black-label and you still have a bottle, but not a black-label bottle. Put the label back on and you have a black-label bottle again.
An alcoholic beverage uses alcohol to accomplish a function, but once the alcohol is gone, the alcoholic beverage is gone. Common English language use does not sensibly describe an beverage without alcohol as an alcoholic beverage without alcohol.
“A nuclear explosive device, just with no nuclear material and that cannot explode.” There is not a good analogy between the explosive material and the gasoline in a gasoline engine. It is more like an alcoholic beverage that just has no alcohol – which is to say, not an alcoholic beverage.
Did the negotiators of the NPT intend for nuclear explosive device to define devices that have no fissile material but that would be explosive if fissile material was added? I see no indication of that, and it is not how the English language is commonly used now or then.
This is only superficially interesting. A Japan option does not require that. The United States began staging troops in Iraq’s border in Fall 2002 and invaded in Spring 2003. That’s roughly the minimum timeframe that the US requires its planners to be sure Iran or a potential US target state must not be able to build a nuclear bomb. If that is not reasonably sure, the US would not even commit to preparations for an attack.
But also, has Japan, in studying North Korea’s program built a mock-up of the kind of weapon Korea’s technological capabilities could produce? If it does not add fissile material, it does not have to declare it. Maybe it has, but that doesn’t make a difference because that does not play an important role in the calculation of how long it would take, if provoked for Japan to build a weapon with which it could retaliate.
Iran has the right to the same degree of nuclear flexibility as Japan. So far nobody has introduced an argument based on any principle disputing that. As long as the US denies that right to countries in Israel’s region, that is the foundation of the nuclear dispute. It is really to be caught in side issues to focus on anything else.
Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu want us talking about anything regarding Iran’s nuclear issue other than their intention that Israel have a monopoly on nuclear capability in its region.
James, what do you mean “there may be another effort to start a war with false intelligence”. There currently is another effort to start a war with false intelligence.
Fiorangela,
So many stooges of the Israeli militarists, right there in the Republican caucus in the US Capitol!
Did anyone else see David Gardner’s article (in the Financial Times today) on TheDailyBeast site? Gardner warned in effect that there may be another effort to start a war with false intelligence, a la Iraq.
disturbing news
H Res 1553
“Nearly one third of the Republican Caucus in the House of Representatives has introduced a resolution giving Israel a green light to attack Iran. H.Res.1553 declares unwavering support for Israel to “use all means necessary,” to “eliminate nuclear threats” posed by Iran. ”
JULY 22, 2010
Mr. GOHMERT (for himself,
Mr. AKIN,
Mrs. BACHMANN,
Mr. BARTLETT,
Mr. BISHOP of Utah,
Mrs. BLACKBURN,
Mr. BONNER,
Mr. BROUN of Georgia,
Mr. BURTON of Indiana,
Mr. CAMPBELL,
Mr. CHAFFETZ,
Mr. CONAWAY,
Mr. CULBERSON,
Ms. FALLIN,
Mr. FLEMING,
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona,
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia,
Ms. GRANGER,
Mr. GRIFFITH,
Mr. HENSARLING,
Mr. HERGER,
Mr. KING of Iowa,
Mr. LAMBORN,
Mr. LATTA,
Mr. LOBIONDO,
Mrs. LUMMIS,
Mr. MARCHANT,
Mr. NEUGEBAUER,
Mr. PENCE,
Mr. PITTS,
Mr. POSEY,
Mr. PRICE of Georgia,
Mr. OLSON,
Mr. ROONEY,
Mrs. SCHMIDT,
Mr. SHADEGG,
Mr. SMITH of Texas,
Mr. WESTMORELAND,
Mr. ROSKAM,
Mr. MCCOTTER,
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina,
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin,
Mr. MCCLINTOCK,
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio,
Mr. BARTON of Texas,
Mr. KINGSTON, and
Mr. CARTER
one of the more distressing names on the list is that of Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, a smart and promising representative, at least on domestic issues involving economic policy.
Nasser, what were Iran’s choices: to say nothing? to praise Russia? to criticize Russia? Medvedev is playing both sides of the issue; that seems clear.
Are you arguing that Japan, right now, could design and build a “nuclear explosive device,” as long as it doesn’t actually put nuclear material into the device – that that would not be a violation of Japan’s NPT promise “not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”?
That is actually a true statement, but I’m not arguing it because it would be a distraction. That is not what Obama and Netanyahu are trying to prevent. That is not what motivates the demand that Iran stop enriching or the demand that Iran hold its stock of LEU beneath one ton.
If Japan was to leave the NPT, it would not start from where Egypt would start, it would, unlike Egypt, be impossible to confidently prevent Japan from building a weapon by embargos, or even by bombing if Japan’s leaders decided that was in the interests of the country. If Iraq had reached that point, it could not have been invaded.
Japan has acquired a degree of flexibility in its nuclear program is legal, that Egypt does not have and that Israel, the United States and you seemingly believe is vital to deny Iran.
There is no principled way to support your position, you have to, in one way or another, change the subject if your position comes up. One way is to ask, “at what point does technology actually become a weapon?” I have an answer, and disagree with you, but I really don’t care. You’ll concede that Japan does not have a weapon today and could build one if threatened. That is what the US, Israel and apparently you are interested in denying Iran.
Actually it really does not matter because we can reasonably assume that a crisis that would cause a nation to leave the NPT would take at least six months to develop. In that case, being 1 day away or six months away are strategically identical.
Obama and Netanyahu are working, using every tool at their disposal, from threats and bribes on the UNSC and IAEA boards to military threats, to forged documents, to assassinations of Iranian scientists to prevent Iran from having enough material and technology that if a crisis develops Iran’s ability to produce a weapon cannot be confidently discounted.
When you see a dispute over Iran’s nuclear issue, that’s what you are seeing, a program by Obama and Netanyahu, continued from Bush and before him, extending to the beginning of the Islamic Republic, to prevent Iran from reaching the position Japan is in.
Iran will manage its strategic environment knowing that this program is in place, and knowing that many Americans support it, including you. You’ve convinced yourself that Iran deserves to be punished for not cooperating with US efforts to prevent it from reaching the position Japan is in. Iran’s leaders just don’t care, as they shouldn’t.
interesting, fyi.
On our 25th anniversary my husband and I wondered how it was possible for anyone UNDER 25 to fall in love.
Nasser,
What particular aspect of Ahmadinejad’s comments do you think were mistaken or should have not been said? Criticism of Medvedev’s comments about Iran moving closer to having an ability to build nukes?
Russia wants a diplomatic settlement of the dispute. This is in Iran’s best interests.
DWZ,
I agree with you that the US bends or breaks international law, to advance the objectives of the government of Israel (and to please the Israel lobby, neocons, etc.), in its treatment of Iran. One might ask, however, whether these actions are actually in the best interests of the people of Israel.
The US colluded with Israel for several years, prior to the insane Israeli smashing of Lebanon in 2006, to arrange things so that the war could be launched if a pretext presented itself. The result was a disaster for Israel.
This midget really doesn’t know when to shut up! Some more of his crazy mutterings:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/ahmadinejad-warns-medvedev-of-joining-u-s-plot-against-iran-1.303718
Arnold,
“How do you defend your position on Iran being denied the nuclear capabilies Japan, Brazil and Canada have?”
I’ll answer in more detail later, but I’m not clear what you mean. I’m not suggesting Iran can’t leave the NPT and work on a bomb at any time, just as Japan, Brazil and Canada could do so. And if that happens, the US and other countries will be free to react as they see fit, free of any treaty obligations. Hard to imagine that Japan, Brazil or Canada would ever do so, and I think the US would be quite upset if it happened.
In the meantime, I’m not sure what “nuclear capabilities” you believe I would deny to Iran but not to the others. Are you arguing that Japan, right now, could design and build a “nuclear explosive device,” as long as it doesn’t actually put nuclear material into the device – that that would not be a violation of Japan’s NPT promise “not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”?
You’ve argued this before, and you should recall my earlier answer to it, but I should first be sure that’s what you still mean before I respond to your point.
Fiorangela:
“Women of a certain age have other, less lofty fantasies.”
Yes, indeed for some women.
That is why it is so difficult for a woman above age 25 to fall in love.
Yet, you hear/sense women of certain age who have so much love to give but do not know one worthy of receiving it.
“the courage to become mentally intimate” may characterize relations between (young) women and men. Women of a certain age have other, less lofty fantasies.
This invention, (with pictures) by Iranian Ahi Andy Mohsen, reached the semifinals of an Austrailia-based Electrolux-sponsored competition to design the appliances of the future.
Mohsen designed a compact, portable, solar-powered dishwasher. I think I’m in love.
Eric, are you serious? How do you defend your position on Iran being denied the nuclear capabilies Japan, Brazil and Canada have?
Arnold,
You’re correct about Article Vi, which I’ll confess I’d overlooked when I reread the NPT. The nuclear weapons states indeed did undertake to “pursue negotiations in good faith,” which is more than I’d asserted.
Even so, and not to diminish my oversight on this point, “pursue negotiations in good faith” is far from a commitment to give up nuclear weapons – soon or ever. One would hope that world leaders at that time, and today, would not be naive enough to imagine that the United States (or Russia or China) would even think about giving up its nuclear weapons.
OK Eric, let’s argue about the “issue” of whether or not the weapons states have a requirement to enter good faith negotations on full disarmament.
Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
That’s after the preamble.
Now, how do you justify your position that Iran should have less access to nuclear technology than Japan, Brazil, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Romania or several other countries?
Arnold,
Forgive me for playing lawyer here but, when interpreting treaties or agreements, I recommend you pay less attention to the preambles (which tend to reach mind-numbing length in UNSC resolutions and many treaties), and more attention to the part that comes after words such as “Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows:” Whether it should be or not, I think you’ll find that this is an important dividing line.
If you reread the NPT with that thought in mind, you’ll quickly see that neither the US nor any other “nuclear weapons state” undertook anything remotely approaching an obligation to disarm, or even to think about disarming.
Preambles in treaties often include soothing, sometimes inspiring, platitudes about how the parties will march arm-in-arm toward a happier and more peaceful tomorrow, and I certainly don’t mean to say that preamble language is never taken into account when the actual agreement text is ambiguous. Even so, I wouldn’t put as much weight on them as you plainly do. Sometimes, they are ignored even when the agreement text IS ambiguous, or at least is claimed to be ambiguous by one party or another. The classic example of this is UNSC Resolution 242 – specifically what is sometimes called the “There is no ‘The’ There” argument, which concludes that the following provision does not require that Israel give back all of the territory it acquired in the 1967 war, but rather only some unspecified portion of it: “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict…”
How well do you suppose the “There is no ‘The’ There” argument would have fared if the passage just quoted had been interpreted in light of the following passage from the preamble of Resolution 242?
“Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war…”
Eric A. Brill & Arnold Evans:
Unless Iran is physically occupied by foreign soldiers, she cannot be prevented from building nuclear weapons, if her leaders determine that is in fact in Iran’s best interests.
US certainly does not have enough soldiers even if there were no US deployments in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
There are multiple paths to a getting fissile materials:
1- Buy it – and some Internte sources claim Iran has obtained bomb-grade fissile
materials
2- Build a zero output heavy-water reactor and put it in a basement: Iran has heavy-water and the natural uranium
3- There is the TTR spent fuel rods that have been accumulating there since 1960s.
This is all a red herring.
Honestly, Eric, there is one core question that the dispute stems from. If you do not accept Iran having the level of nuclear capability Japan and Brazil have, you’ll be able to produce all kinds of subordinate issues for us to argue about.
Out of respect for you and things you’ve written, I’ll engage the subordinate issues, but the real issue is your indefensible position, that you hardly attempt to defend if you do at all, that Iran should not be in a position that it could build a weapon if it was to leave the NPT, as Japan, Brazil, Canada, Germany and a lot of other countries could.
But about Iraq – I’ll concede that the fissile materials safeguards agreement does not detect activities that do not relate to fissile material. This was not a new discovery in the 1990s. This is how the agreement was negotiated and agreed.
But that agreement is enough to prevent a country, including Iraq in 1991, from building a weapon without leaving the NPT.
You want Iraq or Iran to have made a different agreement, and allow broader inspections of its nuclear program? Well, I want the US to begin its disarmament negotiations. But that’s not what both sides agreed when the NPT was negotiated.
This is just a distraction though. You think that since the US has a good relationship with Japan, Japan should be allowed nuclear capabilities Iran should not be allowed? That position is outrageous. Compared to that, Iraq’s program in 1991 is a meaningless nitpick.
Arnold,
“Have you, or anyone, seen an assertion that enriched fissile material, either a critical amount, or any amount at all, was not detected by Iraq’s fissile materials safeguards agreement? I have not … If not, then Iraq could not have built a weapon unless it left the NPT or an actual failure of detection occurred, and I have not read that there was one.”
One of us is not understanding the other’s point here, and I think it is you.
My whole point is essentially what you point out. Iraq’s Safeguards Agreement focused on fissile material, just the same as Iran’s did then and still does. Because Iraq’s Safeguards Agreement was so narrowly focused, as Iran’s still is, a great deal of Iraq’s nuclear-weapons-related activity was not detected by IAEA inspectors, much less reported by Iraq.
If the Additional Protocols had existed back then, and Iraq had adopted them, maybe Iraq’s nuclear-weapons development activities would have been detected. I’ll venture a guess that Iran, back then, would have been pleased if that had occurred.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/23/stop_hyperventilating_obama_will_not_choose_war_wi/
Eric:
such as happened when the Additional Protocols and new Code 3.1 were drafted after we learned that Saddam Hussein’s weapons-development program had not been detected under Iraq’s Safeguards Agreement
Have you, or anyone, seen an assertion that enriched fissile material, either a critical amount, or any amount at all, was not detected by Iraq’s fissile materials safeguards agreement?
I have not, but I’m willing to be corrected. If not, then Iraq could not have built a weapon unless it left the NPT or an actual failure of detection occurred, and I have not read that there was one.
solemn non-proliferation promises under the NPT
We’re being a little dramatic now. Countries agreed, for as long as they refrain from voluntarily and unilaterally leaving the requirements of the NPT, not to build weapons. The word “solemn” does not occur in the NPT or the safeguards agreement. But if it did, how did Iran’s requirement become “solemn” when the US agreement to begin good faith negotations toward full disarmament (which have never happened) become less solemn?
especially the two that count the most here: Russia and China
This is a common and wrong assertion by Eric and Alan – that Russia and China are immune to US pressure on the issue of Iran. The US is willing to trade important things, such as missile defense in Russia’s case and currency policy in the case of China for pressure on Iran. If the US offers enough, Russia and China will go along. The US is a powerful and resourceful country. It can and does make offers that Russia or China would be foolish to refuse. This is true whether or not it serves some purpose of justice.
I believe that Iran should start cooperating and disclosing more about its nuclear program
Well, now you know, Iran reports Fordow to the IAEA on Monday, Obama, but not Russia or China, gets a report on Tuesday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092503913.html
At this point, to say Iran should give more information to the IAEA that the US can use for its acknowledged covert programs to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program, and threats to attack Iran’s nuclear program militarily without even taking into account the real costs of such a policy is just stubbornly clinging to a position for reasons unrelated to the facts under discussion.
Until it does so, countries whose support Iran sorely needs probably will continue to agree with the US: Iran deserves punishment because it has not taken reasonable prescribed steps that would bring it closer to “proving the negative” of a nuclear weapons program.
Call the steps reasonable, in the abstract, if you want. We have looked at the specific steps being asked and they are not reasonable. You don’t even defend them any more when described specifically.
These steps also would not be sufficient to cause the US to accept Iran with nuclear capabilities such as those Japan has.
As it has been for months, that is the key issue of the dispute. Obama does not accept the idea of Iran having the nuclear capabilities Japan has.
You also don’t accept Iran having the nuclear capabilities Japan or Brazil have. You defend your position on the grounds that you and the United States are more comfortable with Japan than it is with Brazil. That is an outrageous defense for discriminating between nations on the amount and kind of nuclear technology they can access.
This whole exercise is just misdirection and deception in support of a position that is fundamentally unsupportable.
Eric, on this particular issue you are amazingly wrong.
Fiorangela Lysistrata:
I cannot answer your question.
Specifically about talks: US & Iran have had numerous talks even after 2003.
Some private and some public.
They cannot come to an agreement regarding each other’s roles in the Middle East.
The Iranian leaders’ opposition to Israel is very deep indeed.
Unless a one-state solution is reached, I do not see any agreement possible on that arena.
In Iraq, the US aim of making Iraq a bulwark against a possible Iranian incursion into the Arabian penninsula is unreachable – ever.
In Afghanistan, Iran can live with a resurgent Taliban. In fact, from the Iranian point of view, a resurgent Taliban would be preferable to a continued US/EU/NATO presence in Afghanistan.
The removal of sanctions etc. are not worth that much to Iran.
George Bush raised the stakes with Iran – needlessly in the opinion of many – by putting war against Iran as a concrete choice.
James Canning, It’s maddening that so many US politicians and members of the bloviater class have been to Israel but so few have been to Iran. If I had my way, I would insist that NO legislation could be passed unless X% of voters had visited the country that would suffer from the act.
That I’m one of very few non-Iranian Americans who HAS been to Iran is an indictment of our political class. That so very few Americans speak Farsi is an even greater indictment.
Having been to Isfehan and Natanz, I know from first hand experience that Iran’s nuclear facilities in those locations are very near to civilian populations– very large population density, in the case of Isfehan, and ancient Turkic villages in the case of Natanz. An attack on nuclear facilities in either of those places would inevitably devastate civilians in those locations. As well, Isfehan is a UNESCO World Heritage site. An attack on Isfehan would be the equivalent of Taliban’s destruction of the ancient Buddhas in Bamyan.
That’s a tricky issue to raise, however; “Islamists” ordered the destruction of the Buddhas, which were said to be contrary to Shari’ia law; is it possible or likely that Iran’s mullahs would be unconcerned that Iran’s cultural heritage might be threatened? The mullahs did, at one time, attempt to destroy the remains of Persepolis.
fyi,
if the ranking is as implied:
war, talk, (young) women, and alcohol,
is it safe to assume men (males) would forswear war in preference for talk (the theory of the blog), and forsake alcohol in preference for (young) women? (suspiciously like the hopes I hold for my sons).
Fiorangela,
I see Joe Klein as a stooge of the warmongers, allowing Time magazine to be used to promote an insane attack on Iran.
We saw numerous such stooges at work in the months leading up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Fiorangela,
Bravo (July 23rd, 1:37pm)! Reuel Marc Gerecht is an idiot. William Hague says an attack on Iran likely would be catastrophic. And Hague knows his history (one reason I am such a strong supporter of him).
Perhaps a bit off topic, but Spiegel online today has story worth reading: “Making a Mockery of the Moratorium”. Obama comes off as the stooge of Netanyahu, for praising him for “restraint” when illegal construction in the West Bank is roaring ahead.
Fiorangela Lysistrata:
Talk, (young) women, and alcohol.
fyi,
what else do men (males) like?
Paul
“…but, of course, as you know, it’s NOT reasonable when this standard is applied to one country and not to all countries.”
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Safeguards/sg_protocol.html
Saurabh Kumar Shahi – you have raised several good points on which I have written in the past. Both Mahtama Gandhi and Pandit Nehru were against the creation of a ‘Jewish state’ in the British occupied Palestine. However, it was Indira Gandhi who started courting Israeli leaders.
It was US-Israel support which helped Indira Gandhi to succeed breaking-up of Pakistan and creating Bangladesh out of the former Eastern wing of Pakistan;
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/how-india-israel-created-bangladesh/
Indian author, peace activist and former Tamil film actress, Arundhati Roy, has exposed Israel-India relations based on their common hatred toward Muslims.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/arundhati-roy-exposes-hindutva-and-islamophobia/
fyi,
All good points.
Eric
Richard Steven Hack,
Bravo (re USA Today planted neocon propaganda piece). Intellectually lazy Americans who bother to read a newspaper (other than the hometown rag) often go for USA Today, so it is a vital element in the scheme to dupe the grossly ignorant US public yet again.
Fiorangela:
Men (males) like war.
It is exciting.
That is why they like to go around talking about the inevitability of war in this or that situation.
Have you ever, in your lifetime, heard someone argue about the inevitability of Peace?
Or the “blind historical process” that will usher in concorde?
That is all.
Rehmat,
Richard Holbrooke was an idiot for trying to block the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. The low level of gas prices makes the deal uneconomic at present.
Who Knows the Sound of Four Jackasses Braying, or baroneing, as it were.
Michael Barone queried three right-wing careerists who pay their children’s college tuition by issuing foolish opinions that result in the deaths of other people’s children. They held forth on the possibility that Iran will be bombed.
1.”Reuel Marc Gerecht in The Weekly Standard argues cogently that an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would not lead to all the negative consequences.”
what’s “cogent” about anything Gerecht “argues?” He still “argues cogently” that Israel’s bombing of Osirik was a good think, but in fact, as Joe Cirincione has argued, Israel’s rogue and false-flag (Israel flew unmarked planes of US provenance) attack on Osirik initiated the cascade of consequences that induced Saddam to increase secretive nuclear development, which caused fear in Iranians that Saddam would gain nuclear weapons with which to threaten Iran, therefore, Iran restarted its nuclear project. In pursuit of Iraq’s nuclear weapons, US destroyed that country and killed about a million people, displaced 4 million. Other than that, no “negative consequences.”
Inasmuch as the cascade of events that Cirincione observes actually did come about, and are contrary to Gerecht’s prognostications, my money’s on Cirincione.
2. Time magazine’s Joe Klein thinks US will attack Iran because “American diplomats who feel that Iran’s spurning of a reasonable deal justifies military action and American military officers who say they know more about potential targets than they did two years ago.”
Let’s learn from past mistakes, Joe, those mistakes whereby US relied on flawed ‘intelligence’ to wage war on Iraq. Surprised you didn’t notice it, Joe; it was in all the papers: Iran, Brazil, and Turkey DID make a “reasonable deal;” Obama communicated with Brazil about it. Hillary Clinton “spurned” it. Are your diplomat and military officer friends willing to attack Hillary Clinton for “spurning” a reasonable deal?
3. Walter Russel Mead is sitting on the fence with Woodrow Wilson. “Mead is not so sure. He thinks Obama is motivated by a Wilsonian desire for “the construction of a liberal and orderly world.” Or “the European Union built up to a global scale.” A successful Iranian nuclear program, in Mead’s view, would be “the complete, utter and historic destruction” of Obama’s long-term goals of a non-nuclear world and a cooperative international order.
Mr. Mead, could you please whisper to Mr. Obama that, like Woodrow Wilson, he was elected to the presidency of the United States, not of the world, and that he really ought to work on a “liberal and orderly world” right here in the USofA: get US debt under control; define and control borders; remove the untoward influence of unregistered foreign agents in US government. When you’re finished with that, Mr. Obama, then you can go about the world seeking the reformation of souls and governments, but not until then.
paul,
I think it is incorrect to conclude that Russia and China “threw Iran under the American tank”. Russia wanted to keep the sanctions under the control of the UN Security Council, and avoid a US/EU operation outside the council. In a way, the US double-crossed the Russians by going ahead with the unilateral sanctions (challenged by both Russia and China).
Russia and China would prefer there by no sanctions against Iran.
I see continuing growth in Iran/India trade as very good for the American people, and it should be encouraged. When Medvedev was running Gazprom, he offered to finance the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.
India’s nukes haven’t been brought in from the cold. The US continues to aid and abett what continues to be a very, very dangerous rogue program, in the hands of a government that has been on the verge of war repeatedly, as recently as last fall.
Eric said that ‘countries strong enough to resist America’s arm twisting will choose their self interest’. Ok, maybe so, except THERE IS NO COUNTRY that strong. Sooner or later, if the US wants a war badly enough, EVERY country finds a way to discover that their interest aligns with American’s latest war. And if they don’t? As we have seen again and again, there are myriad ways to bring about ‘regime change’ in countries that don’t do America’s bidding. There is always a faction that is more ‘willing to cooperate with the international system’.
Iran seems to be adapting to this environment, making ‘friends’ where it can, presumably recognizing that ‘friends’ like India are short term players, trying to drive up the price of cooperating with the US war policy. Russia and China, in particular, seem to have gotten some pretty nice deals out of throwing Iran under the American tank, so I’m sure India decided to get themselves some. Iran surely is well aware that it can’t trust India anymore than it can trust Russia.
As usual, the defender of the Iranian Ancien Regime mocks Iran for thinking that countries would choose Iran over America. But, of course, what is at stake is not a choice between Iran and America. What is at stake is a choice between a US-centric international system and a truly multi-polar international system. I’m sure Iran can be forgiven for perhaps foolishly thinking that Putin wasn’t just playing for more goodies when he talked Big Talk a few years ago about the importance of a multipolar world. Perhaps Iran can be forgiven for possibly thinking that more countries around the world had enough self-respect for stand up for the principle of national sovereignty.
I’m not saying that most of the points in this article by the Leveretts are wrong. I think they are right on (apart from such whoppers as ‘the US is in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from fomenting terror’ – but, as well all know, the Afghanistan war was never about terror, and if it had been, of course we would have gone in a lot harder and faster and would have rounded up Bin Laden et al. It’s about the well known US policy of controlling Eurasia, which means GARRISONING Eurasia.). But the main point can really be read between the lines here:
“Interestingly, a former director of policy planning at India’s Ministry of External Affairs makes an even broader point to Corey Flintoff about the impact of dysfunctional American policy on New Delhi’s strategic calculations:
“We thought we had a strategic relationship. But we see that at a strategic level you’re again taking the Pakistani line. Our interests in Afghanistan are not being considered. You are cozying up to the Chinese. We are not getting the technology that we thought we were getting as a result of the nuclear deal. So I think the government is right in saying enough is enough.” ”
India is playing for more US honey. And they’ll get it. And then they’ll pitch Iran back under the tank, just like China and Russia. It must be hard for Obama to be the Boss of Bosses. The other gangleaders always want honey. So a little threat here, a little honey there … keeping them in line is an endless job. And they do get jealous of each other.
So Obama will placate India a little, and India will get back on board the Bandwagon to War, and all will be well in the Empire. Meanwhile, I suspect that India and other countries are starting to think about positioning themselves in Iran for the coming post-Regime-Change era. It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion now that Iran is going down. The main question now is how many people will die in the process and how much havoc will there be? The Hegemon wants Regime Change and the lackeys are getting their honey. But as we see, Russia and India seem to be already on the ball, trying to make deals that might still be applicable after the Regime Change.
Which makes the photo above, as always, remarkably telling. Mottkai is clearly putting on a show and Singh is pretending he doesn’t see the man in front of him. These are men who are playing out a very dark charade.
Fiorangela:
The strategic aim of Iran is to eject US out of the Middle East.
The strategic aim of US is to remain the dominant military power in the Middle East, and, to at the same time, maintain the security of Israel.
The best that you could hope for is a partition of the Middle East into nutral as well as spheres of dominance.
fyi,
from another perspective, US-India dealings that brought India’s nuclear project ‘in from the cold’ might have been an astute bit of diplomacy on the part of US, however much some of us who are Iran diehards might rail at the seeming hypocrisy of US making nuclear deals with non-NPT India while punishing NPT-signatory Iran. India ran a rogue nuclear development program for over a decade; now the US has its nose in India’s nuclear affairs, a step closer to global nuclear nonproliferation without using threats, sanctions, war. That can’t be counted a bad thing, after all.
Those of us who wish for a more equitable relationship between US and Iran should be heaping accolades on Obama administration for its diplomacy with India, and not-so-subtly suggest that Iran, too, might respond to genuine diplomacy rather than gotcha tactics.
This sounds reasonable, Eric …
“n the end, I feel the same about the question of whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program: the burden of proving that charge should rest on those who make it. There is nonetheless an important difference between the two questions. A Safeguards Agreement signed by a country under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty reflects a highly structured effort to get us all closer to “proving the negative” of that country’s nuclear weapons program. The Additional Protocols and the “earlier disclosure” version of Code 3.1 are more recent overlays on that structure designed to get us even closer.”
… but, of course, as you know, it’s NOT reasonable when this standard is applied to one country and not to all countries.
The US and the other Gold Card countries (the Security Council Permanent Members officially recognized Superpowers), but really this means the US, is/are using the UN – which theoretically was designed to prevent war – as a way to create war. Nothing could be more monstrous and perverse than the way the US uses the Security Council as a way to make war – and also as a way to protect Israel’s impunitous ‘right’ to make war.
Eric, your post is thoughtful and for the most part reasonable. However, different conclusions may be drawn from the same set of observations.
For example, your statement:
“But other countries, at least those strong enough to resist US arm-twisting, eventually will be guided by their own interests rather than the desires of the US. ”
is reasonable. In this case, one could propose that China is in fact guided by its interest in voting against Iran in the UNSC. China is tilting Iran – particularly its energy sector – toward China by going along.
One further note…
Cynic’s argument that the West will never be satisfied with any arrangements with Iran is based on a long 30 year history of reneging and sabotaging agreements by the West – and yes, to some extent by Iran. We don’t have to go too far back – we can just look back at the West’s promises vis-a-vis Afghanistan before the invasion, the promises vis-a-vis enrichment suspension, the promises vis-a-vis dropping support of terrorists acting against Iran’s interest….
Iran is cooperating with an unprecedented number of nuclear inspection by IAEA. The relationship between the West and Iran is highly asymmetric. Given this context and the historical precedence, it is only reasonable for Iran not to make any concessions in advance.
Richard,
“There’s absolutely NO evidence provided for the accusation that Iran is supplying the Taliban with weapons.”
My comment below does not challenge your specific statement (which is true as far as I know). But your statement highlights an important distinction between this issue – whether Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban – and the issue we discussed on the preceding thread: whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
Though you may mistakenly think otherwise about my views, I recognize that “proving a negative” is rarely possible, and I believe that asking anyone to do so is almost always unfair and pointless. A clear example is the one you’ve given here: whether Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban. The burden of proving that charge should rest on those who make the charge.
In the end, I feel the same about the question of whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program: the burden of proving that charge should rest on those who make it. There is nonetheless an important difference between the two questions. A Safeguards Agreement signed by a country under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty reflects a highly structured effort to get us all closer to “proving the negative” of that country’s nuclear weapons program. The Additional Protocols and the “earlier disclosure” version of Code 3.1 are more recent overlays on that structure designed to get us even closer.
We’ll never get all the way there, of course. And on some issues less important than preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons, countries might justifiably balk at undertaking such a structured effort to “prove the negative.” For example, if some new treaty and implementing agreements were adopted to curb weapons-supplying to the Taliban, and the scheme called for a 20-foot electrified wall to be erected along the Iran-Afghanistan border with crossings restricted to one heavily monitored border station, Iran might justifiably decline to participate in that effort to “prove the negative” of Taliban weapons-supplying.
But when an inspection and reporting scheme involving a very important issue, such as nuclear non-proliferation, has been carefully thought out and implemented over several decades, and painstakingly enhanced as experience reveals its curable shortcomings (such as happened when the Additional Protocols and new Code 3.1 were drafted after we learned that Saddam Hussein’s weapons-development program had not been detected under Iraq’s Safeguards Agreement), most observers will agree that countries that have made solemn non-proliferation promises under the NPT should undertake in good faith to comply with that inspection and reporting scheme. Many observers will be upset and suspicious if a country refuses to do so.
As some cynics argue – and they may well be right; cynics often are – whatever Iran does will never be good enough to satisfy at least one country (the US). But the arguments of those cynics falter when they claim either that (1) most other countries, like the US, will never be satisfied by Iran’s efforts; or (2) only the US’ view on this matters. Most other countries, I believe, understand clearly that Iran, like any other country, cannot fairly be expected to prove that it has no nuclear weapons program, and most other countries (especially the two that count the most here: Russia and China) consider themselves capable of judging for themselves whether Iran has made the effort that can fairly be expected of it. Certainly the US will try to persuade other countries to support the US’ position on this, sometimes with quite heavy-handed tactics. But other countries, at least those strong enough to resist US arm-twisting, eventually will be guided by their own interests rather than the desires of the US. That will be especially true, I believe, if those other countries conclude that the US is making unfair demands on Iran. Naively or not, I believe a sense of fairness still counts for something in most foreign policy decisions.
Against this background, it should be clear why I believe that Iran should start cooperating and disclosing more about its nuclear program. Until it does so, countries whose support Iran sorely needs probably will continue to agree with the US: Iran deserves punishment because it has not taken reasonable prescribed steps that would bring it closer to “proving the negative” of a nuclear weapons program.
{But more than that, it is India’s uneasily close hobnobbing with Israel that is under scanner. India helped Israel launch a spy satellite that was essentially meant to map Iran. This was done under the full knowledge of Indian establishment. India is under the impression that these activities go unnoticed in Tehran. The fact is, I have seen the drastic change in the perception about India, in Tehran. India’s image has turned from good to bad to worse in matter of few years.}
Saurabh
Thank you very much. As an Iranian, I am disgusted with not only India’s action against Iran but also China and Russia. Russia cannot be compared with the other two countries since Russia have always acted against the interest of Iran during the course of history, but India and China both were humiliated by the British and American imperialism, controlled by Zionist Jews, and should have known better not to cooperate with this vicious tribe, Khazari JEWS, against the interest of Iran without any reasons. Iranian people NEVER forget this insult and will act appropriately should opportunity arises. We are very angry at our enemy and will remind our children, generation after generation, about the vicious actions taken against us by Khazari Jews through proxy, the United States.
It is clear that every action against Iran goes back to this vicious TRIBE OF ZIONIST JEWS, the enemy of Iran and the world. Contrary to lies of Zionists, including Chomsky is the tribe of KHAZARI, part of the Turkic Mogul, who are directing the destruction of Iran through control of American government and its STOOGES including Obama. Iran and the United States are natural allies.
The United State president IS NOT A POWERFUL FIGURE, rather is A PUPPET, A PUPPET, A PUPPET, and nothing but a puppet. When US president is a Zionist puppet, then you know what you should call the rest of the political stooges. All major US departments are under control of the Zionist Jews and directed by Israel-firsters. The Zionist Jews bankers and their accomplices at the white house, senate, military, intelligence, Congress, are the main enemy of Iran and American people who must be destroyed. All Iranians must be united and talk with one voice against the enemy and expose these bastards at once.
Saurabh Kumar Shahi – you have raised several good points on which I have written in the past. Both Mahtama Gandhi and Pandit Nehru were against the creation of a ‘Jewish state’ in the British occupied Palestine. However, it was Indira Gandhi who started courting Israeli leaders.
It was US-Israel support which helped Indira Gandhi to succeed breaking-up of Pakistan and creating Bangladesh out of the former Eastern wing of Pakistan;
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/how-india-israel-created-bangladesh/
Indian author, peace activist and former Tamil film actress, Arundhati Roy, has exposed Israel-India relations based on their common hatred toward Muslims.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/arundhati-roy-exposes-hindutva-and-islamophobia/
Saurabh Kumar Shahi:
Agreed with much of what you wrote.
The Indian strategic community was taken for a ride by US. They received, or thought they would receive, a bunch of nuclear goodies but wound up, in fact, in a virtual NPT.
They are also an ignorant lot in that they cannot seem to distinguish between the profound differences that obtain between the Shia and the Sunni. In India, the ration of Hindu-Muslim religious riots for Sunni vs. Shia is 10000 to one. This simple domestic fact and its ramifications seems to have escaped their notice.
I also think Hindus are very much against Muslims. It is an unworkable attitude for Hinud Indians and makes India vulnerable to destablization by other states.
But Iranians also made mistakes. One was that they did not support Dr. Najibullah to the hilt; his government was the best that Afghanistan had ever had and its continued existence would have prevented a lot of future problems (as we are witnessing). But Iranian leaders were too religious, too anti-communist, and too rigid to do so.
I think the second mistake of Iranians was to think that they could have informal strategic ties with India (or any other country for that matter). In the absence of formal strategic ties, all Iranian interactions should have been transactionally based. I think Iranians needlessly alienated Pakistan and got nothing from India that they could not have obtained through commercail channels.
I think Iranian leaders are quite pragmatic and they will deal with India on a transactional basis. But never again will they pull India’s chesnuts out of fire.
In regards to Afghanistan, all Iran needs to do is to do nothing. Americans and NATO are going to establish their “A Bridge Too Far”, “Fort Apache” basis in that country, in the middle of a hostile, disorganized and impoversihed country while violence and Sunni extremism spreads to Central Asia, India, and China.
How much Indian government is submissive to US-Israel axis can be judged by India’s walking-out of Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline contract.
In 1994, Iran and India signed a deal to build a 2,700-kilometre-long gas pipeline (IPI) at the cost of US$7.5 billion to transport Iranian gas through Pakistan to India. Dubbed as the “Peace Pipeline”, hoping that financial collaboration may bring peace between the nuclear rivals Hindutva India and Muslim Pakistan. However, the construction of the proposed pipeline could not go ahead due to Washington’s pressure on New Delhi and Islamabad. Last year, India dropped out of the deal under Washington’s blackmail with a nuclear deal in 2008……
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/iran-pakistan-pipeline-and-the-israeli-alternative/
Rehmat,
“The Zionist think tank, Belfer Center…”
Et tu, Belfer Center? Harvard professor Stephen Walt is going to be none too happy to learn he’s been working all this time for a “Zionist think tank.”
Thank you to the Leveretts, once again, for connecting yet another dot, and thank you, too, Saurabh Kumar Shahi, for some inside information.
Saurabh Kumar Shahi, what is the extent of India-Israel trade and especially weapons sales? I recall reading recently that Israel is assisting India to develop its nuclear technology; any information on that topic?
The Zionist think tank, Belfer Center, in its July 2008 Policy Brief had recommended that India should continue its close ties with Israel and use its influence on Arab governments to recognize Israel and that the US administration must continue its support security and diplomatic cooperation between India and Israel. However, this support must be kept “secret” as the knowledge of such American support would certainly creat a backlash in India and the Muslim world.
“Among the questions open and honest dialogue would need to address is the extent to which outside forces are having a significant influence on India’s drift to war with itself. It’s not too much of a secret that for more than a decade (and perhaps much longer) Israel’s Mossad has been advising, some say directing, India’s intelligence agencies. The cover story is co-operation in the “war against global terrorism”. But it’s not unreasonable to speculate that agents of Zionism and its neo-con associates are complicit in stoking Hindu-Muslim tensions. By giving Zionism and its neo-con associates something of a free hand, I think India’s authorities have seriously compromised their country’s independence on counter-insurgency policy. If, as Chakma said, India must “rely on the rule of law” in order to have a chance of defeating its rebels, that is never going to happen as long as Zionism is allowed to call at least some of the counter-insurgency shots. Zionism has complete contempt for the rule of law. An India which takes Zionism’s advice is, in my opinion, an India that will be torn apart by unthinkable violence in a foreseeable future,” Alan Hart in India at war with itself
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/israel-and-indian-hell/
This article in USA Today is interesting for how a “hatchet piece” is constructed.
Every single one of the quoted “experts” are neocon supporters of the Iraq war and are now pressing for an Iran war. There’s absolutely NO evidence provided for the accusation that Iran is supplying the Taliban with weapons.
Clearly a planted piece.
Experts discuss Iran-Taliban relationship
www dot usatoday dot com/news/world/2010-07-22-iran-taliban_N.htm
Saurabh Kumar Shahi,
I have read MK Bhadrakumar echo your sentiments regarding India-Iran relations. I think you are being wayyy too easy on the Iranians and put too much blame on the Indian decision makers. You write that the estrangement between the two countries is due to the dominance of right wingers in Indian policy making circles but Iran had great relations with the BJP led government and their relations began to sour after Congress came to power. I think what Iran needs to do is get it through its head that NO country in the world is going to pick them over Washington and so start acting in a more humble manner. As far as Israel goes, if Iran can’t even dissuade little Azerbaijan from having such close relations with Tel Aviv, it can’t possibly hope to have a veto over Indian foreign policy decisions.
“Indian companies “are heavily invested in Iran’s oil sector and likely to become more so as Western companies stay away because of the sanctions”. [Note: That statement is true and important. We would underscore, however, that Chinese companies are more important upstream players in Iran than their Indian counterparts.] Furthermore, India is also “looking at ways to tap Iran’s huge reserves of natural gas, including a proposed undersea pipeline”.”
I thought Indian companies such as Reliance Industries were moving away from selling gasoline to Iran. And the natural gas pipeline deal with India fell through because of Iranian negotiating tactics rather than US pressures. The case of the Indians only once again shows that the Iranians have no diplomatic tact whatsoever. Despite being under so much pressure from the West, the Iranians continue to be intransigent and arrogant with countries like China or India. The Iranians are so vain and arrogant that it strikes them as odd that these countries would choose Washington over them! Because of this Iranian attitude, these countries are also beginning to pick Riyadh over Tehran; maybe that will bring the Iranians back down to Earth!
Dear Leveretts, I have been a regular reader of your posts and have come to like almost all of them. I am an Indian journalist and I cover Middle East. I think I have a few points to add here.
India’s decisions vis-a-vis Iran in last decade has been heavily motivated by the dominance of right-wing section over Indian foreign policy. This section with a limited world vision sees the world into Islamic and non-Islamic halves and fueled by their Anti-Muslim hatred, try to guide the foreign policy along those lines. India might have tried to align with the US and thus voted repeatedly against Iran. But the dominance of hawks in foreign policy can not be discounted. In fact, during my assignment visits to Iran, people in power corridor don’t fail to mention this “betrayal”. They remind how Iran’s veto in OIC in early 90’s spoiled Pakistan’s chances to raise the Kashmir issue.
But more than that, it is India’s uneasily close hobnobbing with Israel that is under scanner. India helped Israel launch a spy satellite that was essentially meant to map Iran. This was done under the full knowledge of Indian establishment. India is under the impression that these activities go unnoticed in Tehran. The fact is, I have seen the drastic change in the perception about India, in Tehran. India’s image has turned from good to bad to worse in matter of few years.
As India is loosing its turf in Afghanistan following bonhomie between Karzai and Pakistan, it is desperate to salvage its fortune there. Iranians understand that India is merely using them as the bargain-chip to balance its relation with the Americans. After all India was rattled by the snub at the meetings in London and Ankara over Afghanistan. Therefore its action will always be seen as suspicious and motivated. Iranians do not forget to remind that Pakistan, perceived as a lackey to Americans, abstained from previous voting in IAEA whereas India voted against Iran.
The issue is not America. The issue is India’s discounting of Palestinian struggle and its hobnobbing with Israel. It can not have good relationship with both Israel and Iran at the same time. Soon things will deteriorate and Indian administration will find itself at the crossroads. That day would be real interesting.