Pak Iran Pipeline

 

from dawn.com

 

ISLAMABAD: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was assured by Pakistani leaders on Thursday that they remained committed to the gas pipeline and electricity import projects despite international sanctions on his country.

Although he couldn’t get a firm timetable for making the energy projects operational, he appeared to have been satisfied with pledges of speeding them up and, in return, offered to enhance bilateral trade to $10 billion in a couple of months.

More importantly, the two sides commenced discussions on currency swap and barter trade arrangements to circumvent the US sanctions for doing business with Iran in the dollar.

“The President (Asif Ali Zardari) reiterated commitment for expeditious implementation of Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project, 1,000MW electricity transmission line and 100MW Gwadar power supply,” a statement issued by the presidency said.

The PM’s Office in a press-note on Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s meeting with Mr Ahmadinejad said: “Both leaders agreed to pursue the energy projects including electricity and gas on fast-track basis. They also discussed the status of Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline.”

Iran has been worried that Pakistan could abandon the gas pipeline and electricity import agreements under pressure from the West because of sanctions and has been seeking categorical assurances from Islamabad about its continued commitment to the projects.

In the meetings at the presidency and prime minister’s house the two sides discussed ways of enhancing bilateral trade, including proposals for currency swap, barter trade, removing tariff and non-tariff barriers and improved border coordination for facilitating businessmen.

The statement from the presidency said: “President Zardari proposed for considering encouraging barter and trading in local currencies between the two countries besides removing tariff and non-tariff barriers.”

US sanctions on purchase of Iranian oil in dollars have already made several other countries, including Russia, India and Sri Lanka, to make payments in gold or their own currencies.

During talks at the prime minister’s house, the Iranian delegation expressed its desire to import one million tonnes of wheat and 2,00,000 tonnes of rice from Pakistan within weeks.

Following fresh sanctions, Iran has increased procurement of grain from the international market bypassing the banking restrictions by paying in currencies other than the dollar and euro.

Measures for controlling drug trafficking and fighting terrorism were also discussed at the meetings.

Both sides agreed to boost mutual coordination for countering terrorism, drugs and narcotics control and human trafficking, an official said.

President Ahmadinejad thanked Mr Zardari for Pakistan’s “keen interest in further strengthening existing cordial equation with Iran.”

On attacking Iran

Neo-Conservative thought on attacking Iran:

In early October, U.S. officials accused Iranian operatives of planning to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States on American soil. Iran denied the charges, but the episode has already managed to increase tensions between Washington and Tehran. Although the Obama administration has not publicly threatened to retaliate with military force, the allegations have underscored the real and growing risk that the two sides could go to war sometime soon — particularly over Iran’s advancing nuclear program.

For several years now, starting long before this episode, American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities. Proponents of a strike have argued that the only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics, meanwhile, have warned that such a raid would likely fail and, even if it succeeded, would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis. They have urged the United States to rely on nonmilitary options, such as diplomacy, sanctions, and covert operations, to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb. Fearing the costs of a bombing campaign, most critics maintain that if these other tactics fail to impede Tehran’s progress, the United States should simply learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease — that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.

Counter by Liberal Thought

. The US enjoys roundly poor support in the Gulf and more importantly unreliable support among the Russian and Chinese interests on this matter. In this regard, we need only review both Chinese and Russian military statements that they would and have already begun to back Iran with respect to both military aid and support, as well as generous trade and technical assistance in industrial matters.

2. Mr. Kroenig makes a point to mention that the United States would presumably conduct some “precision bombing” (an oxymoron if ever there was one), and then de-escalate the situation.

This is a canard for a variety of reasons, so let’s walk through – just a few of the downsides of such infantile thinking.

The Iranian government in light of the Ossirak attacks, in the 1980′s specifically spread their nuclear development program across dozens if not hundreds of sites, most if not all of which would have to be destroyed in large measure. With campuses, facilities and materials spread across a nation the size of Alaska, many of which are in large well defended metropolitan areas, the falsehood of this statement is obvious.

Presuming for a moment a US/Israeli attack were launched, with the US then seeking a peace with “terms”, what incentive could possibly induce Iran to accept. Our two nations would formally be at war, and rest assured if we consider any action taken by Iranian intelligence / non-state actors, as problematic before-hand – imagine what an enraged / nationalistically motivated set of terrorists / special agents , with generous state funding would be enticed to do. It puts every nightmare terrorist scenario on the table in ways we can scarcely conceive.

The US and Israel and the western world at large have an embarrassment of riches from the perspective of a terrorist looking to inflict economic catastrophe.

To return to the overall argument of consequences however,

Let’s first remember, after all , this is not just a military engagement, oil and gas prices would immediately skyrocket, we enjoy 100 dollar a barrel gasoline, currently, (as preposterous as that will seem to older readers who remember fondly 30 dollar per barrel prices), where is the limit if the Straight of Hormuz becomes an open battlefield?

What happens to the planetary economy when the the ports of Juaymah like in ruins and 50 percent of the planetary supply is taken offline for months or years?

How many years or perhaps even decades before our economy would recover from 200 or 300 dollar per barrel gasoline? Are US industries or consumers sufficiently able to absorb or support 10-12 dollar gasoline prices, for a very long period of time?

How does this impact things like crop yields where a minor escalation of 20 dollars per barrel caused food riots in China, India and of course throughout the Muslim world, as food prices rose in league with energy used to produce that food?

What happens to the US consumer economy when suddenly our distribution, food production and energy costs double or triple.

Beyond the tacit military support of Iran, what geo-strategic impact would such a manifestly reckless attack have when a China or Russia, India or even Europe evaluate the prospect of cost-induced mass food and fuel shortages, how will these nations respond to the prospect of starvation due to such a significant disruption to the food production network?

Might they feel compelled to intervene to restrain our adventurism in some way?

The ramifications of even a temporary embargo or sanction against the United States by either these nations or some coordinated action to restrain our efforts, by the Arab League would shut down the US economy and make the 1970′s embargo’s look like a picnic by comparison.

Is the US , in any serious way able to say that the Pakistani government or the more sympathetic elements of the ISI have not already executed or conducted some sort of Pan-Muslim nuclear exchange akin to the US/UK Lend-Lease program of the 1930′s and 40′s ,perhaps a “gift” the Iranian regime a few nuclear warheads to tide them over until their domestic production is adequate?

Which opens a whole series of questions as to whether Iran already HAS a nuclear defense capacity?

What if have and they use it?

Destroying Saudi oil delivery capacity – or launching such a device as an EMP over the western Levant, or crippling US forces over the Arabian penninsula, returning Israel and Turkey and Iraq or the north-western 1/3 of Saudi Arabia to the 1850′s in rapid fashion.

Not a single person might die in the initial detonation , but rest assured , nations would fall as a result.

There are a whole litany of similar questions, one can ask when you get started along these lines.

So to indulge the neoconservative view that we can have yet again a “clean” war, with no impact is exactly the same pack of fabrications with a new label, only this time the nation involved has a citizenry numbered at nearly 90 MILLION or more than 10 times the size of Israel and nearly 1/3 the population of the US.

Moreover, what exactly is the downside of an Iran with say 1-5 nuclear weapons of a Hiroshima style yield; unfortunately for neoconservatives, the answer is – not very much.

Iran , like every other major nation in the region, from Turkey to Saudi Arabia (which has allegedly sponsored the majority of the Pakistani nuclear program), to Pakistan itself, and a whole host of other nations throughout Southeast Asia have either developed or have the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon.

Israel, far from the defenseless lamb in the wild, thanks to unfailing US support , has a complete nuclear deterrence.

- 40 years of technological / deployment lead on these other nuclear states.

- The most technologically advanced military in the region.

- Israel itself is conservatively estimated to have upwards of 70 Hiroshima style weapons, with an unknown number capable of being launched in minuteman fashion.

- At least 3 submarines specifically designed and deployed as capable of launching “dead-hand” nuclear response – should Israel in fact be “wiped off the map”, the aggressor or aggressors would almost certainly suffer a nuclear response, even in the face of tactical victory on the ground.

- VAST US military support in terms of advanced missile interception technology , from x-ray laser anti-missile systems deemed largely reliable and operational across Israel, to anti-missile/missile systems.

This is to say nothing of an understood military support of the United States itself , should Israel actually come under attack.

So the problem faced by the Israel body politic is really the major problem at hand, shifting from a situation where there is no credible nuclear threat to a situation where nuclear weapons are actively deployed in their sphere of influence.

This places a series of rhetorically and ideologically unpalatable choices before the more conservative/hard-line members of the Israeli military and political establishment, but it does not represent a significant existential threat. Even members of the Israeli government from the head of Mossad itself to various members of the Knesset have publicly recognized this.

The United States – for it’s part has – in stark contrast to the argument has one simple interest – economic and military, a nuclear armed Iran does not necessarily adversely affect any of our interests in the immediate term, nor does it prospectively adversely affect our interests in the future.

More abhorrent to the neoconservative worldview is the distinct observation that the United States has a variety of economic interests which would benefit from improved relations with the United States, I’m sure Coca-Cola, Corning Glass, Exxon, IBM, Hallburton (which already does some limited business with Iran), Microsoft, Apple or any number of other firms would enjoy the opportunity to engage a marketplace of nearly 100 MILLION new consumers.

This is entirely contrary to the argument made by Mr. Kroenig that an attack against Iran is the “least bad” option, the egregious failure of this author to even cursorily mention these or any other observations to the contrary really shows the utter failure of this argument bear any scrutiny or be of any value.

It is only so in the absence of considering ANY of the plausible military or economic consequences, that such argumentation exists, and I would furthermore implore the editors of Foreign Affairs to give more considered insight to these preposterous neoconservative arguments.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this important matter.

Sincerely ,

Mark Thomson
Princeton, NJ

Iraq, Indian, Soviet state-sponsored terrorism in Baluchistan

This conflict is widely seen as a revival of Shia-Sunni conflict when, in fact, Iraq under its Sunni President Saddam Hussain deliberately began to sent Iraqi made weapons through Pakistan’s warm water ports.[58] Though, with Pakistan Navy had effectively applied a naval blockade, any attempts made by Saddam was thwarted.[59] The Saddam Hussain’s government provided support for Baluchi separatists in Pakistan, hoping that their conflict would spread into rival Iran.[58] In 1973, Iraq provided the Baluchis with conventional arms, and it opened an office for the Baluchistan Liberation Front (BLF) in Baghdad. This operation was supposed to be covert, but in 1973, the operation was exposed by M.I. when senior separatist leader Akbar Bugti defected to Bhutto, revealing series of arms stored in Iraqi Embassy.[58] On the midnight of 9 February 1973, Bhutto launched an operation to seized control of Iraqi Embassy, and preparation for siege was hastily prepared. This operation was highly risky and any wrong step during this operation would attempt to start a international diplomatic incident between two countries. The operation was carefully analyzed and at 0:00hrs (12:00am), the SSG Division, accompanied by Army Rangers stormed the Embassy, and the Military Police arrested the Iraqi Ambassador, his military attache, and his diplomatic staff.[58] Following this incident, authorities discovered 300 Soviet submachine guns with 50,000 rounds of ammunitions and large amount of money that was to be distributed amongst Baluchi separatist groups.[58] Bhutto was angered and frustrated, without demanding any explanations, Bhutto ordered the Military Police to immediately deport the Iraqi Ambassador and his staff were expelled from Pakistan as personae non gratae, with any given available flight.[58]
The Government announced the Iraqi plan to further dismembered the country, and Bhutto’s successful diplomatic war against Iraq had Saddam internationally isolated and was condemned.[58] It was this incident that forced Pakistan to support Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in 1980s, and further in 2003, Pakistan remained in support for the United States for commencing its invasion against Saddam Hussain. [58]

Israeli thought process on weakening Iran by former Mossad Director

Source - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/to-weaken-iran-start-with-syria.html?_r=1

THE public debate in America and Israel these days is focused obsessively on whether to attack Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons ambitions; hardly any attention is being paid to how events in Syria could result in a strategic debacle for the Iranian government. Iran’s foothold in Syria enables the mullahs in Tehran to pursue their reckless and violent regional policies — and its presence there must be ended.

Ensuring that Iran is evicted from its regional hub in Damascus would cut off Iran’s access to its proxies (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) and visibly dent its domestic and international prestige, possibly forcing a hemorrhaging regime in Tehran to suspend its nuclear policies. This would be a safer and more rewarding option than the military one.

As President Bashar al-Assad’s government falters, Syria is becoming Iran’s Achilles’ heel. Iran has poured a vast array of resources into the country. There are Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps encampments and Iranian weapons and advisers throughout Syria. And Iranian-controlled Hezbollah forces from Lebanon have joined in butchering the Syrians who have risen up against Mr. Assad. Iran is intent on assuring its hold over the country regardless of what happens to Mr. Assad — and Israel and the West must prevent this at all costs.

Sadly, the opportunities presented by Syria’s meltdown seem to be eluding Israeli leaders. Last week, Israel’s military intelligence chief spoke of the 200,000 missiles and rockets in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria that could reach all of Israel’s population centers. And there is a growing risk that advanced Syrian weapons might fall into the hands of terrorist groups. Iran’s presence in Damascus is vital to maintaining these threats.

At this stage, there is no turning back; Mr. Assad must step down. For Israel, the crucial question is not whether he falls but whether the Iranian presence in Syria will outlive his government. Getting Iran booted out of Syria is essential for Israel’s security. And if Mr. Assad goes, Iranian hegemony over Syria must go with him. Anything less would rob Mr. Assad’s departure of any significance.

But Israel should not be the lone or even the principal actor in speeding his exit. Any workable outcome in Syria will have to involve the United States, Russia and Arab countries. America must offer Russia incentives to stop protecting the Assad regime, which will likely fall the moment Moscow withdraws its support. A force with a mandate from the Arab League should then ensure stability until a new Syrian government can take over.

The current standoff in Syria presents a rare chance to rid the world of the Iranian menace to international security and well-being. And ending Iran’s presence there poses less of a risk to international commerce and security than harsher sanctions or war.

Russia and China, both of which vetoed a United Nations resolution last week calling on Mr. Assad to step down, should realize that his downfall could serve their interests, too. After all, Iranian interventionism could wreak havoc in Muslim-majority areas to Russia’s south and China’s west. And a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a serious potential threat on Russia’s southern border.

Russia’s interests in Syria are not synonymous with Iran’s, and Moscow can now prove this by withdrawing its unwavering support for Mr. Assad. Russia simply wishes to maintain its access to Syria’s Mediterranean ports in Tartus and Latakia and to remain a major arms supplier to Damascus. If Washington is willing to allow that, and not to sideline Russia as it did before intervening in Libya, the convergence of American and Russian interests in Iran and Syria could pave the way for Mr. Assad’s downfall.

Once this is achieved, the entire balance of forces in the region would undergo a sea change. Iranian-sponsored terrorism would be visibly contained; Hezbollah would lose its vital Syrian conduit to Iran and Lebanon could revert to long-forgotten normalcy; Hamas fighters in Gaza would have to contemplate a future without Iranian weaponry and training; and the Iranian people might once again rise up against the regime that has brought them such pain and suffering.

Those who see this scenario as a daydream should consider the alternative: a post-Assad government still wedded to Iran with its fingers on the buttons controlling long-range Syrian missiles with chemical warheads that can strike anywhere in Israel. This is a certain prescription for war, and Israel would have no choice but to prevent it.

Fortunately, Mr. Assad and his allies have unwittingly created an opportunity to defuse the Iranian threat. If the international community does not seize it and Iranian influence in Syria emerges intact, the world will face a choice between a military strike and even more crippling sanctions, which could cause oil prices to skyrocket and throw the world economy off balance. The United States and Russia should wish for neither.

Syria has created a third option. We do not have the luxury of ignoring it.

Efraim Halevy, a former Israeli national security adviser and ambassador, was director of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002.

Pakistani position on a potential Israeli attack on Iran

In an interview to a British newspaper The Sun published Wednesday, Hasan expressed his concerns over the United States’ “Drone Wars” that have taken the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians in Pakistan.

“We know the damage — destroyed schools, communities, hospitals. They are civilians — children, women, families. Our losses are enormous,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.

“I think time is running out until the Pakistan government can take a stand. They will have to at some stage take punitive actions to stop them. They have got means to take such actions to defend their own frontier and territories,” Hasan further added.

Hasan urged British Prime Minister David Cameron to convince the US that the drone attacks were counter-productive, making the American “the most hated people in the minds of the people in Pakistan.”

Talking about Iran, he said: “We wouldn’t like to be seen as part of Israel’s campaign against any country. If Israel attacks Iran, it will have an impact on Pakistan as well.”

“We will have to safeguard our own interests. We also have a Shia population in Pakistan who will not take it lying down.”

India’s betrayal of Iran

Iran has given India many concessions because of it’s unnecessary concerns about Pakistan’s close friendship with Saudi Arabia.  Iran even promised Indian navy its ports in case of war with Pakistan, a point that is terribly hurtful to the muslim sentiments of Pakistanis.

For all of its support, Iran in its hour of need has been abandoned by India to side with Americans.

• India has killed off the IPI project due to American pressure and nuclear technology transfer
• Pakistan is keeping its promise on the IP pipeline much to the dissatisfaction of US
• India refused to attend Tehran’s summit on terrorism because of American pressure
• Pakistan’s president accepted the invitation
• India owes Iran 5 billion dollars for oil which it is not paying Iran
• Pakistan continues to defend Iran in international forums
• India did not welcome the 1979 Islamic government
• Pakistan recognized 1979 government immediately
• India voted against Iran in IAEA, Ali Larjani said India was our friend
• Pakistan continues to support Iran irrespective of its relations with Saudis or Americans

Pakistan Iran and Saudis should work towards an entente, to befriend each other in the greater interest of the Islamic world.

Source: http://pd.cpim.org/2005/1002/10022005_prakash.htm

INDIA voted with the US and the European sponsors of the resolution to arraign Iran in the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This paves the way for its nuclear issue being referred to the UN Security Council. India did not abstain on the resolution which other developing and non-aligned countries such as Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Nigeria and Algeria did. Even its South Asian neighbours, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, refused to line up with the US.

 

The Manmohan Singh government has been thoroughly shown up in this episode. Till the eve of the vote in the IAEA, India proclaimed that Iran should adhere to international obligations while affirming its right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. During Natwar Singh’s visit to Teheran three weeks ago, it was declared that the Iran nuclear issue should be resolved within the framework of the IAEA. Further it was stated that within the IAEA, the issue should be decided on the basis of consensus.

 

All this has been proved to be just empty posturing.  Just a few days of sustained American pressure has led the Manmohan Singh government to cave in. Condoleeza Rice’s demand that India, China and Russia rally to the US position has been acceded to, at least by India. The trend towards capitulation was helped along by the raucous denunciation of India’s position in the US Congressional hearings. The final act of surrender took place during Manmohan Singh’s visit to New York and in the run up to his meeting with president Bush.

 

There is another disturbing aspect. The foreign minister reiterates India’s stand on the issue. The last was before his meeting with Condoleeza Rice in New York on September 20. Three days later, in his phone conversation with the Iranian president, the prime minister resiled from these positions. According to the official statement, the prime minister advised the president to take “a flexible position to avoid a confrontation” and “ to make concessions to this end.”

 

All the three components of the position formulated were abandoned by voting for the resolution. Iran has been asked to stop enrichment of uranium and to halt construction of a research reactor using heavy water. This puts paid to India’s original stand that Iran as a signatory of NPT has the right to develop nuclear technology under safeguards. Second, the assertion that the questions arising about the Iran nuclear issue are “within the competence” of the UN Security Council, goes against the declared stance that it should be dealt with, within the IAEA framework. Third, the adherence to consensus was given up when India lined up with the US and the EU-3 to vote against Iran.

 

There is no doubt whatsoever, that the Manmohan Singh government gave up its stand in order to appease the United States. The sustained barrage that India cannot expect to be a beneficiary of the nuclear agreement unless it meets the US concerns about Iran has borne results.  The underlying theme of the Joint Statement signed in Washington in July is now being played out. India is expected to conform to its role as a strategic ally; it cannot baulk at US plans to target countries like Iran, Syria or DPRK.

 

The Manmohan Singh government seems to have calculated that this vote will send a message that India is a  reliable ally and a responsible nuclear power.  It has deliberately ignored the immoral and illegal position of the US and the Western powers. These same powers allow Israel to have nuclear weapons and has helped its nuclear development despite the fact that it is not a NPT signatory. On the other hand, they will do everything to prevent any other country in the Middle-East from acquiring nuclear technology which will make them capable of producing nuclear weapons. The Indian government seems to follow the “railway compartment analogy” of the BJP leader Jaswant Singh. When you are trying to get into a crowded railway compartment, you have one view, having gained entry into the compartment, you join the rest of the inmates to keep others from entering.  Being a responsible “nuclear power” means not only keeping others out, but accepting the terms for entry set out by the nuclear haves.

 

The logic of the Pokharan blasts is now playing out. For keeping the mess of nuclear pottage, India has to accede to the rules of the game that the US and its allies have set out to gain de facto nuclear weapons power status. 

 

It is the height of hypocrisy, to tell the US privately that India does not want another nuclear weapon state in the region, while India has maintained that it has the right to conduct nuclear tests and go for weaponisation. Unlike India, Iran is a signatory of the NPT and there is nothing substantial in the charges of violation and concealment levelled against it as revealed in the reports submitted by the IAEA inspections.  This has been lucidly brought out in the three part series published in The Hindu by Siddharth Varadarajan.

 

What happened when the false case of “weapons of mass destruction” was built up against Iraq is now being repeated with Iran. By voting with the US, India is becoming party to another infamous exercise in intimidation and coercion against a country with which it has friendly relations and vital energy stakes.

 

The explanation given by the government for voting for the resolution is laboured and riddled with contradictions.  After conceding that India does not agree with finding Iran “non-compliant” in the context of Article XII C of the IAEA’s statute and that the characterisation of the “current situation as a threat to international peace and security” is unwarranted, there was no reason for India to vote for the resolution.  But it did so.

 

It claims that two concerns of India were met by the draft resolution. First, that more time should be given for exploring all avenues for a satisfactory resolution of the issues that have  arisen. By stating that the next Board meeting would take a decision, that time has been provided for.  Second, India was opposed to the matter being referred to the UN Security Council “at this stage”, as it was not justified by the  circumstances. The draft has kept the matter within the purview of the IAEA.

 

Both these grounds are specious.  The time given is a few weeks before the next Board meeting in November.  Further, the resolution has already found Iran “non-compliant” and declared it is a fit case for reference to the UN Security Council.  The resolution is in the nature of an  ultimatum to Iran that it give up its right to develop nuclear technology or face action through the Security Council.  As for the claim that our stand was to help Iran, the strong reaction of the Iranian government has exposed the double-talk.

 

The stark truth is that India, in an unconscionable step, has ranged itself with the US and the Western powers and broken ranks with the non-aligned countries. That is why Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary of State and the man who negotiated the deal with India, especially thanked India. India’s vote, he said, had foiled Iran’s attempt to pose it as an issue between the developed countries and developing countries. 

 

It is pathetic that the government seeks to justify its stand by citing that it is in the company of countries like Singapore, Ghana, Ecuador and Peru who have shown no sign of any independence in their foreign policy.

 

The major non-aligned countries on the Board of the IAEA, South Africa, Brazil, Nigeria, Algeria and so on, refused to line up with the US.  They adhered to what the Malaysian representative and Chair of the NAM, Ryma Jama  Hussein, stated after a meeting of the NAM countries that “all countries have the basic and inalienable right to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes.”  India has amended this stand to mean that all countries have the right subject to US approval. The defection of India from the NAM stand has damaged India’s image among the non-aligned countries. Countries like Brazil and South Africa which are partners in the G-20 group in the WTO, can legitimately wonder at India’s reliability. The obvious course was to coordinate with Russia and China and adopt a common approach. 

 

What is the explanation for this about turn?  The India-US joint statement signed in July during the prime minister’s visit and  the India-US Defence Agreement, preceding it, were a turning point. The Manmohan Singh government has entered into a compact with the US which makes it a strategic ally. The nuclear cooperation pact is part of the overall agreement which has political and strategic aspects. The United States was quick to demand that India, as a strategic partner, take on board the United States’ concerns about Iran. Failure to do so would not only imperil the nuclear cooperation agreement but also affect the US attitude to India. By acceding to the American pressure, despite protestations to the contrary, the India-Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project is also endangered. The UPA government has taken a major step which adversely affects India’s independent foreign policy and its status in the non-alignment movement.  The prime minister is directly responsible for this state of affairs. The CPI(M) and the Left parties cannot countenance this new direction of foreign policy.

 

By the next Board meeting of the IAEA in November, the Indian government will have to undo the damage done. India should state clearly that the Iranian nuclear issue is not a fit case for referring to the UN Security Council. Iran has the right to develop its nuclear technology within the framework of the NPT and IAEA safeguards. To make the Indian government adopt such a position, it is necessary for all the Left and democratic forces to mobilise the people in defence of an independent foreign policy

Dawn: Iran provides $100 mln worth of aid

www.dawn.com

Reformistanis give salaam to our brothers and sisters in Iran.

KARACHI: The Iranian Government and its people have donated dollars 100 million worth of assistance and 20 (twenty) consignments weighing 1000 tonnes of required items for flood affectees of Pakistan.

This was stated here Sunday by the out-going incharge of the flood relief activities and Red Crescent Society of Iran, Abbas Babai while addressing a press conference at the Karachi Press Club.

“Another consignment of 1000 tonnes carried by 300 trucks will also arrive by road very soon for the flood victims,” he said.

He said that all the efforts were being made to facilitate relief efforts in southern and northern parts of Pakistan.

Babai said that on the call of the Supreme leader of Islamic Revolution grand Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei, the Iranian Red Crescent Society kicked off its programme to render relief services for flood affected people of Pakistan.

He further elaborated that first camp was established at Makli, 10 kms from Thatta, with the capacity of 270 tents. Totally, so far, 190 relief workers of the Red Crescent Society have worked and treated 10,000 patients with the assistance of 21 medical camps.

Moreover, the public and government relief consignments including tents, carpets, blankets, mineral water, kitchen sets, pulses, flour, rice, edible oil, washing liquid and hygiene sets in different intervals arrived in Pakistan, he added.

The affected people covered with all the supplies included that in Badin, Sujawal, Thatta, Jamshoro, Bargha, Moro and Sehwan Sharif, Mehar, Rahim Yar Khan and other areas, he added.

Pakistan facilitates the return of Iranian scientist for Iran

from hurrietdaily.com

Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri, who surfaced in Washington more than a year after Tehran claimed he was abducted by U.S. spies, is on his way home, the foreign ministry said on Wednesday.

Before leaving Washington where he took refuge on Tuesday in Iran’s Interests Section office at the Pakistani embassy, Amiri told Iranian Press TV channel he will reveal the details of his “ordeal” to local media after reaching Tehran.

“A few moments ago, Shahram Amiri left U.S. soil … for Iran following efforts taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the effective cooperation of the Pakistani embassy in Washington,” foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast was quoted as saying by ISNA news agency.

He said Amiri was first headed to a “third country” from where he would continue to Iran, adding that the head of the Iran Interests Section in Washington, Mostafa Rahmani, saw him off.

Repeating accusation that Amiri was kidnapped by U.S. agents, Mehmanparast said Iran would continue to pursue his case “legally and diplomatically.”

Amiri disappeared from Saudi Arabia in May 2009, sparking accusations by Iranian officials that he was kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Washington denied the allegations amid speculation and U.S. media reports that he had defected to the United States.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters on Tuesday there was nothing stopping Amiri return to Iran.

“He’s free to go. He was free to come. These decisions are his alone to make,” she said.

But in a twist to the bizarre saga which has baffled the media for several months, U.S. officials confirmed on Tuesday that they had been in touch with Amiri since his arrival in the United States.

U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said Amiri “has been here for some time, I’m not going to specify for how long, but he has chosen to return.”

“The United States government has maintained contact with him,” he told reporters.

Crowley refused to comment on whether Amiri had provided the United States with intelligence but said U.S. officials had been in contact with him.

U.S. television network ABC first reported Amiri’s defection in March and quoted officials saying it was an “intelligence coup” in efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear program.

Amiri himself has insisted U.S. agents had kidnapped him.

“My abduction is a detailed story,” he told Press TV channel in an interview given in Washington soon after he reached the Interests Section.

“When I am hopefully in my dear country Iran, I can speak to the media and my own people with ease of mind and tell them about my ordeal over the past 14 months, incidents that have been a mystery to many,” he said in remarks posted on the channel’s English website.

“In Iran, I will thoroughly clarify the allegations made by foreign media and the U.S. government which, in fact, have targeted my reputation.”

Amiri’s saga has been tied to growing international pressure over Tehran’s controversial nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purpose, but many nations fear masks a weapons drive.

In June several Internet videos emerged featuring a man purporting to be Amiri who claimed to have escaped from U.S. agents in Virginia.

Prior to his disappearance, Amiri worked in Tehran’s Malek Ashtar University of Technology, which is believed to be close to Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards.