If we've to choose between Israel and Iran, choose the former

[Adux]

But Aduz, Iran is not Afghanistan or Iraq and see what a mess both of these countries are despite the "regime change".

Iraq was much more than Iran. I think it is your over-estimation of Iran. Anyways, neither India or you, can stop the war on Iran or regime change.
Iran v/s USA - Israel/UK/French. I much rather be with the the western team here. Or do you think Iran regime will prevail. If that is the case, then there is no point taking this discussion any further.

The US does not even have a status of forces agreement with Iraq to base their troops. And Iraq which was anti-Iran and anti-Syria and anti-Hezbollah under Saddam is now pro all these countries

USA doesnt need Iraq to fight Iran. GCC.

Its only natural when a country is threatened externally that all Iranians including those who oppose the regime will unite for nationalistic reasons. Starting a war with a country for regime change is the worst possible strategy. And thanks to the US strategy under GW Bush, we have practical examples to learn from.

What practical examples? Iraq, it is on a far better path now than anytime before. Afghanistan? We know who to blame there! South Korea, Germany or Japan? I am sorry, USA's track record on such matters are far better than anybody's out there. Libya?
The only anti-US therefore anti-india and anti-anyother religion has come through the arab springs, which basically shows the society's true colors

 

[amitkriit]

Because a Regime change in Iran is beneficial for us in the short and medium run. India neeed not be in support of war in Iran, just regime change. Iran should be able to give access to USA for afghanistan.

Why is a regime change beneficial for us? Is the current Iranian regime anti-India? As far as I know India needs Iran to work with us on Afghanistan front. We don't have any conflict of interest with Iran. Iranian regime is not like the regimes of Saddam of Gadhafi, the Iranian government enjoys the popular support of it's people, whether somebody likes it or not. Iran will be another Vietnam for USA, and USA knows that.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, we are not pushing for long stay of USA in Afghanistan, we only want them to stay as long as the situation is volatile. As far as I know India's plan is to fill the void in Afghanistan with the cooperation from Russia and Iran after USA leaves, and USA is doing everything to prevent it from happening, including weakening the current Karzai government, and negotiating a peace-deal with Taliban.

 

[amitkriit]

Iraq was much more than Iran. I think it is your over-estimation of Iran. Anyways, neither India or you, can stop the war on Iran or regime change.
Iran v/s USA - Israel/UK/French. I much rather be with the the western team here. Or do you think Iran regime will prevail. If that is the case, then there is no point taking this discussion any further.



USA doesnt need Iraq to fight Iran. GCC.



What practical examples? Iraq, it is on a far better path now than anytime before. Afghanistan? We know who to blame there! South Korea, Germany or Japan? I am sorry, USA's track record on such matters are far better than anybody's out there. Libya?
The only anti-US therefore anti-india and anti-anyother religion has come through the arab springs, which basically shows the society's true colors

1. Iraq wasn't exactly a success story for USA. Iraq was already weakened through economic sanctions. Iran has got good and influential friends. Take Syria for an example.

2. West doesn't seem to be inclined towards another bloody conflict. I don't think this will be West vs the rest this time.

3. Iraq is already pro Iran, and there are other UN-organized forces which will fight this war.

4. India is doing better by staying away from USA< while Pakistan is in total mess after becoming the best buddy of USA, says something about USA's track-record.

 

[Adux]

Why is a regime change beneficial for us? Is the current Iranian regime anti-India? As far as I know India needs Iran to work with us on Afghanistan front. We don't have any conflict of interest with Iran. Iranian regime is not like the regimes of Saddam of Gadhafi, the Iranian government enjoys the popular support of it's people, whether somebody likes it or not. Iran will be another Vietnam for USA, and USA knows that.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, we are not pushing for long stay of USA in Afghanistan, we only want them to stay as long as the situation is volatile. As far as I know India's plan is to fill the void in Afghanistan with the cooperation from Russia and Iran after USA leaves, and USA is doing everything to prevent it from happening, including weakening the current Karzai government, and negotiating a peace-deal with Taliban.

I have explained it mulitple times over again. What's the use of Iranian regime or road to Afghanistan, if the Afghanistan is not in the hands of USA and it will fall into Pakistan/Taliban. What is the use of that port, the road or even our contracts

Fact of the matter, USA is leaving before the job is done and volatility is over, to the hands of Taliban because of Pakistan and the toll that takes on the US and its freedom of action

It is utterly stupid of enormous of levels, if you think Iran, Russia and India will fill the void. India will not be able to one soldier in Afghanistan. Iran will not allow a Kaffir army to be in Afghanistan especially against a nuclear armed Pakistan. It will only do such a thing, if Iran has the support of USA, which will not happen without a regime change.

 

[Adux]

1. Iraq wasn't exactly a success story for USA. Iraq was already weakened through economic sanctions. Iran has got good and influential friends. Take Syria for an example.

Because Americans are pragmatic, Syria there is no need, Libya, it was made to think it was the French who did the most, when it wasnt. Take 1991 Gulf War. Iraq is far more of a success story than anything.

2. West doesn't seem to be inclined towards another bloody conflict. I don't think this will be West vs the rest this time.

It was said so after Operation Iraqi Freedom, Guess what Libya Happened.

3. Iraq is already pro Iran, and there are other UN-organized forces which will fight this war.

Iraq is pro-Iran verbally, that doesnt change anything with the capability with respect to USA especially with GCC and Israel.

4. India is doing better by staying away from USA< while Pakistan is in total mess after becoming the best buddy of USA, says something about USA's track-record.

This is above attitude is the bane of India. No Confidence, thinks it is exactly the same as Pakistan. India wont be India of today without those outsourced business from USA. Hard fact. like it or not.

 

[amitkriit]

I have explained it mulitple times over again. What's the use of Iranian regime or road to Afghanistan, if the Afghanistan is not in the hands of USA and it will fall into Pakistan/Taliban. What is the use of that port, the road or even our contracts

Fact of the matter, USA is leaving before the job is done and volatility is over, to the hands of Taliban because of Pakistan and the toll that takes on the US and its freedom of action

It is utterly stupid of enormous of levels, if you think Iran, Russia and India will fill the void. India will not be able to one soldier in Afghanistan. Iran will not allow a Kaffir army to be in Afghanistan especially against a nuclear armed Pakistan. It will only do such a thing, if Iran has the support of USA, which will not happen without a regime change.

Response to bold part: USA created this situation in Afghanistan, so it's their responsibility to clean things up. Their stay in Afghanistan beyond that point is not in India's interest. USA wants to place a pro-US Taliban which will balance the pro-India/Russia NA in the country.

Iran has been helping India against Pakistan and Iran has been working together with India on Afghanistan in case you did not know.
Indian policy makers aren't idiots or overtly emotional.

 

[amitkriit]

Because Americans are pragmatic, Syria there is no need, Libya, it was made to think it was the French who did the most, when it wasnt. Take 1991 Gulf War. Iraq is far more of a success story than anything.


It was said so after Operation Iraqi Freedom, Guess what Libya Happened.



Iraq is pro-Iran verbally, that doesnt change anything with the capability with respect to USA especially with GCC and Israel.



This is above attitude is the bane of India. No Confidence, thinks it is exactly the same as Pakistan. India wont be India of today without those outsourced business from USA. Hard fact. like it or not.

I am not interested in the character of Uncle Sam. Even if Uncle Sam is correct, India must do what is in her best interest. A country which funds our enemy and arms it is not exactly our friend.

 

[Adux]

I am not interested in the character of Uncle Sam. Even if Uncle Sam is correct, India must do what is in her best interest. A country which funds our enemy and arms it is not exactly our friend.

It funds India's enemy, who is also their enemy ( the list is endless, the true creators and protectors of Taliban/Al-Qaeda is Pakistan) . They have NO other option to keep Pakistan on their side, Pakistan has them by their balls, we NEED to take away this leverage Pakistan has. Vajpayee tried doing that in a different way, but that would have meant longer and a nuclear war, seeing with Musharraf played his hand well.

So Russia is also not our Friend since they arm China
So France is also not our Friend since they arm Pakistan
So Israel is also not our Friend since they armed China

Such childish thinking, is not helpful. Especially in geo politics.


Anyways, I have exhausted my points, and you can only wake up people who are sleeping not people who are pretending to sleep.

 

[Adux]

Response to bold part: USA created this situation in Afghanistan, so it's their responsibility to clean things up. Their stay in Afghanistan beyond that point is not in India's interest. USA wants to place a pro-US Taliban which will balance the pro-India/Russia NA in the country.

Iran has been helping India against Pakistan and Iran has been working together with India on Afghanistan in case you did not know.
Indian policy makers aren't idiots or overtly emotional.

Are you serious, is there a responsiblity ? No there isnt . America's parents arent going to scold them for not doing his bed. Soviet Union invaded first, USA retaliated through proxies, Soviet Union left without clean up, America didnt care, 9/11 happened, America cared, America invaded, America knows terrorism is the biggest threat to it, America doesnt want to leave now, but will have to because Pakistan is bleeding America. How hard is it for people to understand. Did we clean up after IPKF?
Their stay beyond this point is not in our interest. If they withdraw tomorrow, 1 month and Afghanistan is back in the hands of Taliban/Pakistan
Bullshit, Iran has been helping India, Chaabar and Zehjan is a non-starter as of now. It is only economic, not military, India is not going to place even one soldier there. So what happens to our contracts, whats happens to the rest of our interest political and strategic. ZERO.


USA doesnt want a pro-taliban government there, but i dont think they care anymore. As there is no way they can get to afghanistan in a viable way without Pakistan or Iran. Both are problem countries. It is easier to conquer or regime change Iran, as it is not nuclear yet.

Childish arguments, really.

 

[ejazr]

@Adux

members like myself, Thakur_Ritesh and Yusuf have all been proponents of a pro-US approach because it is in Indian interests to have a close ties with the US. But at the same time we can recognize that US/Israeli and Indian interests do not ally together all the time.

Japan, Germany e.t.c. are all examples were India had no direct interest. Iraq and Afghanistan failures are something directly impact India and both are interlinked.

From the Indian pov, Iraq is NOT better than what it was before the 2003 invasion from the Indian strategic perspective. Under Saddam, we had an Arab country that was openly pro-India even on Kashmir. Something that even the US is not at present. Before the 91 Gulf war, Iraq had the largest Arab army and India had close military ties with even IAF officers stationed in Iraq. A strong independent Iraq was vital to add a third regional power to balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia and also to have an alternative oil supplying nation.
What we now have is a very weak Iraq with internal problems that is pro-Iran skewing the balancing nature vis a vis Iran and GCC in the Persian gulf. Moreover, it will take another decade for Iraq's oil industry to get back on track. And most of the lucrative deals have been bagged by Europeans and Chinese.

And the Iraq war blunder by GW Bush directly impacted Afghanistan as well. Not only we lost a friendly regime in Iraq, US moved its eye of the ball in the Af-Pak region. The failures in Afghanistan is directly related to the war in Iraq. It was well known that PA/ISI had backed the Taliban. But GW Bush was IMO foolish enough to believe Musharraf would not secretly milk the US and back the Taliban in the long run. If the US had kept a laser like focus on Af-Pak, it would have been quite possible for Afghanistan to emerge free of Taliban influence and a close US and Indian ally.

So we had a double loss with the US war in Iraq. It wasn't until Obama's term that finally enough US ground troops were sent to actual clean up the Taliban. Its another story that this was done too late. Even the ANA wasn't fully established until 2009 because Donald Rumsfeld didn't want a strong Afghan army because the Pakistanis didn't like that and he didn't want to waste resources in doing so because of his Iraq per-occupation.
And on top of that, the 4-5 trillion dollars spent on these wars has weakened US vis a vis China on the world stage which is again bad for India.


The same applies with a potential war in Iran. Iran would be more difficult than Iraq to have a regime change and even a military strike will not completely destroy Iran's nuclear making capacity. West Asia is in India's neighborhood and the US should consult not dictate India on what it wants to do in the region. In the long term, it would be beneficial for the US and avoid failures like Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, even US and Israeli military officers are against an Iranian military strike. And this I am saying as a well wisher of US-Indian relations and keeping Indian interests in mind.

 

[ejazr]

Kanwal Sibal is a former foreign secretary and had an OpEd in the Daily Mail. From this article as well as statements of former MEA officals on TV talk shows giving the Indian perspective, it looks like MEA is all set to pursue a "both" policy atleast for now. No political party in India is calling for a downgrade of ties with Iran. And BJP, the only party that possibly would call for this was a prime architect of the Indo-Iranian relation in 2002-2003 era. It really is the Congress led UPA that has downgraded much of the strategic and defense pacts established earlier under NDA.

I think US/Israel should appreciate how much we have already cut down in our relation in the past 5-6 years. One pertinent point that he makes is that while Iran is getting sanctioned left right and centre while they have not even killed a single US soldier recently, why is not Pakistan being sanctioned for its support of Jihadi groups that are actually killing US soldiers in Afghanistan?

India must hold its ground on Iran-Israel clash
KANWAL SIBAL

Mounting Iran- West tensions have implications for India's energy security, transit to Afghanistan, the India-US 'strategic relationship', India's ties with the Gulf countries as well as its international role as a rising power.

Iran is India's second largest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia, providing about 12 per cent of its annual requirements worth about $12 billion.

India can potentially obtain pipeline gas or LNG from Iran if security and sanctions issues can be overcome.

Iran's geographical proximity makes it a logical source of hydrocarbons for energy deficient India which today imports 70 per cent of its needs and will import 90 per cent in the years ahead.

Competition with China in the Gulf region makes the task of securing our energy requirements even more daunting.

China's Security Council membership and financial clout give it more leverage than we have with Iran as well as the US. It can more easily enter into barter arrangements as it exports much more than us to Iran.

Looking ahead, India must not lose ground in Iran irretrievably to China. India is unable to gain access to Afghanistan through Pakistan and Iran, therefore, is a logical alternative. India built the Zaranj-Delaram road segment in Afghanistan to complete a road link between Chabahar port in Iran and Kabul.

Iran, unfortunately, has not given sufficient priority to this strategic project. Now, with tightened sanctions, external investments have become more problematic.

The Chabahar route has become even more important for India in view of its planned investments in the Hajigak iron ore project in Afghanistan. India's strategic interest in maintaining productive ties with Iran conflicts with US's strategic interest in toppling its clerical regime.

India's political and economic interests in Iran are transparent, whether in terms of energy security, access to Afghanistan, countering a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan backed by Pakistan, leveraging contradictions in Iran- Pakistan relations, maintaining a balanced posture on the Iran-Saudi Arabia and Shia-Sunni divide wracking West Asia etc.

India has no hidden agenda of encouraging Iran to defy the West or bolstering its capacity to do so. India is against Iran going nuclear.

While recognising its right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, India has asked Iran to clarify IAEA queries about its nuclear activities.

India is mindful of the consequences of Iran going nuclear for the Gulf region where it has vast energy, trade, manpower and remittance interests, but the US should not expect India to share its apocalyptic view of Iran's nuclear ambitions. India, which has itself long suffered US nuclear sanctions, lives with a much more direct threat to its security from Pakistan's nuclear capability developed with Chinese support and US indulgence.

Even now Pakistan's conduct in nurturing and supporting jihadi groups against India and Afghanistan under cover of its nuclear capability escapes sanctions. Instead, engaging Pakistan is advocated, but with Iran the approach is coercive.

A strategic partnership has to be twoway. If India is to take cognisance of US strategic concerns, the US should accommodate India's concerns too.

If Pakistan is not a black and white case for the US and its policy towards the former has to take into account its larger regional interests, Iran is not a black and white case for India either and its Iranian policy too has to be adapted to its broader regional interests.

The US should therefore take cognisance of India's legitimate equities in Iran that transcend the current US-Iran tensions that are in part Israel-spurred and domestically driven.

Building congruence in policies on complex issues such as Iran has to begin at both ends and not with one side expected to align itself with the policy prescriptions of the other.

The US should not put serious constraints on India's oil purchases from Iran.

The answer to Iran's nuclear defiance does not lie in undermining India's energy security and its broader regional interests.

That India can obtain additional oil supplies from Saudi Arabia to compensate for loss of Iranian supplies is no reason to politically endorse contestable policies. India has very productive relations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies which it should preserve, but with its own large Muslim population composed of Sunnis and Shias, it should maintain a balance between its equities in the Arab world and Iran and avoid getting caught in the sectarian politics of West Asia.

India is often faulted by foreign and domestic critics for unwillingness to accept global responsibilities that come with an enhanced international status. These jibes are made when India resists siding with the US/West on Iran, Libya, Syria and, until now, on Myanmar.

India's rising global role should not require it to give up independence of judgment or always endorse western policies.

Assuming responsibility at the global level should mean supporting or opposing policies in the interest of an equitable functioning of the international system. It is not Iran's earnings from sale of oil to India that will determine its nuclear decisions.

Iran's political judgment on the advantages and disadvantages of going nuclear would be the key factor.

On the face of it Iran is being pushed to the limit by western policies of economic warfare and military intimidation to go nuclear. When will it look for nuclear protection against regime change? The government has shown political grit in resisting US pressure on Iran.

The Finance Minister has expressed India's inability to drastically reduce its oil supplies from Iran. The government has reached an understanding with Iran on making 45 per cent of the oil payments in rupees to be used for goods and project exports from India. This could impart more economic substance to the India- Iran relationship. India is playing its difficult hand as well as it can

Read more: KANWAL SIBAL: India must hold its ground on Iran-Israel clash | Mail Online

 

[Adux]

Brilliant article by Kanwal Sibal, I respect that man.

But you are not thinking the way he is though. Which is why you dont get it. You think Kanwal Sibal say the same, 1 week from the invasion or regime change?
It is important for India to be neutral now, since we arent sure about the invasion/regime change. The moment that changes, invasion/regime change becomes certainity, India should and will remove all its commitments with Iran. Iran is not going to win a US/Israeli/West stand off. And I like to be with winner's.

We cut down on our relationship, because it also had indirect benefits for us, Iran was double dealing us with regards to a multitude of factors.

 

[ejazr]

Adux, if you agree with Kanwal Sibal, then you agree at least with my position.

In short, I will quote one sentence that he uses when he justifies Indo-Iranian relations

A strategic partnership has to be twoway. If India is to take cognisance of US strategic concerns, the US should accommodate India's concerns too.


India under the UPA regime has already drastically cut down the relations that the NDA regime had built up. I think it is now down to its bare minimum. And the US should appreciate that.

 

[Adux]

@Adux

members like myself, Thakur_Ritesh and Yusuf have all been proponents of a pro-US approach because it is in Indian interests to have a close ties with the US. But at the same time we can recognize that US/Israeli and Indian interests do not ally together all the time

.
Its unfortunate you dont get it what is to be nimble footed in diplomacy and geo politics. Did you see me advice against Iran in the current status quo? It is also a FACT, that a US friendly IRAN is better for India, which can ONLY be achieved by REGIME CHANGE

Japan, Germany e.t.c. are all examples were India had no direct interest. Iraq and Afghanistan failures are something directly impact India and both are interlinked.

Iraq is a future success story, 5 years too less for somebody to rebuild a country.

From the Indian pov, Iraq is NOT better than what it was before the 2003 invasion from the Indian strategic perspective. Under Saddam, we had an Arab country that was openly pro-India even on Kashmir

So what, it is past tense. It would have been better for India without the advent of Hinduism, Islamic invasions and British Empire, and the Empire of Maurayans carried on, but it isnt so. So you live with what you have no and you try to tweak and influence what you have currently to a better future/leverage.

. Something that even the US is not at present. Before the 91 Gulf war, Iraq had the largest Arab army and India had close military ties with even IAF officers stationed in Iraq. A strong independent Iraq was vital to add a third regional power to balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia and also to have an alternative oil supplying nation.

Like I said, it means diddly sqwat now, since it is all past tense.

What we now have is a very weak Iraq with internal problems that is pro-Iran skewing the balancing nature vis a vis Iran and GCC in the Persian gulf. Moreover, it will take another decade for Iraq's oil industry to get back on track. And most of the lucrative deals have been bagged by Europeans and Chinese.

Which tells you so much about magnanimity of the Americans. Which they have shown in case of Germany, South Korea, Japan

And the Iraq war blunder by GW Bush directly impacted Afghanistan as well. Not only we lost a friendly regime in Iraq, US moved its eye of the ball in the Af-Pak region. The failures in Afghanistan is directly related to the war in Iraq. It was well known that PA/ISI had backed the Taliban. But GW Bush was IMO foolish enough to believe Musharraf would not secretly milk the US and back the Taliban in the long run. If the US had kept a laser like focus on Af-Pak, it would have been quite possible for Afghanistan to emerge free of Taliban influence and a close US and Indian ally.

What other option did they (America) have other than to negotiate with Musharraf? Did Iran give them an option? Are you not aware of the logistics of Afghanistan? They knew they would get milked, to this extend, no way they could have game theoried that.

So we had a double loss with the US war in Iraq. It wasn't until Obama's term that finally enough US ground troops were sent to actual clean up the Taliban. Its another story that this was done too late. Even the ANA wasn't fully established until 2009 because Donald Rumsfeld didn't want a strong Afghan army because the Pakistanis didn't like that and he didn't want to waste resources in doing so because of his Iraq per-occupation.
And on top of that, the 4-5 trillion dollars spent on these wars has weakened US vis a vis China on the world stage which is again bad for India.

You keep on talking about the past, I dont even know the relevence of all this in the current scheme of things, You trying to pattern India-US relations on the basis of the past, when every variable in the US-

The same applies with a potential war in Iran. Iran would be more difficult than Iraq to have a regime change and even a military strike will not completely destroy Iran's nuclear making capacity. West Asia is in India's neighborhood and the US should consult not dictate India on what it wants to do in the region. In the long term, it would be beneficial for the US and avoid failures like Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, even US and Israeli military officers are against an Iranian military strike. And this I am saying as a well wisher of US-Indian relations and keeping Indian interests in mind

.[

US wont consult India, simply because India doesnt have the capacity to make hard decisions, if that was the case, Pakistan would never ever be a Nuclear state, why would US, GCC and Israel do the same stupidity as India. Regime change or US-Iran relationship in a different dimension along with de-nuking of Iran is vital for Afghan campaign and the subsequent Pakistan campaign

 

[Adux]

Adux, if you agree with Kanwal Sibal, then you agree at least with my position.

In short, I will quote one sentence that he uses when he justifies Indo-Iranian relations

A strategic partnership has to be twoway. If India is to take cognisance of US strategic concerns, the US should accommodate India's concerns too.


India under the UPA regime has already drastically cut down the relations that the NDA regime had built up. I think it is now down to its bare minimum. And the US should appreciate that.

Kanwal Sibal say exactly as he said today and will completely change that the moment America attacks Iran. India did not cut up on Iran because of USA, that is a good excuse to give, especially for the likes of Kanwal Sibal. The reason is different. What Iran is upto now, is simply isnt in India's good interest, and we have put the blame on the American bogey.

 

[ejazr]

Adux

I am not sure why you are dismissing the Iraq-Afghanistan failures as history when these are prime examples of how US foreign policy has hurt Indian interests. And it is still a "prediction" that Iraq will become a success story, but India already had a success story in Iraq in strategic terms. It was Afghanistan that was the problem.

And again, let me remind you that under the Shah of Iran which was pro-US, we had a very anti-India Iran as well. Under him, Iran was the only country apart from the US that provided military equipment to Pakistan in times of war during 65. and 71. A new "pro-US" regime may be pro-India as well, but again that is all speculation just like the Iraqi WMDs and how the Iraqi people will welcome US forces with open arms once Saddam is toppled.

The reason why these past examples are important is so that the point that US should keep in mind Indian strategic concerns and consult India on West Asia issues is established. By listening to India, US could have avoided costly blunders that have affected Indian interests as well as US long term interests. And Iraq and Afghanistan are not history, its happening right now.

I have mentioned earlier that the Iranian political system where you have a cleric as a head of state is an aberration even in 1000+ year of Islamic history. I would certainly want a transition to a more "normal" political system as would many Iranians. But a regime change by a US invasion would galvanize Iranians behind the current political setup and make people like Ayotallah Khamenie and Ahmedijinad more powerful.

Again, a history lesson, Bay of PIgs in Cuba when Castro was already facing internal troubles and Cubans wanted to get rid of him. The CIA launched a botched up invasion of Cuba that failed miserably. IT galvanized the Cubans behind Castro and the result is that even today Cuba is a communist country under Castro.

In any case, I would like you to clarify what your position is at present on Iran. Are you saying that India should support (covertly or overtly) a military strike on Iran? GoI will not do that.
Cut down ties with Iran? GoI under UPA has already drastically cut down ties as compared to the level ties in the 90s and under the NDA in early 2000s


I would speculate that the GoI position is that a military strike on Iran is not viable even for a regime change. This is also the opinion of Israeli and US military officials. On trade ties, oil sourcing has come down by a lot, but GoI does not want to leave an opportunity for Chinese investments to increase in Iran. And all indications show that the Indian trade delegation will visit Iran on March 10-11.

 

[Adux]

Adux

I am not sure why you are dismissing the Iraq-Afghanistan failures as history when these are prime examples of how US foreign policy has hurt Indian interests.

How did Afghanistan Campaign hurt our interest, the only reason we have gone as much into Afghanistan rather being stuck in one little field hospital in the Tajikistan border is because of the American campaign. India - Iraq relationship went downhill the moment , Saddam went into the kuwait war. Have you compared India's relationship with other GCC countries if continued untstinted support to Saddam?
Iraq will be a success story of Americans again 10 years time. The only reason it had to go through such mayhem was because of Saddam, Saudi-Iran rivalry.

And it is still a "prediction" that Iraq will become a success story, but India already had a success story in Iraq in strategic terms. It was Afghanistan that was the problem.

And again, let me remind you that under the Shah of Iran which was pro-US, we had a very anti-India Iran as well. Under him, Iran was the only country apart from the US that provided military equipment to Pakistan in times of war during 65. and 71. A new "pro-US" regime may be pro-India as well, but again that is all speculation just like the Iraqi WMDs and how the Iraqi people will welcome US forces with open arms once Saddam is toppled.

The variables and values of what constituted a geo political interest in a cold war context and Soviet union aligned India is far different from today. You think US actions are just pure beligerence while the victim's like Saddam, OBL, Gaddafi, Mullah Omar are all Snow white. India should have known when to cut umbilical cord. I dont even with think, you have any clue how Saddam played the bluff game with americans regards to WMD's. Iraqi people did welcome the Americans, unfortunately as is case with the a very large majority of the muslim community, they are religious zealots, and fell into the traps of Saudi and Iran, and putting market bombs, or are you saying Americans did all the market bombings? (90% of the deaths of Iraqi's were caused by Iraqi's)

I dont even understand the point of you whinefest, America can and will do what it wants, we should be intelligent enough when to resist them and when to join their bandwagon.

The reason why these past examples are important is so that the point that US should keep in mind Indian strategic concerns and consult India on West Asia issues is established. By listening to India, US could have avoided costly blunders that have affected Indian interests as well as US long term interests. And Iraq and Afghanistan are not history, its happening right now.

No, America doesnt have listened to Indian interest, if Indian's were strong enough, Americans will bend. Indians arent. The ONLY reason Indians are even in Afghanistan now, and we have a friendlier afghanistan and not the taliban of IC-814 times is because of the Americans. Americans didnt create blunders, they made decisions on the basis of the what they possessed. If they possessed a good relationship with Iran, then today Pakistan will be toast.

I have mentioned earlier that the Iranian political system where you have a cleric as a head of state is an aberration even in 1000+ year of Islamic history. I would certainly want a transition to a more "normal" political system as would many Iranians. But a regime change by a US invasion would galvanize Iranians behind the current political setup and make people like Ayotallah Khamenie and Ahmedijinad more powerful.

Irrelevant.

Again, a history lesson, Bay of PIgs in Cuba when Castro was already facing internal troubles and Cubans wanted to get rid of him. The CIA launched a botched up invasion of Cuba that failed miserably. IT galvanized the Cubans behind Castro and the result is that even today Cuba is a communist country under Castro.

Have you asked people of Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bhutan what they think of Indian interference in their affairs? We are a regional bully. This area of our interference will only grow. If we need this in Afghanistan, we need the US over there for another 5-10 years, and must be through non-pakistani economical route. ONLY ONE IS IRAN. Welcome to the world of big boys, stop whining and start acting.

In any case, I would like you to clarify what your position is at present on Iran. Are you saying that India should support (covertly or overtly) a military strike on Iran? GoI will not do that.
Cut down ties with Iran? GoI under UPA has already drastically cut down ties as compared to the level ties in the 90s and under the NDA in early 2000s

You completely discount the fact, that a nuclear Iran is not in India's interest also a rabid islamic country is also not in India's interest. We have our reasons to tone down our relationship with Iran. Stop falling for the GoI line that it was the Americans alone.

I will put it very simply. And I want you to understand and think, and analyze, especially french behavior

TODAY - India supports nominally Iran, we support them in diplomatic terms and ofcourse buy oil
3 Weeks before, confirmed Iran War, India changes sides.

I would speculate that the GoI position is that a military strike on Iran is not viable even for a regime change.

If USA goes for a Iranian strike, trust me it will be for the end of it. There is way too much bad blood over there. Iran being nuclear isnt in the best interest of the two most powerful allies of USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

This is also the opinion of Israeli and US military officials. On trade ties, oil sourcing has come down by a lot, but GoI does not want to leave an opportunity for Chinese investments to increase in Iran. And all indications show that the Indian trade delegation will visit Iran on March 10-11

.

Israel and Saudis cant have a nuclear Iran. They will not let it. They are not ready to be in an Indian eventuality of a nuclear Pakistan. They will not sit back.

 

[Ray]

I wonder if the US wants Iraq or Afghanistan to be a success story.

If it is a success story, then where is the use of being a superpower?

If one looks at history, British left their colonies, but did they not leave well considered schisms so that the colonies were never a success stories?

And just observe how the control the colonies even now!

 

[ejazr]

How did Afghanistan Campaign hurt our interest, the only reason we have gone as much into Afghanistan rather being stuck in one little field hospital in the Tajikistan border is because of the American campaign. India - Iraq relationship went downhill the moment , Saddam went into the kuwait war. Have you compared India's relationship with other GCC countries if continued untstinted support to Saddam?
Iraq will be a success story of Americans again 10 years time. The only reason it had to go through such mayhem was because of Saddam, Saudi-Iran rivalry.

Adux, please read what I am saying here. I said that the instead of focusing on Afghanistan which was in Indian interests, the US got distracted with Iraq and ended up creating a messy situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what has hurt Indian interests. US going into Afghanistan was perfectly fine. What it should have done is maintained a laser-like focus on it.

Saddam had no capabilities to

The variables and values of what constituted a geo political interest in a cold war context and Soviet union aligned India is far different from today. You think US actions are just pure beligerence while the victim's like Saddam, OBL, Gaddafi, Mullah Omar are all Snow white. India should have known when to cut umbilical cord. I dont even with think, you have any clue how Saddam played the bluff game with americans regards to WMD's. Iraqi people did welcome the Americans, unfortunately as is case with the a very large majority of the muslim community, they are religious zealots, and fell into the traps of Saudi and Iran, and putting market bombs, or are you saying Americans did all the market bombings? (90% of the deaths of Iraqi's were caused by Iraqi's)

I dont even understand the point of you whinefest, America can and will do what it wants, we should be intelligent enough when to resist them and when to join their bandwagon.

How did Mullah Omar, OBL and Gaddafi come into the picture? I say good riddance to all three. My position is that India and GoI should not (and they will not) support a military strike on Iran. And I think you are one of the minority who really think that Iraqi people welcomed the Americans. Even Americans don't believe that. And if Americans can't control Iraq as you mentioned, what guarantee does the US have it will control Iran. This is not a whinefest but reality.

What I don't understand is why you are so pro- war on Iran when even the US and Israeli military officers are not. Being an armchair-hawk is easy but if you listen to military officials who will actually carry out the attacks you get the correct picture.

No, America doesnt have listened to Indian interest, if Indian's were strong enough, Americans will bend. Indians arent. The ONLY reason Indians are even in Afghanistan now, and we have a friendlier afghanistan and not the taliban of IC-814 times is because of the Americans. Americans didnt create blunders, they made decisions on the basis of the what they possessed. If they possessed a good relationship with Iran, then today Pakistan will be toast.

Have you asked people of Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bhutan what they think of Indian interference in their affairs? We are a regional bully. This area of our interference will only grow. If we need this in Afghanistan, we need the US over there for another 5-10 years, and must be through non-pakistani economical route. ONLY ONE IS IRAN. Welcome to the world of big boys, stop whining and start acting.

Again, you are under some mistaken assumption that I don't support the US (and UN sponsored) intervention in Afghanistan. But what I what to explain here is that thanks to the blunder in Iraq, the US could not consolidate its position in Afghanistan which would have helped India. Now it wants to hand over to Taliban and in a worse case scenario cut and run giving Pakistan free run again through its proxy.

If the US had not blundered into Iraq, it would'nt need another 10 years to consolidate its position in Afghanistan. The Iraq war made it more difficult for the US to do so. And the distraction allowed Pakistan and Taliban with a comeback.

You completely discount the fact, that a nuclear Iran is not in India's interest also a rabid islamic country is also not in India's interest. We have our reasons to tone down our relationship with Iran. Stop falling for the GoI line that it was the Americans alone.

I will put it very simply. And I want you to understand and think, and analyze, especially french behavior

TODAY - India supports nominally Iran, we support them in diplomatic terms and ofcourse buy oil
3 Weeks before, confirmed Iran War, India changes sides.

If USA goes for a Iranian strike, trust me it will be for the end of it. There is way too much bad blood over there. Iran being nuclear isnt in the best interest of the two most powerful allies of USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

.

Israel and Saudis cant have a nuclear Iran. They will not let it. They are not ready to be in an Indian eventuality of a nuclear Pakistan. They will not sit back.

No India doesn't support a nuclear Iran and I don't see it beneficial to India ofcourse. But I think India has a better formula of getting Iran to stop going for nukes which is engagement alongwith sanctions. Not military strikes which even US and Israeli military officials disapprove of.
Nuclear weapons afterall are defensive weapons and an attack on Iran like I mentioned will galvanise oppostion elements with the regime and increase its resolve to get nuclear weapons. Afterall, N. Korea has not been attacked because it has nukes. And Gaddafi, who voluntarily gave up his nuke program is now dead.

Like I mentioned earlier, when it comes to just Israel vs Iran, both need to be balanced. But when you add US and GCC countries to the mix, then Iran loses out in terms of weightage.

My position is that GoI has already cut its ties drastically under UPA as compared to NDA regime. And it will not support a military option on Iran. Neither does the US seem to have the capacity to do so despite the rhetoric. GoI has taken a gamble that there is no regime change happening even if some military action like air strikes takes place and is maintaining its ties with Iran.

Correct me if I am wrong but I gather that your position is that IF US will invade Iran like it did Iraq and topple the regime and establish a new "pro-US regime" in a decade from now on. So why should we base our policy on IF this or that policy?

I would hazard a prediction that there will be no military strike on Iran and neither will Iran go nuclear. After the Presidential elections, the attack Iran rhetoric will die down. And if India had cut its ties with Iran completely and joined the attack Iran bandwagon, they would be shunted in the corner with no influence left in Ian come 2013.

 

[asianobserve]

"xxxx And I think you are one of the minority who really think that Iraqi people welcomed the Americans. Even Americans don't believe that. And if Americans can't control Iraq as you mentioned, what guarantee does the US have it will control Iran. This is not a whinefest but reality.xxx

I think initially there was a genuine enthusiasm, and even gratitude, especially among the Shia majority of Americans entry into Iraq in 2003. Later on this enthusiasm faded amid American incompetence in handling the transition and the widespread terrorism that followed from remnants of Saddams Sunni forces and Al Qaeda.