Iran News and Discussions

[AirforcePilot]

House Votes to Impose Sanctions on Iran

FOXNews.com - House Votes to Impose Sanctions on Iran


FOXNews.com

The House voted overwhelmingly to implement new sanctions against Iran in retaliation for its saber-rattling over building a nuclear weapons arsenal.

By a 412-12 vote, lawmakers approved legislation that would penalize foreign companies that sell oil to Iran or help the country with its oil-producing capacity. While Iran is a major crude oil producer, its lack of ability to produce enough gasoline and other refined petroleum products is a major economic vulnerability.

With no Senate action on the legislation expected this year, the House vote was for the time being mainly a warning that the United States is ready to act on its own if the Tehran government doesn't respond to current international efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Some lawmakers who voted against the bill worried such economic consequences could harm impoverished Iranians.

Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, said the Obama administration was "entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran." Sanctions legislation "might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts," Steinberg's letter said.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., said Iran has had ample time to respond to President Obama's efforts at engagement. "President Obama has offered Iran an outstretched hand, but regrettably, Iran has not unclenched its fist."

Hitting Iran in one of its weakest areas could be "the last best hope for diplomatically ending Iran's nuclear weapons program," said Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.

U.S. officials say Iran has already stockpiled enough uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee. International diplomacy has proved to be a mirage, she said. "we must use the limited time remaining to impose sanctions so painful that they should threaten the Iranian regime's survival."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, a leading critic of the bill, said it would antagonize the many Iranian people who oppose the Tehran government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "We're telling the Iranian people, 'we have feelings of friendship for you. we like you so much, but we're going to cut off your home heating oil."'

"This will unify the Iranian people against us," said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

U.S. petroleum exports to Iran are already banned under past sanctions. But the National Foreign Trade Council and its affiliate, USA Engage, expressed concern that a U.S. company that has business dealings with a foreign firm involved in Iran's energy sector could face sanctions.

Also on Tuesday, the State Department said it planned to waive provisions of existing sanctions against Iran to allow Iranians to download free, mass-market software used in e-mail, instant messaging and social networking.

The department said sanctions "are having an unintended chilling effect on the ability of companies such as Microsoft and Google to continue providing essential communications tools to ordinary Iranians."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., welcomed the move: "Much of what we know about the regime's repression has come from firsthand accounts by Iranian citizens, distributed via Internet tools such as YouTube and Twitter," he said.

Fox News' Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[AirforcePilot]

Iranians seize Iraqi oil well, Iraq official says

Iraqi official: Iranians seize Iraqi oil well - Iran- msnbc.com

BREAKING NEWS

updated 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - Iranian troops have seized an oil well in southern Iraq along their disputed border, Iraq's deputy foreign minister says.

Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed Haj Aziz said Friday that Iranian troops seized oil well No. 4 Thursday night.

He said he did not know whether Iranians were still in control of the oil well. He said the Foreign Ministry and the Oil Ministry are coordinating over what steps to take and were considering summoning the Iranian ambassador to discuss the issue on Saturday.

Such incidents have happened before along the Iran-Iraq border, which was never clearly delineated after the brutal war between the two countries in the 1980s.

 

[AirforcePilot]

Intel Report: Iran Looking to Smuggle Raw Uranium

Intel Report: Iran Looking to Smuggle Raw Uranium - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

VIENNA — Iran is close to clinching a deal to clandestinely import 1,350 tons of purified uranium ore from Kazakhstan, according to an intelligence report obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday. Diplomats said the assessment was heightening international concern about Tehran's nuclear activities.

Such a purified uranium ore deal would be significant because Tehran appears to be running out of the material, which it needs to feed its uranium enrichment program.

The report was drawn up by a member nation of the International Atomic Energy agency and provided to the AP on condition of that the country not be identified because of the confidential nature of the information.

Such imports are banned by the U.N. Security Council.

In New York, Burkina Faso's U.N. Ambassador Michel Kafando, a co-chair of the Security Council's Iran sanctions committee, referred questions Tuesday about a potential deal between Iran and Kazakhstan to his sanctions adviser, Zongo Saidou.

Saidou told the AP that, as far as he knew, none of the U.N.'s member nations have alerted the committee about any such allegations. "We don't have any official information yet regarding this kind of exchange between the two countries," Saidou said. "I don't have any information; I don't have any proof."

A senior U.N. official said the agency was aware of the intelligence report's assessment but could not yet draw conclusions. He demanded anonymity for discussing confidential information. A Western diplomat from a member of the IAEA's 35-nation board said the report was causing "concern" among countries that have seen it and generating "intelligence chatter." The diplomat also requested anonymity for discussing intelligence information.

A two-page summary of the report obtained by the AP said deal could be completed within weeks. It said Tehran was willing to pay $450 million, or close to 315 million euros, for the shipment.

The price is high because of the secret nature of the deal and due to Iran's commitment to keep secret the elements supplying the material," said the summary. An official of the country that drew up the report said "elements" referred to state employees acting on their own without approval of the Kazakh government.

After-hours calls put in to offices of Kazatomprom, the Kazak state uranium company, in Kazakhstan and Moscow, were not answered Tuesday. Iranian nuclear officials also did not pick up their telephones.

Purified ore, or uranium oxide, is processed into a uranium gas, which is then spun and re-spun to varying degrees of enrichment. Low enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel, and upper-end high enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze its enrichment program and related activities that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Tehran denies such aspirations, saying it wants to enrich only to fuel an envisaged network of power reactors.

 

[Pintu]

AFP: Kazakhstan, Iran deny uranium deal

Kazakhstan, Iran deny uranium deal

(AFP) – 2 hours ago

ASTANA — Kazakhstan angrily denied on Wednesday that it planned to sell purified uranium ore to Iran, calling media reports to this effect "groundless insinuations."

The story was also denied by Tehran, which called it "utterly fabricated and baseless."

Kazakhstan "categorically repudiates certain news media reports alleging Kazakhstan's connection to a possible deal to supply uranium to the Islamic Republic of Iran," the country's foreign ministry said.

The government "considers them groundless insinuations damaging the reputation of our country."

In Tehran, the foreign ministry said "the news circulating in some media that Iran is on the threshold of inking a covert deal to import 1,350 tonnes of purified uranium ore from Kazakhstan is utterly fabricated and baseless."

"This propaganda is one of the links in the chain that serves the political intentions of the oppressive powers," a statement added.

The denials by both countries came a day after the United States, reacting to media reports that a deal was close to being sealed, warned that such a transfer was prohibited under UN sanctions on Iran.

"The transfer of uranium to Iran is prohibited, unless the uranium in question is low enriched and the uranium is incorporated in assembled nuclear fuel elements for use in light water reactors (LWRs)," US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said in Washington.

Concern over Iran's nuclear plans is again rising. On Tuesday, Washington warned Tehran that December was "a very real deadline" to accept a UN-drafted deal to swap enriched uranium for nuclear fuel or face further sanctions.

The United States and some other Western countries suspect Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear power programme.

Tehran adamantly denies this, saying its nuclear programme is strictly for the production of energy.

Kazakhstan, which on January 1 becomes the first ex-Soviet republic to take the helm of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), stressed that it is committed to international nuclear non-proliferation rules.

"Kazakhstan is firmly committed to the principles of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and tough control over the turnover of dual-use materials," the foreign ministry statement said.

It noted that Kazakhstan had renounced the world's fourth-largest nuclear and missile arsenal -- a stockpile it inherited from the days it was part of the Soviet Union -- and had shut down its Soviet-era nuclear test site.

The Central Asian state also called on the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to weigh in publicly on the reports saying Kazakhstan was to ship uranium to Iran.

"Kazakhstan expects the IAEA to give an appropriate assessment of the information being disseminated by the news media," the statement said.

It said all operations involving nuclear materials, "including our cooperation regarding peaceful use of atomic energy with foreign countries, are subject to IAEA comprehensive safeguards."

Separately, Kazakhstan said it had become the world's largest producer of uranium, overtaking Canada, after it increased production by 63 percent in 2009.

Kazatomprom said it had mined 13,500 tonnes of the radioactive metal as of December 21 and will have mined at least another 400 tonnes by year's end.

Citing the Ux Consulting Company, a US nuclear consulting firm, the statement said Canada was expected to produce 9,934 tonnes of uranium and Australia 8,022 tonnes this year.

Kazakhstan plans to increase production to 18,000 tonnes in 2010, Nurlan Ryspanov, Kazatomprom vice-president said in a statement.

"The republic will gain the leading position in uranium mining at the time of maximum demand for it," Ryspanov said.

 

[nrupatunga]

Iran opens registration for presidential race with ruling clerics holding strong hand

Iranian authorities opened the registration process Tuesday for candidates in next month's presidential election that will pick a successor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and offer a critical test for reformists battered after years of crackdowns.

The leaders of the reform movement four years ago are now under house arrests and liberal groups have faced relentless pressures since major unrest to protest Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election in 2009. It appears unlikely that prominent pro-reform figures, such as former President Mohammad Khatami, will seek a spot on the June 14 ballot.

Among the presumed front-runners is senior Khamenei adviser Ali Akbar Velayati, Tehran Mayor Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf and former nuclear negotiator Hasan Rowhani. Ahmadinejad is barred by law from seeking a third term due to term limits under Iran's constitution.

Opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi have been under house arrest since early 2011. Top figures such as Khatami and another former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, are not expected to seek comeback bids.

The main liberal-leaning candidate considered by the Guardian Council could be former Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref, who served in Khatami's administration.

 

[nrupatunga]

Who's who in Iran's presidential race

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani: The centrist Rafsanjani, an important figure since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, was president from 1989 to 1997. He earned the ire of hardliners after he sided with reformists during the unrest that followed the disputed 2009 election, and has seen two of his children jailed in recent months.

Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie: Former chief-of-staff to outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he is viewed with intense suspicion by conservatives who say he leads a "deviant current" within Iranian politics that seeks to sideline the ruling clerics. They consider Mashaie and Ahmadinejad to be right-wing populists.

Saeed Jalili: Iran's nuclear negotiator since 2007 is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war and seen as a hardline conservative close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Hassan Rohani: A moderate Muslim cleric, he also served as Iran's nuclear negotiator, presiding over talks with Britain, France and Germany that saw Tehran agree to suspend uranium enrichment-related activities between 2003 and 2005. He is seen as close to Rafsanjani.

Ali Akbar Velayati: Served as foreign minister from 1981 to 1997 and advises Khamenei on foreign policy matters. He is seen as a traditional conservative, with ties both to 'principlist' factions - loyal to the supreme leader - and to Rafsanjani's camp.

Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf: A former police chief, he is the current mayor of Tehran and has a reputation as a competent, charismatic manager who could attract Iran's sizeable youth vote. He is viewed as a pragmatic conservative.

Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel: A former parliament speaker and relative of Khamenei by marriage, he is a close adviser to the Supreme Leader.

Mohsen Rezaie: The veteran politician and former Revolutionary Guards commander ran in 2009 against Ahmadinejad and lost. He is the secretary of Iran's Expediency Council, which advises Khamenei.

 

[nrupatunga]

Iran election: Rafsanjani blocked from running for president

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the leading opposition-backed candidate in Iran's presidential election, was disqualified on Tuesday from standing.

Eight men were allowed to enter the race for the election on 14 June, including Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili; the mayor of Tehran, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf; and former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati. Hassan Rouhani, a reformist who is seen as having little chance of victory, was also allowed to run. Jalili is widely seen as the favourite candidate of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

So does this mean that there is no reform oriented candidate in fray? The ayatollahs maybe dont want any domestic problems when syria, iraq, and entire region is in turmoil. Will this lead to iraninan spring??

 

[nrupatunga]

Hassan Rouhani wins Iran presidential election

Reformist-backed cleric Hassan Rouhani has won Iran's presidential election, securing just over 50% of the vote and so avoiding the need for a run-off.

Tehran Mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf was well behind in second place.

Although all six candidates were seen as conservatives, analysts say Mr Rouhani - a 64-year-old cleric often described as "moderate" who has held several parliamentary posts and served as chief nuclear negotiator - has been reaching out to reformists in recent days.

 

[nrupatunga]

Who is Iran's new president? Nine things you need to know about Rowhani

Background: He was born Nov. 12, 1948 near the northeast province of Semnan. Rowhani's family reportedly opposed the former Shah of Iran, who was ousted in the Iranian Revolution in 1979. He studied religion at an early age; he took classes taught by leading Shia scholars in his teens.

He's a lawyer: Rowhani reportedly received his bachelor's degree in judicial law at the University of Tehran before earning a master's degree at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland, according to Hussein Banai, a scholar and co-author of the book "Becoming Enemies: U.S.-Iran Relations and the Iran-Iraq War."

He's a political insider: He launched his political career in the 1960s as an acolyte of Ayatollah Khamenei and, after the shah was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution, played a wide range of key roles in the new republic. Rowhani has a lengthy political CV —including stints as a former commander of the Iranian air defenses, a leader on three war and defense councils, and several terms in parliament.

"He's been part of the establishment for a very long time," Banai said, adding that Rowhani has close relationships with the clerical elite as well as political figureheads on both ends of the Iranian ideological spectrum.

He's a top-shelf negotiator: During his years as secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Rowhani was Iran's chief nuclear negotiator with the West. He earned the nickname "Diplomat Sheikh" — an Arabic honorific that means "elder" — because of the smooth, savvy way in which he handled allies and rivals alike.

He's an understated guy: Rowhani's cool temperament offers a stark contrast to that of Ahmadinejad, a political leader partial to inflammatory rhetoric, Banai said.

He's a pragmatic moderate: Rowhani is widely seen as an even-handed political thinker who has avoided staking out extreme ideological territory over the course of his career.

He's promised social reform: Rowhani has vowed to pursue certain liberal reforms that don't exactly square with the Ayatollah's stern religious edicts, including loosened restrictions on speech and lessened security on college campuses, according to Abdo. These policies would almost certainly be celebrated by young activists, particularly those involved with the Green Revolution, who have lobbied the government for social reform.

He's a traditionalist: Rowhani -- who campaigned on the slogan "Prudence and Hope" -- may talk the democratic talk, but lest we forget: He's no revolutionary, according to Abdo.

"He believes in the system," Abdo said.

He's open to friendlier U.S. relations: There's no doubt foreign policy officials in Washington will be keeping tabs on Rowhani's every utterance in the next few months -- particularly since the president-elect has signaled he has interest in improving ties with the U.S.

He's beholden to the Ayatollah: Rowhani has publicly criticized Khamenei, and yet generally speaking, he has a "sufficiently good relationship" with the Supreme Leader, according to Parsi. But more importantly, structural changes in Iran -- particularly any changes to the the country's weapons stock -- don't happen without the Ayatollah's approval.

 

[nrupatunga]

Iran is ready to enter 'serious and substantive' nuke talks

 

[nrupatunga]

With Iran, Diplomacy Will Be a Marathon, Not a Sprint

It is often the case that the most intriguing conversations do not take place in an office or at a conference, rather they take place at bars or in living rooms where people are most comfortable to speak their minds. It was just this type of conversation, and the recent events surrounding efforts at diplomacy between Iran and the United States, that sparked this piece.

Earlier in the summer, a good friend of mine asked me over beers at my favorite D.C. watering hole, what my thoughts were on the potential for a diplomatic solution vis-à-vis Iran's nuclear program. The question is rather loaded. We're both Iranian, we're both advocates for a diplomatic solution, but more importantly we're both jaded.

To understand where we are now, we have to look at where we came from. It was no secret that Iran and the U.S. have been at odds for nearly 35 years. Until recently, there has been virtually no official contact between the two countries; the lines of communication were severed for obvious reasons. The Iranian regime looked at the U.S. as the Great Satan and the U.S. felt aggrieved by the embassy seizure in 1979. Both sides have a laundry list of complaints which, in all honesty, are all valid.

Over the intervening decades, there have been attempts at détente or rapprochement -- all of which have sputtered well before they got off the ground. One side was willing to dance, while the other refused to leave its seat.

Now with the recent elections of Hassan Rouhani as president of Iran combined with President Obama's willingness to go beyond his initial attempts at diplomacy in October 2009 (which were an epic failure for many reasons) there seems to be more space and opportunity for diplomacy to actually take hold. Recent speeches by both at the United Nations General Assembly indicate both a willingness to talk and a shift in perceptions about the other side.

However, I was -- and still am -- cautious. No deal, however much both sides want one, can ever be made overnight. While we don't have much time to begin the process (the window of opportunity is small and will only remain open for a short period of time), it has to be understood that a viable agreement has to be formed over an extended period of time. In other words, while neither side can afford to dither in getting the ball rolling, neither side should expect to sprint to the finish line. After all, we have nearly 35 years of entrenched misinformation, distrust, and virtual cold war.

Congressional leaders should realize this as well, but something tells me scoring cheap political points is far easier than being prudent. Iran is an easy target and Congressional members of both parties will be facing reelection bids next year. The same could be said for politicians in Iran -- at the end of the day, all politics are local.

Given the facts on the ground the hope is, my hope is, that there can be in some way, shape, or form measures to begin to build trust, so that when an eventual agreement does take place it is lasting and there is confidence on all sides that the stipulations therein will be followed.

The process of rebuilding a broken relationship will take time, I told my friend. If we are truly seeking an agreement that is lasting, then we have to be willing to take those confidence building steps over an extended period of time. These steps have to be institutionalized within both countries, so that they can last through inevitable turnovers that occur in both nations. Three years is enough time to begin the process and build enough confidence for an agreement to be made.

The process won't be easy. There will be spoilers of all shapes and sizes. Both sides have to be prepared to take the inevitable body blows that come part and parcel with this course of action. The question is will both sides be strong enough? Will they succumb to the desire for a quick and instantly gratifying, but unsustainable, solution? Or will they take the long road and find an enduring settlement?

 

[nrupatunga]

A very very nice read.

With Iran, Obama can end America's long war for the Middle East

What Jimmy Carter began, Barack Obama is ending. Washington is bringing down the curtain on its 30-plus-year military effort to pull the Islamic world into conformity with American interests and expectations. It's about time.

Like Carter in 1980, Obama finds himself with few alternatives. At home, widespread anger, angst and mortification obliged Carter to begin girding the nation to fight for the greater Middle East. To his successors, Carter bequeathed a Pentagon preoccupied with ramping up its ability to flex its muscles anywhere from Egypt to Pakistan. The bequest proved a mixed blessing, fostering the illusion that military muscle, dexterously employed, might put things right. Today, widespread disenchantment with the resulting wars and quasi-wars prohibits Obama from starting new ones.

Nothing is half so melancholy as to compare the expectations informing recent American wars when they began — Enduring Freedom! — with the outcomes actually achieved. So in Obama's Washington, moralism is out, and with good reason. Now, for the moment at least, realism has regained favor.

This de-escalation is not without risks. For as America's War for the Greater Middle East winds down, it leaves the Islamic world in worse condition — besieged by radicalism, wracked by violence, awash with anti-Americanism — than back in 1980.

The below part has been articulated nicely. Will obama become the next nixon???? Can he rightfully claim his nobel prize???

Back in 1979, the "loss" of Iran provided much of the impetus for launching America's War for the Greater Middle East. The shah's overthrow had cost the United States an unsavory henchman, his place taken by radicals apparently consumed with hatred for the Great Satan.

At the time, the magnitude of the policy failure staggered Washington. It was as bad as — maybe worse than — the "loss" of China 30 years before. Of course, what had made that earlier failure so difficult to take was the presumption that China had been ours to lose in the first place. Discard that presumption, and doing business with Red China just might become a possibility. Richard Nixon, by accepting China's loss, he turned it to America's advantage, at least in the short run.

So too with Iran today. The passage of time, along with more than a few miscalculations by Iran's leadership, has tempered the Islamic republic's ambitions. One imagines Nixon, in whatever precincts of the great beyond he inhabits, itching to offer advice: Accept the "loss" of Iran, which will never return to America's orbit anyway, and turn it to U.S. advantage.

In their heyday, neoconservatives boasted that while anyone could go to Baghdad, real men hankered to go to Tehran. But as a venue for displaying American power, Baghdad proved a bust. In Tehran lies the possibility of finding a way out of perpetual war. Although by no means guaranteed, the basis for a deal exists: We accept the Islamic republic, they accept the regional status quo. They get survival, we get a chance to repair self-inflicted wounds. It's the same bargain that Nixon offered Mao: Keep your revolution at home, and we'll make our peace with it. Negotiations over Iran's nuclear program provide the medium for achieving this larger end.

Any such deal would surely annoy Saudi Arabia and Israel, each for its own reasons committed to casting Iran as an existential threat. Obama just might choose to let them fret. The United States no longer must defer to the Saudis.

Much the same applies to Israel. Just as Israel disregards U.S. objections to its expansion of settlements in the West Bank, the United States should refuse to allow Israeli objections to determine its policy toward Iran.

The exit from America's misadventures in the region is through the door marked "Tehran." Calling off the War for the Greater Middle East won't mean that the political, social and economic problems roiling that part of the world will suddenly go away. They just won't be problems that Uncle Sam is expected to solve. In this way, a presidency that began with optimism and hope but has proved such a letdown may yet achieve something notable.

 

[nrupatunga]

Iran, UAE Close to Deal on Hormuz Islands

Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are close to reaching a deal on returning three Iranian-occupied islands in the Arabian Gulf to the UAE.

Sources close to the negotiations have stated that a deal for the return of the strategic islands to the UAE was laid out during the recent visit of UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahyan to Tehran, and a response was presented during last week's return visit by his Iranian counterpart, Mohammed Javad Zarif.

The strategically located islands of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs are close to the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil chokepoint. The islands were occupied by Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pehlavi less than 48 hours before the declaration in 1971 of the establishment of the United Arab Emirates. The largest of the three Islands, Abu Musa, had been under the administration of the emirate of Sharjah, while the Greater and Lesser Tunbs belonged to the emirate of Ras al Khaimah, according to official UAE records.

Last year, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC) inaugurated a naval base on Abu Musa. Karasik said the naval base housed hundreds of short-range missiles "for Tehran's security purposes over the Strait of Hormuz."

During Zayed's visit to Tehran, the first breakthrough was Iran's acceptance to start discussions on Abu Musa. However, Zarif was quick to reiterate Iran's sovereignty over them, "We are ready for talks with the UAE on the misunderstandings [on the implementation of the 1971 Memorandum of Understanding] on Abu Musa," Zarif wrote on his Facebook page on Dec. 3.

Isn't facebook blocked in iran??

In addition to the strategic benefits, a deal could mean large economic benefits for both countries, he added, "given Dubai's economic linkages with Iran, and the fact that they both stand to benefit from the lifting of the sanctions."

Before sanctions were imposed in 2007, trade between the UAE and Iran focused on consumer goods, foodstuffs and livestock. The estimated value of annual trade was between 36.7 billion dirhams and 44.1 billion dirhams (US $10 billion to $12 billion), said the Iranian Business Council.

After the 2007 sanctions, the value of direct exports from Dubai to Iran, according to the city's Department of Economic Development, was 1.8 billion dirhams.

Overall am unable to understand what really could iran get by surrendering real estate to uae?? That too uae.

 

[kseeker]

Overall am unable to understand what really could iran get by surrendering real estate to uae?? That too uae.

Petro dollars from Arabs ! I might be wrong Iran is badly in need of money, isn't it ?

 

[nrupatunga]

Petro dollars from Arabs ! I might be wrong Iran is badly in need of money, isn't it ?

Yes iran is badly in need of money, but somehow this doesn't add up i feel. Also how are they going to sell this deal to their public?? Or is it just a trial balloon to gauge reactions from various internal and external players. As i said am not getting the logic behind this move by iran.

 

[kseeker]

Yes iran is badly in need of money, but somehow this doesn't add up i feel. Also how are they going to sell this deal to their public?? Or is it just a trial balloon to gauge reactions from various internal and external players. As i said am not getting the logic behind this move by iran.

Good questions ! I suspect, this has something to do with nuclear deal which Iran has struck recently with US and europeans.

 

[nrupatunga]

Iran thinking of shifting its capital from tehran

The Iranian parliament has voted to consider a proposal to pick another city as the nation's capital, potentially moving the seat of government from the overcrowded Tehran.

Iran's official news agency IRNA said on Tuesday that politicians had accepted outlines of the proposal with 110 out of 214 present lawmakers supporting it. The chamber has 290 seats.

Under the plan, a council would be set up and spend two years studying which alternate location would be best.

While there was no suggestion in the bill which cities would be looked at, several central and western cities already have said they would like to be considered.

Supporters of the plan said Tehran, with a metropolitan population of 12 million people could not support the capital.

They pointed at the heavy pollution, the city's traffic jams and risk of earthquakes there. Iran is located on several faults and experiences a light earthquake a day, on average.

Still, moving the capital seems unlikely, due to the high cost involved.

Vice-president Mohammad Ali Ansari, who is in charge of parliament affairs, said he opposed the plan, which he said was was not practical, and that politicians did not have the power to order the capital to be moved.

He said relocating the capital was part of main policies of the ruling establishment, a reference to the authority of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, who has final say on all state matters.

"It is impossible to decide about making the decision on moving without consulting his Excellency," Ansari said.

Parliament speaker Ali Larijani opposed the plan over the cost and said the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog that vets the bills, would likely reject it as well.

Saeed Leilaz, a Tehran-based political-economic analyst, also said the plan was not feasible.

"This will cost dozens of billion dollars for a government that has not enough to pay the monthly salary of its staff," Leilaz said.

Iran has been crippled by Western sanctions over its disputed nuclear power programme, which has cut its access to the oil money that makes up to 80 percent of its foreign income and 50 percent of budget.

Politicians and officials occasionally have raised the idea over the past 50 years, before the 1979 Islamic Revolution that ousted King Mohmmad Reza Pahlavi.

US advisers reportedly had asked the king to relocate the capital because it was too close to borders of the Soviet Union.

During World War I, the Iranian government decided to move the capital temporarily when Russian and British forces occupied parts of the country, although the order was never carried out.

 

[nrupatunga]

@Haman10 Is there any chances of iran-israel patching up?? Shah did not have any issues with israel. It was only after 1979 i.e. revolution happened relations soured between iran and israel.

 

[Haman10]

@Haman10 Is there any chances of iran-israel patching up?? Shah did not have any issues with israel. It was only after 1979 i.e. revolution happened relations soured between iran and israel.

absolutely no chance ! israel is a mass-murdering terrorist regime !! they kill muslims as if they are not even human ...... i dont want to go off-topic or else i could show you the conspiracies ....

anyhow iran and israel had no problems during shah time cause shah was a sellout western wannabe . he destroyed iran and killed his own people .

i know you guys have good relations with that entity , but we respect your foreign relations as a free nation .....

 

[nrupatunga]

EDIT: Removed the post