Israel or Iran who is the strategic partner?

Who is the strategic partner of India?

  • iran

    Votes: 8 10.7%
  • israel

    Votes: 27 36.0%
  • none

    Votes: 9 12.0%
  • both

    Votes: 31 41.3%

  • Total voters
    75

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,024
Country flag
You are forgetting Iran's blatant political, financial and military support to the Hamas and Hezbollah, the most organized terror outfits in the ME. Since Iran doesn't border India, its not a threat to us, heh?
It's not just that Iran doesn't border us, but that we have our strategic interests in Iran. Israel has no substitute for the cheaper (since logistic costs are reduced) natural gas Iran will supply us with the pipeline project in place, nor does it have a substitute for projects such as Chabbhar port. Israel is much smaller as those trade figures show, they're confined to supply of exotic defense equipment, and maybe counter-terrorist training.

The irony of course is that we will be dealing with a regime many including us perceive as terrorist or fascist as far as Iran goes, but that regime isn't against us. We can't afford to be 'self-righteous' on this one, for the same reason. It's the same as countries in East Asia simply do business with the "evil" Junta that runs Myanmar (buying natural gas and oil from it), while keeping quiet about it (the Junta), as long as that regime doesn't affect them. It's unfortunate that while India is capable to make a difference to the world, it behaves too self-righetously in situations that can even affect it.

Along with the regime itself, we automatically gain immunity from Hezbollah and Hamas. With the Iranians being an 'alleged' political and financial patron of those groups, our being in good terms with the Iranians at least ensures our immunity from those groups, of course that doesn't make us their patrons in the process.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
The back and forth on Iran's nuclear programme continues to confound. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution censuring Iran comes less than two months after what was hailed as a diplomatic success in the entire process. While IAEA inspectors did examine the newly revealed nuclear facility near Qom as Tehran had acquiesced to then, the second clause - shipment of the majority of Iran's uranium stocks to another country for enrichment - continues to be problematic. Given the prevarication, the late revelation of the Qom facility and the fact that China and Russia backed the resolution as well, India took the correct decision by supporting it.

Given the tricky duality of India's long-standing ties with Iran and its strategic interests in preventing nuclear proliferation, New Delhi has made the best of the situation. Its stand is a suitably nuanced one. One the one hand, it cannot afford to lose the ethical high ground on nuclear proliferation that has enabled its unique nuclear status among non-P5 nations. Voting against the resolution when even Russia and China, usually votaries of a softer approach to Iran, had come on board would have achieved precisely that. Neither is it in Indian interests to have another nuclear weapons state in the region.

On the other hand, the foreign office has made it clear that New Delhi does not support punitive measures or a drawing down of diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue. This is essential, since the internal dissent in Iran about Tehran's agreeing to the two measures is a good sign. While the proverbial stick is necessary in case the naysayers win, it should not be employed hastily. Such debates take time to play out.

As for fears of deterioration in India-Iran ties if New Delhi supports the IAEA, they are exaggerated. The big-ticket item in the relationship, the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, remains a pipe dream for the moment. By the time the India-Pakistan situation is resolved sufficiently to make it a reality, a lot of water will have flowed under the bridge. New Delhi and Tehran's shared security concerns in Afghanistan are also likely to ameliorate any possible friction. And oft-cited fears of domestic reactions in India are hyperbole at best. Public engagement with regular foreign policy issues has never been high. It is unlikely to change now.
Correct Call - Edit Page - Opinion - Home - The Times of India
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
993
Both.


There is much at stake in Iran, not publicized or given the light of day in India, that we stand to loose because of the breaking off of our strategic relationship with them. Those that suggest Iran is 'dispensable' are usually not aware of the acute relationship we share. Keeping the Indo-Iranian relationship in the closet, and making a mock spectacle of our opposition to their 'nuclear proliferation', and voting on occasion at the IAEA against them (which only our media seems to make a big spectacle of despite the fact that countries like Pakistan, China and Russia also voted against them), and enjoining in the rhetoric in the 'war on terror' serves two purposes: i) it helps to galvanize domestic opinion, which is usually more open to an intimate relationship with Israel than with its nemesis: Iran; and ii) it helps us look good internationally, particularly given a 'non-proliferation regime', the fact that we need the West as suppliers of nuclear fuel and technology, and arms deals [including with the state of Israel]. However, to quote the words of a brilliant article that LethalForce posted, India's foreign policy remains more "polyaligned" than ever. I don't like doing this, but I would like to refer you all to a post I compiled some time ago on the thread: India helping Iran's air force on the extent of Indo-Iranian cooperation in the defence, commerce and geopolitical spheres:

http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/8864-post15.html


Intriguingly, India last year emerged as Iran's largest importer of crude oil. Iran emerged as India's second-largest oil-supplier. Conversely, about 40% of the refined oil consumed in Iran is imported from India. And trade with Iran has been increasing at volumes of over 80% year-on-year (I ain't $hittin' ya). Besides, the close cultural links, the historical and empirical cooperation on matters of national interest, the presence of the world's largest Zoroastrian population in India, the Shia link etc. cannot be overlooked. It is a fact that Iran has remained one of India's closest, albeit least recognized, allies since the Islamic Shia revolution. And continues to remain so: evident from the fact that they continue to support India's inclusion in the IPI despite vehement Pakistani attempts to scuttle it, and our own (considered) dithering on the issue. The Jews on the other hand, are pragmatic people, and will remain silent on India's presence in Iran as long as it is not countervailing to their interests (which it is not, our presence in Iran is exclusively Pakisthan-specific/Central Asian-oriented.) Here's hoping that ties with Israel and the rest of the world do not come at the cost of ties with Iran.


As the persian kitty kats do say,

Iran Zaamiiiiiiiin
Zendabaad Hindostaan
:D
 

K Factor

A Concerned Indian
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
1,316
Likes
147
It's not just that Iran doesn't border us, but that we have our strategic interests in Iran. Israel has no substitute for the cheaper (since logistic costs are reduced) natural gas Iran will supply us with the pipeline project in place, nor does it have a substitute for projects such as Chabbhar port. Israel is much smaller as those trade figures show, they're confined to supply of exotic defense equipment, and maybe counter-terrorist training.

The irony of course is that we will be dealing with a regime many including us perceive as terrorist or fascist as far as Iran goes, but that regime isn't against us. We can't afford to be 'self-righteous' on this one, for the same reason. It's the same as countries in East Asia simply do business with the "evil" Junta that runs Myanmar (buying natural gas and oil from it), while keeping quiet about it (the Junta), as long as that regime doesn't affect them. It's unfortunate that while India is capable to make a difference to the world, it behaves too self-righetously in situations that can even affect it.

Along with the regime itself, we automatically gain immunity from Hezbollah and Hamas. With the Iranians being an 'alleged' political and financial patron of those groups, our being in good terms with the Iranians at least ensures our immunity from those groups, of course that doesn't make us their patrons in the process.
Tarun, you are not getting the point. Look around and you will see the blatant nuclear blackmail we have been facing. Nukes in the hands of any country thats supports terrorism (as a state policy) should not be allowed at all costs.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
26,473
Likes
29,791
Country flag
our vote will not make a difference in Iran acquiring nukes or not, by voting against Iran we are sending the wrong signal, I still think we should have abstained from voting, with USA on both sides of Iran(iraq an afghanistan) they may view their program as their ticket to stay alive,as far as nuclear proliferation,blackmail, terrorism goes I rather see Iran with nukes then pakistan, even if Iran gets nukes it will really make little or no difference to us.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,024
Country flag
Tarun, you are not getting the point. Look around and you will see the blatant nuclear blackmail we have been facing. Nukes in the hands of any country thats supports terrorism (as a state policy) should not be allowed at all costs.
Immunity from two of the deadliest terror groups (allegedly funded by a relatively stable state) plus cheap gas, <<versus>> an additional bunch of anti-semantic foes from an even more unstable Muslim world, and gas eventually ending up with the Americans in exchange for their Enduring Freedom™. Your move.
 

K Factor

A Concerned Indian
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
1,316
Likes
147
Immunity from two of the deadliest terror groups (allegedly funded by a relatively stable state) plus cheap gas, <<versus>> an additional bunch of anti-semantic foes from an even more unstable Muslim world, and gas eventually ending up with the Americans in exchange for their Enduring Freedom™. Your move.
What time-frame are you talking about? Once they have nukes, there will be no immunity for anybody, AND they will not need us anymore. That is the point! Once they have nukes, they cannot be bullied around. Drop a million tons of bombs but unless you put troops on the ground, you cannot achieve anything, and that cannot be done once they have nukes.

What do you think would have happened if Saddam had nukes? Look around and you will see the biggest imporance of that. Pakistan is even worse than Iraq under Saddam and it is a state sponsor or terrorism. Al Qaida, Taliban, LeT leaders are all hiding there. BUT - America is providing them with aid and we are providing them with more and more dossiers.
Everybody including the great US of A is scared of the nuclear threat.

You cannot make deals/alliances with muslim extremist groups. Pak-ISI thought that they controlled the Taliban/Jihadis, look now. Imagine the same happening in the ME.

Other than immunity (debatable, as they are of no immediate threat to us, as we have historically alway supported the Palestinian people) from the two ME terror groups, what do we stand to gain by supporting a nuclear Iran?
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
70
Tarun, you are not getting the point. Look around and you will see the blatant nuclear blackmail we have been facing. Nukes in the hands of any country thats supports terrorism (as a state policy) should not be allowed at all costs.
What terrorism does Iran support? You don't see Shia's blowing themselves up. The IR fundamentally hates all Sunni based terrorist organisations, which is just about all of them. You see Jundullah blowing up their mosques and assasinating IRGC leaders, you have AQ addicting their country to heroin, you have PJAK blowing up police stations and pipelines. Iran even helped overthrow the Taliban by supplying the Northern Alliance. Does supplying Shia militias in Iraq trying to ouster an illegal occuption make them terrorists? Does supplying Hezbollah trying to repel an Israeli invasion make them terrorists? Does capturing British sailors in territorial waters make IRGC terrorists? It isn't like they didn't release them unharmed. The only terrorists in Iran are the Basiji who only terrorise their own people.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
The one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter theory has long gone out of the window. The very terrorist India was forced to released turned out to mastermind 9/11. That same terrorist was called a freedom fighter by our neighbor.
 

bengalraider

DFI Technocrat
Ambassador
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
3,778
Likes
2,639
Country flag
coming late into this debate but here's my 0.02 on iran

Iran is more of an economic and civilizational partner, Iran serves as a counterweight to pakistan's and Saudi Arabia's ambitions to control the islamic voice this coupled with good indo-iranian relations mean that iran more often than not supports india in islamic forums. trade with iran shall always be higher than trade with israel reason:iran has a bigger population; i.e a bigger market.
India and Iran both have common enemies in the wahhabi islam favored by Al-qaeda and it's affiliates like the taliban and LeT Iran was our partner in propping up the northern alliance and remains our partner in afghan affairs.
India needs Iran to grow out of the delhi-islamabad mode i.e if we want to make an impact in the Central asian states (trust me we do) we need Iran.We need to be engaged with iran in order to control the illegal flow of drugs and men into and out of afghanistan(affecting our relations with the afghans)Iran is far more important for the access it provides to central asian gas deposits than for it's own oil and gas India needs gas a lot of gas we ain't getting much without involving Iran and the central asian states aslo important for iran & india is the North south transport corridor designed to help transport men and material rapidly from saint petersburg in russia to bandar abbas in iran,this corridor shall also serve as a lifeline to the central asian states.At the time of the shah paksitan had strategic depth in iran pakistani warplanes returing from sorties against indian airfields were being armed and refuelled in iran, today it is india that has strategic depth we should not let that go away.
India has always supported iranian nuclear ambitions and at one time even proposed setting up a 10MW research reactor to be installed at mollaem kalyaeh in 1991 under IAEA supervision, also considered was the possible sale of a 220MW reactor. while many site the indian vote against iran in 2006 as an instance of india going against iranian bids to go nuclear not amny know athat behind the scenes new delhi actually lobbied the united states, france and britain to get the wording of the resolution changed(succesfully), the resolution had earlier called for immediate referral of iran's case to the UNSC for sanctions and possible confrontation.
India has for the record been accused by the united states in supporting tehran's ballistic missile program along with china, india is allegedly helping iran build a major plant at qazvin to manufacture phosphorous pentasulfide (a precursor for nerve gas) german intelligence ahs also claimed that indian companies attmpted to supply iran equipment required for the manufacture of Sarin and Tabun(india maintains it was all for manufacture of pesticides).
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
70
What time-frame are you talking about? Once they have nukes, there will be no immunity for anybody, AND they will not need us anymore. That is the point! Once they have nukes, they cannot be bullied around. Drop a million tons of bombs but unless you put troops on the ground, you cannot achieve anything, and that cannot be done once they have nukes.
Nothing can be done now, it is too late to stop them. Once Iran has nukes they will still be dependent on outside help to develop their economy, which India is an important partner. If you withdraw that relationship, you are condemning Iranians to poverty and starvation by the millions. Russia can't support Iran alone, we just don't have the capacity.

What do you think would have happened if Saddam had nukes? Look around and you will see the biggest imporance of that. Pakistan is even worse than Iraq under Saddam and it is a state sponsor or terrorism. Al Qaida, Taliban, LeT leaders are all hiding there. BUT - America is providing them with aid and we are providing them with more and more dossiers.
Everybody including the great US of A is scared of the nuclear threat.
If Saddam had nukes he would do the same thing he did in the Gulf War, nothing but launching CONVENTIONAL Scuds. When US said if you use WMD you will cease to exist, that was it. The same will apply to Iran.

Iran is not housing all these Sunni terrorist leaders. IRI hates Sunnis. Haven't you figured that out yet?

You cannot make deals/alliances with muslim extremist groups. Pak-ISI thought that they controlled the Taliban/Jihadis, look now. Imagine the same happening in the ME.
Pak-ISI is run by a bunch of Sunnis. They are the terrorists, not Shias.

Other than immunity (debatable, as they are of no immediate threat to us, as we have historically alway supported the Palestinian people) from the two ME terror groups, what do we stand to gain by supporting a nuclear Iran?
What do you gain by supporting Iran, how about saving the world from an economic depression. If Iran shuts down their energy exports for even a week, any nation that doesn't have energy independence will suffer. If you piss them off they will start firing ASMs at tankers making it even worse. India will lose out on $30 billlion in trade, that is no small number and it only grows with time. India will lose an important piece of its independent foreign policy by sacrificing Iran to become a US stooge. Does India really want to join the coalition of the foreign policy challenged?
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
70
The one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter theory has long gone out of the window. The very terrorist India was forced to released turned out to mastermind 9/11. That same terrorist was called a freedom fighter by our neighbor.
There is clear difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist." One targets women and children while the other targets military and police institutions. Shias don't strap bombs to themselves to blow people up.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
There is clear difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist." One targets women and children while the other targets military and police institutions. Shias don't strap bombs to themselves to blow people up.
Hamas and Hezbollah are freedom fighters then according to you?
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
Nothing can be done now, it is too late to stop them. Once Iran has nukes they will still be dependent on outside help to develop their economy, which India is an important partner. If you withdraw that relationship, you are condemning Iranians to poverty and starvation by the millions. Russia can't support Iran alone, we just don't have the capacity.
But India has not said it is going to withdraw all support to Iran over its nuke program. India has also said it will not support any embargo or any other sanctions.

Here is what the resolution has. I dont see anything that should not be told to Iran as a member of NPT.
The Board of Governors,
(a) Recalling the Resolutions adopted by the Board and the UNSC,
(b) Commending the Director General for his professional and impartial efforts to implement
the Safeguards Agreement in Iran, to resolve outstanding safeguards issues in Iran and to verify
the implementation by Iran of the suspension,
(c) Stressing the important role played by the IAEA in resolving the Iranian nuclear issue and
reaffirming the Board’s resolve to continue to work for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian
nuclear issue,
(d) Reaffirming the inalienable rights of all the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to
develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance
with Article IV of the NPT,
(e) Commending the Director General for his proposal of an Agreement between the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the Governments of the Republic of France, the
Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation for Assistance in Securing Nuclear Fuel for
a Research Reactor in Iran for the Supply of Nuclear Fuel to the Tehran Research Reactor;
appreciating the intensive efforts of the Director General to achieve an agreement on his
proposal,
(f) Noting with serious concern that Iran continues to defy the requirements and obligations
contained in the relevant IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council Resolutions,
Atoms for Peace
Derestricted 27 November 2009
(This document has been derestricted at the meeting of the Board on 27 November 2009)
GOV/2009/82
Page 2
(g) Also noting with serious concern that Iran has constructed an enrichment facility at Qom
in breach of its obligation to suspend all enrichment related activities and that Iran’s failure to
notify the Agency of the new facility until September 2009 is inconsistent with its obligations
under the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement,
(h) Affirming that Iran's failure to inform the Agency, in accordance with the provisions of
the revised Code 3.1, of the decision to construct, or to authorize construction of, a new facility
as soon as such a decision is taken, and to submit information as the design is developed, does
not contribute to the building of confidence,
(i) Underlining that Iran's declaration of the new facility reduces the level of confidence in
the absence of other nuclear facilities and gives rise to questions about whether there are any
other nuclear facilities under construction in Iran which have not been declared to the Agency,
(j) Noting with serious concern that, contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and
the requirements of the Security Council, Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol
nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues of concern, which need
to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme,
(k) Emphasizing the Director General’s assertion that unless Iran implements the Additional
Protocol and, through substantive dialogue, clarifies the outstanding issues to the satisfaction of
the Agency, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the
absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and
(l) Noting that the Director General has repeatedly declared that he is unable to verify that
Iran’s programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes,
1. Urges Iran to comply fully and without delay with its obligations under the above mentioned
resolutions of the Security Council, and to meet the requirements of the Board of Governors, including
by suspending immediately construction at Qom;
2. Urges Iran to engage with the Agency on the resolution of all outstanding issues concerning
Iran’s nuclear programme and, to this end, to cooperate fully with the IAEA by providing such access
and information that the Agency requests to resolve these issues;
3. Urges Iran to comply fully and without qualification with its safeguards obligations, to apply the
modified Code 3.1 and implement and ratify promptly the Additional Protocol;
4. Urges Iran specifically to provide the Agency with the requested clarifications regarding the
purpose of the enrichment plant at Qom and the chronology of its design and construction;
5. Calls on Iran to confirm, as requested by the Agency, that Iran has not taken a decision to
construct, or authorize construction of, any other nuclear facility which has as yet not been declared to
the Agency;
6. Requests the Director General to continue his efforts to implement the Safeguards Agreement in
Iran, resolve the outstanding issues which give rise to concerns, and which need to be clarified to
exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, and to implement
the relevant provisions of UNSC resolutions;
7. Further requests the Director General to report this resolution to the UNSC; and
8. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-82.pdf

There is nothing in the resolution to oppose. It just calls for Iran to abide by the NPT laws.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
Yeah right. Wonder what your government feels about the Chechens.
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
70
But India has not said it is going to withdraw all support to Iran over its nuke program. India has also said it will not support any embargo or any other sanctions.
Dr. Singh did say he would support further sanctions.
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
70
Yeah right. Wonder what your government feels about the Chechens.
They are baby rapping murderers who killed my aunt in the Moskva theatre siege. They don't care who they kill. Hezbollah doesn't claim any suicide attacks. This is not the MO of a terrorist organsiation. Hamas is the democratically elected government, so how can they be terrorists defending their land?
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
Dr. Singh did say he would support further sanctions.
What kind of sanctions? Can i get a link for that? As far as remember reading, the official statements coming out said they will not support any tough sanctions against Iran.

You didnt answer my question about what the Russians feel about Chechens.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,696
Country flag
They are baby rapping murderers who killed my aunt in the Moskva theatre siege. They don't care who they kill. Hezbollah doesn't claim any suicide attacks. This is not the MO of a terrorist organsiation. Hamas is the democratically elected government, so how can they be terrorists defending their land?
Hamas got elected now. Some members in their Parliament. What was it doing before? What about Hezbollah? They dont mind sending rockets into Israel which kills anyone that is near it.
We Indians have been fighting with the west forever to remove the distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters according to their convenience. They have now more or less understood that. Its better you too understand that.

The LTTE is another example. They claimed to be fighting for freedom. but they were nothing more than terror organization.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top