http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/article2991586.ece
India's good relations with the Middle East countries will advance its interests in the region.
When it comes to Iran, India means business. This was clear from New Delhi's decision to send a delegation comprising officials and businessmen to Tehran. The delegation is exploring the opportunities created by the latest US and EU sanctions on Iran. India's serious pursuit of its economic interest is a welcome turn in its foreign policy. But New Delhi needs to orchestrate its economic and geopolitical moves on the complicated chess-board of West Asia.
The US has imposed sanctions that will penalise financial institutions transacting with the Iranian central bank. In tandem, the EU has slapped an embargo on Iranian crude imports that will come fully into effect in July 2012. American allies in Asia — Japan, Taiwan and South Korea — are also reducing their imports of Iranian crude. In all, Iran could miss out on as much as 35 per cent of its total exports. This leaves China and India as the two largest buyers of Iranian crude. Iran currently accounts for more than 11 per cent of India's oil imports, amounting to $12 billion a year.
TRADE WITH IRAN
Faced with such hard sanctions, it isn't surprising that Iran has agreed to a rupee payment mechanism for 45 per cent of its oil exports to India. This, of course, works rather well for us. It provides a major avenue for Indian exports. Iran is already the largest importer of rice from India, accounting for half of the 2.2 million tonnes exported by India last year. This is the time to surge ahead with exports in some other, higher-value sectors. We could also use this opportunity to upgrade the Chahbahar port and its transportation links with Afghanistan and some other Central Asian countries. Chahbahar was recently used by India to send 100,000 tonnes of wheat to Afghanistan. Investing further in its development will considerably increase India's economic footprint in these parts.
While surging ahead with the opportunities presented by the current situation, India needs to prepare for potential pitfalls in its ties with Iran. For a start, the agreement on the payment mechanism doesn't spell the end of the problems in importing oil from Iran. There is the major issue of insurance for tankers shipping Iranian oil to India. European firms insure more than 90 per cent of tanker fleets globally. Their refusal, following the imposition of sanctions, to cover shipments from Iran presents serious problems for India.
New Delhi is apparently considering extending the sovereign guarantee to Indian ships that fetch Iranian crude. This still leaves us with the issue of covering foreign tankers chartered by India. We may find some interim solution to this. But in the longer run, we need to enhance our own fleet, and foster the development of protection and indemnity insurance in India. The position, vis-à-vis Iran, points to a larger strategic imperative for India. Our energy security hinges on our ability to become a serious maritime power. And historically, there have been few maritime powers that aren't financial powerhouses as well.
GEOPOLITICAL CHALLENGES
The more pressing challenges are geopolitical. As the US and its allies attempt to step up sanctions on Iran, there will be pressure on India to follow suit. So far, India has spoken out against these steps, and has rightly held that it isn't bound to comply with unilateral sanctions. New Delhi should be more forthcoming in pointing out that the sanctions are actually likely to be counterproductive. The heart of the problem is the ambiguity in Washington's approach to Iran.
On the one hand, the imposition of additional sanctions is aimed at forcing Iran to negotiate with the West and halt its nuclear enrichment activities. On the other, there is the unstated but evident hope that the sanctions might lead to regime change in Iran. In this context, Tehran has little incentive to comply with UN Security Council resolutions on its nuclear programme. What is more, having seen the fate of Muammar Gaddafi, who paid for abandoning his nuclear programme with the loss of his regime and life, the Iranian leadership will look for solid reassurances before engaging in serious negotiations.
Making these arguments, if only in private, is important, because India wouldn't like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability. The problem isn't that a nuclear Iran would present an existential danger to its Arab neighbours and Israel. The American nuclear umbrella and the Israeli nuclear arsenal are more than adequate to make sure that Iran doesn't even contemplate using nuclear weapons. Nor is it the case that a nuclear Iran will trigger a chain-reaction of nuclear proliferation in West Asia. The Arab countries have, after all, lived with the Israeli bomb for decades. The problem rather is that the acquisition of nuclear weapons might embolden Iran in using its proxies to advance its influence in the region. For the fear of escalation to the nuclear level would constrict the options available to Iran's rivals. The resulting instability will undermine India's interests in West Asia — and not least, the presence of 6 million Indian workers.
INDIA'S INTERESTS
Further, a determined move by Tehran to acquire the bomb will catalyse the incipient rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This dynamic is currently playing out in third countries like Syria and Bahrain, where Iran and Saudi Arabia are supporting their respective clients. India has important interests in its relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is no coincidence that even as New Delhi is looking to expand its economic engagement with Tehran, the Indian defence minister went to Riyadh — the first visit of its kind. Similarly, India has interests at stake on both sides of the Iran-Israel divide. The challenge for New Delhi in all these sets of relationships is to avoid taking sides. The recent attack on the Israeli diplomat has led to exaggerated claims on the ‘war' in West Asia coming to India's doorstep, and the need for India to pick its partners.
On the contrary, India's good relations with all these countries provide it more options to advance its interests in the region. This is a game that New Delhi needs to play with patience and finesse.
and....
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0314/Report-US-asked-Russia-to-deliver-ultimatum-to-Iran?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+feeds/csm+%28Christian+Science+Monitor+|+All+Stories%29
The US has asked Russia to carry an ultimatum to the leaders of Iran, warning that upcoming six-nation talks on the Iranian nuclear program will be the "last chance" for progress before it pursues a military option, the leading Moscow daily Kommersant reported today (in Russian).
According to an anonymous high Russian diplomatic source quoted by the newspaper, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a UN Security Councilsession on March 12 to deliver that tough missive to Tehran ahead of talks scheduled to take place in Turkey by April. Kommersant is a pro-business, liberal newspaper that is generally considered reliable when it cites official sources, although today's story does not provide any direct quotes from the unnamed diplomat.
US State Department Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner declined to comment on the Kommersant story but said in an e-mail, "We still believe there's time for a diplomatic solution so long as Iran is serious about addressing [the] international community's concerns."
Speaking at a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron in Washington today, President Obama offered a similar assessment of the options facing Tehran.
"I think (the Iranians) should understand ... that the window for solving this issue diplomatically is shrinking," Obama said. "We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically but ultimately we’ve got to have somebody on the other side of the table who is taking this seriously and I hope that the Iranian regime understands that," he added.
The panel that will negotiate with Iran is known as the P5 + 1 group because it includes the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – Russia, China, Britain, France and the US – plus Germany. Experts say the West will demand full disclosure from Iran on the extent of its nuclear program, and access to the suspected nuclear weapons testing site at Parchin for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
RELATED – Iran's nuclear program: 5 key sites
The diplomatic source told Kommersant that American and Israeli preparations for a military strike against Iran are well underway, and that the attack is almost certain to happen before US presidential elections in November unless some major diplomatic breakthrough occurs.
"The invasion will happen before year’s end," Kommersant quoted the diplomat as saying. "The Israelis are de facto blackmailing [President Barack] Obama. They’ve put him in this interesting position – either he supports the war or loses the support of the Jewish lobby."
The diplomat's pronouncement comes as Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuhave toned down rhetoric on Iran after weeks of discussion about a potential strike.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov did not confirm the story, but was quoted in Kommersant, adding pointedly that talking in ultimatums is an unproductive way to conduct diplomacy.
"Speaking in this way is unprofessional," Mr. Ryabkov told the paper. "There is no such thing as a last chance. It’s an issue of political will, and Russia does everything to foster such will ... those tempted to use military force should restrain themselves and search for a diplomatic solution. A war will not solve any problems, but will create a million new ones."
Preparing for 'inevitable' war
Russian analysts say the story sounds authentic, and add that Moscow will probably be happy to deliver that message to Iran, along with some thoughts of its own.
"Our diplomats will have more to say about this to the Iranians," says Dmitry Suslov, an expert with the Council on Foreign and Defense Policies, a leading Moscow think tank. "Russia is not interested in war. It's interested in maintaining the current unstable situation, which keeps global oil prices high. But it wouldn't want to see Iran weakened by a US or Israeli military strike, because that would lead to a lot of unpredictable consequences."
Russia has increasingly come to the opinion that war is inevitable, and is taking steps to prepare for fallout from such a conflict, which could include waves of refugees, instability, and growing radicalism in former Soviet Central Asia and Russia's own restive northern Caucasus region.
Mr. Suslov says that Russia's Defense Ministry created a special task force to deal with potential fallout of a new Middle East war in February. Earlier, the Kremlin announced that this summer's Kavkaz military exercises in Russia's south will be devoted to handling a theoretical war in Iran, whose effects could spill over into former Soviet territory.
"Iran is not very far from Russian territory – we share the Caspian Sea – and no one knows what might be the impact on Iranian nuclear facilities in the event of a strike," says Alexander Golts, military columnist with the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal. "Refugees could penetrate into Azerbaijan, and if they come in large numbers they could reach Russia. The whole region might be destabilized."
Russian analysts appear divided over whether the US signal is part of a pattern of theatrical moves in the runup to a war that's already been decided upon, or if the US seriously hopes that diplomatic action can find a peaceful solution.
"The April talks could be a watershed, and the Americans are obviously staking a lot on them," says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a leading Moscow foreign policy journal. "If nothing comes out of them, it will be seen as a sign of weakness on the part of the Obama administration. So maybe the US does see this as an important opportunity [to avert war]. Russia can play its part by informing the Iranians that our capacities to help them have been exhausted. As long as it was a matter before the Security Council, we could always wield our veto. But once it comes to unilateral action, they're on their own."
But, Mr. Suslov adds, "I don't see much hope that this can be turned around. Russia would like to prevent military action, but our establishment now appears convinced that war is inevitable."
A mixed record on intervention
Russia has played a peripheral, but occasionally influential, role in previous conflicts. In 1999, after weeks of a NATO bombing campaign against Serbia, Russian emissary Viktor Chernomyrdin finally convinced Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to give up. In February 2003, former Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov visited Iraq with a message from then-president Vladimir Putin, urging the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to step down in the interest of peace.
It was Russia's acquiescence in the UN Security Council a year ago that allowed Resolution 1973, which authorized military force to protect civilians in Libya, to be passed. That decision led to an open rift among Russia's top leaders, with Mr. Putin publicly slamming the decision as authorizinga Western-backed "crusade" against Libya.
Moscow has since dug in its heels and refused to back any similar resolution concerning Syria, thus effectively blocking any international action on that country's increasingly civil war-like crisis.
Russia has agreed to previous rounds of sanctions against Iran, including an arms ban that cost Moscow billions in contracts with Tehran and recently signaled that it will continue to honor that decision. But Moscow has also made clear that it believes harsh sanctions don't work and it will not support any further tough measures against Iran.
"The ball is now in the Iranian court, and much will depend upon the moods of Iranian leaders," says Georgy Mirski, an expert at the official Institute of International Relations and World Economy, which trains Russian diplomats.
"I was in Iran not long ago, and observed that while most people didn't seem happy with their leaders, the nuclear program seems to have become a national idea, a symbol of national dignity. It's rather clear that Iran is committed to getting at least the capacity to produce a bomb, even though they might not actually want to build one."
and....
http://www.debka.com/article/21825/
Iran threatens N. Israel with bombardment from Lebanon
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 14, 2012, 10:29 PM (GMT+02:00)
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 14, 2012, 10:29 PM (GMT+02:00)
Ali Akbar Javanfekr, Ahmadinejad's spokesman
Tehran has begun capitalizing on its allies” two perceived victories: Bashar Assad’s success in seizing Idlib from rebel hands and the Palestinian Jihad Islami’s triumphal missile assault from Gaza.
The Iranians are now moving forward with plans to match the Palestinian assault on southern Israeli with an offensive on the north from Lebanon. This is reported by DEBKAfile’s exclusive sources in the wake of a visit paid by high-ranking Iranian and Hizballah officials Wednesday morning, March 14, to the Lebanese-Israeli border region opposite Metulah, Israel’s northernmost town at the tip of the Galilee Panhandle.
The Iranian group, led by Ali Akbar Javanfekr, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s spokesman, arrived in a heavily guarded convoy at the Fatma outpost opposite Metulah for its rendezvous with Hizballah military intelligence officers.
Once there, they kept moving around near the Lebanese-Israeli border fence. At times, they came up close and examined the Israel Defense Forces’ ongoing work for fortifying the border fence and upgrading it from a boundary marker to a military barrier able to withstand terrorist incursions into the Galilee panhandle.
The Iranian visitor, Javanfekr, commented in the hearing of our sources: “The Zionists can build any wall they like, whether of concrete, iron or plastic, but we and Hizballah will knock it down, like Israel itself.”
Once there, they kept moving around near the Lebanese-Israeli border fence. At times, they came up close and examined the Israel Defense Forces’ ongoing work for fortifying the border fence and upgrading it from a boundary marker to a military barrier able to withstand terrorist incursions into the Galilee panhandle.
The Iranian visitor, Javanfekr, commented in the hearing of our sources: “The Zionists can build any wall they like, whether of concrete, iron or plastic, but we and Hizballah will knock it down, like Israel itself.”
He pitched his voice loudly enough to carry across the border.
His words were taken by top Israeli commanders as a blunt threat of a missile offensive on similar lines to the Gaza confrontation – only this time instead of Jihad Islami in Gaza, Hizballah would be entrusted with shooting missiles from Lebanon.
Word of this threat spurred Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to sharpen his tone in his speech to the Knesset later Wednesday and declare, “We shall strike Iran even if our American friends object.”
His words were taken by top Israeli commanders as a blunt threat of a missile offensive on similar lines to the Gaza confrontation – only this time instead of Jihad Islami in Gaza, Hizballah would be entrusted with shooting missiles from Lebanon.
Word of this threat spurred Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to sharpen his tone in his speech to the Knesset later Wednesday and declare, “We shall strike Iran even if our American friends object.”
He was further irked by a decision by US President Barack Obama and visiting British premier David Cameron, reported by DEBKAfile’s Washington sources, to intensify their efforts for holding Israel back from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Netanyahu therefore stressed once again that Israel would decide for itself the best way to pre-empt a nuclear Iran.
No sooner were his comments broadcast, when Washington announced that Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro would be traveling to Israel forthwith. He will no doubt try and clarify how far Netanyahu really means to go.
No sooner were his comments broadcast, when Washington announced that Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro would be traveling to Israel forthwith. He will no doubt try and clarify how far Netanyahu really means to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment