India Rejects US Sanctions on Iran

[Solve et Coagula]

India Rejects US Sanctions on Iran

On Thursday, India and Iran began a two-day meeting aimed at increasing bilateral cooperation in the economic sector

Global Research, July 9, 2010
Juventud Rebelde - 2010-07-08

NEW DELHI -- US restrictions on investment by third countries in Iran's energy sector can have a direct and adverse impact on Indian companies and India’s energy security, reported Prensa Latina.

On Thursday, India and Iran began a two-day meeting aimed at increasing bilateral cooperation in the economic sector, which can be considered as a challenge to the unilateral sanctions imposed by Washington to Teheran.

According to a press released issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the meeting falls within the regular contacts scheduled by the Indian-Iranian Joint Commission and is headed by Iranian Minister for Economic Affairs and Finances Seyed Shamseddin Hosseini and Indian Foreign Minister S. M. Krishna.

Talks are being held a few days after New Delhi denounced the extra-territorial nature of the US unilateral sanctions on Iran for allegedly defying international norms about its atomic programme, suspected of developing atomic weapons.

“We are justifiably concerned about the extra-territorial nature of certain unilateral sanctions recently imposed by individual countries,” said Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao.

Rao said “Iran is a country extremely important to India from the perspective of energy security” and an entrance door to the main markets of Central Asia.

On Friday, US President Barack Obama signed a bill imposing harsh sanctions on Iran that includes cutting off Iran’s access to refined petroleum imports, including gasoline and jet fuel and bans US banks from doing business with foreign banks that provide services to the Revolutionary Guards. The bill will also deny companies that supply Iran with refined petroleum products access to US markets.

The new unilateral sanctions imposed by Obama come on top of the sanctions approved by the UN Security Council in June, in an attempt to force Teheran to abandon its nuclear program.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=20084

[FastTadpole]

Yeah!! ... or is this just polarization of nations picking teams for some giant nasty destabilizing murderous game.

Well if no one shows up, you can't really have a war. Are we at that point yet where everyone can just lay down their guns? Or is it even possible in an age of drones and missiles that can be launched from the other side of the world?

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst and reach as many as you can before fear takes root and survival takes precedent over philosophical conversation and growth.

I'm going to feed my fish now.

[---]

(07-11-2010 12:53 PM)FastTadpole Wrote:  Hope for the best, prepare for the worst and reach as many as you can before fear takes root and survival takes precedent over philosophical conversation and growth.

I'm going to feed my fish now.

stop bloody lecturing us all, man

[FastTadpole]

(07-11-2010 12:58 PM)nik Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 12:53 PM)FastTadpole Wrote:  Hope for the best, prepare for the worst and reach as many as you can before fear takes root and survival takes precedent over philosophical conversation and growth.

I'm going to feed my fish now.

stop bloody lecturing us all, man

I've been listening to too much John Taylor Gatto and probably one the biggest preachers of them all (but still brilliant) Stephen Molyneaux. I suppose I am channeling abit much of that as of late.

In my defence, I hate to introduce a problem without at least offering a bit of a solution rather than simply press the "we're all fucked" button.

This is a discussion board. Really I'd like to see more lecture and some other solutions proposed or examples of what can be done rather than just staying a step ahead of the curve in knowing what is going to happen in a few months years or decades. Maybe it makes us feel smarter than the 'sheep' or we can say that we called it before it happened. What good does that do for us as a whole though?

[h3rm35]

It's a tough road ahead, but China and now India have Iran's back, and with China getting all pissy about joint US/South Korea military exercises off their coast due to the false flag sinking of a Korean military vessel, I don't think they're about to back off dealing with Iran. This is very interesting because I'm pretty sure the pipeline that the US invaded Afghanistan for in the first place was supposed to have one of its terminals in India (TAPI = Turkey Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.) In fact, the more and more I watch the Iran/Israel waltz, the more I think it's actually directed at China. Russia was in it too for a while, but they're backing off and I think they're gonna bide their time and watch what happens because of the US presence in their energy production wheelhouse and the US' intense "diplomatic" efforts to get missiles in their neighboring countries, particularly now that Kazakhstan has ratified an agreement with the US on allowing arms deliveries into Afghanistan. I think it's really important to keep our ears to the ground and listen for the undercurrents in Pakistan at this point, because they're really sick of the US in their tribal regions, but they depend very heavily on the US' bribes in the guise of anti-terrorist funding, and now India isn't doing the US' bidding anymore. Now that CYBERCOM isn't really news anymore and this is going on, I'd expect to hear some new stuff from Tom Burghardt on the subject in the near future.

[---]

(07-11-2010 02:20 PM)h3rm35 Wrote:  It's a tough road ahead, but China and now India have Iran's back, and with China getting all pissy about joint US/South Korea military exercises off their coast due to the false flag sinking of a Korean military vessel, I don't think they're about to back off dealing with Iran. This is very interesting because I'm pretty sure the pipeline that the US invaded Afghanistan for in the first place was supposed to have one of its terminals in India (TAPI = Turkey Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.) In fact, the more and more I watch the Iran/Israel waltz, the more I think it's actually directed at China. Russia was in it too for a while, but they're backing off and I think they're gonna bide their time and watch what happens because of the US presence in their energy production wheelhouse and the US' intense "diplomatic" efforts to get missiles in their neighboring countries, particularly now that Kazakhstan has ratified an agreement with the US on allowing arms deliveries into Afghanistan. I think it's really important to keep our ears to the ground and listen for the undercurrents in Pakistan at this point, because they're really sick of the US in their tribal regions, but they depend very heavily on the US' bribes in the guise of anti-terrorist funding, and now India isn't doing the US' bidding anymore. Now that CYBERCOM isn't really news anymore and this is going on, I'd expect to hear some new stuff from Tom Burghardt on the subject in the near future.

It surprised me because I thought India was on such good terms with Israel.

[h3rm35]

(07-11-2010 02:30 PM)nik Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 02:20 PM)h3rm35 Wrote:  It's a tough road ahead, but China and now India have Iran's back, and with China getting all pissy about joint US/South Korea military exercises off their coast due to the false flag sinking of a Korean military vessel, I don't think they're about to back off dealing with Iran. This is very interesting because I'm pretty sure the pipeline that the US invaded Afghanistan for in the first place was supposed to have one of its terminals in India (TAPI = Turkey Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.) In fact, the more and more I watch the Iran/Israel waltz, the more I think it's actually directed at China. Russia was in it too for a while, but they're backing off and I think they're gonna bide their time and watch what happens because of the US presence in their energy production wheelhouse and the US' intense "diplomatic" efforts to get missiles in their neighboring countries, particularly now that Kazakhstan has ratified an agreement with the US on allowing arms deliveries into Afghanistan. I think it's really important to keep our ears to the ground and listen for the undercurrents in Pakistan at this point, because they're really sick of the US in their tribal regions, but they depend very heavily on the US' bribes in the guise of anti-terrorist funding, and now India isn't doing the US' bidding anymore. Now that CYBERCOM isn't really news anymore and this is going on, I'd expect to hear some new stuff from Tom Burghardt on the subject in the near future.

It surprised me because I thought India was on such good terms with Israel.

Israel doesn't keep their factories running. I think they were on good terms with Israel because Pakistan wasn't, and because they were US allies. They will be screwed without US markets though, and I expect a back-down. I'm pretty sure it's a gambit for cheaper oil from US companies and less support for Pakistan. Strategically, It's a good move. It'll get concessions from the west, and it'll make India closer with China.

[FastTadpole]

Quote:This is very interesting because I'm pretty sure the pipeline that the US invaded Afghanistan for in the first place was supposed to have one of its terminals in India (TAPI = Turkey Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.) In fact, the more and more I watch the Iran/Israel waltz, the more I think it's actually directed at China.

The pipeline was a primary reason Iraq happened. China was poised to dump the US dollar before then, but maybe they worked out a deal among the elites there since they had the pipeline held hostage. I heard the US actually threatened to blow it up if China made a move to dump the US reserves. Problem is what did they barter in exchange or is it a standoff?

Geopolitically Turkey is the key as we have learned from The Next Hundred Years Audiobook.

[h3rm35]

(07-11-2010 03:03 PM)FastTadpole Wrote:  

Quote:This is very interesting because I'm pretty sure the pipeline that the US invaded Afghanistan for in the first place was supposed to have one of its terminals in India (TAPI = Turkey Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.) In fact, the more and more I watch the Iran/Israel waltz, the more I think it's actually directed at China.

The pipeline was a primary reason Iraq happened. China was poised to dump the US dollar before then, but maybe they worked out a deal among the elites there since they had the pipeline held hostage. I heard the US actually threatened to blow it up if China made a move to dump the US reserves. Problem is what did they barter in exchange or is it a standoff?

Geopolitically Turkey is the key as we have learned from The Next Hundred Years Audiobook.

I still don't see a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran... Pakistan and India, maybe, but I simply don't see irradiating the Middle east as an option for anyone involved. I don't remember which thread it was that I stated that on, but it was inspired by the book. Nik, do you remember the one that ended up turning into a discussion about nuclear winter?

[FastTadpole]

(07-11-2010 04:07 PM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 03:03 PM)FastTadpole Wrote:  

Quote:This is very interesting because I'm pretty sure the pipeline that the US invaded Afghanistan for in the first place was supposed to have one of its terminals in India (TAPI = Turkey Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.) In fact, the more and more I watch the Iran/Israel waltz, the more I think it's actually directed at China.

The pipeline was a primary reason Iraq happened. China was poised to dump the US dollar before then, but maybe they worked out a deal among the elites there since they had the pipeline held hostage. I heard the US actually threatened to blow it up if China made a move to dump the US reserves. Problem is what did they barter in exchange or is it a standoff?

Geopolitically Turkey is the key as we have learned from The Next Hundred Years Audiobook.

I still don't see a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran... Pakistan and India, maybe, but I simply don't see irradiating the Middle east as an option for anyone involved.

I don't think I mentioned nukes in there did I? I would be floored if there was a nuclear exchange but maybe I'm too much of an optimist.

[h3rm35]

(07-11-2010 04:11 PM)FastTadpole Wrote:  I don't think I mentioned nukes in there did I? I would be floored if there was a nuclear exchange but maybe I'm too much of an optimist.

Maybe I'm merging the "anglo-american agenda" with "the next hundred years"

anyway...
great piece about pipeline politics:
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?t...#pid161246

by the way, the T in TAPI actually stands for Turkmenistan, not Turkey

[h3rm35]

Huge U.S.-India Arms Deal To Contain China
India, US to ink huge military deal: report


Global Research, July 13, 2010
Global Times

US President Barack Obama's visit to New Delhi in November may secure $5 billion worth of arms sales to India, Russia's Vzglyad newspaper reported Monday.

The deal, if signed during Obama's visit, would make the US replace Russia as India's biggest arms supplier, the paper said, adding that the deal would also help India curb China's rise.

India's shortlist includes Patriot defense systems, Boeing mid-air refueling tankers and certain types of howitzers, and the total cost of the deal may exceed $10 billion, the paper added.

The report came a day after The Economic Times in New Delhi reported that talks are underway between Indian and US officials over a deal to sell 10 Boeing C-17 military transport aircraft to the Indian Air Force (IAF).

The talks focus on the price and onboard equipment of the T-tailed C-17 Globemaster-III, which has passed validation trials and meets the requirements of the IAF, the newspaper said.

According to an official Boeing statement, the C-17 can carry a maximum payload of 74,797 kilo-grams for 2,400 nautical miles (4,444.8 kilometers) without refueling, and 45,495 kilograms for 4,000 nautical miles (7,408 kilometers) without refueling, the paper added.

Wang Mingzhi, a military strategist at the PLA Air Force Command College, told the Global Times that those reported military deals reflect Washington and New Delhi's needs in the region.

"To assist the Afghan war and the fight against the Pakistani Taliban, the US has been trying to improve its presence in South Asia and the Indian Ocean," Wang said. "Those arms sales will improve ties between Washington and New Delhi, and, intentionally or not, will have the effect of containing China's influence in the region."

"For example, once India gets the C-17 transport aircraft, the mobility of its forces stationed along the border with China will be improved. Mobility includes transportation, lifting, landing and deployment," he added.

[---]

(07-11-2010 02:44 PM)h3rm35 Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 02:30 PM)nik Wrote:  

(07-11-2010 02:20 PM)h3rm35 Wrote:  It's a tough road ahead, but China and now India have Iran's back, and with China getting all pissy about joint US/South Korea military exercises off their coast due to the false flag sinking of a Korean military vessel, I don't think they're about to back off dealing with Iran. This is very interesting because I'm pretty sure the pipeline that the US invaded Afghanistan for in the first place was supposed to have one of its terminals in India (TAPI = Turkey Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.) In fact, the more and more I watch the Iran/Israel waltz, the more I think it's actually directed at China. Russia was in it too for a while, but they're backing off and I think they're gonna bide their time and watch what happens because of the US presence in their energy production wheelhouse and the US' intense "diplomatic" efforts to get missiles in their neighboring countries, particularly now that Kazakhstan has ratified an agreement with the US on allowing arms deliveries into Afghanistan. I think it's really important to keep our ears to the ground and listen for the undercurrents in Pakistan at this point, because they're really sick of the US in their tribal regions, but they depend very heavily on the US' bribes in the guise of anti-terrorist funding, and now India isn't doing the US' bidding anymore. Now that CYBERCOM isn't really news anymore and this is going on, I'd expect to hear some new stuff from Tom Burghardt on the subject in the near future.

It surprised me because I thought India was on such good terms with Israel.

Israel doesn't keep their factories running. I think they were on good terms with Israel because Pakistan wasn't, and because they were US allies. They will be screwed without US markets though, and I expect a back-down. I'm pretty sure it's a gambit for cheaper oil from US companies and less support for Pakistan. Strategically, It's a good move. It'll get concessions from the west, and it'll make India closer with China.

http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=33911

[h3rm35]

I certainly don't claim to understand the motives of the Chinese - almost every long-term course of action they've taken on the world stage confuses me.