• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ahmadinejad pushes India gas deal

Joby

Joby

Reactor Janitor
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
2,338
Reaction score
412
Location
West Coast USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has visited India for talks on an energy pact which would involve building a lucrative gas pipeline through Pakistan and India.

"The talks were positive and we hope that in the near future we will finalise the project," Ahmadinejad, speaking through an interpreter, told a news conference after the talks.

India imports more than 70 per cent of its energy needs and has been racing to secure new supplies of oil and gas.

However, the project has been stalled by disputes over price and transit fees as well as security fears over its passage through Pakistan.

The $7bn deal is also opposed by the US, which wants to isolate Iran over its nuclear programme.

...

"It will be a political dialogue at the highest level which will smoothen the way for the pipeline between Iran and India," he said.

Sawhney said that US would have no say over anything, once the deal between India and Iran came through.

Ahmadinejad said that the project was not just a commercial deal as India and Iran "shared common roots and had deep historic and cultural ties".
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I wasn't India was on the list of Iran client states.

Al Jazeera English - News - Ahmadinejad Pushes India Gas Deal
 
Vader said:
Hopefully India is wise enough to tell Iran to sit on thumbs and rotate!
Click to expand...

When Hugo Chavez made low cost or free heating available to New Englanders last winter, even though we did not like it, our low income fellow Americans were in no position to refuse the gesture.

India needs energy and Iran is trying to make war against them as unpopular a notion as they can. If the Indians make a deal for Iranian oil the Indians will be less inclined to do anything to jeopardize their oil supply from Iran.

So, one day the POTUS might get reliable intel that Iran has finally developed a nuclear warhead and they are ABLE to mount it on a missile capable of reaching Tel Aviv and the USA is assembling a coalition to strike Iran. The POTUS asks the Indians, "Can we count on your support?"

The Indians' first question will be, "what will happen to our oil and gas pipeline?"

And let's not forget that of India's total population of 1,147,995,898 (July 2008 est.) 13.4% are Muslim.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html#People

We know that Ahmadinejad has experience in co-opting foreign groups of Muslims to act as agents of Iran's Revolution. Establishing a 'legitimate' presence in India could also serve to get Iranian agents inside the country to help start unrest there.

The pattern would be the same as that which has proved successful in Lebanon and is working in Iraq.

And to stop this infiltration and subversive activity from happening the Indians would have to be aware of the possibilities and want to resist it and be willing to choose some unpleasant options.

We don't know if they are aware of the pattern of Iran's infiltration. We don't know whether the Indian government officials see it as any real threat to their government. We don't know whether the people in charge of the Government's decisions on oil and gas and such things aren't themselves Islamic or Islamist. We don't know if the Indians have other options (as economically viable) for getting the supplies of energy they'd get from this Iranian deal.

This is just another tentacle being extended. And based on the response to this thread so far I think most of the world probably sees this as an inconsequential matter.

It probably is a strategic move with at least three objectives.

1. Income for the Iranian economy which is suffering.

2. A hedge against India possibly joining a Western War Coalition effort against them someday.

3. An opportunity to begin organizing Indian Muslims to act as Warriors should the time come and to begin the subversion of the Indian government.
 
bhkad said:
What does that mean? Even with what I'm guessing are the two missing words, "aware that", your meaning is still unclear.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was stoned and forgot the "aware that."

That was in response to those who give the ridiculous notion that Venezuela is an "Iranian Client State." Lol
 
Joby said:
Yeah, I was stoned and forgot the "aware that."

That was in response to those who give the ridiculous notion that Venezuela is an "Iranian Client State." Lol
Click to expand...

An ally, trading partner and co-conspirator is more likely.
 
What's wrong with that?
 
obvious Child said:
Just like Japan? Oh wait. Japan buys substantial amounts of its oil from Iran.

Indian needs the oil. It is just that simple.
Click to expand...

Iran is a terrorist hell hole that needs to be nuked. It's as simple as that!

:mrgreen:
 
In an effort to help supply the energy starved needs of the quickly growing Indian economy the US has offered India a bilateral nuclear deal which would not only 'legitimize' their nuclear program but also help them get nuclear fuel and absolve them of some of the responsibilities of inclusion into the "Nuclear Club."

The Indian Congress has accepted the American offer.

But the powerful Indian Communist party wants nothing to do with capitalist America so they are pushing instead for acceptance of a $7.5 billion natural gas pipeline deal with India's old friend (with very strong cultural ties dating back centuries), Iran.

America has been pushing the Indians to say no to Iran. However, the Indians have assured US they are capable of carrying on a relationship with whomever they please without our assistance, 'thankyouverymuch!'

It is interesting to me that other nations seem not to feel threatened by the rise of Iran.

May 7th 2008
From Economist.com
India wants to deal with America, and Iran

On May 5th a top communist signalled his preference for another foreign power: Iran. Its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also wants closer ties with India. On April 29th he visited Delhi to push for a long-mooted co-operation between the two countries: a pipe-line to supply Iranian gas to India and Pakistan. According to A.B. Bardhan, the relevant communist, “If the pipeline deal goes through, then we will know we have an independent foreign policy. If not it would mean the American pressure has won.”

The two deals are scarcely comparable. America's nuclear offer is an expression of grand strategy, not commerce. It would give India a free pass into the world's nuclear club, despite its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This would be of great practical benefit to India. It would, for example, boost its modest civilian nuclear programme, thereby helping to address India’s urgent need for energy. But the communists object to the deal in principle: they want nothing to do with capitalist America.

For Mr Ahmadinejad, the hoped-for pipeline is also a strategic affair: the great Holocaust-denier wants to show Iranians that he can win important friends, as well as alienate them. Yet this deal is stalled mainly because it is currently a bad one for India: Iran's price is too high. It wants India to build the $7.5 billion pipe-line and agree to buy 70% of its gas at an undetermined price. And there are other snags in the plan, including that the pipe-line would traverse Pakistan’s wild and war-torn Baluchistan province. India knows all about the insurgency there: it has been fuelling it.

That the two deals have nonetheless been linked in opposition is partly the communists' fault. But it is also America's. Partly at America's urging, in 2006 India voted to report Iran to the UN Security Council on account of its suspicious experiments with uranium. Yet America's influence in Delhi goes only so far. Under rowdy American pressure to rebuff Mr Ahmadinejad's approaches, last month India told its would-be sponsor to back off.
Click to expand...

Asia.view | New friends and old | Economist.com
 
That India-US nuclear deal need to be nuked.

Under no conditions should that be allowed without first requiring India to join the NPT.

It is interesting to me that other nations seem not to feel threatened by the rise of Iran.
Click to expand...

You sure? Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the other ME states have all been paying to support the occupation in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-Iranian nations in the region.
 
obvious Child said:
That India-US nuclear deal need to be nuked.

Under no conditions should that be allowed without first requiring India to join the NPT.



You sure? Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the other ME states have all been paying to support the occupation in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-Iranian nations in the region.
Click to expand...

King Abdullah and his family have hated the Mullahs for a very long time.

It's the only thing about the Saudis.

:mrgreen:
 
obvious Child said:
That India-US nuclear deal need to be nuked.

Under no conditions should that be allowed without first requiring India to join the NPT.
Click to expand...

What are your reasons for saying this?

obvious Child said:
You sure? Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the other ME states have all been paying to support the occupation in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-Iranian nations in the region.
Click to expand...

Of that I am aware. However, the support Iran gets from nations like India, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, China, South Africa, Germany, Norway, the British, French, Japanese, South Koreans, Swedes, and Swiss is puzzling.

It is as if they were unaware or uncaring as to the nature of the threat posed by an aggressive, hegemonic, Messianic, nuclear Iran.

It's almost criminal that only in 2005 did our own General Electric (GE) stop doing business with them.
 
Last edited:
bhkad said:
What are your reasons for saying this?
Click to expand...

Because allowing bilateral agreements between nuclear nations and non-npt nations for nuclear technology completely bypasses the purpose of the NPT. It effectively renders the NPT toothless. Without the NPT, nations are essentially free to do whatever they want with nuclear technology. That is a BAD outcome. If India wants US tech, it needs to agree to the NPT.

Of that I am aware. However, the support Iran gets from nations like India, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, China, South Africa, Germany, Norway, the British, French, Japanese, South Koreans, Swedes, and Swiss is puzzling.
Click to expand...

Define 'support.'

It is as if they were unaware or uncaring as to the nature of the threat posed by an aggressive, hegemonic, Messianic, nuclear Iran.

It's almost criminal that only in 2005 did our own General Electric (GE) stop doing business with them.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Halliburton or at least KBR still have business in Iran?
 
obvious Child said:
Because allowing bilateral agreements between nuclear nations and non-npt nations for nuclear technology completely bypasses the purpose of the NPT. It effectively renders the NPT toothless. Without the NPT, nations are essentially free to do whatever they want with nuclear technology. That is a BAD outcome. If India wants US tech, it needs to agree to the NPT.
Click to expand...

In early March of 2006, India and the United States finalized a deal, having critics in both countries, to provide India with US civilian nuclear technology. Proponents of the deal note that India will now classify 14 of its 22 nuclear facilities as being for civilian use, and thus open to inspection. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the IAEA at the time, welcomed the deal by calling India "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime". However, attempts by Pakistan to reach a similar agreement have been rebufed by the U.S. as well as the international community. The argument put forth is that not only does Pakistan lack the same energy requirements but that the track record of Pakistan as a nuclear proliferator makes it impossible for it to have any sort of nuclear deal in the near future. [15]

In December 2006, United States Congress approved the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act that was cemented during President Bush's visit to India earlier in the year. The legislation allows for the transfer of civilian nuclear material to India. Despite its status outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India was granted these transactions on the basis of its clean proliferation record, and India's unusually high need for energy fueled by its rapid industrialization and a billion-plus population.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Guidelines currently rule out nuclear exports by all major suppliers with very narrow exceptions for India, Pakistan, and Israel, since none of the three has full-scope IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities. The NSG is prepared to consider a broad exception for India, but is awaiting the conclusion of negotiations on an agreement for cooperation between the United States and India and a safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA before making a decision on such an exception. Several countries, including France, Russia and Australia, are discussing possible nuclear cooperation with India in case of such an exception to the NSG Guidelines.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

obvious Child said:
Define 'support.'
Click to expand...

In my book the Iranians deserve to live but not well enough to export terrorism or pursue Islamist expansionism. Oil for food anyone?
Just because Saddam corrupted it when it was used in Iraq that doesn't mean it HAS to be a corrupt program. Yes, I know this is but a fantasy.

Doesn't Halliburton or at least KBR still have business in Iran?
Click to expand...

I don't know but if they do they should be stopped and/or investigated.
 
bhkad said:
In my book the Iranians deserve to live but not well enough to export terrorism or pursue Islamist expansionism.
Click to expand...

Again, you failed to define 'support.'

Oil for food anyone?
Just because Saddam corrupted it when it was used in Iraq that doesn't mean it HAS to be a corrupt program. Yes, I know this is but a fantasy.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but you still need to define 'support.'

And I perfectly understoond the India-US deal as well as the NPT long before you cited it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom