12 Mar 2014
When he was the President elect in 2009, Barack Obama, as per reports planned to appoint Richard Holbrooke as a special envoy for India-Pakistan- Afghanistan region. The then Foreign Minister of India, and the current Indian President Pranab Mukherjee strongly opposed it and made it unequivocally clear that the move “smacks of interference and would be unacceptable [to India].”
Mukherjee was concerned that envoy with a mandate for the three nations would also take it on his part to “interfere” in Kashmir issue in which India has kept a third party away from meddling.
“Mukherjee was deeply concerned about any move toward an envoy with a broad regional mandate that could be interpreted to include Kashmir. Such a broad mandate would be viewed by India as risky and unpredictable, exposing issues of vital concern to India to the discretion of the individual appointed,” a Wikileaks cable noted.
Subsequent to intense lobbying by India, Hoolbrooke’s (who is no more) Job Description was devoid of India and thereby Kashmir.
In his second term, the Obama administration found itself on the defensive side when an Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade was arrested and subjected to strip and cavity searches on charges of certain visa violations by authorities there, despite she was enjoying diplomatic immunity, according to India. India paid back to US in a different coin revoking certain diplomatic privileges enjoyed by its officials. Finally John Kerry expressed his regrets on the Devyani incident.
Since, then, the US-India relationship is teetering on the edge of an abyss. From snooping on India, to solar dispute, to pharma patent rows, to the civil nuclear liability issue, the chords of discord have been multiplying.
Iran Oil
On a latest note, US has ‘asked’ India to curtail oil imports from Iran to 1, 95,000 barrels as a part of the deal signed by Iran and six nations to which India is not a party.
A nuclear armed Iran is not in the interests of India. And past reports suggest that Iran, by undertaking certain enrichment efforts has violated Non Proliferation Treaty provisions to which it is a signatory. By supporting the deal and prodding for diplomatic solutions, India’s tune and tone has always been conducive for a peaceful solution.
Now take a look at this Reuters exclusive:
“India, with the increases already made in the January-March loading plans from Iran, has to cut its purchases of the crude to about 110,000 barrels per day (bpd) to drop its intake average to 195,000 bpd for the six months to July 20.
Under the November 24 agreement between Iran and six world powers, the OPEC member [Iran] was to hold oil exports at “current volumes” of about 1 million bpd, and a message delivered by a top U.S. energy policy official to Indian ministries in February was the first clear sign of low tolerance for any increases.”
While one cannot know of the content of the message or its tone the reply of an Indian official provides for enough clues that it was not a pleasant one.
"It is a fact that they (the United States) have asked us that Iran's exports to India should not exceed 195,000 bpd between January to July and we have said that we'll take care of that," said one of the government sources, all of whom requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.”
Taking into consideration the global stakes involved in this deal between Iran and world powers, energy strapped India should do everything it can to attain the necessary outcomes even if it means curtailing sourcing of crude from Iran.
By asking India (and not requesting) who is not a party to the deal, one would also doubt if US would use the same language when communicating with China, Japan and South Korea, who have also stepped up their oil imports from Iran since the interim deal was signed.
In the context of so many disputes proliferating between India and US, the authorities in US would do well if they show a bit more of politeness and discretion in approach when dealing with India.
This is a suggestion applicable for every other issue, present and future.
After all, arrogance is not American! (rakesh.neelakandan@gmail.com)
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Saturday, April 13, 2013
The other Commodity marking India- Iran bilateral: Oil Meal
Last Updated : 07 March 2013 at 15:40 IST
Oil meal diplomacy!
Before someone rubbishes it, I would like to say that the struggling economy that is Iran is trying hard to overcome the tyranny of distance (and sanctions) and is looking at markets closer to home to undertake purchases, especially food and livestock feed.
As said by Tejinder Narang in The Hindu Business Line, Iran is buying oil meal from India despite the price of Brazilian soy meal turning out to be cheaper by some 15%. As uncertainty climbs, the Persian nation is looking forward to get reliable supplies.
To put things in perspective:
The country imported 744,733 tons--compared to 190,962 tons last year--of oil meal from India; a jump of 289% during April 2012 to Feb.,2013 , consisting 728,733 tons of soybean meal, and 16,000 tons of rapeseed meal.
Iran's annual requirement of soybean meal is around 22 lakh tons. By end of March 2013, Iran would have imported close to 10 lakh tons from India. That is almost 50% of requirement.
The questions doing rounds are:
1. Is Iran hoarding in anticipation of a war?
2. Is Iran switching from one supplier to another?
2. Is Iran switching from one supplier to another?
The answer could be a combination of these two:
“Recently, when Larijani--chairman of the Parliament of Iran—visited India, he stressed on developing bilateral trade with India. He said Iran was interested in increasing imports from India.” according to Mahtab Alam Rizvi, Associate Fellow, Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses and a specialist in political developments in Iran.
The P5+1 talks look to have made a better progress this time around. The US, given the mess they are in may not think of bombing Iran in the near future. “Even Israel may not go out and attack Iran on its own as they know Iran is not like Iraq or Syria.” said Rizvi. However in times of geopolitical uncertainties and potential security threats, n-number of preparations may prove to be inadequate.
Iran has a very robust livestock sector and the nation subsequent to securing its bread wheat also wants to increase feed supplies. “In one sense, yes, they may be hoarding” Rizvi said.
The Brazilian feed is now getting cheaper, but given the distance that separates South America from Iran, the country may opt for a closer-to-home strategy and may opt for switching suppliers as already evident.
Besides there are also issues related to freight insurance brought forth by sanctions.
No freight vessel could traverse the sea without obtaining adequate insurance, and the Western sanctions have ensured that this is not easily forthcoming. India seems to have found a way around this thereby making trade between India and Iran viable.
Clearly, Iran is now getting much more dependent on India. They want steady supplies of food for their people and livestock.
And what better way to secure the same than bartering/paying in rupee for imports?
Friday, November 2, 2012
Europe:Trampling on Iran when the carpet is pulled out?
Last Updated : 02 November 2012 at 12:30 IST
It is about spirit. Survival of fittest is actually not the survival of a person who is oversupplied with resources but the person who is oversupplied with spirit. And what applies to individuals, often apply to nations.
US and its counterparts in Europe are well aware that the slew of sanctions imposed by the west would cripple Iran economically. But have they failed to notice that the Iranian regime is still standing tall with virtually no great domestic threats?
Of course, there have been protests in the streets of Iran as the Iranian currency Rial plummetted against dollar.
"People are not happy with the economic sanctions but will that push them to overthrow the regime? I don't think so," said Thierry Coville of the Paris-based Institute of International and Strategic Relations to iafrica.com.
The reason, as one may have stated above is that of spirit. Pakistan did make a bomb, although clandestinely and Iran will, if things would progress as currently seen.
As Zulfikkar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan said, "even if we have to eat grass, we will make nuclear bomb. We have no other choice."
Sanctions
Sanctions by nature are economic and political. But the triumph of human spirit far outweighs any sanctions. As Iranians fight a battle against the daily challenges brought forth by sanctions, they in turn develop a resilience, and with the current regime utilising and exploiting it to the nth degree would finally see them through the sanctions.
Invariably, the sanctions could prevent a popular opinion from forming against Iran's nuclear program resulting in a an acceleration of the same. This is the biggest threat emanating from sanctions and a tool that has been utilised to kill the nuclear program by strangulating the economy in effect would feed the program and could even become instrumental in midwifing a bomb.
This also runs the risk of Iran being portrayed as a victim of the machinations of ill-motivated moves carried out by the west. This could be one of the reasons why Iranian popular protests against the inflationary situation did not get inflated beyond a point.
More than anyone else, Iran knows that it has not much of time left to cook a bomb. And with popular opinion possibly rallying for the same, Iran may come out with one bomb quicker than anticipated. And negotiating or waging a war with Iran possessing a nuclear bomb and Iran without a nuclear bomb is entirely different.
Iran, no doubt would try hard to meet deadlines.
Putting the house in order
And as Europe comes up with sanctions after sanctions, may be it is forgetting its own state of affairs.
Minding the backyard is one thing and managing the house in order is another. In its eagerness to comply with US policies on Iran, Europe which unlike US has to depend on Russia and volatile West Africa for its energy needs, could not only face an energy crisis, but also the social unrest that may sweep the continent; thanks to its 'robust' economic situation.
Protests are spreading across Europe and the ambience, as has been pointed out before, could usher in a revolution preceded by unrest.
Ultimately unsound politics when it meets with unsound economy would see the Europe losing all the values that it has so painstakingly nurtured to the din of a revolution. As and when the policy makers try hard to topple Iranian regime, they should not see themselves wanting a chair. It could be awkward, to say the least!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The revised US plan to intercept potential Iranian missile attacks OR Iraqing Iran
Introduction
The United States Intelligence Community (IC), comprising of sixteen intelligence agencies has finally reached a billion-dollar consensus: Iran may not develop ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) at least for the next six to eleven years! Previously, it was believed that Iran had plans to develop ICBMs in a lesser time-frame.
The United States’ NMD (National Missile Defence) program was conceived to take care of the scenario, where Iran or North Korea comes up with the ICBM to attack America.
However in a move which drew appreciation and flak alike, Mr. Obama has decided to scrap the BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defence System) - a program of NMD- to be deployed at Eastern Europe. Russian premier Mr. Vladmir Putin, has welcomed the initiative and even termed it “correct and brave”. BMDS, which had aimed to address the threat from Iran, was perceived as a threat to Russia in the garb of a missile defence system.
In the world of defence and strategy, every high-profile move has their own implicit intentions. Though critics are pummelling the US President, telling that the initiative will be interpreted as a sign of “ weakness” rather than “ goodwill”, the US is sure to have many trumps up their sleeves.
What is BMD?
BMD is a missile defence system intended to protect the US, its deployed forces, allies and friends from ballistic missiles of all ranges and in all phases of flight.
Ballistic missiles are grouped into four, based on their range:
1. Short-range (less than 1,000 kilometers)
2. Medium-range (1,000 to 3,000 kilometers)
3. Intermediate-range (3,000 to 5,500 kilometers)
4. Long-range (greater than 5,500 kilometers)
These missiles could be intercepted in three stages:
1. The boost phase, wherein the launch vehicle has been launched and its boosters have burned out.
2. Mid-course phase which means the flight through space.
3. Terminal phase where the missile is nearing its target.
Weaponry, including missiles, guided by sensors plays the role of the interceptor. A command and control system facilitates interception.
Disadvantages of the current BMD
The BMD had envisioned deploying (only)ten Ground Based Interceptors in Poland as weaponry and building a huge radar site in Czech Republic to sniff out the trajectory of the threat. The intelligence reports in 2006, furnishing the pace of the development of ICBMs by Iran, promoted the BMD program.
But the new reports tell a different story:
Iran, in its efforts to boost its capabilities is in the course of developing, short and medium- range ballistic missiles. The pace of their innovation has made the Americans to sit-up and take notice. The BMD project, in its current form, is simply incapable of addressing the short- to medium-range ballistic missiles that could be fired by Iran. It would leave the Americans lurking in darkness as Iran fine-tunes its technological prowess.
Moreover, the proposed interceptors in Poland would have facilitated nil coverage to some of the allies in NATO like Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Turkey.
Above all, Russia perceived it as a new step in the arms race with American missiles right in its yard.
Obama’s Plan
In the new plan, missile defence components will be deployed across Europe in a span of ten years in four phases, beginning from 2011- the main-stay of the program being a combination of fixed and re-locatable Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and radars.
The plan in phases:
Phase one: In the timeframe of 2011, deploy the tried and tested missile defence systems available. The whole process may take the subsequent two years and includes the sea based Aegis weapon system, the SM-3 interceptor (Block 1A), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy / Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/ TPY-2). The advantage is obvious: regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and the deployed US troops and their families will be taken care of.
Phase two: In the timeframe of 2015, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea and land-based configurations succeeding appropriate testing. Advanced sensors will help in expanding the defended area against threats arising out of short- and medium-range missiles.
Phase three: In the time-frame of 2018, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant (which is currently under development). It will work against short-, medium- and intermediate-range missile threats.
Phase four: In the time-frame of 2020, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB after its development and testing are complete. It would help US to cope with medium - and intermediate-range missiles and the potential ICBM threat of the future.
The US will also be improving the sensors for missile defence throughout the four phases. And the
new plan doesn’t warrant the installation of huge radar in Czech Republic. A different and better interceptor technology means ease of deployment and use.
The new system of missile defence will be augmented with the existing ground-based interceptors deployed at Alaska and California to protect the home-land, in the fourth phase. Moreover, the new plan is six to seven years ahead of the shelved plan, in implementation. In addition to extending the protective umbrella over all NATO members and allies, in concert with their individual defence capabilities, the plan provides flexibility to up-grade and adjust the architecture of interceptor system in a cost-effective manner.
Unlike the previous plan, the new missile defence plan incorporates the allies in Europe as well as NATO. It promotes a multi-lateral approach and not a trilateral approach involving Poland and Czech Republic only. In short, the new system is more “realistic” in its perception of threat scenarios.
The revised system will ensure that European countries and Unites States work more closely on strategic fronts. This will eventually give rise to a fortification of relationship between the participants, ensuring a stronger deterrent in place of which missile defence system is only a part of.
In a scenario where Iran launches a missile at a NATO ally, it will incur the wrath of all NATO members.
A call to Russia?
There seems to be a plan to invite Russia with its wealth of strategic knowledge, to join the new plan. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in his first major speech as the Secretary General, referred to this aspect. He emphasized on exploring the potential of linking the US, NATO and Russian missile defence systems “ at an appropriate time” to combine their collective wealth of experience aimed at “mutual benefit “. He was of the hope that a revival of NATO-Russia council where both parties could discuss common security concerns enhances cooperation. Iran, after all, is a concern for Russia too.
If the above said plan gets materialized, Iran gets the signal that US is not alone in its endeavour to curtail the strategic ambitions of the so called rogue sates.
Russia, though has welcomed the US plan to scrap the BMD, seems to be fully aware of the consequences of the new plan ( as explained in the ensuing paragraphs). Beyond diplomatic niceties as exhibited by the Russian premier, Russian Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin said that Russia cannot be “childishly euphoric” about the US initiative to suspend the BMD deployment. Russians are reluctant to perceive it as a “concession” from the US.
Why Iran has changed course to a different degree of defence?
Before explaining in detail, the implications of the new missile defence system, it is worthwhile to think why Iran has changed its plans, in a strategic somersault. Why is it keen on developing short and medium range ballistic missiles instead of ICBMs?
It is because Iran has shuffled its priority hit list sensing change of strategic realities.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are essentially long range missiles which Iran planned to include in its arsenal to mount a strike on America, of course after fitting it with an indigenous nuclear war head. Iran foresaw the possibility of a US strike and found that an effective deterrent can be nuclear weapons and a couple of delivery vehicles.
But soon enough, Iran realized that the actual threat lay somewhere close to it, in its neighbour hood- Israel. The Islamic Republic had been at loggerheads with the Zionist state since the Iranian revolution. The verbal wars between both countries continued into decades. Threats from US and satiation of Israel’s nuclear arsenal triggered the Iranian hunger for nukes. And that lead to its development of covert nuclear installations retailed out by notorious A.Q. Khan.
But one cannot depend on a postman to deliver these warheads! Hence, the short and medium range ballistic missiles, tailored for Israel.
The latest news is that Iran is shopping around to have advanced surface-to-air missiles (S-300) and Russia can be a source. Read this is in the context of Iran revealing its secret nuclear installation at Qom.
Iran now knows that it is impossible for it to develop nuclear weapons, at least when the Americans are on prowl. The only solution is to protect these facilities which it has painstakingly built after several years of sweating it out, braving sanctions. But Israel is someone who can upset the applecart. Russia too may back-off from selling missiles due to international pressure. The only way out is to foster the indigenous missile development program and protect itself from possible Israeli air-attacks.
Sneak a peek at Israel’s hand
As usual, Israel has played its trump-United States of America. Engaging all of its sixteen intelligence agencies for some serious data-mining in Iran shows the gravity of the situation as perceived by the Americans. If the previous plan was to install a BMDS to protect American longevity, the new plan takes into account the United States’ brother-like love for Israel. In the garb of protecting partners and allies and inviting Russia to join forces with America, US is stepping up the pressure on Iran that could break the barometer, eventually. Add to this, the fresh call for additional sanctions and the Iranians living a life in the ventilator, may soon be doomed. The internal unrest in Iran would be fomented, as peace and stability turn into rubble.
Advantage USA
So, what piece of pie will the U.S. get out of this? “Really big”, is the answer.
The US will get a back-door entry into the neighbour- hood of Russia as Iran turns into a cauldron of chaos. The authorities there can be dethroned. Iran has nuclear capability which is a good pretext for the US to ‘intervene’ or in other words, “Iraqing Iran”. Millions of barrels of oil and gas are an incentive enough! To achieve this, the US just has to relocate a part of its troops in the military bases of Afghanistan to Iran. Any wonder, the US is “considering” an increase of troops in Afghanistan?
Implications on Russia
Though the new plan is intended to curtail Iran’s strategic game plans, the ultimate aim could be Russia! A pro-US bulwark, which the plan eventually hopes to build in Europe and Asia by the year 2020, is definitely not in the interests of Russia- and Russia knows it well.
How Russia is going to tackle the emerging situation can be an interesting study in strategic affairs.
The United States Intelligence Community (IC), comprising of sixteen intelligence agencies has finally reached a billion-dollar consensus: Iran may not develop ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) at least for the next six to eleven years! Previously, it was believed that Iran had plans to develop ICBMs in a lesser time-frame.
The United States’ NMD (National Missile Defence) program was conceived to take care of the scenario, where Iran or North Korea comes up with the ICBM to attack America.
However in a move which drew appreciation and flak alike, Mr. Obama has decided to scrap the BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defence System) - a program of NMD- to be deployed at Eastern Europe. Russian premier Mr. Vladmir Putin, has welcomed the initiative and even termed it “correct and brave”. BMDS, which had aimed to address the threat from Iran, was perceived as a threat to Russia in the garb of a missile defence system.
In the world of defence and strategy, every high-profile move has their own implicit intentions. Though critics are pummelling the US President, telling that the initiative will be interpreted as a sign of “ weakness” rather than “ goodwill”, the US is sure to have many trumps up their sleeves.
What is BMD?
BMD is a missile defence system intended to protect the US, its deployed forces, allies and friends from ballistic missiles of all ranges and in all phases of flight.
Ballistic missiles are grouped into four, based on their range:
1. Short-range (less than 1,000 kilometers)
2. Medium-range (1,000 to 3,000 kilometers)
3. Intermediate-range (3,000 to 5,500 kilometers)
4. Long-range (greater than 5,500 kilometers)
These missiles could be intercepted in three stages:
1. The boost phase, wherein the launch vehicle has been launched and its boosters have burned out.
2. Mid-course phase which means the flight through space.
3. Terminal phase where the missile is nearing its target.
Weaponry, including missiles, guided by sensors plays the role of the interceptor. A command and control system facilitates interception.
Disadvantages of the current BMD
The BMD had envisioned deploying (only)ten Ground Based Interceptors in Poland as weaponry and building a huge radar site in Czech Republic to sniff out the trajectory of the threat. The intelligence reports in 2006, furnishing the pace of the development of ICBMs by Iran, promoted the BMD program.
But the new reports tell a different story:
Iran, in its efforts to boost its capabilities is in the course of developing, short and medium- range ballistic missiles. The pace of their innovation has made the Americans to sit-up and take notice. The BMD project, in its current form, is simply incapable of addressing the short- to medium-range ballistic missiles that could be fired by Iran. It would leave the Americans lurking in darkness as Iran fine-tunes its technological prowess.
Moreover, the proposed interceptors in Poland would have facilitated nil coverage to some of the allies in NATO like Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Turkey.
Above all, Russia perceived it as a new step in the arms race with American missiles right in its yard.
Obama’s Plan
In the new plan, missile defence components will be deployed across Europe in a span of ten years in four phases, beginning from 2011- the main-stay of the program being a combination of fixed and re-locatable Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and radars.
The plan in phases:
Phase one: In the timeframe of 2011, deploy the tried and tested missile defence systems available. The whole process may take the subsequent two years and includes the sea based Aegis weapon system, the SM-3 interceptor (Block 1A), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy / Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/ TPY-2). The advantage is obvious: regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and the deployed US troops and their families will be taken care of.
Phase two: In the timeframe of 2015, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea and land-based configurations succeeding appropriate testing. Advanced sensors will help in expanding the defended area against threats arising out of short- and medium-range missiles.
Phase three: In the time-frame of 2018, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant (which is currently under development). It will work against short-, medium- and intermediate-range missile threats.
Phase four: In the time-frame of 2020, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB after its development and testing are complete. It would help US to cope with medium - and intermediate-range missiles and the potential ICBM threat of the future.
The US will also be improving the sensors for missile defence throughout the four phases. And the
new plan doesn’t warrant the installation of huge radar in Czech Republic. A different and better interceptor technology means ease of deployment and use.
The new system of missile defence will be augmented with the existing ground-based interceptors deployed at Alaska and California to protect the home-land, in the fourth phase. Moreover, the new plan is six to seven years ahead of the shelved plan, in implementation. In addition to extending the protective umbrella over all NATO members and allies, in concert with their individual defence capabilities, the plan provides flexibility to up-grade and adjust the architecture of interceptor system in a cost-effective manner.
Unlike the previous plan, the new missile defence plan incorporates the allies in Europe as well as NATO. It promotes a multi-lateral approach and not a trilateral approach involving Poland and Czech Republic only. In short, the new system is more “realistic” in its perception of threat scenarios.
The revised system will ensure that European countries and Unites States work more closely on strategic fronts. This will eventually give rise to a fortification of relationship between the participants, ensuring a stronger deterrent in place of which missile defence system is only a part of.
In a scenario where Iran launches a missile at a NATO ally, it will incur the wrath of all NATO members.
A call to Russia?
There seems to be a plan to invite Russia with its wealth of strategic knowledge, to join the new plan. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in his first major speech as the Secretary General, referred to this aspect. He emphasized on exploring the potential of linking the US, NATO and Russian missile defence systems “ at an appropriate time” to combine their collective wealth of experience aimed at “mutual benefit “. He was of the hope that a revival of NATO-Russia council where both parties could discuss common security concerns enhances cooperation. Iran, after all, is a concern for Russia too.
If the above said plan gets materialized, Iran gets the signal that US is not alone in its endeavour to curtail the strategic ambitions of the so called rogue sates.
Russia, though has welcomed the US plan to scrap the BMD, seems to be fully aware of the consequences of the new plan ( as explained in the ensuing paragraphs). Beyond diplomatic niceties as exhibited by the Russian premier, Russian Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin said that Russia cannot be “childishly euphoric” about the US initiative to suspend the BMD deployment. Russians are reluctant to perceive it as a “concession” from the US.
Why Iran has changed course to a different degree of defence?
Before explaining in detail, the implications of the new missile defence system, it is worthwhile to think why Iran has changed its plans, in a strategic somersault. Why is it keen on developing short and medium range ballistic missiles instead of ICBMs?
It is because Iran has shuffled its priority hit list sensing change of strategic realities.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are essentially long range missiles which Iran planned to include in its arsenal to mount a strike on America, of course after fitting it with an indigenous nuclear war head. Iran foresaw the possibility of a US strike and found that an effective deterrent can be nuclear weapons and a couple of delivery vehicles.
But soon enough, Iran realized that the actual threat lay somewhere close to it, in its neighbour hood- Israel. The Islamic Republic had been at loggerheads with the Zionist state since the Iranian revolution. The verbal wars between both countries continued into decades. Threats from US and satiation of Israel’s nuclear arsenal triggered the Iranian hunger for nukes. And that lead to its development of covert nuclear installations retailed out by notorious A.Q. Khan.
But one cannot depend on a postman to deliver these warheads! Hence, the short and medium range ballistic missiles, tailored for Israel.
The latest news is that Iran is shopping around to have advanced surface-to-air missiles (S-300) and Russia can be a source. Read this is in the context of Iran revealing its secret nuclear installation at Qom.
Iran now knows that it is impossible for it to develop nuclear weapons, at least when the Americans are on prowl. The only solution is to protect these facilities which it has painstakingly built after several years of sweating it out, braving sanctions. But Israel is someone who can upset the applecart. Russia too may back-off from selling missiles due to international pressure. The only way out is to foster the indigenous missile development program and protect itself from possible Israeli air-attacks.
Sneak a peek at Israel’s hand
As usual, Israel has played its trump-United States of America. Engaging all of its sixteen intelligence agencies for some serious data-mining in Iran shows the gravity of the situation as perceived by the Americans. If the previous plan was to install a BMDS to protect American longevity, the new plan takes into account the United States’ brother-like love for Israel. In the garb of protecting partners and allies and inviting Russia to join forces with America, US is stepping up the pressure on Iran that could break the barometer, eventually. Add to this, the fresh call for additional sanctions and the Iranians living a life in the ventilator, may soon be doomed. The internal unrest in Iran would be fomented, as peace and stability turn into rubble.
Advantage USA
So, what piece of pie will the U.S. get out of this? “Really big”, is the answer.
The US will get a back-door entry into the neighbour- hood of Russia as Iran turns into a cauldron of chaos. The authorities there can be dethroned. Iran has nuclear capability which is a good pretext for the US to ‘intervene’ or in other words, “Iraqing Iran”. Millions of barrels of oil and gas are an incentive enough! To achieve this, the US just has to relocate a part of its troops in the military bases of Afghanistan to Iran. Any wonder, the US is “considering” an increase of troops in Afghanistan?
Implications on Russia
Though the new plan is intended to curtail Iran’s strategic game plans, the ultimate aim could be Russia! A pro-US bulwark, which the plan eventually hopes to build in Europe and Asia by the year 2020, is definitely not in the interests of Russia- and Russia knows it well.
How Russia is going to tackle the emerging situation can be an interesting study in strategic affairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)