Sen.Blutarsky 0 #1 January 26, 2006 The Iran problem imperils international cooperation on other issues and it's getting uglier almost by the minute … U.S. Threatens India Nuclear Deal By MATTHEW ROSENBERG Associated Press Wed Jan 25, 11:50 AM ET A landmark nuclear deal between India and the United States will "die" in Washington if New Delhi supports Iran at the upcoming meeting of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency, the U.S. ambassador said Wednesday. A week before the International Atomic Energy Agency meets to discuss Iran's nuclear program, U.S. Ambassador David Mulford said that if India does not vote to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council, it would be "devastating" to the deal currently before the U.S. Congress. "I think the Congress will simply stop considering the matter," Mulford told the Press Trust of India news agency. The deal, seen as a cornerstone of the emerging alliance between India and the United States, "will die in the Congress," he said. The U.S. Embassy confirmed that Mulford was accurately quoted, and spokesman David Kennedy said: "The Ambassador just wanted to give his honest opinion on how he thought the U.S. congress would react to such a scenario." Mulford's frank comments were the first time a senior U.S. official has made a direct link between India's stance on the Iran issue and the nuclear deal. After Mulford's comments, India reiterated that the two issues should remain separate. "We categorically reject any attempt to link (Iran) to the proposed Indo-U.S. agreement on civil nuclear energy cooperation, which stands on its own merits," Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said in a statement. "The position that India will take on this issue at the IAEA will be based on India's own independent judgment." Under the deal, Washington is to share civilian nuclear technology and supply nuclear fuel to India in return for New Delhi separating its civilian and military nuclear programs and allowing international inspections of its atomic facilities. The separation is necessary because the United States has only agreed to recognize India as having a civilian nuclear program — not as a legitimate nuclear weapons state. The deal was signed in July when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Washington, and marked a major policy shift for the United States, which imposed sanctions on India in 1998 after it conducted nuclear tests. The restrictions have been lifted. IAEA referral of Iran to the Security Council could lead to economic and political sanctions against Tehran, which the United States and European powers fear could use its nuclear program to develop weapons. Tehran insists its program is for generating electricity. European countries believe they have enough votes at the IAEA, which will hold an emergency board session on Feb. 2, to haul Iran before the Security Council. But they are seeking support from Russia, China and key developing nations, such as India. New Delhi voted in September with the U.S. and European powers on an earlier IAEA resolution that could have led to Iran's referral to the council. But the Indian government faced fierce domestic criticism over the move from its left-wing political allies, who accused it of selling out a longtime ally to curry favor with Washington. New Delhi has, in recent weeks, appeared hesitant to repeat the vote, instead urging negotiations with Tehran. India, which has few domestic sources of fuel, also plans to build a 1,750-mile gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan, a project that has raised concerns in Washington. "We have made it known to (India) that we would very much like India's support because India has arrived on the world stage and is a very important player in the world," Mulford said. Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_on_re_as/india_us_nuclear Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #2 January 26, 2006 Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would a Hindu country (India) support a Islamic extremist state (Iran) in its quest for Nukes?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #3 January 26, 2006 QuoteMaybe I'm missing something here, but why would a Hindu country (India) support a Islamic extremist state (Iran) in its quest for Nukes? It is odd considering India supported referring Iran to the UN Security Council just last week. I wonder why the turn around? http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1374493.cms Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 January 26, 2006 Good for us. India may refuse to see the linkage, but who cares? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #5 January 26, 2006 QuoteGood for us. India may refuse to see the linkage, but who cares? It's our free assistance, and we can attach whatever strings to it we like. If they don't like the deal, fine. We are not obligated to give them anything for free, under any conditions whatsoever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 January 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteMaybe I'm missing something here, but why would a Hindu country (India) support a Islamic extremist state (Iran) in its quest for Nukes? It is odd considering India supported referring Iran to the UN Security Council just last week. I wonder why the turn around? http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1374493.cms It's all part of the regional chessboard; and of course, politics is often about playing both ends against the middle. Politics and strange bedfellows, and all that. India & Pakistan are regional enemies, so India might have thought that cozying up to Iran would give it a toehold in the Muslim world, as leverage against Pakistan (which also tries to be a major player in the Muslim world), not to mention possible access to energy resources (Iranian oil). Iran, for its part, knows that it's become somewhat of an international pariah, what with its engaging in state-sponsored terrorism, etc., so hooking onto India's star could rehabilitate some of its international reputation, and provide it access to some of India's technical resources. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 January 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteMaybe I'm missing something here, but why would a Hindu country (India) support a Islamic extremist state (Iran) in its quest for Nukes? It is odd considering India supported referring Iran to the UN Security Council just last week. I wonder why the turn around? http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1374493.cms It's all part of the regional chessboard; and of course, politics is often about playing both ends against the middle. Politics and strange bedfellows, and all that. India & Pakistan are regional enemies, so India might have thought that cozying up to Iran would give it a toehold in the Muslim world, as leverage against Pakistan (which also tries to be a major player in the Muslim world), not to mention possible access to energy resources (Iranian oil). Iran, for its part, knows that it's become somewhat of an international pariah, what with its engaging in state-sponsored terrorism, etc., so hooking onto India's star could rehabilitate some of its international reputation, and provide it access to some of India's technical resources. Why do you think India would risk harming relations with the US? Seems to me if they flip flop again, they would damage relations with the US and Iran. I just don't see why they think that would be beneficial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #8 January 27, 2006 QuoteWhy do you think India would risk harming relations with the US? Seems to me if they flip flop again, they would damage relations with the US and Iran. I just don't see why they think that would be beneficial. I basically agree with you (believe it or not ). What I think was going on was a little bit of that "playing both ends against the middle" I was talking about. They saw a bit of an opportunity, sent out a few feelers, floated a trial balloon and tried to see if it might fly. And the US had to tell them "no way". Why did they risk it? Leaders of countries make foolish, myopic decisions all the time. Sometimes powerful people, even smart ones, get dumb ideas, and because it's difficult to speak truth to power, there aren't enough strong-willed advisors to tell them it's a dumb idea. I figure they were just being short-sighted and amateurish, and when they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they had to back off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
