One week after the Israeli Embassy car blast in New Delhi, reports in India's media indicate that investigators are still in the dark and have not achieved any breakthrough.
This is amid growing speculation that this may have been a case of "homegrown terrorism", ie Muslim militants sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
Yet, it is abundantly clear that the blast has triggered a disproportionate political impact, pressurizing the Indian government, which has decided to continue and even expand its vital energy relations with Iran irrespective of mounting Western sanctions.
As expected, the United States, European and Israeli governments and their media mouthpieces have joined hands in a well-orchestrated campaign to criticize Delhi's Iran policy and to try to convince it to curtail or even cut off its Iranian energy imports.
While India has signed on to various United Nations sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, it is not going along with financial measures imposed by the United States and the European Union to stop countries from buying Iranian oil.
India was Tehran's second-biggest crude customer last year after China and Iranian oil accounts for about 12% of its needs, Reuters reported.
Nicholas Burns, a George W Bush administration official, has tried to guilt-trip India by accusing it of giving "a slap in the face to the US" by its "bitterly disappointing" decision to continue business-as-usual relations with Iran, tantamount to a "major setback" for the US's policy of Iran isolationism.
According to Burns, this shows that India is "out of step" with the international community and is still behaving like a "regional power" rather than a global power.
In fact, the opposite is true. By refusing to toe the American and/or Israeli line on Iran, India has demonstrated its autonomy and international prestige as a rising global power that acts according to its own incandescent atmosphere, needs and priorities, instead of melting before outside pressures.
This is not purely a question of India's "energy needs", but rather a delicate balancing act that involves the complicated interplay of several variables beside economics; namely, national identity, sovereignty and independent foreign policy in a complex world that, as in the case of India's cordial relations with both India and Israel, reflects the difficulties of making constant adjustments in a highly fluid milieu.
With its nearly 140 million Muslims, including 36 million Shi'ites, India is compelled to be sensitive to the natural sympathies of its largest minority population that may be radicalized if the government tilts in favor of Israel and sacrifices its Iran interests in order to appease US and Israeli politicians.
This recalls what this author wrote four years ago in Asia Times Online:
India does not fully operate as the US wishes and is unlikely to fulfill the new role discretely assigned to it by the direct implications of the nuclear agreement, such as acting as a counterweight to China or even Russia, in light of improved India-China relations. Pursuing multiple win-win scenarios that partially collide, India seeks its own aggrandizement and, quite simply, this may thwart rather than enhance the US's geostrategic interests in Asia in the long run. (Iran heartened by India's nuclear vote August 5, 2008.)
Although beholden to Israel for sensitive military technology, India cannot afford to be seen in league with the Jewish state against Muslim Iranians, who are to receive a large trade delegation from India next week, and who have reportedly agreed to barter their oil for Indian wheat.
Nor can Tehran expect New Delhi to sacrifice its ties with Israel, although the Tehran media are pleased by reports indicating that some Israelis suspected of covert activities in India have been deported.
A number of Tehran analysts have suggested that the February 13 blast in New Delhi, that injured the wife of an Israeli diplomat, has the hallmark of a "false flag operation" targeting India's energy relations with Iran. It has been compared to the 1992 bombing in Argentina, which was Iran's sole nuclear partner at the time and immediately ceased all its nuclear cooperation with Iran because of the bombing. (See Interpol's decision time on 'Iranian' bombing Asia Times Online, November 7, 2007.)
"Given the enormous importance of the issue, that is, forcing India to play along with the Western sanctions on Iran, it is not far-fetched to believe that Israelis would orchestrate a make-believe attack on their own interests in India so that Indian politicians would feel the heat and change course," says a Tehran University political science professor who spoke to the author on the condition of anonymity.
He adds that Iran is convinced that public opinion in India is sympathetic toward Iran, which "has heroically stood up to Western bullying. India is still a Third World country in so many ways and has a rich anti-colonial heritage as well as three decades of nuclear embargo by the West that resonate with the Iran scenario."
Inspection time in Iran
On Monday, a delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrived in Iran seeking a solution to the outstanding questions that the United Nations' nuclear watchdog has regarding Iran's nuclear program, which some suspect is designed to build nuclear weapons - a charge Tehran denies.
However, nuclear inspectors said no progress had been made as Iran did not grant requests to visit Parchin, a military site.
"We engaged in a constructive spirit but no agreement was reached," a statement by the inspectors quoted IAEA chief Yukiya Amano as saying.
No agreement was reached on how to begin "clarification of unresolved issues in connection with Iran's nuclear program, particularly those relating to possible military dimensions", the statement, issued on Wednesday, said.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said on Tuesday that the IAEA team was not there to inspect nuclear facilities. "The titles of the members of the visiting delegation is not inspectors. This is an expert delegation. The purpose of visit is not inspection," Mehmanparast said. "The aim is to negotiate about co-operation between Iran and the agency and to set a framework for a continuation of the talks," the Guardian of London reported.
This, together with Iran's official response to the European Union's request for a new round of multilateral nuclear talks, represents a new attempt by Iran to dispel the suspicion of nuclear proliferation and to reassure the outside world that its controversial uranium-enrichment program is peaceful.
Recently, Clinton Bastin, a top US weapons specialists, confirmed that Iran's nuclear program was civilian and not weapons-related and that the US should end its "dangerous threats" and should support Iran's nuclear program.
So should India, which could contribute much to, among other things, Iran's nuclear safety program and medical nuclear research.
But this is not likely, given India's civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the US that is now being used as leverage to steer New Delhi away from Tehran.
Then again, even the likes of Burns know that it would be foolhardy for the US to risk its strategic relations with India, eyeing China, over Iran's nuclear program that, so far at least, lacks any discernible evidence of proliferation.
Asia Times Online :: Delhi dances, Tehran wants to talk
This is amid growing speculation that this may have been a case of "homegrown terrorism", ie Muslim militants sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
Yet, it is abundantly clear that the blast has triggered a disproportionate political impact, pressurizing the Indian government, which has decided to continue and even expand its vital energy relations with Iran irrespective of mounting Western sanctions.
As expected, the United States, European and Israeli governments and their media mouthpieces have joined hands in a well-orchestrated campaign to criticize Delhi's Iran policy and to try to convince it to curtail or even cut off its Iranian energy imports.
While India has signed on to various United Nations sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, it is not going along with financial measures imposed by the United States and the European Union to stop countries from buying Iranian oil.
India was Tehran's second-biggest crude customer last year after China and Iranian oil accounts for about 12% of its needs, Reuters reported.
Nicholas Burns, a George W Bush administration official, has tried to guilt-trip India by accusing it of giving "a slap in the face to the US" by its "bitterly disappointing" decision to continue business-as-usual relations with Iran, tantamount to a "major setback" for the US's policy of Iran isolationism.
According to Burns, this shows that India is "out of step" with the international community and is still behaving like a "regional power" rather than a global power.
In fact, the opposite is true. By refusing to toe the American and/or Israeli line on Iran, India has demonstrated its autonomy and international prestige as a rising global power that acts according to its own incandescent atmosphere, needs and priorities, instead of melting before outside pressures.
This is not purely a question of India's "energy needs", but rather a delicate balancing act that involves the complicated interplay of several variables beside economics; namely, national identity, sovereignty and independent foreign policy in a complex world that, as in the case of India's cordial relations with both India and Israel, reflects the difficulties of making constant adjustments in a highly fluid milieu.
With its nearly 140 million Muslims, including 36 million Shi'ites, India is compelled to be sensitive to the natural sympathies of its largest minority population that may be radicalized if the government tilts in favor of Israel and sacrifices its Iran interests in order to appease US and Israeli politicians.
This recalls what this author wrote four years ago in Asia Times Online:
India does not fully operate as the US wishes and is unlikely to fulfill the new role discretely assigned to it by the direct implications of the nuclear agreement, such as acting as a counterweight to China or even Russia, in light of improved India-China relations. Pursuing multiple win-win scenarios that partially collide, India seeks its own aggrandizement and, quite simply, this may thwart rather than enhance the US's geostrategic interests in Asia in the long run. (Iran heartened by India's nuclear vote August 5, 2008.)
Although beholden to Israel for sensitive military technology, India cannot afford to be seen in league with the Jewish state against Muslim Iranians, who are to receive a large trade delegation from India next week, and who have reportedly agreed to barter their oil for Indian wheat.
Nor can Tehran expect New Delhi to sacrifice its ties with Israel, although the Tehran media are pleased by reports indicating that some Israelis suspected of covert activities in India have been deported.
A number of Tehran analysts have suggested that the February 13 blast in New Delhi, that injured the wife of an Israeli diplomat, has the hallmark of a "false flag operation" targeting India's energy relations with Iran. It has been compared to the 1992 bombing in Argentina, which was Iran's sole nuclear partner at the time and immediately ceased all its nuclear cooperation with Iran because of the bombing. (See Interpol's decision time on 'Iranian' bombing Asia Times Online, November 7, 2007.)
"Given the enormous importance of the issue, that is, forcing India to play along with the Western sanctions on Iran, it is not far-fetched to believe that Israelis would orchestrate a make-believe attack on their own interests in India so that Indian politicians would feel the heat and change course," says a Tehran University political science professor who spoke to the author on the condition of anonymity.
He adds that Iran is convinced that public opinion in India is sympathetic toward Iran, which "has heroically stood up to Western bullying. India is still a Third World country in so many ways and has a rich anti-colonial heritage as well as three decades of nuclear embargo by the West that resonate with the Iran scenario."
Inspection time in Iran
On Monday, a delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) arrived in Iran seeking a solution to the outstanding questions that the United Nations' nuclear watchdog has regarding Iran's nuclear program, which some suspect is designed to build nuclear weapons - a charge Tehran denies.
However, nuclear inspectors said no progress had been made as Iran did not grant requests to visit Parchin, a military site.
"We engaged in a constructive spirit but no agreement was reached," a statement by the inspectors quoted IAEA chief Yukiya Amano as saying.
No agreement was reached on how to begin "clarification of unresolved issues in connection with Iran's nuclear program, particularly those relating to possible military dimensions", the statement, issued on Wednesday, said.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said on Tuesday that the IAEA team was not there to inspect nuclear facilities. "The titles of the members of the visiting delegation is not inspectors. This is an expert delegation. The purpose of visit is not inspection," Mehmanparast said. "The aim is to negotiate about co-operation between Iran and the agency and to set a framework for a continuation of the talks," the Guardian of London reported.
This, together with Iran's official response to the European Union's request for a new round of multilateral nuclear talks, represents a new attempt by Iran to dispel the suspicion of nuclear proliferation and to reassure the outside world that its controversial uranium-enrichment program is peaceful.
Recently, Clinton Bastin, a top US weapons specialists, confirmed that Iran's nuclear program was civilian and not weapons-related and that the US should end its "dangerous threats" and should support Iran's nuclear program.
So should India, which could contribute much to, among other things, Iran's nuclear safety program and medical nuclear research.
But this is not likely, given India's civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the US that is now being used as leverage to steer New Delhi away from Tehran.
Then again, even the likes of Burns know that it would be foolhardy for the US to risk its strategic relations with India, eyeing China, over Iran's nuclear program that, so far at least, lacks any discernible evidence of proliferation.
Asia Times Online :: Delhi dances, Tehran wants to talk
)..u've given'em enough reasons for an arm intervention!!!
