India and Iran: Challenges and Opportunity

[Bang Galore]

You're way too dense! Listen, if you don't like what I think, tough! take it else where. Indians are just to be traded with and made a quick buck with. You are not trustworthy.

If you read my first post, I said that "let's stick to doing business" . After all these posts, you agree. Pretty telling as to who the dense one is.

What you think is irrelevant, nobody here cares about it just as you don't. If you want to do business, let's hear about it. No skin of anyone's nose if you prefer not to

 

[bozorgmehr]

If you read my first post, I said that "let's stick to doing business" . After all these posts, you agree. Pretty telling as to who the dense one is.

What you think is irrelevant, nobody here cares about it just as you don't. If you want to do business, let's hear about it. No skin of anyone's nose if you prefer not to

WTF do you mean what I think is irrelevant. This is a discussion forum dum dum. If its irrelevant to you, what the hell are you doing acting so butt hurt and engaging in this discussion?

 

[Bang Galore]

WTF do you mean what I think is irrelevant. This is a discussion forum dum dum. If its irrelevant to you, what the hell are you doing acting so butt hurt and engaging in this discussion?

Best you can do? After telling someone else not to get personal, you are reduced to doing the same thing.

Your opinion on the "trustworthiness" in the India-Iran relationship is not relevant, what matters there is pretty much whether you are willing to do business or not. A discussion forum is just that, not like it matters in the real world.

 

[bozorgmehr]

Best you can do? After telling someone else not to get personal, you are reduced to doing the same thing.

Your opinion on the "trustworthiness" in the India-Iran relationship is not relevant, what matters there is pretty much whether you are willing to do business or not. A discussion forum is just that, not like it matters in the real world.

Yeah well it's a discussion forum and I'll express my opinion whether some butt hurt Indians bloody hell like it or not.

 

[Bang Galore]

Yeah well it's a discussion forum and I'll express my opinion whether some butt hurt Indians bloody hell like it or not.

Of the two of us, only one got worked up about a internet debate & it wasn't me..... I think this discussion of ours has run its course.

Thank you for your time.

 

[bozorgmehr]

Of the two of us, only one got worked up about a internet debate & it wasn't me..... I think this discussion of ours has run its course.

Thank you for your time.

Anytime! Next time have a dictionary handy before starting a conversation.

 

[Serpentine]

You still don't seem to be understanding the difference between trust and trustworthiness. Go read up on it.

That's a naive assumption. No country is trustworthy for others, that's why there are only permanent interests, not permanent friends and enemies. Even the closest allies can become enemies overnight because of collision of interests.

Iran and India do not intend to become allies, neither they can nor they want to do this. Our relations is based on bilateral trade and benefits. So saying that 'India is not trustworthy' is not a logical thing to say. We are free to choose our trading partners, no one forces us to do it.

 

[Rau]

That's a naive assumption. No country is trustworthy for others, that's why there are only permanent interests, not permanent friends and enemies. Even the closest allies can become enemies overnight because of collision of interests.

Iran and India do not intend to become allies, neither they can nor they want to do this. Our relations is based on bilateral trade and benefits. So saying that 'India is not trustworthy' is not a logical thing to say. We are free to choose our trading partners, no one forces us to do it.

Spot On . By the way, your signature and profile picture both are awesome .

 

[Indus Pakistan]

That's a naive assumption. No country is trustworthy for others, that's why there are only permanent interests, not permanent friends and enemies. Even the closest allies can become enemies overnight because of collision of interests.

Iran and India do not intend to become allies, neither they can nor they want to do this. Our relations is based on bilateral trade and benefits. So saying that 'India is not trustworthy' is not a logical thing to say. We are free to choose our trading partners, no one forces us to do it.

I quote Henry Kissinger “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests". So yes your right in that observation. However in real life nothing is so straight forward. Exactly how you define, interpret and appy those "interests" is the vital and the decisive factor in foreign policy. In doing so the "interest" has to referanced against the time continuum. Something might be profitable this month but over the year you might lose out more. So defining interests is complex and even then you will have element of politics creaping in.

Even the closest allies can become enemies overnight because of collision of interests

I think that is reducing a complex to level where it loses it's meaning. This again depends on how you define "closest allies"? If two countries have a short term convergence of interests, that is their policy is not grounded on solid realities then they can easily turn against each other. WE can take USSR and the West alliance in WW2 which was just short term convergence hinged on a common enemy - Germany. As soon as Germany was defeated both sides turned on each other.

However there are other relationships that are grounded on solid realities which over time been through wise leadership been cast into stone. These type of relationships which are underpinned by solid foundation will not turn on each other easily. What is the chance that UK or France will fight? What is the chance that UK and Ireland will fight? In fact what is the chance of USA and UK fighting? I can tell you I live in UK and there is no chance this country would turn against any of it's neighbours. Their relationship are solid. They are based on civilizational, economic, geographic, religious, even racial convergence. Trying to split and find differances between British, Germans or Irish is like trying to turn three brothers against each other. It could be done, it has happened but damned difficult.

As regards India my opinion is this is strictly a business relationship with no possiblity of building solid reality. You don't even share border and India is moving straight to USA/Isreal orbit. This is clear as daylight as America and India align themselves to box in emerging superpower China.

In fact this Iran/India bonhomie was just lots of hot air. What exactly is there to show for it? The only potency I have seen about it is Indian's using it to annoy and aggravate Pakistani's. Even than it only works on those Pakistani's who are ignorent or have smoked too much of the Saudi pipe.

I must confess I had even fallen for this India/Iran bonhomie such was the bragging and shouting done by Indian's. However on further inspection I must admit I was shocked to find the reality. The truth was the Chinese have far more deeper and impacting relationship with Iran than India does. It was just the Chinese being humble don't shout from the rooftops and also they have no reason to use it to annoy Pakistani's.

 

[bozorgmehr]

That's a naive assumption. No country is trustworthy for others, that's why there are only permanent interests, not permanent friends and enemies. Even the closest allies can become enemies overnight because of collision of interests.

Iran and India do not intend to become allies, neither they can nor they want to do this. Our relations is based on bilateral trade and benefits. So saying that 'India is not trustworthy' is not a logical thing to say. We are free to choose our trading partners, no one forces us to do it.

And that's all I've been saying throughout... Let's not get carried away with the sweet talk from India... Let's not be under any illusions about who they are and the nature of our relationship with them
... Let's keep it businesslike... Let's keep it tactical and on a strict quid pro quo basis... I don't see where the problem is!

But I disagree with your point about not having any allies. The argument that your alliances and friendships may shift, therefore you cannot have any, is a non sequitur. One isn't the logical conclusion of the other. A better way to look at it is to say you can have alliances, until they shift.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

And that's all I've been saying throughout... Let's not get carried away with the sweet talk from India... Let's not be under any illusions about who they are and the nature of our relationship with them
... Let's keep it businesslike... Let's keep it tactical and on a strict quid pro quo basis... I don't see where the problem is!

But I disagree with your point about not having any allies. The argument that your alliances and friendships may shift, therefore you cannot have any, is a non sequitur. One isn't the logical conclusion of the other. A better way to look at it is to say you can have alliances, until they shift.

Your right there but like I said there are two types of relationships. Those that are based on solid foundation or full spectrum and those that are based on fleeting convergence or narrow spectrum. What do you think is the chance that Fance, UK or Ireland or Germany are going to diverge? Trust me it is Zero. Their relationships are grounded on geography, culture,economics and will always stay within certain parameters.

 

[Serpentine]

I quote Henry Kissinger “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests". So yes your right in that observation. However in real life nothing is so straight forward. Exactly how you define, interpret and appy those "interests" is the vital and the decisive factor in foreign policy. In doing so the "interest" has to referanced against the time continuum. Something might be profitable this month but over the year you might lose out more. So defining interests is complex and even then you will have element of politics creaping in.



I think that is reducing a complex to level where it loses it's meaning. This again depends on how you define "closest allies"? If two countries have a short term convergence of interests, that is their policy is not grounded on solid realities then they can easily turn against each other. WE can take USSR and the West alliance in WW2 which was just short term convergence hinged on a common enemy - Germany. As soon as Germany was defeated both sides turned on each other.

However there are other relationships that are grounded on solid realities which over time been through wise leadership been cast into stone. These type of relationships which are underpinned by solid foundation will not turn on each other easily. What is the chance that UK or France will fight? What is the chance that UK and Ireland will fight? In fact what is the chance of USA and UK fighting? I can tell you I live in UK and there is no chance this country would turn against any of it's neighbours. Their relationship are solid. They are based on civilizational, economic, geographic, religious, even racial convergence. Trying to split and find differances between British, Germans or Irish is like trying to turn three brothers against each other. It could be done, it has happened but damned difficult.

As regards India my opinion is this is strictly a business relationship with no possiblity of building solid reality. You don't even share border and India is moving straight to USA/Isreal orbit. This is clear as daylight as America and India align themselves to box in emerging superpower China.

In fact this Iran/India bonhomie was just lots of hot air. What exactly is there to show for it? The only potency I have seen about it is Indian's using it to annoy and aggravate Pakistani's. Even than it only works on those Pakistani's who are ignorent or have smoked too much of the Saudi pipe.

I must confess I had even fallen for this India/Iran bonhomie such was the bragging and shouting done by Indian's. However on further inspection I must admit I was shocked to find the reality. The truth was the Chinese have far more deeper and impacting relationship with Iran than India does. It was just the Chinese being humble don't shout from the rooftops and also they have no reason to use it to annoy Pakistani's.

Bro, I understand your point. One of examples of my point, is Iran-Israel relations which took a 180 degree turn in few days. What I'm trying to say is, not all countries should be allies to have great relations with each other. Iran and India can not be allies for various reasons, but they can have very good economic relations, which has concerned some of our Pakistani friends, unnecessarily. Relations should not always be based on trust, that's why I countered the argument which said we shouldn't 'trust' Indians, that simply doesn't make sense in a business relationship. As much as trust is helpful in a relationship, even a business one, but it's not a necessity since all actions can be verifiable based on rules and not trust.

We can have great business partners in the world, but few can be considered ally. Syria is our ally for example, India, Pakistan, Russia and even China are not, for various reasons.

Even if we want to be ally with India, they can't do it, as they care for their relations with U.S and Israel too. So I agree with you on that. We have deals with India, both of us can have benefits in them. Same with China or Russia. Ally is a strong word, it's not very easy to have an all-weather ally in this world of 21st century.

And that's all I've been saying throughout... Let's not get carried away with the sweet talk from India... Let's not be under any illusions about who they are and the nature of our relationship with them
... Let's keep it businesslike... Let's keep it tactical and on a strict quid pro quo basis... I don't see where the problem is!

But I disagree with your point about not having any allies. The argument that your alliances and friendships may shift, therefore you cannot have any, is a non sequitur. One isn't the logical conclusion of the other. A better way to look at it is to say you can have alliances, until they shift.

Please read my answer above, it would be repeating the same if I wanted to answer your post. thanks.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Bro, I understand your point. One of examples of my point, is Iran-Israel relations which took a 180 degree turn in few days. What I'm trying to say is, not all countries should be allies to have great relations with each other. Iran and India can not be allies for various reasons, but they can have very good economic relations, which has concerned some of our Pakistani friends, unnecessarily. Relations should not always be based on trust, that's why I countered the argument which said we shouldn't 'trust' Indians, that simply doesn't make sense in a business relationship. As much as trust is helpful in a relationship, even a business one, but it's not a necessity since all actions can be verifiable based on rules and not trust.

We can have great business partners in the world, but few can be considered ally. Syria is our ally for example, India, Pakistan, Russia and even China are not, for various reasons.

Even if we want to be ally with India, they can't do it, as they care for their relations with U.S and Israel too. So I agree with you on that. We have deals with India, both of us can have benefits in them. Same with China or Russia. Ally is a strong word, it's not very easy to have an all-weather ally in this world of 21st century.



Please read my answer above, it would be repeating the same if I wanted to answer your post. thanks.

Iran and Isreali relationship before 1979 was by product of Iran and US relationship which itself was based around oil and regional hegemony by USA. As soon as Iran's relationship with USA was severed it rebounded on the Iran/Isreal relationship. It went from hero to zero overnight. In other words those relationships that are narrow spectrum can turn upside overnight. However those relationships that are full spectrum which are grounded on many ground realties and have been nurtured very over time WILL not flip upside in one day. Examples I can give is USA and UK. France and UK. These relationships are multiplex across the entire spectrum and will not tear apart so easy.

America and Pakistan have just had convergence of interest along very narrow lines. That is why it was always a transactional relationship. However USA and UK have far deeper alliance. I know in the long term Pakistan and Iran will emerge like France and Germany with full spectrum relationship based on solid realities that can't evaporate in day. The challange is this will take time and maturity. I certainly believe we are at the begining of change.

 

[bozorgmehr]

Your right there but like I said there are two types of relationships. Those that are based on solid foundation or full spectrum and those that are based on fleeting convergence or narrow spectrum. What do you think is the chance that Fance, UK or Ireland or Germany are going to diverge? Trust me it is Zero. Their relationships are grounded on geography, culture,economics and will always stay within certain parameters.

Generally agreed! let's call it tactical and strategic. In my view tactical alliances may result from immediate exigencies of one's national interests. But Strategic alliances are often formed with countries that share similar set of values and world views.

Please read my answer above, it would be repeating the same if I wanted to answer your post. thanks.

OK

 

[Serpentine]

Iran and Isreali relationship before 1979 was by product of Iran and US relationship which itself was based around oil and regional hegemony by USA. As soon as Iran's relationship with USA was severed it rebounded on the Iran/Isreal relationship. It went from hero to zero overnight. In other words those relationships that are narrow spectrum can turn upside overnight. However those relationships that are full spectrum which are grounded on many ground realties and have been nurtured very over time WILL not flip upside in one day. Examples I can give is USA and UK. France and UK. These relationships are multiplex across the entire spectrum and will not tear apart so easy.

America and Pakistan have just had convergence of interest along very narrow lines. That is why it was always a transactional relationship. However USA and UK have far deeper alliance. I know in the long term Pakistan and Iran will emerge like France and Germany with full spectrum relationship based on solid realities that can't evaporate in day. The challange this will take time and maturity. I certainly believe we are at the begining of change.

Iran and Pakistan can be like France and UK when Iran and Arabs sit and talk, resolving all their problems, or Pakistan neglecting many of its relations with GCC Arabs. That's what I love to see happen in future in Pak-Iran relations, but there are many obstacles. Unlike India, Iran and Pakistan can be 'strategic partners', meaning their relations can involve much more than business and economy, but it depends on many factors.