US lauds India’s support on Iran sanction(US:India supportive on sanctions)

[Harry Potter]

US lauds India’s support on Iran sanctions.
Last Updated: Wednesday, March 28, 2012, 10:24

Washington: US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has lauded India for being "very supportive" in many respects on the issue of sanctions against Iran.

Geithner, in response to questions from lawmakers, said US was working with countries like India, China and Russia to further tighten these international sanctions against Iran.

"Working very closely with them, and they have -- India has been working with us on this, very supportive in many respects on the financial side in particular. But it's not just those. We're working with Turkey, with India, Russia -- countries around the world," he said.

"I wouldn't want to be optimistic. I think they share our basic recognition that their interests also would be affected by Iran successfully acquiring the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon, and therefore they have a strong interest themselves to join with us on that front," Geithner said.

"Based on our conversations, my sense is they'll continue to work with us," he said.

On the broader sanctions, America has been very successful over the last few years and months in dramatically tightening the international sanctions on Iran, Geithner told lawmakers at a Congressional hearing.

"The most areas where you see that today are in the announcements made by a number of countries to significantly reduce the amount of oil they purchase from Iran. But in addition to that, a number of countries not just in Europe have dramatically tightened the level of broader financial interactions they have with Iran to finance trade with Iran.

"And the combined effect of those things, we believe, has been very significant economic effects reported all the time.

Of course the ultimate test will be the one you said, which is: Are these sanctions, as tough are they, are going to be effective in deterring Iran in pursuing these nuclear ambitions?" he said.

The SWIFT announcement by the Europeans is part of that. What the Europeans did is to convince SWIFT to stop providing those financial services to the banks designated by the European governments. That is an appropriate and powerful act, the US official said.

"On the bank side, we oppose and have worked against any lending by the World Bank to Iran. The last loan was approved in 2005 over our objection. Iran now is repaying the bank, receives no net disbursements from the bank. I believe the bank is fully complying with all UN resolutions in this context," he said.

PTI

US lauds India

 

[Sugarcane]

One day you are Jumping that we are not going to bow to US, Other day you are jumping that US is appreciating your efforts to tighten sanctions, What you really want to do

 

[Raje amar]

why are you so warried about whaat they say about India. indian forgin policies are formulated in New Delhi not in Washington.
US just want to creat confusion between Ind & Iran,

 

[BATMAN]

This thread is already posted:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ery-supportive-sanctions-against-iran-us.html

Yet again, Indians seaming deliberately.

 

[VelocuR]

Because Saudi Arabia and India recently had important meeting to start a fresh relations to the high levels.

 

[lem34]

This is excellent white man giving a pat on the back to Indian proxies. Excellent makes Indians happy.

One day you are Jumping that we are not going to bow to US, Other day you are jumping that US is appreciating your efforts to tighten sanctions, What you really want to do

They want to be proxy for west.

Because Saudi Arabia and India recently had important meeting to start a fresh relations to the high levels.

Yep Americans sent both Indian and Saud proxies instructions that's why.

 

[Rig Vedic]

This is excellent white man giving a pat on the back to Indian proxies. Excellent makes Indians happy.

Even today, India is buying much more oil from Iran than Pakistan is, that too without using US dollars for payment.

And it is not India who is the major non-NATO ally.

 

[Sugarcane]

Even today, India is buying much more oil from Iran than Pakistan is, that too without using US dollars for payment.

And it is not India who is the major non-NATO ally.

 

[JAT BALWAN]

Americans actually trolling a lot these days...

India is in no position to abandon Iran... but US want India in her side any how to side Iran in the corner...
They surly showing the threat of China to India but India is now not a new born nation ... so they are playing fault ...

 

[karan21]

Yep well you will note Americans killed our soldiers on the border cos they are our allies yea rite?? America allows Indians to have several consulates in Afghanistan and wants India to be their regional proxy to contain China and Iran

we r not containing iran. our 80 member buisness team that went to iran prolly talked to to them abt the issue. i am sure they told the iranians that we will quietly support us on the sanctions, but on the other hand also keep buying their oil and increase trade to next level. there is definitely something cooking btw iran ans india.

 

[lem34]

Ok Indians learn from your former ambassador to Russia this is what he has had to say whether you are America poodle or not. Please read you may learn something
Mr M K Bhadrakumar a former Indian respected diplomat stated:

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad


Francis Fukuyama wrote a sequel to his celebrated book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) no sooner than he realised that he was hopelessly wrong in his prediction that the global triumph of political and economic liberalism was at hand. He wrote: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the crossing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such… That is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western democracy as the final form of human government.” But in no time he realised his rush to judgment and he retracted with another book.

However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting ‘non-alignment’ in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumaya’s own retraction.

Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a ‘Russia option’ again and Boris Yeltsin’s Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ‘ally’ of the west — and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?

In sum, India got entrapped in a ‘unipolar predicament’. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that India’s main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the US’s “attention”.

Russia, of course, went on to prove our pundits completely wrong. Russia remerged as a global player and the evidence of it is today spread (and is poised to expand) all across global theatres — Libya, Syria, Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc.
Why I am underscoring all this is that I am strongly reminded of that sad chapter in the recent history of India’s foreign policy when I see the huge ‘psywar’ being let loose on Pakistan currently when that country too is at a crossroads with regard to its future policy directions in a highly volatile external enviornment.

In Pakistan’s case, the ‘psywar’ substitutes Russia with China. The US’s ‘Track II’ thesis is that China is hopelessly marooned in its own malaise so much so that it has no time, interest or resources to come to Pakistan’s aid, the two countries’ ‘all-weather friendship’ notwithstanding. Let me cull out two fine pieces of this ongoing ‘psywar’.

One is the lengthy article featured by America’s prestigious flag-carrier Foreign Affairs magazine in early December titled “China’s Pakistan conundrum”. Its argument is: ‘China will not simply bail out Pakistan with loans, investment, and aid, as those watching the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations seem to expect. China will pursue politics, security, and geopolitical advantage regardless of Islamabad’s preferences’. It puts forth the invidious argument that China’s real use for Pakistan is only to “box out New Delhi in Afghanistan and the broader region.”

Alongside the argument is the highly-tendentious vector that is beyond easy verification, namely, that US and China are increasingly ‘coordinating’ their policies toward Pakistan. Diplomacy is part dissimulation and we simply don’t know whether the US and China are even anywhere near beginning to ‘coordinate’ about ‘coordinating’ their regional policies in South Asia, especially with regard to Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The odds are that while the US and China may have some limited convergent interests, conceivably, their strategic interests are most certainly in sharp conflict.

A milder version of this frontal attack by US pundits on Pakistan’s existential dilemma appears in Michael Krepon’s article last week titled ‘Pakistan’s Patrons’, which, curiously, counsels Islamabad to follow India’s foreign-policy footsteps and make up with the US. Krepon literally suggests that the Pakistanis are living in a fool’s paradise.

The obvious thrust of this ‘psywar’ — strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s — is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real ‘China option’. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad — unlike their Indian counterparts — are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a ‘unipolar predicament’, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.

Thus, the visit by the Chinese delegation led by State Councilor, Dai Bingguo to Islamabad at this point in time assumes much significance. Dai is one of the highest-ranking figures in the Chinese foreign-policy establishment and the fact he is leading a delegation that includes of senior Chinese military officials is very significant. Dai is scheduled to meet not only Pakistan’s political leadership at the highest level but also army chief Ashfaq Kayani and ISI head Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

Obviously, Beijing is making a big point through the timing of this visit as well, which, incidentally, is taking place at a time of great uncertainties in Pakistan’s internal affairs. When it comes to relations with China, it must be assumed that Pakistan’s civil and military leaderships are together.

Dai doesn’t really have a US counterpart as he is ranked above the FM. Arguably, it would be secretary of state Hillary Clinton. If so, to what extent Dai ‘coordinated’ his proposed visit with Clinton will be of particular interest. The future of the US’s ‘psywar’ on Pakistan is at stake.

The big question is whether this would be Dai’s last major trip to South Asia, as he is a key member of President Hu Jintao’s team and China is moving into a period of transition at the leadership level. Dai’s visit to Delhi for the Special Representatives meet was called off at the last minute.
Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.



By M K Bhadrakumar – December 23, 2011

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad -

Now read that India is an American poodle and Pakistan is not. That's why we get so much anti Pakistani rhetoric from American Zionist press and Indians don't

 

[lem34]

For my Iranian brothers please try to read the article below. It exposes Indians for what they really are. It is not a short term policy for them to be proxy of America but long term. Does America allow Pakistan or Iran to have several consulates in Afghanistan even though we have borders?? No but they do to India. Simply Indians are a timid and subservient lot who are scared of China attacking them and they want to bend for Americans and Israelis so they will get support against China because border issues not resolved. Also when we had Kargill problem the Israelis assisted them

Ok Indians learn from your former ambassador to Russia this is what he has had to say whether you are America poodle or not. Please read you may learn something
Mr M K Bhadrakumar a former Indian respected diplomat stated:

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad


Francis Fukuyama wrote a sequel to his celebrated book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) no sooner than he realised that he was hopelessly wrong in his prediction that the global triumph of political and economic liberalism was at hand. He wrote: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the crossing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such… That is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western democracy as the final form of human government.” But in no time he realised his rush to judgment and he retracted with another book.

However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting ‘non-alignment’ in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumaya’s own retraction.

Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a ‘Russia option’ again and Boris Yeltsin’s Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ‘ally’ of the west — and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?

In sum, India got entrapped in a ‘unipolar predicament’. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that India’s main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the US’s “attention”.

Russia, of course, went on to prove our pundits completely wrong. Russia remerged as a global player and the evidence of it is today spread (and is poised to expand) all across global theatres — Libya, Syria, Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc.
Why I am underscoring all this is that I am strongly reminded of that sad chapter in the recent history of India’s foreign policy when I see the huge ‘psywar’ being let loose on Pakistan currently when that country too is at a crossroads with regard to its future policy directions in a highly volatile external enviornment.

In Pakistan’s case, the ‘psywar’ substitutes Russia with China. The US’s ‘Track II’ thesis is that China is hopelessly marooned in its own malaise so much so that it has no time, interest or resources to come to Pakistan’s aid, the two countries’ ‘all-weather friendship’ notwithstanding. Let me cull out two fine pieces of this ongoing ‘psywar’.

One is the lengthy article featured by America’s prestigious flag-carrier Foreign Affairs magazine in early December titled “China’s Pakistan conundrum”. Its argument is: ‘China will not simply bail out Pakistan with loans, investment, and aid, as those watching the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations seem to expect. China will pursue politics, security, and geopolitical advantage regardless of Islamabad’s preferences’. It puts forth the invidious argument that China’s real use for Pakistan is only to “box out New Delhi in Afghanistan and the broader region.”

Alongside the argument is the highly-tendentious vector that is beyond easy verification, namely, that US and China are increasingly ‘coordinating’ their policies toward Pakistan. Diplomacy is part dissimulation and we simply don’t know whether the US and China are even anywhere near beginning to ‘coordinate’ about ‘coordinating’ their regional policies in South Asia, especially with regard to Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The odds are that while the US and China may have some limited convergent interests, conceivably, their strategic interests are most certainly in sharp conflict.

A milder version of this frontal attack by US pundits on Pakistan’s existential dilemma appears in Michael Krepon’s article last week titled ‘Pakistan’s Patrons’, which, curiously, counsels Islamabad to follow India’s foreign-policy footsteps and make up with the US. Krepon literally suggests that the Pakistanis are living in a fool’s paradise.

The obvious thrust of this ‘psywar’ — strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s — is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real ‘China option’. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad — unlike their Indian counterparts — are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a ‘unipolar predicament’, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.

Thus, the visit by the Chinese delegation led by State Councilor, Dai Bingguo to Islamabad at this point in time assumes much significance. Dai is one of the highest-ranking figures in the Chinese foreign-policy establishment and the fact he is leading a delegation that includes of senior Chinese military officials is very significant. Dai is scheduled to meet not only Pakistan’s political leadership at the highest level but also army chief Ashfaq Kayani and ISI head Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

Obviously, Beijing is making a big point through the timing of this visit as well, which, incidentally, is taking place at a time of great uncertainties in Pakistan’s internal affairs. When it comes to relations with China, it must be assumed that Pakistan’s civil and military leaderships are together.

Dai doesn’t really have a US counterpart as he is ranked above the FM. Arguably, it would be secretary of state Hillary Clinton. If so, to what extent Dai ‘coordinated’ his proposed visit with Clinton will be of particular interest. The future of the US’s ‘psywar’ on Pakistan is at stake.

The big question is whether this would be Dai’s last major trip to South Asia, as he is a key member of President Hu Jintao’s team and China is moving into a period of transition at the leadership level. Dai’s visit to Delhi for the Special Representatives meet was called off at the last minute.
Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.



By M K Bhadrakumar – December 23, 2011

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad -

Now read that India is an American poodle and Pakistan is not. That's why we get so much anti Pakistani rhetoric from American Zionist press and Indians don't

 

[lem34]

Post reported for off topic rants...The topic was India's stance on Iran sanctions and US's response to that..

It may be beyond you as the response was more than two lines but my post encapsulated Indian policy towards Americans which is Indians want to be proxy. Which means they can never be allied to Iran. I didn't realise you couldn't add 2 plus 2. Clearly mos will ignore your report.

 

[lem34]

Ok Indians learn from your former ambassador to Russia this is what he has had to say whether you are America poodle or not. Please read you may learn something
Mr M K Bhadrakumar a former Indian respected diplomat stated:

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad


Francis Fukuyama wrote a sequel to his celebrated book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) no sooner than he realised that he was hopelessly wrong in his prediction that the global triumph of political and economic liberalism was at hand. He wrote: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the crossing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such… That is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western democracy as the final form of human government.” But in no time he realised his rush to judgment and he retracted with another book.

However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting ‘non-alignment’ in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumaya’s own retraction.

Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a ‘Russia option’ again and Boris Yeltsin’s Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ‘ally’ of the west — and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?

In sum, India got entrapped in a ‘unipolar predicament’. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that India’s main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the US’s “attention”.

Russia, of course, went on to prove our pundits completely wrong. Russia remerged as a global player and the evidence of it is today spread (and is poised to expand) all across global theatres — Libya, Syria, Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc.
Why I am underscoring all this is that I am strongly reminded of that sad chapter in the recent history of India’s foreign policy when I see the huge ‘psywar’ being let loose on Pakistan currently when that country too is at a crossroads with regard to its future policy directions in a highly volatile external enviornment.

In Pakistan’s case, the ‘psywar’ substitutes Russia with China. The US’s ‘Track II’ thesis is that China is hopelessly marooned in its own malaise so much so that it has no time, interest or resources to come to Pakistan’s aid, the two countries’ ‘all-weather friendship’ notwithstanding. Let me cull out two fine pieces of this ongoing ‘psywar’.

One is the lengthy article featured by America’s prestigious flag-carrier Foreign Affairs magazine in early December titled “China’s Pakistan conundrum”. Its argument is: ‘China will not simply bail out Pakistan with loans, investment, and aid, as those watching the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations seem to expect. China will pursue politics, security, and geopolitical advantage regardless of Islamabad’s preferences’. It puts forth the invidious argument that China’s real use for Pakistan is only to “box out New Delhi in Afghanistan and the broader region.”

Alongside the argument is the highly-tendentious vector that is beyond easy verification, namely, that US and China are increasingly ‘coordinating’ their policies toward Pakistan. Diplomacy is part dissimulation and we simply don’t know whether the US and China are even anywhere near beginning to ‘coordinate’ about ‘coordinating’ their regional policies in South Asia, especially with regard to Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The odds are that while the US and China may have some limited convergent interests, conceivably, their strategic interests are most certainly in sharp conflict.

A milder version of this frontal attack by US pundits on Pakistan’s existential dilemma appears in Michael Krepon’s article last week titled ‘Pakistan’s Patrons’, which, curiously, counsels Islamabad to follow India’s foreign-policy footsteps and make up with the US. Krepon literally suggests that the Pakistanis are living in a fool’s paradise.

The obvious thrust of this ‘psywar’ — strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s — is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real ‘China option’. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad — unlike their Indian counterparts — are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a ‘unipolar predicament’, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.

Thus, the visit by the Chinese delegation led by State Councilor, Dai Bingguo to Islamabad at this point in time assumes much significance. Dai is one of the highest-ranking figures in the Chinese foreign-policy establishment and the fact he is leading a delegation that includes of senior Chinese military officials is very significant. Dai is scheduled to meet not only Pakistan’s political leadership at the highest level but also army chief Ashfaq Kayani and ISI head Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

Obviously, Beijing is making a big point through the timing of this visit as well, which, incidentally, is taking place at a time of great uncertainties in Pakistan’s internal affairs. When it comes to relations with China, it must be assumed that Pakistan’s civil and military leaderships are together.

Dai doesn’t really have a US counterpart as he is ranked above the FM. Arguably, it would be secretary of state Hillary Clinton. If so, to what extent Dai ‘coordinated’ his proposed visit with Clinton will be of particular interest. The future of the US’s ‘psywar’ on Pakistan is at stake.

The big question is whether this would be Dai’s last major trip to South Asia, as he is a key member of President Hu Jintao’s team and China is moving into a period of transition at the leadership level. Dai’s visit to Delhi for the Special Representatives meet was called off at the last minute.
Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.



By M K Bhadrakumar – December 23, 2011

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad -

Now read that India is an American poodle and Pakistan is not. That's why we get so much anti Pakistani rhetoric from American Zionist press and Indians don't

Clearly Mods don't regard this post above that shows India to be an American proxy therefore supportive of America over Iran maybe you can now read the article??

 

[karan21]

It may be beyond you as the response was more than two lines but my post encapsulated Indian policy towards Americans which is Indians want to be proxy. Which means they can never be allied to Iran. I didn't realise you couldn't add 2 plus 2. Clearly mos will ignore your report.

if india can maintain relation with 2 former superpowers at the same times, maintaining relations with iran and america should be a piece of cake for us. anyways all our leaders have done is made obama fell that we support them, our actual motives could be very different. afterall support of us is not the food of life, but oil from iran is. another nicely structured diplomacy by india.

i am waiting from iran to give a statement on the issue. if they dont come out with any statement, means iran already knew that we will give hypothetical support to america.