US warns India not to break Iran sanctions

[EjazR]

US warns India not to break Iran sanctions - Telegraph

Phillip J. Crowley, a spokesman for the US State Department, said it was for India to decide what individual measures it would take, but warned its security would be threatened if Iran became a nuclear power.

Mr Crowley said India had a responsibility to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. "This is about the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which will affect countries outside of the region, including India. So everyone has a responsibility to do what each country can to convince Iran to change its present course."

India has long-standing ties with Iran and has made a number of substantial investments in its oil and gas sectors. Its Congress-led government has said while it will honour UN sanctions against Iran, it favours dialogue and remains opposed to "unilateral" additional sanctions announced by the US and the European Union.

Last month, the EU and US announced a series of sanctions against Iran which were significantly tougher than those agreed by the UN days earlier. The EU announced sanctions against investments in and technology transfers to Iran's oil and gas industries, while the US banned American investments in Iranian firms.

India's foreign secretary said India opposed any actions which go beyond the UN resolutions.

"Unilateral sanctions recently imposed by individual countries, with their restrictions on investment by third countries in Iran's energy sector, can have a direct and adverse impact on Indian companies and more importantly, on our energy security and our attempts to meet the development needs of our people," she said.

 

[somebozo]

Covertly, isnt it India which is collaborating with Iran for its nuke and space ambitions?

 

[superhero]

Ok lets do it this way. Lets get our deals done with US. Ask Iran to be on hold. Once we are done Iran can go ahead and we can be brothers in arms. No way US can be friend. Iran is way much better for our security then US. we have seen what US does to his friends.

 

[LURKER]

Covertly, isnt it India which is collaborating with Iran for its nuke and space ambitions?

by defying them space launch their satellite by ISRO



care to provide more info how india has helped iran to get nukes . on the contrary it is ur A.Q. Khan who is accused of selling nuke tech to iran.

 

[TruthSeeker]

"Unilateral sanctions recently imposed by individual countries, with their restrictions on investment by third countries in Iran's energy sector, can have a direct and adverse impact on Indian companies and more importantly, on our energy security and our attempts to meet the development needs of our people," she said.

Duh..... that's why they are called "sanctions". India can make the "unilateral" decision to ignore the "unilateral sanctions" of others. India is a big guy now. It can choose its friends and its enemies.

 

[EjazR]

India not yielding on Iran

July 14--NEW DELHI -- India's 'differences' with the United States over Iran's nuclear programme have deepened following New Delhi's insistence that its position on the issue would not change. New Delhi has made it clear to Washington that it would continue to support the right of all countries to pursue peaceful use of nuclear energy in conformity with their international obligations.

India's response comes following the US assertion that Iran's nuclear programme would have implications outside the Middle East, including India, and Washington hopes that New Delhi would take steps to enforce UN sanctions, and would also convince Teheran to give up its pursuit of 'nuclear weapons.'

US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley has said that the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which will affect countries outside of the region, including India, has become real.

Crowley said: "Everyone has a responsibility to do what each country can to convince Iran to change its present course," adding that the US will "leave it to India to describe what steps it is going to take". However, New Delhi doesn't seem to be changing its mind on the issue, and has conveyed the US that 'all concerned should adopt a flexible approach to achieve a comprehensive solution.'

India has always supported dialogue and avoidance of confrontation over Iran's nuclear programme, said India's Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao.

Rao said that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues to provide the best framework for addressing technical issues related to the Iranian nuclear programme. "We are justifiably concerned that the extra-territorial nature of certain unilateral sanctions recently imposed by individual countries, with their restrictions on investment by third countries in Iran's energy sector, can have a direct and adverse impact on Indian companies and more importantly, on our energy security and our attempts to meet the development needs of our people," she said.

"Our position on the issue has been consistent. If we (India and Iran) consider the specific areas, where our interests converge and potential for cooperation is the greatest, the most important is 'regional stability'. India and Iran shared a common border till 1947. We have both long suffered from the threat of transnational terrorism emanating from beyond our borders," Rao said. She said India's vision of Afghanistan, as a hub for economic activity, trade and transit linking South and Central Asia is shared by Iran.

India, like Iran, is supportive of the efforts of the Afghan government and people to build a democratic, pluralistic and peaceful Afghanistan, she pointed out.

"We need to move beyond mere articulation of positions as the Afghan conundrum deepens and could have a deleterious impact on our two countries and the region in case the forces of extremism and obscurantism are made arbiters of the fate of the Afghan people. Our cooperation and information sharing on counter-terrorism must be the subject of more intensive focus and attention in the future," Rao said.

Foreign policy analysts have suggested that it is obvious for India to maintain a steady relation with Iran. "Iran is a country extremely important to India from the perspective of energy security," veteran strategic analyst Brahma Chellany said. New Delhi has often talked about having a "natural complementarity" between the needs of energy-hungry India, which is economically growing at a rate of 8-10 per cent, and Iran which is home to proven oil reserves and gas reserves.

New Delhi has already favoured Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI); Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, and some undersea pipeline projects much to the dismay of the US. Washington has not only objected to these projects, where India has taken keen initiative, but also officially urged New Delhi to detest itself from undertaking the tasks.

Rao said that these projects, if realised, have the potential of making Iran an important element of a large energy corridor stretching from Central Asia to India. India has repeatedly made it clear that accessing energy resources from all parts of the world is absolutely critical to the continued growth of its economy and Iran has the potential to play an important role in this regard.

 

[Ras]

India not yielding on Iran

July 14--NEW DELHI -- India's 'differences' with the United States over Iran's nuclear programme have deepened following New Delhi's insistence that its position on the issue would not change. New Delhi has made it clear to Washington that it would continue to support the right of all countries to pursue peaceful use of nuclear energy in conformity with their international obligations.

India's response comes following the US assertion that Iran's nuclear programme would have implications outside the Middle East, including India, and Washington hopes that New Delhi would take steps to enforce UN sanctions, and would also convince Teheran to give up its pursuit of 'nuclear weapons.'

US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley has said that the danger of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which will affect countries outside of the region, including India, has become real.

Crowley said: "Everyone has a responsibility to do what each country can to convince Iran to change its present course," adding that the US will "leave it to India to describe what steps it is going to take". However, New Delhi doesn't seem to be changing its mind on the issue, and has conveyed the US that 'all concerned should adopt a flexible approach to achieve a comprehensive solution.'

India has always supported dialogue and avoidance of confrontation over Iran's nuclear programme, said India's Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao.

Rao said that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues to provide the best framework for addressing technical issues related to the Iranian nuclear programme. "We are justifiably concerned that the extra-territorial nature of certain unilateral sanctions recently imposed by individual countries, with their restrictions on investment by third countries in Iran's energy sector, can have a direct and adverse impact on Indian companies and more importantly, on our energy security and our attempts to meet the development needs of our people," she said.

"Our position on the issue has been consistent. If we (India and Iran) consider the specific areas, where our interests converge and potential for cooperation is the greatest, the most important is 'regional stability'. India and Iran shared a common border till 1947. We have both long suffered from the threat of transnational terrorism emanating from beyond our borders," Rao said. She said India's vision of Afghanistan, as a hub for economic activity, trade and transit linking South and Central Asia is shared by Iran.

India, like Iran, is supportive of the efforts of the Afghan government and people to build a democratic, pluralistic and peaceful Afghanistan, she pointed out.

"We need to move beyond mere articulation of positions as the Afghan conundrum deepens and could have a deleterious impact on our two countries and the region in case the forces of extremism and obscurantism are made arbiters of the fate of the Afghan people. Our cooperation and information sharing on counter-terrorism must be the subject of more intensive focus and attention in the future," Rao said.

Foreign policy analysts have suggested that it is obvious for India to maintain a steady relation with Iran. "Iran is a country extremely important to India from the perspective of energy security," veteran strategic analyst Brahma Chellany said. New Delhi has often talked about having a "natural complementarity" between the needs of energy-hungry India, which is economically growing at a rate of 8-10 per cent, and Iran which is home to proven oil reserves and gas reserves.

New Delhi has already favoured Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI); Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, and some undersea pipeline projects much to the dismay of the US. Washington has not only objected to these projects, where India has taken keen initiative, but also officially urged New Delhi to detest itself from undertaking the tasks.

Rao said that these projects, if realised, have the potential of making Iran an important element of a large energy corridor stretching from Central Asia to India. India has repeatedly made it clear that accessing energy resources from all parts of the world is absolutely critical to the continued growth of its economy and Iran has the potential to play an important role in this regard.

All talk...when push comes to shove Iran will not even be looked at.

 

[DesiGuy]

I wonder for long can India seriously support both sides. They might have to chose one side in future.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India and Iran shared a common border till 1947.

BS, the modern Indian State came into existence in 1947 - it shared no common border with Iran.

The British colony of India shared a border with Iran, but that entity no longer exists.

The territories comprising Pakistan and the peoples of Pakistan are the ones that have 'shared a border with Iran' over millenia.

Anyways, back to topic.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

All talk...when push comes to shove Iran will not even be looked at.

Yep - this is all bluster by the Indians intended for the Iranian audience in pursuit of Iranian support against Pakistan regionally, specifically in Afghanistan, as everyone scrambles to keep their options open with a perceived imminent US/NATO withdrawal.

Indian investments in Iran and Afghanistan are primarily for one purpose alone - countering Pakistan.

 

[gubbi]

The territories comprising Pakistan and the peoples of Pakistan are the ones that have 'shared a border with Iran' over millenia.

And pray, what political entity did those 'territories' belong to even before the British came to India?
And you say India came in 'existence' only in 1947? Wow, you are so contradicting yourself!

Yep - this is all bluster by the Indians intended for the Iranian audience in pursuit of Iranian support against Pakistan regionally, specifically in Afghanistan, as everyone scrambles to keep their options open with a perceived imminent US/NATO withdrawal.

Indian investments in Iran and Afghanistan are primarily for one purpose alone - countering Pakistan.

If thats what you want to believe, then sure, it is. Sorry, but your viewpoint ain't gonna change any reality.

India and Iran have long standing trade relations. Iranian students have been welcome in India to study in various universities, we had a few in our university. Indo-Iranian relations and cultural exchanges date from a period long before the concept of Pakistan was even realized.

 

[gubbi]

I wonder for long can India seriously support both sides. They might have to chose one side in future.

There is not choosing sides here. We look after our interests and if that demands good relations with both countries at the same time, so shall it be, whether US or Iran like it or not.

India was always officially non-aligned. It was US which, by propping up Pakistan, pushed India towards the erstwhile SU. US didnt want to have good relations with India then, but ultimately they had to do a turnabout.

 

[TruthSeeker]

India was always officially non-aligned. It was US which, by propping up Pakistan, pushed India towards the erstwhile SU. US didnt want to have good relations with India then, but ultimately they had to do a turnabout.

The US wanted to have good relations with India. It was India's xenophobia, a fear of US domination replacing British colonialsm, that drove India to be not just non-aligned, but aggressively non-aligned and given to poking a stick in Uncle Sam's eye at the UN and elsewhere whenever India could. And the turnabout is India's turnabout. India finally allowed foreign businesses, including US businesses, to operate in India with reasonable conditions. This is what has allowed India to attract foreign capital and commerce. The USA was always there willing to be India's friend. India was the one who wanted no western friends.

 

[Honor]

The US wanted to have good relations with India. It was India's xenophobia, a fear of US domination replacing British colonialsm, that drove India to be not just non-aligned, but aggressively non-aligned and given to poking a stick in Uncle Sam's eye at the UN and elsewhere whenever India could. And the turnabout is India's turnabout. India finally allowed foreign businesses, including US businesses, to operate in India with reasonable conditions. This is what has allowed India to attract foreign capital and commerce. The USA was always there willing to be India's friend. India was the one who wanted no western friends.

American trying to tell some country off again!

 

[karan.1970]

Covertly, isnt it India which is collaborating with Iran for its nuke and space ambitions?

No..........