India expresses interest in investing US$20 billion in Iran

According to an IRNA report, India has shown interest in investing up to US$20 billion in Iran. This was expressed by Indian Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

He made these remarks during Iran-India Business Round Table which was held in New Delhi. He expressed India was willing to invest in Iran’s southeastern port of Chabahar. He said his country would make such an investment ‘if conditions become conducive’.
 Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, senior managers from Iranian and Indian chambers of commerce, banks, and other sectors including industry, trade, and science attended the business forum.

Pradhan also said that the two countries can increase bilateral oil and gas trade. He, in addition, showed his country’s willingness to participate in the development of Iranian Farzad-B gas field in the Persian Gulf.

During the meeting, the chairman of Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture, Gholam-Hossein Shafei, said the current level of bilateral trade is not proportional to potentialities, saying that the value of trade can reach US$30 billion in the future.

Shafei underlined that possessing huge energy resources, the Islamic Republic can act as a reliable source to meet India’s need for energy.

He also mentioned transportation sector as one of the possible fields of cooperation between the two countries, adding that the recently signed trilateral agreement between Iran, Afghanistan, and India to develop the Iranian port of Chabahar can change Iran into the region’s transportation hub.

Highlighting the significance of Chabahar port in the expansion of Iran-India relations, the Iranian foreign minister noted that the port can be beneficial not only to Iran but also to all other regional countries.
Referring to the importance of banking relations as the backbone of economic ties between the two countries, Zarif expressed hope that relations would continue developing in the future.

On the first leg of his three-nation tour of Asia, Zarif arrived in New Delhi to take part in the Heart of Asia Conference on the situation in Afghanistan and also to hold talks with high-ranking Indian officials.

Iranian foreign minister is accompanied by a 70-member high ranking politico economic delegation who will take part in trade and business meetings with India, China, and Japan. 

US foreign policy to be driven by love for Israel

According to Reuters report, the United States is likely to review its ties with countries it deems ‘anti-Israel’. It can be termed a shift in policy toward equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Earlier in March, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo had said in a speech that anti-Zionism - opposition to Israel’s existence as a homeland for the Jewish people - was a form of anti-Semitism, or hostility toward Jews, that was on the rise worldwide and that Washington would “fight it relentlessly”.

The State Department’s special envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism, Elan Carr, said this US position could spell reviews of ties with foreign governments or leaders.

“The United States is willing to review its relationship with any country, and certainly anti-Semitism on the part of a country with whom we have relations is a deep concern,” he told Reuters during a visit to Israel.

“I will be raising that issue in bilateral meetings that I am undertaking all over the world,” he said. “That is something we are going to have frank and candid conversations about - behind closed doors.”

Carr declined to cite specific countries or leaders, or to elaborate on what actions the Trump administration might take.

“I obviously can’t comment on diplomatic tools that we might bring to bear,” he said. “Each country is a different diplomatic challenge, a different situation, number one. And number two, if I started disclosing what we might do it would be less effective.”

Some US political analysts say that President Donald Trump and other Republicans hope support for Israel will attract Jewish voters, including those disaffected by pro-Palestinian voices within progressive Democratic Party circles.

At the same time, critics have credited Trump’s confrontational, nationalistic rhetoric with encouraging right-wing extremists and feeding a surge in activity by American hate groups. The administration has flatly rejected that charge.

Carr said the administration’s equating of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism “certainly breaks new ground ... by making clear that something that a lot of us who are involved in the Jewish world and a lot of us who are proponents of a strong US-Israel relationship have known for quite some time, and that is that one of the chief flavors of anti-Semitism in the world today is the flavor that conceals itself under anti-Zionism”.

Turkey terms US sanctions against Iran ‘blatant violation of international laws’

Dr. Osman Faruk Logoglu, a senior member of Turkey’s Republican People's Party, condemning the US move to force his country to buy oil from Saudi Arabia and UAE instead of Iran has termed the move “flagrant violation of international law and sovereignty of nations to trade freely.”

In continuation of the US hostile policies against the Iranian nation, the White House recently decided not to reissue waivers on Iranian oil after these expire in early May. The statement went on to say that the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have pledged to ensure that the global market will have sufficient oil supply following Washington's decision to terminate sanctions waivers for countries importing Iranian oil.

Logoglu said, “The sanctions are illegal because these have been imposed unilaterally without a mandate from the UN Security Council or by any other authorized body.”  He also said, that the US was certainly not entitled to import Iranian oil or goods itself but has no right to stop others from engaging in what is legal and proper.  

Logoglu was of the opinion that the US effort to drive Iranian oil exports to zero is not possible.  There will certainly be buyers of Iranian oil who will not comply with US sanctions.  China has already declared that its trade with Iran is legal and normal.  Turkey has also taken a stance against the US move.

The US decision is not likely to bring peace and stability in the region, yet harm the Iranian people. Turkey has rejected unilateral sanctions and impositions on how to conduct relations with neighbors.  Iran's exports might be curtailed for some time in the near future, but in the longer run the volume of its exports could/should rise. Turkey expects adverse reactions to the US decision to grow in due course of time that could help Iran in selling more of its oil.

Logoglu said, “Iran is our neighbor.  We have a broad range of economic relations. Oil is one major element in the nexus of our ties with Iran.  The physical proximity is also an important asset as far as Iranian oil is concerned.   Given the state of our problematic relations with both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, there is no incentive for Turkey to buy oil from them.   

Logoglu, was very clear and said, “Even if Turkey reduces its oil imports from Iran and starts looking for other sources, the alternative for Turkey will be neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE.  Current conditions do not allow Turkey to turn in that direction.  In any case, the US is not in a position to dictate Turkey where it is to buy its oil from.”

What after pushing Iran out of oil market?

Many analysts believe that the decision of US President, Donald Trump to end the exemptions regarding buying Iranian crude oil is a double-edged sword. On one hand, he doesn’t want oil prices to go up and on the other hand he is adamant at pushing Iran out of oil market. It appears that like past; this time too, the US would succeed in luring Saudi Arabia to exploit the situation to its benefit. It is also believed that stringent sanctions on Iran can take both Saudi Arabia and the oil market into the unchartered waters. To read details click http://www.pakistaneconomist.com/2019/04/29/what-after-pushing-iran-out-of-oil-market/

United States adamant at imposing war on Iran

According to a Reuters report, Chief of US Central Command, General Kenneth McKenzie has said that the United States would deploy the necessary resources to counter any dangerous actions by Iran.

“We’re gonna continue to reach out to our partners and friends in the region to ensure that we make common cause against the threat of Iran,” said McKenzie currently on an official visit to the Gulf region.

“I believe we’ll have the resources necessary to deter Iran from taking actions that will be dangerous. We will be able to respond effectively,” warned McKenzie.

Tensions between Tehran and Washington have risen since the Trump administration last year withdrew from an international nuclear deal with Iran and began ratcheting up sanctions.

Earlier this month, the United States blacklisted Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards.

Washington has also demanded buyers of Iranian oil to stop purchases by May or face sanctions, ending six months of waivers which allowed Iran’s eight biggest buyers, most of them in Asia, to continue importing limited volumes.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and some senior military commanders have threatened to disrupt oil shipments from Gulf countries if Washington tries to strangle Tehran oil exports.

McKenzie also said he was confident that the U.S. is going to have “a long term presence in Iraq, focused on the counter-terror mission.”

On withdrawal of troops, McKenzie also said a reduction of US troops in Syria would be done cautiously. “On the long term, we’re gonna reduce our forces in Syria, we recognize that, that’s the guidance in which we are operating. That will be something that we will look at very carefully as we go forward,” the general said.

President Donald Trump had ordered withdrawal of the US troops Syria in December after claiming they (US troops) had defeated Islamic State militants in Syria. In February, a senior administration official said the United States will leave about 400 US troops split between two different regions of Syria.

Iran terms 1980 Tabas Desert operation 'historic US failure'

On 25th April, Iran marked 39th anniversary of a failed US military operation to free its embassy staff held in Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The military operation on April 25, 1980, had proved a fiasco for Washington, at that time Jimmy Carter was president of the United States. Iran commemorates the event every year as a symbol of the failure of US plots against the Islamic Republic.

A sandstorm hit and brought down the group of US military aircrafts in the Tabas Desert, killing eight American servicemen and resulting in the failure of the mission. Inspections showed a helicopter crashed into a C-130 Hercules transport plane as five other choppers were stranded in the storm. The units involved in the operation were from the US Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps.

President Rouhani pointed to Washington’s repeated failures against Iran over the past four decades, saying the historic US failure in Tabas was a divine miracle. He also said, “The Tabas incident was a great miracle from God which led to the failure of the Americans’ complicated military plot”.

“Every day over the last 40 years, the U.S. officials have been hatching a new plot against the Iranian people, but they have always failed and will fail again,” he stressed.

During the takeover of the embassy, documents were discovered that proved some of the American embassy staff had been working with US intelligence agencies, meaning they were spies. Some 52 Americans were held in Tehran for 444 days, but later released unharmed.

US likely to face ultimate defeat in Venezuela

Over the years, many of US analysts, politicians, academicians and media pundits have been predicting the imminent fall, overthrow, defeat and replacement of the Venezuelan government. They have been proven wrong on almost all the counts. In fact, most of the US induced regime change efforts have strengthened the support for the Chavez – Maduro government.

A more recent example is the proclamation of the US President that his country was prepared to invade Venezuela. His threat aroused massive popular resistance in defense of national independence, even among discontented sections of t population. Analysts say Venezuela has become the whirlpool of a global struggle which pits the imperial aspirations of Washington against an embattled Venezuela intent on defending its own. A question being asked, why Washington has failed?

The US assault on Venezuela’s state and society includes:

(a)  A military coup in 2002

(b)  A lockout by the executives of the Venezuelan oil company

(c)  The exercise of US political pressure via clients and allies in Europe, South and North America

(d)  Escalating economic sanctions between 2013 – 2019

(e)  Street violence during 2013 – 2019

(f)  Sabotage of the entire electrical system between 2017 -2019

(g)  Hoarding of goods via corporations and distributors from 2014 – 2019

(h)  Subversion of military and civilian institutions 2002 – 2019

(i)  Regional alliances to expel Venezuelan membership from regional organizations

(j)  Economic sanctions accompanied by the seizure of over $10 billion dollars of assets

(k)  Sanctions on the banking system

(l)   US direct intervention including selection and appointment of opposition leaders and ‘dummy’ representatives overseas.

In brief, the US has been engaged for two decades to bring down the Venezuelan government. It combines economic, military, social and media warfare. The US strategy has reduced living standards, undermined economic activity, increased poverty, forced immigration and surged crimes. Despite that the sole surviving super power has failed to dislodge the government and impose a client regime.

Despite the two decades of pressure by the world’s biggest imperial power, which led to the highest rate of inflation and despite the illegal seizure of billions of dollars of Venezuelan assets, the people remain loyal to their government. The reasons are clear and forthright.

The Venezuelan majority has a history of poverty, marginalization and repression, including the bloody massacre of thousands of protestors in 1989. Millions lived in shanty towns, excluded from higher education and health facilities. The US provided arms and advisers to buttress the politicians who now form the greater part of the US opposition to President Maduro. The US- oligarch alliance extracted billions of dollars from contracts from the oil industry.

The second reason for the defeat of the US is the long-term large-scale military support of the Chavez-Maduro governments. Former President Chavez instilled a powerful sense of nationalist loyalty among the military which resists and opposes US efforts to subvert the soldiers.

The Venezuelans government defeated the US-backed coups and lockouts, these victories encouraged the belief that the popular government could resist and defeat the US-oligarch opposition. Victories strengthened confidence in the will of the people.

The cumulative socio-economic benefits consolidate support for the Venezuelan leadership despite the hardships the US induced in recent times. The mass of the people have gained a new life and have a lot to lose if the US- oligarchy return to power. A successful US coup will likely massacre tens of thousands of popular supporters of the government. The bourgeoisie will take its revenge for those who have ruled and benefited at the expense of the rich.

The Venezuelan government retained mass electoral support because of the deep socio-economic changes that entrenched mass support in contrast to the center-left regimes in Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador which won three elections but were defeated by their right-wing opponents, including electoral partners, with a downturn in the economy, and the flight of middle-class voters and parties.

Venezuela linkages with allies in Russia, China and Cuba provided ‘life jackets’ of economic and military support in the face of US interventions, something the center- left governments failed to pursue. Venezuela built regional alliances with nearly half of South America, weakening US attempts to form a regional or US invasion force.