Abandon Iran gas line, US tells Pakistan

On the positive side, the pipeline will make a nice, vivid gaslamp once we or the Israelis knock out their power infrastructure and nuke facilities.

Quoting a senior official, the newspaper said that the government could not take a decision on the issue off the cuff as it required time to completely study the pros and cons of the project first.

CONS: 1. Petro-wealth to the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism. 2. Increased energy dependence on a terrorist regime. 3. Economic alliances forming between Pakistan (a state progressing nicely) with Iran (a state out of step with the community of democratic nations). 4. May infringe on the IRAN-Libya sanctions ACT.

PROS: 1. Hmmmmm. 2. Still thinking. 3. Drawing a blank here...

FACT SHEET: THE IRAN AND LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996 (Imposes new sanctions on foreign companies) August 6, 1996

Washington -- A White House Fact Sheet says the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 imposes new sanctions on foreign companies that engage in specified economic transactions with Iran or Libya. The bill sanctions foreign companies that provide new investments over $40 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. The bill also sanctions foreign companies that violate existing U.N. prohibitions against trade with Libya in certain goods and services such as arms, certain oil equipment, and civil aviation services. Following is the official text of a fact sheet from the White House:

FACT SHEET: THE IRAN AND LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996

President Clinton has led the fight against terrorism [really?] and will continue to take measures to further pressure and punish states that support it. Purpose: The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 imposes new sanctions on foreign companies that engage in specified economic transactions with Iran or Libya. It is intended to:

-- Help deny Iran and Libya revenues that could be used to finance international terrorism;

-- Limit the flow of resources necessary to obtain weapons of mass destruction; and,

-- Put pressure on Libya to comply with U.N. resolutions that, among other things, call for Libya to extradite for trial the accused perpetrators of the Pan Am 103 bombing.

The Sanctions: The bill sanctions foreign companies that provide new investments over $40 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. The bill also sanctions foreign companies that violate existing U.N. prohibitions against trade with Libya in certain goods and services such as arms, certain oil equipment, and civil aviation services. If a violation occurs, President Clinton is to impose two out of seven possible sanctions against the violating company. These sanctions include:

-- denial of Export-Import Bank assistance;

-- denial of export licenses for exports to the violating company;

-- prohibition on loans or credits from U.S. financial institutions of over $10 million in any 12-month period;

-- prohibition on designation as a primary dealer for U.S. government debt instruments;

-- prohibition on serving as an agent of the United States or as a repository for U.S. government funds;

-- denial of U.S. government procurement opportunities (consistent with WTO obligations); and

-- a ban on all or some imports of the violating company.

This Bill is Another Step in U.S. Efforts to Enforce Compliance:

-- prohibition on serving as an agent of the United States or as a repository for U.S. government funds;

-- denial of U.S. government procurement opportunities (consistent with WTO obligations); and

-- a ban on all or some imports of the violating company.

This Bill is Another Step in U.S. Efforts to Enforce Compliance from Iran and Libya:

-- In 1984, Iran was placed on the list of states that support international terrorism, triggering statutory sanctions that prohibit weapons sales, oppose all loans to Iran from international financial institutions, and prohibit all assistance to Iran.

-- In 1987, the U.S. further prohibited the importation of any goods or services from Iran and U.S. naval and air forces struck Iranian naval units on several occasions in response to Iranian efforts to disrupt the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf with naval mines and missile attacks.

-- In 1995, President Clinton imposed comprehensive sanctions on Iran, prohibiting all commercial and financial transactions with Iran.

-- In January 1986, the United States imposed comprehensive sanctions against Libya that froze Libyan assets, and banned all trade and financial dealings with Libya. Two months later, U.S. Air Force and Navy jets bombed Libyan targets in retaliation for Libyan terrorist attacks on Americans in Europe.

-- In March 1992, the U.S. supported the imposition of sanction against Libya which prohibited the export of petroleum, military or aviation equipment to Libya; prohibited commercial flights to or from Libya; limited Libyan diplomatic representation abroad; and restricted Libyan financial activities.

-- In addition, the United States has worked with our allies to further isolate Libya both internationally and within the Middle East and to develop new methods to pressure Qadhafi to comply with the U.N. Security Council Resolutions directed at Libya.

(end text) NNNN

"Economic alliances forming between Pakistan (a state progressing nicely)......."

Progressing nicely?? You must be out of your mind. If Pakistan is progressing anywhere, its progressing steadily towards destruction.

Progressing nicely?? You must be out of your mind. If Pakistan is progressing anywhere, its progressing steadily towards destruction.

The days of Pakistani intel support for the Afghan Taleban are over for obvious reasons. The A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network has been shut down. Although the government could do more to take steps to prevent terror against Indians, steps were taken to cool relations during the latest earthquake. Maybe it's an overstatement but the situation with respect to Pakistan is improving.

Do you have examples as to why you believe the situation is degrading?

The A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network has been shut down And the moon is made up of whipped cream.

"The A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network has been shut down And the moon is made up of whipped cream."

The network was exposed when Libya turned over its nuclear program, as Iran should do. The AQ Khan "evidence" led to the disruption of proliferation activities all over the world, most notably Iran's involvement in clandestine nuclear development.

Now, I've never been to the moon, so if you have, and you think it was made of whipped cream... more power to you. If your intent was sarcasm, come up with a reason why you think I'm wrong.

Iran is a state sponsor of terror... the U.S. is building a democratic consensus against Iran. Pakistan's situation is improving and it would make more political and financial sense for Pakistan to join with the community of free nations to achieve economic success. Iran on the other hand is headed for self destruction.

Do you have anything to add???

The "A.Q.Khan network" is maade up of Pakistani military officials, all of whom are still free. Several reports in 2005 indicate that the Pakistanis are still procuring material thru the network. Pakistan is still a basketcase that is headed for destruction and balkanization thanks to its continued support of terror and nuclear proliferation. Indeed as Musharraf recently noted, he is viewed as the only non-terrorist in a terrorist state. I cannot sum it up better than Musharraf.

"The A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network has been shut down."

According to whome? ...the Pakistanis?
Among those who know the Pakistani regime only too well, not many will risk making that statement.

"The days of Pakistani intel support for the Afghan Taleban are over for obvious reasons. "

You obviously havent been reading the latest. The attacks on American troops stationed in Afghanistan has only increased. Its been long since the Taliban has been regrouping and none other than Afghan President Hamid Karzai himself had accused Pakistan of continued support for the Taliban.

The Taliban is not just some rag-tag turban headed, bearded, gun-slinging bunch of tribesmen but a front for the complete establishment of Pakistani military personnel, ISI, politicians, diplomats and religious leaders. The Pakistani establishment IS the "Taliban".

...not many will risk making that statement.

Thank you both for your opinions. If it makes you feel any better, moving forward I'll supplant the words "shut down" with "exposed” when referring to the AQ Khan network. Both have similar ramifications although I concede they are not the same thing. And the phrase "ended support for the Taleban [government]" with "continues to support elements of the remains of Taleban insurgents".

You both appear to have an Anti Pakistan slant for reasons that, from what you've argued here, I would probably agree with... But aren't you a little off topic? Pakistan would be in a better position, both politically and economically, if it decides not to do this “pipeline” deal with Iran.

India is trying to get a peace of the action as well and I'm against that too. I have spoken at length with my Indian friends and they are unanimous that relations with the U.S. serve their country's interests much more so than stronger ties to Iran. India would be in a much better position both economically and politically if it stands with the community of free nations against Iran.

Although Pakistan has made mistakes; it is not US policy to isolate Pakistan as it is to isolate Iran. If you have a better suggestion for US policy toward Pakistan, make it... I am stead fast in my belief that the situation with respect to Pakistan HAS improved over the last decade. You can dispute how much credit should go to the Pakistani government for those improvements but that wasn't a topic I brought up to debate. However, it is interesting, on its own.

Let me make this clear. I wish EVERYONE in the world would stop doing business with the world's #1 state sponsor of terror - Iran. What I object to was your view on the A.Q.Khan network. I strongly believe that this pipeline was never feasible to begin with and Pakistan is trying to score a freebie by pretending to "sacrifice" something that they knew they never had in their pocket.

Pakistan would be in a better position, both politically and economically, if it decides not to do this “pipeline” deal with Iran.

Pakistan's stated position is that it will go ahead with the pipeline deal despite US opposition. Pakistan is very much supportive of Iran's nuclear stand and has supported Iran at the recent UN vote.

India is trying to get a peace of the action as well and I'm against that too.

Actually the whole action is meant for India. Iran wont bother investing on a pinepline only for Pakistan. Which is the biggest and the only "energy hungry" market anywhere near Iran? India of course.

India has probably forfeited that option for nuclear technology from the US and for stronger ties with the US and the benefits thereof.

Although Pakistan has made mistakes; it is not US policy to isolate Pakistan as it is to isolate Iran. If you have a better suggestion for US policy toward Pakistan, make it... I am stead fast in my belief that the situation with respect to Pakistan HAS improved over the last decade.

If there has been any improvement (as you say) then we dont know about it. At least India hasn't seen any. If you are in touch with events in India you would know that as much as recently we have had to deal with seasonal terrorists attacks and butchering of Hindus in Kashmir even as we were grappling with an earthquake. And then of course the Delhi bombings. The terrorist attacks on India hasn't ceased yet and so long as it doesn't, it would be difficult for Indians to see things your way. In fact its the US going soft on Pakistani terrorism that has to an extent emboldened Pakistan and resulted in the recent surge in the number of terrorist incidents.

It will be as difficult to convince India on Iranian terrorism if the US refuses to take a tough stand on the scourge of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. This according to us is sheer American double standards for which the US has a kind of a reputation.

"In fact its the US going soft on Pakistani terrorism that has to an extent emboldened Pakistan and resulted in the recent surge in the number of terrorist incidents."

There is a considerable amount of substance to your points. I am well aware that India's foreign policy is Pakistan-centric and the partnership between the United States and Pakistan has left some in India feeling a little uncomfortable about U.S. intentions but it is very important for you to recognize that the statement you made above is gross mischaracterization. U.S. policy does not embolden terrorists. We are engaged in a war on terrorism! This war, like all others, has a target. But unlike a conventional war, the actors are in many nations. He mentioned Pakistan and Kashmir by name.

President Bush made the target very clear on Veterans Day when he said,

“Yet, while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology -- a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane. Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; and still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews -- and against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision.
Many militants are part of a global, borderless terrorist organization like al Qaeda -- which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like the attacks of September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells -- inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for the world.”

In terms of support for or against terrorism, Iran can only ever be India’s fair weather friend. Despite the occasional rift that exists between Sunnis and Shi’ites, Iranian officials employ acts of terrorism as routine state policy. Both India’s and Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States in the War on Terror is essential and should be looked at by Indians as a separate foreign policy initiative than it Pakistan-policy.

I believe you have your bad guys flipped here… Tehran’s explicit support for terrorism emboldens Pakistani militants, not U.S. efforts to convince Pakistan [and India] to quash its energy deals with Iran.

There are many ways to look at the problem of terrorism and just as many suggestions about how to rid the world of it. The term terrorist however is used by many as a political whip against ones opponents. I enjoy conversations that seek the real root causes, determine targets and recommend solutions. This is a good thread. I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am. -H