Could Iran's move have anything to do with this:
The Manmohan Singh Government on Tuesday positioned itself to vote against Iran in Thursday’s International Atomic Energy Agency meeting as its Left partners softened their opposition in the face of Russia and China closing ranks with the US, Britain and France to refer the Iranian nuclear programme to the United Nations Security Council.
Maby India will finally wake up and realise their stupid moves vis a vis Russia and China.
http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Irannukes&slug=India+likely+to+vote+against+Iran&id=18672&callid=0&category=National
India likely to vote against Iran
NDTV Correspondent
Tuesday, January 31, 2006 (New Delhi):
India is likely to vote against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna on February 2.
This comes after Russia and China, which abstained from voting at the IAEA meeting in September 2005, changed their stand.
They are now supporting the US, France and the UK on reporting Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme.
Sources in the government have also told NDTV that while Russia and China have supported the west in principle, everything now depends on the wording of the draft resolution at the IAEA in Vienna.
Representatives of the permanent five member countries met at the home of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to discuss the issue.
But Russia and China have convinced the West that the UN will not take action for a month.
It is likely that both these countries may vote in favour of IAEA's action rather than abstain as they did in September.
Options at hand
But if Iran doesn't come around in that time, then the UN has various options.
The UN could give IAEA inspectors more powers to investigate Iranian nuclear activities. It could also consider imposing sanctions against Iran.
Meanwhile, the support of Russia and China means that it will be easier for India to vote with international opinion against Iran.
At the IAEA's September meeting, India had voted against Iran but made it clear that it should not be referred to the UNSC.
India also tried to push for a compromise formula by which Iran could undertake its uranium enrichment in Russia.
The formula fell through, since Iran restarted its uranium enrichment programme earlier in January and broke international seals at a plant in Natanz.
Iran has said any move to involve the UN Security Council in the row over its nuclear programme would mean the end of diplomacy.
Chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani has said informing the Security Council or referring the Iranian case to it will bring an end to diplomacy and that is not at all positive.
Left's stand
Meanwhile, the Iran issue has also stirred up political rumblings in New Delhi.
Twenty-four hours ago, the Left was in a very aggressive mood on Iran and wanted the government not to take a position against Iran.
But after the P5 resolution late on Monday night, the Left appears to have toned down its stand.
The Left had to shed its reservations after countries like Russia and China, which are ideologically close to the Left, agreed to refer Iran to the UN Security Council.
"The situation has changed. We just want the government to take a decision in national interest,'' said Prakash Karat, General Secretary, CPI(M).
The Left's position came after the Prime Minister gave an assurance that any decision would be taken in the national interest and India will take a decision only after looking at the draft resolution of the member countries of the UNSC.
In Islam contracts with infidels can easily be broken for any ole reason or none at all.
Just like Saddam, bargaining for UN votes with money.
India was just visited by Saudi King Abdullah.
BTW, I think the king dyes that beard of his.
At this rate, it is not going to be a question of if someone deals with the mullahs, but who is going to take them down.
Post hoc, etc.
The Iranian move came BEFORE the Indian vote...
It looks like Iran is in a full press to anger everybody these days...
When signed contracts are ignored they will soon find that no one will conduct business with them for fear they won't honor their contractual obligations.
They obviously think they're in a position to extort the rest of the world to their demands due to our need for oil.
Lets prove them wrong - hard.
enlightening .... looks like the smelly ayatollahs are liars when it comes to contracts. I'll bet they haven't messed with China this way because China will supply them with weaponry and nuke technology.
Yes. Iran signed long term contacts with China also
The down fall of Enron began with Enron selling India gas powered electric plants, when India did not have any natural gas of it's own, but had plenty of coal. Clinton vouched for Enron and helped sell the deal. Then a different party took control in India and refused to honor the contracts with Enron. (This may not be exactly the facts, but it's close)
Anyway when the deal between Enron and India fell through, the company started the downward spiral. It looks as though India never converted those plants to coal, though.
India, like the rest of the world, doesn't want a nuclear Iran. They won't be any safer than we will be. It's tough when they blackmail you for oil, knowing how dependent we all are on it. THAT is why the mad man who is now their president needs to go the way Mohammad went, and pronto.
"Iran is six months away from making a nuclear weapon. The situation is the same in Saudi Arabia which has a traditional leaning towards Pakistan. The Saudi royal family is guarded by 10,000 Pakistani troops. Once Iran goes nuclear, what is to stop them from arming Nepal, LTTE, Mynammar and Bangladesh? These nations are run by monarchies or autocracies? They do not possess a democratic structure as says is prevailing in the UK or for that matter in India. There are no checks-and-balances prevailing in these nations and even less in Central Asia. Who will then stop our neighbours from trying to nuke us? There is no point in living in an ivory tower as is being done by our analysts." - LINK
As another FReeper pointed out earlier today, however, all it really means is that somebody's gonna start gunning for the whackadoodles, and the troubles with Iran will go away. No sense in killing more people than you need to.
Does anyone know if other countries have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve like we do?