Iran Readying to Unveil Major Breakthrough in Missile Industry

[Hack-Hook]

And, which is this target - 3800 km away from Chahbahar.

 

[trinity]

What is happening inside my country is not your problem - shia, sunni, indian or veena malik's topless pictures.

OIC meet happened much before Chahbahar was even thought of, and is not connected with that rebuff.

Go to India to feed your poor - even they have voted against you in various world fora and have reduced oil imports under US pressure.

You need to identify your friends and your interests.

And I don't pay for the internet time - my father does. Go complain to him.

So one time India votes against Iran under incredible duress and pressure, and just like your type to exploit it. Iran is a true friend indeed. I wish for Iran to avoid conflict and in time, to truly shine because it is the only nation in the Middle East capable of becoming a first world nation.

The sad reality is that these islands were once inhabited by Indians who were kicked out by the Brits and Americans for their own nefarious purposes wihtout giving a damn for those poor ppl who lost everything. Then the West shows double standards by claiming Falklands and other lands. This would have and could have been a great strategic asset for India. Bloody Brits....

 

[Desert Fox]

india would be the first to take sides with Iran's enemies as india has turned against Iran in the past despite Iran supporting and favoring india over Pakistan.


India votes against Iran at IAEA - Times Of India

US thanks India for its support in IAEA vote on Iran nuclear issue

India votes against Iran's nuclear programme at IAEA | Day & Night News

India votes against Iran in IAEA resolution - Indian Express

The Hindu : News / National : India votes against Iran in IAEA resolution

A few years old article, but good read:

Why Iran Feels so Hurt and Betrayed by India


NEW DELHI, October 4 (2005): Strikingly similar to the crisis that Iran faced at the IAEA Board meeting in Vienna last weekend, India too found itself in a tight spot in April 1994 at the United Nations Human Rights Commission’s annual session in Geneva.

Curiously, India and Iran found themselves entangled with each other then too, as of now — but with an entirely different body language.

If there is a Shakespearean touch to the sense of betrayal that Iran is so evidently harboring today over India’s vote against it at Vienna, how much of that harks back to silent memories of what had transpired between the two countries in 1994, we shall never quite know.

Persians may find it to be in bad taste to be blunt and forthright on such delicate issues as trust and betrayal.

In April 1994, when the UNHRC was assembling in Geneva, India faced an ugly situation. We were just pulling out of a grave economic crisis (of our own making, though) and were extremely vulnerable to the goodwill of international financial institutions.

More importantly, the Kashmir valley was burning — witnessing some of the bloodiest violence in its unhappy history. The country itself was panting and heaving from the bloodletting of communal violence — hidden medieval passions were tearing it apart.

Back in 1994, India was not yet possessed with the swagger and all-knowing cockiness of its current middle class optimism — or, for that matter, its frightening pragmatism that is determined to make every relationship outright profitable.

Internationally too, the climate was uncertain. Boris Yeltsin’s Russia was lurching toward the West in drunken stupor, and there was a big question mark as to the availability of a ‘Soviet’ veto if the Kashmir file ever again got reopened in the UN’s business dealings.

Technically, if the UNHRC in Geneva adopted a resolution condemning India for grave human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, a pathway would have opened for any of India’s detractors (not only Pakistan) for referral of the ‘Kashmir problem’ to the UN in New York. The crisis was comparable to what could happen today if the IAEA indeed decided on a UN Security Council referral apropos of the Iran’s ‘nuclear problem.’

The assessment in the foreign policy establishment in Delhi at that time was that in the event of the Kashmir resolution coming up in Geneva, it had a strong possibility of getting adopted.

The draft resolution enjoyed the support of the 54-member states of the Organization of Islamic conference and possibly some faraway countries in the Western world. Of course, Pakistan was its prime mover.

Thus it was that on a cold wind swept morning in late March in 1994 with the Elbruz Mountain still wrapped in sheets of snow that an Indian military plane landed in Teheran airport bearing the then Indian external affairs minister Dinesh Singh and three accompanying officials from Delhi as his co-passengers.

The minister was visiting Iran to deliver in person an urgent letter from Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao addressed to Iranian President, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rao was seeking Iran’s last-minute intervention at the OIC with a view to ensuring that the Kashmir resolution did not pass through the UNHRC.

The OIC (like the IAEA) too had a convention that all decisions had to be arrived at through consensus. So, Rao shrewdly assessed that if a prominent OIC member like Iran were to abstain, there would be no ‘consensus.’ Rao was greatly averse to Dinesh Singh undertaking the mission, as the minister was seriously ill from the multiple strokes he had suffered a few months ago.

But Dinesh Singh (“Raja Saheb”) would have no one else undertake such a crucial mission — and Rao reluctantly gave in. Sadly, that also happened to be the last mission undertaken by Dinesh Singh in a diplomatic career spread over five decades.

In fact, after one look at Dinesh Singh alighting from the aircraft, Iranian Foreign Minister Dr Ali Akbar Velayati, who was waiting at the tarmac, impulsively asked what on earth could be of such momentous importance for the minister to undertake such a perilous journey in such a poor state of health.

Dinesh Singh went through his ‘Kashmir brief’ diligently through the day’s meetings with his Iranian interlocutors -– apart from Dr Velayati, President Rafsanjani and the Speaker of the Iranian Majlis Nateq-Nouri. The Iranian side politely noted the minister’s demarche.

All in all, the business was transacted in a matter of 6 or 7 hours. Dinesh Singh left immediately for the airport for his return journey.

As he was emplaning, Dr Velayati who had come to the airport, reached out and holding Dinesh Singh’s hands together in his, said: ‘Ali Hashemi (President Rafsanjani) wanted me to convey his assurance to Prime Minister Rao that Iran will do all it can to ensure that no harm comes to India.’

After the plane took off, Dinesh Singh and his three co-passengers pondered over the import of what Velayati said. Did it mean that Iran would get the OIC resolution watered down? Or, would the resolution leave out any outright condemnation of India that attracted the UN’s wrath?

It took 72 anxious hours more for Delhi to realize that instead of a halfway solution, Iran went ahead with surgical skill and literally killed the OIC move to table the resolution at a UN forum. We heard later that as the Pakistani ambassador sought to move the OIC resolution, his Iranian counterpart in Geneva acted on directives from Teheran and made an intervention.

He said that for Iran, both Pakistan and India were close friends, and Iran would be loathe to the idea that problems between friends could not be sorted out between the two of them, and needed instead to be raised at an international forum.

That was the last time that Pakistan sought to get a resolution over Kashmir issue tabled at a UN forum.

Thus, when the head of Iran’s National Security Council, Ali Larijani said last Tuesday with a palpable sense of hurt: ‘India was our friend. We did not expect India to do so’ — he would have had much more in mind than the ‘shock and awe’ that India administered to Iran last weekend at Vienna.

Larijani’s erudite mind could not have missed the dramatic irony of it all — that Teheran should have salvaged India’s day at the OIC 11 years ago, and Delhi having a sudden, unexplained, inexplicable memory lapse in the IAEA.

And, on both occasions, it boiled down to how to kill a mocking bird — how to keep a festering wound from being prised away for therapy in distant New York.

The writer is a former Indian ambassador with extensive experience in handling India’s relations with Iran.This article first appeared at rediff.com

Why Iran Feels so Hurt and Betrayed by India « South Asia Tribune

Iran has given India many concessions because of it’s unnecessary concerns about Pakistan’s close friendship with Saudi Arabia. Iran even promised Indian navy its ports in case of war with Pakistan, a point that is terribly hurtful to the muslim sentiments of Pakistanis.

For all of its support, Iran in its hour of need has been abandoned by India to side with Americans.


-India has killed off the IPI project due to American pressure and nuclear technology transfer

-Pakistan is keeping its promise on the IP pipeline much to the dissatisfaction of US

-India refused to attend Tehran’s summit on terrorism because of American pressure

-Pakistan’s president accepted the invitation

-India owes Iran 5 billion dollars for oil which it is not paying Iran

-Pakistan continues to defend Iran in international forums

-India did not welcome the 1979 Islamic government

-Pakistan recognized 1979 government immediately

-India voted against Iran in IAEA, Ali Larjani said India was our friend

-Pakistan continues to support Iran irrespective of its relations with Saudis or Americans

Betrayal On Iran: Costs of India-US Partnership

 

[karan21]

india would be the first to take sides with Iran's enemies as india has turned against Iran in the past despite Iran supporting and favoring india over Pakistan.


India votes against Iran at IAEA - Times Of India

US thanks India for its support in IAEA vote on Iran nuclear issue

India votes against Iran's nuclear programme at IAEA | Day & Night News

India votes against Iran in IAEA resolution - Indian Express

The Hindu : News / National : India votes against Iran in IAEA resolution

A few years old article, but good read:

Why Iran Feels so Hurt and Betrayed by India


NEW DELHI, October 4 (2005): Strikingly similar to the crisis that Iran faced at the IAEA Board meeting in Vienna last weekend, India too found itself in a tight spot in April 1994 at the United Nations Human Rights Commission’s annual session in Geneva.

Curiously, India and Iran found themselves entangled with each other then too, as of now — but with an entirely different body language.

If there is a Shakespearean touch to the sense of betrayal that Iran is so evidently harboring today over India’s vote against it at Vienna, how much of that harks back to silent memories of what had transpired between the two countries in 1994, we shall never quite know.

Persians may find it to be in bad taste to be blunt and forthright on such delicate issues as trust and betrayal.

In April 1994, when the UNHRC was assembling in Geneva, India faced an ugly situation. We were just pulling out of a grave economic crisis (of our own making, though) and were extremely vulnerable to the goodwill of international financial institutions.

More importantly, the Kashmir valley was burning — witnessing some of the bloodiest violence in its unhappy history. The country itself was panting and heaving from the bloodletting of communal violence — hidden medieval passions were tearing it apart.

Back in 1994, India was not yet possessed with the swagger and all-knowing cockiness of its current middle class optimism — or, for that matter, its frightening pragmatism that is determined to make every relationship outright profitable.

Internationally too, the climate was uncertain. Boris Yeltsin’s Russia was lurching toward the West in drunken stupor, and there was a big question mark as to the availability of a ‘Soviet’ veto if the Kashmir file ever again got reopened in the UN’s business dealings.

Technically, if the UNHRC in Geneva adopted a resolution condemning India for grave human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, a pathway would have opened for any of India’s detractors (not only Pakistan) for referral of the ‘Kashmir problem’ to the UN in New York. The crisis was comparable to what could happen today if the IAEA indeed decided on a UN Security Council referral apropos of the Iran’s ‘nuclear problem.’

The assessment in the foreign policy establishment in Delhi at that time was that in the event of the Kashmir resolution coming up in Geneva, it had a strong possibility of getting adopted.

The draft resolution enjoyed the support of the 54-member states of the Organization of Islamic conference and possibly some faraway countries in the Western world. Of course, Pakistan was its prime mover.

Thus it was that on a cold wind swept morning in late March in 1994 with the Elbruz Mountain still wrapped in sheets of snow that an Indian military plane landed in Teheran airport bearing the then Indian external affairs minister Dinesh Singh and three accompanying officials from Delhi as his co-passengers.

The minister was visiting Iran to deliver in person an urgent letter from Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao addressed to Iranian President, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rao was seeking Iran’s last-minute intervention at the OIC with a view to ensuring that the Kashmir resolution did not pass through the UNHRC.

The OIC (like the IAEA) too had a convention that all decisions had to be arrived at through consensus. So, Rao shrewdly assessed that if a prominent OIC member like Iran were to abstain, there would be no ‘consensus.’ Rao was greatly averse to Dinesh Singh undertaking the mission, as the minister was seriously ill from the multiple strokes he had suffered a few months ago.

But Dinesh Singh (“Raja Saheb&#8221 would have no one else undertake such a crucial mission — and Rao reluctantly gave in. Sadly, that also happened to be the last mission undertaken by Dinesh Singh in a diplomatic career spread over five decades.

In fact, after one look at Dinesh Singh alighting from the aircraft, Iranian Foreign Minister Dr Ali Akbar Velayati, who was waiting at the tarmac, impulsively asked what on earth could be of such momentous importance for the minister to undertake such a perilous journey in such a poor state of health.

Dinesh Singh went through his ‘Kashmir brief’ diligently through the day’s meetings with his Iranian interlocutors -– apart from Dr Velayati, President Rafsanjani and the Speaker of the Iranian Majlis Nateq-Nouri. The Iranian side politely noted the minister’s demarche.

All in all, the business was transacted in a matter of 6 or 7 hours. Dinesh Singh left immediately for the airport for his return journey.

As he was emplaning, Dr Velayati who had come to the airport, reached out and holding Dinesh Singh’s hands together in his, said: ‘Ali Hashemi (President Rafsanjani) wanted me to convey his assurance to Prime Minister Rao that Iran will do all it can to ensure that no harm comes to India.’

After the plane took off, Dinesh Singh and his three co-passengers pondered over the import of what Velayati said. Did it mean that Iran would get the OIC resolution watered down? Or, would the resolution leave out any outright condemnation of India that attracted the UN’s wrath?

It took 72 anxious hours more for Delhi to realize that instead of a halfway solution, Iran went ahead with surgical skill and literally killed the OIC move to table the resolution at a UN forum. We heard later that as the Pakistani ambassador sought to move the OIC resolution, his Iranian counterpart in Geneva acted on directives from Teheran and made an intervention.

He said that for Iran, both Pakistan and India were close friends, and Iran would be loathe to the idea that problems between friends could not be sorted out between the two of them, and needed instead to be raised at an international forum.

That was the last time that Pakistan sought to get a resolution over Kashmir issue tabled at a UN forum.

Thus, when the head of Iran’s National Security Council, Ali Larijani said last Tuesday with a palpable sense of hurt: ‘India was our friend. We did not expect India to do so’ — he would have had much more in mind than the ‘shock and awe’ that India administered to Iran last weekend at Vienna.

Larijani’s erudite mind could not have missed the dramatic irony of it all — that Teheran should have salvaged India’s day at the OIC 11 years ago, and Delhi having a sudden, unexplained, inexplicable memory lapse in the IAEA.

And, on both occasions, it boiled down to how to kill a mocking bird — how to keep a festering wound from being prised away for therapy in distant New York.

The writer is a former Indian ambassador with extensive experience in handling India’s relations with Iran.This article first appeared at rediff.com

Why Iran Feels so Hurt and Betrayed by India « South Asia Tribune






Betrayal On Iran: Costs of India-US Partnership

I guess Iran also took sides of our enemies in the past. We Indians have a habit of keeping the tally equal so we voted against.

 

[Desert Fox]

Iranians would be very foolish to ever trust india or even expect it to remain neutral in any GCC+israeli vs. Iran war:

In addition, both Israel and India comprise the extremities of what Paul Sheehan, columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, has called “an ‘Arc of Instability’…stretching unbroken through Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon.” Washington Post writer Jim Hoagland has similarly described “Jerusalem and New Delhi [as] end points…in a vast swath of countries from North Africa through the Himalayas that should now be seen as a single strategic region [in which] India and Israel are the most vibrant democracies….” In theory, at least, a strong Indo-Israeli alliance would have the potential to create a formidable force for stability in a region threatened by radical fundamentalism and tyrannical theocracy.

In 2003, Yuval Steinitz, then head of the Israeli Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, assessed the strategic alliance with India as “a very high priority, second only to relations with the United States.”

A central factor in the development of that alliance has been the significant scope of military equipment and expertise Israel is providing India. Indeed, some analysts believe that Israel has overtaken Russia to become India’s largest supplier of military equipment and expertise, with sales of land-based surveillance systems, seaborne missiles, and more exceeding $2 billion per year.

Revenues from these sales have helped Israel to offset research and development costs for the weaponry needed to maintain its military edge over its adversaries. To remain viable, Israel’s defense industries need to export approximately 70% of production, and today India is Israel’s largest market.

While at first the flow of equipment and expertise was unidirectional—Israel supplying India—currently the two nations are engaged in a growing number of joint enterprises. On January 21, 2008, for example, an Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle rocket propelled into orbit a TecSAR Israeli reconnaissance satellite that Israel was not able to launch from its own territory (because of geopolitical and gravitational considerations).

Cooperation in the naval sphere could potentially serve both India’s declared aim to develop its blue water navy (a maritime force capable of operating on the “high seas” outside the territorial waters of the home nation)—and Israel’s increasingly challenging geo-strategic needs. Given its miniscule territorial dimensions after withdrawing from Gaza in a vain quest for peace and the growing Iranian nuclear threat, Israel is compelled to turn to the marine theater for second-strike capability (a country’s assured ability to respond to an attack with a counterattack that will inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor). Such capacity is essential for nations upholding a no-first-use policy (not to use nuclear weapons as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary utilizing nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare). As the international relations and strategic affairs analyst Subhash Kapila has observed, “…both Israel and India are potential targets for first-use nuclear strikes by their adversaries”—in each case, an Islamic nuclear bomb. The seaborne second-strike capability “has to be operative from the Indian Ocean,” Kapila writes, “and hence strategic cooperation with the Indian Navy is an imperative.”

Reform Judaism Magazine - Strategic Bedfellows

Israel has become one of India’s largest military suppliers, while India has assisted Israel in the naval sphere. Israel, the No. 1 foreign issuer on the NASDAQ stock exchange, is investing in many Indian companies, while India has become one of Israel’s top trading partners in Asia.

Nevertheless, India and Israel share a “natural logic,” according to Indian National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra, and strategic priorities in regards to politics, security and growing their economies.

Names You Need To Know In 2011: India-Israel Alliance - Forbes

I guess Iran also took sides of our enemies in the past. We Indians have a habit of keeping the tally equal so we voted against.

Nope, Iran killed the OIC Kashmir resolution which would have favored Pakistan had it been passed in the UN, and that was a crucial time of need for india since USSR disintegrated and india had no other country by its side that could have vetoed the resolution, or at least stopped it before it reach the UN.

If you're talking about that Iran pre-1979 revolution (Iran under the Shah's) but that's not the same Iran as the one post-1979 revolution. Pre-1979 Iran=Pro Pakistan, Post-1979 Iran=Pro india.

You (india) backstabbed Iran first in the IAEA despite they supported you when you had no one to support you in your time of need.

As they say, "a friend in need is a friend indeed", they came to your help in 1994, and when it was your turn to help them you simply took a knife and stabbed them in the back, perfect chanakya tactic.

‘India was our friend. We did not expect India to do so’-Ali Larijani

 

[Ticker]

So one time India votes against Iran under incredible duress and pressure, and just like your type to exploit it. Iran is a true friend indeed. I wish for Iran to avoid conflict and in time, to truly shine because it is the only nation in the Middle East capable of becoming a first world nation.

The sad reality is that these islands were once inhabited by Indians who were kicked out by the Brits and Americans for their own nefarious purposes wihtout giving a damn for those poor ppl who lost everything. Then the West shows double standards by claiming Falklands and other lands. This would have and could have been a great strategic asset for India. Bloody Brits....

The sad reality is that you dumped Iran when it needed you. You guys don't have it in you to stand up for your friends. As your trade grows with the west and the US, you would again kick Iran in its posterior. You know it and the Iranians know it as well. You guys have the biggest defence sales contracts with Israel, which is Iran's mortal enemy. Sooner than later, you will have to chose between the two and you will ofcourse chose Israel.

You are abusing the Brits for taking these islands away from Indians. Do you have it in you to take it back from them?

If aunty had balls she would have been an uncle.

So, stop this c r a p and get lost.

 

[kollang]

the must important target is 3800km away from Chabahar Port which is sadly out of the reach of this missile. those target are pointless ,attacking them just made people angry , start another cities war and waste o military resources .

hopefully we can.meshkat will be albe to be carried by our su-24s=3800-2000=1800,we can use su-24 from chabahar air base and the su-24s can launch the missile after they passed 1800 km.

 

[Hack-Hook]

hopefully we can.meshkat will be albe to be carried by our su-24s=3800-2000=1800,we can use su-24 from chabahar air base and the su-24s can launch the missile after they passed 1800 km.

that's not the solution everybody can intercept su-24 .the ideal solution would be mastering launching missiles from subs while they are under water . 4 of 6 torpedeo rubes of kilo submarines are capable of launching missiles , we just need to get the technology to make our missiles compatible with such launching platforms

 

[Banglar Lathial]

don't forget to add Mars, the moon, the sun, .........under your useless missile zone

You are mistaking your useless desert kingdoms for them. They actually make their own ballistic and cruise missiles unlike desert kingdoms.

Why is there a need to hit Diego Garcia with cruise missiles? If you need to, hit it with ballistic missiles - much harder to intercept (in most cases), I would reckon. If this Meshkat cruise missile project is successful, it would probably be for targets in the Middle East/Central Asia, mostly criminal bases of the West and Zionism and their command etc centres.