What I am getting is Afghanistan will be used to possibly strengthen the U.S. presence in Central Asia and Pakistan probably because it is located on the Gulf of Oman will be used to attack Iran.
Reference: "There exists a point of view that the U.S. could take advantage of this and, under the pretext of the operation in Afghanistan, could strengthen their military presence in Central Asia," he said. "We hope that the American leadership will act on this issue in accordance with the promises made: that this military presence will be tied with the anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan. And when this threat is liquidated, the necessity of the U.S. military presence in Central Asia will be no more." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-ivanov18jul18,1,4945402.story?coll=la-headlines-....
An amphibious attack has been targeted against Iran from the Arabian Sea, with a provocative US blockade in the Gulf of Oman to choke Iran’s sea lanes of communications. #msg-3480614
Pakistan has been ‘occupied’ by the United States for the purpose of invading Iran among other things. Pakistan would be the base for mounting massive air reconnaissance and surveillance of Iran. #msg-3483139
For the United States to use Pakistan, a country that borders China, as a base will never do.
There is a determined fight underway for Pakistan’s favor.
USD three billion for five years has been promised by President George W Bush to his Pakistani counterpart Pervez Musharraf for his cooperation against the al-Qaeda and Taliban and his promise to introduce a 'pseudo' democracy in due course. http://sify.com/news_info/fullstory.php?id=13523503.
In a countermove China is taking measures to secure major influence over Pakistan and thus prevent the likelihood of the U.S. using Pakistan as a base.
Moreover China has just welcomed Pakistan's inclusion in ARF and China has also assured its support to Pakistan for joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). http://www.paknews.com/top.php?id=1&date1=2004-04-10
Iran not to be left out has proposed an Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline and its lucrative transit fees.
‘Step on the gas’
In letter to PM, Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar proposes: we need pipeline through Pak, let dialogue begin even if it’s a ‘conversation without commitments’
AMITAV RANJAN
Posted online: Sunday, July 18, 2004 at 0121 hours IST
NEW DELHI, JULY 17: Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar is trying to sell the most ambitious of projects with the catchiest of phrases as a starting point.
Picture this: Three massive pipelines criss-crossing countries and carrying natural gas to India from distant lands. The hitch seems to be that two of these pipelines — from Iran and Central Asia — will have to come overland, through Pakistan, a neighbour that India has traditionally been nervous about. The third, it is proposed, will run from Myanmar, through Bangladesh.
Similar proposals have been made in the past but they died because of security concerns involving Pakistan. Now Aiyar has written to the Prime Minister suggesting a novel approach. He calls it “conversation without commitments’’.
Aiyar wrote: “With respect to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, the Iranian Oil Minister has conveyed to me, through his Ambassador, an informal suggestion for ’conversation without commitment’ between the Petroleum Ministers of these three countries. I discussed this with the External Affairs Minister, Shri K. Natwar Singh, who is himself favourably inclined but asked me to first take this up with you.”
Aiyar has backed up his proposal with an overview of the energy situation to show just how pressing the need for radical solutions is.
He has pointed out that while India’s crude oil production will rise no more than 50 million tonnes over the next two years, its requirement could touch 300 million tonnes if it is to sustain a 7-8 per cent growth in GDP.
The answer, he reasons, would be to access gas wherever possible. Domestically, the needs cannot be met as the production is stuck at 90 million standard cubic metres of gas per day, while the requirement has already crossed 120 million cubic metres. Twenty years down the road, the requirement could touch 391 million cubic metres. “It would be in our larger national interest to encourage this demand to grow to lower the appetite for crude,” the letter says.
In fact, to push the proposal forward, Aiyar is willing to discard even the oft-trotted South Block line — that if Pakistan is interested in seeing the pipeline running through its land, it must grant most-favoured nation status to imports from India.
“Important, indeed crucial as these issues are to our economy, the gains from these pale in comparison to the massive gains which our country would secure from accessing Iranian gas through Pakistan.” he has argued.
The vision may be grand, but given the interests of the different nations involved, Aiyar probably realises that reconciling them all will not be easy.
That is where the novel approach of starting talks without any firm commitments comes in. Apart from having such conversations with pakistan and Iran, he has suggested starting talks on similar lines with Bangladesh and Myanmar on the one hand and Turkmenistan and Afghanistan on the other. In the long run, if the plan works out, he maps out an even more enchanting vision.
“If we are able to link up a pipeline through Pakistan with a pipeline through Bangladesh, not only would we have a national grid for international gas, our two recalcitrant neighbours might be drawn into a network of South Asian cooperation.”
Regarding: Moscow is considering a request by the Bush administration to send Russian troops to Iraq or Afghanistan this fall, just before the U.S. presidential election. The move would be of enormous benefit to U.S. President George W. Bush and a risky venture for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who faces his own Islamist insurgency in Chechnya and public opposition to U.S. policy in Iraq. Torn between his desire to support Bush and his need to address domestic concerns, Putin will delay his final decision to the eleventh hour. #msg-3585759
20.07.2004, 09.29 MOSCOW, July 20 (Itar-Tass) - The Russian Defence Ministry has categorically dismissed the possibility of sending a Russian military contingent to Iraq at the request of the U.S. administration.
“Our stance on that issue, stated earlier, remains invariable: Russian military won’t be sent either to Iraq or to Afghanistan,” the press secretary of the Russian defence minister, Vyacheslav Sedov, told Tass on Tuesday.
Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has repeatedly stated that Moscow will under no circumstances put at risk the lives of its soldiers and officers in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has also dismissed U.S. media reports, maintaining that Moscow and Washington are engaged in negotiations on the dispatch of Russian military to Iraq in exchange for economic concessions.
The official spokesman of the Foreign Ministry, Alexander Yakovenko, said “there are no plans to send a Russian military contingent to Iraq”.
Putin's election surprise? Posted August 10, 2004 By PETER LAVELLE
MOSCOW-- The Kremlin has denied it, Washington would surely like it, and pundits continue to speculate: Will Russia deploy up to 40,000 troops by year-end to help stabilize Iraq's grave security environment?
Such a decision would, of course, be interpreted as a campaign gift to George Bush from his friend Vladimir Putin as well as a devastating blow to John Kerry's presidential bid -- a large Russian contingency in Iraq would finally give meaning to the concept "coalition forces." However, such a masterly political stroke would be fraught with problems for both the United States and Russia.
On July 16, the U.S. intelligence site Stratfor.com claimed Washington and the Kremlin had cut a deal that would see as many as 40,000 Russian troops serving in Iraq as peacekeepers by year-end. Four days later, Russia's Foreign Ministry flatly denied any deal. Nonetheless, the idea of a strong Russian military presence in Iraq continues to intrigue many. A strong U.S.-Russia commitment to stabilize Iraq is something seen as a "total political solution" for both countries.
George Bush, in a tough re-election campaign, could claim, with Russian support, that "coalition forces" had wide international support -- significantly deflating presidential candidate Kerry's claim otherwise. For Putin's Kremlin -- recently assigned to the doghouse by Western media because of the Yukos affair, the crackdown on domestic media and heartless social reforms -- sending troops to Iraq has considerable upside.
A large foreign military operation fighting international terrorism alongside the United States would return Russia's sense of being a major power in the world -- and the possibility a much stronger role in what was the Soviet Union.
On the face of it, 40,000 Russian troops deployed in Iraq would appear to solve many problems and issues for the men sitting in the White House and the Kremlin. However, like most ideas considered "total political solutions," things become very complicated when examining the details.
For 40,000 troops, what does the Kremlin really want in return? Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Russian oil companies had large and long-term oil contacts in Iraq. Russia's oil giant Lukoil would very much like those contracts returned to it -- and not only as a subcontractor. Russia also would like to be in a position of strength concerning the development of oil pipelines in the region.
For troops, the Kremlin essentially wants to be anointed leader of the petroleum-producing world and be allowed to determine the destiny of what it calls its "near abroad." With much of the world's old reserves in or close to high-risk security regions, this may be acceptable to the United States at present.
However, there is also downside for Russia. The war in Iraq is very unpopular among Russians. State-controlled television has covered the war in a way that is openly anti-American. Clearly, as media are tightly controlled, the Kremlin could attempt a volte-face, claiming Russian troops sent to Iraq would be fighting the same kind of Islamist fundamentalist battle Russia is fighting within its own borders. However, the Kremlin's official line on its war against terrorism at home is received with a great deal of skepticism.
Additionally, the Soviet Union was a friend of Iraq, and Russia adamantly opposed the invasion of Iraq last year. Is the Kremlin angling for Russian troops to be treated any different from other foreign military personnel in Iraq? Russia still has modicum of popularity among the Iraqi people because it has been against the war and unwilling to involve itself militarily. With troops deployed, Russian military personnel should not expect to be given any quarter -- no different from other foreign troops fighting there.
What Russia's military thinks of a possible deployment is not entirely clear. However, if troops were sent to Iraq, would Russian generals be made to answer to their American counterparts? Probably no other event would put old Cold War prejudices and distrust to rest. There is a problem though: Most of the Russia's military establishment remains very Soviet in outlook. Taking orders from a recent foe may to be hard to accept.
For the Bush White House, delivering greater control of the world's petroleum market to Russia is probably not too hard to swallow for the moment. After all, a military alliance in Iraq could produce a strong bilateral energy alliance in which Western oil giants would be invited, by Putin personally, to partake in Russia's oil patch.
But surely the Bush administration desires an effective and modern Russian military force in Iraq to counter the intense resistance to the occupation, not just the symbolic presence of troops. Is Russia prepared to deliver? Russia's military and security forces have a lot of experience fighting counterinsurgency operations -- know-how that has demonstrated little success over the past decade.
On balance, a Russian military presence in Iraq is far from a "total political solution" for the White House or the Kremlin. The details of such a deal could create more differences than interests in the longer term. If Russia is given the leading voice in petroleum markets, what is a fair price for producers and consumers? Russia needs continued high prices to complete its reform agenda. Both Russia and the United States fight wars differently. Is the United States prepared to defend Russian military practices employed in Chechnya today to be used in Iraq? There are many other dangling and unanswered questions.
Lastly, Putin's pre-election surprise for Bush could backfire: What if Kerry is elected in November? That would be the biggest surprise for Putin. Would any and all deals made with the Bush people be put on hold or even annulled? That would a "total political disaster" for Putin.
Peter Lavelle is an independent Moscow-based analyst and the author of the electronic newsletter on Russia "Untimely Thoughts" untimely-thoughts.com.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
