Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iran offers India control of strategic Chabahar Port
Deccan Herald ^ | Saturday, August 15, 2015 | Anirban Bhaumik

Posted on 08/15/2015 4:11:45 PM PDT by Jyotishi

NEW DELHI (DHNS) - As Tehran wants New Delhi to raise its stake in Chabahar Port in Iran, Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic, Mohammad Javad Zarif, on Friday offered India a deal that not only involves developing the second phase of the port but also for operating it.

New Delhi already pledged to build a container terminal and a multi-purpose cargo terminal on two berths at the Chabahar Port in south-eastern coast of Iran. Tehran's new offer appeared to be lucrative to India, as the strategically important port could give it a sea-land access to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan.

Zarif was on a visit to New Delhi since Thursday. He called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and had a meeting with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj on Friday. Tehran's fresh offer for New Delhi on Chabahar Port was spelt out when Iranian Foreign Minister had a meeting with Shipping and Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari.

India's interest in Chabahar Port in Iran grew further after Pakistan last year handed over the control of its Gwadar Port to China. The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy has since long been using the Gwadar Port, which New Delhi perceives as yet another addition to the "String of Pearls" - a series of strategic assets Beijing is acquiring around India.

Pakistan's decision to transfer the management of the port to the Overseas Port Holding Company of China for 40 years sent jitters to India, which responded by moving fast on the Chabahar Port Project.

The prime minister conveyed to the Iranian Foreign Minister New Delhi's commitment to work with Tehran for development of the Chabahar Port, which would have "far reaching benefit, not only for the people of India and Iran, but also for Afghanistan and the entire Central Asia region".

'Hugely beneficial'

Gadkari later said that Iran's latest offer on the second phase of the Chabahar Port appeared to be "hugely beneficial" for India and the government would soon take a call.

Zarif and Gadkari on Friday also discussed the proposed India-Iran-Afghanistan Transit Trade Agreement. They agreed on the need to expeditiously conclude the agreement, which will enable the potential of Chabahar Port to be realised. Zarif was Tehran's chief negotiator for the recently-concluded deal with E3+3 (US, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany) over nuclear programme of Iran.

His was the first high-level visit from Tehran to New Delhi after the landmark deal was inked last month. As the deal raised prospects of easing of sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic by the US, European Union and United Nations, both New Delhi and Tehran are now keen to breathe fresh life into the bilateral economic engagement.

Zarif conveyed to Modi that Iran considered India its strategic partner and could never forget the support India extended to Iran during its difficult times.

He is also understood to have indicated Tehran's willingness to favourably consider the proposal of ONGC Videsh Limited of India to return to the Farzad B gas field in Iran.

Not only the OVL, but also other state-owned companies of India had to abandon hydrocarbon projects in Iran due to strict sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic.

New Delhi is also discussing with Tehran ways to clear payment for crude oil India imported from Iran in the past years. Sanctions on Iran had made it difficult for India to make payments.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; asia; china; india; iran; israel; lebanon; navy; oil; pakistan; port; waronterror

1 posted on 08/15/2015 4:11:45 PM PDT by Jyotishi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jyotishi

A potentially useful port of entry for western spies.

2 posted on 08/15/2015 4:13:06 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

from 1/25/2010:
India grows stronger as Pakistan disintegrates, and its only long-term worry is who controls the Paki atomic stockpile. India's excellent diplomatic relations and military connections with Israel continue to grow. Naturally that could be threatened the instant Iran and India share a rice buffet and sign trade and military cooperation agreements. Among those agreements would be arrangements to secretly cooperate in the dismantling of Pakistan, and continued fragmentation of the rest of Central Asia... it's not a coincidence that [Zero's] choice of VP has spent a few decades wearing a dog collar and eating out of a bowl served up by the Iranian mullahcracy -- Obama has pressed for direct negotiations without condition with the Iranian regime. They weren't fooled. Neither are the Israelis. The Turks have the second largest army in Europe (after Russia's) and believe they can cope with Iran's armed forces (and I believe they're dead wrong; Iran's army is IMHO the most underrated in the region at least), but seek cooperation for both idealogical reasons and common territorial ambitions (partition of Iraq, or at the least, cooperation in dealing with the Kurds). The Turks also don't have any interest in the disintegration of Syria, the prospects for which have been the driving force behind Syria's lesser-of-two-equals relationship with Iran. Syria got kicked out of Lebanon due to Iranian proxy terrorist activity (Syrian nationals on vacation or on military leaves and whatnot were getting murdered) over a period of some years, and of course the abortive Lebanese independence movement. Syria's last few assassinations of Lebanese politicians were massively stupid missteps, and led to the loss of an occupied neighboring country that had been a source of revenue. Turkey and Iran will eventually come to blows, but it will be some years from now. Turkey doesn't want Syria to become another fragmented failed state, and wants a buffer between itself and the mess that is Lebanon. The prospect of an independent Kurdistan -- part of which would be carved out of Syria, Turkey, and Iran, all of which have at least some Kurdish enclaves contiguous with the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq -- doesn't thrill [the Turks]. All this will unfold over years, more than a decade probably.
[Netanyahu reaffirms Israel claim to parts of West Bank, #164]
3 posted on 08/15/2015 5:43:21 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jyotishi

islamists palsy with predominant Hindus?

4 posted on 08/15/2015 5:43:54 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Pakistan is motivated to sell Nukes to Saudis, who are motivated to buy.

5 posted on 08/15/2015 7:26:18 PM PDT by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jyotishi

India is constantly striking deals with our enemies.

6 posted on 08/15/2015 7:59:47 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


To be fair, the US started it by making deals with their enemies.

7 posted on 08/16/2015 8:54:45 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Palins are better parents than Clintons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Not really. Almost out of the box, Nehru was making deals with the Soviets.

8 posted on 08/17/2015 11:54:30 AM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
I don't believe that Iran and Israel have any real issues -- the Ayatollahs' brandish the "hate israel" slogan to befuddle the locals -- but they've done that for so long, most Iranis don't believe them any more

Also, India sees no self-interest in being committed to any one -- it would be friends with both Israel (chief supplier of weaponry to India and for Hindus a strong friend against Arabs) and with Iran

9 posted on 09/08/2015 4:23:58 AM PDT by Cronos (Obama’s dislike of Assad is not based on Assad’s brutality but that he isn't a jihadi Moslem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Why do you say Iran's army is the most under-rated?

Equipment-wise it has 3 decade old weaponry. It has a strong army, but this is in comparison to the Arabs who have jokes for their soldiers. The Iranis wouldn't be able to stand up to the Pakistanis in a straight-up non-nuke fight, forget about Turkey

10 posted on 09/08/2015 4:25:17 AM PDT by Cronos (Obama’s dislike of Assad is not based on Assad’s brutality but that he isn't a jihadi Moslem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

the Saudis paid for the Pakistani nuclear program since the 1970s. They already own the nukes

11 posted on 09/08/2015 4:48:59 AM PDT by Cronos (Obama’s dislike of Assad is not based on Assad’s brutality but that he isn't a jihadi Moslem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I don't believe that Iran and Israel have any real issues...
Riiiight, and neither do the US and Iran.
12 posted on 09/08/2015 2:05:08 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson