More hot air.  Democrats attempting to stigmatize the administration; Republicans trying to distance themselves from George II in an election year, when they can't ride the coat tails of the incumbent.

The fact is, this is a monumental strategic move for the United States.  It is certainly the most far reaching diplomatic/strategic effort since the establishment of NATO.  A major, rising power along the sea lanes from the Middle East has decided to establish important ties with the United States in the region most vital to the interests of both countries.

For those numbskulls opining that a nuclear deal with India will "undermine the NPT," look around.  That train has already left the station.

For common adversaries along the littoral of the Indian Ocean and in the Persian Gulf, the conventional military prospects just got a lot more problematical for you. 

Leonidas:

Interesting point you bring up.  Strategy is not only about physical geography.  India has one of the strongest bases for representative democratic government in Asia.  A better fit for the U.S.

China's best friends seem to be Pakistan, Iran (kinda-sorta), Sudan and Myanmar.  Those are all rather the opposite.  Not good PR down the road.

The Chinese elites may feel more comfortable with those types of regimes.  Less messy public opinion to worry about.

But, IMHO, if it came to blows between India and Pakistan, China would drop the Pakis like a hot rock.  Probably Burma as well. 

How can America go around making nuclear deals with India while at the same time asking Iran to stop developing the technology. It seems totally hypocritical, and a kind of reward for the countries that did not sign up to the NPT.

Although the China factor is there with all this manouvering, i also think there is a bit going on vis a vis the Russians(especially in light of their recent posturing).  An indication is the offer to supply F-16 and the F-18 jets to india amongst other defence eqpt.

malizai:

International relations is (and always has been) about the self interests of states, or monarchies, or dynasties.  It is without doubt, the most hard boiled, cynical and ruthless of all political pursuits.  The word hypocrisy is not in the diplomatic vocabulary.

International agreements are adhered to (or not) as the interests of signatories, or of adjunct parties, are perceived to be affected.  If it is not perceived as in the interests of a party, agreements may not be joined or ratified.  There are mechanisms for signatories to leave treaties as well if that is in their interests.

Of course there will be criticism of U.S. policy in doing this agreement with India.  That is a risk one takes.  The more important long range issue is perceived to be adding a counterweight in the strategic Indian Ocean to possible future moves by China possibly in SE Asia or at the straits.  No, nothing has happened yet, but if you wait til it does, it is often too late.

Obviously, resulting economic ties that benefit both sides are a great advantage too.

Not like that has ever been an issue.

And the US? Egypt, Saudi and an assortment of other despotisms and (quasi) dictatorships.

Apples and oranges.

Every word of what u say is true, but the "diplomatic vocabulary" is in reality Lies that r forced down our throats to further unethical policies of our govts, its purpose to suppress our humanity and numb our senses, which has been achieved to a large degree. Fact of the matter is that in the 21st century the "NEW WORLD ORDER" is not accepted as the only form of doing things. Although it is the profane reality.

Just like fair trade is better than aid. I have the good fortune to use the language well with in its designs, rather than having to adapt it to my designs. So i can get away with using words like hypocrisy.  I don't need to conjure up terms like collateral damage, precision or smart bombing.

The profane reality still has the upper hand, and we ignore it at our peril.

I saw some news program on one of the international agreements; one that France was pushing for.  A retired diplomat (British IIRC) said that the French aren't terribly international unless France's interests are at stake.

It is totally hypocritical, but people like Pikeshot, President Bush, other realistic people and I just don't care.  The NPT is a scrap of paper and we would be fools to let a worthless document and kindergarten ideas of "fairness" stand in the way of furthering what could be a fantastic mutually beneficial agreement with the Indian government.  The Indians will point any nuclear weapons we help them build at the right people, so I see no practical reason to refrain from helping them as long as we can be reasonable certain they'll be secure in their hands. 

This is diplomacy, power is God.

yay!!!! lets give more nuclear power to a country that could possibly be invovled in a major and even in a major nuclear war with its neighbor!!!!

but no nukes for iran, not even peaceful energy

How dare we ignore it, in its brutality and consumptive disregard for everything b4 it. It will run its course as others b4 it. I think it was Malcom-X who compared the ideologies of communism and capatilism, by using the analogy of a baloon. He first presented the end of communism by slightly opening the mouth of this imaginary infalted baloon, the result of which we can visualize. As for capatlilism he continued to blow air into this baloon, that result too can be visualized. Who knows!!

Indeed u r right, neither are any other major powers, the problem is not the individual countries but the ideaology that is captilism. As I mentioned before it is not entirely an American issue, although there is much relavance to the US to speak of it only. It is the Gulf Stream of the capatilist global weather system. The point is that in the times we live in now we have to look for a globally sustainable alternative. We r killing Bisons all over again, the only problem is that the whole world is now the Great Plains. What we can do is press our govts to make an effort to formulate such a system, for it is beyond the capacity of individuals and organizations. What i find personally unacceptable is the resignation to a future that might be an abrupt shock to the system.

Yes, there is an old english saying "possession is nine-tenths of the law."

Originally posted by erci nukes for everyone! we want nukes too

Comeon guys we can already artificialy bring the onset of the iceage. There is a russian saying "If u have a hammer every problem looks like a nail".

I say nobody should have this hammer, no body should get to sleep with their nuclear breifcase. 

Iran needs to sell its oil/gas, not burn it up, the rationale that states Iran does not need nuclear energy is a complete nonsense, it is ESSENTIAL for development, rural and urban. When I was in Tehran (TEHRAN, a modern city), there were two half hour blackouts in as many weeks. 

In the Shah's era America was gonna do what it is doing for India now, that is, help build 29 nuclear power plants.  If Iran's sole aim was nuclear weapons, it would just build one reactor like Dimona, there are plans for reactors all over the country.

Interestingly, it seems that China is ahead of America in terms of nuclear power technology with meltdown proof reactors with a new and highly efficient arrangement of fuel cells, I read in a BBC article. Iran should dump Russia and employ ever advancing Chinese technology.

Also, seems like the Us is no longer opposed to Iran-India gas pipeline:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4774312.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4774312.stm  

As for nuclear arms: Iran is calling for a nuclear weapons free region, and has never had a strike first policy, unlike Israel and other states.

Non-alignment was in India's interests 30 or more years ago.  It isn't any more.  India's elites are knowledgeable and conscious of their interests.  As India moves more toward great power status, they will tend to act more and more like all other great powers.

Easier said than done, but I would sooner see the mullahs armed with enough weapons to turn the world to hellfire 100 times over than witness the utter destrucution and impovrishment of my homeland. and the disgrace of foreign savages walking around thinking they're the sh*t, beating people up, kicking doors in, peppering van fulls of kids with bullets, poisoning the water with pollution, destroying all infrastucture and committing other crimes as witnessed in Iraq. 

Not to mention the fact that the lack of respect for human life some countries have may even prompt them to launch "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes without fear of consequence on their usual bullsh*t pretences.

The indigenous mullahs are doing a good enough job of destroying and impoverishing Iran, as well as sucking the soul out of a nation.

If you want someone to blame, look no further than at home, rather than at whom you are obviously making reference.

Bad form for a Mod, Zagros.

Yeah? What did I blame on who? 

indian has not signed the NPT, has not said that it would not use nuclear weapons, and is continously breaking international law.

but who the hell cares. give everyone nukes except iran, infact, lets just deny iran every technology.

guess what everyone, turkey is going to build nuclear plants, saudi arabia already has one, and who knows, in the future, iraq will probably get nukes too.

You're supposed to put the end-quote tag after what I said, otherwise it makes what you said look like part of my post.  I was responding to Anu's post, I don't recall you getting whatever off your chest being a part of the equation.

you gotta fight, for your right.

anyway:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/opinion/05sun1.html - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/opinion/05sun1.html Iran's Best Friend Sign In to E-Mail This http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/opinion/05sun1.html?pagewanted=print - Printer-Friendly http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/opinion/05sun1.html?pagewanted=all - Save Article Published: March 5, 2006 At the rate that President Bush is going, Iran will be a global superpower before too long. For all of the axis-of-evil rhetoric that has come out of the White House, the reality is that the Bush administration has done more to empower Iran than its most ambitious ayatollah could have dared to imagine. Tehran will be able to look back at the Bush years as a golden era full of boosts from America, its unlikely ally. During the period before the Iraq invasion, the president gave lip service to the idea that Iran and Iraq were both threats to American security. But his advisers, intent on carrying out their long-deferred dream of toppling Saddam Hussein, gave scant thought to what might happen if their plans did not lead to the unified, peaceful, pro-Western democracy of their imaginings. The answer, though, is now rather apparent: a squabbling, divided country in which the Shiite majority in the oil-rich south finds much more in common with its fellow Shiites in Iran than with the Sunni Muslims with whom it needs to form an Iraqi government. Washington has now become dangerously dependent on the good will and constructive behavior of Shiite fundamentalist parties that Iran sheltered, aided and armed during the years that Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. In recent weeks, neither good will nor constructive behavior has been particularly evident, and if Iran chooses to stir up further trouble to deflect diplomatic pressures on its nuclear program, it could easily do so. There is now a real risk that Iraq, instead of being turned into an outpost of secular democracy challenging the fanatical rulers of the Islamic republic to its east, could become an Iranian-aligned fundamentalist theocracy, challenging the secular Arab regimes to its west. Fast-forward to Thursday's nuclear deal with India, in which President Bush agreed to share civilian nuclear technology with India despite its nuclear weapons programs and its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This would be a bad idea at any time, rewarding India for flouting the basic international understanding that has successfully discouraged other countries from South Korea to Saudi Arabia from embarking on their own efforts to build nuclear weapons. But it also undermines attempts to rein in Iran, whose nuclear program is progressing and unnerving both its neighbors and the West. The India deal is exactly the wrong message to send right now, just days before Washington and its European allies will be asking the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran's case to the United Nations Security Council for further action. Iran's hopes of preventing this depend on convincing the rest of the world that the West is guilty of a double standard on nuclear issues. Mr. Bush might as well have tied a pretty red bow around his India nuclear deal and mailed it as a gift to Tehran.

There is absolutely no assurance that Iran won't violate it's promises about nuclear weapons, and the fact that they've been doing all this in secret doesn't imply that it is peaceful.  And even if it is entirely or mostly peaceful and necessary for their development, the potential that it could be used for nuclear weapons is too great a risk for the US to take.

If you want your people to benefit from nuclear power, then first replace your government with something more appropriate for the 21st Century.

I believe Dr Mossadegh's democratic government in 1953 was more than appropriate, the one you guys overthrew and replaced with a weak despot.

like what? the saudi government which the USA supports, which is actually worse than iran??? the saudi government has a nuclear power plant, did you know that?

the fact of the matter is that zagros is right. did the shah need energy? iran had oil then too, but the USA had no problem building the shah nukes.

the whole government of iran doesnt deny the holocaust. ahmadinejad denies it.

for example, the former president of iran, khatami, attacked ahmadinejad, saying that the holocaust was a reality. 

How undemocratic of u to remember stuff like that. It is funny how people throw comments like that in thin air.

Wonder if an iranian equivalent of Bush would be acceptable in the 21st century.

Interesting, but immaterial to Pakistan IMO. Civilian nuclear deals for nuclear fuel supplies perhaps will give legitimacy to the Indian program, but both India and Pakistan are beyond this stage now, and are firmly established as nookular powers. I dont think nuclear fuel is Pakistan's main problem, it just needs to build more plants, though I could be wrong on this.

I'd expect a similar deal for Pakistan down the road anyway, though China will probably want to supply Pakistan as well. 

 Ahmadinezhad = Iranian Bush.