The new UN Security Council resolution moderately expanded sanctions previously imposed on Iran. The highlights:
· Bans all trade and supply of so-called dual-use items, materials and technologies that can be adapted for military as well as civilian use.
· Authorize inspections of cargo to and from Iran that is suspected of carrying prohibited equipment.
· Authorize monitoring of two major Iranian banks, Bank Melli and Bank Saderat.
· Extends travel bans and asset freezes against persons and companies involved in the nuclear program. It adds 13 names to the existing list of five individuals and 12 companies subject to travel and asset restrictions.
The resolution adopted by the council invoked Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which allows the UN council to seek economic sanctions without relying on the use of force to implement a resolution.
Russia sets conditions on UN Iran vote
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
Mon, 03 Mar 2008 1:14 PM ET
VIENNA, Austria - Diplomats say Russia has set conditions on its backing of new U.N. sanctions against Tehran for its nuclear activities.
Two diplomats told The Associated Press on Monday that Moscow wants European nations to drop plans for an resolution critical of Iran at a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They said Russia was upset that it was not told earlier about such plans. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.
Grigory Berdennikov, the chief Russian delegate to the IAEA, told the AP that he was not happy about the planned resolution.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information.
That's right. There were reports that the Russians had held the vote at Security Council on this issue. They mush have received what they wanted. Probably no resolutions at IAEA for the time being.
You've gotta love the neocon Associated Press who use the phrase "Iran's nuclear defiance."
Iran permits IAEA inspections of its facilities, Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Iran possesses zero nuclear weapons.
Israel, on the other hand, does NOT permit IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities, israel is NOT a signatory to the NPT and israel possesses HUNDREDS of nuclear weapons today. israel does NOT generate electricity for public consumption using nuclear power.
Nobody ever makes a peep about israel and its "nuclear defiance" though. This is another illustration of craven hypocrisy by the United States and some nations of Europe who genuflect before israel but impose economic sanctions against Iran -- for playing by the rules, which israel does not.
Russia, China block UN Iran Resolution
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
04 March 2008 08:30 ET
Russia and China on Tuesday scuttled a Western attempt to introduce a resolution on Iran's nuclear defiance at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, diplomats said.
The decision appeared to be the result of lingering unhappiness by the two world powers about not being informed earlier of plans for such a resolution.
* * * * * * * *
IAEA board drops Iran sanctions resolution: diplomats
by Simon Morgan
04 March 2008 08:30 ET
A resolution against Iran will not be tabled [discussed, considered] at a meeting of the UN atomic watchdog here, because it would not add anything to new UN sanctions against the Islamic Republic, diplomats said.
A push by western countries for an anti-Iran resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors had run into stiff resistance anyway, for fear it could jeopardise cooperation between Tehran and the body.
But diplomats said the idea had now been dropped altogether.
How is this series of sanctions strategy expected to move Iran away from its perceived rights under the NPT? Think back to the Iran-Iraq War, when Iran faced foreign aggression from a million man army, chemical weapons and Scud missile attacks on Tehran. Still it fought on. Against this backdrop of history, does anyone seriously believe the sanctions strategy has any real chance of success?
Credit Indonesia for having the sense to abstain. As Professor Farideh Fahri says: "Time to move on."
Iran can not be at odds with the West forever. Iran is not in a revolutionary state and I do not believe the lessons from the Iran-Iraq war applies here. Iranians want, and need a normal state that has established relations with all the important actors in the world. That’s the only way that Iran can play an effective role relative to its great power and influence. Good relations with Indonesia and similar countries do not provide Iran with that platform.
We need a cool-headed government in Tehran, willing to pay a high political price in order to normalize the situation in the country. Iran has made a clear case of its rights under NPT, now it has to move on and put this whole nuclear episode behind it. If Iran is not making bomb, why does it need so much enriched uranium now? Why should we pay a high price for a product we have no use for at this time?
Iran has made a good case on its rights, world public opinion has listened, and it is now the time to delay the enrichment program and get on with normalizing its relations with the world.
I agree with much of what you say, Nader. In 2003, the Khatami government made a grand peace offer to the United States. Everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups, in return for ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests."
The offer was ignored.
What conclusions were the Iranians expected to draw? Not that long ago, they voluntarily suspended their uranium enrichment. Where did that get them? From their perspective, Iran’s nuclear industry is expected to assume a position of dependence on world politics. Well, Nader, world politics have been awfully unkind to Iran the past twenty-nine years. There are those that say it goes back even farther, to August 19, 1953.
Don’t get me wrong, nobody more than me would like to see normalized relations between the US and Iran. Iran made a courageous offer in 2003. Hopefully, in 2009, the next President of the United States will make a sincere offer of his/her own.
I certainly hope so. Just the mere act of opening an embassy in Tehran would help US regain tremendous advantages it’s lost in Iran.
I agree that both sides need to want to make this happen. US foreign policy has been a failure. We need a change the policy and take a totally different approach to the war on terrorism. What US has done is not working.
The world has indeed been unkind to Iran during these 29 years. But the Iranian government should accept a big chunk of responsibility for it. If something is not working, you can not repeat it and expect to get different and better results. The anti-West sloganeering and pretending to be the embodiment of anti-Americanism on this earth is not working.
If the grand bargain approach was correct, then the government should not have abandoned it, just because the Bush administration did not realize its value. If you think you have an effective policy, then you follow it and stick with it until you get the desired result. Bush said no in 2003, when the Iraq hype was at its height. A professional and prudent foreign policy apparatus would have pushed it at a later date, and the chance was to get better results.
Iran can not afford to sit tight in the hope that other countries change their attitudes. Iran has to live with realities and has to be pro-active to get itself out of isolation. US or EU would not do that for Iran, no one would do it for Iran. The Iranian government should stop repeating that that Iran is right and they are wrong. This does not get them anywhere.
I am very concern that the Iranian leaders have lost touch with realities and are not open to adjust their policies to get a better result for the country.
Regarding Iranian resistance to the new UNSC sanctions, Kaveh Afrasiabi rightly points out: “This may well mean resisting a key aspect of the UN resolution that calls for the interdiction of ships and airplanes carrying suspected nuclear cargo to and from Iran. With US and French ships poised to carry out this duty in and around the Persian Gulf, the stage has now been set for the next chapter in the nuclear standoff, that is, physical confrontation.”
Post a Comment