CBS/AP/ February 6, 2012, 10:52 AM

U.S. slaps new sanctions on Iran amid tensions

CBS/AP

Updated at 11:29 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON - President Obama has ordered new sanctions on the Islamic republic, including its Central Bank, in a move to enforce a law he signed in December.

In a letter to Congress Monday, Mr. Obama said the tougher sanctions are warranted "particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks." He said the problems included the hiding transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies of Iran's anti-money laundering regime and the unacceptably high risk posed to the entire international financial system posed by Iran's activities.

The Central Bank sanctions were included as an amendment in the wide-ranging defense bill Mr. Obama signed into law at the end of 2011. The White House said Mr. Obama signed the executive order approving the sanctions on Sunday, well ahead of the six-month window he was afforded in the defense bill.

Obama: U.S. intel on Iran nuke work "very good"
Obama: Israel has not decided on attacking Iran
How much can U.S. influence Israel on Iran?

Mr. Obama's fresh swipe at Tehran come as the White House tries to both ratchet up pressure on the Islamic republic to abandon its nuclear program and dissuade Israel from launching a unilateral strike on Iran, a move that could roil the Middle East and jolt the global economy.

Mr. Obama said Sunday he does not believe Israel has yet decided whether to attack Iran and still believes a diplomatic solution is possible.

Iran insists that its nuclear pursuit is for peaceful purposes, but the West accuses Iran of developing the know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

A Treasury Department statement said the sanctions underscore that the administration is determined to hold Iran accountable for meeting international obligations over its nuclear program. The statement said Iran should get the message that "it will face ever-increasing economic and diplomatic pressure" until it answers the world's well-founded concerns about its nuclear intentions.

The department also said foreign financial institutions engaged in "arms-length transactions" with the Central Bank would not be impacted by the sanctions that Mr. Obama ordered Sunday, but remain at risk of such penalties if they undertake significant transactions with the bank or other Iranian financial institutions.

The sanctions amendment in the defense bill compelled U.S. punishment of foreign financial institutions that conduct transactions through Iran's Central Bank in order to import petroleum. Several U.S. allies in Europe and Asia engage in such business with Iran.

The administration expressed concern at the time that the sanctions could lead to a spike in global oil prices, hampering the American economic recovery and perhaps perversely enabling Iran to reap even greater revenues from its oil exports. That would defeat the purpose of the bill, which is to hamper Tehran's alleged support for international terrorism and its ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program.

Under the law, Mr. Obama had the option of waiving penalties for national security reasons.

The White House sees sanctions as an effective method of increasing pressure on Iran and officials say the penalties have started to squeeze Iran's economy.

In recent weeks, both the U.S. and European Union have imposed harsher sanctions on Iran's oil sector, the lifeblood of its economy.

In Washington, the Senate Banking Committee also easily approved yet more penalties on Tehran last week. The sweeping measure, which is not yet law, would target Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, require companies that trade on the U.S. stock exchanges to disclose any Iran-related business to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expand penalties for energy and uranium mining joint ventures with Tehran.

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
29 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
fedup12 says:
Um Information. I think we paid for it. In blood tears, sweat and cash.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
fedup12 says:
I really have the same feelings in my heart about... Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan as Israel. I really dont want to be sending ANY of these guys my hard earned tax money.

As it should be.

Cept I kind of like some of those guys oil. To heck the rest.
reply
fedup12 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Ha ha ha.... We have the technology. Lets do it.

Isnt that what was going on in Kuwait across the Iraq border. One of the reasons Iraq attacked Kuwait for Gulf War one. We are probably still sucking oil across that border.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
fedup12 says:
Wow Slow. Obama cant get a break from these hypocrites.

Killing OBL no matter the " Osama is not important" speech Bush Gave... Credit goes to Bush.

Libya. Went really well but shouldnt have happened according to these guys. Even though they want us to DO SOMETHING in Syria and Iran. Libya was an Obama mistake.

Economy. In a state of Free Fall when Obama took office. Caused by guys exactly like Mitt and Newt. Still not good but it is all Obamas fault. Anything good happening now is due to the Republican House of Representatives.

I mean wow.
reply
Lerianis4 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Sorry, but the credit does not go to Bush on Osama Bin Laden.... it goes straight to Obama.
guyfrompa46 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Acually the Bin Laden kill should go to both. Bush set all the security in place. Obama originally wanted all that put away. Then he became president and got a reality check. So then he goes along with it. At least he actually gave the go ahead and didn't offer to sit down and talk like he's done with everyone else..
linkicon reporticon emailicon
one4gipper says:
Obama months ago to Iran: You guys had better play ball or I will freeze you assets. A few month later: I am serious. I will freeze your assets. Even later: OK, I am freezing you assets.

Obama to Geithner: How much did we get?

Geithner: About $27. This because we found an account that they had forgotten about.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
tvwatcher5345 says:
send ground troops into iran consisting of the pro-israeli neocons that got the US into the worst military blunder iraq, scum like podhoretz, krystol, wolfowitz, kagan (romney's foreign policy advisor), scooter, judy miller, pearle, abrams, freidman, senor, etc, etc, nothing but a bunch of chicken soup hawks (with American lives)
reply
fedup12 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
And by gosh we were all going to be killed by Iraq'a WMD's too.


TruthB.... Do you ever get out from under your bed. You're kind of skittish arent you.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
UForgotPoland says:
It's fairly obvious Iran is aiming to build a nuclear weapon. If this program was solely for infrastructure then it would of been discontinued a long time ago with the economic and political pressures. We cannot allow this theocracy of wackos to get their hands on a weapon of this scope, their huge drive to build one makes the situation even more worrisome.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
PourpaixPourpaix says:
My, how the story changes when it's your country getting picked on. Maybe we wouldn't have had this issue with Iran if we didn't back the Israeli and Pakistani nuclear programs. Those countries did it out of self-protection, too.

"Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mahmoud Mohammadi said on state television, "Iran follows with deep concern the crisis created after the recent nuclear tests [in Pakistan on 28 May 1998]. The Islamic Republic of Iran calls on Pakistan and India to promptly cease all tests and stop the nuclear race and join the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty." The Iranian government also took the opportunity to push the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. "The recent developments once again point to the necessity of giving serious attention to setting us nuclear-free zones, especially in the sensitive Middle East region, which is under the threat of Israel's nuclear arsenal," Mohammadi said. President Mohammad Khatami told Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif the week before the tests that he understood Pakistan's security concerns after India's nuclear tests son 11 and 13 May, but he urged Islamabad to exercise restraint."
(Reuters, 29 May 98)
reply
Lerianis4 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TellitTrue, yes, we did create that situation. How? By trying to put the Shah back into place once he was deposed.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
samXXkiley says:
coucou,
the United States put more and more pressure on Iran, is this the solution?
in addition to the sanctions, the United States trying tirelessly to sow trouble in the Gulf area by creating a tension between Iran and Israel, why?
both countries are not stupid, they are aware that a war in the region would be catastrophic
"au revoir"
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
eiddam says:
Do research and find we are the Germany of 1933-1945. Same show just different actors. From our 9/11 just like Germany's Reichstag, blame another as an excuse to invade one country after another.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
USIsrael says:
No, the Christian faith if you look at the Baptist/Methodist/etc that largly use the Hebrew bible or the King James etc.

Read the Bible
reply
See all 29 Comments