U.N. Council Puts New Sanctions On Iran

Security Council Unanimously Approves Tougher Sanctions Against Iran

(CBS/AP)  Ahmadinejad canceled a planned appearance before the Security Council and sent Mottaki instead, claiming the U.S. failed to deliver his visa in time. The U.S. said it had issued the visa promptly.

Raising tensions, Iran detained 15 British sailors and marines Friday in what it said were Iranian territorial waters near Iraq. The 15 had been on a mission to search for smugglers in Iraqi waters.

The six world powers that drafted the new resolution spent Friday trying to overcome objections from several council members, reflecting concerns that anything short of consensus would weaken efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear defiance.

There were several minor concessions but no changes to the key sanctions agreed upon last week by the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany.

The new sanctions — already a compromise between the stronger measures favored by the United States and the Europeans and the softer approach advocated by Russian and China — are considered modest. The ban on exports is among the harshest measures, but many of Iran's arms sales may not be affected because they are illicitly sent to militant groups like Lebanon's Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq.

Still, world powers hoped that approving the resolution quickly and unanimously would signal that Iran will face stricter sanctions each time it ignores a Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.

"This resolution sends an unambiguous signal to the government and people of Iran ... that the path of nuclear proliferation by Iran is not one that the international community can accept," said British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry.

In Paris, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said the Security Council gave Iran a clear choice: "Cooperate with the international community or pursue their enrichment and reprocessing activities and worsen, in that way, their isolation."

The United States and some of its allies fear Iran's nuclear program is a cover for producing atomic weapons. Mottaki insisted Iran's goal was solely the peaceful pursuit of an alternative source of energy.

"We have expressed our readiness, taken unprecedented steps and offers several serious proposals to address and allay any possible concern in this regard," he said.

The new resolution calls for voluntary restrictions on travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, on arms sales to Iran, and on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government.

It asks the International Atomic Energy Agency to report back in 60 days on whether Iran has suspended enrichment and warns Iran could face further measures if it does not. But it also says all sanctions will be suspended if Iran halts enrichment and makes clear that Tehran can still accept a package of economic incentives and political rewards offered last year if it complies with the council's demands.

After the latest resolution met with surprising resistance from several elected Security Council members, a reference was inserted to a past resolution from the IAEA calling for the Middle East to be free of weapons of mass destruction. Indonesia and Qatar had wanted the council to make that appeal outright, but that would have had implications for Israel, a U.S. ally widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it has never officially acknowledged it.

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz — whose country considers Iran its biggest threat — said he hoped it the resolution would "really be put into effect and carry out the will of the free world, which will do everything to stop the process of Iranian nuclearization."

[diplomacy3]

tbweb
Puntin has been a very successful former KGB
officer and he would like someone with similar background as his successor. His close contact with ordinary russians thru media has won him good reputation and they would like him to stay on as President for ever. He is absolutely the right candidate for President, if Russian constitution allows him for the 3rd time.

[feelfree1]

tbweb,

Re: "I don't think its a good idea for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to have frequent visits to the U.S. or maybe even to have no visits at all."

If we don't allow them in, how will we ever learn what a good speaker/leader looks like?

[tbweb]

--feelfree1

I don't think its a good idea for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to have frequent visits to the U.S. or maybe even to have no visits at all. Tensions are high and they both are Sniper bait! Even if the U.S. did not assassinate them someone else could and blame it on the U.S.! The U.S. does not need the assassination of a Head of State on its hands with all the other drama going on!

[tbweb]

--diplomacy3

Yes I agree, President Putin is very popular is Russia and his chair and influence will be close by. I was surprised that President Putin wasn't more aggressive and confrontational with the West himself since he is a Black Belt in Karate or Judo, but those disciplines teach restraint too so maybe he mastered all aspects.

[diplomacy3]

feelfree1:

No doubt, he 'personally' likes America for sightseeing - Niagara falls!

[feelfree1]

diplomacy3,

Re: "But Nejad could still visit the US with the rest of the delegation if he wanted to."

Sure thing. Perhaps he would like to visit the U.S. without his security team, for example, eh?

[feelfree1]

As long as the U.N. serves to appease and prop up the lie/fraud-based terror crusade of the Bush regime, they cannot be viewed as a democratic body.

As long as the U.N. fails to reign-in the rogue terror-State of Israel, they cannot be viewed as an credible arbitor of the rule of law.

[diplomacy3]

feelfree1..

Yes, the US delivered Nejad's visa to its Swiss Embassy in Berne which is hardly two blocs away from the Iranian Embassy there but I think some more people were to be included in the entourage and their visas could not be delivered on time. But Nejad could still visit the US with the rest of the delegation if he wanted to.

[feelfree1]

Re: "Ahmadinejad canceled a planned appearance before the Security Council and sent Mottaki instead, claiming the U.S. failed to deliver his visa in time. The U.S. said it had issued the visa promptly."

Officials in the Bush regime are known to play games with visas for foreign officials that they are scared of. Chavez is a known example of this.

If CBS and other Western mainstream outlets were actual sources of reliable news and information, they should be able to determine whether or not this claim is true, rather than simply parroting unsupported claims.

A Russian once told me that the difference between Soviet era Pravda and the U.S. mainstream press, was that the Soviets KNEW that the Pravda propaganda was false.

[diplomacy3]

I was expecting something to happen when the Iranian President announced a visit to address the UNSC. I had left my comments on this board that it looked like he would be coming for a sightseeing as everyone likes America! You can't expect such a visit by a head of state in such a situation. It would have been victory for him though and hence the capture of 15 sailors. Yes, either the Foreign Minister or the Defence Minister would be Putin's substitute but Putin will have his table & chair next to him.

[tbweb]

--diplomacy3

Lets be honest, if the Iranians captured you and you thought confessing to being in their waters would save your life, would you not confess as well? LOL! The real truth will not be known until the British sailors are safely back on British soil out of harms way. Right now they may confess to anything under the stress of gun point! Russia's Foreign Minister will probably be Russia's next President and is more confrontational and aggressive than Pres. Putin so things will start to get very interesting, however Moscow is starting to get fed up with Iran like the West, Moscow won't be blackmailed or dragged into supporting a war against the West with Iran without good reason and right now Russia must be pulling its hair out now than Iran has 15 Royal Navy sailors in its possession!

[diplomacy3]

tbweb

I agree with you on US female pilots. At least they will not be captured by the Iranians. Instead, they will provide them with local hospitality i.e. veil (burqas) to cover their faces.

[tbweb]

--diplomacy3

The U.S. is very smart and extremely subtle in the way it handles the women issue with Arab states! When U.S. Secretary's of State Albright and Rice are shown on Arab TV respresenting the U.S. Government, what do you think discriminated Arab women are thinking? They are thinking we are dinosaurs when it comes to modern thinking and attitudes towards women! I bet American female fighter pilots will get an extra joy going up against Iranian targets! I'm told female fighter pilots are in some cases better than their male counterparts! The female fighter pilots have an extra incentive, this one is for the girls!! LOL

[diplomacy3]

tbweb:

Interesting! We are tickling Iran diplomatically since we failed in Iraq by bypassing the UN. Moscow has already been paid. I hope you did not miss to read the Russian Foreign Minister's comments on "payment issue". That's just a western propaganda. The effects of diplomatic showdown with Iran would be harsher. Countries which are dependent on oil from the Gulf including the US would suffer the most. The capture of 15 British sailors stopped the Iranian President from visiting the UN. The 15 sailors have already confessed they violated the Iranian waters. That's a different issue. It has happened before. My main concern is that mounting pressures would ultimately turn Iran into mastering a nuclear bomb if that's what we want.

[tbweb]

--diplomacy3

Russia is in it for the money! The Russians don't want to see a nuclear Iran either! In fact the Russians appear to be re-thinking finishing the Iran nuclear project since Iran is not paying on time or at least the way Moscow expects. You trust Iran it seems. Would you let Iran baby sit your kid if you had one? What would the Iranians teach your kid? Would you even get your kid back the way you left it? I would suggest that when you got your kid back it would be brainwashed saying things like "Death to diplomacy3!!" At a time when so much is going on, Iran ups the ante and captures 15 British Sailors and makes things even worst, right on the eve of a U.N. sanction vote, convince me there are not traces of insanity present in Iranian logic! LOL

[diplomacy3]

....Iran is making a big deal about only wanting nuclear power for electricity and peaceful means and claims the world is wrong about Irans intentions!

I meant mounting pressures and sanctions against Iran could reveal the intentions of West against Iran for something that's not born yet. Such pressure could lead Iran turn its peaceful program into a "dirty bomb".

It is the West that's has suspicions about Iran's nuclear peaceful program. Staying course means Iran wants nuclear power for electricity. But unfortunately that is being interpreted as a "nuclear bomb". We are treating Iran as if it already has a nuclear bomb. Can't we stop it when it actually tests one. In fact, its nearest neighbor, Russia is there which is building Iran's Busher nuclear plant. Can't we trust Russia?

[karlimhof]

Everyone knows Iran is lying!
Posted by tbweb


I can't say yet Iran is lying. Unless I accept de facto what Bush & israel say, which I'm not inclinded to do at this moment.

Iran is grandstanding and provoking, not threatening - holy cow! (no religious pun intended) but we just attacked and invaded Iran's neighbor, seems logical that she would not sit quietly by without a word....

[radiob-2009]

I also feel bad that there are not more terrorists if we had a few more attacks on our homeland maybe the left would finally be willing to get on board and root for the hometeam.

Posted by didntinhale (but should - may help)


A poor attempt at humour in bad taste.

[diplomacy3]

tbweb:.....For example if I argue that Iran discriminates against people, the pro-Iran forces will argue that Iran only discriminates against women and not men...

I am no-pro-Iran. If I understand your comments correctly, I would like to add that its not discrimination against women in Iran. In fact, call it a tradition or a religious aspect that women should not have an active participation in the Middle Eastern society. Mostly, they are expected to confine to their household. In Saudi Arabia, same situation or perhaps even worse. Women are not allowed to drive, if I am not wrong. In Iran shaking hand with a woman is prohibited. A woman must have a veil and must not have an eye contact with a guy.

[karlimhof]

I also feel bad that there are not more terrorists if we had a few more attacks on our homeland maybe the left would finally be willing to get on board and root for the hometeam.

Posted by didntinhale (but should - may help)

that is an idea you share with the neocon world (where did they all go recently?) - and the bas tards would like nothing better.