UNITED NATIONS, March 3, 2008
U.N. Approves New, Tougher Iran Sanctions
For First Time, Resolution Bans Trade Of Goods With Both Civilian And Military Uses
-
Play CBS Video Video More U.N. Sanctions For Iran The U.N. has imposed additional sanctions against Iran and its nuclear program. Sanctions are to include travel bans and asset freezes.
-
(AP / CBS)
-
Timeline Iran Nuclear Chronology Events in development of Iran's nuclear program since it first came to light.
-
Fast Facts Iran Learn about the people, economy and history.
The vote was 14-0 with one abstention from Indonesia.
Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazee told the council just before the vote that the government would not comply with the "unlawful action" against its "peaceful nuclear program."
"Iran cannot and will not accept a requirement which is legally defective and politically coercive," Khazee said. "History tells us that no amount of pressure, intimidation and threat will be able to coerce our nation to give up its basic and legal rights."
For the first time with regard to Iran's nuclear program, the Security Council sanctions have teeth, reports CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk.
The resolution bans trade with Iran in goods that have both civilian and military uses. It also authorizes inspections of shipments to and from Iran by sea and air that are suspected of carrying banned items.
The resolution introduces financial monitoring of two banks with suspected links to proliferation activities, Bank Melli and Bank Saderat. It calls on all countries "to exercise vigilance" in entering into new trade commitments with Iran, including granting export credits, guarantees or insurance.
The resolution also orders countries to freeze the assets of 12 additional companies and 13 individuals with links to Iran's nuclear or ballistic missile programs - and require countries to "exercise vigilance" and report the travel or transit of those Iranians. It imposes a travel ban on five individuals linked to Iran's nuclear effort.
Most of the new individuals subject to sanctions are technical figures but one, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, is a prominent figure in the elite Revolutionary Guard military corps and is close to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The resolution identifies him as a former deputy chief of the Armed Forces General Staff for Logistics and Industrial Research and as head of the State Anti-Smuggling Headquarters engaged in efforts to get around previous U.N. sanctions.
Britain and France, who co-sponsored the resolution, put off the vote from Saturday until Monday to try to get four non-permanent council members who raised a variety of concerns on board - Libya, Indonesia, South Africa and Vietnam.
In the final vote, Libya, South Africa and Vietnam voted "yes" but Indonesia abstained. Diplomats credited French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who visited South Africa last week, for helping to sway the Libyans and South Africans.
Indonesia's U.N. Ambassador Marty Natalegawa told the council that his nation had confidence in the International Atomic Energy Agency's ability to handle the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, rather than the security council intervening with further sanctions.
"We must avoid more of the same," he said just before the vote. "Iran is cooperating with the IAEA. At this juncture, more sanctions are not the best cause."
One concern raised by the four countries is the latest IAEA report on Feb. 22 that said suspicions about most past Iranian nuclear activities had eased or been laid to rest. The Libyan and Indonesian envoys had stressed that this indicated Iranian cooperation, and questioned the need for additional sanctions.
The resolution adopted Monday does welcome Iran's agreement with the IAEA to resolve all outstanding issues about its past nuclear program "and progress in this regard."
It also reiterates that the package of incentives offered by the five permanent council nations - the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France - and Germany in June 2006 remains on the table if Iran suspends enrichment.
But the Americans and their European allies stressed that the report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog confirmed that Iran has continued to enrich uranium, in defiance of Security Council resolutions, and demanded that Tehran suspend its uranium centrifuge program.
The IAEA also reported that Iran rejected new documents that link Tehran to missile and explosives experiments and other work connected to a possible nuclear weapons program. Iran called the information false and irrelevant, the IAEA said.
Last week, Iran's Khazee accused an Iranian opposition group listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and the European Union of feeding fabricated evidence to Washington. One council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue disputed his claim, saying the information came from an Iranian defector.
The council meeting to vote on the resolution was delayed for nearly two hours because of a dispute over plans by Britain, France and Germany to present a resolution before the IAEA board, which opened a meeting in Vienna on Monday.
Diplomats said that Russia learned about the planned resolution just before the vote on the Security Council resolution, and was threatening to hold it up because it was not informed of the European plans.
Grigory Berdennikov, the chief Russian delegate to the IAEA, told the AP in Vienna that "we are not happy about developments here in Vienna - we were not informed."
A European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Russians asked that no resolution be presented in Vienna as a condition for voting on the sanctions resolution in New York. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.
The resolution drafted by the Europeans would have praised progress made in the IAEA investigation of Iran's nuclear past, but noted that the investigation was incomplete because Iran had refused to answer questions about its alleged weapons experiments. It also said the 35-member IAEA board - not the agency's leaders - had the final authority to declare the investigation into Iran's past nuclear programs closed.
Iran insists its enrichment activities are intended only for peaceful civilian purposes, but the U.S., the EU and others suspect its real aim is to produce atomic weapons.
Iran also rejected the two previous Security Council resolutions as "illegal", and Khazee reiterated that Iran will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.
The council first imposed limited sanctions in December 2006, ordering all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also ordered countries to freeze the assets of 10 key Iranian companies and 12 individuals related to those programs.
Iran responded by expanding its enrichment program, so the council imposed new sanctions in March 2007, this time banning Iranian arms exports.
It also ordered countries to freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs - about a third linked to the Revolutionary Guard. It asked countries to restrict travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, as well as arms sales to Iran and new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government.
At the same time that the U.N. Security Council was voting against Iran, its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was on an unprecedented 2-day trip to Iraq to refute charges that Iran is training Shiite militants, reports Falk. Together, the U.N. vote and the Ahmadinejad trip are likely to increase tensions between Tehran and the West.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From World
Add a Comment See all 55 Comments
- ITS TIME TO START WORLD WAR III..time to rid the world of the weak, the stupid and the liberals
- Reply to this comment
- bcsmith, what makes you think Democrats (or Libs , as you insist on calling them) are against sanctions on Iran? After all, it was us ''liberals'' calling for letting sanctions and inspections continue against Iraq, instead of invading based on da-mned lies and non existent weapons of mass destruction!
As for Iran, here''s what Obama had to say about the situation:
%u201CThe Iranian government uses the billions of dollars it earns from its oil and gas industry to build its nuclear program and to fund terrorist groups that export its militaristic and radical ideology to Iraq and throughout the Middle East,%u201D said Senator Obama. %u201CPressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is critical to ensuring that sanctions have their intended result. All Americans can play a role in pressuring companies to cut their ties with the Iranian regime, a state sponsor of terror that is a threat to our allies in the region and international security, as a means of convincing Iran to fundamentally change its policies.%u201D
" - Reply to this comment
- Well, well. The WORLD apparently agrees with President Bush about the Iran nuclear threat. The LIBS, not so much.
Posted by mbcsmith at 03:33 PM : Mar 03, 2008
Well, Well. The shrub is trying some diplomacy.
How long before we get: "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." George Bush as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23,2002
Posted by IOWEIGN at 07:40 PM : Mar 03, 2008
LIBS just don''t get it, especially this moron.org poster. That''s it LIB, call our ranking general in Iraq a traitor again. Show America what worthless piecess of shiite you really are. - Reply to this comment
- Well, well. The WORLD apparently agrees with President Bush about the Iran nuclear threat. The LIBS, not so much.
Posted by mbcsmith at 03:33 PM : Mar 03, 2008
Well, Well. The shrub is trying some diplomacy.
How long before we get: "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." George Bush as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by IOWEIGN at 07:40 PM : Mar 03, 2008
It took 12 years and three presidents of diplomacy to take Hussain down, Whats your point besides pointless?
Now Bow to your new Pharo Obamma and fall in line. - Reply to this comment
- INDISPENSABLE READING MATERIAL:
THE CASE FOR CONSTANT VIGILANCE vs ROGUE NATION, IRAN
The author demonstrates conclusively that Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons, while successfully deceiving an anxious Western World.
Part 2 which is yet to be in mass print, lays claim to possessing info regarding specific, frightening, earth-shattering, details of Iran''s super-secretive, rapid-paced, nuclear weapons development, and the grave danger Iran poses to the entire world.
In conclusion, the world still lacks a finalized plan by which Iran will be denied that nation''s nuclear weapons production. - Reply to this comment
- Starve them until they love us. If that doesn''t work, bomb them until they love us. If that doesn''t work, invade them and occupy them until they love us. If that doesn''t work, hang their leader. If that doesn''t work, give them a choice of US controlled puppets to vote from for a new leader. If that doesn''t work, let neighboring countries invade them too. If that doesn''t work, wait until your term as president is over and it''s someone else''s problem.
- Reply to this comment
- do what a liberal would do..PRETEND IT DOES NOT EXIST..
Posted by libsrweak at 12:26 AM : Mar 04, 2008
Actually liberals are smarter than that.
They would allow these two old enemies to keep the balance of power in the region, by playing them off each other.
And we wouldn''t be in the hole with trillions of dollars in debt and 4000 Americans will be with their families today, instead of being in the cold earth.
But of course that scenario is not acceptable to the conservatives and their friends in Halliburton. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by jerr11 at 10:17 PM : Mar 03, 2008
+ report abuse
*********
do what a liberal would do..PRETEND IT DOES NOT EXIST.. - Reply to this comment
- Bush did the greatest favor to Iran.
He removed their arch enemy, Saddam and replaced hin with Iranian Shiite agents.
At what cost to America!
4000 Dead Americans
2.5 Billion a week!
We''re bleeding men and treasure to install Iranian puppets in Iraq.
With enemies like Bush, who need friends! - Reply to this comment
- Singingrick, watch out, a boogieman terrorist is gonna get ya! Run! Run!
Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 09:05 PM : Mar 03, 2008
Vincent Bugliosi is his worst fear. Him and George "number 9" Bush. - Reply to this comment
- "defiance of Security Council"
That''s like George Washington defying England. - Reply to this comment
- Buy US planes and bombs, just 19.99...he he he
The Ronco F-18 superduper satan hawk viper warior...lol God sold separately! - Reply to this comment
- Posted by singinrick at 07:48 PM : Mar 03, 2008
Singingrick, watch out, a boogieman terrorist is gonna get ya! Run! Run! - Reply to this comment
- The US, the UN, the international community...LOL!
Everybody knows 9/11 was an inside job and western media is worse than the old U.S.S.R.
You are doomed ... for get the defecit, the whole west is on borrowed time - Reply to this comment
- Iran will get around the sanctions. When there''s money involved someone will always think of a way.
How about just letting Iran develop what it wants to develop? Then if it becomes a threat to any nation (Israel), that nation can defend itself. Let''s get the US out of the middle of everything. We shouldn''t be the world''s cops. - Reply to this comment
- singin "sadey bananna" rick
Has Bush invited you to his Spawn Ranch yet? - Reply to this comment
- oh yeah..are there martians in your conspiracy?
Posted by libsrweak at 08:22 PM : Mar 03, 2008
Is there a wallet and Sharon Tate in yours? - Reply to this comment
- Did you know the flag of Israel is the backwards sun? It''''s supposed to be yellow to mean creation. Blue is the end when the sun burns helium. Backwards. It could mean justice like the US and many others, but it''''s too odd for the hexagram to be any other color than yellow in the Middle East. Like the swastika. wouldn''''t suprise me at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by zootallures2 at 06:54 PM : Mar 03, 2008
+ report abuse
oh okay..whatever you say...
Posted by libsrweak at 06:34 PM : Mar 03, 2008
I have to say kinda like Alex Jones... It sure is crazy and insane, but that''''s how you are and it''''s sad that I''''m right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by zootallures2 at 06:48 PM : Mar 03, 2008
report abuse
*****************
oh yeah..are there martians in your conspiracy? - Reply to this comment
- That is "UN", not "US", folks. Anyone who thinks "This is a neocon strategy" needs to get their heads out of their buttox, stat.
Remember all the "neocon supporters" who utterly hated the UN? Gee, you lot want it both ways.
Maybe there is no "neocon conspiracy" and the Iranians are a real, developing threat?
There''s certainly enough going on to acquit the Bush administration of "shifty-eyed shenanigans" and every other tinfoil belief.
Iraq may or may not have been wise. Doesn''t mean people are wrong all the time. Still human and times change. - Reply to this comment
- Well, well. The WORLD apparently agrees with President Bush about the Iran nuclear threat. The LIBS, not so much.
Posted by mbcsmith at 03:33 PM : Mar 03, 2008
Well, Well. The shrub is trying some diplomacy.
How long before we get: "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." George Bush as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002 - Reply to this comment
