U.S. May Curb Iran

By Maggie Farley
Times Staff Writer

August 26, 2006

UNITED NATIONS — With increasing signs that several fellow Security Council members may stall a United States push to penalize Iran for its nuclear enrichment program, Bush administration officials have indicated that they are prepared to form an independent coalition to freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade.

The strategy, analysts say, reflects not only long-standing U.S. frustration with the Security Council's inaction on Iran, but also the current weakness of Washington's position because of its controversial role in a series of conflicts in the Middle East, most recently in Lebanon.

Despite assurances from Russia and China in July that they would support initial sanctions against Iran if it failed to suspend aspects of its nuclear program, Russia seemed to backtrack this week after Tehran agreed to continue talks, but refused to halt enrichment. A Security Council resolution gives the Islamic Republic until Aug. 31 to stop uranium enrichment, which could provide fuel to produce electricity or possibly atomic weapons, or face penalties.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov said Friday that as long as Iran was willing to negotiate, it was "premature" to punish the country and perhaps permanently isolate it.

"I do not know cases in international practice or the whole of the previous experience when sanctions reached their goals or were efficient," Ivanov said.

"Apart from this, I do not think that the issue is so urgent that the U.N. Security Council or the group of six countries" — the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany — "should consider the introduction of sanctions. In any case Russia continues to advocate a political and diplomatic solution to the problem."

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Iran's response was "not satisfactory" but France wanted to avoid a new conflict that could lead to "a clash of civilizations."

"But the worst thing would be to escalate into a confrontation with Iran on the one hand — and the Muslim world with Iran — and the West," he said on French radio. "That would be the clash of civilizations that France today is practically alone in trying to avoid."

U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said in an interview late this week that the United States planned to introduce a resolution imposing penalties such as a travel ban and asset freeze for key Iranian leaders soon after the Aug. 31 deadline, and seemed optimistic that China and Russia would agree to it once they saw the text. "Everybody's been on board," he said.

But in case Russia and China do not accept it, the U.S. is working a parallel diplomatic track outside the U.N., Bolton said.

Under U.S. terrorism laws, Washington could ramp up its own sanctions, including financial constraints on Tehran and interception of missile and nuclear materials en route to Iran, Bolton said, and the U.S. is encouraging other countries to follow suit. "You don't need Security Council authority to impose sanctions, just as we have," he said.

The U.S. has had broad restrictions on almost all trade with Iran since 1987. Exceptions include the import of dried fruits and nuts, caviar and carpets. In addition, U.S. companies can obtain licenses to do limited trade in agriculture and medicine. The United States also initiated the Proliferation Security Initiative, involving a coalition of countries that have agreed to intercept shipments of materials to Iran that could be used for weapons of mass destruction.

"We will continue to enhance PSI to cut off flows of materials and technology that are useful to Iran's ballistic missile program and nuclear programs," Bolton said. "We will be constraining financial transactions under existing terrorism laws."

He said Washington was focusing on European and Japanese banks to restrict business with Iran, because most of Tehran's transactions are done in U.S. dollars, euros, British pounds and yen. "There aren't a lot of opportunities to sell in other currencies," he said.

Bolton and U.S. Treasury officials refused to provide details on which countries might be interested, citing the "sensitivity" of the talks.

But Treasury spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said they had already seen results, including Union Bank of Switzerland cutting off relationships with Iran.

"We're seeing more financial institutions around the world looking at the actions and messages emanating out of Iran — from their nuclear ambitions to state sponsorship of Hezbollah — and asking themselves, 'do we really want to be Iran's banker?' " she said in an e-mail.

Though U.S. officials said pursuing parallel paths is "common sense" and highlights what they consider to be the inefficiency of the Security Council, some analysts said the move would underline Washington's inability to win over the council and the lack of options against a newly emboldened Iran.

"When you start doing things that would be better with the Security Council's endorsement, does it show weakness or strength?" said George Perkovich, the director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Iran could argue that 'the U.S. couldn't even get the Security Council backing, and so we are winning.' "

Perkovich said even traditional U.S. allies were fatigued by dealing with so many conflicts and didn't want to add Iran to a list that includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon.

"There is a general reluctance to follow the U.S. lead," he said. "Our negotiating power is diminished, which is regrettable."

Russia and China have specifically objected to the use of a U.N. charter measure known as Chapter 7 that would open the door to military action or sanctions. But Bolton said that a resolution on North Korea passed unanimously in July might create a new template for dealing with those concerns.

That resolution instituted a ban on supplying technology and goods related to North Korea's missile and nuclear programs, and got around China's and Russia's doubts about Chapter 7 with other legally binding language that would prevent an Iraq-style invasion.

"There are some aspects of the North Korea resolution that will be useful," Bolton said. "A lot of this is just going to have be played out."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... d-homepage

Hellllooooooooo skyrocketing petrol prices!

I'm suprised that the US still goes to UN meetings.

Prices will rise...that's the nature of the futures market. But they won't skyrocket because Iran doesn't export a very large percentage of oil (as compared to the Middle East as a whole). In fact, they import 40% of their gas because they lack refining capabilites.
They can always try to "retaliate" by setting up a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, but a few cruise missles would put a quick end to that.

Yeah, the UN works well in theory, but in practice. I don't see how the security council could pass a resolution against Iran and then have members not want to back it up. Well, Russia and China have their own agenda with Iran, so I suppose it's no surprise. But still, its no wonder that Iran blew the resolution off and North Korea would as well. They know the UN isn't going to do squat and, once again, the US is left holding the bag.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210580,00.html

Iranian President Says Nuclear Program Poses No Threat

KHONDAB, Iran — Iran's hard-line president on Saturday inaugurated a heavy-water production plant, a facility the West fears will be used to develop a nuclear bomb, as Tehran remained defiant ahead of a U.N. deadline that could lead to sanctions.

The U.N. has called on Tehran to stop the separate process of uranium enrichment — which also can be used to create nuclear weapons — by Thursday or face economic and political sanctions.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that his nation's nuclear program poses no threat to other nations, even Israel, "which is a definite enemy."

Ahmadinejad said in a speech that Iran would never abandon what he once again called its purely peaceful nuclear program.

"There is no discussion of nuclear weapons," he said. "We are not a threat to anybody even the Zionist regime, which is a definite enemy for the people of the region."

Though the West's main worry has been enrichment of uranium that could be used in a bomb, it also has called on Iran to stop the construction of a heavy-water reactor near the production plant that Ahmadinejad inaugurated.

A senior Israeli lawmaker warned in a statement that the plant inauguration marks "another leap in Iran's advance toward a nuclear bomb."

Israeli legislator Ephraim Sneh of the Labor Party, a partner in the ruling coalition, said that the Jewish state must "prepare itself militarily." Ahmadinejad last year called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

The spent fuel from a heavy-water reactor can be reprocessed to extract plutonium for use in a bomb.

Reactors fueled by enriched uranium use regular — or light — water in the chain reaction that produces energy. Heavy water contains a heavier hydrogen particle, which allow the reactor to run on natural uranium mined by Iran, forgoing the enrichment progress.

Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who also heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the heavy-water facility will be used to treat and diagnose AIDS and cancer, and for other medicine and agricultural purposes.

Iran is scheduled to complete the reactor in 2009.

Iran responded Tuesday to package of incentives, presented by the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, for it to halt uranium enrichment and return to negotiations on increasing international oversight of its nuclear program. Tehran said it would be open to negotiations but did not agree to the West's key demand to halt enrichment as a precondition to talks.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will report on the state of Iran's program by mid-September. If its report finds that enrichment is continuing, the council could move toward sanctions.

Tehran has called the Security Council resolution that set the Thursday deadline "illegal" and has insisted it won't give up its nuclear program.

"They may impose some restrictions on us under pressure. But will they be able to prevent the thoughts of a nation?" Ahmadinejad said Saturday. "Will they be able to prevent the progress and technology to a nation? They have to accept the reality of a powerful, peace-loving and developed Iran. This is in the interest of all governments and all nations whether they like it or not."

Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's atomic organization, called the heavy-water plant "one of the biggest nuclear projects" in the country, state-run television reported.

Taking the sweetheart incentive program the UN offered Iran, you actually believe a word that maniac says?

I do. Sometimes he does do the right thing, like allowing women to attend football matches. Except he then spins around to see the big clerics overturn his decisions and overturn all his good work.

If he could go a month without paying lip service to them clerics, he could actually do a lot of good for his people.

I'm sure he could do a great amount of good for his people, but we are talking about a repressive society that is bent on building an atomic bomb. The incentive package included enriched uranium from Russia and reactor components from the US. It's been said that, if accepted, Iran would have nuclear power faster by accepting the UN proposal than if they did it on their own. This is not about national pride - its about nuclear weapons.
Personally, I don't care how many football matches this guy lets Iranian women attend - threatening repeatedly to wipe an entire country off of the map unprovoked is not the language of a rational, decent person.

They can continue to play their game....they're going to find out what the price will be.

Sanctions won't do shit. They will just empower their leaders further and make them more extreme.

You have to give sanctions a try first, but I agree, Iran's leadership will just become more belligerent. Ultimately they will be taken out via military intervention.

I don't forsee a military engagement with Iran in the near future.

Absolutely, we'll need time to build a coalition and such. But I would expect it to have started and ended by the time President Bush has left office. He won't leave this problem for the next President.

Bush has made the problems worse by ten fold. This "war on terror" bullshit has divided the country and divided the world. It has embolden Iran and Islamic extremists who seek more control. And you've got people like Hugo Chavez trying to run Latin America and allying himself with Iran. This is just what the Islamic extremists wanted. The foreign policy blows dick.

The only proper solution would have been to strictly stick to going after Al-Qaeda and only Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Europe. Work out and mediate a peaceful solution to problems in Israel instead of allowing Hamas to dominate the Palestinian elections. And like 10 other things.

I don't see how it could have been any simpler than this. They've fucked it up plenty good at this point. You guys can sit here and tell me how bullshit stereotypes like kumbaya and gumdrop-raining fantasies don't solve anything. You sit back and allow an angry drunk Christian in the White House to pick fights and talk tons of shit to the international community and then one problem just goes right to the other. Hence the problem in Iran, Iraq, Hamas, Chavez, Lebanon. Don't try and tell me this is some long term shit either.

If we the people support an invasion of Iran, we deserve to be nuked.

Yeah we'll be in and out, just like in Iraq right?:roll:

The Iranians are beautiful and kind people who have been oppressed by their leaders. They'd welcome us with roses in the streets once we liberate them.

1. The actions taken from the US has "embolden" the terrorists?
Take a look at the attacks against the US and Israel since 1983 until 2001.....what, exactly, were we doing to "embolden" them during that entire time period? Or could it be that they want us dead no matter what we do?

2. Of course a prime target is Al-Qaida, but there is state-sponsored terrorism that we need to address as well. Work out and mediate a peace between Israel and its neighbors? What do you think Clinton tried to do? And look at the concessions that Israel made in the interest of peace....what did that get Israel? A few soldiers kidnapped and some missles lobbed into their country. Great. Again, do you think terrorists want peace if only we would allow it? And what were we supposed to do about Hamas gaining the majority of seats during the election - run in and declare the results void because we didn't like it? Is that the kind of democracy you want in this world? I'd love to hear those "10 other things," by the way.

3. So President Bush is an angry drunk who runs around the world picking fights. Is that why we entered into 6 party talks with North Korea? Is that why we offered Iran a nuclear program on a silver platter....the only caveat being that they'd have to forgo their own program and accept one that cannot be weaponized? Is that why we, along with France, worked with the UN to broker a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah? These are the actions of an angry drunk looking to pick fights?

Sorry, you can't sit here and tell me this President's foreign policy has solved any of the world's problems, especially given:

-Leftism running rampant in South America
-Chavez allying himself with Iran
-North Korea test fires nukes
-Iran funneling money and weapons to Hezbollah and the insurgency in Iraq
-Iraq, the clusterfuck. 2500+ dead last month.
-Lebanon. Fucking CHRISTIANS allying themselves with Hezbollah.
-Hamas dominates Palestinian elections
-Osama still at large (the real perpetrator of 9/11)

This strategy is just problem displacement. Care to answer to any of this? All done under Bush's watch. Tell me, how are steps being taken to solve the problem of terrorism? How do we judge what a terrorist state is? Iraq is now free and democratic, yet they still hate Israel. So who's side are they on now? Painting everything with such broad brush strokes has gotten us into this current mess in the first place.

As far as Israel and Palestine is concerned and the 2000 talks, get a map. Look it up, the deal was a sham. Terrorists launching rockets into Israel typically aren't isolated or marginalized incidents, they are a response to something. Like say, continued illegal settlements and targeted killings of the PA. And then it sounds like you're defending the Hamas democratic victory which I have no idea what you're talking about at this point. Israel basically DID declare those results invalid and void and now we have the results playing out last spring and summer in Gaza.

As for Bush diplomacy, it's only civil to enter diplomatic talks before taking further action. So I don't buy into your defense of him as some sort of peaceful, problem solving guy at all who only results to action if absolutely necessary. Like Iraq. What a huge, huge mistake that was.

Hey, my friend, you win.

America is the Great Satan and Bush is Hitler revisited. None of the above was happening before the evil Bush came into the picture. Iraq was heaven on Earth, Iran had nothing to do with Hezbollah, North Korea and Iran did not have an active nuclear weapons program, Hamas was more peaceful than the Red Cross, and so on. Yup, those are the facts.