E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Calling the latest round of sanctions the toughest and most comprehensive Iran has ever faced, President Obama said they sent "an unmistakable message" about the international community's commitment to stop nuclear proliferation.
The United Nations Security Council today voted 12 to 2 in favor of a tighter regime of sanctions on Iran -- meant to put pressure on the country to "comply with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program," which the U.S. believes is aimed at building nuclear weapons.
Turkey and Brazil voted against Resolution 1929, which established the new sanctions, and Lebanon abstained from the vote.
"We recognize Iran's rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. And time and again, the Iranian government has failed to meet those responsibilities," Obama said, acknowledging the country's right to peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The president said the nuclear enrichment facility in Qom that the Iranian government had sought to conceal raised serious questions about the nature of the country's program. He also said Iran had failed to comply fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency's requirements and had violated its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions to suspend uranium enrichment, enriching up to 20 percent.
"Iran is the only NPT signatory in the world -- the only one -- that cannot convince the IAEA that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes."
The sanctions are designed to "increase the cost to Iran's leaders of their current irresponsible policies," according to a fact sheet from the U.S. Office of Press and Public Diplomacy. They are not aimed at the Iranian people, Obama and other US officials stressed.
The sanctions include a ban on Iranian investment in sensitive nuclear activities abroad (like uranium mining, enrichment, and reprocessing); a ban on sales of certain conventional arms to Iran or spare parts for those weapons; and a prohibition of any Iranian activity related to ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Countries are also required to prevent transferring any related technology or technical assistance to Iran and would prohibit new banking relationships with Iran when there is a suspected link to proliferation.
The new regime -- which builds on three previous rounds of UN sanctions on the country -- imposes a new cargo inspection framework to prevent smuggling of contraband and requires countries to seize and dispose of any contraband found.
The Resolution establishes a U.N. "Panel of Experts" to monitor the implementation of the sanctions.
After the vote, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who has described the sanctions as tough and precise, spelled out Iran's alleged violations of the nonproliferation treaty. Officials from the United Kingdom and China stressed that the door for dialogue was always open -- something the president also emphasized.
"We know that the Iranian government will not change its behavior overnight, but today's vote demonstrates the growing costs that will come with Iranian intransigence," Obama said. "These sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy; Iran continues to have the opportunity to take a different and better path."
Leave a Comment:
I'm trembling...I'll bet Ahmadinejad is too.
The President's already in a mood to kick some behind.
This just shows how useless the UN & the IAEA is and how stupid Obama is to think that this sent a clear message...I think the US could put the money its invest's into the UN to better use. Pull out!!!!!! If the UN doesn't reform (Which it hasn't) we need to pull out like we did years ago when it was called the League of Nations. The UN needs major reform!!!!!!!!!!
Another round of mostly meaningless sanctions. The Russians and Chinese ensured anything that would actually hurt them financially was removed resulting in another failure to stop their quest for a nuclear weapon. While most seem to think Iran wouldn't use a nuclear weapon, I for one believe they would gladly drop one on Israel and chalk up any ramifications to Allah. Once again we needed a President to lead and got stuck with a community organizer.
One thing that the U.S. has learned is that 1st Irag war was more sucessful BECAUSE we had international agreement before we turned to a military solution. There is a process that has to be followed in order to garner the international support that is required.
Let's face it - an Iran nuclear weapon is no threat to the U.S. Its a threat to a number of closer nations that need to be invloved in shaping their own regional responses.
Do Sanctions work? Any documented proof Sanctions work? I know this has been tried before with Iran, and it has failed (it seems to me) for it to change anything. I know there has been examples with North Korea
Anyone have a case of where they worked successfully?
(Note to Creator1: This is again NOT partisan, so I won't need the can excuse you have apparently ready to go).
10 years worth of economic sanctions seemed to have destroyed Suddam Hussein's ability to wage war on his neighbors, considering we were relatively sure we would find large stockpiles of weapons and found what? 1 trailer full of outdated junk at most?
I think sanctions only work if whoever is in charge of the sanctioned nation has a vested interest in trying to keep the population of the nation at all satisfied. Sanctions on North Korea do not work because the people of North Korea have been so subjugated for so long that they have no concept of what the standard of living in other countries actually is.
They might work a little bit better on Iran, but sanctions are very much a western concept. Having your pocketbook hit hurts only insofar as your culture values your pocketbook over your religion. Sanctions would work very well against the United States because of our commitment to capitalism. The same is true for most western style nations.
However, if a nation is governed by a militaristic theocracy, the values of that nation are not values that economic sanctions really affect all that much.
To Ahmadinejad, Obama is nothing more then a small gnat on an elephants behind. Russia and China have given Obama his marching orders on what so called sanctions he can get away with, and which ones they will veto. Obama's theatrics are just meant to appease his empty-headed liberal base.
Wait a minute...what about Saddam?
UN sanctions worked on him.
Didn't they?
I mean...
UN corruption aside...?
Ladies and gentlemen, The GOP!
"Deficits don't matter when you're blowing s***up!"
We need to understand why iran want to Bomb!!
Isreal is why. they can't trust Isreal no more than we should. lets face it, we have been letting Isreal do what ever they want because of the Holocost. they have been making us feel guilty for 60 years and during that 60 years Isreal has done what ever they want, i'm not against Isreal but i see alot of trouble in Gaza is Isreal treating the Palastinens like we did the american Indians. its was wrong for us to do what we did and Isreal is just as wrong. if they were anybody else we would be putting sanctions on Isreal, Not iran. Isreal came real close to droping a Nucelar bomb during the 69 or 67 war. Isreal has stolen intelegence from us, used us to launch military stricks who ever for what ever.
who is the super power, the united states or Isreal!!!!
Good point, Jeff-
Why should the United States and the rest of the world feel guilty about allowing the Nazis to murder millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, political opponents, the mentally ill, et al
The Middle East isn't our problem...
You rock, dude!
Well they way you put it I'm not sure if that was a good post or not, all I'm saying is that if Isreal wants peace in the middle east they must stop launching rockets on civilians, destroying Lebanon, cutting off gaza from the real world and at heard to the non profanation accord. how can we tell Iran not to have nuclear wepond when Isreal will not play by the same rules we want Iran to play by.
i use to live in evanston IL. close to skokie and Niles IL. have a large jewish (holocost survivers) and muslim communites, they can live in peace there, why not the middle east.
I wonder if Obama's kids ignore him just like Ahmadinejad does.
FR--"We recognize Iran's rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. And time and again, the Iranian government has failed to meet those responsibilities," Obama said, acknowledging the country's right to peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
This is exactly the point and thank you Mr. President. We can't trust that the Iranian government under the current leadership will comply with responsible handeling of it neculear program. Our biggest threat from them would be the sale of arms to terrorist for cash.
South Africa.
But sanctions have to be real, supported by most, if not all, of the rest of the world, and have some valid "what-ifs" if they country being sanctioned does not comply. Obama has none of these elements. One can bet Saddam had a few second thoughts of complying with the sanctions against his Iraq, as he was falling through the trap door.
Let's cut the Obama criticism on this one. Any President, right or left, would first call for sanctions against Iran before taking the next step. If you think that Obama could forego sanctions and simply drop a few bombs on the Iranian nuclear facilities without major and serious international consequences for the U.S. you are obviously being emotionally driven in your criticisms of Obama by your dislike for the man personally, and not based on any rational opinion as to how this matter should be handled. Obama knows that Ahmadinejad thinks the U.S. is nothing but a gnat on an elephants behind, but Obama also knows that 1) sanctions are the international acceptable rule before military action is taken in such cases 2) sanctions can and will at times turn a society of people against their own corrupt, threatening and crazy dictator in the Ayatolah of Iran through Ahmadinejad, which has been happening 3) before Iran gets close to completing a nuclear weapon Israel will take out those facilities with U.S. support. So cut the criticism of Obama who is only following those steps that a right wing Republican President would follow as well.
Remember that there are 180,000 troops in the middle east, strategically placed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe this is the REAL reason why the extra troops were sent to Afghanistan. Irna is boxed in right now, so if the worst needs to happen, we have the troops there already. Any look on a map of this region would bear me out.
You have to admit it's pretty shrewd of this President.
I do NOT agree with his reasoning for sending the troops, but I NOW understand why.
So, CA...
How many more rounds of ineffective sanctions (that the Iranian leadership, Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khameini laugh at, at least to date) are you recommending?
The United States is clearly overextended at the moment...
If these sanctions fail (and the track record isn't good, is it?), and Israel is willing to address the problem...
Well...what are allies for, anyway, CA?
Pietro:
Don't look for Obama to use any troops to resolve this issue. Any use of troops would denote some form of invasion and we are not talking about fighting Iraqi civilians in street clothes in the desert here. Iran has a hardned and seasoned and well equipped military. For any kind of troop movement to be successful against Iran, without a big loss of Amercian lives, would require an invasion force of a minimum of 500,000. No, when and if military action is taken it will be precision bombing on Iran's nuclear facilities that will be a concerted effort by the U.S. and Israel with the support of some British air force as well. The 180,000 troops in Afghanistan are there in case Pakistan and their current nuclear arsenal is threatened with militant take over.
Mixed Bag:
You are bothered by Iran, or at least their corrupt leaders laughing at the U.S. and sanctions? Why does their laughing bother you? In the end we know and they know that when it is time, their nuclear facilities will be removed, and the laughing will then stop. So for now let them laugh. Reacting as some do by criticizing your President for not bombing these people into oblivion now is exactly what they want. They are very good at playing Amecians against one another, especially in the political arena. Why let them do that? I can assure you, and have a pretty good idea when it is time, that this President will kick some ass. He may have a mild manner but there is a darkness inside him you may have not noticed that you do not want to mess with. In the meantime, let the Iranian leaders have a few last and postmortem laughs. Does that hurt you? If it does then you are reacting in your criticisms of Obama by the laughs without considering how the end game will play out, Iran will lose. And the U.S. will be involved with Israel when those fascilities are taken out. And that being the case, who cares how much the Iranian leaders laugh.
I don't think the criticism is of the President, it's of the continual sanction process, without any evident success. The point about internal strife and uprising is very valid, and it occcured last summer. At that point, I thought the best decisions had been made, and that the Iranian people were in a similar position to 1979, when they overthru the Shah. Unfortunately, the international community didn't support the uprising, it seems to have folded, and now, like a boxer getting up from the canvas, we hope for the next round. I really don't want to see an effort such as the U.S., Israel, and Britain making a tactical strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities, I'm pretty confident that the Arab nations would be visibly unhappy with our policies, and perhaps would be inclined to re-institute something along the oil embargo of the early 70's.
Living in LA:
When and if the time comes where Iran does not stop in its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, which most feel would be used against Israel at some point, I would have no problem with the U.S., Israel and Britian if they so desire leaving the biggest holes this world has ever seen where Iran's nuclear facilities used to be. As for the other Arab nations, screw-em and their embargos.
I support Obama's desire for diplomacy first, building peace among nations, if necessary sanctions, but at some point those who threaten the existence of others and who do not come around to common sense and an invitation to live peaceably on this earth with their neighbors, then it's time for military action, tactical bombing or whatever it takes. We have to be peace builders as best we can, but we also have to make it abundantly clear that if required, we will pull out all stops to protect the U.S., U.S. interests, and U.S. allies. I don't mind speaking softly as T. Roosevelt, but I for one refuse to give up that very big stick that may be necessary if our patience and desire for peace is continually denied or spat upon by anyone, Arab nation or non-Arab nation.
I see that the President Obama is an empty suit and a hollow threat crowd is out in force today. Do any of you'll really believe any of that horse pucky you'll put up or to you just like talking for the shear pleasure of hearing your jaws rattle. Pitiful just plumb pitiful. C.A. has this one called just about perfect.
There is a much bigger problem in the immediate future. If Iran makes good on their commitment to escort "aid" ships into Gaza, Israel will clearly come to blows with them.
Perhaps that is what $400 Million bought me today, getting Abbas to refuse Iran's Naval escort.
The problem with some who are criticzing Obama on this issue Independent is two fold as I see it. One, these sanctions are being assumed as a message of soft threat towards the leaders of Iran. They are not. These sanctions are a meassge being delivered to the Iranian people. Change your leadership and your country's course or we will do it for you. And secondly, the critiques of Obama get hung up on his outward appearance which to them often seems soft, giving-in and too mild for their taste. If they will study this man closer, pay attention, and think three or four steps ahead as Obama is always doing, they will eventually recognize that underneath that calm and at times assumed over-calm appearance lies a cold and calculating individual who will not hesitate to do severe damage to those who push his (and this country's) buttons just a bit too far. Watch for the jaw line to begin jumping and to begin setting in a cetrtain hard fashion. Then we'll see who will come out on top of all this laughing, The Iranian leader nut jobs or Obama. I'm betting on Obama.
CA-
I honestly wish I could agree with you about the sanctions message sent to and by received Ayatollah Khameini and Ahmadinejad, and its likely effect on Iran's determination to acquire nuclear weapons.
Even more so, I wish that I saw more evidence of the steel in President Obama's spine that you see...what I've been seeing is quite different.
For the sake of the world's democracies...I hope you've got this one right.
But...I'd be willing to bet that your assessment of President Obama's determination to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons falls far short of what's necessary.
If I were wrong, and you were right...Obama would be working a whole lot harder to improve his relationship with Bibi Netanyahu.
Much, much harder.
Mixed Bag:
I do think that Obama is bright enough to know that when dealing with someone who appears to be functioning with a distorted and dangerous brain (and mouth) as the Presdient of Iran, that he cannot assume that sanctions would have much effect. So to call for sanctions and to support sanctions has to be a meassge to the people of Iran. And they have to do something on their own. Someone mentioned the world did not help those in Iran who have been opposing to the current leadership of Iran. We can't, not at this time. If we got involved we would be seen as invaders or as bullies. Nationalism, even among those Iranians opposed to their current leadership, would increase and take precedence over our offers of help placing the U.S. in the role as the enemy rather than the current Iranian leadership. And the current iIanian leadership would use such interference to win a propganda war with their people that would be targeted against the U.S. Interferring in other state's uprisings and/or civil wars if you will is a very risky business.
I do not disagree that Obama could make some additional overtures towards Netanyahu in order to ensure Israel that the U.S. has their backs. But Netanyahu has not made this relationship an easy and ameanable proposition himself. He has on at least one occassion told Obama screw-you in a manner for the world to hear and see. Like I said, study Obama closer and you will understand you don't tell Obama screw-you too often before the shoe will fall. And no U.S. President should allow another head of State to set the agenda for the Amercian people whether ally or not, as Israel has had the propensity and balls to try on occassion.
Let's be clear. We are allies and friends with Israel and should do what we can to support and help protect them against those who would do Israel harm. But any President's first and foremost responsibility is to do what is necessary that is in the best interst of the United States. And if that means calling down a friend now and then because they misbehave and/or attempting to expand our friendships across the globe no matter these other country's cultures or religious makeups, then that is what our Presdient should do. And Israel has no right to ask or demand (or to intervene or disrupt by their actions) that the U.S. not follow an international foreign policy that will achieve for the U.S. fair and equitable treatment of other nations seeking friendships and peace, and our attempts to get those eeding a push towards more peaceful relations a chance to respond in kind.
CA-
The relationship between Iran and the United States is not existential in nature, at least, not for the U.S.
Iran cannot credibly threaten to wipe the United States off the map as Ahmadinejad has done with Israel.
The stakes in this matter are much higher for Netanyahu and Israel.
President Obama is a very intelligent man...certainly smart enough to understand that Netanyahu's responsibility to ensure the survival of Israel transcends any expectation of concessions from Netanyahu intended to make U.S. foreign policy issues easier for Obama to navigate.
Obama should also be smart enough to realize how helpful Israel and Netanyahu could be in dealing with the Iranian nuclear weapons issue...so why isn't he acting like it?
I suspect I wouldn't like the answer to that question, CA...
There goes that "soft on terror" spineless jellyfish again.....
I rest my case.
What? He's suppling nukes to Israel again??
I must say that I enjoyed the back and forth here. CA and Mixed Bag had a logical and thought provoking discussion. They got to a similar place. Why can't the "Powers that Be" do the same?