Yes to sanctions on the Islamic Akhounds

[Rasputin]

Iran faces new sanctions threat

Iran has denied its nuclear work is intended to develop weapons
Six world powers have agreed to draft a third resolution for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme.
The UN Security Council will vote on the draft if UN and EU reports say Tehran's programme is continuing, the officials said after talks in London.

Officials from the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany will meet on 19 November to assess the reports.

Iran says its programme is for peaceful purposes only and denies accusations it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

In September, the permanent members of the Security Council agreed to delay a vote on further measures until the publication of a report in mid-November on Iran's activities by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA].

At Friday's meeting, the officials agreed to ask the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana to hold a further meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator and report back.

The officials "agreed to finalise a text for a third UN Security Council sanctions resolution with the intention of bringing it to a vote in the UN Security Council unless the November reports of Dr Solana and [IAEA head Mohammed] ElBaradei show a positive outcome of the efforts," a spokesman from the British Foreign Office said.

The US, Britain and France pushed for a third resolution earlier this year but were blocked by China and Russia.

'Years from bomb'

Iran's former President, Hashemi Rafsanjani, said on Friday that talks between his country and the IAEA were making progress.

He said dialogue should be given more time and warned that any military action against Iran "will create another quagmire for the global arrogance of the United States".

Mr ElBaradei said on Sunday that Tehran was years away from developing a bomb - a statement dismissed by the US and France.

French Defence Minister Herve Morin challenged Iran to allow UN inspectors unlimited access to sites.

US officials said Iran's efforts to enrich uranium rather than import it more cheaply, indicated that it really wanted nuclear weapons.

The IAEA has some access to Iranian nuclear facilities but Tehran's refusal to allow intrusive inspections means the UN cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material.

There is tension between Western countries and Mr ElBaradei over an agreement he reached with Iran in August, drawing up a timetable for the country to answer questions about its past nuclear activities.

Mr ElBaradei says he will report to the IAEA's board in mid-November on how much information Iran has provided.

[Rasputin]

The White House is pressing ahead with its stated goal of persuading the UN Security Council to pass far-reaching sanctions to punish Iran for refusing to suspend its nuclear research program. Sanctions are what President George W. Bush is referring to when he pledges to nervous US allies that he intends to “continue to work together to solve this problem diplomatically.” The non-diplomatic solution in this framing of the “problem,” presumably, would be airstrikes on nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic.

With its portrayal of UN and unilateral US sanctions as part of a diplomatic effort, the Bush administration has successfully confused much media coverage of the Iranian-Western confrontation over Iran’s enrichment of uranium. Sanctions are punitive measures, not serious diplomacy, and the Bush administration has never undertaken a sustained diplomatic initiative aimed either at inducing Iran to cease enriching uranium or at soothing broader US-Iranian tensions. Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s persistent refusal to take military options “off the table,” combined with its intensified rhetoric against Iran, has made sanctions palatable to allies, as well as to some of the most dovish members of Congress and the American public -- but without addressing the political disputes that keep the US and Iran on a collision course. Congress, by and large, has merely greased the skids.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

On September 28, the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the US -- issued a joint statement, along with Germany and the European Union, agreeing to wait to discuss a potential third round of sanctions on Iran until International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana delivered progress reports on negotiations with Iran in November. No sooner had the IAEA released its November 15 report than the Bush administration renewed its push for stiffer penalties on the Islamic Republic.

US spokespersons seized upon the IAEA’s statement that Iranian cooperation with its investigators, while “sufficient” and “timely,” has been “reactive rather than proactive.” This “reactive” posture, along with Iran’s blockage of spot inspections of nuclear sites (as required by the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), made it impossible for the IAEA to assert that Iran’s program is geared exclusively toward peaceful generation of nuclear power, as Iran claims. The US dismissed the positive aspects of the Agency’s report. As State Department briefer Sean McCormack put it, “Partial credit doesn’t cut it when you’re talking about issues of whether or not Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.” While the report did not give Iran a clean bill of health, its overall content suggests that there is room for real diplomacy to resolve outstanding issues.

The Bush administration, however, had tipped its hand, long before the IAEA report’s release, that only additional coercive measures would be forthcoming. In August, it was leaked to the press that the State Department was considering designating the entire Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps -- created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 to protect the Islamic Revolution from domestic and foreign foes -- as a terrorist organization. European allies expressed strong opposition to the idea, warning that such a unilateral initiative could alienate Security Council member China, thus forestalling another round of UN sanctions. The end result was Bush’s executive order on October 25, imposing new unilateral sanctions and designating the Revolutionary Guards as a “proliferator of weapons of mass destruction” and the Guards’ elite Quds Force as a “supporter of terrorism.”

The basis for the latter designation was Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks. That order authorizes the US government to block the assets of organizations or individuals listed as sponsors of terrorism, as well as their subsidiaries, front organizations, agents and associates. It is unprecedented for the United States to use this measure against the armed forces of another nation.

Several other entities were listed in the executive order, including the Iranian Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics; two major banks and their subsidiaries; and construction, engineering and other firms owned or controlled by the Revolutionary Guards. Individuals affiliated with the Guards and with Iran’s ballistic missile program were also named as “proliferators” to be sanctioned. Most notably, and inexplicably, absent from this list was Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, appointed as commander of the Revolutionary Guards by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on September 1.

If Bush’s executive orders exacerbated the divisions among Security Council members over Iran, there is even more dissension following the release of the IAEA judgments. European allies have lined up behind the US position, with France and Britain saying that Europe could impose its own unilateral sanctions on Iranian oil and financial industries if the Security Council does not act. China and Russia, meanwhile, prefer to emphasize the progress that has been made in securing Iranian cooperation and have vowed to veto a third round of multilateral sanctions slated to come up for a vote in December. The parallels to the international deliberations over Iraq -- wherein US failure to achieve consensus on sanctions was marketed by hawks as justification for ever more aggressive US-British actions -- are hard to ignore.

CONGRESSIONAL PRELUDE

Throughout 2007, in fact, hawks in Congress have been intensifying their own pressure on the Bush administration to get tough on Iran. Section 2, Paragraph 14 of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, introduced by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Relations, said “the United States should designate the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which purveys terrorism throughout the Middle East and plays an important role in the Iranian economy, as a foreign terrorist organization…and place the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters.” The measure had 325 co-sponsors and passed the House of Representatives by a margin of 397-16 on September 25.

Though the bill nods to the view that “the United States should use diplomatic and economic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem,” it is focused on the necessity of broader unilateral sanctions. During floor debate, not a single representative spoke in opposition. The Senate version of the bill, introduced by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), contains similar language, but has been held up in the Banking Committee. It is not clear when or if the measure will come up for a vote.

In any case, the far more important political cover for the executive order targeting the Revolutionary Guards was provided during debate of the 2008 defense authorization bill. Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) introduced Amendment 3017, a non-binding “sense of the Senate” resolution that expressed the view that the Guards should be labeled a terrorist organization, citing as justification the alleged role of the Guards and the Quds Force in supplying Shi‘i militias in Iraq with money and materiel.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment initially contained even more provocative language, calling on the US to use all means available, including “military instruments,” to “combat, contain and roll back” Iran and its surrogates in Iraq. The two paragraphs containing this language were eventually dropped after several senators and the Democratic leadership expressed concern that it might be construed as an authorization for the use of military force against Iran.

Freshman Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) was particularly outspoken in opposition to the amendment, noting that even after the modifications, Kyl-Lieberman could still be interpreted as an authorization for the use of force. Nevertheless, on September 26, the amendment passed 76-22, with the Democratic presidential frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, voting in favor, her opponent Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois not voting and only two Republicans, Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, voting against. The amendment helped to press the Bush administration into action.

HYPING THE THREAT

Behind both the White House and Congressional moves is the conviction that Iran, its protestations of peaceful intent notwithstanding, is trying to build an atomic bomb. On October 17, the president told reporters: “If you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” In a speech at a Washington Institute for Near East Policy retreat four days later, Vice President Dick Cheney worded it more strongly: “The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Is the US conviction about Iran justified? The IAEA does not think so. Its November 15 report concluded: “The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.” The concern, as the UN watchdog acknowledged, is that Iran may be diverting undeclared material to a clandestine bomb-making effort, but there is no proof that such an effort exists. As Mohamed Elbaradei told CNN on October 28, there are “a lot of question marks. But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used in a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.”

[Rasputin]

As in the leadup to the Iraq war, hawks are fond of portraying the IAEA as hapless -- “the UN’s nuclear watchpuppy,” scoffs ex-Ambassador to the UN John Bolton -- and implying that the US knows more about Iran’s capacities than is public. Yet the US has long delayed releasing an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, requested by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization, which became law after it was signed by the president on October 17, 2006, reportedly because its conclusions are not alarming enough for the White House’s taste. The most recent administration estimate of Iran’s capability, delivered by then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte in February 2006, stated that if Iran continues on its current path, it could “produce a nuclear weapon within the next decade.” The findings of the special Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction further highlight issues of credibility, revealing that US intelligence on Iran is as bad or worse than it was on Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.[1]

The primary justification for the designation of the Revolutionary Guards as a “proliferator of weapons of mass destruction” actually had less to do with nuclear materials, and more to do with ballistic missiles. According to the State Department fact sheet released to justify the designation, the Guards Corps has been “outspoken about its willingness to proliferate ballistic missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction.” Ballistic missiles themselves certainly are not weapons of mass destruction, but the relevant executive order covers both “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Iran’s ballistic missile program remains largely in its nascent stages, however. The US intelligence community has consistently estimated since 1999 that Iran will not have mastered the science of intercontinental ballistic missiles until 2015. At that point, Iran would still have to manufacture an arsenal of missiles and weapons to fit the missiles, putting the actual deployment date even further into the future. (Also, though the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation and the Missile Technology Control Regime are voluntary mechanisms intended to discourage states from proliferating missile technology, there is no binding international treaty that prohibits Iran from developing its ballistic missile capability.)

Since Iran lacks the ability to reach the United States, the Bush administration has tried to focus attention on the “threat” of its shorter-range missiles. Just two days before the sanctions rollout, Bush delivered a speech at the National Defense University in which he spoke of Iranian “ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel and Turkey, as well as American troops based in the Persian Gulf.” He further cited the Iranian ballistic missile program as a justification for a heavier US military presence in Eastern Europe: “Today, we have no way to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat, so we must deploy a missile defense system there that can.”

Congress has been complicit in bolstering the perception of peril emanating from Iran’s missile program. On July 12, the Senate passed, by a vote of 95-0, an amendment introduced by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to the defense authorization bill. The amendment states that it should be the policy of the United States to develop and deploy, as soon as technologically possible, an effective defense against “the threat from Iran.” Congress has cut the entire $85 million in requested construction funding for the new missile defense sites in Europe, however, perhaps heeding Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ comment (made the same day of Bush’s speech) that such sites need not be operational until Iran actually tests missiles capable of flying overhead.

DISABLING ENGAGEMENT

The unilateral US steps were clearly intended to stoke the fears of Security Council members that, in the absence of stronger UN sanctions on Iran, the Bush administration might take additional measures on its own. In the short and medium term, however, the more important question is their effect on the behavior of the Iranian regime, and there they appear to be a mixture of the toothless and the counterproductive. The direct effect of the designations is to freeze assets of the named Iranian entities on deposit in US financial institutions, but it is unlikely that such assets exist.

As for indirect effects, the Bush administration’s prophecy of Iranian belligerence may be self-fulfilling: The Revolutionary Guards are deeply embedded in the country’s political and economic structure. They operate a vast and nebulous network that usually does not act in unison or take a single position. Both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and one of his stronger political opponents, 2005 presidential candidate and Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqir Qalibaf, hail from the Guards’ ranks, for instance. Differences of opinion among the Guards very much reflect the broader disputes in Iran today: There are those who want greater openness and increased engagement with the outside world and those who do not.

Some members of the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their role in the formal economic arena, especially the oil and gas sector. These members have been badly affected by economic isolation and sanctions because of their need for external expertise to maximize their enterprises’ productivity. On the other hand, Guards who are involved in black-market activities, including oil and weapons smuggling, have no interest in increased engagement. For them isolation is a boon, as it is for the middlemen and brokers in Iran and Dubai who launder money and otherwise help businessmen in Tehran to s***t trade restrictions. US policies that pressure allies doing business in Iran play directly into the hands of enemies of engagement.

On the political level, of course, US sanctions allow hardliners to argue that moderates are deceiving themselves about the possibility of a rapprochement with the West. In the wake of the designations, many former Guards commanders who had been disillusioned with Ahmadinejad’s defiant stance have closed ranks behind him. Others have been silenced, the most prominent example being former Guards commander Mohsen Rezaei, whose Baztab website was shut down by the authorities for its criticism of the government.

Though it is unclear whether the Security Council will be able to reach agreement on a third round of sanctions, side effects of US unilateral sanctions are already visible. In November, the World Bank suspended $5.4 million of aid scheduled for projects in Iran until it can find financial institutions other than the blacklisted Bank Melli to handle the transactions. The aid package was intended to assist Iran with recovery from the deadly Bam earthquake in 2003, as well as with water treatment, environmental management and urban renewal. Also in November, corporate giants Yahoo! and Microsoft removed Iran from the country lists of their webmail services. Sanctions may not alter the behavior of the Iranian government, but they certainly hurt the people of Iran.

SILVER LINING

One positive outcome of the October 25 designations is that they have reinvigorated efforts in Congress to put the brakes on the White House’s Iran policy. Following the administration’s announcements, Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Bill Delahunt (D-MA) held a press conference to introduce a bill designed to restore Congress’ role in declaring war. Along with two co-sponsors, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) also introduced a resolution stipulating that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.”

Sen. Webb, who had broached a similar resolution in March, bolstered efforts to find co-sponsors for Durbin’s bill. After being attacked for her vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Sen. Clinton signed up as a co-sponsor. Webb also initiated and sent a letter to Bush signed by 30 senators emphasizing “that no offensive military action would be justified against Iran without the express consent of Congress.”

While he did not sign Webb’s letter, presidential candidate Obama introduced his own resolution on November 2. It seeks to clarify that the use of force against Iran is “not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.” Meanwhile, Sen. Hagel sent a personal letter to Bush on October 17 urging the president to “offer direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with Iran.”

DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS

These pending resolutions and letters have not exactly tied the White House’s hands, but they do inject a vitally important point into the political discourse: Just as the notion that sanctions and economic pressure are diplomatic tools is flawed, so too is the notion that the only strategic choices before the US are war or capitulation. Such was the false choice posed by the Bush administration with regard to Iraq. There is in fact a wide array of alternatives available to the US for resolving tensions with Iran, but the political will to get to the negotiating table has been lacking on both sides.

[Rasputin]

To break the impasse, the US should determine which elements of the offer made by Iran in 2003 to settle outstanding disputes might remain a feasible basis for talks. Washington should also drop its insistence that Iran suspend enrichment of uranium before such talks can begin. In effect, this insistence transforms the outcome of negotiations into a precondition for starting them. Dropping the precondition would signal to both Iran and European allies that the US is sincere in its repeated expressions of preference for real diplomacy.

In the near term, the US could offer confidence-building measures to help bridge the enormous gap in trust between the two countries. At a minimum, the US should pledge non-interference in Iran’s domestic affairs, which is, in any case, its legal obligation under the terms of the Algiers accord signed in 1981 to end the hostage crisis. The Bush administration could repeal Office of Foreign Assets Control restrictions that prohibit US non-governmental organizations from obtaining licenses to work inside Iran, or offer to replace engine parts in the aging fleet of Iranian civilian aircraft. The US could also lift restrictions on visas, allowing for an increase in citizen exchanges, which would in turn foster the growth of constituencies in Iran calling for a government that is fully integrated into the international community.

For its part, Congress can divert to other programs the funding for “democracy promotion” in Iran in the foreign operations bill. The secrecy surrounding the distribution of these funds has created immense problems for Iranian reformers and human rights activists. Aware of their own deep unpopularity, the hardliners in Iran are terrified by the prospect of a “velvet revolution” and have become obsessed with preventing contacts between Iranian scholars, artists, journalists and political activists and their American counterparts. Such gestures may not be successful, but they are a risk worth taking in order to create the conditions necessary for advancing diplomatic engagement.

The Bush administration has insisted that the international community place the Iranian nuclear issue on the front burner. Yet the US itself has not directly engaged Iran in negotiations, preferring to farm out direct contacts to the European Union. Since Iran does not pose an imminent threat to either the US or its allies, it is unlikely that Iran would evoke so much international concern minus US pressure. There is time, albeit limited, for the US to desist from its punitive measures and its threats of more to come, and to pursue bold and tough-minded direct diplomacy instead.

Note
[1] Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, Report to the President of the United States, March 31, 2005, ch. 7, available online at http://www.ise.gov/docs/wmd%20report.pdf.

[Rasputin]

A draft plan for new United Nations sanctions against Iran would punish a branch of the Iranian armed forces and one of the nation's largest banks, despite last week's U.S. re-evaluation of Iran's nuclear weapons intentions, U.S. officials said Monday.

A preliminary sanctions plan drafted by France is under consideration by leading members of the U.N. Security Council, one official said. The United States, which has been pressing for continued sanctions pressure on Iran, supports the package.

Diplomats from the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany are to discuss the draft by telephone on Tuesday. If passed by the Security Council, the plan would slap a third round of sanctions on Iran for defying international demands that it roll back and explain its nuclear program.

Iran claims its nuclear development is peaceful, but until last week the United States and Western allies had countered that Iran was hiding plans for a bomb. The latest U.S. intelligence assessment on Iran, however, says the clerical regime once had a bomb program but shelved it four years ago.

The United States and European partners say the world should press for more curbs on Iran, in part out of fear that Iran could restart its weapons program. But what was already a tough sell is now a lot harder, and a long way from taking effect.

Russia and China, which have veto power at the Security Council, have questioned the need for additional coercive measures against Iran, even before last week's revision of U.S. claims that Iran is actively seeking a weapon now.

Two U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe negotiations among the major Security Council powers. They said the draft recommends freezing financial or other assets of people, businesses and banks suspected of involvement in the nuclear program.

Some of the targets on the new list, including the Quds Force and Iran's Bank Melli, are entities that the United States has already singled out for separate financial sanctions.

"They are in there now, but who knows what this will look like after the Russians and Chinese get through with it," one official said.

The proposal targets the Quds Force, part of Iran's powerful and pervasive Revolutionary Guard Corps, for exporting banned weapons. The draft would punish Bank Melli, one of three banks the United States picked out in a sweeping sanctions program in October.

At the U.N., a Security Council diplomat from one of the five major powers confirmed officials "have some ideas on paper," but there's no agreement between the permanent five members on a possible text, referring to the divide between Russia and China versus the U.S., Britain and France. As in the earlier two rounds of sanctions, disagreement breaks down along familiar lines, including how many more people should be included, the diplomat said.

A second Security Council diplomat said numerous draft versions have been circulating, but talks appear stalled.

Discussions have been revolving around what to do "if there was no positive progress, which is the position we're in now," the second diplomat said. "We haven't been able to report any positive progress."

Both diplomats spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record.

Speaking Monday to a women's foreign policy forum, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States and other members of the Security Council will try to get a final draft within a few weeks.

"Most states have found that we have the right strategy, and the key is still to get Iran to stop its enrichment and reprocessing so that we can begin negotiations to meet the legitimate need for civilian nuclear power," Rice said.

In October, the Bush administration announced its harshest sanctions on Iran in nearly three decades - cutting off key Iranian military and banking institutions from the American financial system for Tehran's alleged support for terrorism and nuclear ambitions.

The administration slapped sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, a main unit of its defense ministry, three of its largest banks and eight people who it said are engaged in missile trade and back extremist groups throughout the Middle East.

The Washington Post first reported elements of the draft resolution on its Web site Monday.

[Rasputin]

احتمال توافق بر سر پيش نويس قطعنامه تحريم ايران

كشورهاي درگير در مناقشه هسته اي ايران، طي چند روز آينده پيش نويس قطعنامه جديدي را براي اعمال تحريم هاي جديد عليه ايران ارائه خواهند كرد.

روسيه در حال تكميل نيروگاه اتمي بوشهر است
يك ديپلمات فرانسوي روز دوشنبه، 21 ژانويه گفت كه پنج كشور عضو شوراي امنيت و آلمان، روز سه شنبه (فردا) در برلين جلسه اي مهم براي رسيدن به توافق براي تهيه پيش نويس قطعنامه جديد تحريم ها عليه ايران خواهند داشت.

قرار است وزراي خارجه اين شش كشور در آلمان با يكديگر ديدار كنند. اين ديپلمات فرانسوي كه نامش فاش نشده گفته است كه اين پنج كشور به توافق نهايي بسيار نزديك هستند.

اين ديپلمات ارشد فرانسه از ارائه هر توضيحي در مورد جزئيات اين پيش نويس خودداري كرد اما گفت كه اين قطعنامه، متعادل و جدي خواهد بود.

در صورت توافق اين كشورها، پيش نويس قطعنامه جديد اواخر ماه جاري ميلادي در شوراي امنيت به راي گذاشته مي شود.

پيش از اين كشورهاي پنج به علاوه يك، ملاقات هايي براي اعمال تحريم هاي بيشتر عليه ايران داشته اند كه اين ديدارها تا كنون بي نتيجه بوده است.

ايران از سوي كشورهاي غربي متهم است كه تحت پوشش فعاليت هاي هسته اي صلح آميز، در تلاش براي دستيابي به سلاح هسته اي است اما ايران اين اتهام را رد مي كند و مي گويد كه طبق قوانين بين المللي، حق دارد از انرژي هسته اي، براي مقاصد صلح آميز استفاده كند.

شوراي امنيت سازمان ملل متحد، تا كنون دو قطعنامه 1737 و 1747 عليه ايران به تصويب رسانده و تحريم هايي را عليه اين كشور وضع كرده است.

اين شورا خواهان آن است كه ايران فعاليت هاي حساس اتمي خود، از جمله غني سازي اورانيوم را به حالت تعليق در آورد.

آمريكا به شدت در تلاش براي متقاعد كردن چين و روسيه به اعمال تحريم هاي بيشتر عليه ايران است اما اين دو كشور كه روابط اقتصادي گسترده اي با ايران دارند تا كنون با خواسته هاي آمريكا همراهي نكرده اند.

[Rasputin]

UNITED NATIONS: A meeting of the full UN Security Council scheduled for Friday to discuss new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear defiance has been put off to early next week, diplomats said on Friday.

Envoys of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States (P-5) -- were to have briefed their 10 non-permanent colleagues on elements of a third sanctions resolution which was agreed at a meeting in Berlin Tuesday.

The new draft, agreed by foreign ministers of the P-5 and Germany on Tuesday, would slap a third set of economic and trade sanctions against Iran for defying Security Council demands to halt uranium enrichment activities that the West fears could be used to make a nuclear bomb.

Friday's meeting, agreed here Thursday at a meeting of the P-5 plus Germany, was to have taken place at Britain's UN mission in New York.

"It's purely technical," Britain's deputy UN envoy Karen Pierce told reporters, referring to the postponement. She pointed to the council ambassadors' heavy schedule Friday, including protracted talks on whether to adopt a compromise statement on the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.

She said the Iran meeting was rescheduled to "early next week." Britain, France and Germany have been spearheading efforts to negotiate an end to the nuclear standoff with Iran, which denies Western charges that it is seeking a nuclear weapons capability under the guise of its civilian nuclear program.

Diplomats said it was unclear whether the sponsors would circulate their text to the council's non-permanent members late Friday or next week.

[Dokhtar Bandari]

You are incomplete in your news. In fact they have met.

This Council is in a lot of trouble as we speak. In their recent meeting (reports should be out soon I hope) Putin...Mr. Devil himself ranted and raved about USA and its monopoly of the world away from home. He wants Iran and Afghanistan and surrounding areas to himself...talk about playing monopoly... And he is the one who is getting in bed with Iran and purchasing Uranium in bulks...that's right in bulk. Russia is building some really heavy duty bombs called "bunker buster" which has been tested in Iran and failed (actually they succeeded in killing a lot of poor Iranians). Iran does not have the capability of stabilization of such weapon yet...though they beat their chest a lot and declare themselves king of the jungle...lol
Russia and China both have weapons that are 10 times worse than a nuclear bomb with an accuracy of 200 meter, they made them because that stupid Bill Clinton sold them the super IBM computers. That is why he switched "Selling any advance technology to a foreign country" from Defense to Commerce department. The Trust which is none other than Federal Reserve is only interested in making money, they do not care about USA, IRAN or any others countries..only world domination.
This council is going to do what on Akhoonds???? stop importing turbines???? NO...the Akhoonds are their buddies and following their orders...The Trust decides when, where and how...the rest is just commentary.
Stand back and look down on earth...and see how strategically p-5 is located and the 10 sub p-5.... Please tell me there are more people here that know about this..please?

Just watch the news for the next few days and see if anything is falling out of sky anywhere accidentally??????? LOL

[Rasputin]

US pushes EU to shut down Iranian banks

The US is pushing the European Union to increase the pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme by stopping two Iranian banks from operating on European soil.

The plan to take steps against Banks Saderat and Melli - a move also backed by Paris and London - would build on a United Nations Security Council resolution that the US and the EU hope to push through this month.

So far, Germany, Italy and other European states have resisted taking EU action to ban Saderat and Melli - which Washington alleges are involved in terrorist financing and proliferation activities - because neither bank has yet been the subject of UN action.

The lack of an EU ban has left the UK, the US's closest ally, unable to prevent a branch of Saderat from operating in the City of London - a fact which blunts the effectiveness of the US's drive for international action against the banks.

The US, Britain and France last month reached agreement with Russia and China on a draft Security Council resolution that would call on UN member states "to exercise vigilance over . . . Bank Melli and Bank Saderat, and their branches and subsidiaries abroad", as well as over Iranian banks generally.

This falls short of the asset freeze the US and the EU had sought. Washington, London and Paris believe the proposed UN resolution could break the deadlock in the EU and undermine Iran's financial ties with Europe - even though the draft UN text has yet to be agreed by other Security Council members such as South Africa and Libya.

The US believes that tighter EU sanctions will put pressure on other nations that do more business with Iran - China for example - to curb their activities.

"We will be pushing the EU to go further than the Security Council," a diplomat said. "We could 'gold plate' a Security Council resolution when we implement it at the EU level, although some other EU member states may be reluctant."

A previous example of such 'gold plating' came last year when the EU implemented two previous Security Council resolutions on Iran. In similar language to the current text on Banks Saderat and Melli, the UN had called for "vigilance and restraint" concerning the movements of individuals linked to Iran's nuclear and missile programmes and members of its Revolutionary Guard. But in implementing the resolutions, the EU subjected all the named individuals to a travel ban - a much tougher measure.

The US is expecting the third UN resolution to pass regardless of the results of a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency - which could be published as early as next week - which will assess whether Iran has answered all outstanding questions over its nuclear programme. Washington is calculating that Tehran will fail to comply with all the IAEA requirements.

Although the text of the UN resolution has been watered down, western powers seeking more pressure on Iran say approval of the resolution would send an important political message to Tehran - that its claims to have derailed the UN process are unfounded.

Iran declared victory after last December's US National Intelligence Estimate said that it had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. Iranian officials have said the findings suggest there is no need for further sanctions, especially given that Iran has a "work plan" with the IAEA designed to clarify past suspicious activities.

The US, however, has sought to undermine that impression. "Iran's strategic position is not as comfortable as Iran believes it to be," Nick Burns, US undersecretary of state, said Monday in a speech to London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.

UN and, more importantly, US financial sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy but the authorities' attitude has been that the pain is manageable.

[Rasputin]

Key world powers will revise a draft resolution on new sanctions against Iran over its atomic program and call a vote after a U.N. nuclear report on Iran is issued, Britain's U.N. envoy said on Wednesday.

Washington had been pushing for a swift vote on the third sanctions resolution against Iran.

But South Africa and other elected members of the U.N. Security Council have been pressing the five permanent council members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- to wait for a new progress report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran due next week.

The permanent members met with the 10 elected members to discuss the resolution. After the meeting, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, John Sawers, was asked when a vote on the resolution could be expected.

"I don't think this resolution's going to be adopted before the IAEA report comes out," Sawers told reporters. The IAEA report is expected to be released around February 20-22.

"We received various views on the text that we circulated," he said, referring to a draft sanctions resolution obtained in full by Reuters. "We're going to incorporate the views into a revised text next week and introduce it next week."

Western countries say the Vienna-based IAEA's investigation of Iran's past nuclear activities is important but has little relevance to the future of Tehran's atomic program, which they fear may one day be used to make nuclear weapons.

They say Iran's refusal to comply with Security Council demands that it stop enriching uranium supports their suspicion that Tehran is seeking atomic weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and enrichment a sovereign right.

[Rasputin]

پيش نويس اصلاح شده سند تحريم ايران ارائه شد

قدرت هاي عمده اروپايي روز پنجشنبه مجموعه اصلاح شده پيش نويس قطعنامه تحريم هاي تازه عليه ايران را تسليم شوراي امنيت سازمان ملل كرده و اظهار اميدواري كرده اند كه هفته آينده به راي گذاشته شود.

پيش نويس قطعنامه ابتدا ماه ژانويه مورد بررسي كليه 15 عضو شورا قرار گرفته بود
هدف اين قطعنامه تعليق غني سازي اورانيوم در ايران است كه بسته به شدت و گستردگي آن مي تواند سوخت مورد نياز نيروگاه هاي هسته اي يا ماده لازم براي ساخت سلاح اتمي را فراهم كند.

رئيس جمهور ايران در تازه ترين موضع گيري در اين زمينه بار ديگر گفته است ايران اعتنايي به اين "فشارها" نخواهد كرد.

جان سائرز، سفير بريتانيا در سازمان ملل، كه همراه آلمان و فرانسه از تنظيم كنندگان اين پيش نويس است به خبرنگاران گفت كه متن سند منعكس كننده اظهارات برخي از 10 عضو غيردائم شوراي امنيت است.

پيش نويس قطعنامه روز 29 ژانويه مورد بررسي كليه 15 عضو شورا قرار گرفته بود.

ژان موريس ريپرت سفير فرانسه در سازمان ملل گفت كه هدف اين پيش نويس "تلاش براي تضمين تصويب قطعنامه در صورت امكان در هفته آينده و به اتفاق آراست."

جان سائرز گفت كه پيش نويس تازه بر دو رشته تحريم هاي قبلي كه در ماه هاي مارس و دسامبر 2006 به خاطر خودداري ايران از تعليق غني سازي اورانيوم تصويب شده بود مي افزايد.

ايران اتهام تلاش براي استفاده از اين فرآيند جهت دستيابي به ظرفيت ساخت سلاح اتمي را رد مي كند و مي گويد آن را براي مصارفي همچون توليد برق و تحقيقات پزشكي مي خواهد.

تنظيم كنندگان پيش نويس تازه ابراز اطمينان كرده اند كه آراي كافي براي تصويب آن در ميان اعضاي غيردائم را دارند.


تنظيم كنندگان پيش نويس تازه ابراز اطمينان كرده اند كه آراي كافي براي تصويب آن در ميان اعضاي غيردائم دارند

عناصر اصلي اين پيش نويس ماه گذشته مورد توافق وزراي خارجه پنج عضو دائمي شورا - آمريكا، روسيه، بريتانيا، فرانسه، چين - و آلمان قرار گرفته بود.

اين سند خواستار ممنوعيت كامل سفرهاي بين المللي دست اندركاران برنامه اتمي ايران مي شود.

اين درحالي است كه قطعنامه قبلي شورا تنها خواستار اعمال هوشياري در مورد سفر اين دسته از مقام هاي ايراني مي شد.

پيش نويس تازه همچنين حلقه مبادلات تجاري با ايران را تنگ تر مي كند. اين سند از كشورها مي خواهد "در وارد شدن به تعهدات تازه با حمايت مالي دولتي براي تجارت با ايران، از جمله اعطاي اعتبار، ضمانت يا بيمه صادرات به شهروندان خود در چنين معاملاتي هوشياري به خرج دهند."

سند همچنين از كشورها مي خواهد در مورد همكاري موسسات مالي در خاك خود با بانك هاي مستقر در ايران، به خصوص بانك ملي و صادرات و شعب آنها در خارج، دقت كنند.

سفراي چند عضو غيردائم شورا از جمله آفريقاي جنوبي، ليبي و اندونزي گفته اند پيش از به راي گذاشتن پيش نويس مي خواهند منتظر گزارش آژانس بين المللي انرژي اتمي در مورد فعاليت هاي اتمي ايران شوند.

اين گزارش قرار است روز جمعه منتشر شود و انتظار مي رود در فاصله سوم تا هفتم مارس در نشست شوراي حكام آژانس اتمي سازمان ملل به بحث گذاشته شود.


'عناصر سست داخلي'
دشمنان تصور مي كنند كه با كمك برخي عناصر سست داخلي مي*توانند ملت ايران را مجبور به عقب نشيني كنند و صفوف متحد ملت ايران را از هم بپاشند


محمود احمدي نژاد

به گزارش خبرگزاري دولتي ايرنا، محمود احمدي نژاد رئيس جمهور ايران، در سفري به استان هرمزگان در اين زمينه گفته است: "دشمنان تصور مي كنند كه با كمك برخي عناصر سست داخلي مي*توانند ملت ايران را مجبور به عقب نشيني كنند و صفوف متحد ملت ايران را از هم بپاشند."

وي كه منتقدان داخلي مواضع خود در زمينه برنامه اتمي را نشانه رفته بود افزود: "دشمنان ملت ايران يك روز با فريب و تهديد، عده* اي را وادار كردند كه به جاي پيگيري حقوق ملت به فكر باج دادن و عقب نشيني بيفتند."

وي همچنين گفت: "امروز كه آژانس بين*المللي اتمي در گزارش*هاي مكرر خود حقانيت ملت ايران را ثابت كرده به نفع شما است كه ماجرا را ختم كنيد."

محمد البرادعي، مديركل آژانس بين المللي انرژي اتمي، در يك گزارش اخير خود گفته است كه ايران به بخش اعظم مسائل ابهام آور گذشته در مورد برنامه اتمي اش پاسخ داده است با اين حال وي تاكيد كرده است كه به علت محدود شدن همكاري ايران با بازرسان آژانس، همچنان سوالاتي در مورد فعاليت هاي كنوني ايران باقي است.

مقام هاي بلندپايه جمهوري اسلامي چند هفته پيش در واكنش به تنظيم پيش نويس قطعنامه تازه گفتند تصويب آن "داراي عواقب جدي" خواهد بود اما در مورد آن توضيح بيشتري ندادند.

ايران قبلا در واكنش به قطعنامه هاي شوراي امنيت، اجراي پروتكل الحاقي به "ان پي تي" (پيمان منع اشاعه) را متوقف كرده است كه به گفته مقام هاي آژانس بين المللي انرژي اتمي بر تحقيق درباره ماهيت واقعي برنامه اتمي ايران اثر منفي گذاشته است.

[Rasputin]

UN approves new sanctions on Iran

The UN's nuclear agency says it has "serious concerns" about Iran
The UN Security Council has voted in favour of new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme.
Fourteen of the council's 15 members voted in favour of measures including asset freezes and travel bans for Iranian officials. Indonesia abstained.

Western powers suspect Iran may be developing nuclear weapons, but Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful power generation only.

Tehran has refused to comply with demands that it stop enriching uranium.

This can be undertaken for power generation, but may also be a precursor to building an atomic bomb.

RESOLUTION 1803
Imposes travel bans on five Iranian officials
Freezes foreign financial assets of 13 Iranian companies and 13 officials
Bans sale of dual-use items to Iran
Calls on governments to withdraw financial backing from companies trading with Iran, inspect cargo going into and out of the country, and monitor the activities of two Iranian banks
Requests IAEA to report on whether Iran has complied with demand to suspend uranium enrichment in 90 days' time
If not, threatens further sanctions


Iran still claims to be winning
Q&A: Iran nuclear issues

This third sanctions resolution - formally submitted by France and Britain - adds to resolutions adopted in 2006 and 2007.

It calls for the foreign assets of 13 Iranian companies to be frozen, and imposes travel bans on five Iranian officials.

It imposes a ban on the sale to Iran of so-called dual-use items - which can have either a military or civilian purpose.

The measures are in a sense lowest common denominator sanctions that even China and Russia - who maintain closer links with Iran than the Western powers - would support, says the BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN in New York.

Both China and Russia are permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council.

Iranian anger

The resolution received the backing of all five permanent members - also including France, Britain, and the US.

The non-permanent members - none of whom holds a veto - all backed it, except Indonesia, which abstained, saying it remained to be convinced of the necessity of the sanctions.

The vote had been planned for Saturday, but was delayed to give the sponsors time to try to win over four members - Indonesia, Libya, South Africa and Vietnam - who had expressed doubts.

In a statement before the vote, Iran's envoy to the UN, Mohammad Khazee, described the resolution as politically motivated, illegal, and illegitimate.

He insisted Iran's nuclear programme "has been, is, and will remain, absolutely peaceful".

He said Iran would ignore the sanctions.

'Forged'

In remarks to reporters, the British envoy to the UN, John Sawers, said the five permanent council members would ask the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana to meet Iran's chief nuclear negotiator to try to resolve the impasse with Tehran.

He restated a offer made in 2006 to assist Tehran with its civilian nuclear programme, in exchange for the suspension of uranium enrichment.

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported in February that Iran had cleared up most of the outstanding questions regarding its past nuclear activities.

But the IAEA has criticised Iran for refusing to clarify remaining questions about intelligence suggesting Tehran may have been exploring ways to "weaponise" nuclear materials.

Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, has dismissed the intelligence as "forged and fabricated".

He said in Vienna after a meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board that "all the outstanding issues have been concluded".

Earlier on Monday, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei called on Iran "to be as active and co-operative as possible in working with the agency" to resolve the issue.

[Dokhtar Bandari]

KHod kardeh ra tadbir niest
Nagoo ma ra taghseer chiest...

That is not enough..... The dysfunctional mind of the Islamic Republic which only creates destruction and its sole purpose is adding to human suffering must be eliminated.

[Rasputin]

با تصویب قطعنامه جدید

آغاز مرحله جدید

زمین گیر شدن مقامات ج. اسلامی



سومین قطعنامه تحریم های شورای امنیت علیه ایران، سرانجام وعلیرغم همه خوش بینی ها و تبلیغاتی که بصورت جشن و پایکوبی در روزهای اخیر و بدنبال گزارش البرادعی راه انداخته بودند تصویب شد.

از 15 عضو شورای امنیت، تنها اندونزی که پرجمعیت ترین و بزرگترین کشور مسلمان جهان است به این قطعنامه رای ممتنع داد. با آنکه از قبل اعلام شده بود که این قطعنامه موجب محدودیت های جدید برای سفر مقامات ایرانی( بویژه آنها که در فعالیت های اتمی ایران سهم دارند) و فعالیت بانکی ایران خواهد شد، اما اکنون باید منتظر جزئیاتی بود که معمولا چند روز پس از تصویب قطعنامه ها به مطبوعات راه پیدا می کنند. بند مربوط به جلوگیری از سفر مقامات اتمی ایران به کشورهای جهان، چنان بی انتهاست که به این بهانه می توانند جلوی تحرکات دیپلماتیک جمهوری اسلامی را نیز در صحنه جهانی بگیرند.

[Rasputin]