UN Passes Diluted Sanctions Against Iran
December 23, 2006 at 6:09 pm | Posted in Iran, Nuclear, UN, USA | 4 CommentsThe United Nations Security Council voted to impose sanctions on Iran and as largely suspected the draft resolution presented by the European Troika (Britain, France and Germany) was heavily diluted.
The resolution demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment and heavy-water projects. A demand that has no legal basis under the NPT. This is reflected in the weakness of the sanctions it imposes.
It freezes the financial assets of twelve named individuals and eleven groups, including the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, although it not clear if any such assets are held abroad. Instead of a travel ban, it call for member states to “exercise vigilance” regarding the international travel of the twelve Iranian officials and sets up a monitoring committee that will report in sixty days. The IAEA is also required to present a report in sixty days on Iran’s compliance with the illegal order to halt all uranium enrichment and heavy-water projects.
Thus the resolution is in effect a deferment of the case for sixty days. There is no expectation that this resolution will have any effect, it is designed to buy the United States and the European Troika some political breathing space, without eliciting too much of response from Iran – although that remains to be seen.
U.S. Acting Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said, “we are sending Iran an unambiguous message”. Indeed there are: one of utter impotence.
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
George Carty on Iran’s Free and Fair… zadehamin on Iran’s Free and Fair… heather on Iran’s Free and Fair… steph on Iran’s Free and Fair… George Carty on War with Iran
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
Zadehamin 
“without eliciting too much of response from Iran”
I think that what a big factor. They wanted to be seen to be do something but didn’t want to do too much. Also America probably has given up with the UN they’ll get the EU to agree to tougher sanctions.
Comment by Steph— December 27, 2006 #
This is true.
If the aim was to keep Iran from withdrawing from the NPT; it is likely to succeed for the present. However, I think it highly likely that Iran will withdraw when further sanctions are imposed after the end of the sixty day period.
Therefore, I favour preempting the inevitable with immediate withdrawal since it is unlikely at this stage that China and Russia will agree to meaningful economic sanctions. Whereas if Iran to withdraw from the NPT after another UNSC resolution, Russia and China may feel compelled to.
Comment by Babak— December 28, 2006 #
How would you respond to those who oppose a nuclear Iran because it might lead to further nuclear proliferation?
The part of the world most likely to suffer a nuclear war is the Indian subcontinent. This region was nuclearized because India got the Bomb first (because it feared China’s Bomb) and then Pakistan (which feared India’s bomb).
If Iran got the bomb, mighn’t this frighten Turkey into also going nuclear, which would in turn force Greece to build a nuclear bomb? I’m sure the Europeans don’t want a nuclearization of the Greece-Turkey dispute!
Comment by George Carty— February 12, 2007 #
George, only one of us is sufficiently knowledgeable to read and comprehend a scientific paper on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and it is not I. Thus my information is limited to knowledge of Iran’s military and energy strategies, which are largely based on information from the Pasdaran and to a lesser degree from what I read in media reports and academic papers. However I have tried to answer your question in this post
Comment by Babak— February 14, 2007 #