Tougher sanctions for Iran:

Discussion in 'Economics' started by crgarcia, Jan 22, 2008.

  1. New Iran action agreed, officials say

    * Story Highlights
    * New draft resolution on Iran sanctions will go to the full security council
    * U.S. official refers to travel bans and asset freezes
    * U.S., Russia, China, UK, France and Germany took part in Tuesday's meeting
    * Iran insists it does not have a nuclear weapons program
    * Next Article in World »

    Decrease font Decrease font
    Enlarge font Enlarge font

    BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council's permanent members and Germany agreed Tuesday on a new draft resolution on sanctions against Iran, strengthening existing measures over the country's refusal to suspend its nuclear program, officials said.

    "We are united in the assessment that a nuclear armament of Iran would have dramatic consequences for the Middle East and even beyond," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after meeting his counterparts from the U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China.

    "So we are and remain agreed that we must and will continue to work, together and with determination, to ensure that it does not happen."

    The six agreed on the contents of a new resolution, which will be brought before the Security Council by Germany, France and Britain, where it could be discussed with the remaining council members over the coming weeks, he said. He gave no details of the resolution's contents.

    The Security Council already has imposed two rounds of sanctions over Iran's defiance of international demands that it suspend uranium enrichment.

    A European diplomat and a U.S. official, both speaking of condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the resolution would expand existing sanctions. But the European diplomat said it would not feature new economic sanctions.

    "It increases the severity of the sanctions, and it expands the sanctions in some of the categories," the U.S. official said.

    The U.S. official referred specifically to travel bans and asset freezes, but said the group agreed not to release the full text of the agreement until it had been distributed to the rest of the Security Council in the coming days.

    "This is a swift reminder to the Iranians that they are not in compliance," the U.S. official said.

    "This resolution builds on the last two resolutions ... (and) it has some new elements that will be unveiled in New York," the U.S. official said.

    A U.S. intelligence assessment last month said Iran had stopped active work on a nuclear weapons program in 2003. That appeared to stiffen resistance from veto-wielding Security Council members Russia and China to a quick and harsh third round of sanctions over Iran's defiance of international demands that it suspend uranium enrichment.

    The group entered the meetings divided on four distinct issues, but after the discussions -- primarily featuring Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov -- were able to hash out the new agreement, the U.S. official said.

    "We appeal jointly with all urgency to the leadership in Tehran to comply without reservation with the demands of the Security Council" and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog," Steinmeier said at a short press conference after the meeting, in which only he spoke and no questions were allowed.

    "Tehran has it in its power to seek the path of cooperation and reconciliation," he said.

    British Foreign Secretary David Miliband echoed that in a statement later Tuesday and said the agreement would "build on" existing resolutions.

    "A positive choice by Iran holds the prospect of real progress for its citizens," Miliband said. "Confrontation with the international community will only further isolate Iran and hurt Iran's citizens."

    Steinmeier said the group stood behind the "double approach" that had been taken by the international community, offering Iran incentives to give up enrichment, but also demanding that it comply with the international community's demands.

    "None of us ... stands for confrontation," Steinmeier said. "We want a solution, but that requires cooperation and readiness on the part of Iran."

    Iran insists it never had a nuclear weapons program and says its work is for peaceful purposes such as energy production.

    Its foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, stressed Tuesday that his country opposed the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and voiced confidence about Iran's cooperation with the IAEA.

    "Iran's cooperation with the IAEA will help (with) clarifying issues linked to the past of Iran's nuclear activities," Mottaki told reporters during a visit to Sofia, Bulgaria. "After clarifying these matters, there will be more opportunities for discussions with the European Union countries on this and other issues."

    Earlier in January, IAEA director Mohammed Elbaradei visited Tehran, and Iran agreed to answer all remaining questions over its nuclear activities in the next few weeks.

    Steinmeier said that Iran's cooperation with the IAEA needed to clear up "open questions."

    "It remains our expectation that this succeeds in the coming days and weeks, in cooperation with the IAEA in Vienna -- only then will it be possible to restore the trust that has been lost over the years."
  2. This is very interesting considering how cooperative Iran has gotten.

    I think if Iran plays this correctly, they may, just may shatter any confidence in United Nations, U.S. and Britain. The physical war is probably inevitable but the most important juncture is the information war.
  3. promagma


    Do sanctions ever work?
  4. Chausey


  5. /are they still selling oil in euros? :eek:
  6. Why is physical war inevitable? Iran has not attacked anyone, and is surrounded by people who can keep it down (US warships, Israel, India, Pakistan). They are no threat to a continent thousands of miles away. China and Russia are the real threats,
  7. I guess the Bush administration will do anything to go to war with Iran, so we can have the troops in the middle east forever.
  8. Retired


    Do you know why we are in Iraq? The same reasons.
  9. What threat?

    Because they are eating your share of bread? You bastard.