No Additional Iran Sanctions

As has been widely suspected the United Nations Security Council will impose no further sanctions on Iran for its failure to suspend its nuclear enrichment program as demanded by previous UNSC resolutions:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Six world powers have agreed on a draft resolution on Iran’s nuclear program but it included no new sanctions, in line with Russia’s preference, European officials said on Friday.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told reporters the six powers would submit the draft text to the 15-nation U.N. Security Council for discussions on Friday. It was unclear when the council would vote on the text but one European official said that could happen during the weekend.

The United States, Britain, France and Germany wanted to ratchet up sanctions on Iran, which has refused to halt its nuclear enrichment work. China and especially Russia oppose further sanctions.

“We will be presenting a short resolution for consultations today that reaffirms existing resolutions that are on the U.N. books, … (and) reaffirms the unity of the (six powers),” Miliband said in words confirmed by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Miliband made clear the resolution did not include new sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend its nuclear program as demanded in four previous council resolutions.

Two additional sanctions that have been mentioned and which might,indeed, put some pressure on the Iranian regime are an embargo on arms shipments to Iran and an embargo on gasoline shipments to Iran. Since Russia is Iran’s primary supplier of arms, Russia’s opposition to such a sanction is no surprise.

FILED UNDER: General, , ,
Dave Schuler
About Dave Schuler
Over the years Dave Schuler has worked as a martial arts instructor, a handyman, a musician, a cook, and a translator. He's owned his own company for the last thirty years and has a post-graduate degree in his field. He comes from a family of politicians, teachers, and vaudeville entertainers. All-in-all a pretty good preparation for blogging. He has contributed to OTB since November 2006 but mostly writes at his own blog, The Glittering Eye, which he started in March 2004.

Comments

  1. Anderson says:

    Obama’s flack on NPR yesterday was saying that he supports tougher sanctions on Iran, which surprised me since I’d assumed what we had was already the max.

    I see that I was mistaken.

  2. Bithead says:

    Thus once more is the UN shown as worse than useless. Not only do it’s ‘sanctions’ only work against those who take it seriously… and Iran clearly does not… but the membership in the security council of less than honest states such as Russia, make the whole process a joke.

    Adding more members to the UNSC would cripple the already hobbled org even further.

  3. Alex Knapp says:

    Bithead,

    Actually, we could do a compromise: yes, we’ll put more permanent members on the UNSC. However, more members means that all we need is a 2/3 vote to move forward on a matter.

  4. Dave Schuler says:

    As I’ve written a number of times I have no opposition to more permanent members on the Security Council, however, I think that membership should have prerequisites and acceptance of applications should be automatic for those who meet the prerequisites.

    The prerequisites that I have in mind are a minimum GDP of $2T, minimum per capita GDP around $8,000, minimum expenditures on military 2% of GDP (2008$). That would effectively limit the membership to US, UK, and Russia. Note that if you raised the requirement to $15,000 per capita GDP and 3% GDP military expenditures the US would be the only qualified member.

  5. William d'Inger says:

    One thing troubles me greatly about all this. It seems to me that so long as the U.S. maintains nuclear weapons, it has no moral right to deny them to any other sovereign nation. I mean, who the f**k are we to decide to hog them unto ourselves?

  6. Anderson says:

    Sorry, William, I don’t buy that.

    We’re not perfect, but we’re a democracy, we obey the rule of law, we have free speech and free trade.

    I don’t see any reasonable basis on which we say, “eh, we’re not any better than North Korea, we don’t have the right to tell the crazy little ratf–kers whether they can have nukes.” (RatEATERS, more likely, given their economy.)

    I mean, why stop with states? We and al-Qaeda have had our differences, to be sure, but one man’s faith is another man’s heresy, and if they can buy nukes on the free market, well, then who are we to lord it over them?

  7. Triumph says:

    As has been widely suspected the United Nations Security Council will impose no further sanctions on Iran for its failure to suspend its nuclear enrichment program as demanded by previous UNSC resolutions:

    This is exactly why we need Palin to become President. Kissinger’s advice notwithstanding, Sarah will get tough on these bastards ASAP. Bombing Iran is part of the mission and Palin is the only candidate who is fully behind the mission. If Hussein wins, Iran will win.

    If you don’t want to wind up speaking Iranian, You ought to vote for Palin.

  8. Anderson says:

    If you don’t want to wind up speaking Iranian, You ought to vote for Palin.

    And if you don’t care whether your Veep can speak English, vote for Palin!