Tapsearch Com EditorUN imposes sanctions on Iran
December 24th 2006 02:59
No matter where you stood on Iraq, the UN didn't do a good job. The organization didn't manage to get inspectors in. It didn't back its demands with force. And when it failed, that didn't stop the US and the UK from taking matters into their own hands.
That's why I'm not convinced that the new round of sanctions against Iran is going to do any good. I haven't seen many movies, but I'm pretty sure I remember this one.
From the AP:
"The result of two months of tough negotiation, the resolution orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also freezes Iranian assets of 10 key companies and 12 individuals related to those programs."
Well, it's a start. Or maybe not, because Iran itself doesn't think so:
"The Iranian government immediately rejected the resolution, vowing in a statement from Tehran to continue enriching uranium, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel for civilian purposes or for a nuclear bomb. The government said it 'has not delegated its destiny to the invalid decisions of the U.N. Security Council.'"
Just perhaps, that's because the resolution has a "we won't enforce this" clause built right into it:
"If Iran refuses to comply, the council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions, but the resolution emphasized the importance of diplomacy in seeking guarantees 'that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.'"
I've pointed out before that nonmilitary sanctions only work when pretty much the whole world cooperates.
Indeed, the US hopes that other countries, like Russia, will impose their own additional sanctions thanks to this resolution. Problem is, Russia barely agreed to the existing ones:
"The administration had pushed for tougher penalties. But Russia and China, which both have strong commercial ties to Tehran, and Qatar, across the Persian Gulf from Iran, balked. To get their votes, the resolution dropped a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development and specified the banned items and technologies."
We're depending on Russia's help, when Russia didn't want "a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development"? How serious can Russia be? And how serious can we be if we think Russia will help?
The bottom line is that, whatever happened in the long-term occupation of Iraq, force -- or at least the credible threat of it -- is the only thing that will stop someone with these kinds of goals. This "get everyone together to talk" strategy failed once, and it will fail again. It's never a good sign when you have to take the teeth out of a resolution to placate a country -- and you plan to use that country as a disarmer.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
That's why I'm not convinced that the new round of sanctions against Iran is going to do any good. I haven't seen many movies, but I'm pretty sure I remember this one.
From the AP:
"The result of two months of tough negotiation, the resolution orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also freezes Iranian assets of 10 key companies and 12 individuals related to those programs."
Well, it's a start. Or maybe not, because Iran itself doesn't think so:
"The Iranian government immediately rejected the resolution, vowing in a statement from Tehran to continue enriching uranium, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel for civilian purposes or for a nuclear bomb. The government said it 'has not delegated its destiny to the invalid decisions of the U.N. Security Council.'"
Just perhaps, that's because the resolution has a "we won't enforce this" clause built right into it:
"If Iran refuses to comply, the council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions, but the resolution emphasized the importance of diplomacy in seeking guarantees 'that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.'"
I've pointed out before that nonmilitary sanctions only work when pretty much the whole world cooperates.
Indeed, the US hopes that other countries, like Russia, will impose their own additional sanctions thanks to this resolution. Problem is, Russia barely agreed to the existing ones:
"The administration had pushed for tougher penalties. But Russia and China, which both have strong commercial ties to Tehran, and Qatar, across the Persian Gulf from Iran, balked. To get their votes, the resolution dropped a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development and specified the banned items and technologies."
We're depending on Russia's help, when Russia didn't want "a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development"? How serious can Russia be? And how serious can we be if we think Russia will help?
The bottom line is that, whatever happened in the long-term occupation of Iraq, force -- or at least the credible threat of it -- is the only thing that will stop someone with these kinds of goals. This "get everyone together to talk" strategy failed once, and it will fail again. It's never a good sign when you have to take the teeth out of a resolution to placate a country -- and you plan to use that country as a disarmer.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
| 59 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
and it is olso a bad move