Showing posts with label Sanctions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sanctions. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Europeans See Murkier Case for Sanctions
"The Bush administration’s new intelligence assessment that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is likely to complicate efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran at the United Nations Security Council, European officials said Monday."
Monday, November 5, 2007
Funds halted for Iran quake relief, water projects
U.S. sanctions closed channels normally used by World Bank
by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times - November 4, 2007
The World Bank, newly caught up in the Bush administration's campaign against Iran, has had to suspend payments for earthquake relief, sanitation and other projects there in response to new U.S. sanctions on leading Iranian banks, World Bank officials say.
Officials said $5.4 million in payments has been suspended for four projects, involving earthquake relief, water and sanitation, environment management and urban housing. They do not expect the suspensions to be permanent.
But the bank has no plan to resume payments because it is having trouble finding banks in Iran through which to route them now that the United States has barred dealing with four of Iran's largest banks, accusing them of involvement in terrorism, or nuclear or missile programs.
"At this point, the World Bank is looking for alternate ways to support these projects," said a bank official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It is unknown how difficult that might be. It is not that easy to find alternatives. We have no answer on how or when at this point."
U.S. officials said they hope the decision by the World Bank will increase pressure on Iran, not necessarily by stopping humanitarian projects but by dramatizing the country's economic isolation in light of its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment and negotiate with the West over its nuclear program.
The World Bank step, while small, illustrates the extraordinary reach of U.S. sanctions, even though they were imposed unilaterally after the United States was stymied in its recent efforts to get the U.N. Security Council to approve wider penalties.
The payments for the World Bank projects have all gone through Bank Melli, one of Iran's largest banks, but Bank Melli was accused last month by the United States of being involved in nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Also listed were two other institutions, Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat. Bank Saderat had already been listed by the United States as being involved in financing terrorism.
Some congressional critics of the administration's Iran policies have called on the United States to block World Bank aid programs for Iran altogether. The World Bank has nine active projects in Iran and, by last year, had financed 48 operations worth about $3.4 billion, according to the bank's Web site.
The effect of the United States' listing these major Iranian banks is that no American bank is allowed to facilitate any dollar-based transaction between them and any other bank in the world.
by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times - November 4, 2007
The World Bank, newly caught up in the Bush administration's campaign against Iran, has had to suspend payments for earthquake relief, sanitation and other projects there in response to new U.S. sanctions on leading Iranian banks, World Bank officials say.
Officials said $5.4 million in payments has been suspended for four projects, involving earthquake relief, water and sanitation, environment management and urban housing. They do not expect the suspensions to be permanent.
But the bank has no plan to resume payments because it is having trouble finding banks in Iran through which to route them now that the United States has barred dealing with four of Iran's largest banks, accusing them of involvement in terrorism, or nuclear or missile programs.
"At this point, the World Bank is looking for alternate ways to support these projects," said a bank official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It is unknown how difficult that might be. It is not that easy to find alternatives. We have no answer on how or when at this point."
U.S. officials said they hope the decision by the World Bank will increase pressure on Iran, not necessarily by stopping humanitarian projects but by dramatizing the country's economic isolation in light of its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment and negotiate with the West over its nuclear program.
The World Bank step, while small, illustrates the extraordinary reach of U.S. sanctions, even though they were imposed unilaterally after the United States was stymied in its recent efforts to get the U.N. Security Council to approve wider penalties.
The payments for the World Bank projects have all gone through Bank Melli, one of Iran's largest banks, but Bank Melli was accused last month by the United States of being involved in nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Also listed were two other institutions, Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat. Bank Saderat had already been listed by the United States as being involved in financing terrorism.
Some congressional critics of the administration's Iran policies have called on the United States to block World Bank aid programs for Iran altogether. The World Bank has nine active projects in Iran and, by last year, had financed 48 operations worth about $3.4 billion, according to the bank's Web site.
The effect of the United States' listing these major Iranian banks is that no American bank is allowed to facilitate any dollar-based transaction between them and any other bank in the world.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
US disappointed in China, Russia response on Iran sanctions
AFP - Nov 2, 2007
The United States on Friday urged China and Russia to make a stronger effort toward agreeing a new set of sanctions on Iran, after what Washington said was a disappointing response by the two countries in major power talks in London.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns "was disappointed in China and in Russia," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.
Burns attended the London talks Friday among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China -- plus Germany to discuss strengthened sanctions against Iran under a third UN resolution.
"We think that at this point we really need to be making more progress toward that resolution and that we need to make that diplomacy much more rigorous," Casey said.
"And we're hoping to see more effort taken on the part of particularly the Chinese, and the Russians as well," he told reporters in Washington.
Russia and China have both said they opposed further punitive steps against Iran over its refusal to stop enriching uranium.
A senior US administration official said Burns was disappointed that the Russians and Chinese came to the London talks unprepared to fully grapple with the issue.
"I think Nick's concern is that the Russians and particularly, in this instance I undertand, the Chinese delegation really didn't come prepared to have a complete, detailed discussion of how to move forward," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Foreign ministers of the six world powers decided in late September that they would wait for two key reports in November before deciding on whether to push for a third round of UN sanctions on Tehran.
The reports on Iran's nuclear activities were to be from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
Iran and the IAEA agreed on a timetable in August for Tehran to provide answers to outstanding questions over its nuclear program.
The IAEA has been probing Iran's program for the past four years but has so far failed to conclude whether it is peaceful or not.
Solana was also to continue face-to-face talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiators, who have rejected Western charges that it is trying to build atomic weapons under the guise of its civilian nuclear program.
The UN Security Council has passed two rounds of sanctions to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to supply the fuel for power generation or for nuclear arms.
The United States on Friday urged China and Russia to make a stronger effort toward agreeing a new set of sanctions on Iran, after what Washington said was a disappointing response by the two countries in major power talks in London.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns "was disappointed in China and in Russia," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.
Burns attended the London talks Friday among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China -- plus Germany to discuss strengthened sanctions against Iran under a third UN resolution.
"We think that at this point we really need to be making more progress toward that resolution and that we need to make that diplomacy much more rigorous," Casey said.
"And we're hoping to see more effort taken on the part of particularly the Chinese, and the Russians as well," he told reporters in Washington.
Russia and China have both said they opposed further punitive steps against Iran over its refusal to stop enriching uranium.
A senior US administration official said Burns was disappointed that the Russians and Chinese came to the London talks unprepared to fully grapple with the issue.
"I think Nick's concern is that the Russians and particularly, in this instance I undertand, the Chinese delegation really didn't come prepared to have a complete, detailed discussion of how to move forward," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Foreign ministers of the six world powers decided in late September that they would wait for two key reports in November before deciding on whether to push for a third round of UN sanctions on Tehran.
The reports on Iran's nuclear activities were to be from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
Iran and the IAEA agreed on a timetable in August for Tehran to provide answers to outstanding questions over its nuclear program.
The IAEA has been probing Iran's program for the past four years but has so far failed to conclude whether it is peaceful or not.
Solana was also to continue face-to-face talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiators, who have rejected Western charges that it is trying to build atomic weapons under the guise of its civilian nuclear program.
The UN Security Council has passed two rounds of sanctions to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to supply the fuel for power generation or for nuclear arms.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
China rebuffs Israel on Iran nuclear sanctions
Associated Press - Oct 30, 2007
China said Tuesday it remained opposed to further sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme, despite the visiting Israeli foreign minister's call for stronger action.
"We consider that the decision to impose sanctions should not be made lightly. At present, the Iranian side is seeking to solve the issue through talks," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters.
"Under the current circumstances we do not support further sanctions, as that would worsen the situation."
Liu was responding to a question about Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's call for China to support "dramatic" sanctions against Iran in an effort to stall its nuclear drive.
Livni, who met with Premier Wen Jiabao and Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi during her three-day visit, on Tuesday insisted that stronger sanctions were vital for coercing Iran into giving up its nuclear activities.
"Iran exploits and abuses the willingness of the international community to open dialogue with Iran," she told a press briefing.
"We believe that strong, immediate, broader sanctions can change the situation and we'll focus on that."
She said the Middle Eastern region would be destabilised if Iran was allowed to possess nuclear weapons, but stopped short of commenting on her talks with the Chinese leadership on the issue.
Israel and the United States have been most vocal in accusing Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran has always denied the charge, insisting its nuclear programme is only for civilian energy use.
Livni's visit comes a week after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert travelled to Britain, France and Russia with similar demands for tougher sanctions against Iran, which Israel and the West accuse of pursuing nuclear weapons.
Iran has always denied the charge, insisting that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes only.
With its permanent UN Security Council seat and substantial energy interests in Iran, China's support is considered vital for any measures against Tehran.
China has so far opposed tough action, calling instead for a negotiated end to the impasse.
China said Tuesday it remained opposed to further sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme, despite the visiting Israeli foreign minister's call for stronger action.
"We consider that the decision to impose sanctions should not be made lightly. At present, the Iranian side is seeking to solve the issue through talks," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters.
"Under the current circumstances we do not support further sanctions, as that would worsen the situation."
Liu was responding to a question about Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's call for China to support "dramatic" sanctions against Iran in an effort to stall its nuclear drive.
Livni, who met with Premier Wen Jiabao and Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi during her three-day visit, on Tuesday insisted that stronger sanctions were vital for coercing Iran into giving up its nuclear activities.
"Iran exploits and abuses the willingness of the international community to open dialogue with Iran," she told a press briefing.
"We believe that strong, immediate, broader sanctions can change the situation and we'll focus on that."
She said the Middle Eastern region would be destabilised if Iran was allowed to possess nuclear weapons, but stopped short of commenting on her talks with the Chinese leadership on the issue.
Israel and the United States have been most vocal in accusing Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran has always denied the charge, insisting its nuclear programme is only for civilian energy use.
Livni's visit comes a week after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert travelled to Britain, France and Russia with similar demands for tougher sanctions against Iran, which Israel and the West accuse of pursuing nuclear weapons.
Iran has always denied the charge, insisting that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes only.
With its permanent UN Security Council seat and substantial energy interests in Iran, China's support is considered vital for any measures against Tehran.
China has so far opposed tough action, calling instead for a negotiated end to the impasse.
Friday, October 26, 2007
New U.S. sanctions likely to weaken international unity on Iran
by Warren P. Strobel and Kevin G. Hall - October 25, 2007
For more than two years, the United States has insisted that the key to stopping Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program is maintaining unified international pressure on the Islamic Republic.
But on Thursday, the Bush administration signaled in no uncertain terms that it's prepared to go its own way in confronting what it considers to be a growing threat from Iran, even if doing so demolishes an increasingly shaky global consensus.
The administration unilaterally imposed the toughest set of sanctions on Iran since the country's Islamic revolution in 1979.
The measures target the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military vanguard of Iran's Islamic state; the IRGC's paramilitary arm, the Quds force; Iran's largest state-owned bank and two others; and 17 companies and individuals that are part of the IRGC.
The sanctions are intended to cut off Iran's access to the U.S. financial system and discourage private businesses from operating in the country.
President Bush's action drew immediate criticism from his own party.
"Unilateral sanctions rarely ever work," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a foreign policy moderate, said during his weekly news conference. "I just don't think the unilateral approach and giving war speeches helps the situation. It will just drive the Iranians closer together."
It also "escalates the danger of a military confrontation," Hagel said.
West European governments didn't immediately react to the sanctions. But Russian President Vladimir Putin warned scathingly that new sanctions could worsen relations with Iran and bring talks to "a dead end."
"It's not the best way to resolve the situation by running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand," he said during a visit to Portugal.
The broad sanctions, senior U.S. officials said, are meant to target not only Iran's nuclear program, but also what Washington asserts is its support for anti-U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, export of ballistic missiles and support for international terrorism.
Matthew Levitt, an expert on terrorist financing and a former Treasury Department official, said the measures are "the largest single sanction action that I know of. ... This is huge."
Others said that while the sanctions are likely to deepen Iran's isolation, other countries with deep business ties to Iran, such as China and Russia, are unlikely to follow suit.
The sanctions end what bankers call "U-turn" transactions — using third parties to settle oil contracts in the United States — which allowed Iran to conduct business in dollars despite previous sanctions.
But Iran had prepared for the U.S. decision by moving most of its oil business into euros and yen, the currencies of the European Union and Japan. "It's not like it came without warning," said Hal Eren, a Washington attorney who specializes in legal issues involving economic sanctions.
The unilateral U.S. move, under consideration for several months, appears to be an acknowledgement that U.S.-led efforts to contain Iran via the United Nations Security Council have faltered.
Last month, in the face of resistance from Russia, China and Germany, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice agreed to postpone consideration of new U.N. sanctions until next month, pending talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"We haven't seen the kind of action from many countries around the world who trade with Iran. China, for instance, has increased its trade with Iran," said Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns. "And since we believe in diplomacy and want to make it work, we have to find another way to make diplomacy work and that is through these strengthened sanctions."
Burns and Rice went out of their way to insist that the sanctions weren't a prelude to military action against Iran.
However, the U.S. actions, announced by Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, also underscore a growing divergence between the United States and even its European allies in how they perceive the Iranian threat.
France, Britain and, to a lesser extent, Germany and others are focused on Iran's enrichment of uranium, which could be used for nuclear weapons.
But the United States now finds itself locked in proxy combat with Tehran on a broader front, including the nuclear issue; the flow of arms from Iran to Shiite militias in Iraq; and Iranian backing for groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah that oppose U.S. plans in the Middle East.
"Not all countries may have the breadth of interests the United States has," Burns said.
Levitt predicted that other countries eventually may follow the new U.S. sanctions with similar measures. Banks and firms in Germany, France and elsewhere have begun reducing business in Iran, and a 34-nation group known as the Financial Action Task Force recently advised its members' banks to weigh the risks of dealing with Iran.
Some experts doubt the sanctions will sway Russia and China, however.
"I think from Putin's visit to (Iran President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad the other day, he's probably not going to go along with this effort. And the Chinese are playing a very quiet role, but I too expect they will be very reluctant," said Gary Hufbauer, an expert on economic sanctions at the Petersen Institute for International Economics.
"Maybe this is the best that can be done," Hufbauer said.
For more than two years, the United States has insisted that the key to stopping Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program is maintaining unified international pressure on the Islamic Republic.
But on Thursday, the Bush administration signaled in no uncertain terms that it's prepared to go its own way in confronting what it considers to be a growing threat from Iran, even if doing so demolishes an increasingly shaky global consensus.
The administration unilaterally imposed the toughest set of sanctions on Iran since the country's Islamic revolution in 1979.
The measures target the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military vanguard of Iran's Islamic state; the IRGC's paramilitary arm, the Quds force; Iran's largest state-owned bank and two others; and 17 companies and individuals that are part of the IRGC.
The sanctions are intended to cut off Iran's access to the U.S. financial system and discourage private businesses from operating in the country.
President Bush's action drew immediate criticism from his own party.
"Unilateral sanctions rarely ever work," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a foreign policy moderate, said during his weekly news conference. "I just don't think the unilateral approach and giving war speeches helps the situation. It will just drive the Iranians closer together."
It also "escalates the danger of a military confrontation," Hagel said.
West European governments didn't immediately react to the sanctions. But Russian President Vladimir Putin warned scathingly that new sanctions could worsen relations with Iran and bring talks to "a dead end."
"It's not the best way to resolve the situation by running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand," he said during a visit to Portugal.
The broad sanctions, senior U.S. officials said, are meant to target not only Iran's nuclear program, but also what Washington asserts is its support for anti-U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, export of ballistic missiles and support for international terrorism.
Matthew Levitt, an expert on terrorist financing and a former Treasury Department official, said the measures are "the largest single sanction action that I know of. ... This is huge."
Others said that while the sanctions are likely to deepen Iran's isolation, other countries with deep business ties to Iran, such as China and Russia, are unlikely to follow suit.
The sanctions end what bankers call "U-turn" transactions — using third parties to settle oil contracts in the United States — which allowed Iran to conduct business in dollars despite previous sanctions.
But Iran had prepared for the U.S. decision by moving most of its oil business into euros and yen, the currencies of the European Union and Japan. "It's not like it came without warning," said Hal Eren, a Washington attorney who specializes in legal issues involving economic sanctions.
The unilateral U.S. move, under consideration for several months, appears to be an acknowledgement that U.S.-led efforts to contain Iran via the United Nations Security Council have faltered.
Last month, in the face of resistance from Russia, China and Germany, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice agreed to postpone consideration of new U.N. sanctions until next month, pending talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"We haven't seen the kind of action from many countries around the world who trade with Iran. China, for instance, has increased its trade with Iran," said Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns. "And since we believe in diplomacy and want to make it work, we have to find another way to make diplomacy work and that is through these strengthened sanctions."
Burns and Rice went out of their way to insist that the sanctions weren't a prelude to military action against Iran.
However, the U.S. actions, announced by Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, also underscore a growing divergence between the United States and even its European allies in how they perceive the Iranian threat.
France, Britain and, to a lesser extent, Germany and others are focused on Iran's enrichment of uranium, which could be used for nuclear weapons.
But the United States now finds itself locked in proxy combat with Tehran on a broader front, including the nuclear issue; the flow of arms from Iran to Shiite militias in Iraq; and Iranian backing for groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah that oppose U.S. plans in the Middle East.
"Not all countries may have the breadth of interests the United States has," Burns said.
Levitt predicted that other countries eventually may follow the new U.S. sanctions with similar measures. Banks and firms in Germany, France and elsewhere have begun reducing business in Iran, and a 34-nation group known as the Financial Action Task Force recently advised its members' banks to weigh the risks of dealing with Iran.
Some experts doubt the sanctions will sway Russia and China, however.
"I think from Putin's visit to (Iran President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad the other day, he's probably not going to go along with this effort. And the Chinese are playing a very quiet role, but I too expect they will be very reluctant," said Gary Hufbauer, an expert on economic sanctions at the Petersen Institute for International Economics.
"Maybe this is the best that can be done," Hufbauer said.
The Road to War, Part II
With new unilateral U.S. sanctions announced Thursday, America and Iran may now be headed for unavoidable hostilities.
by Michael Hirsh, Newsweek - Oct 25, 2007
Last weekend I met a happy hard-liner, a senior White House official, at a Washington party. His good mood, it turns out, had a lot to do with the new, uncompromising stance laid out by his boss, George W. Bush, against Iran. Until recently administration hawks had been somewhat worried about where their president was headed. Since the beginning of his second term, in their view, Bush had gone suspiciously soft on the question of how to stop Iran's nuclear program. He had acceded to Condoleezza Rice's demands that the United States back the multilateral diplomatic approach favored by the Europeans. But in the last two weeks the administration has been on a unilateralist tear against Iran once again, issuing hawkish rhetoric that far outpaces anything heard in European capitals. On Thursday the White House announced a broad array of sanctions that affect almost the entire Iranian government. Tehran, meanwhile, has hardened its own position considerably.
The end result of all this may be war, whether anyone really wants it or not.
On the U.S. side, the uptick in pressure appeared to begin at a news conference on Oct. 17, when the president said, seemingly off the cuff, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." That was a breathtaking statement. What the president seemed to be saying was that World War III would result—and he would be seen as his generation's Neville Chamberlain—if he allowed the Iranians to go beyond the enrichment capability they've already achieved. Bush has no intention of becoming identified with the appeaser of Munich. Bush's jarring statement was followed by an Oct. 21 speech by Vice President Cheney. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said flatly. The dynamic duo that brought us the war in Iraq, Bush and Cheney, appear to be on the same page once again. In Tehran, meanwhile, the Iranian government now seems united around one idea: Iran will not give up "one iota" of its nuclear program, in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words. The resignation of chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani this week, and his replacement by a close ally of Ahmadinejad's, Saeed Jalili (Larijani and the Iranian president were bitter rivals), is one strong sign that this hardened position will continue. As a Larijani ally in Tehran told me Thursday, the hard-line president likes to dominate "inexperienced and unprofessional people" like Jalili.
Asked whether war has grown more likely, administration officials say no. In the words of Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns on Thursday, the administration just wants to implement "stronger" diplomacy than it has been able to muster in the U.N. Security Council. "We do not believe conflict is inevitable," Burns said in explaining the new program of unilateral sanctions announced Thursday against Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard corps, defense ministry and major banks. "In no way, shape or form does this anticipate the use of force."
But the new U.S. sanctions represent a lurch toward unilateralism that some European officials now fear could be "a repeat of 2002"—in other words, the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. For Washington the ambit of the Iran issue has changed—from a tight focus on Tehran's nuclear enrichment program, in tandem with the Europeans, to a broader indictment of Iran on the world stage. Hence Washington on Thursday named the IRGC, the umbrella organization that many Iranian officials belong to, a proliferator of ballistic missiles, along with the ministry of defense and Armed Forces Logistics agency. And it designated the Quds Force, an elite branch of the IRGC, a group that "provides material support" to the Taliban, Hizbullah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and another Palestinian group. The Bush administration also designated two top Iranian banks—Melli and Mellat—nuclear and missile proliferators, and a third, Saderat, a financier of terrorism. That effectively isolates all three of them as rogues that companies around the world should not do business with if the latter hope to remain part of the international financial system and conduct their affairs in the United States. "The U.S. administration is going ahead on its own," a senior official with one of the "EU3" countries—Britain, France and Germany—said Thursday. "They seem to be putting the question of Iraq in along with [the nuclear issue]," referring to Iranian influence inside Iraq. The Europeans are also resisting painting the Iranian government broadly with the same brush. "We are not going to designate a whole movement [like the IRGC], as opposed to individuals," he said.
So both sides—the United States and Iran—have staked out extreme positions, and it is difficult to see how there can be a negotiated solution. Even if Tehran decides to suspend enrichment, for example—as unlikely as that it is—Washington will still suspect it of proliferation of missiles and support to terrorist groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. No wonder my White House hard-liner was so "relieved," as he told me.
Today the administration is casting Iran as America's biggest bogeyman on every front. National missile defense? Once Kim Jong Il of North Korea was identified as the target of this expensive project. No longer. In a speech Tuesday at National Defense University, Bush declared that "the need for missile defense in Europe … is urgent" because "Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles." Mideast peace? Never mind that the Palestinians are mixed up in a civil war of their own making and blaming the Israelis. Much of it is really the fault of "Iranian aggression," as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared on Wednesday. "To see Iranian actual penetration now of these more radical elements of the Palestinian terrorist groups is really quite troubling," she told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. U.S. generals are now routinely trotted out to blame Iranian interference and arms shipments for the continuing Islamist insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, though Tehran plays at best a minor role there.
While some Europeans fear the new sanctions will be a slippery slope leading to war, administration officials counter that they may be the only way to avoid war. In other words: talk tough, make martial noises and the balky Russians and Chinese—fearful of another armed conflict—will approve sanctions in the Security Council. Then the Iranians will surely cave at the bargaining table. But let's understand something. The Bush administration seems singularly uninterested in truly bargaining—that is to say, compromising, which is what real negotiation is about—with a regime it wants to see replaced. That is why it refuses to discuss all outstanding issues at once—nukes, Iraq, Tehran's support of Hizbullah and Hamas, Israel and the Palestinians—which is what Iran would prefer. Instead the administration pretends that it can hold ambassadorial-level talks with Iran over Iraq in one place (Baghdad), and back European-led talks in another place (over the nuclear issue), while the president and his top aides demonize Tehran in every speech they give.
For their part, the Iranians are now so certain that the U.S. goal is regime change that they believe any concession would be seen as a sign of fatal weakness. And as the stalemate goes on, the Iranians are getting closer and closer to gaining "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," as Bush says. Whether they decide to make a bomb is another question: that may be negotiable. Many Iranians hint that they would be satisfied with being technically ready to build a bomb, without actually making one, as a sufficient strategic deterrent. But these nuances no longer seem important to the Bush administration.
Let's think about all this for a moment. World War III? Is that really what would result if Iran gained the "knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon"? Not if you listen to one of Bush's former top generals, recently retired CENTCOM commander Gen. John Abizaid. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies last month. "I believe nuclear deterrence will work with the Iranians," Abizaid said. "I mean, Iran is not a suicide nation. They may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon … Let's face it: we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with [other] nuclear powers, as well."
But that's the realist line, and Bush is taking the Israeli line. For the Israelis, angered by Ahmadinejad's lunatic rhetoric about wiping them off the map, an Iranian bomb would seem to portend World War III. And indeed, an Iranian bomb, followed perhaps by several Arab bombs, would put Israel in mortal danger. But the same isn't true of the United States. Even many Israelis know that what Israel needs most to survive is a strong United States, not an overzealous friend in the White House. "Israel benefits when America performs well, when it is respected and succeeds in the world," Uzi Arad, Likudnik Bibi Netanyahu's adviser, told me. "If on the other hand the U.S. is in trouble, is in distress, it is little consolation the president has tremendous sympathies for Israel. President Bush by predisposition is clearly such a man, but the fact that he is in such difficulties is affecting the substance of the relationship."
War with Iran would be, in the best case, disastrous. Even the neocon hawk Norman Podhoretz, who is advising Rudy Giuliani and says he "hopes and prays" that Bush attacks Iran, admits that with such a war "we'll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest." It would also guarantee Ahmadinejad's continuance in power. The Iranian president is currently unpopular at home; a U.S. attack would almost certainly rally his country around him and silence the pragmatists in Iran who are looking for a negotiated solution. An attack would also guarantee that Iranian interference in Iraq would escalate. There are no doubt hard-line chauvinists in Russia and China who would actually like to see such a war, because they know it would weaken the United States further. But Bush and Cheney seem to be following the logic of war right now, and unless something changes it will take them all the way to the bloody end.
by Michael Hirsh, Newsweek - Oct 25, 2007
Last weekend I met a happy hard-liner, a senior White House official, at a Washington party. His good mood, it turns out, had a lot to do with the new, uncompromising stance laid out by his boss, George W. Bush, against Iran. Until recently administration hawks had been somewhat worried about where their president was headed. Since the beginning of his second term, in their view, Bush had gone suspiciously soft on the question of how to stop Iran's nuclear program. He had acceded to Condoleezza Rice's demands that the United States back the multilateral diplomatic approach favored by the Europeans. But in the last two weeks the administration has been on a unilateralist tear against Iran once again, issuing hawkish rhetoric that far outpaces anything heard in European capitals. On Thursday the White House announced a broad array of sanctions that affect almost the entire Iranian government. Tehran, meanwhile, has hardened its own position considerably.
The end result of all this may be war, whether anyone really wants it or not.
On the U.S. side, the uptick in pressure appeared to begin at a news conference on Oct. 17, when the president said, seemingly off the cuff, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." That was a breathtaking statement. What the president seemed to be saying was that World War III would result—and he would be seen as his generation's Neville Chamberlain—if he allowed the Iranians to go beyond the enrichment capability they've already achieved. Bush has no intention of becoming identified with the appeaser of Munich. Bush's jarring statement was followed by an Oct. 21 speech by Vice President Cheney. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said flatly. The dynamic duo that brought us the war in Iraq, Bush and Cheney, appear to be on the same page once again. In Tehran, meanwhile, the Iranian government now seems united around one idea: Iran will not give up "one iota" of its nuclear program, in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words. The resignation of chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani this week, and his replacement by a close ally of Ahmadinejad's, Saeed Jalili (Larijani and the Iranian president were bitter rivals), is one strong sign that this hardened position will continue. As a Larijani ally in Tehran told me Thursday, the hard-line president likes to dominate "inexperienced and unprofessional people" like Jalili.
Asked whether war has grown more likely, administration officials say no. In the words of Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns on Thursday, the administration just wants to implement "stronger" diplomacy than it has been able to muster in the U.N. Security Council. "We do not believe conflict is inevitable," Burns said in explaining the new program of unilateral sanctions announced Thursday against Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard corps, defense ministry and major banks. "In no way, shape or form does this anticipate the use of force."
But the new U.S. sanctions represent a lurch toward unilateralism that some European officials now fear could be "a repeat of 2002"—in other words, the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. For Washington the ambit of the Iran issue has changed—from a tight focus on Tehran's nuclear enrichment program, in tandem with the Europeans, to a broader indictment of Iran on the world stage. Hence Washington on Thursday named the IRGC, the umbrella organization that many Iranian officials belong to, a proliferator of ballistic missiles, along with the ministry of defense and Armed Forces Logistics agency. And it designated the Quds Force, an elite branch of the IRGC, a group that "provides material support" to the Taliban, Hizbullah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and another Palestinian group. The Bush administration also designated two top Iranian banks—Melli and Mellat—nuclear and missile proliferators, and a third, Saderat, a financier of terrorism. That effectively isolates all three of them as rogues that companies around the world should not do business with if the latter hope to remain part of the international financial system and conduct their affairs in the United States. "The U.S. administration is going ahead on its own," a senior official with one of the "EU3" countries—Britain, France and Germany—said Thursday. "They seem to be putting the question of Iraq in along with [the nuclear issue]," referring to Iranian influence inside Iraq. The Europeans are also resisting painting the Iranian government broadly with the same brush. "We are not going to designate a whole movement [like the IRGC], as opposed to individuals," he said.
So both sides—the United States and Iran—have staked out extreme positions, and it is difficult to see how there can be a negotiated solution. Even if Tehran decides to suspend enrichment, for example—as unlikely as that it is—Washington will still suspect it of proliferation of missiles and support to terrorist groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. No wonder my White House hard-liner was so "relieved," as he told me.
Today the administration is casting Iran as America's biggest bogeyman on every front. National missile defense? Once Kim Jong Il of North Korea was identified as the target of this expensive project. No longer. In a speech Tuesday at National Defense University, Bush declared that "the need for missile defense in Europe … is urgent" because "Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles." Mideast peace? Never mind that the Palestinians are mixed up in a civil war of their own making and blaming the Israelis. Much of it is really the fault of "Iranian aggression," as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared on Wednesday. "To see Iranian actual penetration now of these more radical elements of the Palestinian terrorist groups is really quite troubling," she told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. U.S. generals are now routinely trotted out to blame Iranian interference and arms shipments for the continuing Islamist insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, though Tehran plays at best a minor role there.
While some Europeans fear the new sanctions will be a slippery slope leading to war, administration officials counter that they may be the only way to avoid war. In other words: talk tough, make martial noises and the balky Russians and Chinese—fearful of another armed conflict—will approve sanctions in the Security Council. Then the Iranians will surely cave at the bargaining table. But let's understand something. The Bush administration seems singularly uninterested in truly bargaining—that is to say, compromising, which is what real negotiation is about—with a regime it wants to see replaced. That is why it refuses to discuss all outstanding issues at once—nukes, Iraq, Tehran's support of Hizbullah and Hamas, Israel and the Palestinians—which is what Iran would prefer. Instead the administration pretends that it can hold ambassadorial-level talks with Iran over Iraq in one place (Baghdad), and back European-led talks in another place (over the nuclear issue), while the president and his top aides demonize Tehran in every speech they give.
For their part, the Iranians are now so certain that the U.S. goal is regime change that they believe any concession would be seen as a sign of fatal weakness. And as the stalemate goes on, the Iranians are getting closer and closer to gaining "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," as Bush says. Whether they decide to make a bomb is another question: that may be negotiable. Many Iranians hint that they would be satisfied with being technically ready to build a bomb, without actually making one, as a sufficient strategic deterrent. But these nuances no longer seem important to the Bush administration.
Let's think about all this for a moment. World War III? Is that really what would result if Iran gained the "knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon"? Not if you listen to one of Bush's former top generals, recently retired CENTCOM commander Gen. John Abizaid. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies last month. "I believe nuclear deterrence will work with the Iranians," Abizaid said. "I mean, Iran is not a suicide nation. They may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon … Let's face it: we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with [other] nuclear powers, as well."
But that's the realist line, and Bush is taking the Israeli line. For the Israelis, angered by Ahmadinejad's lunatic rhetoric about wiping them off the map, an Iranian bomb would seem to portend World War III. And indeed, an Iranian bomb, followed perhaps by several Arab bombs, would put Israel in mortal danger. But the same isn't true of the United States. Even many Israelis know that what Israel needs most to survive is a strong United States, not an overzealous friend in the White House. "Israel benefits when America performs well, when it is respected and succeeds in the world," Uzi Arad, Likudnik Bibi Netanyahu's adviser, told me. "If on the other hand the U.S. is in trouble, is in distress, it is little consolation the president has tremendous sympathies for Israel. President Bush by predisposition is clearly such a man, but the fact that he is in such difficulties is affecting the substance of the relationship."
War with Iran would be, in the best case, disastrous. Even the neocon hawk Norman Podhoretz, who is advising Rudy Giuliani and says he "hopes and prays" that Bush attacks Iran, admits that with such a war "we'll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest." It would also guarantee Ahmadinejad's continuance in power. The Iranian president is currently unpopular at home; a U.S. attack would almost certainly rally his country around him and silence the pragmatists in Iran who are looking for a negotiated solution. An attack would also guarantee that Iranian interference in Iraq would escalate. There are no doubt hard-line chauvinists in Russia and China who would actually like to see such a war, because they know it would weaken the United States further. But Bush and Cheney seem to be following the logic of war right now, and unless something changes it will take them all the way to the bloody end.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Putin warns sanctions against Iran will lead to dead end
Russian President Vladimir Putin gestures while answering a journalist's question during a press conference after...by MIKE ECKEL, Associated Press - Oct 26, 2007
Russia's President Vladimir Putin on Thursday warned strongly against new international sanctions on Iran, saying they would lead to a dead end.
Putin, in Portugal for a summit with leaders of the European Union, said the standoff over Iran's nuclear program should be resolved through talks, pointing at North Korea as an example.
"Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end by threatening sanctions or military action," Putin said in a veiled reference to the U.S. push for harsher international sanctions against Tehran.
"Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation," the Russian leader said.
Putin spoke after the Bush administration imposed sweeping new sanctions against Iran, cutting off key Iranian military and banking institutions from the American financial system for Tehran's alleged support for terrorism and nuclear weapons ambitions. Putin did not directly refer to the U.S. actions.
The Russia president said dialogue proved successful in dealing with North Korea. "Not long ago it didn't seem possible to resolve the situation with North Korea's nuclear program, but we have practically solved it relying on peaceful means," Putin said.
At the same time, Putin said that he reaffirmed Russia's strong opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons on his trip to Iran last week.
Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear plant, has opposed the U.S. push for harsher U.N. sanctions against Iran, saying there has been no evidence of Iran seeking nuclear weapons.
Putin is in Lisbon to take on disagreements that have stood in the way of a strategic partnership agreement with the 27-nation bloc. The twice-yearly EU-Russia summits have not been upbeat events in recent years — reflecting a steady decline in relations over trade, energy, human rights, Balkan conflicts and other issues.
US slaps broad new sanctions on Iran
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, right, accompanied by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, announces new sanctions...The US at Israel's beheast is spoiling for war with Iran. You know, they say the best way to break your dog from chasing cars is to let him catch one - maybe Iran will finally break the Neocons from trying to beat up on Arabs/Muslims for Israel's sake.
by MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press - Oct 25, 2007
The Bush administration imposed sweeping new sanctions against Iran Thursday — the harshest 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 weapons ambitions.
In the broadest U.S. unilateral penalties on Iran since the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979, 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 that it said are engaged in missile trade and back extremist groups throughout the Middle East.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the moves would further isolate the Islamic republic's government by further distancing it from the international economy and discouraging its trading partners from continuing to do business with it.
At the same time, they stressed that offers for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program remain on the table and that the sacnctions are not a sign of imminent military action. The U.S. officials insist — over Iranian denials — that the nuclear program is a cover for atomic weapons development.
"Unfortunately, the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security," through its nuclear program, production and export of ballistic missiles and backing for Shia insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Rice said.
The United States has long labeled Iran a state supporter of terrorism and has been working for years to gain support for tougher sanctions from the international community aimed at keeping the country from developing nuclear weapons. It has won two U.N. Security Council sanctions resolutions but a third has been held up by Chinese and Russian opposition.
Rice, who also noted Iran's hardline anti-Israel stance, said the moves were part of "a comprehensive policy to confront the threatening behavior of the Iranians" but that Washington remains committed to "a diplomatic solution."
Other officials echoed that sentiment, maintaining the announcement is not a prelude to armed conflict with Iran despite concerns from some allies that the administration is building a case for war.
"In no way, shape of form does it anticipate the use of force," said Nicholas Burns, the State Department's No. 3 diplomat.
Instead, officials said they hope the measures will increase pressure on Iran to take a deal offered last year that would give the oil-rich country economic and other incentives in exchange for dropping nuclear activities that could produce a bomb.
In Tehran, the Guards' chief, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, shrugged off increased U.S. pressure on the force.
"Today, enemy has concentrated sharp point of its attacks on the Guards," Jafari told a military ceremony in Mashhad, east of Tehran, according to the state news agency IRNA. "They have applied all their efforts to reduce the efficiency of this revolutionary body. Now as always, the corps is ready to defend the ideals of the revolution more than ever before."
Israel, on the other hand, said it was pleased with the sanctions.
"Israel welcomes the U.S. government's decision," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said in Jerusalem. "We see this as an important contribution to the international effort to intensify pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear program."
Iran has ignored previous, smaller attempts to apply international and financial sanctions, and says the conditions Washington has set for talks are unacceptable. Iran is continuing work on its nuclear program, which it says is peaceful.
The sanctions target 25 Iranian entities, including individuals and companies owned or controlled by the Revolutionary Guard that play a major role in Iran's domestic economy and international trade. The are the first of their type taken by the United States specifically against the armed forces of another government.
In addition to freezing any assets they may have in U.S. jurisdictions, something officials acknowledged would be of minimal effect, the sanctions also bar Americans from doing business with them.
But of far greater impact, officials said, they will subject foreign firms to U.S. sanctions if they engage with the designated entities.
Paulson called on "responsible banks and companies around the world" to end relationships with the three banks and companies and affiliates of the IRGC and noted that because of the IRGC's reach into business and other spheres, "it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran you are doing business with the IRGC."
State-owned banks Bank Melli, Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat were named supporters of global terrorist groups for their activities in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East. Along with Bank Sepah, which was already under U.S. and U.N. sanctions, the institutions account for more than 50 percent of Iran's banking sector, Treasury officials said.
"As awareness of Iran's deceptive behavior has grown, many banks around the world have decided as a matter of prudence and integrity that Iran's business is simply not worth the risk," Paulson said. "It is plain and simple: Reputable institutions do not want to be the bankers for this dangerous regime."
The Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics were designated proliferators of ballistic missile technology. The Corps, also known as the IRCG, is the largest component of Iran's military. The defense ministry entity is the parent organization for Iran's aerospace and ballistic missile operations.
The Quds Force, a part of the Guard Corps that Washington accuses of providing weapons, including powerful bombs blamed for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, was named a supporter of designated terrorist organizations.
The Revolutionary Guards organization, formed to safeguard Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, has pushed well beyond its military roots, and now owns car factories and construction firms and operates newspaper groups and oil fields.
Current and former members now hold a growing role across the country's government and economy, sometimes openly and other times in shadows.
The guards have gained a particularly big role in the country's oil and gas industry in recent years, as the national oil company has signed several contracts with a guards-operated construction company. Some have been announced publicly, including a $2 billion deal in 2006 to develop part of the important Pars gas field.
Now numbering about 125,000 members, they report directly to the supreme leader and officially handle internal security. The small Quds Force wing is thought to operate overseas, having helped to create the militant Hezbollah group in 1982 in Lebanon and to arm Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan wars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
