The U.N. votes to sanction Iran
Following a similar effort a couple of months ago to try to curb the development of North Korea’s nuclear program, the United Nations has finally turned its full attention to Iran:
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to impose economic sanctions on Iran for refusing to end a uranium enrichment program that the United States says is aimed at building nuclear weapons.Iran immediately rejected the resolution.
The result of two months of 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 would freeze Iranian assets of key companies and individuals related to those programs.
If Iran refuses to comply, the resolution warns Iran that the council will adopt further nonmilitary sanctions.
And then what? Although I would likely oppose a U.S. strike on Iran — and have argued against it here, here, and here — I’m not sure how successful such “nonmilitary sanctions” would be in the long run, particularly with Russia’s unwillingness to support U.S.-led efforts at the U.N.
Which isn’t an argument for war as the only remaining option, just skepticism. Then again, if Bush hadn’t squandered American credibility and leadership, perhaps a diplomatic solution would be more likely than it seems to be now.
This is a good step by the U.N., but it must be followed with ever more vigorous diplomacy and, ultimately, compromise. What does Iran want? What would it take for Iran to halt its nuclear program? Those are the questions that ought to form the basis of substantive talks with Tehran. Such talks might go nowhere, and there might be no suitable compromise, but the effort should at least be made.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
4 Responses to “The U.N. votes to sanction Iran”
I would like to know how this is playing to the Iranian public which is apparently less hostile to the US than the leadership. If we had a more active engagement with Iran we might have better feedback and ability to influence conditions.
I second Paul’s request on how this is playing in Tehran. I could see that the sanctions MAYBE could help push the moderate Iranian’s into action like we got a small taste of in the last Iranian election.
Paul, Iranin public is apparently not only less hostile, but not hostile to the US. It is only a dictatorship in Iran and the public is always reflcting the government policies. When and if given the freedom to choose and to think things will change overnight.
Kevin, Iranian moderates will be allowed to act only in a limited way assigned by the radical clerics, in order to make the world believe that Iranian regime is democratic, humane and reasonable.
The Guardian Council is not totally immune to public criticism, their purpose is not just to make sure that the candidates for office are pious, the idea about having this council is to make sure that the faithful share in the prosperity of the country. A state controlled by a Shiite clergy has legitimacy only if it can provide prosperity, otherwise it is no better than the reign of the Shah. The problem is that prosperity is not happening, the unemployment rate is officially at 14%, [probably higher] and inflation year after year is at around 20%. The government continues to deficit spend and meddle in the economy. Many of the state run industries they nationalized and slated for privatization, but how these companies will be privatized and who will buy stock in them is a question. Despite the problems with Russia there is still a few cards the west can play, and the big card is access to the financial markets and investments Iran needs that only the West can provide. For most Iranians the nuclear issue is far less important than employment and prosperity, trading the nuclear issue for increased investment would probably be well received.