You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Europe to hold off on sanctions if Iran referred to UN
2005-09-01
VIENNA - The EU will hold off on calling for sanctions if Iran is brought before the UN Security Council for its nuclear fuel work but instead give Teheran one more chance to suspend the sensitive activity that could lead to the construction of atom bombs, diplomats said on Wednesday.
Which means nothing gets done and nothing goes forward for about, oh, umpteen years. Meanwhile the EU'nuchs can growl and act fierce over nuclear proliferation whilst not actually doing anything about it ...
A Western diplomat told AFP that if Iran fails to halt the work by Saturday, when IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei will file a report on Iranian compliance to the board, Britain will press “for a reporting of Iran’s case to the Security Council even by a vote, if consensus is not there.”

The IAEA traditionally adopts measures unanimously, avoiding doing anything votes that can be divisive and dilute the moral force of its decisions, diplomats said.

Britain would “then seek a statement by the president of the Security Council urging Iran to fulfill the requirements set out in IAEA board resolutions” urging it to fully suspend nuclear fuel work, the Western diplomat said.

Non-proliferation analyst Gary Samore, a senior fellow on London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), said the Council will take forever move gradually, if at all, towards actual sanctions, unless Iran provokes it by actually producing enriched uranium, which in highly refined form can serve as the raw material for atom bombs. “In the beginning the Council is likely not to do much more than issue a strongly worded declaration an exhortatory resolution” urging Iran to comply, he said, adding that escalating measures short of full sanctions could include banning new investment in Iran’s oil and gas industry.
Posted by:Steve White

#36  In reality, sanctions are meaningless. Not only because the burden shifts to the poor, but because countries increasingly evade the sanctions over time.

Count on China ignoring any proposed sanctions. The erosion of sanctions will even take place amongst the EU-3 and at large EU countries in time.
Posted by: Captain America   2005-09-01 22:05  

#35  Having lived in a country under sanctions, I can guarantee you that the only people they hurt are the poor and the honest middle class. The thugs in charge just steal more to maintain their lifestyle and power. The corrupt just ally more closely with the thugs.
Posted by: 11A5S   2005-09-01 21:55  

#34  Did sanctions work with Castro? Did sanctions work with Saddam? Did sanctions ever work? EU sanctions -- who cares? EU sanctions are as useless as spittle. Mike, your mind is so open that your brains have fallen out.
Posted by: Darrell   2005-09-01 20:43  

#33  RE #28 (Mike S) That sounds like a pretty reasonable and realistic response. I just don't have much faith that the EU's (or the UN's) actions will add up to a whole hill of beans once the Mad Mullah's start throwing oil, money, and China into the mix. But, again, that doesn't invalidate your answer.
Posted by: Secret Master   2005-09-01 20:31  

#32  And that goes for your secret recon plane too!
Posted by: Jack Rubenstein   2005-09-01 20:29  

#31  Heh, Frank. Mikey's a closed-loop system.
Posted by: .com   2005-09-01 20:22  

#30  I think .com refers to that MS, because it's apparent you'll swallow anything :-0
Posted by: Frank G   2005-09-01 20:13  

#29  Lol. Utter and total impotence, cluelessness, and toothless bullshit from the hand-wringers, ankle-biters, Jooo-haters, and willing enablers. It has been obvious for over a year. I choose some imagery to make a point and you jump on it to obfuscate and dissemble. Lol. You're so clever, Mikey, lol.

Only you, among all who post on RB, would be so disingenuous, such a willing tool, as to suggest that the EU3 "dance" has accomplished anything positive. Bush might say, to be charitable, well it was worth a try, but everyone knew it was a joke from the beginning. It's all the EU3 can do - hold a diplomatic dance. Only you would be so clueless as to believe the MMs aren't laughing their asses off and thanking the EU3 for their assistance in clouding the issue, puffing themselves and the IAEA up to appear relevant, and making a total success of MM delaying tactics. Lol. If you don't get paid for your tripe, you should be. Call the Saudis, they're not the penny-pinchers the MMs are.

Sanctions? Whether from EU3 or UNSC, they won't mean a thing. Nothing. Iran's income from the price of oil, the underhanded greed of those same EU3 members, the sanction-busting assistance the MMs will receive from China, Russia, et al, makes the entire situation a ghoulish black comedy - because it's about nuclear weapons in the hands of total Islamonutz fanatics. What they want won't be denied them because they have the cash and there are plenty of greedy enablers, such as Puttyputz, and equally insane "friends" such as Kimmie and what remains of the the Khan network, which is probably the entire ISI.

Only you see any substance to the dance. Added to your other disingenuous efforts - to defend the UN, to split hairs on every aspect of torture and interrogation, pushing the pretense that the State Dept isn't an org riddled with seditious self-serving assholes - the whole nine yards of your illustrious history on RB. But that's why you get so much flack - you're a willing tool of the useless "international community", Tranzis, multiculturalism, et al. You live in the gray zone of endless drivel. It's quite the pointless show - and patently pathetic. Have you made a major RB Tip Jar contribution, yet? You should.

You've now become a parody of toolish apology. Sucks, but there it is.
Posted by: .com   2005-09-01 19:19  

#28  
Re #25 (Secret Master) ... what effect do you think that European santions would have on the leadership of Iran?

Maybe no effect. In 1939 Britain and France told Germany they would declare war if Germany attacked Poland, and Germany attacked Poland anyway, and then Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Maybe likewise in this case the EU will threaten sanctions and then Iran will go nuclear anyway, and then the EU will impose sanctions.

It's a game of chicken. Sometimes the bad guy doesn't flinch.

I believe that the populations and governments of the EU are very strongly committed to stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons into primitive societies like Iran. The EU will be willing to pay a pretty big price on this issue, if necessary.

The line is drawn in the sand. Either nuclear proliferation is stopped now or else it will spread uncontrollably. The Europeans understand that.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-09-01 18:54  

#27  
I'm not the one here who is so fascinated with fellatio that I include the imagery in many of my comments. The only time I have ever raised the issue is today when I finally wondered why you are so fixated on this imagery.

This is a website about the War on Terror, and you are always bringing up imagery about fellatio.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-09-01 18:40  

#26  Re #24. I understand your fascination, given the impotence you embrace.
Posted by: .com   2005-09-01 17:56  

#25  Mike S:
On the offhand chance they actually happen, what effect do you think that European santions would have on the leadership of Iran? Or, to phrase it another way, what type of sanctions would have an effect on the Mad Mullahs in your opinion?
Posted by: Secret Master   2005-09-01 17:44  

#24  
You mention fellatio a lot. That mental image must be close to your mind all the time.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-09-01 17:36  

#23  What is it about Mikey and playing the apologist for impotent fools and corrupt officials? He seems to have a fixation.

Regards fellatio, Mikey, break with your usual routine - involve another person. It will be a revelation for you.
Posted by: .com   2005-09-01 16:48  

#22  Mike is right about one thing: this administration is not going to do anything overt about Iran. Why? Because there is no political will in the United States to do it, that's why. Sadly, it's going to take something really, really horrible happening to get the American people firmly behind invading or attacking Iran.

Covertly I have no idea what we are up too. Nor should I.... but I know what I would do if I were in charge of the CIA. In a word: subvert from within. We simply have to hope that they are up to at least that if not more.

The Europeans will dance their silly dances because it makes them feel important, not because it will do anything. Still, I can't wait to see them "soft power" Gran Columbia president Hugo Chavez and the Nuclear Mullahs in a few years.
Posted by: Secret Master   2005-09-01 16:32  

#21  
The odds that wishful fantasies that the US will attack Iran will affect Iran's nuclear program are about 1/1,000,000,000,000 of the odds that EU threats to impose sanctions will have some effect.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-09-01 16:14  

#20  The probability that the EU will impose economic sanctions on Iran is about 100 times greater than the probability that the USA will launch some assault on Iran.

The odds that EU sanctions will have any effect are about 1/1,000,000th of the chance that the US will do something about Iran.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-09-01 14:41  

#19  
Re #1 (Captain America)
The clock is ticking and the red line is set. The rest is just a formality. The only question that remains is whether the assault will encompass just Iran or also include Syria.

Re #17 (Dushan)
I really hope that we are in the prep stages for doing something about Iran.

The probability that the EU will impose economic sanctions on Iran is about 100 times greater than the probability that the USA will launch some assault on Iran.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-09-01 14:12  

#18  If it weren't for the UN and EU Scrappleface wouldn't have any material.
Posted by: macofromoc   2005-09-01 12:15  

#17  I really hope that we are in the prep stages for doing something about Iran.

And if the EU protests, I hope that we take them as seriously as Iran does.
Posted by: dushan   2005-09-01 10:31  

#16  China is Iran's largest oil customer. China blocked UN sanctions against Sudan, from whom they get a much smaller amount of oil. In addition to China being Iran's largest trading partner, Iran imports much of it's arms from China, such as anti-ship missiles.

As for nuclear proliferation, Pakistan's A-bomb is a second generation Chinese design that is suitable for ballistic missile rentry vehicles. Also note that design, with Chinese writing on the blueprints, has been making the rounds of muslim states, including Iran. Iran's ballistic missiles/designs come from the same countries as Pakistan's, with the added benefit of Russian help.

Posted by: ed   2005-09-01 10:11  

#15  If the issue is put to the UN Security Council, which includes China, then China will have to publicly clarify its positions about nuclear proliferation and economic sanctions.

They'll say they're opposed to proliferation and keep selling the materials and information on the QT. Just like it's always been done.

Speech is meaningless, Mikey. I thought that would have occured to you when the Iranians publicly danced in joy over the time they'd bought by endless jabbering with the Euronuts.

Did you ever respond to ANY of the posts regarding the Iranian officials remarks to that effect? Or did you happen to miss that bit of news?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-09-01 09:58  

#14  
What's it about .com and fellatio? He seems to have a fixation.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-09-01 09:45  

#13  
Re #5 (Ed): Iran is immune to western sanctions. They can get most manufactured goods from China,

If the issue is put to the UN Security Council, which includes China, then China will have to publicly clarify its positions about nuclear proliferation and economic sanctions.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-09-01 09:44  

#12  Mikey, you come across as the basic leftist idiot. My intention is not to offend you, rather its to point out why you are a lightening rod for criticism. Make a point, defend it and then concede if necessary that you were wrong. Its not that hard. Yet, you continually troll stuff here that you are unable or unwilling to defend. You come across as either a missionary or a penitent doing their Leftist equivalent of Hail Marys.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-09-01 08:56  

#11  I agree, Mikey. Impotence is very impressive. Khameini and Ahmadinejad must be utterly terrified. The laughter fear has been quite clear over the last year or so as the EU3 bore down relentlessly on them with offers of sweets and candies to behave themselves.

All in all, a very impressive display of soft power and hardball diplomatic fellatio.

Was it good for you, too?
Posted by: .com   2005-09-01 08:55  

#10  No, Mike, the idea of them actually imposing any meaningful sanctions is a joke, just like their "strongly worded" memos are a joke. Quite frankly, they don't have the will to do anything significant, nor the ability to do much about the situation.

It would just be "Oil for Food II: We Really Mean It This Time". Maybe Kofi has another kid who needs a job, and they could use some cash to renovate that building, anyway.
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-09-01 08:47  

#9  Devil is in the details Mike. If you were Schroeder, Chirac, et.al., which sanctions would you place? What would you, as Jacques, refuse to sell? Whould you refuse Iranian oil?
Posted by: ed   2005-09-01 08:45  

#8  
I wasn't aware that the EU has expressed an intention to impose economic sanctions on Sudan and Zimbabwe. Provide me some details, and I'll comment on that. In the meantime, I comment only on the EU's very publicly stated intention to impose economic sanctions on Iran.

I assume that economic sanctions would include prohibitions against buying Iranian goods or services or selling goods and services to Iran.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-09-01 08:41  

#7  Mike,
What sanctions do you think the EU will impose? Do you seriously propose that the UN will agree to sanction Iraq when it can't even agree to sanction Sudan and Zimbabwe?
Posted by: ed   2005-09-01 08:34  

#6  If Iran is not brought before the Security Council, then the European Union still intends to impose sanctions. The situation is not that the EU does not intend to do anything. The situation is that the EU does intend to do something through the UN. If not through the UN, then through its own sanctionss.

HE's BACK! and as FULL OF CRAP AS EVER!
Posted by: Frank G   2005-09-01 08:31  

#5  Iran is immune to western sanctions. They can get most manufactured goods from China, via shortsighted western, esp US, policies of moving the manufacturing base to China. I will consider the EU is beginning to get serious when they embargo Airbusses and Peugeot car parts for Iranian assembly plants.
Posted by: ed   2005-09-01 08:31  

#4  Sanctions imposed by the UN, not merely by the EU, would be much broader.

The Rantburg Rabble's only approved opinion about this issue is that there never will be any sanctions imposed by the EU or the UN on Iran because of this issue. It's amusing for me to point out that that opinion is wrong.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-09-01 08:29  

#3  Oh wow! Sanctions! I'm sure the guys in Tehran are freaked out about that.

Besides, if they go ahead and impose them without UN approval, isn't that rather unilateral of them?
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-09-01 08:12  

#2  If Iran is not brought before the Security Council, then the European Union still intends to impose sanctions. The situation is not that the EU does not intend to do anything. The situation is that the EU does intend to do something through the UN. If not through the UN, then through its own sanctionss.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-09-01 08:08  

#1  It's a foregone conclusion that the EU is a panty waste.

The clock is ticking and the red line is set. The rest is just a formality. The only question that remains is whether the assault will encompass just Iran or also include Syria.

A related article: Iran's nuclear notions
Posted by: Captain America   2005-09-01 02:33  

00:00