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
International-UN-NGOs
Europe puts sanctions at the top of UN agenda
2006-05-03
BRITAIN, France and Germany will prepare today the text of a UN Security Council resolution aimed at forcing Iran to halt its controversial uranium enrichment programme or face sanctions.
More soft power, that's what we need by gawd!
In a not-so serious escalation of the confrontation with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions, envoys from the three European countries will prepare a draft resolution that could be voted on this month. British diplomats said that the wording of the text would be similar to the language used last month for a non-binding statement calling on Tehran to stop its enrichment work. But this time it will be presented under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which makes the demands mandatory under international law.
That'll shake the Iranians to their cockles. Mandatory, oh my!
The Iranians would probably be given a new deadline to comply or face the likelihood of sanctions in a follow-up resolution.
Unless there's an intermediate resolution that gives the Iranians another 'this time we really mean it' deadline.
“We believe now is the time to move ahead on a Chapter VII resolution,” Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said, adding that such a move had “the force of international law to compel the regime to change its behaviour”.
I can think of other ways of 'compeling' the Iranians to change their behavior, and it doesn't involve talking.
The biggest obstacle facing the Europeans and their American allies is resistance from Russia and China, both permanent members of the Security Council with the power of veto. Moscow and Beijing have important trade relations with Iran and want to avoid any move that could harm those ties. Nevertheless, the calculation in Western capitals is that neither country would dare to use its veto power to side with Iran against the rest of the international community.
No, no, certainly not! Are the EU leaders really that gullible?
Senior American, British, French and German diplomats tried yesterday to persuade their Chinese and Russian counterparts that it was time for the international community to show resolve against Iran.

Last night the US gave warning that it might take matters into its own hands if the UN Security Council failed to endorse sanctions. “If for whatever reason the Council couldn’t fulfil its responsibilities, then I think it would be incumbent on us, and I’m sure we would press ahead to ask other countries or other groups of countries to impose those sanctions,” John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN, said.

President Ahmadinejad has already said that Iran “does not give a damn” about the threat of sanctions.
Which does make the whole dance here rather pointless, doesn't it?
Posted by:Dan Darling

#24  Probability of military action prior to Nov 2006: 0%
Probability of military action prior to Nov 2008: 90%
Posted by: john   2006-05-03 21:21  

#23  Both "foreign and domestic"?

Yes and Yes.
Posted by: SPoD   2006-05-03 17:32  

#22  L.H "That's why we need to focus on how far they really are from a bomb."
Where do you suggest we get this info? Please, do not insult us by saying the IAEA. I believe you answered that question when you said, "It's impossible to get good data like that out of an authoritarian regime."
I must disagree with your statement about U.N. resolutions not being toothless. You, with your interest in Darfur, know as well as anybody and better than most that the only time they are not toothless is if none of the veto holding members of the security council have conflicting interests.
Posted by: Mike N.   2006-05-03 17:31  

#21  Internal overthrow of the regime might have been a viable policy and plan five years ago. Now is too late. Jules point about Hamas-stan is a good one. Don't see much evidence that the Iranians are particularly unhappy with their government. And if they are, so what? The 5% with nuclear weapons will render the other 95% irrelavant.

Posted by: SR-71   2006-05-03 15:49  

#20  "The question is what they do when ahmadinajads policies lead not to economic improvement, but to economic collapse and mass unemployment. I cant promise a revolt, but it would be foolish to minimize the prospects."

That field experiment has been happening in Palestine the last few months; guess we can wait some more and see if the people rebel. Course, then there's the question of who they rebel against; right now, it's apparent that Palestinians are rebelling against their Hamas government. (sarcasm off)

Actually, my post wasn't meant to be a personal rebuke to you, LH, but rather a restatement of a question on the minds of many. Yes, we've heard reports of Iranians being displeased with their government; does it follow that are motivated to overthrow their government? Even out-of-work Iranian youth? I admit that this isn't my area, but why should I believe in the reliability of these reports? The difficulty of getting data out of authoritarian regimes doesn't persuade me that what few reports are out there are therefore reliable.
Posted by: Jules   2006-05-03 14:09  

#19  Yes.
Posted by: Dave D.   2006-05-03 14:01  

#18  Others, including me, would probably demand open season on the assholes who've been getting in the way of us fighting this war, with no bag limit and no permit required.


Both "foreign and domestic"?
Posted by: Crusader   2006-05-03 13:59  

#17  "There's a couple of games going on here. We do have to go through the steps LH enumerates, but I'd prefer a polka to a minuet.

Faster, please."

well, thats Boltons job, and Burns', to keep things from slowing down too much.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2006-05-03 13:42  

#16  "Care to speculate what the public will demand after we lose a city or two?"

Many would probably demand the impeachment of whoever's President when it happens, for not acting forcefully to remove the threat beforehand-- even though right now, half those same people want the President's head for being TOO aggressive in prosecuting the WoT.

Others, including me, would probably demand open season on the assholes who've been getting in the way of us fighting this war, with no bag limit and no permit required.

Let's hope we never have to cross that bridge.

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-05-03 13:41  

#15  Let's act like we control the world for a change.
Ptui, lock and load.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-05-03 13:25  

#14  And if the Russians and Chinese do cast those vetoes, it will cost the UN something. About 65% of UN funding comes from the US, Japan, Germany, France and the UK, all of whom seem to be onboard and fed up with the UN corruption (except France whose primary export is corruption). There's a couple of games going on here. We do have to go through the steps LH enumerates, but I'd prefer a polka to a minuet.

Faster, please.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-05-03 13:19  

#13  Just to review the process. Its not an endless series of resolutions with no point.
Its a series of graduated steps.

First we the IAEA referal to the UNSC. Done, check.

Second was a "pretty please" statement by the UNSC. Done, check.

Now comes the "Stop or else" with or else unspecificed.

After that comes the "Stop or else A and B and C"

Now the Russians and Chinese can veto and stop the train at this step, or at the next one. Unlike some here, and like the diplos quoted, I think casting those vetoes would not be cost free to Russia and China. They may not do them. If they do, the Euros will have learned something important about Russia and China, and to me that is no small gain. And then we can proceed to the next steps.

As for the Iranians not caring, I dont believe that.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2006-05-03 13:09  

#12  The longer we wait, the worse the options, and the more awful the outcome. Care to speculate what the public will demand after we lose a city or two?
Posted by: SR-71   2006-05-03 12:53  

#11  While military action is the best way to deal with the Iran threat, Bush would be hampered not only by a lack of international support, but also by lack of domestic support. Chances of getting a covering resolution from Congress would be low this year. Therefore the current US strategy of passing toothless UN resolutions is not a bad one because it forces both domestic and international opinion to recognize Iran's transgressions and will make real action a bit easier (though still with huge costs born disproportionately by us)down the road. Soft power does matter -- the soft power of the head-in-the-sand Europeans and the mercantilistic Russians and Chinese does have a constraining effect on US freedom of action.
Posted by: Odysseus   2006-05-03 12:30  

#10  And not just solid evidence the Iranian people hate their government, but solid evidence as well that they can, and will, actually do something about it. And to top it all off, solid-- REALLY solid-- evidence that even if they were to sweep away the Mad Mullahs, that it would put an immediate, complete stop to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Frankly, I find the notion that the Iranian people are somehow going to rise up and solve this problem for us-- a problem they themselves created, a problem intrinsic to their fanatical "religion"-- naive to the point of stupidity.

Faster, please...

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-05-03 10:28  

#9  1. Its impossible to get good data like that out of an authoritarian regime

2. In any case, youre missing the point. Im not saying that theyre about to overthrow their govt NOW, and all they need is a promise of support from the West. Clearly the opposition to the govt NOW is largely confined to ethnic minorities, and to the secularist upper middle class in Teheran. The large working class seems to have been unhappy with Rafsanjani, but voted for Amadinajad. The question is what they do when ahmadinajads policies lead not to economic improvement, but to economic collapse and mass unemployment. I cant promise a revolt, but it would be foolish to minimize the prospects.

Meanwhile, the steps to achieve that, are largely the SAME steps we need to take to lessen the diplomatic/political costs to the US of any military action we may ultimately take.

And it would be very desirable to have Iraq more settled before we take on Iran.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2006-05-03 10:27  

#8  Why do so many put so much faith in the notion that Iranians aren't satisfied with their government?

If they truly weren't satisfied-if things were so horrible from their point of view-wouldn't the "masses" be rising up on their own, indifferent to whether the West wants change or not?

We heard this same tale before Iraq's fall. The Iraqis, prior to our capturing Saddam and felling the Baathist government, lacked force, courage, vision and solidarity to boot out the government themselves. Now, once again, we're supposed to believe that Iranians really want to get rid of their government. Maybe they are just holding out so that someone else does the dirty and dangerous work for them?

What I would like to see is the data to support this Iran-hates-their-government argument. Not just a few anecdotes, but substantial and overwhelming data. I'm open to suggestions...
Posted by: Jules   2006-05-03 09:55  

#7  Or maybe we'll see what leaders arise when a mushroom cloud soars over Israel.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-05-03 09:42  

#6  alan

I agree theres the rub. Thats why we need to focus on how far they really are from a bomb.

Darth

there have been rumbles, albeit small, in the Arab, Kurdish, Azeri, and Baluchi parts of Iran. There are clearly a good many Farsi, at least in the middle class in Teheran, who are unhappy. Ahmadinajed was a sop to the working class who are unhappy with their economic lot. He cant deliver, so hes stirring up a confrontation with the US.

As for the PKK, of course we're not going to protect them. Theyre Marxist terrorists, and we'd lose any cooperation from Turkey if we helped them. Thats got little to do with Iran.


As for leaders, theres Ayatolloh Montazeri, for example.

Lets see what leaders arise when unemployment soars in Iran,
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2006-05-03 09:32  

#5  I doubt sanctions will lead to a popular uprising. The secret police are too good and there is really no popular figure for a resistance movement to gel behind. It will take massive amounts of American aid and Special Forces work to bring a popular uprising to fruition. So far, the US support for revolutions is pitiful. The Shai, which live in Iran and southern Iraq remember well the US encouragement to rise up and when they did, the US did nothing and they were slaughtered by Saddam. The Iranian people will be incredibly hard to convince that we will help them in an uprising. Right now, we aren't even helping the Kurds against Turkey and Iran in the very country we occupy.
I sure wouldn't trust the US government to help me in a revolution. No way, no how.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-05-03 09:25  

#4  LH,
"...Military action sooner than necessary ..."

There's the rub. Is Ahmadinnerjacket going to make an announcement that says "Okay West, military action is now necessary!" ?

Look to Libya, no one thought that military action would be necessary there for years and years. Luckily, Daffy Duck got scared and 'fessed up....oops, seems like sooner should have been the operative word, not later.
Posted by: AlanC   2006-05-03 09:20  

#3  One good near term option would be to ban all Iranian diplomats from watching soccer tournaments in Europe.

Another would be to allow just one or two diplos and make sure some dissident go close enough to splash blood on them.
Posted by: mhw   2006-05-03 09:17  

#2  Amhadinajad has been just as defiant, if not more so, about military action than about sanctions.

Military action might consolidate support for the regime. Sanctions are more likely to lead to the regimes overthrow. Military action sooner than necessary will divide the western coalition - the path to sanctions has reunited the western coalition. Military action will hurt us in the rest of the muslim world - the path to sanctions, so far, has not.

Lets keep to this path as long as we can.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2006-05-03 09:06  

#1  And for once, Ahmadinej(ih)ad is correct: Sanctions give them time to finish what they started.

It's american military action that will TERMINATE what they started.

Sanctions are being countered by talk. Military action is being countered by military exercises, infiltration of terror teams into America, increased activity by Hezbollah in Israel, and speeding up the nuclear program.
Posted by: Ptah   2006-05-03 08:47  

00:00