After months of debate and giving into a lot of Russian demands, the UN Security Council has voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran. Russia eventually agreed to the draft resolution. The Security Council put Iran on notice to stop enriching uranium, which can serve a dual purpose and can be used to produce fuel for nuclear weapons.The demands and sanctions are modest. Iran will ignore them.The sanctions call on all UN member states to ban the sale of nuclear equipment, materials and technology to Iran. Travel is not affected, but some banking sanctions can be enforced. It is the first time the Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran. It is a very modest step, but it is a defeat for Iran.
Al jazeera reports:
ReplyDeleteNEWS MIDDLE EAST
UN votes for Iran nuclear sanctions
Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, says his country's nuclear plans are peaceful [EPA]"The bullying powers today, in confronting Iran's peaceful nuclear technology, are faced with a sea of courageous people,"
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
Iranian President
The UN Security Council has unanimously approved an amended European draft resolution which calls for a ban on trade with Iran in goods related to its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.
Shortly before the vote on Saturday, diplomats quoted Russia as telling its colleagues on the council that it would support the sanctions.
The final draft ordered all countries to ban the supply of specified materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programmes.
An annex to the draft lists persons and organisations involved in nuclear and missile programmes that will have their assets frozen.
The text warns Iran to comply with the demands, or the council will "adopt appropiate measures under Article 41 of Chapter Seven" of the charter, a reference to non-military sanctions.
"Today we are placing Iran in the small category of states under Security Council sanctions," Alejandro Wolff, the acting US ambassador, told the council before the 15-0 vote on Saturday.
Vitaly Churkin, Russia's UN ambassador, who was successful in watering down parts of the resolution, emphasised that the resolution did not permit any use of force.
A Western diplomat privy to the talks said that Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, had insisted on seeing the final text before the vote.
Putin called George Bush, his US counterpart, to discuss the resolution and they agreed on the need to act, Blain Rethmeier, a spokesman for Bush, said.
Agree - a modest step - can't imagine Russia and China voting for anything else.
ReplyDeleteSerious question: Is there any benefit to the US in this action?
That ban on Danish canned ham is really going to hurt.
ReplyDelete35,000 tins of Danish canned ham dropped from 35,000 feet - WOW!
ReplyDeleteAll biodegradable or recyclable.
WaPo takes a stab at explaining what's going on at the U.N.
ReplyDeleteNo use of force provision (see 2164th's post above), so I suppose this is more like the bow to your corner at the beginning of a square dancing routine.
Heavy sigh..............
The World is not at War with Iran, neither is the US.
ReplyDeleteNow there are some that argue for war with Iran, not in Congress, but here amongst los amigos blog.
From Congress I hear no calls for an Iranian Campaign, nor a move into Syria.
The President could order such a move, it is true. But he is having a hard enough time liining up his Generals in support of a Baghdad surge, let alone a Regional War.
Rufus has my vote.
ReplyDeleteThe pleasures of a democratic ally.
ReplyDeleteHost of US troops.
The Sistani fellow went out of his way to disrespect Mr Bush, well over a year ago. Sistani has never een a friend to US. He has always, since the invasion, been allied with al-Sadr. Nothing new there.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Bush did not heed that warning. Because he has gotten part of what he wanted. Now he has to make do with the Iraq he's got.
Rufusmeister said, "These Islam-Crazed Cocksuckers are bound and determined to have a Blood-bath. It's time for us to get out of the way and let them. Fuck the Bastards, it's time to bring the boys, home."
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments exactly. Maybe we can even get the Bush koolaid drinkers around here of various genders, creeds, and nom de plumes to see the light.
Good for The Washington Post
ReplyDelete'Nyet' on Iran
Russia has turned a U.N. sanctions resolution on Tehran's nuclear program into a demonstration of Western weakness.
Saturday, December 23, 2006; Page A20
THE U.N. Security Council took up the Iranian nuclear program this year to pressure Tehran to suspend its work on enriching uranium. But in the past few months, something entirely different has happened. While Iranian enrichment has continued with impunity, the Security Council's deliberations have been hijacked by the Russian government of Vladimir Putin, which is using them to protect its economic interests and portray itself as a global power capable of countering the United States.
The Security Council ordered Iran last summer to stop enrichment work by Aug. 30 and threatened sanctions if it did not. Tehran defied the binding resolution, and its hard-line president boasted that the West would be unable to impose significant penalties. Russia has proved him right: As of yesterday, it was still holding up a vote on a Security Council resolution, even though it had already succeeded in stripping the measure of its teeth.
The Bush administration, which has been relying almost entirely on multilateral diplomacy to prevent a nuclear Iran, originally proposed a set of modest sanctions, including a travel ban on senior officials, a block on exports to Iran of nuclear and missile components, and a freeze on the foreign assets of companies involved in nuclear and missile production. The idea was to escalate to tougher measures if Iran did not respond.
Instead, the administration has spent nearly four months seeking Russian consent for the initial measure, yielding again and again to Moscow's intransigence. First, a large nuclear reactor being built for Iran by Russia was exempted from a proposed ban on nuclear imports, even though Tehran could someday use the facility to acquire plutonium for weapons. Next, European governments sponsoring the resolution were forced to drop the proposed travel ban -- the only measure left that might have caused the mullahs some pain. Meanwhile, the administration agreed to support membership in the World Trade Organization for Russia, a concession Moscow made clear was necessary to obtain its vote.
Having surrendered on almost every point, European ambassadors announced that the Security Council would vote yesterday. But Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin said he still wasn't ready. Some reports said he was seeking to water down the proposed freeze on foreign assets of companies directly connected to the nuclear program. Or maybe he was just demonstrating -- again -- that Russia can and will hold the Security Council hostage.
The result of this cynical policy is that any U.N. resolution against Iran will be a pyrrhic victory for the United States. The message to Tehran is not that it faces isolation or economic ruin if it fails to respect the Security Council's order; it is that it need not fear sanctions. Hard-liners in Tehran who have been saying this all along, such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be vindicated.
Russia will look like a world power; Mr. Putin will have more reason to strut. And the Bush administration, which has not dared even to complain in public about Russia's obstructionism, will look foolish. In fact, Mr. Bush has allowed a vital U.S. interest to be undermined by a government and a leader he should have ceased to coddle long ago.
Putin looked into Bush's soul and saw him for what he is.
ReplyDelete2164thster said, "Putin looked into Bush's soul and saw him for what he is."
ReplyDeleteHe didn't look into his soul, he looked at his non-action. I think it's safe to say that the quagmire in Iraq is tying us down and making our deterrent look pretty ragged. Bush is Olmert with a ten gallon hat. Even the Hildebeast looks tougher right now.
the slant over at DW is this:
ReplyDelete..."Despite the presentation of a unified front following the Berlin meeting, the US still faces opposition to its bid to persuade the other powers to impose sanctions on Iran.
Although China and Russia backed the idea of sanctions by voting for resolution 1696, they both remain reluctant to penalize the Islamic Republic and question Western accusations that Iran poses a nuclear threat.
Before Thursday's meeting China's Foreign Ministry stressed the diplomatic options, calling for the standoff with Iran to "be resolved through negotiation in a peaceful way."
France also indicated it was not yet time for sanctions by suggesting world powers may be flexible over a previous demand that Iran suspend its enrichment work before starting talks.
Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said the timing of any suspension was crucial and that it could be discussed. "It's a major question ... which will perhaps emerge as important in the weeks ahead," he told reporters.
In the EU there is a good bit of resistence to sanctions. "EU states don't really want sanctions but now they realize they're trapped by the Security Council resolution. There isn't likely to be a consensus within Germany's government or in France's," said another European diplomat who also attended the meeting."
DW staff
__________________________________
Iran with a nuclear weapon cannot survive a nuclear exchange with either Israel or the US. They know that. A nuclear weapon is a political weapon. Russia is playing the same game with Iran as China is with Korea. Two can play political games. Why not up the ante and have the US and Israel, with a straight face, re-double the effort at SDI. Announce it as strictly about
N.Korea and Iran. Include a space based platform or two. Park them over Iran and N. Korea. Both countries have interesting neighbors. Let the Russiams and Europeans know that we do not care if Iran gets the weapons since there seems to be any serious efforts to stop them. Tell them we accept their hesitations and we will jointly make other plans.
Announce that we take the Iranians at their word. That their nuclear program is peaceful, like they say it is.
ReplyDeleteLet the Israeli do what ever they will do. Which will be to wait.
Announce the the US will surge and secure Baghdad, then hand Iraq over to the Iraqi, on Mr Maliki's schedule, ready or not.
Apollo
ReplyDeleteWe have to take measures to make sure Russia doesn’t get too comfy with its rising diplomatic power status.
ReplyDeleteRussia has made it clear to the Americans that it does not take too lightly upon the subject of domestic interference, and that it will use its influence over critical areas of America’s interest to prevent any sort of bullying or coercion to pressure its government into reform, or instigating secessionists within Russia to protest against Putin.
Ironically, American intervention in its affairs has set an opportunistic precedent for Putin to re-establish Russia as a modern superpower: with the potential to control oil supplies in the Caspian Sea alongside Iran, as well as the deterrent of a nuclear-armed Middle-East and the fate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in its hands, Russia is watching and matching every single American move on the proverbial board, chesspiece by chesspiece.
rufus,
ReplyDeleteWith $170 billion, American business could create a whole new world.
With $170 billion, American government could create a herniating study. Oh, and they might throw in Hope, the world's largest trailer park.
;-)
Whatever else one might say about HRC, she has the balls. That is more than I see from anyone else, so far. She also has a deeper voice.
rufus,
ReplyDeleteApollo created enormous wealth and a base of knowledge still being mined today. This is why I have a problem with borrowing just to run the government or fight war. Borrowing should create capital, which will evolve to create more capital, etc.
What is to keep a future President from exercizing authority from say, Peoria? Absolutely nothing, that's what. And following such a hypothetical chief executive would be those functionaries of government and the private sector with whom that chief executive wished to work. Why, soon a whole new, energized captiol city would come into being, while that cesspool on the Potomac, like Rome before it, would turn into a backwater. Just mind diddling.
ReplyDeleteTurn DC into a museum.
ReplyDeleteRotate the "Captial" through a series of "Convention Cities", where the Congress would convene for a year, then rotate to another city.
At this point, American forces have two options available to staunch the logistical re-supply to the Muslim fighters, upon which the strategic situation teeters. The first option involves attempting to close Iraq’s long and remote borders with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia by a combination of airborne radar, aerostatic balloon and drone surveillance, ground-level cameras and acoustic sensors, airmobile reaction forces, and USAF Special Operations Specter gun ships. This option of defending the borders contains the battle for Iraq within Iraqi borders, avoiding the unfavorable public relations that would arise from the second option of attacking the supply bases in Iran and Syria. The problem with the effort to “seal” the borders is that this area is vast and this would be in and of itself a Herculean task requiring huge investments in equipment and far, far more manpower than 30,000 to 60,000 additional US soldiers. No one deludes himself to believe the Iraqi forces, military, police or otherwise could handle this task.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, carrying the air war into the neighboring Muslim sanctuaries which fuel the insurrection is the optimum military solution because it has the tangible benefit of actually reducing the physical capability of the Muslim warriors to prolong the battle for Iraq. It would also have the long-term benefit establishing the military-political point that if you aid our enemy, you are a target. And, we need not expose ground troops to bring enormous damage to your military and civilian sectors.
Returning to the War Equation, unless either the motivations or the capabilities are removed, there is the potential for the war to continue unabated.
American political leadership failed to destroy the strategic re-supply capability of North Vietnam for 14 years and, in spite of deploying 550,000 troops to South Vietnam, the American will was worn down to the eventual state of collapse. Why would the outcome in Iraq be any different than it was in South Vietnam, if the same restraint is followed, since the public opinion momentum is already headed in the same direction as it was in 1972?
_____________________
About the author: Colonel Thomas Snodgrass, retired U.S. Air Force, spent 30 years in active military duty. He spent much of his time in the military as a senior intelligence officer and has been an instructor at several war colleges. He is a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran and holds a Master of Arts degree in History and Political Science.
rufus,
ReplyDeleteI don't like leaving the impression that I'm just another pretty face. Doug has that one locked down.
;-)
If you're trying to produce something that someone else can produce more cheaply, you are going to loose. Find another niche. I'm not being snide, that is just an economic reality; always has been and always will be. Does the government have a responsibility to soften the blow? That is something worth discussing.
That's not goin' to happen, rufus.
ReplyDeleteMr Bush will see to that.
Stay and fight on until we win.
That is the core to his Iraq Policy. Victory.
Victory will not be achieved by leaving Baghdad unsecure, not Mr Bush's version of Victory, anyway.
Mr Bush will decide to soldier on, the tactics that are chosen will make all the difference. We are going to surge 20,000 plus troops to "lock down" Baghdad and "Train" more Iraqi. A deft combination of applied force within Iraq and changing the "Games" rules outside Iraq, with Iran may succeed.
Either get "real" tough, or fade from the field. Doubt that we "fade" while on the Bush team's watch, so we should get tough enough to win, quickly.
Or else the "Surge" will be for naught.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Another conversation to have is whether the government has a responsibility to prevent the unregulated influx of foreign labor, particularly in the trades. It seems to me that this must create wage stagnation.
ReplyDeleteBeen that way for a while, rufus, now you will obtain a different perspective of Mr Bush.
ReplyDeleteThe best case is that the US troops can "flood the zone", stem the violence and hand off to the Iraqi in July or so.
Best case.
The US Army is not coming home because rufus has become disillusioned with the project.
Listen to Mr Bush and believe what you hear him say, about Victory, about the calling of his generation. Mr Bush is going to Stay the Course, rufus, whether he says the words or not. You used to admire that about him. There was a time when doug did, as well.
Allen said, "Another conversation to have is whether the government has a responsibility to prevent the unregulated influx of foreign labor, particularly in the trades. It seems to me that this must create wage stagnation."
ReplyDeleteBut nothing will be done about it because both parties want the all important Illegal Immigrant Vote. You know, where the election worker asks if they are a citizen and they go, "Si!"
Rufuster said, "And, Park a satellite in geosynchronous orbit directly opposite Moscow, and let HIM wonder what it is."
ReplyDeleteThat's the one for show, but the actual spy satellites are on a polar orbit, launched from Vandenberg, and stealthy to evade their tracking radars.
Rufus said, "Cows produce almost as much economic value in methane as they do milk. This is being harnessed by dairies and feed lots as we speak."
ReplyDeleteWho run Bartertown? Master Blaster run Bartertown!
Since Baghdad is the capitol of the democratically elected government of Iraq, it should fall to the Iraqi government to quell unrest there using all forces now duly constituted. Interference by the United States in bringing Baghdad under the control of the Iraqi government would be humiliating to the government of Mr. Maliki.
ReplyDeleteDuring the next six months, the United States will position its military assets (air, land, and sea) to secure Iraq’s borders from intrusion. To facilitate this role, the United States will feel free to operate beyond the borders of Iraq, preemptively or retaliatorily.
The Iraqi government is soley responsible for all military activity within the Baghdad zone of operations. Therefore, any questions as to RoE etc. should be directed to spokesmen for the government of Iraq.
Begin with firms A and B.
ReplyDeleteFirm A takes the decision to fill future vacancies with labor at ¾ the standard rate.
Firm B continues to fill its ranks paying the full standard rate.
Firm B will find itself at a competitive disadvantage.
Therefore, Firm B will also opt for replacement labor at the lesser rate.
No current employee of either firm will be terminated.
Entry wage rates will be lower.
Raises, accordingly, will be less than the previous rate as all rates move toward the equilibrium created by the new, lower standard wage rate.
Eventually, all labor will be paid at the newer, lower rate.
rufus,
ReplyDeleteI keep hoping for adult supervision or, at least, some adolescent psychology.
There isn't much hope, but what's the cost of a dream?
trish,
ReplyDeletere: He's in no frame of mind to end it.
Something else to consider, how does he dismount the tiger?
trish,
ReplyDeleteThe President has neither the benefits of popularity nor trust to do what you suggest. Obviously, if his understanding of the situation is as Rufus describes, he would be obliged to withdraw on moral grounds; but, that is something else altogether.
rufus,
ReplyDeleteNot that I would be counting, but how many of those Lites are you down?
Every poll I have seen indicates, once past the headline, that the public opposes HOW the war is being conducted. That is not the same thing as opposing the war, per se.
ReplyDeleteConsequently, if the public has lost confidence in the President's management of the war, what might the public's reaction be to the President's humiliation of America by unseemly withdrawal? I'm thinking impeachment.
re: Gads, I love this shit.
ReplyDeleteYou could never guess how much
Actually, I got that impression a while back.
I can just see the "Lady in the Chair" in a bright yellow sundress with big ole red roses sing'n, "Why don't ya love me like you used to do?" Did I say barefoot?
Granted, I did have some Wild Turkey 101 earlier. Butt...
Of course, Buddy Larsen knows much more than I about stout women and country music; but, he’s on sabbatical. Oh, did I mention barefoot?
ReplyDeletetrish,
ReplyDeletere: Sherman
What is the probability of never turning up a Sherman? Are things that far gone?
General Abizaid gave a speech the other day in which he told his audience that, after 50 months on the job, it was time for a change.
ReplyDeleteFifty months! And the President intends to keep him on the job until spring. Is there some method in the President’s madness? William Westmoreland hmmm…
trish,
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to be argumentative, Trish, and I do understand your point; however, ALL generals through history, with only rare exceptions, have had constraints. The truly exceptional find ways to cope, which is why they are exceptional. Note, I did not say off the reservation.
To reiterate,
___Sometimes generals influence policy formulation.
___Always generals influence policy implementation.
I like to think myself a fair fellow. Thus, I do not blame General Lee for the misfortune of having Jefferson Davis as a President.
Trish,
ReplyDeleteRufus has Ethanol Powered Rose Colored Glasses.
Give them a try.
---
When in a hole, Double Down
State of Denial
---
What would Abizaid know when he says we'll never get there without addressing the larger war?
---
W knows best: Just check the record for the last 3 years.
---
Rosé powered I guess.
Abizaid on New York Times Video could have hardly been much plainer, but I will be in hopes of piercing the Rosé a least a smidge:
ReplyDeleteWhen Aid for the enemy is pouring in from all sides, and nuking the place into glass is not on the table, the Quagmire deepens.
"Having surrendered on almost every point"
ReplyDelete---
W's/Condi's legacies:
But don't forget the tough talk first:
"We will not allow...
That is unacceptable...
This will not stand.."
"There was a time when doug did, as well."
ReplyDelete---
Hell even 'Rat did at one time!
...but some seemingly never learn.
"American political leadership failed to destroy the strategic re-supply capability of North Vietnam for 14 years and, in spite of deploying 550,000 troops to South Vietnam, the American will was worn down to the eventual state of collapse. Why would the outcome in Iraq be any different than it was in South Vietnam"
ReplyDelete...been sayin that for years, hain't we?
Did Rufus mention the 120mpg Carburetor that Cheveron's hidin?
ReplyDelete(as if they wouldn't have DONE something with Kudzu if they could!!!)
ReplyDeleteTHAT's a lock.
Here's what we do:
ReplyDeleteHook a Gigawatt Class Generator up to Rufus's keyboard, and let him rip.
"Can you just imagine what the Country would do if Bush went on National TV, and said, "My fellow citizens, you know that One Hundred and Seventy Billion Dollars we were going to spend in Iraq this year? I DECIDED TO SPEND IT, HERE, AND GET THE HELL OFF OF MIDDLE EASTERN OIL.""
ReplyDelete---
Yeah, we're already well practiced at the Transcontinental Eye Roll routine.
Deuce's Photo doesn't exactly look like a
ReplyDelete"Deeply Buried Facility under a City"
A CIC with balls would simply continue to set their clock back two years for every continued intrusion into our Warspace.
But 30 years on, we're barely gettin started.
The long, long, LONG War.
Doug said, "A CIC with balls would simply continue to set their clock back two years for every continued intrusion into our Warspace."
ReplyDeleteA CiC on the rag would set their clock back n years, and increment n by one year every time.