UN Security Council Imposes New Sanctions on Iran

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
June 9, 2010

Fact Sheet: New UN Security Council Sanctions on Iran

On June 9, 2010, in response to Iran's continued refusal to comply with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1929, imposing a strong, broad-based new set of sanctions on Iran. U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Susan Rice said:

"Despite consistent and longstanding demands by the international community, Iran has not suspended its uranium enrichment and other proliferation-related activities. The Security Council has passed a resolution today aimed at reinforcing the need for Iran to take these steps and comply with its obligations. These sanctions are not directed at the Iranian people. Nor do the sanctions seek to stop Iran from the legitimate exercise of its rights under the NPT, in conformity with its obligations. Rather, the sanctions aim squarely at the nuclear ambitions of a government that has chosen a path that will lead to increased isolation.

"These sanctions are as tough as they are smart and precise. This resolution prohibits Iran from investing in sensitive nuclear activities abroad. It imposes binding new restrictions on Iran's import of conventional arms. It bans all Iranian activities related to ballistic missiles that could deliver a nuclear weapon. It imposes a comprehensive framework of cargo inspections to detect and stop Iran's smuggling and acquisition of illicit materials or nuclear items. It creates important new tools to block Iran's use of the international financial system -- particularly Iranian banks -- to fund and facilitate nuclear proliferation. It highlights the potential links between Iran's energy sector and its nuclear ambitions. It targets the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran's proliferation efforts. It establishes a UN Panel of Experts to help monitor and enforce the implementation of sanctions. And it imposes targeted new sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, on 40 entities and an individual linked to Iranian nuclear proliferation."

Ambassador Rice continued, "The United States has made detailed and specific openings to the Iranians, including personal and direct outreach by President Obama. The United States strongly supports the peaceful use of the atom for energy and innovation. Like every nation, Iran has rights, but it also has responsibilities -- and the two are inextricably linked."

Ambassador Rice said, "The resolution we passed today offers Iran a clear path toward the immediate suspension of these sanctions. The best way is also the easiest one: Iran must fulfill its international obligations, suspend its enrichment-related, reprocessing, and heavy-water-related activities, and cooperate fully with the IAEA. The United States reaffirms our commitment to engage in robust, principled, and creative diplomacy. We will remain ready to continue diplomacy with Iran and its leaders to make it clear how much they have to gain from acting responsibly and how much more they stand to lose from continued recklessness. Today's resolution does not replace those efforts. But it does support them."

Read Ambassador Rice's full remarks here.

Comments

Comments

Richard W.
|
California, USA
June 9, 2010

Richard W. in California writes:

Why hasn't the United States demanded that Israel open up it's nuclear weapons program to the IAEA?

Even Iran is a signatory to the IAEA, the United States is, why is there never any mention of Dimona, Mordechai Vanunu, and Israel's nuclear weapons program?

And no mention of the 9 people killed on a the flotilla here at all. If Israel was actually entirely innocent and justified in what they did, why have they withheld evidence by not releasing the surveillance videos onboard the ship? This surveillance should have been released immediately, at least to governments to ensure the data was not tampered with. A US citizen was killed in this incident, and my government hasn't said anything or requested access to the evidence.

How did my nation get to be run by such gutless people anyhow?

And if you want to place sanctions on Iran, stop buying oil from them, like what was done in the 1950s, before the United States conspired with the British to overthrow their Democracy. Why this magic show?

Ron
|
New York, USA
June 9, 2010

Ron in New York writes:

Dear Ambassador Rice:

Good move for US, International Community, UN and Iran (if the current regime is ousted).

Thank you

Saman B.
|
Iran
June 10, 2010

Saman B. in Iran writes:

@Ms Susan Rice

Dear ambassador,you'll be usual good news, that's right.
For beginning real court it's serious step so worthy of appreciation and the world is expecting to impose these sanctions, don't hesitate. I see Turkey and Brazil who always make in effort to buy a time for Iran; shame with Turkey-Brazil.

Thank You

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 10, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Well, this morning I placed a phone call on my dime to the State Dept. press office, in order to find out what it would take for a citizen blogging on Dipnote to ask an intelligent question or two in a briefing if I were to visit DC this summer.

To which the fellow on the other end of the phone promtly put me through to a pre-recorded menue selection and opportunity to record comment.
After I called him back and found out I was supposed to leave a message and someone would get back to me (a mutually amusing misunderstanding as he forgot to tell me this, and I thought he was tryng to get rid of me because I wasn't in the press corps.)

So I took that ice-breaking opportunity to ask the fellow to pass on my sincere thanks personally to Assistant Secretary Philip J. Crowley for what he isn't doing at the podium.

For all the times I submitted complaint on Dipnote in writing, using rational logic, and humor to dispel the mythical rationale that "the ball is in Iran's court" or "in North Korea's court", it appears for all intents and purposes that my logic found a home. I have not heard that phrase used at the podium since the question was put... And so now the world proves me right, "..the ball is in the UN's court is it not?" Honestly, I really don't think the world needs me to tell them that these fools can't dribble the ball past half-court without kicking it out of bounds and logicly the other team gets possesion of the problem.

But that's where we're at. I mean to say that I felt it only proper to acknowledge a new mindset at work in public diplomacy, and give credit to those who made adjustment for the sake of accuracy. I can't say whether the food for thought I offered has had that specific effect on the dept., but the timing is interesting.

It's all Saman B. in Iran's fault anyway...(chuckle), for he knows who's court the ball is in, and his post helped inspire that phone call today. And whether this is considered an "official communication" or not in posting this, PJ now has my official and heartfelt thanks in writing, and I very much look forward to him saying "..the ball is in the UN's court" as he may deem it appropriate to in the future.

Donald M.
|
Virginia, USA
June 10, 2010

Donald M. in Virginia writes:

When you put pressure on a country, be prepared for the what ifs? Who are Irans allies? Will China continue doing business with Iran? I agree on the sanctions, just be ready for more problems ahead.

Saman B.
|
Iran
June 11, 2010

Saman B. in Iran writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico:

Hi Eric, how are you? I'm glad to appear your blogs, after 19 days.

Thank You

OysterCracker
|
United States
June 11, 2010

O.C. in USA writes:

Instead of sanctions, why not flood the Iranian market with American pretzels, beer, Dodger dogs, muscle cars, and re-runs of the Beverly Hillbillies. It might get Ahmadinejad overthrown faster.

Saman B.
|
Iran
June 11, 2010

Saman B. in Iran writes:

@O.C. in U.S.A

Hi dear O.C.
These genius positions are opium addicted, don't you know?

But I tested American beers last summer in Dubai, very nice!
If possible can you post me a few beer boxes it be bottle please!

Thank You

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 11, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Saman in Iran:

I've been around Saman and been posting, but they don't always show up on "recent comments" because Dipnote posts comments in batches as the moderator approves them and the last three posts become "recent comments" until they get bumped by more comment. It's too bad there isn't a way for a user-profile to be created so that when one reads a comment by a person, you could then click on "see all posts by author" link under the person posting's name. Which would then give one the ability to review each and every comment posted.

I think this could be of value to Dipnote as well in seeing how opinions change over time, and will tend to keep the public honest, and would I think contribute to a healthy debate as example; It's bloody hard to remember when I said what , where in what topic posted, and occasionally I need to tap into an old thought and to find it is like a needle in a haystack. Let alone if anyone wishes to check my consistancy of opinion on a subject in a ongoing discussion.

Just speaking for myself, I figure at 5000 characters per post limit, an average of 3-5 posts per day over 2.5 years is enough to publish a book on foriegn affairs. I perfer to think of Dipnote as a "living document" repopsitory that is in process of evolving. Just as our understanding is.

I am well, thanks. How are you doing? I'm curious as to what your fellow Iranians are thinking about this latest round of sanctions as the Iranian government throws a international temper tantrum over it? I don't know who might read that book if I ever dig the manuscript out of the archives, but you might enjoy the chapter on political arrogence that I'll definately be including in any such future publication. It's one thing for someone to call the US arrogent, it's another to understand what political arrogence really is. I'm pretty sure Marcelo in Brazil has gained a new understanding at this point. blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/clinton_national_security_strategy#Comments

Donald M.
|
Virginia, USA
June 11, 2010

Donald M. in Virginia writes:

I hope these sanctions also included the next generation air defense Missile Russia is producing. I would also think anticipate the Iran Leadership to respond to sanctions. Then you also having China buying missiles from Russia, whats stopping them from selling to Iran?

Susan C.
|
Florida, USA
June 11, 2010

Susan C. in Florida writes:

In the news today...Turkey rejects UN sanctions against Iran and turns toward Arab/Muslim worlds. Russia presses for French warship technology, and Putin promises (options in) oil and gas businesses in return. Iran "mocks" the UN sanctions...and we, the U.S., appear to be unsupportive of our one real ally in the Middle East, Israel. As antiSemitism grows worldwide, I don't know why we would be doing this. I know Israel is not always "right". However, go back in Middle Eastern history and you will discover that many Arab nations wanted nothing to do with the Palestine "problem" either. Israel has a right to defend itself. If it is a bit "paranoid", you can not blame Israel for feeling this way.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 12, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

BBC NEWS ITEM;

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said Moscow will freeze the sale of surface-to-air missiles to Iran, according to French officials.

Mr Putin made the comments in talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, the officials said.

---

From yesterday's daily briefing-

QUESTION: Just one more back on sanctions, one more point on the S-300. Is there any side-letter agreement or understanding with the Russians, between the U.S. and Russia, on the S-300?

MR. CROWLEY: We have had conversations with Russia about this broad set of issues. And I would note that people have kind of overlooked the fact that there is a significant expansion of the restrictions on the sale of arms to Iran. And that has a direct bearing on Russia, which has had a fairly significant level of commerce with Iran over a number of years.

So this was very meaningful for Russia to agree to the restrictions that are in this resolution. But – been some statements out of Russia today regarding the S-300, and as we said, we note the fact that it’s not captured specifically by this resolution, but we have recognized and appreciate the restraint that Russia has shown up to this point.

----

There's been a fair bit of mixed messages put out by various Russian sources on this issue over the last couple days and when it comes right down to it I think this represents a strait forward example of what I referred to in the following assesment posted weeks ago as it is manifest in this particular case.

Clarification was definately in order, and I think if the situation of ambiguity on the s-300 caused consternation in the Senate over ratification of NEW START, hopefully these doubts have been resolved about it today.

"...don't quote me, but the Russians are mindful of public opinion as much as our government is and the influence they seek can't be won with a dysfunctional foreign policy that acts like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, and they know that too.

They may need to work a bit on "interagency coordination" in similar respects as the US has in order to get everyone on the same page. I suspect that may be a factor in taking a more wholistic approach to their NPT obligations. It's one thing to declare unwavering support for a diplomatic solution, nothing wrong in that. But in doing so, one also recognizes that there comes a time when the talking is done. For better or worse. That's the nature of diplomacy."

Posted on Tue May 25, 2010

Saman B.
|
Iran
June 13, 2010

Saman B. in Iran writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico

Hi dear Eric.

I'm fine, thank you it's in fluctuation.I was owe you this response of my circumstances, excuse it's late; because my daily scuffles and has long delay in mails.

Truly I'm not politician or student of this way ; next of expiring 30 years old, I haven't anything to lose no love confident no governmental job, etc. I'm a Kurd who can't accept this despotic regime! what about you?

Thank You

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 13, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Saman B.,

If you'll take the brotherly advice of one that's got 20 years tagged onto your youth, the reason you feel you have nothing to lose may be that you haven't attained it yet.

I guess you could call me a student of the human condition, and your despotic government would refer to me as a Buddhist infidel.

I look forward to a fatwa issued for my head by the regime, as I have a twelve-gauge solution for that.

But I prefer the pen as the weapon of choice in my arsenal on any given day, unless some brainwashed idiot decides to "make my day".

(chuckle) You might say I'm in the tactical verbal nuclear weapons proliferation buisiness. I have a tendancy to drop "bombs" on fools at a time of my choosing and folks are welcome to quote me.

I make my case plain and simple. Humanity cannot afford to waste human and material resource on conflict when global crisis needs lie unmet. It can hardly afford to waste time building weapons that can't be used and remain civilized, nor allow those that have been built to be used by anyone. Last I checked, we've been able to "stop the car in time" every time, but going crisis to crisis is playing Russian roulette. It's time for mankind to get off that rollercoaster, creates a lot of social malfunction and stress among populations.

Can we afford to leave millions at risk from individuals in absolute power that lead their people to the precipice and/or actively shove them off it? Or otherwise actively violate their own citizen's right and ability to live in peace, by threatening the peace of a region, in actively supporting terrorism?

To resolve these conflicts of interest means strait up no quibbling....the international community has a responsibility to protect humanity...and best get busy at it.
If we, as humanity... truly wish to live in larger freedom...let us prove it to ourselves, difficult as it may be to convince the sceptics among us.

It has been said that any Truth goes through three phases; first it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, then it becomes self evident. I believe the essence to getting there is;

"We can do this, so long as we remember our joy."

Please pass it on.

Best,

EJ

.

Latest Stories

Pages