Iran Policy After UN Sanctions

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
June 24, 2010

On June 22, 2010, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Under Secretary Burns' testimony included comments on U.S policy towards Iran after the passage of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1929.

He said, "[A]merican policy is straightforward. We must prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We must counter its other destabilizing actions in the region and beyond. And we must continue to do all we can to advance our broader interests in democracy, human rights and development across the Middle East."

When speaking about UNSC Resolution 1929, Under Secretary Burns said, "For the first time, it bans significant transfers of conventional weapons to Iran. For the first time, 1929 bans all Iranian activities related to ballistic missiles that could deliver a nuclear weapon. For the first time, it imposes a tough framework of cargo inspections to detect and stop Iran's smuggling and acquisition of nuclear materials or other illicit items."

Find a full text transcript of the testimony here.

Comments

Comments

Saman B.
|
Iran
June 25, 2010

Saman B. in Iran writes:

Evidently the broadcast committee is just; and require to cooperate else states, it's include of Russia, so no to deal and deliver S300 missiles, don't expand Iranian arsenal too.
The resolution 1929 pointing with us don't waste the time to carry bans out; shut off all the ways of escape for Iran, no allow to turn these boycotts.
Iranian announced these issues not much cop! similar of the former sanctions!

Thank You

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 25, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Global security newswire; gsn.nti.org

News Item:

A Russian diplomat today reaffirmed his country's opposition to penalties that Western powers have independently imposed on Iran following the Security Council's adoption of its fourth Iran sanctions resolution earlier this month, Agence France-Presse reported.

"We do not support them. We think they are totally wrong in substance and in tactics," Russian Ambassador to the European Union Vladimir Chizhov said.

"The sanctions contained in (U.N. Security Council) Resolution 1929 are clever sanctions, the follow-on measures by the European Union are not," Chizhov said. "If you want to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear program ... then why the hell are you banning the supply of equipment for the oil and gas industry?"

The penalties would "certainly hinder" progress in resolving the nuclear dispute because because Iran "will immediately sense a difference of views" among other countries, he said.

"We will certainly not accept any infringement of the rights and of the activities of Russian companies on the basis of those unilateral decisions," the official added.

"As far as our cooperation with the EU, that will certainly depend on the degree to which the EU will be taking into consideration our sensitivities regarding the interests of Russian companies involved," Chizhov said (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, June 25).

---

I don't know how to get the Russians to understand we are flat fed up with Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism, never mind its persuit of nuclear weapons...that just adds incentive to target the source of terrorist financing the IRGC reaps from the oil and gas sector under its control in the Iranian economy.

What about this set of circumstances directly related to the problem of a terrorist getting hold of a nuke, does Ambassador Vladimir Chizhov not understand?

I seem to recall Yuri Andropov once reflecting on the fact that had Iranians taken over the Soviet embassy and held hostages, that Tehran "would have been a smoking crater the next day."

Perhaps what we have is a kinder, gentler Russia that doesn't seem to realize that the Iranian regime is doing today more harm to the Iranian people than any sanctions regime the international community could ever hope to implement could, period.

So I would strongly urge Russia to do a serious re-think if they want a safer world for their kids to grow up in.

Let me just pose a question that may get that thinking process started.

Had the UN Security Council passed every measure enacted in this and all previous resolutions the first time up, rather than take several incremental steps that have proved inadequate by themselves over time.

Where do you think we'd be at right now in this process?

I ask this in a similar veign to whether the taliban would have become resurget had NATO commited from get-go, all the forces that are now being committed to Afghanistan?

I sincerely hope folks are willing to put on those x-ray specs and take a twenty/twenty gander at what works and what don't.

And if folks don't understand why I say "attitude is everything" in learning till I sound like a broken record on this blog, just ask Gen. McCrystal.

Sometimes you find out what kind of attitude works and what doesn't...the hard way.

I don't suppose I'd be hearing such a remark from the Russian Ambassador had Iran been chanting "Death to Russia" these past 31 years.

Regime replacement therapy would have already become reality unilaterally, and not through diplomacy.

Therefore I would suggest to the Ambassador that when he finds himself able to stand in our shoes and ask what the Russian Federation would do, I think he'll come to a greater understanding why the US does the things we do to get the job done effectively.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 25, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@Dipnote Bloggers,

Some years ago I did some pioneering digital outreach and made a few friends among the Iranian opposition.

One of these groups here in the US asked me to help them have a voice in the matter, and I thought you might pass these recomendations on to Under Secretary Burns, as SMCCDI's letter to President Bush on January 27, 2005 may just provide him with a bit of historical perspective in light of what has been enacted in Congress, in the UN sec. Council, and with the EU.

The following recomendations included therein I think will offer pause for thought to folks as to what will work, if it is enacted in a simultaneously combined manner and enforced 100% by everyone concerned.

You'all have a few ingrediants left yet to put into a properly effective "sanctions stew".

The "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI) asked me to help them compile all the ideas and their philosophy and distil it down into something my government could appreciate.

Hope you'll pass this on, thanks.

EJ

(excerpt)

"These suggestions are based on two tracks. The isolation of the Islamic Republic regime, and the essential moral and
financial support needed by legitimate non-violent opposition groups to move on the opportunity that now exits. Together, in a coordinated way, we will achieve success. God willing.

  1. Implementation of full international economic and military sanctions on the Islamic Republic regime via UN security council resolution based on human rights, support for terrorism, and this to be tabled with or without IAEA board recommendation on the nuclear threat the theocracy poses.

These two issues alone should be viewed as
circumstance the world cannot turn it's back upon, at risk of civilization itself. 

Such measures should include coordination with oil producing nations to ensure stable
world supply while sanction persists, as well as the halting of any and all arms transfers to the Islamic Republic regime.

Note: We believe it is unwise to continue nuclear power discussions until such time as secular government ratified by the people in Iran comes to power. And rest assured Mr.
President, any new government, abiding by the rule of law, can and will work with the IAEA in full cooperation to implement the safeguards and protocols, to address all
aspects and concerns regarding the peaceful use of atomic power, and to dismantle any and all existing programs that may violate them.

2.   Full diplomatic sanction and closing of Iranian embassies world-wide, removal and deportation of regime representatives, their agents and spies from all nations.
Diplomatic sanction by the UN, and removal of
representation from this international forum till such time as a legitimate interim government can be established in Iran.
Iran is party to the 1948 UN charter, yet not having been a signatory the Islamic Republic regime is abysmally derelict in it's adherence to the provisions contained
within it.

Note: We ask that concerns regarding lack of consular functions as a result of this action be cooperatively addressed, so as to continue to allow emergency visas to be issued. (i.e. family emergencies, etc.) It may be possible
to retain the minimum consular functions, under  tight supervision, but they are well known in their recruiting of, and issuing visa to potential martyrs and terrorists.

As well, We feel it is unwise to allow the Islamic Republic regime to maintain a UN staff of aprox. 400 "diplomats", who consistently violate the 12 mile limit, engage in activities not associated with diplomatic function, and pose a threat to US interests and Iranian opposition groups
located in the US.

 (cont...)

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 25, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

SMCCDI letter to Pres. Bush(cont...)

3. Freezing of any and all financial assets of the Islamic Republic regime, their current and former leadership, and corporate interests world-wide, till such time as a new interim government can be established.
As well as allocation of portions of these assets now to legitimate non-violent opposition groups inside and outside Iran, to realize the goals, and to provide the tangible
support needed as civil disobedience becomes manifest in action. Only in this way can this action be self sustaining till it succeeds.

4. Repeated statements by world leaders publicly calling for the leadership of the Islamic Republic regime to step down peacefully, and to relinquish the government
to the hands and will of the Iranian people.

5. The coordinated post-regime rebuilding of vital social institutions and infrastructure of democracy should be implemented now. The training of judges, civil servants, police, etc. The Iranian exile community can provide the talent initially and there are many more inside Iran
supporting the opposition who will answer the call to service as the situation permits. This will speed up the post-regime process, and greatly enhance stability in the
interim government.

In addition, while SMCCDI does not speak for other groups in the opposition, we believe it is vital for our efforts to become coordinated in the formation of a working group among leaders of opposition groups, in conjunction with free nation's representatives to facilitate and coordinate
all of the above measures.
To facilitate this, we would humbly request that you grant audience to the opposition's young leaders, be they Monarchist, Republican, Democrat, moderate, left, or right
as may be represented by their group's opinions, allowing them to express their thanks and support for the greater Middle East project, in a roundtable "Forum for the Future" on Iran.

Mr. President, The proposed sanctions to be implemented will represent a hardship for our people residing in Iran, and we will most certainly face violent opposition toward our civil disobedience actions. But the hope that will sustain the millions of workers and government employees that will rise and shut down the functioning of the Islamic
Republic regime while the sanctions persist, will cause their will to succeed to hold firm. It is our hope that the resolve and support of the international community will
stand firm as well."

--end--

Saman B.
|
Iran
June 26, 2010

Saman B. in Iran writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico

Hi Eric
The propounded expressions should be consider so opportune.
Thank You

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
June 26, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@Saman B,

Those are all Iranian ideas, and proof folks have been seeking regime replacement therapy since long before Amanutcase took over amd put the puppet master on strings in a soft-sell military coup back in 2005.

Thing about "behavior change" is you can't achieve it without a change in leadership, and that should be patently obvious to one and all at this point, regardless of how dedicated to a diplomatic solution they are.

I know to those @ State that still cling to the "two-track" approach might not favor the "two track" approach outlined by dissidents, but it's the only methodology that stands a chance of working short of war, and the use of force to bring a change in government.

Back in the summer of 2006, Elliot Abrams (special advisor to Pres. Bush) and Nick Burns from the State Dept. met with variouds opposition group leaders in an exchange of views much along the lines of what was suggested in the letter.

So far, there has been no follow-up from this current Administration as far as I know, and it's about time they reached out to Iranian Americans to help them formulate a proper and permanent solution to the global problems created by the Iranian government.

Now it took me a couple years of steady, daily engagement with folks to earn their trust to the point they'd honor me with the request to help put their cause into words the American government could relate to.

So My though on this to my governmment is make this an ongoing conversation and cross consultation, because that's how my government will achieve results, rather than a one-off meeting with no follow through.

If folks want to send a strong message to Iran...How about "Comply or die."?

If the Iranian governmment dosn't comply, we'll assist the Iranian people in removing them from power, and we'll encorage them to hang the leadership from the tallest lamp-post on Tehran's main square.

Now that's a policy everyone else can live with in peace.

It's time to quit mucking about with what doesn't work and get busy doing what does.

While folks still have the time...to prevent war.

Because that will happen long before a nuclear arms race ever develops fully in the region, and assuming otherwise is pinning false hopes on putting a lid on Iran's leadership in the current manner folks are going about it.

Let me just say that if one were to invest in the Iranian opposition, as much money as is envisioned for missile defense over the next decade, you might not need missile defense at all.

And since Russia hates the idea, their alternative to seeing such a system in place is to help remove the Iranian threat from power, in no uncertain terms.

Then they can enjoy an unfettered economic relationship with the Iranian people. As wioll the EU, the US, and the rest of the world, sans santions.

If folks want peace, they need to be prepared to create it from scratch.

And any and all roadblocks to peace must be removed in order to achive it. Peace, like war, is bigger than any one person, or world leader, and President Obama might consider his words regarding Gen. McCrystal in this context.

.

Latest Stories

April 6, 2009

Afghanistan and NATO

The White House Blog provides information about President Obama's remarks on Afghanistan after the NATO meeting: In a press conference… more

Pages