Secretaries Clinton and Geithner Announce New Sanctions on Iran

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
November 22, 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner announced new measures to increase pressure on Iran, at the Department of State on November 21, 2011. Secretary Clinton outlined the series of actions to increase pressure on Iran to comply with its full range of international nuclear obligations and to engage in constructive negotiations on the future of its nuclear program.

Secretary Clinton said, "Recent days have brought new evidence that Iran's leaders continue to defy their international obligations and violate international norms, including the recent plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador here in the United States and as verified by the new report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that further documents Iran's conduct of activities directly related to the development of nuclear weapons. Now, this report from the IAEA is not the United States or our European partners making accusations; this is the result of an independent review and it reflects the judgment of the international community.

"There have to be consequences for such behavior. So on Friday, Iran was condemned in votes at the UN in New York and at the IAEA in Vienna. And earlier today, the UN General Assembly again strongly reprimanded Iran for continuing human rights abuses, persecution of minorities, and forcible restrictions on political freedom. The message is clear: If Iran's intransigence continues, it will face increasing pressure and isolation.

"Today the United States is taking a series of steps to sharpen this choice.

"First, President Obama signed an Executive Order that, for the first time, specifically targets Iran's petrochemical industry, a significant source of export revenues and a cover for imports for sanctioned activities. This will allow us to sanction the provision of goods, services, and technology to the petrochemical sector. To accompany this new measure, we will launch a worldwide diplomatic campaign to encourage other countries to shift any purchases of Iranian petrochemical products to other suppliers.

"Second, in the same Executive Order, we are expanding sanctions on Iran's oil and gas business. U.S. law already sanctions large-scale investments in up-stream exploration and development of oil and gas, and now it will also be sanctionable to provide goods, services, and technology for those activities as well. This will make it more difficult for Iran to work around the sanctions and will further impede efforts to maintain and modernize its oil and gas sector.

"Third, under an existing Executive Order, we are designating a number of individuals and entities for their roles in assisting Iran's prohibited nuclear programs, including its enrichment and heavy water programs. Their assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction will be frozen and American individuals and entities will be prohibited from engaging in any transactions with them.

"And finally, as Secretary Geithner will discuss in more detail, the Treasury Department is formally identifying Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern. This is the strongest official warning we can give that any transaction with Iran poses serious risks of deception or diversion.

"These steps were accompanied today by complementary measures by the UK and Canada, and we expect additional sanctions by other international partners in the days ahead.

"Together, these measures represent a significant ratcheting up of pressure on Iran, its sources of income, and its illegal activities. They build on an extensive existing sanctions regime put into place by the UN Security Council and a large number of countries, including our own, acting nationally and multilaterally to implement the Council's measures. And these sanctions are already having a dramatic effect. They have almost completely isolated Iran from the international financial sector and have made it very risky and costly a place to do business.

"Most of the world's major energy companies have left, undermining Iran's efforts to boost its declining oil production, its main source of revenues. Iran has found it much more difficult to operate its national airline and shipping companies, and to procure equipment and technology for its prohibited weapons programs. And those individuals and organizations responsible for terrorism and human rights abuses, including the Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Qods Force, have been specifically targeted.

"The impact will only grow unless Iran's leaders decide to change course and meet their international obligations. And let me be clear: Today's actions do not exhaust our opportunities to sanction Iran. We continue actively to consider a range of increasingly aggressive measures. We have worked closely with Congress and have put to effective use the legislative tools they have provided. We are committed to continuing our collaboration to develop additional sanctions that will have the effect we all want: putting strong pressure on Iran.

"Now, the Administration's dual-track strategy is not only about pressure. It is also about engaging Iran, engagement that would be aimed at resolving the international community's serious and growing concerns about Iran's nuclear program. And the United States is committed to engagement, but only -- and I say only -- if Iran is prepared to engage seriously and concretely without preconditions. So far, we have seen little indication that Iran is serious about negotiations on its nuclear program. And until we do, and until Iran's leaders live up to their international obligations, they will face increasing consequences."

You can read Secretary Clinton's and Secretary Geithner's complete remarks here.

Related Content: Executive Order 13382 Designations on Iran and Background Briefing on the Recently Announced Sanctions on Iran

Comments

Comments

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 23, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Sec. Clinton, Sec. Geithner, Dipnote staff-

Folks,

RE;

"We continue actively to consider a range of increasingly aggressive measures." - Sec. Clinton

I believe the two track approach needs a third track added onto current policy for two basic reasons;

A) the two-track strategy of two consecutive administrations over many years has not produced the desired "behavior change" or brought the Iranian gov. to the table with a willingness to negotiate in a serious manner.

B) Not even the Russians could object to the rationale behind directly billing Iran for its years of malevolence directed at America, for had it been directed at Russia, Tehran would have become a smoking crater long ago.

There are additional reasons why a three-track approach will put Iran policy on a solid footing of effectiveness and I've outlined a couple in the following letter.

If our national debt is our most dire national security threat, then this third track addresses that general threat as well, and thus strengthens not only the two-track approach, but every aspect of US foreign policy by safeguarding the dept's ability to be funded properly by Congress, as well as the rest of this government in all it's stated national interests.

But what this idea (or concept if you will) addresses directly that has never been done before by any Presidential order or act of Congress is to target the regime's malevolent intent put to voice and intitutionalized by the regime as the working philosophy behind their policies we consider to be unacceptable.

So I just had a chat with someone in the Sen.'s office as follow-up to sending this email and I was told "That's a great idea, I will definately pass it on to him."

So, I guess we'll see what happens.

Might be the best idea he hears this week;

---

Subject; Foreign Affairs

Re: How to balance our budget on the backs of our adversaries

Dear Sen. Kerry,

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations comitte and a member of the President's Super Committee, I can't think of a better person to toss this idea to in the hopes it paves the way for resolution of a number of specific problems we face as a nation.

What if we simply billed Iran a trillion per year for every year one ayatollah or another has been leading chants of "death to America" ever Friday at prayers?

Details of this concept may be found posted as comment on Dipnote; the US dept of State's official blog, as to why I think this will be an effective means to balance the budget on the backs of our adversaries rather than on the backs of the American people.

Folks have tried every other way and we're still stuck with these problems so I think we need to try something really creative.

Then there's the fact that if we end up going to war with Iran eventually at least we'll know how we're going to pay for that in advance when we end up being the "repo-man" and giving Iran back to its people.

I don't know what S&P will think about such a vast "accounts recievable", but at least the budget will be in the black on paper, and resolving the deficit simply becomes a matter of collection rather than partisan gridlock in Congress.

It will change the entire nature of the conversation we're having in this country and redirect the angst onto the folks that call us "enemy" rather than folks in gov. fighting amongst themselves trying to figure this out.

If you know one good reason why we can't bill Iran directly for its malevolence and put our fiscal house in order on the back of that government and its banking institutions, please let me know.

Best regards,

(EJ)

Zharkov
|
United States
November 23, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

Go ahead - bill them, but don't plan on getting anything from Iran because their government just doesn't like the US government.

Of course there is that little nagging problem of contract law that Iran has no obligation to pay because there was no offer of anything and no acceptance of any offer.

Iran is not a US problem. It is a Saudi problem, a Turkish problem, and a Russian problem, to mention merely a few governments that might negotiate a solution if the USG was not meddling again.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 25, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

No Z, not a matter of contract law...think of it more like a civil suit lodged against stalker that keeps threatening your family.

Myself personally I'd just hunt down the S.O.B. that was doing that to mine, shoot him and call it self defense. But we're talkin' international relations here and I thought I'd come up with something useful between sanction and war. In this case, litterally bankrupting the regime.

Where it concerns tyrants and sponsors of tewrror, I say the more we "meddle" them right out of existance, the better off the world will be.

Bombs or bankruptcy,... whatever it takes.

We're siezing and freezing assets, siezing cargo under the proliferation security iniative on the high seas...Z, you really have no idea what we can do to collect do you?

You think I proposed this thinking they'd pay up willingly? A lot of the mechanisms (finacial and physical) are already in place for collection action.

Besides, I figure it will be easier to collect from the Iranian Gov. than it will be to end the partisan gridlock in Congress tryin' to solve the national debt on the backs of the American people, and actually given the bills moving through Congress on Iran at the moment this idea might just put a big bi-partisan turkey-eating grin on every member of Congress just drooling over the thought of a balanced budget at Iranian expense.

Have a nice weekend.

EJ

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 25, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

This should add some context as folks consider the idea I have tendered to Sen. John Kerry, as well to the Dept of State;

(originally posted in the following entry)

"http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/q_foreign_policy_objectives_top..."

Eric in New Mexico writes:

President Obama's Foreign Policy Objectives:
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/foreign_policy/"

The objectives won't be different from the last President's, but the tactics and focus must always adapt to changing circumstance.

On the flyleaf of my grandmother's book about Los Alamos, that I gave to Bill Clinton the day he was first elected President, I wrote, " This is a slice of times past, to give perspective on the present, so that in the future we can eliminate the threat of nuclear war. The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons."

Having been in the construction industry much of my life, I can assure you all that we are in fact a nation of "nation builders" on many levels.

Politically speaking, since WW2, it has been through "on the job training". The mistakes made in the past, and the correctness of present, or future policy must share one thing, a willingness to look at truth over viewpoint (or party affiliation).

Well now, to the extent that it would appear to have been quoted in context in bi-parisan fashion for over eight years, gives me hope we're not too late to prevent that nightmare scenario from occuring.

In appreciation of MLK's invitation to think:

"Today there is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. I feel that we've got to look at this total thing anew and recognize that we must live together. That the whole world now it is one--not only geographically but it has to become one in terms of brotherly concern. Whether we live in America or Asia or Africa we are all tied in a single garment of destiny and whatever effects one directly, effects one in-directly.

"I'm concerned about living with my conscience and searching for that which is right and that which is true, and I cannot live with the idea of being just a conformist following a path that everybody else follows. And this has happened to us. As I've said in one of my books, so often we live by the philosophy 'Everybody's doing it, it must be alright.' We tend to determine what is right and wrong by taking a sort of Gallup poll of the majority opinion, and I don't think this is the way to get at what is right.

"Arnold Toynbee talks about the creative minority and I think more and more we must have in our world that creative minority that will take a stand for that which conscience tells them is right, even though it brings about criticism and misunderstanding and even abuse."
(Excerpted from a 1967 interview of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by Arnold Michaelis.)

Inherently, change is viewed with suspicion, as a threat to culture and ways of tradition and ethical belief systems. As it applies to developing countries in this nuclear age, the post-cold war aftermath presents a vast paradox that present no easy solutions, and has culminated in the reality of the war on terrorism as it exists today.

One cannot simultaneously plan for the American dream, and prepare for Armageddon. But somehow managed to without an accident in defiance of probability and Murphy's Law.

But I stress here the biggest "what if?" is what we might have accomplished as the Human species had we chosen to live in peace, instead of fear after WW2.

I thank the Presidents, past and present for taking up the mantle of "Instigator in Chief" to create a saner, more hospitable world to raise kids in.

I hope we can find the answers to that question made manifest among the comunity of nations.

Posted on Tue Jan 20, 2009

were37
November 25, 2011

W.W. writes:

@ Eric

good job Eric - Now it s important that all department works without knowing any excuse not to work and execute before what the president will deliver

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 25, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ WW,

I'm just giving the President an additional option on his table, and another tool in State and Treasury's toolkit to implement his policies, should they decide to further my idea through exec. order or legislation, or both.

It's up to them to take the concept and roll,...or remain stuck with the status quo.

I just do the best I can with what I got to work with, underfunded, underfed, under employed, under a lot of stress with bills overdue, and with nothing but my wits...and wit...to work with on the best of days (chuckle).

So what do I have to lose by tryin' eh?

Just maybe if I save the nation's bacon with a good idea, that will improve my lot in life as well as everyone else's.

Except the Ayatollah's that is...(chuckle).

EJ

Zharkov
|
United States
November 26, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

@ Eric, I think Iran already has your asset seizure dreams neutered. Their assets were seized in 1979 if you recall. They've got more oil and that gives them more assets.

60 years of sanctions against Cuba didn't turn Castro into a Republican.

Sanctions against Iran are not going to make them turn off their nuclear power.

It was inevitable that the State Department's approval for the Shah of Iran to buy a nuclear reactor would eventually lead to this dispute. That bell has rung. That ship has sailed. What State needs to do now is plan for an Iran that has a nuclear waste disposal problem.

Zharkov
|
United States
November 26, 2011

Zharkov in the U.S.A. writes:

As with "sanctions", the European Missile Defense idea is yet another Bush-era stupidity.

Just look at a world globe and you can see that there are far better places to put missile defenses than in Poland, for example, Israel, Turkey, Italy, Georgia, or even Iraq. Israel's "Iron Dome" defense shield could be expanded to include ANY missile attack from anywhere in the Middle East.

It might make more sense even to have submarine-launched anti-missile missiles which can be repositioned as necessary.

The blockhead approach of insisting the missiles be next to Russia reveal a different agenda - one that most Americans would not approve. Russia is not our enemy. We don't need to start a fight with Russia. And if Russia ever becomes our enemy, the worst strategic move would be to start the fight before we are ready to win it.

The rest of us, ordinary citizens, don't even have public bomb shelters! We have zero civil defense. Nothing to save us and nowhere to run.

Homeland Security offers zero protection against nuclear fallout. So if the Pentagon and Obama want to prove how "strong" they are, let them do it from a rational position, not from a dumb, clumsy move against Russia's nuclear forces.

seem16
November 30, 2011

W.W. writes:

@ eric

and you are doin an impressive and outstanding job which may be inspirational for a lot of people who follow their interest . This is an OPENGOV and your interpretation of it is exactly the way it should be.

It is up to US make the difference it is up to US make it better, How can I do Better for my self and for the group? unfortunally Adam smith needs a revison as John Nash cos equilibrium today move faster

step42
November 26, 2011

W.W. writes:

@ eric

...and by the way thanks for sharing IT...

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 30, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Russia doesn't like missile defense? Then they are welcome to help us eliminate the need for it in the first place by engaging with the rest of us in "regime replacement therapy" for the Iranian people, and we'll give them a slice of the pie on that collection action, of which our 32 trillion dollar bill won't be the only one Iran receives for being stupid; just wait until Israel sends one in the ammount of Israel's entire net-worth as a nation since the government of Iran has thretened to "wipe Israel off the Map"

1/4 of the world's oil reserves are going to be up for grabs to make good on what's owed to one and all.

What comes around goes around...and Iran's been beggin' for war for a long long time.

We don't give 'em the war they want on their terms, we give 'em the war they never expected, can not hope to win, and on our terms as a community of nations.

News Item;

Iran's parliament has voted by a large majority to downgrade diplomatic relations with the UK.

The move comes after the UK Treasury imposed sanctions on Iranian banks on Tuesday, accusing them of facilitating the country's nuclear programme.

Iranian radio reported some MPs chanted "Death to Britain" during the vote, which was approved by 87% of MPs.

...

Britain's Foreign Office said that the vote was "regrettable".

"If the Iranian Government acts on this, we will respond robustly in consultation with our international partners," it said.

-BBC NEWS

@ P.S. Z, Do you remember writing this...?

4. Or would it be better to wait and allow the Iranian government to fall on its own initiative after they waste most of their money on the extravagant luxury of nuclear power?

The whole idea here is that someone must do SOMETHING about Iran. We just can't leave Iran alone because someday they might get a nuclear arsenal like Israel has. Nobody knows whether to send cookies or cluster bombs to Iran. So what specifically should we do? Talk them to death?

Posted on Tue Feb 10, 2009

---

Ok, so we agree santions are not working, diplomacy is in a coma due to a brain-dead ayatollah and his attendant minions in parliment, a glow in the dark solution is probablematic, and you got a problem with this Admin. sending Vinnie and Guido from Chicago to put the squeeze on these millionare mullahs?

(chuckle)

They owe us big time, and they can either pay up or get buried as far as I'm concerned.

EJ

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
November 30, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ WW,

You are most welcome, "IT" was an invitation to think on a lot of levels, and I hope it does eliminate any excuse not to act on the threats we face.

My bro and I were talking about this bill we'd send to Iran, and he thought it might set a dangerous precedent. He said, " So what happens when China sends us a bill for what we owe them and demand payment in full?" I said "No problem, we just get them to help us collect the bill from Iran and they'll get their money in full."

Of course we can always remind China that it's cost us trillions to keep the peace on the Korean peninsula all these years China has been coddling the North Korean regime, and they don't really want to see a bill from us, nor an eternal boycot should war break out there as no one in America would be caught dead buying anything "made in China" after that.

As I suggested to Sen. John Kerry in the letter posted here;

"It will change the entire nature of the conversation we're having in this country and redirect the angst onto the folks that call us "enemy" rather than folks in gov. fighting amongst themselves trying to figure this out."

And this would probably do more to change the tone in Washington DC's political relationships for the better than any singular idea ever will in our lifetimes.

The Iranian people have had 32 years to change the behavior of its government, or remove it from power.

If we must as a "coalition of the willing" be forced to be the "repo-man" in order to give their nation back to them, then they should accept that we'll extract 50% of their oil production every year until that 32 trillion dollar bill is paid in full.

The other 50% is theirs to rebuild their nation with and create a better future for themselves.

And ultimately, this is a very fair way to proceed to approach "regime replacement therapy" with regards to Iran.

It's a small price to pay for freedom from terror and totalitarianism, in exchange for long - term stability in the region, good relations, and hope for their future. But the regime's got to go by-by for any of that to happen.

Best,

EJ

.

Latest Stories

July 26, 2014

The Situation in Gaza

Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Cairo, Egypt, July 21-22, 2014 to meet with Egyptian and other senior officials… more

Pages