UN Slaps Sanctions On Iran

[GUNNER]

The interesting part would be why would Lebanon abstain and not vote against?.

I don't think there is any mystery to it. Lebanon has tried to make both sides happy. A difficult job indeed. They didn't vote against Iran and they didn't vote against the sanctions either. It also reflects the nature of the government, half of the coalition is against Iran while other half wants to follow the pattern of Iran and Syria.

 

[GUNNER]

BEIJING, June 10, 2010 (AFP) - China said Thursday it "highly values" ties with Iran after voting yes to a fresh round of UN sanctions against the Islamic republic over its nuclear programme, a move that sparked anger from its ally.
"China highly values relations with Iran and feels they are conducive to regional peace, stability and development," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters.
China, an ally of Tehran and one of the Islamic republic's major trading partners in recent years, was long reluctant to sign on to the sanctions but eventually voted yes to the US-drafted UN Security Council resolution.
In a rare rebuke, Tehran quickly hit out at Beijing -- which could have vetoed the resolution -- for backing the punitive measures.
"China is gradually losing its respectable position in the Islamic world and by the time it wakes up, it will be too late," Iran's atomic chief Ali Akbar Salehi told ISNA news agency.
The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman responded that Beijing was confident its relations with the Muslim world would not suffer.
"We believe on the basis of unity, mutual trust and cooperation, relations between China and Muslim countries will withstand all tests and move forward," Qin said.

 

[Pasban]

Sir, when you post articles, state the link to the source as well.

 

[GUNNER]

Sir, when you post articles, state the link to the source as well.

It's not possible to give a link for an AFP story since AFP is a wire service and gives restricted access to customers only.

 

[samv]

Sir, when you post articles, state the link to the source as well.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_538285.html

 

[GUNNER]

MOSCOW, June 10, 2010 (AFP) - Russia's contract to deliver S-300 air defence missiles to Iran is not affected by new UN sanctions adopted against Tehran, the foreign ministry said Thursday, after claims the deal would be frozen.

The UN Security Council adopted Wednesday a fourth round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear drive, imposing broader military and financial restrictions on the Islamic republic.

A source in the service that supervises Russian arms sales told the Interfax news agency earlier Thursday the sanctions meant Russia would freeze the contract for air defence (DCA) missiles.

This was rejected by foreign ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko.
"The resolution adopted by the Security Council against Iran contains references to arms banned for export to Iran, but I can tell you that the DCA missiles, with the exception of portable systems, do not feature on the list," he said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov later said the Iran sanctions would not hurt Russia's S-300 missile supplies to Iran.

The resolution notably bans the sale to Iran of eight new types of heavy weapons and applies new restrictions on Iranian investments abroad.

Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee on Russia's lower house of parliament, also said that while weapons sales restrictions had been expanded under the sanctions they did not include the S-300s.
"Systems of a defensive nature like the S-300 are not on this list," he told Interfax.

He said the new UN sanctions would not affect Russian and Iranian relations.

"This document has no direct consequence for Russia. It is another story if certain governments decide unilaterally to deep these sanctions," he said.

Russia agreed the missile deal several years ago but has never delivered the weapons amid pressure from the United States and Israel which fear they would dramatically improve Iran's defensive capabilities.

Its failure to deliver the missiles has disappointed Iran's Islamic leadership and become a major sticking point in once strong bilateral ties.

The unidentified source in the Federal Service for Military Technical Cooperation (FSVTS), which supervises Russian arms sales, said earlier: "Naturally, the contract for the delivery to Tehran of the S-300 air defence missile systems will be frozen."



The TOR-M1 sale, estimated to be worth 700 million dollars, delighted Iran's military but was slammed at the time as inappropriate by the United States.

The S-300 sale is particularly controversial as Western powers fear Iran would use the sophisticated systems to protect its most sensitive nuclear sites against an aerial attack and inflict heavy casualties on the enemy.

Analysts and diplomats have suggested that the delivery of the weapons so worries Israel that the Jewish state could launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran if it has intelligence that Russia was to deliver them.

 

[GUNNER]

WASHINGTON, June 10, 2010 (AFP) - The United States on Thursday welcomed Russian "restrait" in not delivering promised S-300 air defense missiles to Iran.
"Russia has exercised responsibility, restraint and has not delivered those missiles to Iran," said State Department spokesman Philip Crowley.
Crowley noted that the missiles are not included in Wednesday's UN sanctions resolution against Iran passed by the Security Council, but said "we have recognised and appreciated the restraint that Russia showed up to this point."

 

[GUNNER]

This is strange. Russia denied freezing sale of missiles to Iran. And White House has issued a welcome statement based on the earlier story which said Russia had freezed the sale.

 

[EjazR]

Misconceived - Arab News

The fourth round of UN sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program is misconceived and will very probably turn out to be a serious error.

The Russians and the Chinese will come to regret their albeit reluctant backing of Washington’s confrontational policy.

What they have done is sign up to the long-standing US hypocrisy which decries Iran’s suspected push to acquire nuclear weapons while totally ignoring that Israel is already a nuclear power. The ironic difference is that while Iran is in breach of its commitments made when it signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel is not, for the simply reason that it has never signed the document. The existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and Washington’s determination to ignore it, completely undermines any drive to persuade the Iranians to eschew any atomic weapons program themselves. Yet the Obama administration cannot, or will not, recognize how fatally this damages its arguments against Iran.

And the Russians and Chinese have allowed themselves to be suckered into a flawed confrontation with the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What is worse is that the UN Security Council’s imposition of a new round of sanctions cuts across the efforts of Brazil and Turkey to provide Teheran with an honorable way out of the impasse. By agreeing in principle to take spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing, these two countries could have produced a settlement that was acceptable to all parties. However, perhaps because the solution was not invented in Washington, the Americans chose to ignore it and press on with their new sanctions call.

Then there is the extreme likelihood that these latest sanctions will not work but, as with Iraq, will actually damage ordinary Iranians. Ahmadinejad and his people have long expected these latest restrictions and will have made provisions to circumvent them where necessary. They will divert whatever national resources they need away from ordinary people to their own purposes. However, more sinisterly, they will almost certainly use the heightened tension to beef up their security clampdown on opposition leaders and supporters. Dissenting voices within the country will seem ever more like treason and will be dealt with harshly. Among those who will be muzzled will be the counselors of moderation who while supporting the regime, doubt the wisdom of its unfettered responses to Washington’s continuing provocative behavior.

Ahmadinejad is not noted for mincing his words and his riposte to the new sanctions was entirely predictable. Given the certainty that he would react with more anger and bombast, it is incredible that the Security Council, with the notable exceptions of Brazil and Turkey succumbed to American pressure. The Russians or Chinese might have been expected to insist that the price of their support would be the simultaneous tabling of the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Unfortunately, the Israelis may now see the silence of Moscow and Beijing as a green light to launch a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, the consequences of which are too terrible to imagine. A golden opportunity to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons has been thrown away. Apparently, what Washington has in mind when it talks of a nuclear-free Middle East is a Middle East in which there is only one nuclear power.

 

[Nima]

Which means Iran will not be able to purchase the Chinese version as well.

actually you're an idiot as usual!
Russia and China both approved the sanctions b/c it allows the sale of defensive weapons like the Tor-M1 and S300 to Iran.

 

[ajpirzada]

EDITORIAL: Sanctions on Iran

Tough sanctions slapped on Iran by the UN Security Council have raised many questions about the Obama administration’s policy posture, which does not seem to be any different from that of the Bush administration, at least on this issue. The new sanctions will severely damage Iran’s economic interests and prospective business transactions. Out of the 15 members, 12 — including the five permanent members — voted in favour, Turkey and Brazil voted against the sanctions, while Lebanon abstained from voting. Preceding the vote, Turkey and Brazil made intensive efforts for a diplomatic solution to the problem and were able to convince Iran to agree to all the conditions proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and endorsed by the White House. The most significant condition was the demand to transfer a bulk of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) to another country. The three countries signed an agreement on May 17 to this effect. Understandably, Turkey and Brazil as well as the IAEA have expressed extreme disappointment over the White House’s rejection of the agreement and going ahead with the sanctions. Surprisingly, China and Russia, which had so far adopted a more accommodative approach in dealing with Iran, decided to side with the US regarding these sanctions, pointing towards a consensus amongst great powers vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear programme.

The IAEA has played a positive role in trying to defuse the West’s threat perceptions by taking a more rational position based on ground realities. Dr Mohamed ElBaradei has explicitly stated that after removing half of Iran’s nuclear material to Turkey as a confidence building measure and the rest under IAEA guards and seals, there was no imminent threat of Iran preparing a nuclear bomb. The US rejection of the IAEA advice is not something new. Even when the IAEA inspectors had found “no smoking gun” in Iraq during their search for the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the US went ahead and invaded Iraq. Later, it was proved that there were indeed no WMDs in Iraq. It seems that history is being repeated, only with more players involved now.

There are important questions to ask here. Are these sanctions being imposed to please Israel because of its perceived threat of Hezbollah and Hamas, seen to be supported by Iran? Iran still espouses Khomeini’s anti-US stance, but does that warrant crippling a country’s economy, which may not impact the ruling elite, but will definitely affect the common people. Did the US exhaust all diplomatic channels to convince Iran? Have the sanctions have been put on merit or are they just a ploy of political victimisation? Ironically, nobody questions Israel’s accumulation of nuclear stockpiles. The state has time and again demonstrated an aggressive intent towards its neighbours, while Iran is being hunted and hounded. Last but not the least, why is there a deadly silence in Pakistan over this issue? India abandoned Iran because of the civil-nuclear deal with the US. Pakistan is under no such obligation to keep quiet on the political victimisation of a friendly country.

Nuclear proliferation is indeed a source of concern. However, various manifestations of US aggression in different parts of the world, particularly Iraq, since the fall of the Soviet Union, has convinced smaller nations that conventional military capability is no guarantee to security. It was hoped that the Obama administration would approach the Iran issue differently than his predecessor and send out a message of reconciliation, rather than confrontation, to the world. The UN Security Council Resolution has belied all those hopes.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[ajpirzada]

Iran agreed to a swap deal and left option open for further negotiations. but is US really interested in a peaceful solution or they just want iran to bow in front of them and accept their dominance?

 

[Black Stone]

I don't think there is any mystery to it. Lebanon has tried to make both sides happy. A difficult job indeed. They didn't vote against Iran and they didn't vote against the sanctions either. It also reflects the nature of the government, half of the coalition is against Iran while other half wants to follow the pattern of Iran and Syria.

Maybe, but I thought due to their Iran-Lebanon/Hezbollah connection they would support the Iranians. Guess not.

 

[Rocketsingh]

US expects India to implement Iran sanctions

Washington: The United States has expressed confidence that India would implement the tough new United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions against Iran for its alleged clandestine nuclear weapons programme.

"I think India's record on implementation of previous Security Council resolutions has been an admirable one," US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns told reporters on Thursday.

"And I do expect that India, as its leadership has made clear publicly, will follow through and implement the new resolution," he said when asked if India and the US were on the same page on sanctions against Iran.

India, he noted, has voted three times in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors to hold Iran accountable for its failure to meet its international obligations.

"Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has also reinforced on a number of occasions the fact that India shares international concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran and the obvious negative consequences that would have for a part of the world that's very important to both of us, as well as to the global economy," Burns said.

Manmohan Singh has time and again underlined India's traditional ties with Iran and voiced opposition to sanctions that, in New Delhi's view, end up hurting the common people.

While India believes that a nuclear powered Iran is not in the interests of regional stability, it has consistently advocated dialogue and diplomacy to resolve the issue of the Iranian nuclear programme and supported Tehran's right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy within the purview of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

New sanctions target Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard and include freezing the assets of 40 additional companies and organizations -- 15 linked to the guards, 22 involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities and three linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.

The sanctions also bar Iran from pursuing "any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons," investing in nuclear-related activities like uranium mining, and buying some categories of heavy weapons, including attack helicopters and missiles.

The Iran issue figured during the recently concluded India-US Strategic Dialogue between team led by External Affairs Minister SM Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

 

[GUNNER]

SHANGHAI, June 11, 2010 (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday Israel was "doomed" and singled out US President Barack Obama for scorn, blaming Washington for orchestrating new nuclear sanctions against Tehran.
Speaking during a visit to the World Expo in Shanghai, Ahmadinejad denounced the UN Security Council's sanctions resolution adopted Wednesday with Chinese and Russian backing as "worthless paper".

The firebrand leader accused global nuclear powers of "monopolising" atomic technology and said the new sanctions would "have no effect" -- reserving most of his tough rhetoric for the United States, not his ally Beijing.

Swatting aside the US leader's offers of dialogue and rapprochement if Iran relents on its nuclear ambitions, Ahmadinejad said: "I think President Obama has made a big mistake... he knows the resolution will have no effect.

"Very soon he will come to understand he has not made the right choice and he has blocked the way to having friendly ties with the Iranian people."
Ahmadinejad chose a visit to his country's national pavilion during "Iran Day" at the Shanghai Expo over an appearance at a regional security summit in Uzbekistan attended by the Chinese and Russian leaders.

Presidents Hu Jintao of China and Dmitry Medvedev of Russia were in Tashkent Friday for the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

The SCO Friday snubbed Iran's membership bid, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the group's new guidelines did not allow countries under UN sanctions to join, leaving Tehran increasingly isolated over its refusal to renounce uranium enrichment.

Ahmadinejad's visit to the Expo comes at a delicate time in Tehran's relations with China, one of the Council's five permanent veto-wielding members.
His government had earlier reacted furiously to China's decision to fall into line with the United States and other powers that accuse Iran of covertly trying to build nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad nevertheless shied away from criticising Beijing, which has emerged as Iran's closest trading partner.

"The main problem is the US administration, and we have no problem with others," he told reporters, accusing the United States of seeking to "swallow" the Middle East.
"Not only China but others also announced the resolution is going to open a way for diplomacy."

The UN resolution expands an arms embargo and bars Iran from sensitive activities such as uranium mining.
It also authorises states to conduct high-seas inspections of vessels believed to be ferrying banned items for Iran and adds 40 entities to a list of people and groups subject to travel restrictions and financial sanctions.

Not for the first time, Ahmadinejad reserved his harshest rhetoric for Israel.
"It is clear the United States is not against nuclear bombs because they have a Zionist regime with nuclear bombs in the region," he said.
"They are trying to save the Zionist regime, but the Zionist regime will not survive. It is doomed."

Israel, which has the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear arsenal, regards Iran as its principal threat after repeated predictions by Ahmadinejad of the Jewish state's demise.
Israeli leaders have refused to rule out a resort to military action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability.

Ahmadinejad said the entire architecture of global power was built to keep out smaller states.

"We have always said the Security Council is a tool in the hands of the United States. It is not democratic, it is a tool of dictatorship," he said.

"Five powers have the veto right and the nuclear bombs and the monopoly and they want to monopolise nuclear energy for themselves," he added.

Russia appears to be taking a tougher line with Iran. Officials said Friday that Moscow would comply strictly with the new UN sanctions, and signalled that a deal to supply Iran with air-defence missiles was now off.

China has kept up a more emollient line on Iran. Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Thursday that China "highly values relations with Iran and feels they are conducive to regional peace, stability and development."