• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • U.N. Sanctions on Iran: Far From Crippling

    United Nations Security Council

    Today the United Nations Security Council voted to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran which modestly raise the costs to Tehran for its continued nuclear defiance, but fall far short of the “crippling sanctions” promised by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last year. The sanctions resolution marginally reinforced a previous set of economic, military and high-technology sanctions against Iran and added new bans on Iranian investment in sensitive nuclear activities abroad, the sale of eight categories of heavy weapons to Iran and the establishment in U.N. member states of new branches of Iranian banks suspected of involvement in proliferation. The resolution also “calls upon” but does not “require” member states to conduct inspections of ships and airplanes suspected of carrying contraband to or from Iran.

    The resolution was passed by a 12 to 2 vote with one abstention. As expected, Brazil and Turkey, which hatched a flawed nuclear deal with Iran last month, voted against sanctions. Lebanon, which increasingly has fallen under the shadow of Hezbollah, Iran’s terrorist surrogate, abstained.

    Missing from the final draft of the resolution were any sanctions against Iran’s oil industry, whose revenues are crucial to the regime, or sanctions against Iran’s central bank, which U.S. officials maintain is involved in financing proliferation activities and terrorism. China and Russia succeeded in diluting the sanctions in protracted negotiations lasting more than five months.

    The Obama Administration hopes to use the weak U.N. sanctions resolution as a means to leverage stronger sanctions from European Union countries and other interested parties outside the U.N. framework, free from the threat of a Russian or Chinese veto. European Union members are slated to meet on June 20 to discuss additional sanctions against Iran.

    But the administration sends a mixed message by continuing to lobby Congress to dilute and postpone congressional sanctions against Iran. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a statement today lamenting the weakness of the Security Council resolution and calling for Congress to step up to the plate to impose its own sanctions:

    This resolution, full of loopholes, will not stop Iran’s march towards nuclear weapons or influence the regime’s behavior in any way. That the U.S. put all our eggs in the UN basket – and got this goose-egg in return – is a disaster.

    The bottom line: after more than a year of failed efforts to engage Iran and almost half a year of diplomatic wrangling with Russia and China, the Obama Administration has settled for a watered-down sanctions resolution that will do little to roll back Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Today’s Security Council vote does not rise to the level of “crippling sanctions” or even the “sanctions that bite” that Secretary of State Clinton promised in March. Call them “nibbling sanctions.”

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    11 Responses to U.N. Sanctions on Iran: Far From Crippling

    1. LibertyAtStake says:

      Thw world is now officially going to hell in a hand basket. On rails. Duck and cover.

      http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
      [For a light hearted take on our present peril]

    2. G Rome Laguna Niguel says:

      Again with the sanctions. I have provided a previous post that states my opinion on the use of sanctions, as well as discussing the international interests as they may be in the application toward Tehran. Sanctions are a waste of time, and do little more than hurt the common citizen of such a nation, rather than force the leadership of that nation to a seat at the the table of reconciliation.

      The interesting part about this article is how the impetus has been placed upon the United States to be the arbiter of how to apply pressure to Iran. Just a few months ago, the supposed sponsors of Iran (Russia and China) seemed aghast at the verve of Iran in its dealings with Brazil and Turkey, as well as its supposition that the deal struck with outsourcing enrichment was a cloaked clause to continue refining and appropriating a potential nuclear weapon. Now it seems that both Russia and China are back in to the pocket of Iran, while the U.S. is taking rather feeble means to mitigate this threat. Being that all three are on the Security Council, I understand the machinations of diplomacy, but I have no taste for it.

      In such a situation, one must ascertain what the motive is for each nation to act in a certain way. What seems to stand out most is that Turkey has given up on its attempts to join the European Union, and being left out in the cold as it may be, is attempting to make itself a regional power by promoting and protecting a perilous and isolated state such as Iran as leverage. The fact is that the EU consistently deliberated on accepting Turkey, and now the EU is seemingly in ruins. Turkey now has the strength, and is using this situation as a pawn in an international game of chess.

      Sanctions seem like the only answer that the international community can utilize to mitigate this behavior, but sanctions only result in desperation, and that desperation is being sensed by emerging states such as Turkey and an emerging economy like Brazil. Meanwhile, Israel is still searching for its usual support as the lone democratic nation in the Middle East, and has been completely abandoned in this. Until the United States can form a feasible way of supporting Israel following the "Flotilla Incident," and show some strength in its pact with Israel, Russia and China will continue to re-think their need for Iran as a viable operative source of natural gas/oil pipeline, and these weak responses to a nation that should and was completely isolated will continue to impel Iran to seek further friendships with such entities.

      It has been thirty years of this behavior. It is time to drop, or get off the can.

    3. Barbara Frances Delo says:

      President Obama's perceived foreign policy weakness has EMPOWERED bold action from countries like Iran. Consider his slow respose to Afganistan, his changes to our nuclear policy, and the treaties and funding decisions his administration has put in place to weaken our nuclear and military capabilities.

      The dialogue that the President favors is not working.

      In addition, we MUST CONSIDER to what degree sanctions that affect the innocent as well as the enemy are really more humane than a policy of deterence that puts pressure on enemy governments.

    4. b & t flyover co says:

      Iran is important. The oil spill is important. The escalating unsustainable debt is important. Israel is important. Our sovereignty is important, our borders, too.

      But I gotta tell you — and if you think I have a bad attitude and am a less than "great" American, OK — you're entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine.

      For me, it just all boils down to health care. I want it back. For all of us. I don't want to give up the health care benefits that came with my pension that I worked for my entire life. And I don't want it rationed. That's all I care about. I used to listen to talk radio and watch Fox — Sean, Greta, Glenn Beck — but nowadays if the show doesn't speak to me about us getting back our health care, I turn off the radio and TV.

      If it ain't about getting back our health care, I just plain don't care.

      Never thought I would be a one issue person, but that is exactly what I have become.

      Get back our health care or go away.

      Without it, we are all so screwed.

    5. Pingback: “Le président Obama tient derrière sanctions contre l’Iran mais les postes espère encore pour la diplomatie» et connexes | Positionnement Google

    6. Pingback: US House Morning Whip-Up, June 10, 2010 | Liberty Pundits Blog

    7. Wildcat from Dallast says:

      I prepared a more comprehensive post that was “too fast” for the system at the Heritage Foundation. At this time I will simply say that the only thing that “has bite” about our sanctions against Iran is the fact they don’t have any genuine bite in them. Perhaps we should just drop Helen Thomas on them. See if she gets a front row seat at Little Mahmoud’s press events.

    8. Wildcat from Dallast says:

      Sanctions against Iran have been useless in the past and remain that way today. Little Mahmoud only understands one thing and that is the application of overwhelming military force focused on his destruction. While Iran may have some degree of a military force you must only look back to the ten years prior to our Operation Desert Shield/Storm when the war between Iran and Iraq routinely raged. The bottom line is they fought Saddam Hussein for ten years with absolutely NO appreciable change in the boundaries between these two countries and neither country conquered the other.

      On the other hand we (and the coalition of forces) built up our force in that region for about four months, conducted a devastating air war for about thirty days before commencing the ground war which concluded about 96 hours later with Saddam Hussein surrendering. *We did not desire to conquer Iraq back in 1991, colonize it or anything other than restore the Iraq-Kuwait border, protect Saudi Arabia from invasion by Iraqi forces and severely limit Saddam’s ability to harass his neighbors thereby disrupting the relative peace in the Middle East.

      About eleven and half years before the Iran-Iraq wars (a ten year period) “Little Mahmoud” was an Iranian Army officer who was among the leaders who took the over the American embassy in Tehran and held those hostages for about 444 days. He is apathetic about the rule of law and appears to issues (like a young teenager has) against authority. Therefore sanctions mean nothing to him as he plans to circumvent them where needed and simply not comply with those we are unable to easily check on; and all at the expense of the Iranian people.

      It would be far less costly to America and the world if we collectively would simply plan and organize to execute a decisive military blow. The application of deception planning would provide us with additional security and somewhat of an element of surprise relative to our order of battle. The plan would include having everything in place before executing the political/diplomatic aspect of rendering an ultimatum to Little Mahmoud with a requirement for him to answer (in a very limited short amount of time) while providing specific actions to confirm his acknowledgement without fail. His failure to comply within that timeframe would result in the destruction of energy or specific military or terrorist training area (or all three) as soon as the deadline was missed.

      He may be chasing 72 virgins around during the first strike, and if other critical targets were selected and attacked successfully then we (collectively) just may have a larger geographical footprint in the Middle East that could (and probably would move towards democracy) as we use eastern Iran to station air bases for our continued efforts in Afghanistan. A side benefit would be limiting the Taliban’s direction of movement as we could better cover the Iranian-Afghan border with a series of manned and unmanned surveillance (air and ground) unabated by anti-American Iranian military forces. The Pakistani military forces seem to be effectively dealing with the insurgents and Taliban which would bolster the region from the east. One must have the understanding that (our area of influence) the entire region from Pakistan to Iraq would not be without security issues, but should eventually yield positive results for the peaceful remainder of the world once it settles down. Our area of interest then can focus on remaining and emerging Islamic terrorism emanating from west of Iraq and south thru the Arabian peninsula to sub-Saharan Africa.

      On a side bar note concerning European actions back in their respective homelands. From this point on in the plan the actions taken by the European countries is crucial to maintaining the sovereignty of their countries and their personal freedoms. The European countries must be vigilant to establish a check on “mass-Muslim-migration” to their countries as the greatest threat to their freedom is building from those who immigrate without any such desire to assimilate into their new country’s society. It appears the evidence is in that suggests those immigrants from Islamic nations plan to establish a multitude of Islamic enclaves all over Europe first. Then they can obtain political power and eventually take over the European countries from within. They apparently have an unquenchable thirst to create a one world caliphate as they once thought they should have back in the seventh century.

      In conclusion I must say that time is NOT on our side. And as such we should not confuse Iran as another COIN strategy opportunity but use decisive and devastating military power first, then establish governance thru stability while building peace with those remaining who also desire to live peaceably in their country without providing a haven for terrorists and without a strong desire to destroy Israel.

    9. Mark,Spokane WA. says:

      It seems to me that Obama's actions speak much louder than his words. He is a traitor, and has no intentions of changing the status quo. Note that every action or inaction on his part furthers the cause of Islamists, or, in the case of the gulf oil spill he will do nothing , so that the environmental damage is as bad as it can possibly be, before he blames someone else. This is exactly what he's done in every case since he's been in office! And don't forget the jobs lost! So, you guys in public office, continue to do nothing about Barry, and don't worry. Soon there will be nothing left to worry about!

    10. Pingback: White House Presses Congress to Weaken Iran Sanctions « Citizen Gravity

    11. Pingback: Must Know Headlines 6.12.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×