Friday, September 26, 2008

The 'end' of sanctions against Iran?

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations Gabriela Shalev said on Wednesday that the cancellation of a meeting that was to discuss the imposition of further sanctions on Iran, and the warm welcome that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad received at the United Nations on Tuesday, spell the 'end' of sanctions against Iran (I put the term 'end' in scare quotes because I question whether there was ever truly a beginning) over its nuclear program.
"We don't see it working or leading anywhere," [Shalev] told The Jerusalem Post.

She said she was especially surprised by the warm welcome Iranian President Ahmadinejad received from the General Assembly, whose members the next day were equally warm toward President Shimon Peres.

"It was very upsetting, the whole atmosphere - yesterday they were hugged and applauded," she said.
Russia's refusal to discuss further sanctions against Iran apparently stems from its anger over US criticism of its invasion of Georgia.
"We do not see any sort of 'fire' that requires us to toss everything aside and meet to discuss Iran's nuclear program in the middle of a packed week at the United Nations General Assembly," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement.

"On the contrary, there are more urgent questions - for example, the situation in Afghanistan and along the Afghan-Pakistan border - but our Western partners for some reason aren't rushing to discuss these," he said.

One senior American diplomat said on Wednesday that "there clearly is spillover of the difficulties created by the Georgia crisis, difficulties with Russian behavior that we have to work through."

Russia's move is a blow to the US, which wants to maintain cooperation amid their dispute over the Georgia conflict, and to France, whose Foreign Ministry on Tuesday announced plans for the meeting.
Another Israeli 'government official' holds out little hope for further sanctions against Iran without Russian support.
"We hope that it is not Russia's last word, and that they will change their mind. But we have no influence on them on this issue. We are not a factor whether they do or not participate; it all has to do with their relationship with the US."

Another Israeli government official said that the Russian decision will force other countries to decide whether to impose harsher sanctions on their own against Iran.

Up to now, the official said, the sanctions proposed were "the lowest common denominator," because the idea was to get Russia and China to agree to them.

The official said it was also quite possible that the countries interested in a fourth round of sanctions would bring a resolution to a vote in the Security Council even over Russian objections, and that such a resolution would probably pass by a 9-7 margin.

The official said it was not a given that Russia or China would veto the resolution, because it does not directly touch on their interests.

The previous sanction resolutions had been adopted by consensus.

The official added, however, that it isn't clear that all the countries in Europe would be willing to back much harsher sanctions, though England and France could be counted on.
But sanctions imposed by individual countries would just drive Iranian purchases elsewhere. Given the business interests of countries like Germany, Italy, Austria and Switzerland in Iran, without a UN umbrella, sanctions are even more useless than they have been up to this point.

Cross-posted to Israel Matzav.


Anonymous said...

if you are a Zionist you probabely don't need to answer this question but which country-ies in the Middle East already have nuclear weapons?

Which country in the Middle East , while having nuclear weapons, is treatening to bomb other countries' nuclear stations while there is still no proof that there are making any bomb?

Why there is this double standard for the countries around the world?

Is it becasue those who already have it, US, UK, France etc, have a responsible use of it? What responsible use of nuclear weapons mean? Like the one in Hiroshima and NAKAZAKI??

Is it because they never attack other countries ?

US has 10 major wars during the last two centuries.

Israel had three wars and still occupies some part of Lebenon, Syria.

Iran never attacked any country during the last three centuries. It was infact invaded by Iraq which was backed by US and Europian countries who armed Saddam and gave him even Chemical weapons.

So if you callyour blog Infidel stuff, just talk about secularism and freedom of beleif and religion, Don't mess it with politic because otherwise those extreme christians or Jews and Zionists are not less dangerous than fundamentalists muslim in Sudan or Saudi Arabia. Sara Pailin talks to God.

Pastorius said...

You are an ee-diot.