Skip to main content

In a display of what Obama has been working towards the entire first year, it looks like Obama will get all of the major powers together to vote FOR sanctions against Iran.  

UN to pass Unanimous Sanctions on Iran

President Obama has been the one bringing the Security Council together on the Iranian threat, arguing that if they did it by themselves, it wouldn't be as strong and if they failed to act, then Israel would and that would cause Oil prices to skyrocket, thus adding woes to Russian and Chinese companies operating within the country.  Thus, they're in a box in terms of sanctions.  

China could also abstain from voting and allow the decision to be made by a simple majority. However, the sources told Haaretz, the United States is still trying to obtain Chinese support for the sanctions.

"The United States is seeking to reach a consensus between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council on the sanctions issue," one of the sources said. "This would allow it to present the five superpowers as a united coalition, which would increase the impact of the sanctions."

It appears more likely that the Chinese will abstain in their votes, but Obama is pushing harder and harder to get the Chinese to vote with the majority.  The sanctions won't be as crippling as the ones who passed through Congress, of which the President has yet to sign (and likely won't), but it will be targeted primarily at the Revolutionary Guard in Iran, the same group that is supporting Ahmadinejad and has been beating and killing protesters.  This way, it would be an attempt to boost the protesters without hurting the majority of the Iranian people.  

All in all, good works on the diplomatic front.  

Here's Voice of America on what the sanctions will look like Sanctions on Revolutionary Guard:

The Obama administration is preparing a line of sanctions to target the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which control local banks and other organizations related to the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

The American effort is aimed at driving a wedge between the Iranian public and the Revolutionary Guards which are responsible for crushing any sign of anti-regime sentiment and are promoting the nuclear program.

Officials in the US administration told the New York Times Wednesday that the decision's draft, which was handed over for the review of the six powers and will be voted on in the Security Council, includes a list of companies and assets belonging to the Revolutionary Guards. Among them is the Tehran airport.

Originally posted to calchala on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 09:00 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  its probably been said but it needs to be (9+ / 0-)


    If McCain were president we would have ALREADY invaded Iran. Thank god John McCain did not win.

    You're watching Fox News. OH MY GOD--LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU

    by rexymeteorite on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 09:06:00 PM PST

  •  great diary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    notrouble, allep10, cany, clubbing guy

    i was almost out of here (at least for a couple weeks) after checking in and seeing yet another "obama loves bankers bonuses" diary.  but this gives me interest to pay attention and probably check in here tomorrow to see how this all goes down. it would be great to get china to join the world in voting for the sanctions, but even getting them not to veto is good enough--would have the same effect, even though the message itself would me a tiny bit diminished.  i also agree that this is a better and more effective way to apply sanctions than ones passed by congress--both substantively, and for the "world united" message as well.

    save our democracy!

    by thoughtful3 on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 09:10:52 PM PST

  •  nuclear energy (5+ / 0-)

    This is STILL about western corporations and their desire to corner the nuclear energy market.

    Cheney and his Westinghouse pals will be billionaires if the Chinese-Iranian nuclear fuel deal falls apart.

    Since Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program, the nuclear powers have insisted that use of nuclear energy did not pose a threat of nuclear weapons proliferation. They were wrong then, and now they want to contradict 50 years of nuclear energy policy to push a competitor out of the business, claiming that Iran is a nuclear weapons threat.

    Fine. Let's end Iran's nuclear energy industry. Let's end everyone's nuclear energy industry, too. It leads to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. RIGHT?

    •  shine (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      up that tinfoil...

      •  Does it lead to weapons, or not? (0+ / 0-)

        Does nuclear energy lead to nuclear weapons proliferation?

        If the answer is no, then there is no need to sanction Iran.

        If the answer is yes, then Cheney and the rest of the corporate nuclear enthusiasts are a far bigger threat than Iran.

        •  Oh (0+ / 0-)

          Every nuclear energy project is a weapons plant? mmm...K...  And Obama, Europe, democratic congress critters and the UN are all just lying through their teeth so they can implement a vast worldwide conspiracy to make everyone produce nuclear energy (or weapons- I can't remember)  cooked up by Dick Cheney. Thanks for clearing it up.  This is good stuff. When do the aliens rip off their human rubber masks and eat us?

  •  China is pissed about Taiwan arms deal, so (3+ / 0-)

    don't expect much help. The state media has got the population fired up about this.  They are not happy.

    "If we can't be free at least we can be cheap." Zappa

    by Zwoof on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 09:19:18 PM PST

  •  Sanctions that passed through Congress... (0+ / 0-)

    but the President probably won't sign?  Help here calchala.

    "There is no red America, or blue America, there is the United States of America." 2004 DNC Speech

    by BarackStarObama on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 09:24:54 PM PST

  •  Can't criticize the stolen election in Iran (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Leads to uncomfortable discussions about Florida and Ohio.

  •  We know of course (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that sanctions will hurt the poor and middle class the most in Iran, the very people who are fighting against the religious dictatorship that rules that place.

    I don't have any other alternative, all I know is this may not be the best course of action to take.

    Air America listeners, check this out

    by shpilk on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 09:41:12 PM PST

    •  They're going after the Revolutionary Guard (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanL, pstoller78

      If the guard spreads those sanctions to the people, that's on them and them alone.  Obama should make that clear if he announces those sanctions.

    •  It's a wrongheaded course of action (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It's a continuity from Bush's policies.

      Obama has opened up diplomacy, and that's an excellent change, but continuity on sanctions when they are based on hysteria and the greedy motives of Cheney's friends and their counterparts in Europe is a mistake.

      The proper thing to do is to open diplomacy with Iran's parliament and with the Supreme Leader, Khameini.

      The proper thing to do is to question Schlesinger about what, exactly, happened to the 1,000 missing pieces of nuclear weapons.

      The proper thing to do is to grab all of the nuclear black market gangsters, including Cheney and throw their asses on the block for treason.

      Then maybe Iran will be more willing to do the same with THEIR gangsters, who directly violated a fatwa to secretly develop weapons technology. That's the death penalty. Same as the penalty for OUR traitors.

  •  I'm afraid sanctions won't work on Iran (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It would be nice if they did, but sanctions seem to work best when they send a message, as they did to the South African whites. Maybe if this gets across to the Iranian government that NObody supports them they will work. But I think they already knew that, which is why they are ready to defy the world and build nukes.

    Defensive nuclear weapons. There's an oxymoron for you.

  •  Bloody hell (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, shigeru

    This is not something I was hoping to see action on. The nuclear issue isn't, and outside pressure is about the last thing that's going r, no matter how much I'd like to see that happen.

    Every horror committed by man begins with the lie that some man is not a man. - Jyrinx

    by kyril on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 10:14:51 PM PST

  •  we're being played again (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Read this article. Who is the "Soviet scientist?" Why not name him? This is nonsense. This is neocon psyops. Where is this "intelligence" coming from? Why is it being laundered through foreign journalists, like the Niger story was?

    Look deeper. This is about derailing the deal between Iran, Russia and China to develop a nuclear fuel industry in Iran.

    Westinghouse, and their friend CHENEY have been pushing for an international cartel to control all nuclear fuel. In fact, they already set one up. In 2001. Ever since then, Cheney has been angling for a nuclear deal with China for Westinghouse and the other memebers of the cartel. The deal will make him a billionaire.

    Iran and Russia developed Iran's uranium resources and built a nuclear fuel industry there over the last ten years. They bid on the China deal, and they got the contract in 2008.

    Cheney's plan would have American taxpayers foot the bill for a $250 billion dollar nuclear energy program. Then the cartel (and Cheney) sell the fuel to China at nearly pure profit. This is not supposition. The story has been revealed in pieces, in the press, over the last decade.

    The whole "war with Iran" paradigm had this profit motive as part of it's intent. Cheney and Rumsfeld decided in 2005 that "the next big terrorist attack" would be blamed on Iran. Rumsfeld changed the nuclear policy of the United States to allow "pre-emptive nuclear war" against a non-nuclear power, and he was making that change specifically to implement Cheney's Iran War Plan.

    Apparently, these two traitors were certain they could rely on a domestic terror attack to provide the trigger for their plan. In 2008, Bush let thousands of Iraqi refugees into the country, and then promptly stopped tracking them. The Homeland Security flunky in charge of that project abruptly resigned right after Obama was elected.

    The push by the nuclear lobby and this "sanction mania" just tells me that Cheney hasn't given up, and we need to throw the asshole in jail before he actually succeeds in starting another war, or helping terrorists attack us, or using his connections to make MORE pieces of nuclear weapons disappear from our arsenal.

  •  Here's the problem..for regime changers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler
    From the World Opinion Poll by the Univ of
    Maryland supported by the Kennedy School and the only poll respected in the polling world.

    "The study sought to address the widely-discussed hypotheses that Ahmadinejad did not win the June 12 election and that the Iranian people perceive their government as illegitimate. It also sought to explore the assumption that the opposition represents a movement favoring a substantially different posture toward the United States. The analysis of the data found little evidence to support any of these hypotheses"

    I will list the main  findings:

    *An analysis of multiple polls of the Iranian public from three different sources finds little evidence to support the conclusion that the election was rigged or that Ahmadinejad didn't win the majority vote.

    * Going into the election 57% said they expected Ahmadinejad to win. Thus it is not surprising that, in several post-election polls, more than seven in ten said they saw Ahmadinejad as the legitimate president. About eight in ten said the election was free and fair.

    * Mousavi supporters, like the general public, were quite negative in their views of the US government and were strongly committed to Iran's nuclear program. A majority of Mousavi supporters did favor diplomatic relations with the US, and were ready to make a deal whereby Iran would preclude developing nuclear weapons through intrusive international inspections in exchange for the removal of sanctions. However, this was equally true of the majority of all Iranians.

    "However none of the polls found indications of support for regime change. Large majorities, including majorities of Mousavi supporters, endorse the Islamist character of the regime such as having a body of Islamic scholars with the power to veto laws they see as contrary to sharia."
    *Some analysts have suggested that if the opposition were to gain power this would lead to fundamental changes in the Iranian posture toward the US. Focusing on those respondents who said they voted for Mousavi, as an approximation of the opposition,
    PIPA found that a majority were ready to negotiate with the US on a number of issues, while the Iranian public as a whole was more divided.

    Steven Kull, director of PIPA, said, "Our analysis suggests that it would not be prudent to base US policy on the assumption that the Iranian public is in a pre-revolutionary state of mind.

    Iran isn't a candidate for regime change.
    What the get Iran crowd hopes is that sanctions
    will bring the people to such desperation they will do anything to get out from under them.....even if it means capitulating to the US and having it's leaders hand picked by Uncle Sam.

    Personally I don't think it will work and the neocons are in for a surprise.
    It is pure folly to try regime change when the majority of the country is not for it.

    Like I said before it's Iraq hype all over again. Drumming up another war...on a country that is not a threat to the US by any stretch of the imagination.

    "Something happens. Then you have to make a choice and take a side."...."The Quiet American", Graham Greene

    by renfro on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:06:32 PM PST

  •  Iran will get nukes if they want security. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    No nukes gets you invaded.

  •  I'd be less than thrilled (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler

    about all of the "pressure" Obama is using on the Chinese.  I just read a reader comment on Haaretz -- the Chinese don't let themselves be "pushed," and we're not in a terribly strong bargaining position with them.  In other words, if China votes with us, I'd be less than eager to find out what kinds of promises and concessions we're making to the Chinese.

    •  i worry about what happens when the (0+ / 0-)

      US forces nations to vote its way, what kind of threats are they using.

      what the US elite believe are in "US" interests and what is actually in my interests, may be very different things.

      Yes, i support an intifada.

      by Tom J on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 10:15:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I do not think China will go along with sanctions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

       ... in this anachronistic model, America’s ability not just to keep U.S. companies out of Iran but also to limit the willingness of other Western (primarily European) companies to invest there put real constraints on the Islamic Republic’s capacity to develop its hydrocarbon resources and other important sectors of its economy.  Now, of course, non-Western countries from what we used to call the developing world—e.g., China—have emerged as increasingly critical players in the global economy.  This is catalyzing a shift in the worldwide distribution of both economic and political power that has serious implications for the American approach to Iran.        

       Today, Reuters reported from Beijing that China’s biggest and most internationally prominent national energy company, China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), has concluded a final contract to proceed with upstream exploration and production of Phase 11 of Iran’s massive South Pars gas field .  In June 2009, CNPC signed a preliminary agreement to undertake upstream development for South Pars Phase 11; in doing so, CNPC appeared to be threatening to displace Total, which had originally been slated to oversee both upstream development and downstream exploitation (primarily through the Pars LNG project) of South Pars Phase 11.  Now, it seems that CNPC has displaced Total from at least the upstream segment of South Pars Phase 11; Reuters reports that CNPC could start drilling in the field as early as March, after Chinese New Year celebrations are concluded.

    The Race for Iran 10 Feb 10

    I guess we'll know soon. After all sanctions worked in 1953.

    We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire... Chalmers Johnson

    by truong son traveler on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:29:27 AM PST

  •  The supposed reasons for sanctions are ...? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, Tom J

    Is it their non-existent nuclear weapons program.

    In the most recent NIE update (PDF) from the 15th of January their report says.

    We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.

    We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire... Chalmers Johnson

    by truong son traveler on Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 01:40:54 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site