Progress Slows on New Iran Nuclear Sanctions

World powers met again yesterday to discuss imposing new sanctions against Iran, but they appeared to be distant from agreeing on how to address Tehran’s refusal to curb its nuclear activities, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 5).

Ambassadors from the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany met last night at the British U.N. mission in New York.  The meeting followed three sessions by phone and in person over the last week, and coincided with a Vienna meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s governing board.

While officials had earlier expressed optimism for reaching rapid agreement, that assessment was no longer being offered.

“There are some different views here, so we will continue to work,” said Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya.  He said the ambassadorial group would reconvene today.

The current debate centers over how much to strengthen sanctions the council imposed in a December resolution that demanded Iran freeze its nuclear activities within 60 days.  Tehran refused to heed that deadline and now the council is looking to ratchet up the pressure.

The Western nations are leaning toward more stringent measures, while Russia and China seek a more gradual approach, AP reported.

Under discussion are “travel issues, financial issues, arms issues,” said acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff.

“We just now need to agree with all the other members of the council on what those measures, what those sanctions should be,” added U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns who met with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon yesterday.  “We hope those deliberations can be conducted in the shortest possible time so that the Iranian government will know that it is really quite isolated on this issue” (Paul Burkhardt, Associated Press I/Washington Post, March 6).

The Western position received backing from EU foreign ministers yesterday, who agreed in a joint statement to support Security Council efforts “to adopt further appropriate measures … should Iran fail to comply” with the council’s demands.

Meeting in Brussels, the ministers called on the council “to act with the necessary firmness” (Associated Press II/International Herald Tribune, March 5).

Meanwhile in Washington, a freshman lawmaker has introduced legislation to limit the president’s ability to use military force against Iran without congressional approval.

While Bush administration leaders have generally denied they are considering military strikes against Iran, some recent actions and statements have raised concerns among critics.  President George W. Bush authorized U.S. troops in Iraq to fire on Iranian personnel suspected of aiding Iraqi insurgents, and Bush also ordered a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf. 

Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated the administration position that it would not rule out any options against Iran. 

“All options are on the table,” he said during a visit to Australia (see GSN, Feb. 26).

“This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own,” said Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.).  “We need the Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat.”

Webb’s legislation would prevent money from being “obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress.”  The language was offered as an amendment to the supplemental appropriations request for Iraqi war funds.

The legislative bid promised to draw Republican opposition, the Washington Times reported.

“I don't think it is productive or responsible to place arbitrary restrictions on what is now a hypothetical national security scenario, especially since the language — if not carefully worked — could hamstring our efforts against insurgents and terrorists in Iraq,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio (Christina Bellantoni, Washington Times, March 6).

Military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities would probably backfire anyway, according to report released yesterday by a British think tank.  Iran would probably respond to any attacks by accelerating its program and removing all international oversight, says the report by the Oxford Research Group (Oxford Research Group release, March 5).

Iran has deployed defenses at its nuclear facilities and plans to test some air defenses today, Agence France-Presse reported.

“An exercise will be carried out for the aerial defense system installed around the Isfahan nuclear site today,” said an official statement.  Isfahan is home to Iran’s uranium conversion facility, where uranium ore is converted into a gaseous form that can be fed into uranium enrichment centrifuges elsewhere (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, March 6).

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.