Security Council gives Iran sanctions deadline

ethyl · 07-31-2006, 02:19 PM

The diplomatic route is still inching forward.

http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=3920

The U.N. Security Council said it would sanction Iran if it did not suspend uranium enrichment by Aug. 31.

The 14-1 vote Monday was the first time all five veto-wielding permanent members of the council agreed to sanction Iran.

The resolution calls on Iran to suspend “all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development” and to allow international nuclear inspectors to verify the suspension.

If it fails to do so, the Security Council expressed its intention to “adopt appropriate measures” under Article 41, which carries economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful. International inspectors have concluded that Iran has a weapons program. Qatar cast the lone dissenting vote.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
----------------------------

Although it's progress, it still seems to have the potential to turn into 'fluff' if Iran doesn't abide, right?

motivez · 07-31-2006, 03:53 PM

That's interesting. The page isn't working though, who's the lone no vote?

Also.. I have my doubts that Iran will comply with this date. They are in a very good position right now and seem to have all of the power. We aren't going to get involved in another war, and I find it unlikely that China and Russia will agree to anything that significantly harms the Iranian economy... like oil.

Thorgrim · 07-31-2006, 07:04 PM

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council passed a weakened resolution Monday giving Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions

It's just a threat, nothing more, and Qatar rejected it because its an Arab state

Kytro · 07-31-2006, 08:09 PM

Iran is allowed to enrich under the NPT, I thought.

motivez · 07-31-2006, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Iran is allowed to enrich under the NPT, I thought.

They are. India, who isn't a signatory to the NPT, was just given nuclear technology though.. so we really don't give a shit about the NPT.

Kytro · 07-31-2006, 09:45 PM

If they are allowed to enrich under the NPT, then what basis does UN have for imposing sanctions for not ceasing enrichment?

motivez · 07-31-2006, 09:50 PM

The US wants them to?

Using the NPT as some sort of justification for any action we take is completely laughable after this deal with India.

Kytro · 07-31-2006, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The US wants them to?

Using the NPT as some sort of justification for any action we take is completely laughable after this deal with India.

True, but if they are going to throw the book at them surely they should usse something which they are actually not allowed to do.

I guess it is more "we don't like Iran, so they can't do things we don't approve of"

ethyl · 07-31-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Iran is allowed to enrich under the NPT, I thought.

They're allowed to enrich under the scrutiny of UN inspectors... which have been blocked.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=12218

The draft also calls on Iran to allow IAEA inspectors "without further delay"

motivez · 07-31-2006, 10:46 PM

We don't allow UN inspectors at our nuclear facilities

ethyl · 08-01-2006, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

We don't allow UN inspectors at our nuclear facilities

An NPT nation without nukes before 1967 must undergo inspections to make sure they're developing technology strictly for nuclear power. They may receive incentives and nuclear power technology for being a signatory.

There's never been a resolution adopted by the UN or IAEA demanding such a thing for the US.... because there's no reason.

motivez · 08-01-2006, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by ethyl

An NPT nation without nukes before 1967 must undergo inspections to make sure they're developing technology strictly for nuclear power. They may receive incentives and nuclear power technology for being a signatory.

There's never been a resolution adopted by the UN or IAEA demanding such a thing for the US.... because there's no reason.

However, the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market.

Kytro · 08-01-2006, 12:28 AM

That does allow for them to be denied the ability to enrich themselves.

However, it is interesting that such pressure is brought to bear on a nation that is actually a signatory to the NPT pretty much on US claims.

I can see why Iran wouldn't want to give in to US pressure.

Donkey® · 08-01-2006, 01:11 AM

Iran stopped allowing inspections only after everyone started threatening them and making unsubstantiated claims about their programs.

JaJae · 08-01-2006, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Iran stopped allowing inspections only after everyone started threatening them and making unsubstantiated claims about their programs.

Or they stopped allowing inspections after they got started doing things the world didn't approve of and didn't want to see turn into a weapons program. However you look at it is subjective I guess.

Donkey® · 08-01-2006, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Or they stopped allowing inspections after they got started doing things the world didn't approve of and didn't want to see turn into a weapons program. However you look at it is subjective I guess.

I NEVER saw ANY EVIDENCE of the claims the US and others were making. That's what I base my opinions on.

JaJae · 08-01-2006, 01:59 AM

What makes you privy to top secret government information and sources regarding nuclear capablities of other nations?

The security counsel has ruled on Iran.

ethyl · 08-01-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I NEVER saw ANY EVIDENCE of the claims the US and others were making. That's what I base my opinions on.

The evidence is when Iran admitted to having a secret program hidden from the IAEA and the UN to develop nuclear technology. As naive as the world is today, they're not naive enough to believe Iran had a secret nuclear power program.

ethyl · 08-01-2006, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

NPT signatories are all given the right to enrich uranium and develop nuclear technology... so long as it's under the scrutiny of UN inspectors to ensure it's for nuclear power only.

Concept · 08-01-2006, 11:59 AM

I think this is a good thing.

The only way Iran will pay attention to anything the United States has to say is if we have the world on our side.

Iran is a land-locked nation. Economic sanctions would be the equivalent of shoving a pole up their ass. Very far up.

I saw on CNN that they're "reevaluating" the incentives package that they have been offered. Sorry, but I don't have a link right now to back up that statement.

But, well, whatever.

And are the reports true? Did Iran have an envoy overseeing the test-launch of North Korea's Taepongdong-II?