U.N. Backs Broader Sanctions On Tehran (3/25/07)

[Judgement]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400576_pf.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/world/middleeast/25sanctions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

The United Nations Security Council has ended 5 weeks of talks on dealing with Iran and have approved broad sanctions on Iran. The was an unanimous 15-0 in favor of the sanctions. The vote went through after several of the toughest sanctions were dropped to gain Russian and Chinese support.

"For instance, the resolution imposes an asset freeze on several commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, including Brig. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran's Quds force, which oversees Iran's support for foreign Islamic revolutionary movements -- including Hezbollah, Hamas and Iraqi Shiite militants." (Washington Post)

The sanctions also restrain arms exports from Iran because it is believed that they were providing weaponry to both Hamas and Hezbollah, two organizations in the Middle East labeled as terrorist organizations.

"They also overcame opposition from South Africa, Qatar and Indonesia by adding provisions that highlighted the importance of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East and the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in resolving the nuclear dispute with Iran.


The resolution prohibits Iran from being able to "supply, sell or transfer" arms, and calls on nations to "exercise vigilance and restraint" in selling combat aircraft, attack helicopters, tanks, warships, missiles and other heavy weapons to Iran." (Washington Post)


The sanctions were also to clearly limit the nuclear program started by Iran. This program has been opposed by many Western powers, including the United States and Britain, both of which were main proponents of the sanctions.

 

[skarm]

"They also overcame opposition from South Africa, Qatar and Indonesia by adding provisions that highlighted the importance of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East and the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in resolving the nuclear dispute with Iran.

I love this. Iran's point about Israel being nuclear armed and everyone worrying about them is entirely hypocritical. No, I don't want a nuclear armed Iran, but you can't have nations sitting on the security council being swayed by "highlighting importance of a nuclear free zone" to sanction Iran when Israel is sitting there.

I am not sure of the extent which Israel's nuclear arsenal in the Middle East has been questioned, but that seems pretty silly of South Africa, Qatar, and Indonesia, if in fact that are pushing for the same sanctions pertaining to nuclear weapons on Israel.

Personally, I think nuclear armed Israel is more deadly than nuclear armed Iran. Israel always seems to "strike first" as discussed in the first article I posted in the sub forum. Israel is also at war with militant groups such as Hezbollah, where as Iran is technically not at war with anything.

Still, back on topic, U.N. sanctions really mean nothing. I am sure the Revolutionary Guard Corps' top dogs can get funding elsewhere. It isn't that hard to do. In general, U.N. sanctions regardless of what they are or who they're imposed on are useless. Personally, although the concept is great, the United Nations is really lacking in actual power.

 

[Judgement]

I agree skarm on the point that the UN has no real power. That's the most likely reason behind Iran's defiance, I think, because it there is not really much that the UN can do as an organization because they do not have the actual authority needed to make a huge difference in this situation.

As for Israel though, I would like to point out that they only have really fought the groups/countries that threaten them; Hezbollah launched attacks against Israel, so Israel fought back. Also, as far as I know, Israel has not really used its nuclear arsenal anyway so the real threat of them using it is very unlikey.

 

[skarm]

I agree skarm on the point that the UN has no real power. That's the most likely reason behind Iran's defiance, I think, because it there is not really much that the UN can do as an organization because they do not have the actual authority needed to make a huge difference in this situation.

They can ignore whomever they wish, whether it be the USA and Britain alone, or backed by the ever-mighty United Nations. They can't do anything. No one can do anything without being the absolute aggressor in the situation. Iran can laugh at whatever it wants because the hammer can't come down on them unless they attack something.

As for Israel though, I would like to point out that they only have really fought the groups/countries that threaten them; Hezbollah launched attacks against Israel, so Israel fought back. Also, as far as I know, Israel has not really used its nuclear arsenal anyway so the real threat of them using it is very unlikey.

Nuclear weapons are mostly political. It would be impossible for Israel to use a nuclear missile on Hezbollah simply because terrorist organizations don't just gather together in one spot with no civilians around and have a picnic.

The Western world's point is that they don't want Iran to have nukes because Iran and the Shiite islamics don't exactly like the Jews in Israel. Iran has stated a few times the Holocaust never happened and that Israel should be wiped off the map. Alright, that definitely raises some alarm bells, but it would never happen. Sure, nuke Jerusalem. The retalitory nuke is coming straight for Tehran.

Iran's point is "Why can Israel hang nukes over our heads and that be fine while we cannot get to equal footing." Nukes are political, and disallowing Iran to have them isn't really fair and not allowing Iran to get on an equal footing with other powers in the area: Israel, Pakistan, and to some degree India. And that is, of course, that Iran is actually trying to build missile and not honestly trying to use it for an energy source. We can't just always trust the White House, because this sounds similar to Iraq and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction...

I don't want an nuclear armed Iran, but I can certainly see their point in that if the USA, Britain, and the United Nations don't want them to have them, they should talk to Israel as well. Its like two people pointing guns at each other because they hate each other, and then you take the gun away from only one person. The person without a gun is really in danger. That's basically Israel vs. Iran in a nutshell right now, and I have to agree with Iran that if they aren't allowed to have nukes, Israel shouldn't be allowed either.

 

[Judgement]

That's the thing with nukes; sure you have them, but would you really use them? I doubt it. No one has used nukes in over 60 years and I doubt that anyone would start anytime soon. Nuclear weapons are just idle threats because it's obvious that they won't be used because technology has advanced so much that if someone with nukes pointed them at the U.S, then retalitory nukes would be pointed right back.

 

[Cromat]

Iran getting nukes is bad because A) it would cause a nuclear arms race in the Middle-East. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are already planning their options. B) Because the regime in Iran cannot be compared to the regime in the US, Britain or Israel. Those are stable democracies with a real decision making process while Iran is a theocracy with one Supreme Leader (the noisy President has few real powers). If the regime in Iran would one day collapse it would leave the nukes in the hands of who knows who.

I don't think these sanctions would stop Iran from proceeding. I don't think anything will. I don't think they'll ever use them anyway - it would mostly harm American interests in the Persian Gulf.

Iran's point is "Why can Israel hang nukes over our heads and that be fine while we cannot get to equal footing."

Lets get this straight. Iran doesn't border Israel. Iran isn't an Arab state - the Arab states have a long long conflict with Israel mainly about territory. Up to the Islamic Revolution there was no conflict between Israel and Iran, they even had embassies. The Americans supported the Shah's regime and that regime was pretty bad for the Iranians (the poor majority). So when the Islamists took over they declared the US and it's allies (Israel included) as enemies. Iran is a country that wants influence in the Middle-East, they see themselves as one of the major players in the area. This shows in all that they're doing - the close ties with Syria, meddling in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza, acquiring nuclear weapons etc. One of the best ways of gaining support and influence in the Middle-East is hating Israel. The Arab public mostly despises Israel, so everyone that shows opposition to Israel is looked upon as positive. That's the nature of the "conflict" between Israel and Iran. There is no conflict that needs to be resolved. Iran unilaterally declared Israel as it's enemy. Israel didn't hang any nukes above Iran's head - the nukes are meant to threaten the neighboring Arab states, the ones that Israel has an actual conflict with. Iran hates Israel and fights it because it serves their wider interest and it's considered being a good Muslim by some.

 

[skarm]

Iran getting nukes is bad because A) it would cause a nuclear arms race in the Middle-East. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are already planning their options. B) Because the regime in Iran cannot be compared to the regime in the US, Britain or Israel. Those are stable democracies with a real decision making process while Iran is a theocracy with one Supreme Leader (the noisy President has few real powers). If the regime in Iran would one day collapse it would leave the nukes in the hands of who knows who.

Which, off topic, is what is feared to happen in Pakistan right now. Musharraf, apparently, is losing some of his powers with the Judges on protest and what-have-you that is happening right there.

Lets get this straight. Iran doesn't border Israel. Iran isn't an Arab state - the Arab states have a long long conflict with Israel mainly about territory. Up to the Islamic Revolution there was no conflict between Israel and Iran, they even had embassies. The Americans supported the Shah's regime and that regime was pretty bad for the Iranians (the poor majority). So when the Islamists took over they declared the US and it's allies (Israel included) as enemies.

This doesn't change what Iran's stance is on the actual issue (or what they're claiming the issue is anyway). It is rather obvious that outside of US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq that Iran considers Israel the major power in the area. Yes, we could go into the entire thing about Sunni/Shiite conflict and bring in Saudi Arabia, but military-wise it is Israel solely because of Israel's missile arsenal. You continue on later (which I'll get to) to state how Iran sees itself as a major power in the region.

They're trying to justify building nukes because Israel has them. That is basically the Cold War where the US and Soviet Union kept building nukes because "the other had them". The US and Soviet Union don't even come close to bordering each other. They were even allies in WWII. That's a basic rundown of what you just outlined in your Israel and Iran history.

Iran is a country that wants influence in the Middle-East, they see themselves as one of the major players in the area. This shows in all that they're doing - the close ties with Syria, meddling in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza, acquiring nuclear weapons etc. One of the best ways of gaining support and influence in the Middle-East is hating Israel. The Arab public mostly despises Israel, so everyone that shows opposition to Israel is looked upon as positive. That's the nature of the "conflict" between Israel and Iran. There is no conflict that needs to be resolved. Iran unilaterally declared Israel as it's enemy. Israel didn't hang any nukes above Iran's head - the nukes are meant to threaten the neighboring Arab states, the ones that Israel has an actual conflict with. Iran hates Israel and fights it because it serves their wider interest and it's considered being a good Muslim by some.

To be fair to Iran on a global scene, doesn't every country want to be an influence? If Iran didn't they wouldn't let Mr. Firebrand over there spout crap left and right, although I do really find the guy amusing. He's basically the annoying mouthpiece for their Grand Ayatollah.

The second best way, of course, is to hate the US, not that the US is really helping its reputation in the area. That's kind of besides the point though.

Back to what you quoted, though, I am not sure if you really misunderstood, but wasn't trying to suggest Israel and Iran have been bitter rivals to the end of time. Iran is clearly making a political move (and technically 'military' move with Nukes) to establish influence and power in the Middle East. Israel is technically the rival there in power, with Saudi Arabia a close second, especially being a major Sunni country. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit and stating that Iran does have a point, that you cannot sit around saying "Okay, you can have Nukes, but you can't." That goes back to the first bit of text again.

Pakistan is probably about as volatile as Iran. Just because Musharraf has been in power for over a decade and is a American ally in "The War on Terror", it doesn't mean they are any better than Iran. Musharraf only assumed power via a coup. It could happen again. Personally, with Iran's theocracy, I see it being more stable than Pakistan. People are less likely to betray their religion and usurp the Grand Ayatollah than get rid of a Dictator who did, previously, only obtain power by seizing it himself.

If anything Iran would just get rid of their President after he's stirred up too much shit.

EDIT:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/25/iran.nuclear/index.html

It seems that President Ahmadinejad's reply is that the sanctions are "illegal". No real surprise here.

 

[gotei(13) hyorinmaru]

To play devil's advocate, why shouldn't Iran have the right to develop nuclear technology if nations like the United States have it? I'm thinking Iran just withdraws from the NPT like North Korea did. Historically, the use of sanctions has been ineffective and it's a shame that the United Nations can't do more. I remember a couple of years ago, one of my topics at a Model UN conference was nuclear non-proliferation, and it really hit me that this is one of those things there really is no perfect answer to. I really do believe that many nations seek nuclear weaponry not for offensive purposes but simply as to not to fall behind other nations in terms of power. As long as certain nations maintain their nuclear weapons, others will want them too. But nations like the United States aren't simply going to disarm, even though the NPT calls for them to. If the United States is going to have nuclear weapons, isn't it slightly hypocritical for them to sanction other nations for trying to do the exact same thing? A lot of nations claim that their nuclear weapons are defensive; if they are attacked, they will have the means to retaliate. This mutually assured destruction means neither side will use nuclear weapons. The problem is when one nation has nuclear weapons and the other does not, they are at risk of nuclear attack without being able to retaliate on the same scale. By this line of thinking, shouldn't Iran logically arm itself as a defense against nuclear attack?

For the record, I think the United Nations is doing the right thing in sanctioning Iran. I think a nuclear Iran would be a terrible thing, and I think the United Nations should take whatever measures it can to prevent that from happening. But I guess there is another side to it.