Bolton: You don't need Security Council authority to impose sanctions

While writing the topic hereunder I came around an article which has just been published by the Israeli Ynet.

US: We will independently impose sanctions on Iran

"You don't need Security Council authority to impose sanctions, just as we have," Bolton said. "We will continue to enhance Proliferation Security Initiatives to cut off flows of materials and technology that are useful to Iran's ballistic missile program and nuclear programs. We will be constraining financial transactions under existing terrorism laws."

Source

Does the Bush Administration actually care about international rules and regulations? Apparently not, they just change a law here and there and we just do [again] what we want ourselves. Great strategy, Iraq is the ultimate proof of that.


An interesting weakness of Iran's economy is its dependency on foreign gasoline. By applying economic sanctions in the form of forbidding countries to export gasoline to Iran, Iran would have to find an other way to supply its citizens with cheap subsidized gasoline. If they would not be able to find an alternative their country would have to deal with a massive social unrest among its citizens, a great opportunity for US/Israel trained Kurdish militants to put more oil on the fire. Every economy needs gasoline to keep on running, and to maintain social security.

Apparently, Iran has foreseen this risk and has already been working on a plan to avoid such a scenario, but is it in time?

Far and away the biggest chink in Iran's economic armor, however, is its reliance on foreign gasoline. Today, Iran's antiquated, socialist economy -- where a gallon of gas still sells for roughly 40 cents -- has become a major Achilles' heel. Iran now consumes over 64.5 million liters of gasoline a day, with close to 40% coming from foreign sources (among them India, France, Turkey and the Gulf states). This energy habit is expensive; Iran will spend over $3 billion -- and perhaps as much as $8 billion -- on gasoline imports this year alone. And, with just a 45-day domestic supply available, steady supplies from abroad are vital to the continued functioning of the regime. All of which suggests that a comprehensive gas embargo on the Islamic Republic could quickly wreak havoc on Iran's industrial sectors -- and, potentially, galvanize serious social unrest on the Iranian street as well.

But the West's window of opportunity to implement such measures is rapidly closing. Already, Iran has begun to make serious economic countermoves, transferring financial assets from Europe to China and Southeast Asia and initiating a large-scale privatization of governmental funds. Most significant of all, the Iranian regime recently approved a new fiscal budget that calls for a halt to gasoline imports and the institution of gasoline rationing beginning this fall. The aim of these efforts is crystal clear: to proactively limit potential economic leverage over its behavior.

Wall Street Journal

well I guess once they get their nuke plants up and running, the use of gasoline should cut back and if they decide to open up their own refineries they can use that power to run the plants with as well. I imagine their power plants must run on diesel fuel or some sort of refined fossil fuel. I doubt it will run on crude oil.



Pie

Didn't the UNSC already agree to imposing sanctions if Iran didn't sotp enriching uranium and then went back? I think that is just as bad.

Well, his days are apparently numbered anyhow, since the Senate Commission on Foreign Relations did not meet when they were supposed to put him back on his throne. As far as I understand the meeting was cancelled. I'll look for links tomorrow, I know I was at the Senate's website yesterday and had it.

Nite nite.

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Didn't the UNSC already agree to imposing sanctions if Iran didn't sotp enriching uranium and then went back? I think that is just as bad.

Apparently, Europe wants to continue negotiations. Though I do wonder what they are actually trying to reach with those pointless negotiations. Probably, Russia and China are pressuring Europe to search/support (for) a diplomatic solution.

However, It has become pretty obvious that Iran is not going to suspend its enrichment program any time soon, yet it is a non negotiable requirement for the US prior to start negotiations. So basically, two options are left:

1-Allow Iran to continue without any form of intervention
2-Intervene by applying sanctions

No matter what exactly will be decided, a decision should be made (soon).

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told The Associated Press that he expects European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani to hold their third meeting "very soon," probably in Europe, though he didn't have an exact date or location.

The two officials had been expected to meet in New York on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly ministerial meeting that began last week, but Mottaki said it wasn't possible because Larijani's deputy and members of his delegation weren't given U.S. visas.

Source

In my personal opinion, every country's official should be allowed to get a US visa in order to visit the UN. If not, the world community should carefully consider relocating the UN office to another country, as Ahmadinejad suggested.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said for the first time at a press conference Thursday that Iran is prepared to negotiate the suspension of its enrichment activities "under fair and just conditions."

Source

I must admit, the European Union shouldn't allow Iran to continue messing around and delaying any form of actions. It seems to be some kind of game.

Iran: ''negotiations on suspending the enrichment program are possible'' Iran: ''We'll not allow any country to prevent us from developing; enriching Uranium''. Then the cycle starts over again ''Iran:

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said for the first time at a press conference Thursday that Iran is prepared to negotiate the suspension of its enrichment activities "under fair and just conditions."

Source

Originally posted by niteboy82
Well, his days are apparently numbered anyhow, since the Senate Commission on Foreign Relations did not meet when they were supposed to put him back on his throne. As far as I understand the meeting was cancelled. I'll look for links tomorrow, I know I was at the Senate's website yesterday and had it.

Nite nite.

He's lost his credibility by making expressions as he did. In addition, it seems that many people never had any trust in him.

US Ambassador John Bolton said Solana "is looking to find out where Larijani is, and then see if they can agree on a mutually convenient great city of Europe where they can meet."

Source

Bolton has been a strong critic of the United Nations for much of his career in foreign service. In a 1994 Global Structures Convocation hosted by the World Federalist Association (now Citizens for Global Solutions), he stated, "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."[35] He also stated that "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." [36] Both Bolton's opponents[37] and supporters[38] use the same video of his remarks at the 1994 event in support of their efforts. John Bolton stated "the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy.

When pressed on the statement during the confirmation process, he responded "There's not a bureaucracy in the world that couldn't be made leaner."[39] Despite these comments, in a paper on U.S. participation in the UN, John Bolton stated "the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy."[40]

Source

On March 7, 2005 Bolton was nominated to the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations by President George W. Bush. As a result of a Democratic filibuster he was never confirmed by the Senate. Bolton's nomination initially received strong support from Republicans but faced heavy opposition from Democrats due initially to concerns about his strongly expressed views on the United Nations,[30] and later, alleged actions while at the State Department.[31]

Holding a 10-8 majority in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (tasked with vetting ambassadorial nominees), the Republican leadership hoped to send Mr. Bolton's nomination to the full Senate with a positive recommendation. Concern among some Republicans on the committee however prompted the leadership to not risk losing such a motion and to instead send the nomination forward with no recommendation. In the full Senate, Republican support for the nomination remained uncertain, with the most vocal Republican critic, Ohio Senator George V. Voinovich, circulating a letter urging his Republican colleagues to oppose the nomination.

Source

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Mdv2]