It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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