Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Looks Beyond UN for Iran Sanctions
U.S. President Barack Obama signalled yesterday that a response beyond the United Nations may be necessary to deal with Iran over the Islamic republic's latest bid to expand its nuclear program.
Expressing uncertainty about the level of support China will provide in the UN Security Council, which must authorize any legally binding international censure, Obama said Washington and its allies were "looking at a variety of ways" to rein in Tehran.
"The UN will be one aspect of that broader effort," Obama said. "How China operates at the Security Council as we pursue sanctions is something that we're going to have to see."
Obama spoke after China said Iran's move toward producing weapons-grade nuclear fuel should be met with a new round of diplomatic initiatives - not new sanctions.
Because China is a veto-bearing member of the Security Council, the comment by a Chinese Foreign Ministry official in Beijing effectively blunts calls by Washington and its allies for a fourth round of UN sanctions against Iran.
But taking action that sidelines the Security Council could be politically tricky for Obama on the world stage after he emphasized in his inaugural UN address as president last year that the United States had "re-engaged" the world body following the frequent arm's-length approach of the former Bush administration.
Obama did not specify what measures beyond the UN were under consideration, but so-called "coalition-of-the-willing"-style sanctions risk having limited impact. Such sanctions would be unlikely to be implemented by such neighbours as Turkey and Iraq without Security Council backing.
More hawkish voices in the United States have called for a naval blockade of Iran to deny it gasoline supplies. But opponents of such a move warn it could escalate into a shooting war.
Iran confirmed yesterday it was going ahead with its plan to enrich uranium to 20 per cent - ostensibly to produce material for a medical facility in Tehran.
The Iranian explanation has been met with so much skepticism that even Russia, a longtime ally of Iran, yesterday sent its strongest signal yet it will support a new set of sanctions.
"Iran says that it is not trying to have nuclear weapons, and that it wants only peaceful nuclear (capabilities), but the actions it is taking ... raise doubts in other countries, and those doubts are quite valid," Nikolai Patrushev, the hawkish secretary of Russia's Security Council, said in Moscow.
Obama acknowledged the Russian shift, which comes despite trade ties between Russia and Iran worth about $3 billion a year.
"One thing I'm pleased about is to see how forward-leaning the Russians have been on this issue," he said.
U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said yesterday Washington is aiming at having new sanctions approved "within weeks."
Iran has said it went ahead with its advanced enrichment plan because the West had failed to respond to its counter terms for the agreement, but added yesterday it was still willing to talk.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
58 Comments so far
Show AllI see that our foreign policy and foreign wars are controlled by Israel.
The article states how Obama is looking for ways to "rein in Tehran." One finds it more than curious that Obama is not attempting to do the same thing regarding Israel's collection of more than 200 nuclear weapons.
And what about ours, and France's, Russia's and India's, Pakistan's, China's etc. etc. etc.? We all have nukes. Lots of them. Iran doesn't; not even close. We are admittedly attacking at least 4 countries, and covertly several more including possibly Iran indirectly via CIA financing. Iran is attacking nobody. They have attacked nobody for decades or centuries (except for limited responses to Iraqi incursions into Iran 30 years ago) and there is no evidence that they want to attack anybody.
What hypocrisy and nerve to criticize Iran as a prelude to sanctions! What further nerve to announce that we will ignore the rest of the world and walk forward like RoboCop, programmed to be stupid and unable to hear.
The purpose of the sanctions is to make everyday Iranian people suffer so they turn against the current regime and open the field for installation of a new regime, one that recognizes our God-given rights to their oil. Iran's resistance to imperialist demands is a thorn in the side of the oil companies. It has been for over 30 years. Ahmadinejad's remarks are are like a mosquito irritating the oh so delicate and sensitive damsel Israel. So what is the solution? The only solution we know recently - bullying, misrepresentation and threats. Besides being dangerous and embarrassing, our bellicose stance further galvanizes the Iranians behind their current leaders.
Joe
Joe
Very well said.
The expression "rein in" is a clue to the worldview of the current elite in Washington, New York, and Tel Aviv.
This is something that a human being does when its horse tries to break away. It's an act by the master towards one of his vehicles.
In other words, the use of this expression reveals the racism that goes into this kind of "policy."
Exactly. Political euphemisms that blur legalities and ethics. We need no more reason than that CNN has gradually convinced a large portion of Americans that we are entitled/need to attack Iran.
I find it nauseating that Obama, a frightened puppy when it comes to confronting powerful adversaries such as Israel, the MIC, or even the banking or insurance lobbies, loves to pose as tough when it comes to weak adversaries, particularly when those who frighten him, including the aforementioned, are requiring him to strike such a pose.
this is troubling. some days i think the only difference between bush and obama is the color of their skins
Exactly; just like Bush!
Talk of "regime change" will be heard soon, if it isn't already.
While I agree that Obama and Sec. Clinton are certainly worthy of contempt, the forces that drive US foreign policy are far bigger than any individual human, or even a whole west-wing full of humans.
If you aren't familiar with him already, familiarize yourself with the writings William Blum. He formerly worked for the State Dept. and became radicalized by what he witnesssed there.
A Naval blockade is an act of war.
Can anyone remember 7 years ago (way back then) when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Powell, when they wanted to invade Iraq, were labelling the UN "irrelevant" because of its failure to authorize an Iraqi invasion? Seems that body has become irrelevant again, in the age of Clinton, Biden, Gates and H. Clinton. So come on folks, where's the outrage?
Part of the hope for change was that the US would adopt a non- imperialist policy towards the United Nations and reject the Bush/Cheney unilateral approach to international conflict. But, as The Who sang at the Superbowl: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Why vote?
What kind of objective reporting is this that writes that Iran confirmed that “the West had failed to respond to its counter terms for the agreement on swapping enriched uranium and that they are still willing to pursue this method of acquiring the necessary material”, but then at the same time casting aspersions on the intentioned use of such higher enriched uranium?
In this article they writing : “Iran confirmed yesterday it was going ahead with its plan to enrich uranium to 20 per cent - ostensibly to produce material for a medical facility in Tehran.”
“ostensibly” = adjective, apparently true, but not necessarily so
10s of thousands of people in Iran and other neighbouring countries depend for medical treatment on Isotopes from that experimental Iranian medical reactor which requires 20% enriched uranium to run. The entire process and the negotiations for the fuel are under the coordination and offices of the IAEA. So what is “not necessarily so” about this important fuel?
So if Washington really was interested to "looking at a variety of ways" to rein in Tehran, presumably in terms of enriching uranium above 4% which it has every right to do as a signatory of the NPT and under their present undertakings and inspections of the IAEA, they could start by encouraging and facilitating the swap of low enriched uranium for the 20% enriched required for this medical reactor which is urgently needed.
Are you doubting the truthfulness of the Imperial Petropiate Supply Council?
The UN is useless and should be disbanded. Another organization, with the same or similar purported goals, must be created with headquarters in some other nation, possibly one of the nations of Scandinavia. The US is the world's number one rogue nation, and its little buddy, Israel, is the number two rogue nation, and the main job of the international organization should be to rein in and oppose the great rogue nations, not empower such rogue nations to further run roughshod over the world community.
[The UN is useless and should be disbanded]
The thing that makes the un 'useless' is the fact that 5 countries who won a war 60 odd years ago have the right to veto anything they don't like. And one of those nations has 'gone rogue', led by the insanely rich and supported by the willfully ignorant, nothing good can come from this...
Should the un be disbanded, there will not be anything to replace it. Don't delude yourself on that point. If the un goes the way of the League of Nations, we'll be back where we were before WWI. Nations will have to form secret alliances with each other, the idea of international law will fall by the wayside and the strongest nations will become dictators. Dictators that make the current situation in the world look like a paradise.
One thing is for sure, the usa seems ready to let the institution fall. The leadership of the usa has such a poor understanding of world history that they think they can 'rule' the world without something like the un, and rule the world forever.
A blockade against Iran will lead to world war. The us leaving the un will lead to world war. We is fucked.
Oh, I know the odds are against another organization being formed to replace the UN, but I still think those odds may be better for averting disaster than continuing on the current course. It seems possible (though I know unlikely) that the EU could come to some understanding with Russia, China, India, most of the nations in South America, probably most of the nations of the Middle East and maybe a majority of the other nations of Asia and Africa, and quite possibly even Australia (though probably not the UK or Canada), to form some new organization with some teeth. The recognized and official goal would not be to rein in the US and Israel, but all the member states would understand that is required if catastrophe is to be averted.
It appears that the oligarchs running the US are determined to build some corporate-dominated worldwide feudal system centered in the US, and backed up by the US military, and are willing to threaten and risk, and even bring the world to the brink of, nuclear war in order to achieve their goals. The world's best hope for avoiding nuclear armageddon or corporate feudalism is probably the complete bankruptcy of the US and collapse of its economic system, but, failing that, some reorganization of international relations would be necessary.
There is no need to disband the whole UN! Why re-invent the wheel? As saturnalia wrote, we only need to do away with the Security Council, and transfer these powers (sans the veto power) to the General Assembly. Of course, when that happens, they will also likely move to another city - Stockholm, Brusssels, or maybe Geneva, if for no other reason than the US, rogue state that it is, will kick the UN out of New York.
Maybe I should not have used the word "disbanded." I agree that it would be better to just remove the Security Council, but I just cannot see how we get there from here with the current UN and the US power over it. And I believe that the US would probably leave if the Security Council were somehow eliminated, as the US would no longer be able to use the UN to serve its purposes, and the UN would then need to move. I was not imagining that in the new organization all the member nations would try to reinvent the wheel, but would probably use the rules, procedures, and structures that they agree worked at the UN. But instead of somehow overcoming the powerful US resistance to removing the Security Council, it just seemed it would be easier to create a new organization (maybe a UN II) with much of the same form, but without a few nations, particularly the US, having so much power to control it.
Kivals & Ardent & Saturnalia & PJD412
These are most interesting comments and I think the most important question we face these days. I agree that we need to quickly see a restructuring of the UN. Where I think we can see where things would or would not come together or how it would work, is to review just how the COP 15 in Copenhagen as well as the peripheral meetings and groupings that formed around that one subject of the world’s approach to the serious global problems and challenges of climate change.
The problem presented threats to the interests of nations with little power and the solutions appeared to threaten the interests of the rich nations with greater power not that they will not equally be effected by the problems. Never the less the vast majority of nations were prepared to address the problems constructively, establishing plans towards constructive and real solutions. Something could have been worked out until US and UK through the spanner into the works.
It could be argued that the United States with the aid of a few “allies”, coerced or with real mutual interests, were able to create sufficient division and interference to ensure that no direction towards agreement would develop. One could say this is the second time the US has managed to scupper the efforts of the world to solve the problems of climate change. After having demanded compromise after compromise in the first Kyoto Protocol negotiations and then stood alone to pressure the watering down of agreement at Bali, they finally did not ratify it and then trounced its extension and modification in COP 15.
The idea that the rest of the world must come together without the USA and Israel is exactly like the world facing Mussolini and Hitler prior to WWII, and the occupation of Palestine, the War Crimes in Iraq, the abuse of the people and sovereignty of Afghanistan as well as this constant threat and hypocrisy in respect of Iran etc. can be compared to Italy’s plunder of Ethiopia, and Germany’s march into Poland etc.
The fact is that the worlds economic foundation is threatened, the monetary and capitalist system with its present structure is broken and must be rebuilt anew which is a threat to the present status quo, and as they look into their tool kit, just like the Nazis then, these New National Globalists (or whatever we can call them) can only see one tool; The Hammer. Unless the rest of the world can come together soon it will face global disaster-capitalism under US lead militarism. All those against will be labelled “terrorists”. Believe me, we are just at the beginning and like then the nations of the world are in disarray. They are being kept there deliberately. The UN General Assembly is where this should be discussed.
"The fact is that the worlds economic foundation is threatened, the monetary and capitalist system with its present structure is broken and must be rebuilt anew which is a threat to the present status quo, and as they look into their tool kit, just like the Nazis then, these New National Globalists (or whatever we can call them) can only see one tool; The Hammer. Unless the rest of the world can come together soon it will face global disaster-capitalism under US lead militarism. All those against will be labelled “terrorists”. Believe me, we are just at the beginning and like then the nations of the world are in disarray. They are being kept there deliberately. The UN General Assembly is where this should be discussed."
Good points.
"Washington and its allies"
Translated: AIPAC, Likud, Exxon and Halliburton.
IRAN HAD A CIVILIZATION when we were a puff on a Mason's pipe.
So Obama might have to deal with Iran directly cause like any good Terrorist "THEY WANT TO TALK!!!".
That is when ya gotta watch um.
This is an opportunity to get to the bottom and get Iran to agree on an inspection which would put pressure on Israel which is using the Phoney Iran Bomb card to keep the US stuck in a who dat (9/11? they are bad guys.
And I believe it has cost trillions and millions of broken bones and broken homes.
The key to world peace in our time is normal relations with Iran.
The same old ruse.
"Weapons of Mass Destruction! - Weapons of Mass Destruction! - Weapons of Mass Destruction!"
"Immanent Threat! - Immanent Threat! - Immanent Threat!"
Unproven allegations require actions "beyond" the United Nations because they are lies.
It is the oil and the corporate greed-lust - AGAIN.
Most of the nations of the world are joining in with the gluttonous-pig-whore United States of Global Domination because they learned from the viciousness of the Iraq takeover that the beast will do what it wants to do - no matter what - and they figure they might as well try to get in on the profits.
This is total Bull shit.
Even Hillary Clinton Knows that if Iran threatened with a nuke, She would be evaporated... or something like that... Iran is not suicidal and for Obama to assume that because of US support for Israeli policy paranoia... he has to get to work on fixin the bullshit he got into ... its his War now, and it is big enough!
Why is Iran threatened with sanctions for doing what they are entitled to do by being a signatory to the NPT? Why are there no sanctions on Israel which has complete contempt for the UN because of the US vetoe? Why anyone would believe anything the US says after the Iraq fiasco is beyond me!!
Someone decided that tiny Israel, surrounded by millions of pissed off Arabs as it displaces Palestinians from their lands, needed tactical nuke weapons as an equilizer. It was done just right, so everyone found out after it was too late to be stopped. So far, its affected an ugly but effective balance of power. Israel never signed the NPT. It is what it is.
Iran has signed the NPT, but has been challenged that its nuclear program will lead to weapons. Its belligerent and deceptive responses to this challenge only increased the suspicion, and have played into the hands of neocons who feel its necessary to keep Iran on its knees.
[Its belligerent ]
After seeing what happened to their neighbour - Iraq - do you blame them for being belligerent? God damn it! The usa is yet again going on a power trip and seeking to destroy windmills that are not there. Obama is continuing a 'war against Islam, uh I mean terror' and the next target in their scope is Iran. Iran would be stupid if they did not puff themselves up as having the potential to seriously hurt anyone who attacks them. Iraq let the inspectors in, gave 'proof' that they didn't have a wmd program, and bloodly well were attacked anyway. Yet you imply that they should meekly do the same thing that didn't work for Iraq?
That's idiotic. We should know that this 'next war' is going to serve the same purpose as the last one; to pump up the war economy of the usa, and 'protect' israel.
Advertisement from the 1970s by American nuclear-power companies.
The text reads as follows:
GUESS WHO'S BUILDING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
The Shah of Iran is sitting on top of one the largest reservoirs of oil in the world.
Yet he's building two nuclear plants and planning two more to provide electricity for his country.
He knows the oil is running out--and time with it.
But he wouldn't build the plants now if he doubted their safety. He'd wait. As many Americans want to do.
The Shah knows that nuclear energy is not only economical, it has enjoyed a remarkable 30-year safety record. A record that was good enough for the citizens of Plymouth, Massachusetts, too. They've approved their second nuclear power plant by a vote of almost 4 to 1. Which shows you don't have to go as far as Iran for an endorsement of nuclear power.
NUCLEAR ENERGY. TODAY'S ANSWER.
BOSTON EDISON, EASTERN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES, NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW ENGLAND GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES
_________________________________________
Remember when the US puppet Shah Pevlazi (sp?) was the poster child for nuclear energy? In US newspapers full page ads were taken out with a big picture of the Shah and a heading that went, "Guess who's building nuclear power plants?"
I think it was a Boston energy consortium that did these ads, could be wrong on that, and the ads were targeting the American populace in the push for more nuclear energy plants here in The Homeland.
If the Iranian A-Man was signing those US multi-national contracts you can bet he too would be the poster child for US Big Nuclear Energy and praised as a man of vision. Especially now that Homeland O-Man is owing Exelon a payback.
The governing principles of this country correspond pretty much with those of the mafia.
You have a great memory mcoyote. Thanks for reminding us. Wish there were a link to the copy.
Joe
Even former IAEA chief El Baradei, who battled with the Bush administration (and its policy trumps facts attitude) numerous times, admits sanctions will eventually be necessary if Iran does not negotiate in good faith and continues to evade inspections and hide facilities. He supports Obama's "unconditional" negotiations to date, and realizes Obama and allies might need TR's "big stick" some day.
The fact that long time Iranian supporter, Russia, is starting to see the flashing red lights speaks volumes.
Why is it that Israel, Indian, Pakistan, the U.S., etc. are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and yet somehow Iran is not allowed to enrich uranium?
I know that Obama claims the right to order the murder of U.S. citizens, but I missed the announcement that he is now King of the World.
"El Baradei, who battled with the Bush administration (and its policy trumps facts attitude) numerous times, admits sanctions will eventually be necessary if Iran does not negotiate in good faith and continues to evade inspections and hide facilities."
You are writing total bulshit. Go back to your handlers in Tel Aviv and stop putting words into Mr. Baradai's mouth. He never suggested Iran was hiding anything or not negotiating in good faith. No one needs another liar for the Israelis here.
And if you want to read the Russian position read Pravda;
“Civilized World Must Protect Iran and Consequently Itself”
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/09-02-2010/112125-civilized_world_protect_iran-0
Also take a look at Russia Today:
Iran to enrich uranium despite possible sanctions
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-02-09/iran-uranium-enrichment-sanctions.html?fullstory
Both articles consider the US allegations of nuclear weapons programs as pure speculation and hype. So the speculation that Russia is comming to see the light, is just more bullshit in this article and from you, as to be expected.
-"Iran's move toward producing weapons-grade nuclear fuel "
Where did this come from? Iran never said they were moving towards producing weapons grade fuel
Every other article I've read, on this issue says 20 percent is indeed the percentage you need to make for nuclear medicine.
For weapons, like the ones Israel has, you need to enrich to 90 percent.
So this article fails the "do a basic fact check" test.
Beyond that, Here they go again, Obama is continuing to follow in "Illegal war? Talk to my lawyer" Bush's footsteps.
Progressive Democrats? When you are through "pressuring" Obama, come join the progressive movement and help turn your country around.
When we saw what BO is really all about, whether it was two years ago or two months ago, we knew this day was approaching, the day when BO et al would put a move on Iran, no matter how wrong it is in so many ways. The real question probably is - What are we going to do about it?
Heavy shades of Bush on Iraq in this Obama stance.
Iran has so far done NOTHING wrong, illegal. Plus their uranium is still far from reactor or bomb grade. Iran now heads for 20 % enriched uranium, while at least 80 % enriched is needed for bombs.
Remember all those other countries with nuclear weapons and no NPT-deal: Pakistan, India, Israel, South-Africa (previously), Korea. Iran is actually a good guy in this context: signatory to NPT, alerts IAEA whenever it does something new.
Rahm Emanuel is wagging Obama. It sure seems so.
Blatantly disregarding "any legally binding international" law - that's USA.
Iran is a country far from ruled by saints. But the exaggerated US pressure actually creates more sympathy than the Irani leaders strictly deserve.
90% is the minimum threshold for weapons-grade enrichment.
Subject: Proud To Be Stupid
Nobody (or country) is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons if they had them... except for the U.S. and maybe Israel. But I don't even think Israel is as stupid like America has become so proudly stupid.
Think about it.
This isn't even a good Palin immitation.
Correct, but your logical point is never brought up by MSM.
BO has been told by his puppet masters ( the Israeli's and the 1% elite ) to use the canard of nuclear uranium to attack Iran after the ploy of sanctions; which are designed to fail unless they are successful in fomenting a coup d' etat and if it doesn't work; give the fascists the excuse to attack Iran. Shades of the yellow cake canard.
U.S. Presidents only abide by international law when it suits their imperial agenda. Otherwise, international law is simply an annoying, irrelevant inconvenience.
Plus, they know most USans don't care (or even know) about U.S. violations of international law, and, even if we did know and care, the Corporate-Militarists running the U.S. would simply ignore us, as they do for every other matter.
As long as they can count on our votes (or manipulate electronic voting machines) and use our forced tax dollars, they don't care what we think and feel.
"They" (who ever is running this county--it sure ain't the people who live here) pay any attenition to how we vote, we still have a chance to change things. Yes, they can and do mainpulate electornic voting machines but that only works where there were lots of votes for one or the other of the two corporate parties. If we would wise up and NOT VOTE FOR EITHER of the corporate parties, maybe we can have an effect on our government. First place to do this is in Congressional elections. Those so called 'representatives' (do they represent the money boys or the people?) have to go up for election every two years. An election for half of them is coming up this year.
What you have to do is check your 'reps' voting record to determine if that person is honest or corrupted. Check their vote on the bailout, the surge in Afghanistan and whether or not they supported Medicare for all. The majority of Americans did not want to give trillions of our tax dollars to Wall St. Most all of us did not want to continue and expand the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (now extended into Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen and Iran is next on the list) and nearly all of us want Medicare for all. If your rep voted with the people, OK vote for them but if you realize that they are corrupt don't vote for them again. Only about maybe six of them in the whole bunch voted with the people on these three issues. DO NOT VOTE for someone who is obviously a paid mercenary for whoever it is that really runs this country.
"abide by international law?" The US of I uses international law as a club to subjugate others.
Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that, along with our israhell occupied US congress, are now making against Iran. And those very same accusations eventually led to israhell's bombing of the power station at Osirik, Iraq in 1981. Following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, IAEA experts examined the ruins at Osirik and found no evidence of any clandestine nuclear weapons.
For years israhell has refused IAEA inspecions, and refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities. Obama your a god-damned liar!
Thankyou - that sums up quite a lot of it.
Fool me a couple dozen times, can't get fooled again. Now it is the Iranian threat, the must do, get em before they get us, send checks and money orders now, terrorist breeding ground must be stopped.... yawn. Gotta attack Iraq. Gotta get Homeland Security. Gotta spy on you and confiscate your toothpaste, smell your socks. Gotta get Osama. Gotta not. Gotta refine the rubble in Afghanistan. Gotta secure Pakistan's nukes. Gotta get Yemen. Gotta, gotta, top of the gottas, gotta get Iran.
I don't care anymore. Put us out of our misery. Will it be much different being ruled by China's Communist Party after the IMF sells us off in an austerity program? I am tired of the terra, terra, gotta, gotta coming out of the cesspool of Washington.
You said it!
A precedent set.
Now we know why Obama doesn't pursue the Bush Administration crimes. Because Obama is repeating them.