Let The Sanctions Begin !!!

[LoungeMachine]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/world/middleeast/25cnd-iran.html?ref=us


U.S. Levels Sanctions Against Iran Military Unit

By HELENE COOPER and JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
Published: October 25, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 — The Bush administration announced a long-debated policy of new sanctions against Iran today, accusing the elite Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of supporting terrorism.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in Washington today announcing new sanctions against Iran.
The administration also accused the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps, a part of Iran’s military, of proliferating weapons of mass destruction. While the United States has long labeled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, the decision to single out the Guard reflects increased frustration in the administration with the slow pace of diplomatic negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program.

The designations put into play unilateral sanctions intended to impede the Revolutionary Guard and those who do business with it. This is the first time that the United States has taken such steps against the armed forces of any sovereign government.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced the new sanctions at a State Department news conference.

Ms. Rice said the measures were intended “to confront the threatening behavior of the Iranians.” As the Bush administration has many times before, the secretary drew a distinction between the Iran government and the country’s people. “We in the United States have no conflict with you,” she said.

While Washington is open to a diplomatic solution, Ms. Rice said, “Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map.”

Mr. Paulson said that, in dealing with Iran, “it is nearly impossible to know one’s customer and be assured that one is not unwittingly facilitating the regime’s reckless behavior and conduct.”

“It is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran you are doing business” with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps,” Mr. Paulson said.

The announcement also intensifies the strained relations between the two countries. The administration has accused Revolutionary Guard members of providing weaponry and explosive devices used by Shiite militias against American troops in Iraq — a charge that Tehran has denied.

In August, White House officials said they intended to declare the entire Revolutionary Guard a foreign terrorist organization, but reports of such a move so raised the hackles of America’s European allies and some officials in the State and Treasury Departments that the administration put those plans on hold while the internal debate continued. The announcement today reflects a compromise.

Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent Democrat from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, immediately applauded the move. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps “has long had blood on its hands, most recently in supporting terrorist actions against our troops in Iraq,” they said in a joint statement.

“Far from taking us closer to war with Iran, as some have irresponsibly suggested, these kinds of targeted sanctions represent our best chance to influence Iran’s action so as to be able to avoid military action,” they said.

In the internal debate over American policy toward Iran, Ms. Rice has been struggling for more than a year to hold together a fragile coalition of world powers that have been trying to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions through what was supposed to be a gradually escalating series of United Nations sanctions. But after two rounds of sanctions, Russia and Chinahave balked at escalation to another round.

Last week Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, caused consternation in the administration when he visited Tehran and said publicly that there was no need for military strikes. The guard and its military wing are identified as a power base for Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Under his administration, American officials said, the Guard has moved increasingly into commercial operations, earning profits and extending its influence in Iran in areas involving big government contracts, including building airports and other infrastructure, producing oil and providing cellphones.

The immediate legal consequence of designating the Quds unit as a terrorist organization will make it unlawful for anyone subject to United States jurisdiction to knowingly provide material support or resources to it, according to the State Department. Any United States financial institution that becomes aware that it possesses, or has control over, funds of a foreign terrorist organization would have to turn them over to the Treasury Department.

Because Iran has done little business with the United States in more than two decades, the larger point of the designation would be to heighten the political and psychological pressure on Iran, administration officials said, by using the designation to persuade foreign governments and financial institutions to cut ties with Iranian businesses and individuals.

David Stout contributed reporting.

[LoungeMachine]

You know what would stabilize the Middle East?

A third war front !!!!

Manifest Destiny motherfuckers!!!

Freedom is on the march.

[Redballjets88]

Lounge, I heard that Iran has refused to stop their nuclear aspirations, is this true, and if so wtf do we do if they keep refusing to listen to the UN and our government. Military action isn't the answer at all IMO, so how does this situation get resolved?

fuck I sounded like I was interviewing you as a presidential canidate. thats weird.

[LoungeMachine]

Did you read how these are "unilateral" sanctions?

Why is it we put together coalitions for war, but not for diplomacy?

We are looking like the Imperialists we've become.

BEFORE sanctions, had we been serious about this, Rice would have had direct talks with the support of Russia, China, etc.

This is designed to provoke Iran, plain and simple.

Is any of this sounding familiar? 2003 ring any bells?

We allowed Pakistan, India, and Israel to develop Nuclear Arsenals, but now are telling Iran what to do unilaterly?

This would all be so much easier to believe if it wasn't for the current administration's track record. They've lost all credibility.


OBL is running loose between Pakistan and Afghanistan [ 2 allies?]

The taliban is returning strong, having grown record Poopy crops

Iraq has no intention of getting their shit together, and our contractors are stealing BILLIONS of our dollars.


Here's a thought.

FINISH YOUR FIRST 2 WARS BEFORE STARTING ANOTHER ONE.

Adjusted for inflation, we've alreadty spent more on Iraq than rebuilding Japan.

$2.4 Trillion to remove Saddam???

Fuck this lame-duck administration

[Redballjets88]

thats true, shit Korea has their shit up and running but we never hear anything about them...

[knuckleboner]

we're not attacking iran. i'm like a broken record, i know, but it's definitely true.

everything we're doing now, with regards to iran, is posturing.


at most, if iran has a facility that is producing weapons-grade nuclear material, israel will launch a limited air strike against that facility.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
at most, if iran has a facility that is producing weapons-grade nuclear material, israel will launch a limited air strike against that facility.

ANY strike from Israel would play right into Iran's hands...

Too many coincidences to think we're NOT going to hit them.

I'm just as certain we are as you are we aren't. :(

Unless you think the "accidental" moving of nukes by the Air Force was meant to intimidate Ahmadinnerjacket.

I hope you're right, but I believe you're wrong.

One of us is going to look pretty silly in a few months.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
, but it's definitely true.



:confused:

Over-reaching a bit, dontcha think? ;)

[FORD]

Chimpy is trying to delay the attack on Iran as long as he can.

Why?

Because Chimpy's entire pResidency has been an attempt to do what his daddy did, but do it "better" (from a sick, fascist perspective)

Poppy invaded Iraq. Chimpy invaded Iraq and stayed there.

Poppy fucked up the economy so bad that it took most of the 1990's to recover. Chimpy fucked up the economy so bad that it may NEVER truly recover.

Poppy left Somalia, NAFTA, and Waco as "parting gifts" for the next administration. Chimpy has to top that one. Beginning the Iran invasion in the last half of 2008 would certainly do that.

[Guitar Shark]

Where is the Congress in all of this?

All we get are comments from two supportive senators?

Maybe Elly can explain it since she thinks Congress has the bulk of power in Washington.

[FORD]

Where's the Congress?

Kneeling in front of Chimpy, waiting to do what Kyle refuses to do for Cartman.......

They suck the Chimp's balls (metaphorically speaking) every time they make an actual Democrat, like Pete Stark, apologize for telling the truth.

They suck the Chimp's balls every time they cave in on a vote that would in any way lead to an end of this fucking illegal and immoral occupation.

They suck the Chimp's balls when they allow the fascist Kyl-LIEberman piece of shit to pass, which Chimpy will use for his excuse to invade Iran eventually.

Bulk of power? More like bulk of ball sucking complicity :mad:

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
They suck the Chimp's balls (metaphorically speaking) every time they make an actual Democrat, like Pete Stark, apologize for telling the truth.


Stark's comments were way over the top, and he apologized for them. There is a big difference between "telling the truth" and the comments he actually made, but I don't expect you to see it. ;)

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
ANY strike from Israel would play right into Iran's hands...



iran ain't attacking israel. a rocket or two, sure. but they're not doing a full scale invasion. they know that even without the U.S. involved, they wouldn't be able to defeat the israelis. who they know DO have nukes...




Too many coincidences to think we're NOT going to hit them.

I'm just as certain we are as you are we aren't. :(

Unless you think the "accidental" moving of nukes by the Air Force was meant to intimidate Ahmadinnerjacket.



yeah, i do think it was accidental/negligent. how much of a spook does it give to iran for us to say, "whoops, we're incompetent!"? nah, if we wanted to intimidate iran, we'd park an extra carrier group in the region. or we'd make a big show of sending a ballistic missile sub into the region, and then let it submerge and hide. iran would get the message from crimson tide a whole lot better than from mchale's navy...



I hope you're right, but I believe you're wrong.

One of us is going to look pretty silly in a few months.

:gulp:

eh, i've been wrong before...

but, i'll lay a bet if you want. couple of months? how about i'll give you 6. the U.S. will not do ANY military action against iran within the next 6 months. (mind you, i remember my record betting you is not so strong...;))



(and yes, my "definitely true" is more knuckleboner speak than an actual fact. but i think it's close...;))

[LoungeMachine]

FORD stole my thunder.....

As for Stark apologizing... HE SHOULD'NT HAVE.

Did Shooter ever apologize for telling Senator Leahy to "go fuck yourself" on the floor of the senate?

BushCO has set the tone, IMO

The Congress has been MIA

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
iran ain't attacking israel.

You missed my point.

An Israeli attack would play into Iran's hands the same way Occupying Iraq played into OBL's hands.

Iran would be able to say "see, we need nukes to protect us from Israel"


Bet: Within 6 months of today we will hit Iran in some way militarily.

A case of the winner's chosen beer.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by knuckleboner


if we wanted to intimidate iran, we'd park an extra carrier group in the region.

Thought we already did this?

[knuckleboner]

hmm...ok, i'll give you that, attacking iran's "peaceful" reactor project will not overly harm iran, but will certainly give the surrounding islamic states more fodder to dislike israel/back iran. point taken.


and a case of beer, eh? way more than our last wager. but yes, i'm highly supportive of the beer standard. however, because i've gotta go semantics on you, "military action" doesn't include an alleged incident of cross-border action by a SEAL unit. it has to be the U.S. admitting an attack on some iranian entity. agreed?

[LoungeMachine]

Agreed.

Think: "Gulf of Tonkin"

:gulp:

[knuckleboner]

yep, that's pretty much what it'd take. we're not pre-emptively striking iran.

the only question is whether or not i think a "gulf of oman" will actually be orchestrated.

and i've got 24 cold ones that says it doesn't...

[LoungeMachine]

Putin objects to sanctions against Iran

Published: Thursday, October 25, 2007

LISBON -- Russian President Vladimir Putin objected on Thursday to new sanctions against Iran, saying such action would put Iran in a corner over its nuclear program.

"Why should we make the situation worse, corner it, (Iran) threatening new sanctions?" Putin told reporters during a visit to Lisbon.

His remark followed an announcement by the United States that it would slap a new set of unilateral sanctions against Tehran, which it suspects of trying to make a nuclear bomb. Iran denies the charges, saying its nuclear programme is peaceful.


Russia's President Vladimir Putin talks to the media during a news conference with his Portuguese counterpart Anibal Cavaco Silva at the Belem palace in Lisbon October 25, 2007.
REUTERS/Nacho Doce

Russia, which is helping Iran build a nuclear power station, has backed the United Nations' two sets of mild sanctions, intended to encourage Tehran to cooperate more with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

However, Russia said it would not back any further sanctions unless the IAEA said Tehran was not cooperating or the U.N. nuclear watchdog finds that Iran's programme had military goals.

"Running around like a mad man with a blade in one's hand is not the best way to solve such problems," he told a news conference with Portuguese President Anibal Cavaco Silva.

Russia, a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, has enough power to block further U.N. sanctions against Iran.

Moscow has been increasingly concerned by Washington's efforts to put pressure on Iran with sanctions, bypassing the United Nations and saying such efforts undermine joint efforts to solve Tehran's nuclear issue.

Putin met top Iranian officials last week when he attended a Caspian Sea conference in Tehran. He said he urged them to respect their commitments under a nuclear non-proliferation pact.

"We categorically object (to) violating basic international norms concerning non-proliferation," Putin said.

Iran is one of the issues which will be discussed during a EU-Russia summit on Friday in Portugal.

The disagreements also include the future of Serbia's breakaway province of Kosovo, and Russian and European energy and investment policies.

Putin said negotiations were the only way to solve Iran's nuclear standoff.

"Recently it seemed impossible to solve North Korea's nuclear problem," he said. "However, we practically solved it or came close to it using peaceful means."





© Reuters 2007

[LoungeMachine]

A Coalition of the Willing on Iran?

Thursday, Oct. 25, 2007 By TONY KARON

The U.S. on Thursday announced its toughest sanctions against Iran since the 1979 revolution that swept the mullahs to power. But the new measures may actually signal a splintering of the international consensus pressuring Tehran to curb its nuclear program. That's because the primary target of those sanctions is not the Iranian institutions they single out — the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its Quds Brigades. The teeth in the new measures derives from the fact that they target anyone who is doing business with those Iranian institutions and individuals. And that means doing business with Iran at all, because as Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put it, the IRGC "is so deeply entrenched in Iran's economy and commercial enterprises, it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran, you are doing business with [the Guard]." Administration officials told the New York Times that a key purpose of the new measures was "to persuade foreign governments and financial institutions to cut ties with Iranian businesses and individuals."


The move comes amid U.S. frustration at its failure to elicit sufficient support for new U.N. Security Council sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, and at the slow progress of efforts to persuade European countries and institutions that do business with Iran to voluntarily desist. Some of Iran's biggest European trading partners, such as Italy and Germany, oppose unilateral sanctions, warning that if their companies were to withdraw from Iran, they would simply be replaced by competitors from Russia and China. But to the extent that the latest U.S. moves are used to pressure third-country governments, banks and corporations doing business with Iran, they will be perceived as Washington using its muscle in the international financial system to impose its own Iran policy on others. And resentment may not be the only consequence. China, for example, would be unlikely to accept any U.S. effort to stop any of its corporations from doing important business with Iran, and could threaten economic countermeasures to deter such action.

While the U.S. call to ratchet up economic pressure on Iran is strongly backed by Britain and France, Russia and China have both warned against taking unilateral measures outside of the U.N. Italy and Germany, Iran's largest European trading partners, have also opposed moves to pressure Iran outside of the U.N. Security Council. The move suggests the U.S. may be reverting to a "coalition of the willing" model for dealing with Iran. Yet the case Washington makes for escalating sanctions — the claim that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and that shutting down its uranium-enrichment program is a matter of urgency to prevent it attaining the know-how to build a bomb — is not the international consensus. Russia's President Vladimir Putin last week visited Tehran, and made clear that Russia sees no evidence that Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons — contradicting the U.S. charge that the civilian nuclear technologies Iran seeks will give it the means eventually to build such weapons.

Russia, though, may hold the best cards for pressuring Iran into compromise, not only because of its role in restraining Security Council action but because it is Tehran's major weapons supplier and is also building Iran's nuclear power plant at Bushehr. During his visit to Tehran, Putin is reported to have offered the Iranians a new proposal to defuse the standoff. Crucially, Putin met separately with both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wields executive power over foreign and security policy in Iran's complex political system. Iran's then-chief negotiator, the conservative pragmatist Ali Larijani, welcomed the Russian proposal and said it would be studied. But Ahmadinejad, widely criticized inside the corridors of power for his combative handling of the nuclear issue, denied that any new proposal had been received. Within days, Larijani had resigned as nuclear negotiator, which some commentators read as evidence of Ahmadinejad's consolidation of power.

In fact, it was difficult to read that move as a clear-cut victory for Ahmadinejad's more strident approach, because Supreme Leader Khamenei then sent Larijani as his personal representative to nuclear talks with European leaders in Rome on Tuesday, alongside a new negotiator appointed by the President. The signs of open disagreement among different elements of the Iranian leadership suggest that international pressure is being felt in Tehran's corridors of power. But the multiplicity of views and agendas competing to shape policy both within Iran and in international capitals makes achieving a diplomatic solution that much more difficult.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine



The move comes amid U.S. frustration at its failure to elicit sufficient support for new U.N. Security Council sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, and at the slow progress of efforts to persuade European countries and institutions that do business with Iran to voluntarily desist.

Some of Iran's biggest European trading partners, such as Italy and Germany, oppose unilateral sanctions, warning that if their companies were to withdraw from Iran, they would simply be replaced by competitors from Russia and China. .

EXACTLY.

What fucking good is this "cowboy diplomacy" of unilateral sanctions when major world players want nothing to do with it.

China, Russia, Germany, Italy, probably the stinky French...

But I bet Pulau and Macedonia wont be trading with Iran !!!

:rolleyes:

This is all so much toothless BULLSHIT.



Step one: Bully the UN
Step two: Claim they're terrorists
Step three: Get congress to issue paper tiger
Step four: Attach toothless sanction:

Steps 5-11 Bombs away

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine



Step one: Bully the UN
Step two: Claim they're terrorists
Step three: Get congress to issue paper tiger
Step four: Attach toothless sanction:

Steps 5-11 pay off the knuckleboner ;)

[LoungeMachine]

:lol:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Stark's comments were way over the top, and he apologized for them. There is a big difference between "telling the truth" and the comments he actually made, but I don't expect you to see it. ;)

I agree. Starks comments were just dumb. There's better ways of criticizing this administration than sounding like a 12-year old...

And no, Bush doesn't get "amusement" from the troops having their heads blown off. He gets it from being "disciplined" by Dominatrix Condi...

[Keef]

Originally posted by FORD
Chimpy is trying to delay the attack on Iran as long as he can.

Why?

Because Chimpy's entire pResidency has been an attempt to do what his daddy did, but do it "better" (from a sick, fascist perspective)

Poppy invaded Iraq. Chimpy invaded Iraq and stayed there.

Poppy fucked up the economy so bad that it took most of the 1990's to recover. Chimpy fucked up the economy so bad that it may NEVER truly recover.

Poppy left Somalia, NAFTA, and Waco as "parting gifts" for the next administration. Chimpy has to top that one. Beginning the Iran invasion in the last half of 2008 would certainly do that.

I usually agree with you but, i really doubt the pretzelDent is pulling strings?

This whole thing looks to me contrived. About the same with his fake accent.

Conditioning, etc?

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

BEFORE sanctions, had we been serious about this, Rice would have had direct talks with the support of Russia, China, etc.

I agree with your conclusions, but disagree how you get there.

Your suggestion would be a good one had Russia not already given support to Iran. And China doesn't do sanctions. They're more about the money, and won't even sanction N. Korea, who's next door.

Which leaves the question on the table... what's your solution?

[ace diamond]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You know what would stabilize the Middle East?

A third war front !!!!

Manifest Destiny motherfuckers!!!

Freedom is on the march.

i got a better idea.

if we had enough material for about 3 or 4 dozen atomic bombs,send them up in the modern day enola gay, and blanket the entire middle east a-bombs. i know we have at least one. the enola gay was in the air above tokyo with a-bomb #3 ready to drop it when emperor hirohito
signed the surrender. it was not an idle threat that the us was prepared to wipe tokyo off of the map.

why don't we do this now that we are engulfed in WWIII.
not on tokyo of course, but in the middle east. problem solved PDQ.

[Nitro Express]

I think it's ingeniouse how the fathers of the European Union bought our president and got the biggest military machine to secure it's middle east oil reserves using the US economy to pay for it.

"It's more adventatiouse to control an asset than to own it." --David Rockeffeler--

The old NATO guard and Russia are breaking ties. Russia, China, and Iran will be buddies, and NATO will not have use of the Russian energy supplies. That means a massive move on the middle east using whatever we have to use to keep it out of the Chinese hands.

The war between the US/Europe and China is beginning. The stakes are middle east oil.

[BITEYOASS]

It's kind of useless for The United States to place sanctions against Iran, since we hardly even produce exports nowadays and Russia is closer to reach via the Caspian Sea.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag
I agree with your conclusions, but disagree how you get there.

Your suggestion would be a good one had Russia not already given support to Iran.

Yeah, Rice missed the boat there..

This shit should have been dealt with a year ago.


Originally posted by Blackflag

Which leaves the question on the table... what's your solution?

At this point?

Leave it to the UN

We have NO credibility left in the world when it comes to our "policies" in the Middle East.

The UN, IAEA, and the rest of the world should shoulder this.

IF a nuclear Iran is such a world issue, then why are WE the only ones pressing the issue?

It's the administration that cried wolf.

Besides, show us you can handle fucking AFGHANISTAN for God's sake.

Iran aint no Dumfuckistan.

We can't even control the taliban, Poppy Growers, or find OBL but we're going to take care of Iran????

:rolleyes: please.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

Leave it to the UN


But you realize that's not a solution. That's a 'let somebody else come up with a solution.'

Moreover, as long as Russia and China are on the security council, the UN's end result will be the same as trying to get them both to join in sanctions...ineffective.

Russia and China aren't joining you in sanctions, and the UN isn't getting it done...so if you perceive this as a problem that needs to be addressed, what do you do? What's your solution?

(Your crazy theory about a nuclear strike answers your point that dealing with Iran on the ground would not be easy.)