WarSclerotic

The five permanent U.N. Security Council member nations and Germany might not be required to comply with penalties against Iran now being considered in Washington, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, March 4).

(Mar. 5) – U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, shown in January, yesterday urged the U.N. Security Council to adopt new sanctions against Iran (U.N. photo).

South Korea, Japan, and other U.S. partners expressed dismay at a reputed Obama administration initiative to exempt the five other main powers handling nuclear negotiations with Iran — China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom — from U.S. legislation that would penalize companies that provide Iran with petroleum.

The move, alluded to by administration and congressional insiders, might be an attempt to win support for a fourth round of Iran sanctions from China, which has expressed opposition to additional international penalties against Tehran. The United States and other Western powers suspect the Middle Eastern state’s nuclear program is geared toward weapons development, a charge Tehran has denied.

“We’re absolutely flabbergasted,” said one high-level official from a nation on good terms with Washington. “Tell me what exactly have the Chinese done to deserve this?”

The exemption effort might ultimately prompt Beijing to seek the weakest possible U.N. penalties and commit more money to Iran’s energy sector, a non-U.S. official said (Pomfret/Lynch, Washington Post, March 5).

The United Kingdom and the United States reaffirmed their call for new penalties on Iran in statements to the Security Council yesterday, Agence France-Presse reported.

A new Security Council sanctions resolution on Iran would demonstrate “the international community is united behind a diplomatic resolution to Iran’s nuclear issue, and stave off any pre-emptive moves by others to resolve this issue by other means,” British Ambassador to the United Nations Mark Lyall Grant said.

Grant called for penalties that were “smart and effective” and that “target areas with an impact on the regime’s policy calculations.”

“They should show the regime the extent to which the costs of their nuclear program outweigh any dubious benefits,” he said. “At the same time, we should reaffirm our willingness to continue to engage with Iran.”

The 15-nation council should “consider further measures to hold the government of Iran accountable,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said. “We are not at the present circulating a draft text (on sanctions) to council colleagues here in New York,” she added, seemingly addressing recent reports suggesting the Obama administration has been doing just that (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, March 4).

Meanwhile, the United States might not complete a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program until late March or even later, Newsweek reported yesterday. Reports have indicated that the document might back away from the 2007 assessment by the U.S. intelligence community that Iran was believed to have halted nuclear-weapon activities in 2003 (Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, March 4).

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman yesterday expressed doubt that new U.N. penalties would be sufficiently severe, and he personally urged the United States to place tough trade sanctions on Iran similar to those it has enforced on Cuba, Haaretz reported. Such measures could cause the Iranian government to collapse within one year, the official said (Barak Ravid, Haaretz, March 4).

A procession of U.S. officials to Israel has sent Jerusalem “and the region a message: that Israel is not alone” in facing Iran, said former Israeli National Security Council head Ilan Mizrahi.

The message could discourage Israel from attempting military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities “without a lot of consideration and consultation,” the New York Times quoted him as saying.

“No Israeli prime minister wants to make the decision to attack Iran,” added a former official closely familiar with U.S.-Israeli exchanges on Iran. “And for Iran to go nuclear on Obama’s watch would be seen as a colossal failure. There is a common interest to make sanctions work” (Ethan Bronner, New York Times, March 4).

The U.S. Treasury Department has not announced plans to upgrade its paper-based export licensing system to more quickly spot licenses to send Iran sensitive equipment with possible military uses, the Government Accountability Office said in a report issued yesterday (U.S. Government Accountability Office release, March 4).

In Tokyo, a senior U.S. diplomat focused on the Iran nuclear dispute in a meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada, AFP reported.

“Japan plays a very critical role on this question,” U.S. Deputy of State James Steinberg said today after the meeting. “It’s a leader and a very strong voice in supporting a nonproliferation regime with a very strong commitment to dealing with the challenge of nuclear weapons.”

Tokyo is “is very influential with Iranians and can have a very big impact” he said, adding that he appreciated “the strong statements they made during a recent visit by Iranian officials here” (Agence France-Presse II/Google News, March 5).

The 118-nation Nonaligned Movement defended Iran’s nuclear program Wednesday in a statement to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s governing board (see GSN, March 3).

“NAM reaffirms the basic and inalienable right of all states to the development, research, production and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, without any discrimination and in conformity with their respective legal obligations,” the group stated, according to Iran’s Press TV.

“Therefore, nothing should be interpreted in a way as inhibiting or restricting the right of states to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes. States’ choices and decisions, including those of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear technology and its fuel policies must be respected” the group said (Nonaligned Movement release/Press TV, March 4).