Saturday, May 26, 2012


Iran

Iran Dismisses New U.S. Sanctions

U.S. President Barack Obama
x
U.S. President Barack Obama
TEXT SIZE - +
The head of Iran's Chamber of Commerce has dismissed Washington's move to impose new economic sanctions against the Islamic republic.

Iranian media quoted Mohammad Nahavandian on January 1 as rejecting the U.S. decision as “futile and unjustifiable.”

He said sanctions against his country “have raised the cost of trade and economic transactions, but it has not managed to change Iran's political behavior."

On December 31, U.S. President Barack Obama  signed into law new U.S. sanctions against Iran's central bank and financial sector.

The measures, meant to punish Tehran for its controversial nuclear activities, were contained in a $662 billion defense bill.

The sanctions require foreign companies to make a choice between doing business with Iran's oil and financial sectors and central bank, or the U.S. financial sector.

Under the law, foreign central banks which deal with Iran’s central bank on oil transactions could face U.S. restrictions.

In a statement issued after he signed the bill December 31, Obama expressed reservations that the law might interfere with his constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by restricting his dealings with foreign governments.

The United Nations Security Council has imposed four sets of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, while the United States and the European Union have imposed unilateral measures.

Washington and its allies say Iran is trying to build nuclear bombs under the cover of a civilian program, which Tehran denies.

In a related development, a commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard says talk of blocking the strategic oil route through the Strait Of Hormuz is a discussion of the past.
 
General Masoud Jazayeri did not elaborate.
 
However, last week, Iranian Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened that Iran could close the Strait if the West imposes sanctions on Iran's oil shipments.
 
The United States has warned Iran that it would not tolerate the closing of the Strait, through which more than one-third of the world's tanker oil is reported to pass on its way to market.

compiled from agency reports
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Marilee from: Western Australia
January 01, 2012 13:19
The way I see this situation is that America wants it's cake and eat it too. How on earth is it fair that America and other Countries can have Nuclear Programs and bombs etc and Iran can't?. Why is it deemed so unfair that poor Iran can not sell their oil but are supposed to let everyone else use the strait of hormuz for other countries oil? Answer because the USA wants Iran's oil for themselves and are willing to create the nasties of wars by making out that Iran is up to no good. Like poor Saddam of Iquac. The world has problems because of the USA and their need for greed and power. God help us all we need saving from America.
In Response

by: Interest N. Concern from: Western America
January 01, 2012 21:05
Well the problem is that Iran has stated it's intention to wipe Isreal off the map. Nuclear weapons would give Iran the ability to carry out their plans and this would destabilize the entire region for quite some time.

The world-wide cost of energy would rise rapidly as oil delivery would be interupted during such a conflict. Who would be able to afford the insurance to move oil tankers through there ?

It is not about fairness. It is about stability. Guns in the hands of children, who often do not have the ability to understand consequence is a mistake. Guns in the hands of lunatics who blatently state that they will destroy someone else by any means possible is equally unacceptable.

Many nations have nuclear weapons now but none have stated their intention to use WMD as clearly as Iran. That is the concern. The threat to economic, political and regional livelyhood seems pretty clear to me.
In Response

by: Marilee from: Western australia
January 02, 2012 13:46
Yes it is all down to oil right, but you to restrict Iran selling their oil. A bit double standard. You call them lunatics, what a joke that is. Do you have any thought that the fact that your country lied to the world about Iraq being so called dangerous, that yous destroyed a country, maimed and killed it's people, destroyed a whole country's economy, children are now being born deformed because of the bombings. Now you lot just leave them. Yea right I forgot yous are the world protectors, why are you lot not protecting the people in Sudan and other poor nations? Or helping to save the Amazon Jungle from being destroyed and the native people from extinction. Environment plays no part in America only oil. Iran has oil right?

by: Interest N. Concern from: Western America
January 03, 2012 04:09
Marilee:
The Iranian people are like people anywhere else in my eyes. The good, bad and the ugly exist everywhere. Let's be clear here though, I am not my government nor do have much influence on the policies of my government.
I vote, agree and disagree, talk to others where I can and watch how things play out just like you so I am not going to be the 'we' in your attacks.

The current government leadership in Iran has stated their intention to wipe out a neighboring (nuclear armed) nation. They could not hope survive such a preemptive attack and as such, I consider it to be the words of an unstable lunatic.

Is it all about oil ? Yes it probably is. To be more clear however I think it is about the stability and pricing for energy. Causing the price of energy to skyrocket is surely reason for countries to go to war given the world-wide dependence on oil sadly.

As for the rest of your reply it seems you have pent-up anger guiding your statements. Iran not being able to sell their oil .. I think you are referring to the sanctions in place and recently increased.

The world asks Iran (who has threatened to blow up their neighbor if they could several times) to prove they are not making nuclear weapons:
-Six-nation negotiation and dialog has failed multiple times.
-UN Inspectors kicked out.
-Multiple levels of sanctions have been introduced and failed to get them to allow inspectors in or to stop work and discuss the security issues involved.

If Iran attacks Israel as they have stated they intend to do, oil prices will destabilize and skyrocket in Australia. Unless you are riding a bike to power the internet you you are reading somewhere in the Witjira national park, your way of life will be dramatically changed as will mine.

In the end it really always comes down to money doesn't it ?

Why aren't we lot (?world police?) protecting .. [fill in the blank]

Cause it probably doesn't directly impact the monetary bottom line of our countries' GDP and we aren't being told that your way of life or your religion is at stake.

Does America want to take over their country and take their oil ? Well this sounds like fanatical conspiracy thinking. What other UN member nations would allow that to happen ? I am pretty sure the UN Charter, Chapter 7, articles 42 and 51 address issues related to sovereignty, defense etc.. I don't think any nation who is a member of the UN can take over another nation in the way you theorize.

Good or bad I think the intention is to not have to look back after a major world disaster and see that political pressure or sanctions could have been a meaningful way to avoid it. Perhaps to do everything physically possible short of full-scale war to prevent a lunatic from blowing up his neighbor and upsetting the way of life for everyone else.

All this and we failed to mention the impact on other neighboring countries to Iran having nuclear weapons. It will spark an arms race and likely nuclear war given the secular instability of the region.

Generally I think the people of any nation will disagree with the use of nuclear weapons to attack given what we now now about the long term impact they have. When the government is responsible TO the people and can be thrown out or otherwise removed from office, it is my belief that nuclear arms can be utilized to deter war. When the government does not answer to the people, as in a dictatorship, aristocracy or theocracy the risk of a lunatic launching nuclear weapons is vastly increased.

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Kingsley As Karzai?

Latest Comment (1 total)

M: they put the dictators in power and they make fun of them More

Chechen Leader Names New Premier

Latest Comment (3 total)

M: No, Chechens are not Tatars, and judging by how they wipe out Russian ... More

Moldova Sentences 3 On Uranium Charge

Latest Comment (1 total)

Ionas Aurelian Rus:
One should not only salute the capture of these officials by the Moldovan ... More