US imposes new sanction on Iran

These actions are so drastic they are almost an invitation to war an invitation that Iran will decline of course. However, I just wonder if these types of sanctions are not going to result in the creation of new financial relations in China and Russia that will operate outside the grasp of US foreign policy. The US has more and more tried to US its financial clout and influence on global financial institutions for foreign policy aims. This is surely bound to create a reaction.

Analysis: US hopeful firms will cut ties with Iranian banks


Oct 25, 2007, 22:40 GMT


Washington - The US decision to slap new, broad sanctions on Iran reflects the growing frustration within the Bush administration about the lack of progress in the international effort to prevent the Islamic state from developing nuclear weapons.


US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the sanctions that target three of Iran's largest banks, hoping the move will prompt banks worldwide to cut ties with the Iranian institutions and further squeeze the regime's ability to finance nuclear activities or terrorism in the Middle East.

At the same time, Rice made it clear Washington remains committed to the diplomatic process through the United Nations Security Council to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, even though the United States has acted unilaterally by imposing the sanctions.

'The United States and our partners are fully committed to a diplomatic solution with Iran,' Rice said, reiterating her willingness to meet with her Iranian counterpart 'any time, anywhere' if Tehran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment - a condition Iran has repeatedly rejected. Iran insists its nuclear activities are solely for civilian energy use.

Some analysts, however, warn the US decision to act alone could send the wrong message to the five other countries - Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany - who are working closely with the United States to ensure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.

'It makes it more difficult for the United States to make the argument that we need to maintain an international consensus and be in lock step ... if we have just imposed unilateral sanctions,' said Jon Wolfstahl of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The sanctions target the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its commercial entities, and three of the largest state-owned banks suspected of helping finance the nuclear programme and terrorism. They are the most sweeping sanctions since the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran.

Going after the three banks - Bank Melli, Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat - serves as a 'powerful deterrent' to international banks carrying out business transactions with Iran, Rice said.

The United States hopes the effectiveness of the new sanctions lies in a desire of outside European and Asian banks to not do business with Iranian banks accused of financing illicit activities.

'We've seen a dramatic effect in the last several months with financial institutions and others deciding they don't want to be bankers for this regime,' said Stuart Levey, a US Treasury Department undersecretary.

The United States has no plans to sanction banks that continue relationships with Iranian banks, Levey said. The announcement of the new sanctions came as President George W Bush stepped up his rhetoric over the dispute with Iran, saying last week that a nuclear-armed Iran could provoke a conflict on the scale of World War III.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that the United States was 'prepared to impose serious consequences' if Iran did not comply with international demands to come clean on its nuclear ambitions.

Lee Wolosky, a former member of the White House's National Security Council under Bill Clinton and Bush, said the sanctions could have an effect comparable to steps taken against a bank in Macau for handling North Korean illicit funds. The Banco Delta Asia was crippled when banks cut ties after the United States imposed sanctions.

'When the US government declares a financial institution radioactive, we see a tremendous ripple effect throughout the financial community,' Wolosky said.


© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

A View from Tehran

Well the US seems determined not to let anyone who might threaten their hegemony in any area to have nuclear weapons and certainly Israel sees a nuclear Iran as unacceptable. The US too has said this ad nauseam. Kissinger speaks for himself although he no doubt has a point that the US would indeed love to control Iran's oil!
Notice the lack of political anti-US rhetoric in the article. Kissinger is used to make their point.


US fears Iran's control of oil, not nuke
Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:19:55
Source: PressTV

Former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger
The Former US Secretary of State says the US is concerned about Iran's control of oil resources, not the country's nuclear supremacy.

“An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony - which appears to be the current trend - must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend", claimed Kissinger in his Op-Ed for immediate release entitled: " PUTTING POLITICS ASIDE TO SAVE IRAQ."

"These truisms need to be translated into effective policies, preferably common policies with allies and friends." continued Kissinger.

"Iran has legitimate aspirations that need to be respected," he writes - but those legitimate aspirations do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need, he wrote.

He pointed out that none of these objectives can be realized, however, unless two conditions are met: The United States needs to maintain a presence in the region on which its supporters can count and which its adversaries have to take seriously. Above all, the country must recognize that bipartisanship has become a necessity, not a tactic.

Henry Alfred Kissinger, has played a dominant role in US foreign policy between 1969 and 1977 when he served as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in the Nixon and then Ford administrations.

MHE/MMA

US Refuses to release Iranians taken at Irbil

Not a peep about Iraq asking for the release of the Iranians. It is taken for granted that the sovereign Iraq has nothing to do with the thousands of persons jailed by coalition forces in coalition, mostly US, jails. Where is the outrage that a quasi consulate was raided people seized and jailed without charge. Of course holding people without charge is now an accepted without question world wide.


US rules out freeing Iranians, rejects torture charge by Olivier Knox
Wed Apr 11, 1:41 PM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States on Wednesday ruled out freeing five Iranians in US custody in Iraq and rejected Tehran's charge that it tortured another during a two-month captivity in the war-torn country.

Iran has warned it is unlikely to attend a May ministerial conference in Egypt on Iraq's security unless Washington releases the five, whom US authorities seized in a raid in northern Iraq in January.

Asked whether the United States was prepared to free them, White House national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe curtly replied: "No."

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said there was "no reason in the world why they should not attend this conference if they truly had an interest in being supportive of Iraq, Iraqi people and the Iraqi government."

"It's not about the US and Iran, it's not about anything else other than Iraq," he said, telling reporters that the United States "would not recognize" any linkage between the fate of the five and Iran's presence at the talks.

McCormack said that an Iranian request for access to the five was "still being considered."

Johndroe also rejected charges from Iranian state television that the United States had severely abused an Iranian diplomat during a two-month captivity in Iraq, saying that the United States had nothing to do with his plight.

"The United States was not involved in his detention, and any suggestion of torture is baseless," Johndroe said after Iranian television showed footage of Jalal Sharafi's wounds and called them proof of US torture.

The United States has long accused Iran of improperly meddling in Iraq, of aiding militias and other forces that have targeted US-led troops since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime four years ago.

US forces arrested five Iranians during a raid in northern Iraq in January, and has accused them of seeking to stir trouble in Iraq and has detained them ever since. Iran says the men are diplomats who were working for a "consulate."

Iraq has said the ministerial level meeting of its neighboring countries and world powers will be held in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt between May 3-4.

"We told the Iraqi officials that as long as the Iranian diplomats are not freed, the idea of Iran attending any conference along with the United States will encounter serious problems and obstacles," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told the hardline Kayhan newspaper.

Tehran has repeatedly called for their release. Washington has responded by saying they are being detained pending an investigation, although it has not announced any formal charges against them.

In the Sharafi case, Washington has steadfastly denied any involvement, and Johndroe welcomed his release when it was announced last week.

But Iranian state television on Wednesday showed footage of Sharafi in hospital, his feet badly bruised and body covered by sensors, as he was visited by the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delegation in Iran, Peter Stocker.

"The United States, whose officials make claims about human rights, drilled holes into the legs of Jalal Sharafi and there were signs of damage to his nose and neck," state television said.

Washington has denied any role in the detention of Sharafi, who was freed on April 3 amid the standoff between London and Tehran over the captured British sailors who were released the next day.

US increases pressure on Iran

John Bolton's remarks are typical of him. It is his type of thinking that has brought the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan costing billions not to mention the lives lost. If Bolton or the view of some US naval officers had prevailed all fifteen would probably be dead and no doubt many Iranians with who knows what results.
The way events are going it would not be surprising if there is an eventual US attack on Iran.


US revs up pressure on Iran after release of Britons
Published: Friday April 6, 2007



The United States Thursday shrugged off Iran's release of 15 captured British sailors and warned it faced tougher sanctions if it does not bow to UN demands to halt its uranium enrichment operations.

Refusing to accept the idea that the return of the Britons 12 days after they were seized showed Tehran's readiness to engage the international community, the White House reminded Tehran of the UN Security Council's demands on its nuclear program.

"I would view the detention of the British sailors as not in line with their willingness to work with the international community," the White House national security council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, referring to Iran's leaders.

"What would show that they are more in line with the international community is to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions, and suspend their uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities," said Johndroe.

"We'd be hopeful to not have to go back to the UN Security Council for an additional sanction regime," the spokesman said.

And US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack accused Iran of using "hostage-taking as a tool of its international diplomacy."

For its part Tehran Thursday declared its refusal to bow to pressure on its nuclear program, which it says is for power generation but major Western powers believe is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

Shortly after Johndroe's remarks, Iranian state television reported that Iran's nuclear chief Ali Larijani told the European Union there was no chance that Tehran would suspend uranium enrichment.

The exchange marked the resumption of more strident rhetoric after the 12-day crisis over the British sailors and marines, who Iran captured in or near Iranian waters on March 23 March.

Tehran declared the 14 men and one woman had illegally moved into Iranian waters, but Britain maintains they were seized in Iraqi waters where they were carrying out anti-smuggling oprations under UN resolutions.

The United States, which does not maintain direct relations with Iran, on Thursday welcomed their release, but tellingly praised London, not Tehran, for the peaceful end of the tense standoff.

US President George W. Bush, on his Texas ranch for a long Easter weekend, spoke for about an hour by secure video with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Johndroe told reporters.

"The president welcomed the safe return of the British personnel who had been detained in Iran. He also commended the British on their resolve in bringing the situation to a peaceful resolution," he said.

McCormack confirmed that Washington had toned down its rhetoric throughout the standoff, though on Saturday Bush referred to the Britons as "hostages" who had been seized in Iraqi waters.

"In the context of an ongoing hostage crisis, of course we are not going to say anything that could make the situation worse or make it more difficult to realize a peaceful solution," McCormack said. "Absolutely, we're going to tailor our rhetoric."

At the same time, McCormack hinted at possible face-to-face talks between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on the sidelines of an international conference on Iraq in early May.

"We have said from the beginning, when this first surfaced, that if there would be a ministerial conference, that we are not going to exclude any particular diplomatic interaction," he said.

McCormack emphasized the possible bilateral meeting would focus on Iraq exclusively, and not address the Iranian nuclear program. US officials denied any link to the Britons' release.

On another front, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that US officials were not inclined to release five Iranians captured in Iraq, and accused Iran of supporting Iraqi insurgents.

"I think there's no inclination right now to let them go," Gates told reporters, rejecting speculation that the United States was preparing to release the group or allow consular access to them as part of a deal involving Iran's release of the British captives.

Meanwhile controversial former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton described the hostage standoff as a "double victory" for Tehran.

Iran "won a victory when they captured the hostages and they won a victory when they released the hostages" Bolton said on the US-funded Alhurra Arabic-language television network.

"I think they were testing British resolve in response to this provocative act and I think they already had their answer, which was that the British are not going to respond in a strong fashion," he said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US troops would have fought with Iranian Guards

Of course firing on the Guard might have led to war with Iran or at least escalation of hostilities but maybe that is the idea. The seizure of Iranians at Arbil was obviously a factor in this seizure. No mention in this article about the water being disputed or how important they are to Iran. There is a huge buildup by Iran in the area. I will post another article on that.

US troops 'would have fought Iranian captors'
By Terri Judd in Bahrain
Published: 26 March 2007
A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.

Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

Three days after the team were taken hostage, Tony Blair publicly spoke about the diplomatic crisis for the first time. "I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us," he said

"We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," he added, speaking from Berlin.

In a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki last night the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett "expressed concern regarding the detention of the British soldiers". An Iranian official later confirmed that Iran may give consular access to the British sailors once an investigation into the incident is completed.

Yesterday, the armed forces spokesman General Ali Reza Afshar said the crew were in "sterling health" and were being interrogated in Tehran, where the Iranians claim they have "confessed" to straying into Iranian waters.

The Foreign Office minister, Lord Triesman, held "frank" discussions with the Iranian ambassador yesterday .