Tougher sanctions

Published: June 11, 2010

The new UN sanctions imposed on Iran are the toughest Security Council measures against the country so far. They are intended to toughen the squeeze regarding its nuclear programme, and include the placing of new Iranian officials and organisations on an assets freeze list, the inclusion of 22 additional companies on a list of those involved in alleged ballistic of atomic activities and a requirement that UN members search Iranian cargo vessels in certain circumstances. Of the UN Security Council members, Turkey and Brazil voted against Resolution 1929. Lebanon abstained. The new measures have been met with open glee in Israel — the Middle East’s only nuclear armed state even though it does not openly concede this and has not been made to do so by the international community. In a more tempered response the US and its allies in the West have welcomed the move. The response from Iran and its president has been, as we would expect, defiant.

Of course, this is not to say that sometimes in the past President Ahmedinejad has said things which have raised eyebrows worldwide. But the point is that what will the sanctions achieve? Similar measures in the past have failed to move Tehran to inch its chair even a few centimetres nearer to the negotiating table. The stance taken by Brazil, whose representative spoke of far softer tactics and an ongoing process of dialogue aimed at coaxing it back into the mainstream, make sense. Iran is seen as posing a threat to the world because of its international isolation. If means could be found to persuade it to sit alongside other nations, much of the danger its nuclear weapons represent would recede. There is a warning here for the US. Iran is regarded as a heroic nation by many Muslims precisely because of the double standard Washington employs in its dealings with Israel.

Published in the Express Tribune, 11th, 2010.

Reader Comments (2)

  • Jun 11, 2010 - 1:24AM

    The sanctions are meant to achieve nothing. None of the staunchest proponents, the US in particular expect the sanctions to change anything. However, the sanctions are just to placate extreme right-wing hawks who demand even tougher actions. Obviously, this is also to reassure Israel, as Israel has previously threatened to launch a bombing raid on suspected Iranian weapons sights. If such a raid was to happen that would jeopardise US interests in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The sanctions will achieve nothing, its only a display of action. Recommend

  • hassan shehzad
    Jun 11, 2010 - 12:14PM

    No Muslim support for Iran on nuclear issue
    sir: ever since this new newspaper started, i v been monitoring it; this being my addiction with media. almost all Pakistani editorial writers wrote today that the sanctions will lead Muslim countries rally behind Iran. i want to make a point here sir that we must not forget lessons of history. No Arab country will ever back Iran – armed with nuclear bomb or not. Non-Arab Muslim countries cannot afford to stand up to the US in any way. Look at Pakistan: she could not have gas and oil piping here from Iran to overcome its energy crisis for one obvious reason: the US don’t allow it. Arab countries can stand but they won’t because of their looking down on all others as being non-Arabs and sectarian reasons. this element is so strong that even when Iran overtly backed Shia Hizbullah and Salfi Hamas to rout Israel from Lebanon and Gaza, not a single Arab country said a world in Iran’s favour nonetheless they pose as a party to Palestinian dispute all seasons. before Revolution and in Reza Shah’s era, Iran was enjoying good relations with Israel and was thought of as Policeman of Gulf. all Arab countries were afraid of her. given geographical realities, Iran and Israel were natural allies in an Arab world. but then came Islamic Revolution and all cushions for Iran came off. after relocation of pawns on the chess board, in the gulf of no friends, Iran has not but the biggest nuclear foe – Israel. the assumption that Muslim countries will stand with Iran against the US is overlooking the history, i may conclude sir. Recommend

More in Editorial