The UN’s nuclear watchdog announced a deal with Iran to inspect their nuclear facilities, a day before a second round of talks between Iran and Western powers. Yukiya Amano of the International Atomic Energy Agency said the deal would be signed soon, after a two-day trip to Tehran to work out the details. The IAEA has access to most of Iran’s nuclear sites already, so the assumption is that this agreement will give them access to the most sensitive sites, and possibly an agreement to suspend uranium enrichment above a certain level. These were the subjects of the negotiations going into Amano’s visit, so we’ll have to wait and see.
That would be counter to the US Senate, which passed a new round of sanctions on Iran, despite the progress being made on the negotiation front.
The U.S. Senate unanimously voted to tighten sanctions on Iran on Monday, three days after a dispute over whether to include the threat of American force stalled the legislation.
The new sanctions would target Iran’s oil and banking industries, as well as other sectors. The measure passed the Senate on a voice vote Monday evening, two days before a new round of talks between Iran and leading U.N. members in Baghdad.
“Today the Senate has showed we can still act in a bipartisan way on important priorities,” said Sen. Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Oh, we always knew that the Senate could act in a bipartisan way on things like imperial bullying against Iran. But it seems to me that there are two completely different conversations happening at once. On the one hand, negotiations between Iran and the West are starting to bear fruit. On the other, the Senate acts like no progress has been made and Iran still represents an existential threat to the lives of everyone on the planet. I’ve always assumed that nobody in Washington gets the international news, but this is a particularly absurd version of that dynamic.
Just adding a brief note here that sanctions have the effect of impoverishing the Iranian people. It’s not clear this has any bearing on their nuclear decision-making, especially as the consensus of the intelligence community is that they have not decided on using nuclear power in a weapons capacity. So it’s mostly needless suffering that, if anything, proves what hardliners have been saying forever, that they are engaged in a religious war with the West.





61 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
U.S. can never take yes for an answer.
Maybe –surely?– the actual Western/US agenda is not the nuclear issue at all…so why say yes to something which might impede their aims of “regime change”?
quoted in the article linked”
“And Reid said after the vote, “Iranians need to know we mean business”
I Can’t think of anything stupid enough to put here about this.
I get terminal giggles when I think about Reid being a boxer. He must have had a punch like wet spaghetti.
All an attempt to provoke Iran into taking some action that will serve as a pretext for U.S./Israeli attack.
If Iran doesn’t bite, they’ll just make something up or stage something, analogous to WMDs, Gulf of Tonkin and a thousand other examples.
Took too many punches to the head & suffered permanent brain damage, no doubt. Can’t think of any other viable hypothesis.
Understandable. Hard to “out stupid” Harry Reid.
I always liked the “special touches” they put into the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution myself.
PLus, no need to re-invent the wheel.
Really????
Nevada = nucleur testsite
Unanimous? I guess even the “Liberal” Bernie Sanders thinks that draconian measures will result in increased Iranian cooperation, especially as the talks were said to be making progress. This is obviously a different form of diplomacy, or maybe the House of Lords feels the need to pressure Iran into a real war to replace our other Middle East adventures.
“Today, we put on notice all nations (Namely, South Korea, India, China, Turkey and South Africa) that continue to import petroleum or petroleum products from Iran that they have three months to significantly reduce those purchases or risk the imposition of severe sanctions on their financial institutions,” claimed Senator Bob Menendez, who co-authored the sanctions legislation, along with Senator Mark Kirk.
Why, lets see how many people we can attempt to dictate policy to. “After decades of struggling under punitive financial measures, Iran has persisted with its objectionable policies ranging from terrorism to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” write CFR’s Ray Takeyh and Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution. “All this suggests that ideological regimes that put a premium on their political priorities and which are seemingly insensitive to the mounting costs of their belligerence may not be suitable candidates for the type of cost-benefit analysis that sanctions diplomacy invites.”
Iran’s ‘inspections’ have always been incomplete at best. Iran does not want to play ball, don’t see why more sanctions are a bad thing. They’re perpetual game players and liars.
So we starve their people in order to get our way?
The sanctions do not target the Iranian civilian population.
Just like Iraq right? Yeah, we know they have WMD and we even know where it is.
Yep, we know Iran is making a bomb, and we even know where they’re making it, and when it will be ready.
And then, North Korea???
Just curious, who’s after North Korea? My grandchildren might want to know.
I assume you said the same thing about the Iraqi civilian population?? So, all the evidence afterward about their food and medical shortages was… made up?
No, it’s nothing like Iraq. Iran has been outspoken in it’s declarations of more centrifuges, higher levels of refined nuclear material. Iran arms terrorists to attack Israel and say they want to wipe it off the map.
I don’t trust those dudes in Lichtenstein. Nobody is ever paying attention to what they do.
I don’t know what Liberals want. They seem to want a magical land of unicorns and fairy dust where only actions which have not even the slightest negative consequence are permitted. Sanctions aren’t an easy proposition. The US has tried very hard to specifically target Iran’s military and leadership only.
Surely we can all agree that IF the UN is putting these sanctions on, it’s not just US. And, if the Iranians are willing (albeit coerced) to allow IAEA inspections, let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth.
Nothing like Iraq.
Let’s see….
Both wanted nuclear material and claimed it was for energy purposes… check.
Both balked at the then required UN inspections if a country chooses that route… check.
Both were claimed by the US to be really making WMD… check.
Both eventually relented and allowed the UN in to inspect…. check.
In Iraq’s case, that didn’t matter and we started a war anyway.
In Iran’s case……well, the Senate is already acting like that doesn’t matter.
Yeah, these two are NOTHING alike.
You of age to serve in the military??? If not, I’m sure you have children or other relatives. I hope you and/or your relatives are volunteering to make sure these Iranians play ball.
WTF??
Talk about unicorns and fairy dust, that’s what it must take to believe we can just police the entire world and invade any all “non ballplayers” any time they don’t play ball without bankrupting ourselves and harming our own population.
THAT’s you damn unicorn and fairy dust shit right there. “Yeah, we’re the USA. We’re exceptional. We can tell every other country on the earth what they need to do and if they don’t listen, why we’ll just borrow borrow borrow borrow and spend spend spend spend on defence until the whole world knows we mean businsess.”
Those are extremely weak points, on the verge of irrelevant. Iraq wasn’t actively installing more and more centrifuges and shoving it in the world’s face every five minutes. Iraq wasn’t regularly arming terrorists to attack Israel. And let’s not forget Iran does not need nuclear energy at all. The entire country floats on an ocean of oil.
Yeah yeah I guess we should have stayed out of WW2, there were many civilian casualties too much collateral damage etc etc.
OFG, you make six pretty good points.
SCARY, but accurate.
Oh yeah, thank you.
Iraq was also a major oil producer. I forgot that one….
Yeah, weak, irrelevant, and beside the point.
No, the only point that really matters is the Israel point.
No need to look for actual weapons, no need to waste the UN inspectors time, no need really to even bother with sanctions though I suppose we’ll have to appease those damn wussies, but the fact is Iran has got to go. Regime change is the only solution now due to the Israel issue.
And lord knows Isreal has never done any wrong and doesn’t deserve this kind of hatred.
Damned liberals better wake up.
/zionist
WWII???
Has Iran attacked us??? Or did Pearl Harbor not count??
Talk about a weak point and completely irrelevant….
Ahh I was wondering.. the crew who likes to cry ‘Zionist.’ Makes sense now.
No, but you’re complaining about the collateral damage to the civilian population from sanctions….
Yep.
Makes perfect sense.
In the case of Iraq, didn’t that turn out to be false information from an Iraqi expat? Wasn’t it trumped-up to justify invading? i.e. They really HAD NOT sought yellowcake uranium.
NOT that I want the US to invade Iran, but Iran is in fact enriching uranium. The inspections are therefore crucial.
I’m complaining about the collateral damage on the civilian population from sanctions AFTER THEY HAVE AGREED TO LET UN INSPECTORS IN.
Show me a post where I said anything about such damage before this.
The way the whole carrot and stick democracy is supposed to work is, when you do wrong, you get stick, when you do right, you get carrot.
Now you can claim you know Iran’s intentions and I can claim I know Iran’s intentions. At the end of the day, neither of us knows Iran’s intentions.
But we do know, is that the UN has reached agreement on inspectors in Iran after all of the sanctions to this point. Yet the Senate passed more sanctions, and you posted more sanctions is ok, and that’s where we differ.
Because we can’t know Iran’s true intentions, we have to respond to facts.
IF Iran is willing to allow UN inspectors, now is not the time to add more sanctions which invariably hurt the civilian population more than the regime. IF more facts come out that suggest Iran is playing the inspectors or otherwise not living up to their agreements, THEN the Senate can pass and you can talk about more sanctions.
But TODAY should be a day where we say THANK YOU IRAN.
Iran tries to be reasonable, and our Senate and folks like you say fuck it, we can’t trust ‘em so lets pass more sanctions. Why in the hell should they ever be reasonable then??? If I were them, I’d just say fuck it back, it does’t matter what we do they’re going to sanction us and come after us anyway.
And THAT’s why it looks like the main issue is the Israel issue, NOT the nuclear one.
Here’s a graham cracker & glass of milk. Now go outside & play where your ignorance won’t show up.
Iran has n-e-v-e-r allowed adequate inspections, and balked entirely on the fuel rod exchange program. Going easy on them at this point would be completely ridiculous. As for ignorance, I can’t really take those who choose to pin the ‘Zionist’ label on the Iran-Israel conflict seriously.
That’s ok, I have a hard time taking zionists seriously.
Go enjoy your graham cracker and milk.
Enjoy your Antisemitism.
Nice description of the US government. When was the last time they didn’t lie to us?
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear NPT and as such all of their enrichment of materials to medical grade is legal, per the treaty. Try not to forget that the only nation in the history of the Earth to use nuclear weapons, on a civilian population no less, is the USA.
If nothing else is accomplished by the US government’s belligerent actions, the price of gas should rise again, pleasing Big Oil and encouraging the ignorant to push for the XL Pipeline.
People like you certainly make something like that more likely.
You really seem to enjoy debating ignorant trolls. Where do you get the energy for such futile pursuits?
Fuck you.
Good point. No argument here. I’m just pointing out that Iran does in fact enrich uranium, and Iraq did not. I point out this issue to illustrate a real difference between Iraq and Iran. There is real and valid concern about Iran’s uses for uranium.
Inspections (of enrichment operations in Iran) seem like a no-brainer, at least as far everyone but Iran is concerned. All other courses of action are questionable.
Ignore the troll, OFG…!
‘AIPAC behind US anti-Iran sanctions’…
You do realize that Iran does in fact have the legal right to ‘enrich’ Uranium, up to 19.5%, as a signatory to the NPT…? Also, the fact the IAEA has been monitoring their enrichment facilities and stockpiles 24/7(with cams) and periodic inspections (the most rigorous inspections ever, according to many ex-IAEA inspectors) for years now…!
I dunno, it’s just the stupidity of this kind of diplomacy (and that’s not just Jim, there’s many like him, like in the US Senate).
I mean really. Ask yourself. If Iran decides to be reasonable and let inspectors in, but instead in diplomacy get a “heh, fuck you, we don’t trust you” in return, why on earth would they EVER choose to act reasonable??? When someone can explain that to me, maybe I’ll understand that position better.
And as far as Zionist/antisemitic go, you know, I wasn’t sure of the word zionist so I looked it up before using it. And the definition said it was refering to Israeli nationalism, so I thought it appropriate since I was reading Jim’s posts as 100% in support of the Israeli government and it’s actions.
Antisemitic I always thought referred to some sort of bigotry against the religion of Judaism and the Jews themselves. I could easily challenge Jim to find a post where I’ve ever said anything remotely bigotted about Jews, Judaism, or almmost any other religion for that matter.
So it always burns me up when they resort to that when talking about the GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL and it’s actions. But then I suppose if it burns me up to bring up anti-semeticicism, then it probably burns folks like
Jim up to use the term Zionist, even if it may be more “correct” according to the definitions I read.
So, I’m gonna let it go now. Won’t engage anymore with him in this thread, and if I do in the future, I’ll go ahead and leave the zionist label out even if it does seem to fit since he sounds like someone that puts the interests of the Israeli government first. And that is nationalism.
Sorry, but your points are absurd and the ‘Zionist’ spiel IS Antisemitism, as it is baseless and hateful. Blaming Jews for defending Israel is disgusting.
You might want to investigate HOW the word is used these days. Sorry I don’t agree with your points on Iran, perhaps you can find a more productive outlet for your hostility than blaming Israel.
Yes, and this is different than Iraq, so we can’t list this as a similarity to Iraq’s (former) situation.
Oh fuck it.
Go ahead, call me all the names you want, I don’t mind. I call lots of peoples names myself, mostly asshole.
But you’ll never find a bigoted word about Jews or Judaism post by me anywhere on this internet. And I challenge you to provide one.
And I will always continue to blame those that are responsible for whatever actions or stances I’m talking about. If the US Senate vote today was anything but a response to Israel, I’ll kiss your ass, give you a week to draw a crowd, and let you videotape it.
If you don’t like Israel getting blamed for the shit it does, maybe, you know, they could stop doing stupid shit.
Because it’s just plain stupid when you’re in diplomacy with another soveriegn country, and you wish to get that other soveriegn country to behave in a certain way, then when they do, you PUNISH THEM MORE! That’s idiocy, and the only way it makes sense is if war and regime change are your real motives anyway.
And if regime change and war is your ulterior motive anyway, why bother with diplomacy? Why waste the time and money on it???
And if that is your real motive, then you are, by definition, a zionist. An asshole too.
Israel is not to blame for Iran pursuing an aggressive nuclear agenda and backing out of the fuel rod swap which would have solved the entire problem. Iran constantly uses inflammatory rhetoric toward Israel, and literally arms it’s enemies. They block adequate inspections and make a point of announcing massive new centrifuge installments when we try to sanction them or hold them accountable for anything. Iran clearly wants to instigate us and Israel for that matter. It’s in no one’s best interests to allow them to stay on this course, since it will end in an arms race in the ME. Ok? Ok.
And still, TODAY, they do something in the right direction, and you, and the US Senate, say MORE sanctions.
So again, please tell me, why should they EVER do the right thing in response to diplomacy???
And “Iran constantly uses inflammatory rhetoric toward Israel, and literally arms it’s enemies.” Israel has enemies??? Wow, now, THAT, that is just hard to believe. I can’t imagine why.
Every time we sanction Iran they laugh in our face and install more centrifuges. If reports are right, the sanctions are for the first time starting to have a real effect. Since Iran *always* uses inspections as a way to stall for time and dick around with the IAEA, it seems prudent to proceed with sanctions and put the ball squarely in Iran’s court.
Isn’t our dream for all middle eastern countries to be like USA? What is a more responsible action for any middle eastern country than to build and stockpile nuclear weapons like USA and Israel. For the life of me I can’t understand why we wouldn’t support and cheer this action by Iran on if that is what they are doing. They are simply trying to become more like USA and Israel by building nukes. What on earth is the problem with this anyway? My God we invaded and destroyed Iraq who had no nukes. It is imperative for their absolute survival to develop them. Not having nukes simply ensures Iran’s invasion and bombing. Look deeper Jim. You make no sense.
In essence the opposite is true Jim. If everyone is on board that a nuclear Iran is bad, you can be absolutely sure that is what the world needs. Everyone in charge is on board with austerity world wide with few exception, you can be darn sure that the exact opposite is what is needed. If everyone is on board with the USA being the moral arbiter of who can and can’t have nukes, you can be sure the exact opposite is true Jim. USA should absolutely not be the moral arbiter of who has them.
I saw a guy talking on the TV from the Brookings Institute. He looked really smart. He said these most recent sanctions, denying Iran acces to the International Bank, has really put their panties in a bunch. Like your bank’s ATM being our of order and your ATM card not being honored anywhere else. Perhaps that’s why they are “coming around”.
OFG, understand that bunch has been fighting for about 5,000 years. Something about a camel and a herd of goats.
People like Jim don’t even accept the fact that the term antisemitic includes all semites, not just Jews, but Arabs are semites, as well.
Part of what is causing the bellicosity of the USA, Israel, and the NATO nations towards the non-existent nuclear threat from Iran is the same thing that fueled our Libyan “kinetic military action”. It’s the possibility of the US dollar being replaced as the preeminent medium of exchange.
The term is accepted to refer exclusively to Jews.
False equivalencies. Iran does not need nuclear energy at all, and is using it as a means to an and.
Oh right, I forgot that they’re the “Chosen People”, and they’re “exceptional” just like the USA. Your ignorance and bias are appalling.