U.S. May Curb Iran
If the U.N. Security Council won't penalize
Tehran for its nuclear program, the White House may forge an alliance
to do so.
By Maggie Farley
Times Staff Writer
August 26, 2006
UNITED NATIONS — With increasing signs that several fellow Security
Council members may stall a United States push to penalize Iran for its
nuclear enrichment program, Bush administration officials have
indicated that they are prepared to form an independent coalition to
freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade.
The strategy, analysts say, reflects not only long-standing U.S.
frustration with the Security Council's inaction on Iran, but also the
current weakness of Washington's position because of its controversial
role in a series of conflicts in the Middle East, most recently in
Lebanon.
Despite assurances from Russia and China in July that
they would support initial sanctions against Iran if it failed to
suspend aspects of its nuclear program, Russia seemed to backtrack this
week after Tehran agreed to continue talks, but refused to halt
enrichment. A Security Council resolution gives the Islamic Republic
until Aug. 31 to stop uranium enrichment, which could provide fuel to
produce electricity or possibly atomic weapons, or face penalties.
Russian
Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov said Friday that as long as Iran was
willing to negotiate, it was "premature" to punish the country and
perhaps permanently isolate it.
"I do not know cases in
international practice or the whole of the previous experience when
sanctions reached their goals or were efficient," Ivanov said.
"Apart
from this, I do not think that the issue is so urgent that the U.N.
Security Council or the group of six countries" — the U.S., China,
Russia, Britain, France and Germany — "should consider the introduction
of sanctions. In any case Russia continues to advocate a political and
diplomatic solution to the problem."
French Foreign Minister
Philippe Douste-Blazy said Iran's response was "not satisfactory" but
France wanted to avoid a new conflict that could lead to "a clash of
civilizations."
"But the worst thing would be to escalate into a
confrontation with Iran on the one hand — and the Muslim world with
Iran — and the West," he said on French radio. "That would be the clash
of civilizations that France today is practically alone in trying to
avoid."
U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said in an interview late
this week that the United States planned to introduce a resolution
imposing penalties such as a travel ban and asset freeze for key
Iranian leaders soon after the Aug. 31 deadline, and seemed optimistic
that China and Russia would agree to it once they saw the text.
"Everybody's been on board," he said.
But in case Russia and China do not accept it, the U.S. is working a
parallel diplomatic track outside the U.N., Bolton said.
Under
U.S. terrorism laws, Washington could ramp up its own sanctions,
including financial constraints on Tehran and interception of missile
and nuclear materials en route to Iran, Bolton said, and the U.S. is
encouraging other countries to follow suit. "You don't need Security
Council authority to impose sanctions, just as we have," he said.
The
U.S. has had broad restrictions on almost all trade with Iran since
1987. Exceptions include the import of dried fruits and nuts, caviar
and carpets. In addition, U.S. companies can obtain licenses to do
limited trade in agriculture and medicine. The United States also
initiated the Proliferation Security Initiative, involving a coalition
of countries that have agreed to intercept shipments of materials to
Iran that could be used for weapons of mass destruction.
"We
will continue to enhance PSI to cut off flows of materials and
technology that are useful to Iran's ballistic missile program and
nuclear programs," Bolton said. "We will be constraining financial
transactions under existing terrorism laws."
He said
Washington was focusing on European and Japanese banks to restrict
business with Iran, because most of Tehran's transactions are done in
U.S. dollars, euros, British pounds and yen. "There aren't a lot of
opportunities to sell in other currencies," he said.
Bolton
and U.S. Treasury officials refused to provide details on which
countries might be interested, citing the "sensitivity" of the talks.
But
Treasury spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said they had already seen
results, including Union Bank of Switzerland cutting off relationships
with Iran.
"We're seeing more financial institutions around
the world looking at the actions and messages emanating out of Iran —
from their nuclear ambitions to state sponsorship of Hezbollah — and
asking themselves, 'do we really want to be Iran's banker?' " she said
in an e-mail.
Though U.S. officials said pursuing parallel paths
is "common sense" and highlights what they consider to be the
inefficiency of the Security Council, some analysts said the move would
underline Washington's inability to win over the council and the lack
of options against a newly emboldened Iran.
"When you start
doing things that would be better with the Security Council's
endorsement, does it show weakness or strength?" said George Perkovich,
the director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace. "Iran could argue that 'the U.S. couldn't even
get the Security Council backing, and so we are winning.' "
Perkovich
said even traditional U.S. allies were fatigued by dealing with so many
conflicts and didn't want to add Iran to a list that includes
Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon.
"There is a general reluctance to follow the U.S. lead," he said. "Our
negotiating power is diminished, which is regrettable."
Russia and China have specifically objected to the use of a U.N.
charter measure known as Chapter 7 that would open the door to military
action or sanctions. But Bolton said that a resolution on North Korea
passed unanimously in July might create a new template for dealing with
those concerns.
That resolution instituted a ban on supplying
technology and goods related to North Korea's missile and nuclear
programs, and got around China's and Russia's doubts about Chapter 7
with other legally binding language that would prevent an Iraq-style
invasion.
"There are some aspects of the North Korea
resolution that will be useful," Bolton said. "A lot of this is just
going to have be played out."
Times staff writer David Holley in Moscow
contributed to this report.
Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times