UN votes for trade sanctions on Iran over nuclear fears

Iran have vowed to ignore a new UN resolution imposed against it's nuclear programme and has said that it will "reconsider" its relationship with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The UN resolution has been the result of months of tense negotiations between the US and China and Russia, and will no doubt be viewed as a victory by Bush's White House.

The sanctions include provisions to block the supply to Iran of any technology or equipment that could be used in nuclear and missile programmes. Foreign countries will also be barred from offering relevant technical, training or financial assistance. The resolution imposes an asset freeze and other restrictions, too, on 12 Iranians identified as involved in nuclear activities, as well as on 11 institutions and companies.

This is yet another example of the Bush regime's high stakes poker style of diplomacy. The Baker Report has already identified Iran as one of the nations that the US needs to talk to in order to sort out the mess in Iraq and Bush responds by pushing through a regime of sanctions against that very country.

This is on top of Bush's decision to place additional warships and aircraft into the region in a show of America's resolve against that nation.

Senior American officers said the increase in naval power should not be viewed as preparations for any offensive strike against Iran. But they acknowledged that the ability to hit Iran would be increased and that Iranian leaders might well call the growing presence provocative.

This is the kind of insane high stakes madness that makes me say this guy should be impeached. The very fact that the US is bogged down in Iraq is now the very reason being used for increasing pressure on Iran.

But these same officials acknowledge that Iran is the focus of any new deployments, as administration officials view recent bold moves by Iran — and by North Korea, as well — as at least partly explained by assessments in Tehran and North Korea that the American military is bogged down in Iraq and incapable of fully projecting power elsewhere.

This is why I refer to this as poker style diplomacy. Bush IS bogged down in Iraq, of that there is no denial. Other regional powers - Iran and North Korea - are no doubt flexing their muscles based on that reality.

But Bush, rather than seeking a way out of the quagmire that is Iraq, is seeking to double the stakes. He's saying to Iran, "We could take you as well" even though most of us are aware that, other than tactical air strikes, he actually couldn't take Iran at all. And, of course, even if he were to strike Iran from the air, we have no way of predicting what Iran would do in retaliation.

What's being ignored here is that every time Bush has played this high stakes macho game he has lost. North Korea ignored him, the invasion of Iraq blew up in is face and the Israeli attack on Lebanon succeeded only in delivering Israel her worst military defeat in history.

Insane right wingers will no doubt list Libya as a success but getting Gaddaffi to give up weapons that he didn't possess hardly counts as a strategic victory.

So Bush, the man who has lost every single time he has attempted this kind of gamble, has decided to roll the dice one more time, isolate Iran further and push the Baker Report recommendations into the bin.

Glenn Greenwald summed up what is at stake here:

Any military conflict with Iran would be so disastrous for the U.S. that it cannot be adequately described. In contrast to the weakened, isolated, universally reviled Saddam regime, the Iranians are smart, strong, shrewd and supported by scores of vitally important allies around the world. And that's to say nothing of the resources that are being drained away, and the ever increasing U.S. isolation, that occurs every day that we continue to occupy Iraq.

It's possible that that rhetoric was designed to satiate his hungry, crazed warmongering "base." And it's also possible that it was designed to simply convey to the Iranians that military force is possible despite our occupation of Iraq.

But it's equally possible that he really does believe that some sort of war with Iran is inevitable -- even if it is "just" an air attack -- and recent news events suggesting that public opposition to President Ahmadinejad is growing may trigger the President's messianic complex and lead him to the belief that the U.S. is "called upon" to help bring democracy to that country. And many of the people who convinced the President to invade Iraq have long harbored dreams of regime change in Iran as the Ultimate Success, or at least the Next Step in the Epic War of Civilizations.

So having upped the ante militarily, Bush has now - through the United Nations - upped the ante further diplomatically.

At a time when Baker has suggested diplomacy, Bush has responded with the barrel of a gun.

The man who set the Middle East on fire is, once again, strutting through the region - waving his petrol can - daring anyone who challenges him that he will spray it's contents everywhere.

It's an insane policy, made all the more insane by the fact that, in any conflict with Iran, the US is almost certain to lose. What's to stop Iran from invading Iraq and driving the occupiers out? From "liberating" Iraq's Shia's from foreign occupation?

Good poker players know which hands to play and which ones to drop. Bush is determined to raise the stakes in a game in which we all know his hand and we all know it's not a good one.

It's not even a policy, it's simply recklessness.

Iran have issued an immediate response:

Iran says it will immediately resume uranium enrichment activities, one day after the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Tehran.

This could all be sorted by the negotiations that Bush refuses to enter into. However, in his macho fake-cowboy way, Bush prefers to gamble.

Perhaps he has merely replaced one addiction with another. But with his track record on these kind of gambles - the kind he feels in his gut rather than his brain, which he refuses to engage - the results are almost guaranteed to be bad. Indeed, bad is the best we can hope for. Disastrous is also on the cards.

Click title for full article.

tag: Bush, Iraq war, Iran, Baker report, Ahmadinejad, United Nations, US foreign policy,