US could seek Iran sanctions outside UN: Bolton

[sabra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050200952.html

US could seek Iran sanctions outside UN: Bolton

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With no clear sign the United States can win U.N. support for sanctions against Iran, the Bush administration said on Tuesday it could work instead with like-minded nations to punish Tehran for its nuclear programs.

The United States, which has its own sanctions on the Islamic republic, is lobbying for the United Nations Security Council to impose international sanctions on Iran but faces resistance from veto holders Russia and China.

"If for whatever reason the council couldn't fulfill its responsibilities, then I think it would be incumbent on us, and I'm sure we would press ahead to ask other countries or other groups of countries to impose those sanctions," John Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, told a House of Representatives government reform subcommittee.

...

Under sharp questioning from Democrats who said President George W. Bush appeared intent on war with Iran, Bolton dismissed as "fiction" news reports that the United States has covert forces in Iran. He said Bush was focused on diplomatic remedies.

[Rude Horner]

1. I don't think this administration gives a shit

about the U.N. It's all a horse and pony show. If the U.N. agrees, fine, but if they don't, we'll go it alone and say "screw 'em". This administration and PNAC have long sought to destroy the U.N.

[bullimiami]

2. bushs america is a rogue nation. i guess the un is hoping elections and

the american people will bring sanity before it turns into another nazi germany, fascist italy or imperial japan.

[54anickel]

3. What a sanctimonious ass!

Under questioning by Democrats, Bolton said he had not read an article in the New Yorker magazine that the United States had covert military operations in Iran "because I don't have time to read much fiction."

He also rebuffed persistent questions from Democrats on whether in his previous post as the State Department's top arms control diplomat, he had a role in writing administration documents making now discredited assertions about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

"I'm sorry to disappoint you, Congressman. I had no role in this issue," Bolton told Rep. Henry Waxman of California, top Democrat on the Government Reform committee.

[BR_Parkway]

4. I've been wondering - what if Iran stopped shipping us oil as a sanction?

what sort of damage would that do to our economy. While we're sitting here lining up other countries to impose sanctions against them, what if they turned the tables?

[stillcool]

5. unilateral sanctions...

or pre-emptive sanctions..followed by shock and awe?

[daleo]

6. Another coalition of the willing

Small south sea islands will refuse to buy natural gas from Iran.

[Phony Doctor]

7. Does anyone here have any good suggestions on how to deal with Iran?

I don't. Seriously, and there's not an iota of leadership anywhere in DC that seems to have a plan.

I'd love your suggestions

[wuushew]

9. I really don't think Iran is an Amerikan problem

dealing with the Iranians 1953-1979 is why the whole situation is fucked up to begin with.

As an opponent of fossil fuels I support the Iranian nuclear power initiative and as fan of international sovereignty I am not going to tell Iran it cannot build nuclear bombs, especially as citizen of the country that unnecessarily maintains far and away the largest and most destructive nuclear arsenal bar none.

[bemildred]

10. Iran does not need to be dealt with.

The US "dealing" with Iran is what lead to the current fucked up situation. There is no reason at all to think that more "dealing with" Iran will not make things worse. Many times the best thing to do is nothing at all, but that is sometimes hard for mental juveniles with poor emotional control, like our "leaders", to deal with.

[IndianaGreen]

13. We should do nothing!

Our war cries have done nothing but to strengthen the radicals in Iran at the expense of the moderates.

Let's face it, our track record in the Middle East is one of failure after failure.

Iran is not our problem!

[ConcernedCanuk]

18. I agree with all the previous responses to your post - LEAVE THEM ALONE!!

.
.
.

If Iran becomes a problem - China and Russia can pulverize them in an instant

and Iran knows that

Iran just wants to be Iran

It would take Iran decades to achieve the nuclear capabilities that Israel has.

And Israel will keep well ahead of anything Iran can ever do (with the USA's assistance and blessing of course)

So in itself, Iran is a non-issue

well,

except for the USA's (dangerous) sabre-rattling

AND

anyone consider that Iran is telling the TRUTH?

Iraq was . . .

[TexasLawyer]

8. Let's annex the Sudetenland

while we're at it.

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[rustydog]

11. sanctions of the willing? God damn, these guys are so transparent

[dave29]

12. coalition of the US and Khazikstan, right?

nice.

[MiniMe]

16. Don't forget Poland.

[Jazzgirl]

14. What like-minded nations??!!??

[bamacrat]

15. How dumb are the pukes

We can barely sustain a force in Iraq. Iran is three times as determined as the Iraqis were. Didnt Russia and China say they would back Iran if attacked? Too fucking scary for me, a 22 year old male, to think about. Sure is getting drafty.:yoiks: :scared: :nuke:

[HuffleClaw]

17. WHAT "like-minded nations" ???

the UK has already said they don't want to join any new march to war and they were the only REAL 'coalition partner' involved in iraq.