United Nations rejects U.S. proposal to extend Iran arms embargo

[TU Curmudgeon]

From United Press International

United Nations rejects U.S. proposal to extend Iran arms embargo
​

Aug. 15 (UPI) -- The United Nations Security Council has rejected the U.S. proposal to extend an arms embargo on Iran.

The Dominican Republic was the only country to support the proposal in the security council vote late Friday. Russia and China voted against the U.S. resolution and the rest of the council members abstained.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized member states for their lack of support.

"The Security Council's failure to act decisively in defense of international peace and security is inexcusable," Pompeo said in a statement.

COMMENT:-

In related news, the rumour that Mr. Trump is considering placing a 100% trade embargo on the United Nations and all of its members has not yet been confirmed.

However, Mr. Trump's statement "I am the leader of the free world and what I say to do is what you have to do because that is what being "The Leader" means. Besides why should the US be bound by some so-called 'decision' that has been made by something that the US doesn't even belong to?" is indicative that the possibility cannot be totally dismissed.
​

 

[Cardinal]

In just under four years, Trump has turned us into a pathetic shell of the world leader we used to be.

 

[TomFitz]

I’d bet that the Trump Adminisration didn’t even seriously lobby for it.

Not that the United States carries much weight in the world these day. Or, at least, the President doesn’t.

 

[Peter]

This is indeed what happens when you constantly berate allies.
Trump doesn't inspire leadership he demands fealty and he doesn't realise that you can't do that at the UN.

 

[trouble13]

Its bizarre to argue that we can impose penalties on another country for not complying with an agreement that we pulled out of, so in that vein I would concur with the other nations. However its also bizarre for those nations to not impose sanctions against Iran for advancing its weapons programs when that is against the best interests of all those nations.
What is the point in standing by silently here? You don't have to like Trump to understand that Iran aquiring more powerful weapons is not a good idea.
I feel like there is something being left out of the artical or I am missing something in it.
Theres no doubt that the Trump administration is msking a weak argument and would be on a better foothold to just declare Irans pursuits dangerous and base the sanctions on that rather than invoke the terms of a broken agreement that they broke, but whst do these other nations, who have a good argument for reinstating sanctions based on the agreement that they didnt break, have to gain by standing mute?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Metric Mouse]

From United Press International

United Nations rejects U.S. proposal to extend Iran arms embargo
​

Aug. 15 (UPI) -- The United Nations Security Council has rejected the U.S. proposal to extend an arms embargo on Iran.

The Dominican Republic was the only country to support the proposal in the security council vote late Friday. Russia and China voted against the U.S. resolution and the rest of the council members abstained.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized member states for their lack of support.

"The Security Council's failure to act decisively in defense of international peace and security is inexcusable," Pompeo said in a statement.

COMMENT:-

In related news, the rumour that Mr. Trump is considering placing a 100% trade embargo on the United Nations and all of its members has not yet been confirmed.

However, Mr. Trump's statement "I am the leader of the free world and what I say to do is what you have to do because that is what being "The Leader" means. Besides why should the US be bound by some so-called 'decision' that has been made by something that the US doesn't even belong to?" is indicative that the possibility cannot be totally dismissed.
​

Congrats to China and Russia, I guess. They won this one.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Its bizarre to argue that we can impose penalties on another country for not complying with an agreement that we pulled out of, so in that vein I would concur with the other nations. However its also bizarre for those nations to not impose sanctions against Iran for advancing its weapons programs when that is against the best interests of all those nations.
What is the point in standing by silently here? You don't have to like Trump to understand that Iran aquiring more powerful weapons is not a good idea.
I feel like there is something being left out of the artical or I am missing something in it.
Theres no doubt that the Trump administration is msking a weak argument and would be on a better foothold to just declare Irans pursuits dangerous and base the sanctions on that rather than invoke the terms of a broken agreement that they broke, but whst do these other nations, who have a good argument for reinstating sanctions based on the agreement that they didnt break, have to gain by standing mute?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The point is those other nations wish to suck up to Russia, Iran and China. In this case they could do that as well by remaining silent as they could have by actually voting.

 

[dcsports]

Its bizarre to argue that we can impose penalties on another country for not complying with an agreement that we pulled out of, so in that vein I would concur with the other nations. However its also bizarre for those nations to not impose sanctions against Iran for advancing its weapons programs when that is against the best interests of all those nations.
What is the point in standing by silently here? You don't have to like Trump to understand that Iran aquiring more powerful weapons is not a good idea.
I feel like there is something being left out of the artical or I am missing something in it.
Theres no doubt that the Trump administration is msking a weak argument and would be on a better foothold to just declare Irans pursuits dangerous and base the sanctions on that rather than invoke the terms of a broken agreement that they broke, but whst do these other nations, who have a good argument for reinstating sanctions based on the agreement that they didnt break, have to gain by standing mute?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

International politics is very weird, and often counter-intuitive. You have to figure out the reasons behind the reasons, and put together a puzzle with missing pieces. I would never have the patience for it.

I agree - the US can't force sanctions under an agreement they pulled out of - but the governments still in the agreement should. One could argue that if no one is honoring the agreement, Iran or the other member countries, that the agreement is dead.

Worth noting - the criticism that many had about this agreement has been validated - that Iran would only honor the agreement as long as it was convenient to do so.

 

[Jonsa]

They abstained because they are diplomats and know full well that trump's reelection is facing long odds. The world hopes America loses its incompetent ignorant mob boss soon.

China and Russia are shown leading the way and the US looks like fools. They couldn't wish for better global diplomatic gains if they fought a friggin' war.

 

[trouble13]

They abstained because they are diplomats and know full well that trump's reelection is facing long odds. The world hopes America loses its incompetent ignorant mob boss soon.

China and Russia are shown leading the way and the US looks like fools. They couldn't wish for better global diplomatic gains if they fought a friggin' war.

China and Russia are leading the way to where? Is that a place you think the rest of the world should follow them to?
This is one of the areas progressives lose me. They seem to embrace Totalitarian philosophies.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Good. Time for the international community to put the US in its rightful place.

 

[Godric1970]

The point is those other nations wish to suck up to Russia, Iran and China. In this case they could do that as well by remaining silent as they could have by actually voting.

the thing is America/Trump is breaking international law with unilateral sanctions and demand everyone else to observe them and there is high jacking 4 Iranian tankers is essentially piracy also breaking international laws and trade laws .... America has become a pariah state it now bypasses the UN and demands nations follow international law but refuses to do the same then there is the trade sanctions on china Huawei, Tik Tok, We chat now talk of banning Ali Babba/AliExpress and then there is sanctions on EU/Germany/Russia over Nordstream 2 EU energy policy has nothing to do with the USA and Congress .... it's not for America to decide .... keep pushing and you will regret it ... Europe is about to push back and push back hard

 

[Metric Mouse]

the thing is America/Trump is breaking international law with unilateral sanctions and demand everyone else to observe them and there is high jacking 4 Iranian tankers is essentially piracy also breaking international laws and trade laws .... America has become a pariah state it now bypasses the UN and demands nations follow international law but refuses to do the same then there is the trade sanctions on china Huawei, Tik Tok, We chat now talk of banning Ali Babba/AliExpress and then there is sanctions on EU/Germany/Russia over Nordstream 2 EU energy policy has nothing to do with the USA and Congress .... it's not for America to decide .... keep pushing and you will regret it ... Europe is about to push back and push back hard

Psh. Europe can't even keep Russia out of Belarus or stop Iran from researching and building nuclear missiles. I doubt they'll be able to do anything of consequence to the United States.

 

[Godric1970]

Psh. Europe can't even keep Russia out of Belarus or stop Iran from researching and building nuclear missiles. I doubt they'll be able to do anything of consequence to the United States.

Russia is not in Belarus and even if it was it's not our business it's not a EU state .... and if Iran does build nuclear weapons and missiles Trump and Israel are both to blame ... and for your information Russia is a reliable trading partner and not a threat, unlike america who uploaded malware to every EU nations pwoer grids, spied our governments, and our people and stole data from EU companies to help Us companies win contracts over EU companies and also stole other intellectual property from EU companies ... so who is the real threat to the EU then ??

 

[Metric Mouse]

Russia is not in Belarus and even if it was it's not our business it's not a EU state .... and if Iran does build nuclear weapons and missiles Trump and Israel are both to blame ... and for your information Russia is a reliable trading partner and not a threat, unlike america who uploaded malware to every EU nations pwoer grids, spied our governments, and our people and stole data from EU companies to help Us companies win contracts over EU companies and also stole other intellectual property from EU companies ... so who is the real threat to the EU then ??

Meh. Iran will never have nuclear missiles capable of reaching the United States mainland; not really a concern. Europe might worry, though. Or they might not; they don't seem to care one way or the other, so it's probably ok the United States didn't worry either. Let them have them, or don't. No one seems interested in stopping them.

And Russia isn't a threat to the European Union, or the United States. I mean, except for their attacks on the Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian power grids. Nobody cares about the Ukraine. The EU will be fine backed by Russia. That's exactly why the United States is withdrawing troops from Germany; what is the need?

 

[poweRob]

Congrats to China and Russia, I guess. They won this one.

Which is the long way of saying congrats to Trump.

 

[Cardinal]

China and Russia are leading the way to where? Is that a place you think the rest of the world should follow them to?
This is one of the areas progressives lose me. They seem to embrace Totalitarian philosophies.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Uh...no. Nobody with an ounce of sense thinks humanitarian disasters like Russia and China should be leading on anything. That's why it was better when we had a place of global leadership.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Which is the long way of saying congrats to Trump.

I don't ascribe to the "Donald Trump is playing 3D chess" line of reasoning, but is it possible that he wished for this deal to fail, and could only do so by having the United States vote for it so that China and Russia would vote against it? Would it have been easier to just not introduce the resolution?

I'm sorry, I think it's a clear loss for Donald Trump in his dealings with Iran. You're welcome to expand your arguments supporting him though.

 

[snakestretcher]

International politics is very weird, and often counter-intuitive. You have to figure out the reasons behind the reasons, and put together a puzzle with missing pieces. I would never have the patience for it.

I agree - the US can't force sanctions under an agreement they pulled out of - but the governments still in the agreement should. One could argue that if no one is honoring the agreement, Iran or the other member countries, that the agreement is dead.

Worth noting - the criticism that many had about this agreement has been validated - that Iran would only honor the agreement as long as it was convenient to do so.

Iran was in full compliance with the agreement, according to the IAEA, until Trump stupidly decided to pull out, guaranteeing tensions in the region would increase.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report - Reuters

IAEA Says Iran Abiding by Nuclear Deal | Arms Control Association

Iran stays within nuclear deal's main limits while testing another - Reuters

 

[dcsports]

Iran was in full compliance with the agreement, according to the IAEA, until Trump stupidly decided to pull out, guaranteeing tensions in the region would increase.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report - Reuters

IAEA Says Iran Abiding by Nuclear Deal | Arms Control Association

Iran stays within nuclear deal's main limits while testing another - Reuters

Again, Iran only planned to stay in it until it suited them not to. Once they built up their infrastructure to the point where they could exceed it, they did. Even after agreeing to maintain the agreement with the other countries. They did exactly what many warned they would.

 

[dcsports]

Iran was in full compliance with the agreement, according to the IAEA, until Trump stupidly decided to pull out, guaranteeing tensions in the region would increase.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report - Reuters

IAEA Says Iran Abiding by Nuclear Deal | Arms Control Association

Iran stays within nuclear deal's main limits while testing another - Reuters

From that last article....

Inspectors found that Iran’s stock of enriched uranium was well below the limit set by the deal, as of May 20. That last date covered by the report is also the day Iran said it had increased the rate at which it enriches uranium, meaning any acceleration will appear only in the next report.

The IAEA said Iran had installed 33 advanced IR-6 centrifuges, machines that can enrich uranium, although only 10 had been tested with uranium feedstock so far. The deal allows Iran to test up to 30, but only after 8 1/2 years have passed. The limit before then is a “grey area”, diplomats say.

“Technical discussions in relation to the IR-6 centrifuges are ongoing,” the report said. A senior diplomat, asked about the nature of those discussions, declined to elaborate.

While Iran has stayed within the deal’s main limits over the past three years, it has breached a cap on its heavy water stock within the first year, although this is acknowledged by diplomats as a comparatively minor issue. Diplomats also say it has dragged its feet on allowing access to some sites, without explicitly violating the requirements of the deal.

So they were installing 'extra' centrifuges that they didn't plan to test or use for 8 1/2 years? And they happened to increase production on the day the report came out? And they happened to need excessive amounts of heavy water in the first year of the agreement?

I have a bridge for sale.

 

[snakestretcher]

Again, Iran only planned to stay in it until it suited them not to. Once they built up their infrastructure to the point where they could exceed it, they did. Even after agreeing to maintain the agreement with the other countries. They did exactly what many warned they would.

We don't know that. Why should Iran honour a joint agreement when the other party has reneged? It took years of delicate diplomacy to reach the agreement in the first place, but of course it was Obama's achievement and, just like every other achievement of the Obama administration, Trump had to crap on it for no other reason than it wan't his idea-and he despises Obama anyway for mocking him publicly at the White House correspondent's dinner. Mocking an already pathologically insecure individual was guaranteed to further anger the vengeful little creep.

 

[snakestretcher]

From that last article....



So they were installing 'extra' centrifuges that they didn't plan to test or use for 8 1/2 years? And they happened to increase production on the day the report came out? And they happened to need excessive amounts of heavy water in the first year of the agreement?

I have a bridge for sale.

"...a comparatively minor issue...without explicitly violating the requirements of the deal". Like I said, Iran was in full compliance until the idiot Trump crapped over Obama's brilliantly conceived diplomatic coup.

 

[dcsports]

We don't know that. Why should Iran honour a joint agreement when the other party has reneged? It took years of delicate diplomacy to reach the agreement in the first place, but of course it was Obama's achievement and, just like every other achievement of the Obama administration, Trump had to crap on it for no other reason than it wan't his idea-and he despises Obama anyway for mocking him publicly at the White House correspondent's dinner. Mocking an already pathologically insecure individual was guaranteed to further anger the vengeful little creep.

We do know that. Iran has a history of this.

And again, they said they would continue to honor the agreement with the other countries. The entire time they were adding centrifuges and material to break the agreement.

 

[dcsports]

"...a comparatively minor issue...without explicitly violating the requirements of the deal". Like I said, Iran was in full compliance until the idiot Trump crapped over Obama's brilliantly conceived diplomatic coup.

It was NOT a 'brilliant' deal, but a very flawed one that was doomed to fail.

And you may call it 'minor', but it clearly shows they never intended to honor the agreement, and were planning to break it. Why would they install the maximum number of centrifuges allowed... plus three extra... in the first year of the agreement? Do you think they really intended to install 33, and not even test them for 8 1/2 years? Or that they didn't plan to install more?