Facts For The Good Fight
ONE — THE DEADLINE
On July 31, 2006, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1696, which told Iran to stop enriching uranium by August 31 or face the consequences. Yep. That’s today. U.N. and European officials yesterday said that, even in the face of the threat of U.N. sanctions, Iran has refused to stop enrichin uranium. As a result, top officials from the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany will meet early next week to discuss sanctions. (Look for the meeting to take place in Berlin or Vienna.)
The consensus in the intel community: Iran is probably about 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon.
TWO — THE HOLDOUTS
China and Russia have dragged feet about sanctioning Iran. The guy in charge of bringing those two countries on diplomatic board? The notorious hot-headed and non-diplomatic U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Factoring for Bolton’s failure, the White House has reportedly spent weeks organizing a “coalition of the willing” independent group of European and Asian countries to act outside of the U.N., which, after the other “coalition of the willing” going into Japan, leaves many nations fairly anxious. [LA Times]
THREE — THE WHITE HOUSE SPLIT
Two very different factions in the White House have been battling over Iran: The realists (who want to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions) and the ideologues (who want another regime change.) The result? A White House which has spent months struggling but without an official policy. [American Prospect]
FOUR — FANNING THE FLAMES
Talk about lessons not learned — watch out for ideologues who aren’t afraid to manipulate the intel to get what they want (aka: regime change). Last week, the House Intel Committee released what the NYT called a “garishly illlustrated and luridly written document” which implied Iran is “developing nuclear weapons a lot faster than intelligence agencies have the guts to admit.” Scary stuff, but get ready with your grain of salt. Further investigation showed the report contained multiple factual errors and may be designed more as a “strategy of scaring Americans” than as an objective assessment of the threat. [NY Times]
FIVE – WHAT SANCTIONS DOES THE U.S. WANT?
- Diplomatic officials, speaking on condition of immunity, told the NYT the sanctions the U.S. may seek against Iran. [NY Times]
- Restrictions on the import of nuclear-related equipment and material.
- Travel by Iran’s leaders restricted
- Iran’s access to global financial markets limited.
- A ban by European financial institutions on new lending to Iran. (“Some Swiss banks have already quietly agreed to limit their lending, American officials say.”)
WANT MORE?
Check out The Progress Report. They have everything you need to know.
RSS headlines feed