U.S. Imposes Toughest New Sanctions on Iran Since '79 Embassy Seizure
| Thu Oct. 25, 2007 5:49 AM PDT
The Washington Post reports:
The Bush administration plans to roll out an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Iran today, including the long-awaited designations of its Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and of the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism, according to senior administration officials.
The package, scheduled to be announced jointly by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., marks the first time that the United States has tried to isolate or punish another country's military. It is the broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, the officials said. ...
Continues Below
Continued From Above
The Bush administration plans to roll out an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Iran today, including the long-awaited designations of its Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and of the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism, according to senior administration officials.
The package, scheduled to be announced jointly by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., marks the first time that the United States has tried to isolate or punish another country's military. It is the broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, the officials said.
"I wonder why it took them so long," comments a Hill staffer of the administration's long reported plans to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps and/or its Quds Force as a sponsor of terrorism. "Sounds like a tug of war between Rice/Gates and the VP office. They apparently cut down the middle, designating the entire Revolutionary Guard as a WMD proliferator, but limiting the state sponsor of terror designation to the Qods Force alone."
Washington is ratcheting up the pressure as the administration continues to be riven by a dispute between those who believe the US should continue to pursue tough diplomacy to get Iran to change its behavior, and those who believe the US should strike Iran. As the Post notes, "Administration officials say that they are imposing new sanctions to demonstrate a commitment to diplomacy, even amid increasing rumblings from neoconservatives outside the administration about possible military action."
Comments
what did we expect after a 76 to 22 vote in the Senate urging george dubya bullsh to designate a branch of Iran's military as "a terrorist organization"?
yes, a 76 to 22 vote would necessarily include over half of the Senate's democrats since Repubs Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel voted 'no' on the resolution.
so tomorrow, when you hear Dems lay a bunch of blame on bullsh for this action, you know they're over half-way full of ****
I believe that the current administration will attack Iran in one way or another before the elections in 2008. I don't know how this will be justified or, or if the administration will even try. But justification matters very little, since it will be a flagrant attempt to influence those elections. It will be a shame that many people will have to die in an attempt by the Ruling Party of America to try to retain power.
at least 28 of the 51 democrats in the senate voted to urge George Dubya Bush to declare the Iranian army's revolutionary guard a foreign terrorist organization, thereby giving him all the political cover he needs to harrass Iran in whatever way his twisted little mind sees fit.
www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27cong.html
if the dems turn around later and act like they had nothing to do with it, they're as full of shit as Karl Rove.
clear enough this time?
"Administration officials say that they are imposing new sanctions to demonstrate a commitment to diplomacy..."
isn't their "commitment to diplomacy" missing a key ingredient... namely; some diplomacy? maybe a diplomat or any contact with the Iranian government in say, the last thirty years?
