The New Iran Sanctions: “Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing”!

By Victor Comras

The UN Security Council, unable to come up with a consensus on meaningful sanctions measures against Iran, has settled on an effete set of measures unlikely to cause Iran to change course. In fact, UN Security Council Resolution 1747 (2007) breaks new ground when it comes to watered- down language, obfuscation and confusion. The new obligations are so trite and vague as to risk serious damage to Security Council credibility and to the future effectiveness of sanctions as a foreign policy tool.

For the first time this writer is aware of in a Chapter VII resolution, the Security Council has refrained from imposing any firm obligations on countries to actually enforce the new chapter VII sanctions measures. It merely calls on states to “exercise vigilance and restraint” when it comes to carrying out these new sanctions obligations. For example in Para 2 the resolution “Calls upon all States also to exercise vigilance and restraint regarding the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals who are engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems…” And these measures apply only to a small list of individuals, mostly members of the Iranian Armed Forces, contained in an annex to the resolution.

In Para 6 the resolution “Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint in the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft” of a limited range of heavy military equipment including battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile system.

And then there is Paragraph 7 which “Calls upon all States and international financial institutions not to enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance, and concessional loans, to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, except for humanitarian and developmental purposes.” What does that mean? And who determines when the grants, loans, or financial assistance is for developmental or for other purposes? I guess that means that it is still all right for China, Russia and any other country to support investment activities in Iran’s oil and gas industry. This apparently leaves on the table the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) $16 billion investment in Iran gas field development.

So what does that leave in the new resolution that can be touted as “additional pressure” on Iran? It adds about two dozen or so new individuals and entities to the asset freeze included in Resolution 1737 (2006). And there is a new ban on buying weapons from Iran. There is also a requirement that countries now report to a Security Council committee whenever a targeted individual included in the resolution’s annex travels to their country. That's not much at all.

It is difficult to understand how these new measures, which include something less than a travel ban, something less that a financial assistance and investment ban, and something less than an arms embargo are going to dissuade Iran from continuing on its presence course.

TrackBack