Talk:United States sanctions against Iran

this is only US sanctions

Is seems to me that this article should be renamed "US sanctions agains Iran", since it deals only with US sanctions, not UN sanctions for example, and there could be a more general article named "sanctions against Iran" that would group all sanctions against Iran, whether they are international, US, European etc.--Alain10 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to flag an article, but I think this one needs to be flagged for clean-up, it appears to not only focus on US sanctions, but seems to take a distinctly anti-American slant (ie saying the United States purposefull shot down the civilian airliner, which is exceptionally doubtful)... KrisFricke (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the US downing of the airliner.....it looks true that the shootdown was not intentional (well it was certainly intentional but we assume was intending to shoot down a warplane) but one must call it cavalier. The warship was protecting itself in someone else's waters or not considering the risk to itself more important than the risk to the airplane. It was a gross mistake which should be called manslaughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.161.42 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is not relevant to a Wikipedia article. What is relevant is the recitation of facts. The facts are that the aircraft did not respond to repeated warnings to identify itself and divert course, and the warship fired before verifying the target. The question of fault is not for random members of the public to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.184.9 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 747

Did anybody notice the aircraft pictured is a Boeing 747? Obviously purchased before the sanctions, the article should clarify that for possibly confused readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.137.59 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Airplanes

What is the problem with the US not selling parts if the plane is not airworthy it should not be flown and any crash is the fault of Iranian officials. 1,500 killed how is that the fault of the US iran should not have flown them or maybe stopped support of terrorist groups blowing up american soldiers or nuclear weapons development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.177.65 (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah, because american soldiers came to change scenery and make new friends. and before you talk about nuclear weapons, why can't iran have them? the US and isreal have them and no one seemed to give a damn. hell, even the US nuked the shit out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over 370,000 and no body said anything.

those terrorist you are talking about are the rightful defenders of their countries. get your news from the internet not from US TV. it fucks up with your point of view--7amada'sback:) (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

hold on one second I can't see after what the Taliban did to the Iranian ambassadors and the Hazara of Afghanistan not being terrorist . And buying things from north korea I mean The west can only make you look so crazy Iran has had many dealings with kim jung il." US nuked the shit out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over 370,000 and no body said anything." because everyone knew a full scale invasion of the japanese home island would have cost many more lives on both sides. As for flying airplanes that don't work its the iranian Govs fault for no checking the planes and grounding them!

Major copyedit

I just did a major copyedit of the page. I focused on changing language to be clear, removing redundancies, and complying with WP:NPOV. I removed information not specifically related to sanctions nor needed to explain them (as, for example, that U.S. forces attacked Iranian naval forces, or that IEEE, not a U.S. government agency, restricted privileges of Iranian members). I fixed a lot of the citations, and removed two external links not complying with WP:EL.

I also removed the three templates at the top of the page. I ask that if someone puts one or more back, he/she also explains, on this talk page, exactly why there is a problem (giving examples of NPOV language still in the article, or examples of where a non-U.S. viewpoint is missing). I do strongly recommend against posting a template regarding the less-than-complete references. There are literally millions of Wikipedia articles that need more footnotes. There is no need to waste everyone's time by pointing out that need in this article specifically. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm trying to cut short the edit war on this article. The reason for rejecting the proposed edits is that they are opinion presented as fact.

The issue is why the November 2004 Paris agreement between the EU3 and Iran broke down. MUCHERS22 asserts that it was because the EU3 reneged, presumably by not developing a proposal for a long-term resolution of the issue. In fact, the EU3 did develop such a proposal, though Iran argued that it was too little too late. In addition, Iran never fully adhered to its commitment to suspend enrichment-related activities, constantly pursuing activities at the uranium conversion facility which was explicitly listed as enrichment-related. The EU3 would cite Iran's decision to end that suspension altogether as the cause for the breakdown. All this took place in less than a year. NPguy (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The EU-3 talks broke down not because of the slow progress of the EU-3, it broke down when the EU-3 with the push from the U.S. demanded Iran to (amongst other things) permanently terminate its enrichment program before any deal could be reached. This demand was in contrast to the Paris agreement the EU-3 and Iran just had agreed to, namely, that the suspension was temporary and volountary. EU-3 failed to recognize the right they had granted Iran in the agreement, they also demanded things from Iran but offered no substantive incentives in return. Since EU-3 had failed to follow the spirit of the agreement and therefore broke it, Iran began to enrich again in accordance with the NP Treaty.

The reason for why I changed the article is because I think it is biased and also false, since it putting all the blame on Iran. I am open to compromise on this issue, its a matter of words.

MUCHERS22 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the EU3 never demanded that Iran permanently end its enrichment program. If you have information to the contrary, please provide. It is clear that the EU3 and Iran had different views of how long the suspension might last. But given that Iran began nibbling away at the suspension within months of the Paris agreement, it's not clear that Iran was ever serious about a meaningful suspension. The EU3 did develop a package of incentives and made it public after Iran rejected the package. Less than a year after the Paris agreement, Iran that walked away from it. If they ran out of patience, it's only because they had very little to start with. The EU3 have also consistently recognized Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear program.

The question here is what triggered the push for sanctions by the UN Security Council. It was the report to the Council by the IAEA Board of Governors that Iran had violated its NPT safeguards agreement, as required by the IAEA Statute. This finding was based on the IAEA report of November 2003, but was held in abeyance as long as Iran was seen to be cooperating with the EU3 to resolve the matter. Once Iran walked away from the Paris agreement, the Board felt it could no longer delay in meeting its responsibility. NPguy (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the EU-3 wanted to impose a indefinite suspension of enrichment - namely to abandon and full cessesion of the fuel cycle activities (enrichment) in 2005, while they (EU-3) earlier, had fully agreed to Iran's temporarily and volountary continous suspenion since 2003 (with a renewal in 2004).

As for the incentives, it has been described by some diplomats as: "an empty box of chocolates" and thats because: "there is nothing else we can offer ... the Americans simply wouldn't let us.". Even the IAEA have outlined this claim, pointing out the lack of profound incentives prosposed to Iran during the dialogue.

For example the WTO-offer, its not up to EU do decide whetever Iran is to join or not, or the incentive about exchange/profilation of civilian nuclear technology, that right are Iran already granted according to the NP Treaty. Another incentive where the EU-3 proposal for Iran to get nuclear fuel abroad, which clearly means that Iran wasnt granted their full right according to the NP Treaty, without discrimination - which then exposed that the EU-3 wasnt serious about the legal right for Iran when it comes to the NP Treaty, because according to the NP Treaty you are of course granted to enrich fuel to begin with. On top of that, there was no substansive security incentives from the EU-3, because they (EU-3) couldn't propose such a incentive since the U.S. wasnt happy with this bilateral dialogue to begin with. Also, the incentives said nothing about sanctions at all (in regards to ease/lift them) et.c.

Then came the sanctions which is highly dubious in itself (legality), but thats offtopic for this specific issue.

So, putting all the blame on Iran which these few sentence does in the article, gives a false impression of what really happend, I therefore think we should neutralize this particular text to make it less biased and seek to portray a more historiclly correct.MUCHERS22 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your rendition of the history bears little resemblance to the facts I am familiar with. NPguy (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thats I mean, we have an article that is biased and give a false depiction of what happend.

I also see a problem with the text portraying that is was due Ahmadinejad becoming a president, that Iran proceeded with their nuclear work. Thats not correct, for example, the possible restart of enrichment was mentioned mounths before Ahmadinejad even took office.

Second, it wasnt in 2005 they started its enrichment (which the article tells us), but just a limited conversion acitivity.

And let me get back to one of your earlier statements you made that Iran had "violated" the NP Treaty - Safeguards agreement. Iran has never violated those treaties according the bureau that have inspected the sites, namely the IAEA.MUCHERS22 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You may have a point that restarting Iran's enrichment program should not be linked to Ahmadinejad. In the Paris agreement Iran agreed to suspend uranium conversion, which was identified as "enrichment-related activity." So restarting conversion was restarting "enrichment-related activity." In September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors concluded that Iran had indeed violated its NPT safeguards agreement. NPguy (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the article should say that they started working on conversion then, calling it "enrichment-related activity" is a rather vast, and could be a misleading, term.

When did IAEA used the word 'violated'?

The agreement says first and foremost that the suspension will be 1. Volountary 2. Temporary 3. That the agreement itself is a non-legal binding agreement. The agreement was a mere confidence building "construction" during the talks, not a legal matter.

Also "the suspension will be sustained while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term agreements"

So when the EU-3 ignored to reply to Iran's proposals they sent, their lack of progress and when the EU-3 itself broke the spirit of the agreement when they called and proposed for incentives that neglected Iran's full right according to the NPT, there was no reason to keep the suspension on going for Iran.

The EU-3 proposal incentives also critically lacked the fundamental and basic goal of the agreement, namely to provide serious and substansive guarantees and commitments:

"The agreement will provide...."objective guarantees" " provide firm guarantees" "firm commitments"

MUCHERS22 (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about "enrichment related activity." The only purpose for producing uranium hexafluoride is for enrichment. The IAEA Board of Governors, in its resolution of September 24, 2005, found that Iran had been in "non-compliance" with its safeguards agreement, essentially a synonym for "violation." The EU3 proposal was quite extensive. Iran ended its suspension, effectively withdrawing from the Paris agreement, before it received the proposal, even though the proposal was provided at the promised time. The proposal contained substantial commitments from the EU3. According to the Paris agreement, it was for Iran to provide "objective guarantees" regarding the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. NPguy (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-compliance, means just that, it doesnt mean anything else and its not in no way synonymous with the usage of the word 'violation'. Non-compliance is when a member state have been (for example) repugnant, delayed, have not been enough collaborative on IAEA wishes. Because when IAEA have used the word 'violated'on the other hand, they have used it when a nation have been in breach with the treaties they have signed, Iran have, according to the the BOG of the IAEA been in non-compliance - but again, being in non-compliance doesnt mean Iran have breached the treaty. For example North Korea have breached the treaty so after the IAEA inspected the North korean nuclear sites they then used the word 'violated' in their report.

No, Iran didnt "withdraw" from anything to begin with. They began its conversion-program at one limited place after the EU-3 presented its breaching of the Paris agreement in August 2005 (the conversion wasnt illegal since the site had been declared to the IAEA and subsequently monitored), also they didnt departure from the talks. Also the agreement itself, as mentioned earlier, was a non-legal binding agreement, it was a sole confidence building measure. The agreement states: "The suspension will be implemented in time for the IAEA to confirm before the November Board that it has been put into effect. The suspension will be sustained while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements," it said. "The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation."

The IAEA themselves explicitly made this statement in one of their reports on Iran: "While the results of Agency safeguards activities may influence the nature and scope of the confidence building measures that the Board requests Iran to take, it is important to note that safeguards obligations and confidence building measures are different, distinct and not interchangeable. "

So if anyone withdrew it is the EU-3 group that failed to respect the premise in the Partis agreement they previously had agreed too. Since EU-3 failed to follow the agreement, there was no reason for Iran to keep going since the agreement goal was to find a solution that was mutual.

According to who did the proposal contain "substantial commitments" but also "firm guarantees", "firm commitments" and "objective guarantees"? Which source explicitly say that? Or is it just your personal view? We must reduce all such NPOV arguments and standpoints in this discussion and also in the article itself. Chrissler48 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case, "non-compliance" refers to Iran's failure to meet its international legal obligations. It's more than just not cooperating - it's a long list of specific "breaches" of Iran's obligations under its NPT safeguards agreement with the IAEA. In particular, Iran violated its NPT safeguards obligations by concealing enrichment activities and related facilities and materials from the IAEA, despite its NPT obligation to place all nuclear material under IAEA safeguards. It's not an ambiguous case. The IAEA decisions use the term "non-compliance" because it is how the concept is expressed in the IAEA Statute.

As for who walked out on the Paris agreement, it's clear that Iran ran out of patience with the EU3 just as they were about to make a comprehensive proposal. By restarting its conversion facility, Iran took the first overt action to effectively end the agreement while the EU3 were still ready to deal. Iran's serious NPT violations put the onus on Iran to rebuild confidence in its intentions, an effort Iran does not seem to have pursued in earnest. The text of the Paris agreement is available here. NPguy (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No they have never breached the NPT, they have been in non-compliance which is not the same thing. And Iran didnt violate the treaty by not notify the IAEA about the facilities since Iran, as a member state is only obliged to to do that 180 days before you place nuclear material which was exactly what Iran did, in fact, they notified the agency even more than 3 mounths prior. Thats no violation.

EU-3 did indeed deviate and broke the the agreement by proposing stuff that violated the agreement itself. When Iran recogized this failure of the EU-3 they started the pre-enrichment activity, that is conversion under IAEA surveillance which they were fully legally to do since it was volountary and non-legally binding.

Also you didnt reply to this:

"According to who did the proposal contain "substantial commitments" but also "firm guarantees", "firm commitments" and "objective guarantees"? Which source explicitly say that? Or is it just your personal view? We must reduce all such NPOV arguments and standpoints in this discussion and also in the article itself."Chrissler48 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, so I will simply repeat that I disagree. Iran did violate the NPT, in particular its safeguards obligations. It has nothing to do with the (outdated) 180 day limit on declaring facilities - it's about failure to place material under safeguards - i.e. diversion of material that Iran was legally required to place under safeguards. My reply to your last point was to look at the text of the Paris agreement, for which I provided a link. NPguy (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I just replied to your statement about violation regarding "concealment", there was no violation since they werent obliged to do so before a specific time. But leaving that off-topics aside... Sure we have a disagreement, therefore we must come together with a compromise over this issue in regards to what should be said in the article.Chrissler48 (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong on the facts. Iran violated its safeguards agreement by failing to declare nuclear material that it was required to declare under its safeguards agreement. There is no ambiguity. NPguy (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well like I said, "leaving such off-topics aside". You got your your view and thats why I said we need to find a compromise, because your view is not the only one or necessary the fully correct one, regarding what should be said in the article.Chrissler48 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)