United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

"The European Union will impose new financial sanctions on Iran in the next few weeks if Tehran fails to respond positively to a fresh offer from the big world powers regarding its nuclear ambitions," the Financial Times of London reported Tuesday.[1] -- But British Prime Minister Gordon Browne got it wrong when he suggested in his press conference that sanctions were being immediately implemented, James Blitz and Alex Barker reported. -- "At the [Jun. 16] press conference, Mr. Brown said action would start on a new phase of sanctions against Iran’s oil and gas reserves. However, a senior British official said that discussion of this kind of action — such as banning imports of Iranian liquefied natural gas — was just beginning at international level." -- Al Jazeera repeated Brown's mistake as a fact, reporting that "European Union nations have agreed on the need for a new round of sanctions to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons" and that "The new measures target Tehran's oil and gas sectors in what would be the strongest punishment yet." -- "[A] spokeswoman for Javier Solana, the E.U. foreign affairs and security chief who failed last weekend to win Iran's support for a package of incentives, said E.U. foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday were prepared to take formal action. 'It is clear they are ready to move further. We will definitely take a formal decision,' Cristina Gallach said." -- The public announcement of a decision that has not been made but that "will definitely" be made is the sort of disrespectful conduct likely to guarantee that Iran would reject the offer, which last weekend was granted an unexpectedly cordial reception in Tehran, the Scotsman observed on Tuesday: "[T]he more America and Britain try to humiliate the regime in public, the less likely Tehran is to respond positively."[3] -- The Guardian also marveled at what appeared either as bungling by Browne, or a deliberate effort to sabotage the E.U.'s diplomatic approach to Iran.[4] -- Bronwen Maddox of the Murdoch-owned Times of London acknowledged Browne's blunder, but expressed satisfaction at its likely effect: "Iran’s economic predicament has worsened, given its need to import petrol, the vulnerability of its poorest people to rising food prices, and its failure to develop other sources of income. Those pressures, and the handling of the nuclear program itself, have caused rifts within the regime (although high hopes of this have come to nothing in the past). -- It is the right point to toughen sanctions farther, and to look at curbs on oil and gas trade. . . . Better to pick a fight when Iran’s worst weapon is still just oil."[5] ...

E.U. BACKS IRAN OFFER WITH NEW SANCTION THREAT
By James Blitz and Alex Barker

The European Union will impose new financial sanctions on Iran in the next few weeks if Tehran fails to respond positively to a fresh offer from the big world powers regarding its nuclear ambitions.

After a visit to Iran at the weekend by Javier Solana, the E.U. foreign policy chief, Tehran is considering the offer, under which it would receive a wide range of economic and political support if it suspends uranium enrichment.

E.U. diplomats remain pessimistic that Iran will give a positive response to the package on offer but they want to give the Iranian regime a brief opportunity to study the offer.

The diplomats insist that the fresh E.U. sanctions, which go further than those this year enacted by the United Nations Security Council, would be fully implemented within a month if Iran fails to give a positive response.

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, said at a joint press conference with George W. Bush, U.S. president, in London on Monday, that the U.K. was pushing the E.U. to impose the new sanctions.

“Britain will urge Europe, and Europe will agree, to take further sanctions against Iran,” he said. “We will take any necessary action so that Iran is aware of the choice it has to make to start to play its part as a full and respected member of the international community -- or face further isolation.”

However, the E.U. diplomats said Mr. Brown was wrong to suggest at one point in his press conference that sanctions were being implemented with immediate effect.

The U.N. Security Council this year agreed a third round of sanctions, which call on member states to be vigilant about the operation of Iranian banks, including Bank Melli, the country’s largest.

The proposed E.U. sanctions go further than those agreed at the U.N. and would freeze Bank Melli’s assets across the bloc.

At the press conference, Mr. Brown said action would start on a new phase of sanctions against Iran’s oil and gas reserves. However, a senior British official said that discussion of this kind of action -- such as banning imports of Iranian liquefied natural gas -- was just beginning at international level.

Senior British officials said Mr. Solana’s visit had gone well and that the E.U. foreign policy chief had persuaded the Iranians that they must now take a hard decision on whether to enter negotiations. “It was made very clear to the Iranians that the ball is now in their court,” a senior official said.

However, there was no sign that the Iranians were prepared to suspend uranium enrichment, as the international community demands. “They made very clear they didn’t like suspension, and there was no sign of any change there,” said the official.

If Iran accepts the offer, the first stage of negotiations would see it freezing further development of its nuclear facilities. The international community would, in turn, freeze plans to build on existing sanctions.

European Union nations have agreed on the need for a new round of sanctions to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The new measures target Tehran's oil and gas sectors in what would be the strongest punishment yet.

Gordon Brown, Britain's prime minister, in a joint news conference with the visiting U.S. president, George Bush, had said the U.K. would freeze the assets of Iran's largest bank, Bank Melli, and that the EU would target Iran's oil and gas sectors over its refusal to abandon its nuclear program.

"We will take any necessary action so that Iran is aware of the choice it has to make to start to play its part as a full and respected member of the international community or face further isolation," Brown said on Monday.

Bush warned that he had not ruled out the use of force to end Iran's nuclear work, but said that he hoped to end the crisis diplomatically.

"Now's the time to work together to get it done," Bush said. "All options are on the table, however."

The E.U. has not yet announced the stronger sanctions, but a spokeswoman for Javier Solana, the E.U. foreign affairs and security chief who failed last weekend to win Iran's support for a package of incentives, said E.U. foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday were prepared to take formal action.

"It is clear they are ready to move further. We will definitely take a formal decision," Cristina Gallach said.

An E.U. diplomat said Tehran's refusal to accept the package Solana presented left the bloc with no choice but firm action in the run-up to an E.U. leaders' summit this week in Brussels.

More than 80 per cent of Iran's revenues come from oil exports and sanctions targeting its oil and gas industries could severely affect its already fragile economy.

The sanctions could also have an impact on the already soaring global oil prices.

Brown also said at the joint news conference with Bush that Britain would send more troops to Afghanistan.

"Today, Britain will announce additional troops for Afghanistan, bringing our numbers in Afghanistan to the highest level," Brown said.

The announcement came as the body of the 100th British troop to die in Afghanistan since operations began in 2001 was being sent home.

The move is expected to take the number of British soldiers to about 8,000 in the country where they have been involved in fierce fighting with the Taliban.

"We have resolved . . . it is in the British national interest to confront the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Afghanistan would come to us," Brown said at the conference.

"Eighteen months ago, the Taliban boasted that they and their paid foreign fighters would drive our forces out of southern Helmand.

His announcement came as the Taliban took control of 10 villages about 30km north of Kandahar city and triggered a scramble by Afghan and NATO forces to defend the southern Afghanistan city.

Britain has approximately 7,800 soldiers in Afghanistan, most of whom are in Helmand fighting the Taliban, who have been fighting since being removed from power in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of the country.

President Theodore Roosevelt summed up his approach to foreign policy as "speak softly but carry a big stick." In recent years, a later Republican in the White House, George Bush, has preferred a different approach. Mr. Bush, now on his "farewell" tour of Europe before the U.S. elections in November, has been taking the opportunity to conduct diplomacy with Iran through the proverbial megaphone.

Yesterday, he and Gordon Brown used a joint press conference to "warn" Tehran to back down on enriching uranium or face international sanctions. Mr. Brown underscored the warning by threatening Tehran with a freeze on Iranian assets in the EU -- though the Iranian regime reported it had already withdrawn $75 billion from Europe over the weekend.

It is beyond question that the Iranians are playing diplomatic cat and mouse over uranium enrichment. They have broken the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which they are a signatory; have hidden their atomic research from U.N. inspection; and now are under Security Council sanctions to make them obey international law. No one doubts that the Iranian regime wants nuclear weapons, though it is less clear if they have an active programme to produce them. But clearly, Tehran wants to keep everyone guessing in order to exert pressure on the West.

In these circumstances, there is little to be gained from threatening the Tehran regime in public. Every time President Bush (with Gordon Brown in tow) makes bellicose remarks, or threatens reprisals, it allows the fundamentalist regime to pretend it is defending Iran from the West; while at the same time undercutting the opposition in Iran which wants rid of the theocracy.

Besides, Iran has been under an economic blockade by the United States since 1979 with little to show for it other than the fact that Iranian oil and gas fields are desperate for fresh capital investment. As a result, the underperformance of the Iranian petroleum industry is adding to the high global price of oil and pushing the Iranians towards nuclear electricity generation.

It could be, in the long run, that the fundamentalist regime in Tehran will need to be confronted militarily. There are already signs that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are funding Sunni militia to take on Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy in Lebanon. But the less drastic solution for now is to use world opinion against Tehran and pressure them into obeying the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The carrot would be the dropping of economic sanctions.

Tehran needs to be squeezed gently between intelligent sanctions and greater global integration. Yet the more America and Britain try to humiliate the regime in public, the less likely Tehran is to respond positively. Which suggests that President Bush's farewell tour is more an exercise in political vanity than sound diplomacy; and that Gordon Brown's double act with Mr. Bush is ill-judged.

Gordon Brown's announcement of new sanctions against Iran included financial measures already agreed in principle by the European Union and a vaguer reference to oil and gas sanctions yet to be decided on. The timing of the announcement, two days after Tehran was presented with a package of incentives for suspending uranium enrichment but before a formal Iranian reply, caught some officials by surprise. "No decision has been taken today," Javier Solana, the E.U. foreign policy chief, who led the weekend mission to Tehran, said yesterday.

The E.U. agreed earlier this month to freeze the assets of Iran's biggest bank, Bank Melli, which has been accused by the U.S. of financing nuclear and ballistic missile programs. But the timing of an announcement had been left vague, pending Tehran's response to the incentives package. A European official objected to the prime minister's claim, made standing alongside George Bush, that "Britain will urge Europe, and Europe will agree, to take sanctions against Iran."

"It makes it look as if this is all because George Bush came to Europe, and it has nothing to do with that," the official said. A Downing Street official insisted that "we feel those discussions [on Bank Melli] are completed, and it is likely to come into effect late next week."

In yesterday's press conference, Brown also said: "Action will start today on a new phase of sanctions on oil and gas." The No. 10 source said discussions with Washington and European capitals on such measures were in the very early stages. They had been announced, the official said, to demonstrate the seriousness of rejecting the proposals.

Gordon Brown was right yesterday to threaten Iran with tougher sanctions immediately -- if premature in announcing that the European Union had already formally agreed to do so, and if too grand in implying that freezing an Iranian bank’s assets was, on its own, a big step. It was unfortunate that his declaration, after meeting President Bush, was apparently contradicted by an E.U. spokeswoman for Javier Solana, the Union’s foreign policy chief.

Technically, that is right: the E.U. scheme to freeze the foreign assets of Bank Melli will take more days to sort out. But although Iran has an almost limitless capacity for reading only the messages it wants from international signals, in this case it would be wrong to brush away the threats. Brown is justified in asserting that E.U. members, and Russia and China, are more convinced than ever before of the urgency of leaning on Iran to curb its nuclear work. The problem is to turn that anxiety into real pressure. Iran has seen these banking curbs coming and will be able to evade much of the impact. The real task is to agree on ways of disrupting its import of petrol and export of oil and gas.

On Saturday Solana, together with political directors of the “E3 plus 3” -- the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China -- pitched up in Tehran to present their best offer since the summer of 2006. But it wasn’t very different from that package of precise offers and vague threats which has failed, in two years, to stop Iran enriching uranium. Enrichment is the most difficult step in making a bomb, Iran’s presumed goal (although one that it still denies). Asked what was better now, a senior British official said that the passage of time made a difference. “They are now in a position where they recognize that we are serious.”

Maybe. The weak point of that argument is that oil is now nearly $140 a barrel, more than double its level two years ago. Bush leaves office soon. And in the past two years the divisions among those countries discussing sanctions have been advertised. China and Russia, both permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, whose support is needed for U.N. sanctions, are keen to keep commercial ties with Tehran and have only recently been nudged into alarm at the thought of its nuclear weapons. Germany (and come to that, Italy), also with strong ties, have got in the way of a joint European position as tough as Britain and France wanted.

But Iran’s economic predicament has worsened, given its need to import petrol, the vulnerability of its poorest people to rising food prices and its failure to develop other sources of income. Those pressures, and the handling of the nuclear program itself, have caused rifts within the regime (although high hopes of this have come to nothing in the past).

It is the right point to toughen sanctions farther, and to look at curbs on oil and gas trade. The U.S. Congress, for one, has found agreement on this elusive in the past, partly for fear of disrupting the markets more and sending prices higher. Nor has anyone wanted to pick a fight with Iran when incentives seemed to have a chance. But Iran’s dismissive response this weekend suggests that the high-profile petition has got nowhere. Better to pick a fight when Iran’s worst weapon is still just oil.