More

Obama, Sarkozy Push For Sanctions Against Iran Over Nuclear Program

ANGELA CHARLTON and BEN FELLER   03/31/10 12:48 AM ET   AP

Ahmadinejad

WASHINGTON — With the president of France at his side, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday he hopes to have international sanctions against Iran in place "within weeks," not months, because of its continuing nuclear program. But he acknowledged he still lacks full support at the United Nations.

"Do we have unanimity in the international community? Not yet," Obama said. "And that's something that we have to work on."

Obama said he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are "inseparable" in their thinking on the subject.

For his part, Sarkozy told reporters, "Iran cannot continue its mad race" toward acquiring nuclear weapons.

"The time has come to take decisions," he said.

On the U.N. Security Council, veto-wielding permanent members Russia and China have expressed reservations toward a tougher set of sanctions, as have several of the rotating members who do not have veto powers.

Obama said he understands that countries that have business ties with Iran, especially those who depend on Iran for oil imports, might have reservations.

But Obama said that, while "the door remains open if the Iranians choose to walk though it," there have been no signs that they are close to moving back from their nuclear program – and patience has all but run out.

"My hope is that we are going to get this done this spring. So I'm not interested in waiting months for a sanctions regime to be in place. I'm interested in seeing that regime in place in weeks."

Earlier Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton predicted new sanctions would be forthcoming, hinting that skeptical nations such as China and Russia would eventually come along. At the conclusion of an international meeting of eight major powers in Quebec, Clinton cited a growing alarm around the world about the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran.

A senior French official said after the White House meeting that key Western players including France are ready to consider unilateral sanctions if they can't get a strong enough U.N. resolution passed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with the French custom.

Obama and Sarkozy met privately in the Oval Office and later planned dinner at the White House with their wives, Michelle Obama and French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.

Obama said he and the French president discussed a wide range of global issues, including the financial regulatory overhaul and peace negotiations in the Middle East.

Sarkozy also said he stands with the United States in condemning recent Israeli settlement activity in east Jerusalem.

Sarkozy praised Obama for trying to engage the two sides in peace talks. Sarkozy said that the "absence of peace" in the region "is a problem for all of us" – and that it feeds terrorism around the world.

On a touchy subject, Sarkozy was asked about a widespread European contention that a $35 billion contract to build refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force was rigged to favor U.S. aerospace giant Boeing Co. over an alliance of the parent of Europe's Airbus – EADS – and the U.S. company Northrop Grumman. This month, EADS and Northrop Grumman withdrew from the bidding.

Sarkozy said, however, he trusts Obama's assurance that any new bidding would be "free, fair and transparent" and said that under those conditions, EADS would bid on the contract.

For his part, Obama reiterated that while "the process will be free and fair," the final decision would be made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Obama hailed France as one of the United States' oldest and best allies, noting the two countries have fought together on battlefields from Yorktown in the Revolutionary War to Afghanistan now.

However, the two have had clear differences on Afghanistan, with the Obama administration pressing France as well as other European nations to send more troops, and Sarkozy largely resisting such requests.

Obama did not go into Tuesday's meeting intending to urge Sarkozy to send more troops, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said ahead of the meeting. "There's no specific 'ask' on the table," Gibbs said at his daily news briefing.

Instead of troops, France is ready to consider sending more military or police trainers to Afghanistan, according to the senior French official. He would not elaborate on how many could go or when, saying only "There is no deadline. There is the certitude that there is a need for trainers."

The two presidents discussed the possibility of training Afghan forces outside Afghanistan because infrastructure there is so poor, the official said.

French trainers have been among those killed in Afghanistan this year, and polls show most French voters don't support the effort.

Both presidents went to extraordinary lengths to defuse trans-Atlantic speculation of a chilly relationship. Obama repeatedly referred to Sarkozy by his first name and spoke fondly of his trip to Paris last year. "We respect one another and understand one another," Obama said.

The private dinner invitation was also a gesture rarely extended to foreign leaders.

Just a day earlier in New York, Sarkozy spoke bluntly about the U.S role in foreign affairs, saying the world needed an America that listens. Yet when asked directly whether he thinks Obama listens to him, Sarkozy offered a long defense of his relationship with Obama. He called it candid and productive.

"President Obama, when he says something, keeps his word," Sarkozy said. "His word is his bond. And that is so important."

(This version CORRECTS that alliance for Air Force tanker bid was between Airbus parent company and Northrop Grumman, not Lockheed Martin.)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON — With the president of France at his side, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday he hopes to have international sanctions against Iran in place "within weeks," not months, because ...
WASHINGTON — With the president of France at his side, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday he hopes to have international sanctions against Iran in place "within weeks," not months, because ...
Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 78
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
patches12
05:52 PM on 04/11/2010
The time for nicey-nice is OVER.. If Iran gets the bomb... THEY WILL USE IT!!

Congress Calls on Obama for Action Against Iran

A letter to President Barack Obama from two unlikely congressional allies urging strong action against Iran has gained wide support on both sides of the aisle.

The letter was originally signed by Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana and circulated in late March.

The letter to the president begins, “We are writing you out of our concern that Iran is growing ever closer to nuclear weapons capability, a fact demanding immediate action on the part of the United States . . .

Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons could lead to the proliferation of these weapons throughout the Middle East and beyond, destabilizing the global non-proliferation regime and greatly increasing the likelihood of such weapons falling into the hands of terrorists . . .

“It would undercut prospects for peace between Israel and her neighbors, with emboldened Iranian surrogates enjoying the strategic backing of an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And it would pose an existential threat to the State of Israel . . .

“Accordingly, we urge you today to reaffirm boldly and unambiguously that the U.S. can and will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. We call on you to fulfill your June 2008 pledge that you would do ‘everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.’
01:48 AM on 04/03/2010
The writings are already on the wall for Israel and US should not put all her money on a dead horse!
Please take Iran more seriously for the sake of US economy!

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTUxNjY2MTE1
01:12 PM on 03/31/2010
Cheating in Afghanistan and Iraq elections are OK as long as our guys are doing the cheating!

And we accuse Iran to cheat with no deviance and even send the money to make riots in the streets.

We all know that we want their oil and gas, but war is not the answer. There are more exploration projects in Iran and we can get a piece of the pie by stop humiliating Iranians and respect their wishes of being a peaceful nuclear power.

All Iranians regardless of their political affiliations want independent Iran with ability to produce energy after the oil is finished.

Iranians are not Arabs, they will not submit. If you liked Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan you will love Iran to death.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
11:24 AM on 03/31/2010
Why do they harp on Iran?
Irans Natural Gas Reserves
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/iran%e2%80%99s-natural-gas-riches-us-knife-to-the-heart-of-world-future-energy/
"Iran’s Natural Gas Riches: US Knife to the Heart of World Future Energy
by Finian Cunningham / March 20th, 2010

The scheduled start of drilling this month by China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) in Iran’s South Pars gas field could be both a harbinger and explanation of much wider geopolitical developments.

First of all, the $5 billion project – signed last year after years of foot dragging by western energy giants Total and Shell under the shadow of US-led sanctions – reveals the main arterial system for future world energy supply and demand.

Critics have long suspected that the real reason for US and other western military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is to control the Central Asian energy corridor. So far, the focus seems to be mainly on oil. For example, there have been claims that a planned oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea via Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea is the main prize behind the US’s seemingly futile military campaign in those countries.

But what the CNPC-Iranian partnership shows is that natural gas is the bigger prize that will be pivotal to the world economy, and specifically the dual flow of this fuel westwards and eastwards from Central Asia to Europe and China"
12:10 PM on 03/31/2010
What is YOUR solution to the PROBLEM of a possible nuclear Iran and the consequences this will have in the Middle East and across the Globe?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
12:26 PM on 03/31/2010
What problem? Our Intelligence agencies issued an NIE in 2007 that said otherwise so stop parotting neo-con propaganda.
photo
Wozzeck
Pearl Bay, Australia
12:32 PM on 03/31/2010
Ergon, Shame on you! Did you not read Meir Javedanfar's blog 'Barack Obama: New Kid on the Middle East Block" : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meir-javedanfar/barack-obama-new-kid-on-t_b_515786.html?show_comment_id=43458527#comment_43458527

In his blog, Javedanfar, an Israeli from Iran, explains that "the Chinese have started to hit Ayatollah Khamenei's pockets where it hurt". He shrewdly notes that China must actually be in favor of economic sanctions against Iran because it has reduced its oil imports from Iran. The fact that China has switched to cheaper oil from Angola, where it has a large presence, is apparently irrelevant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
02:21 PM on 03/31/2010
I am duly ashamed :) China has an even greater presence in Sudan's oil fields which is why the Americans are sending their secret weapon Mia Farrow to lecture them.
Have you read "The Darfur Deception" by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed? I doubt the fat one above has.
I still believe that natural gas, and the potential of gas pipelines from Iran to Europe, China, Indai and Pakistan has some people very, very, scared. There's enough gas in Iran to last our requirements for 300 years! And it's cleaner than oil and coal!
I don't mind the level of education of the shills sometimes, at least they're willfully blind.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:46 AM on 03/31/2010
there is nothing to be gained with sanctions. it does not effect the government , it creates suffering for the innocent & it creates more hatred toward the u.s. the sanctions against Iraq in the 90's resulted in the deaths of over one million children. it's kind of sad that obama would endorse this . I guess he does not plan on running for a second term
12:08 PM on 03/31/2010
Not very correct!
Sanctions can be aimed to hurt the Govt's while having minimum impact on the people. Also, personal sanctions against possessions of members of the Iranian Govt. Remember, dictators are always scared of being toppled any time given that they know they are unpopular, and therefore keep their wealth abroad!

Any unintended impact on the Iranian people will only increase the number of people against their Govt who brought this upon them. Good for the Iranian opposition - perhaps a revolution for the better!
photo
Libertarian09
Anti War Socialist with a taste for freedom
12:54 AM on 04/01/2010
Yes the people of Iraq didn't suffer at all under the USA's crippling sanctions. Only Saddam and his cronies at the top were harmed. Look how little impact the sanctions against Cuba have had on the Cubans.

As for the Iranians, they have shown themselves to be willing and capable of replacing their government if they are unhappy enough. They certainly don't need any more meddling in their affairs from the country who engineered the overthrow of the one truly democratic (and immensely popular) government the ever had.
photo
Wozzeck
Pearl Bay, Australia
10:02 AM on 03/31/2010
There are signs that the French electorate have had enough of Sarkozy. Let's hope he is removed before he help start another war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/21/france-regional-elections_n_507741.html
10:17 AM on 03/31/2010
fingers crossed Wozzeck . . .
10:27 AM on 03/31/2010
Sarkozy is the right wing and once left wins the election in 2012, France will stay away from Iran.

We in US have bigger problem. We have elected the leftest "viable" president we could find and still he is controlled by warmongers.

What should we do in US for 2012 election?
09:52 AM on 03/31/2010
more sanctions against Iran are a big mistake . . they will only hurt the Iranian people and the peace movement . . . I do hope this does not get UN support

what they have to concentrate on is justice for the Palestinian people and that means sanctions, trade embargoes, etc etc against israel . . . and they might get israel to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty while they are about it
09:50 AM on 03/31/2010
Constant distractions are needed and pushed by those who don't ever want to start a real peace process with the Pal.s.

Any and all distractions, disinformation and excuses on a consistent basis will do.

After Iraq, now it's Iran's turn. This time, per the consensus of the warmongers, there needs to be more time spent on preparing the public opinion in the right direction for accepting the need to start another war.

We're in the "diplomatic phase".
10:17 AM on 03/31/2010
We're in the "diplomatic phase".

There was no "diplomatic phase". The only meeting they had with Iran, Iran accepted to give up all of her uranium in exchange of fuel rods which cannot be used to create a bomb and could be used only for peaceful purposes.

The only sticking point was that US wanted Iran to send the uranium to France.
France still owes tones of uranium to Iran which was purchased for original Bushehr reactor 31 years ago. It is quite natural that Iran will not trust a country that owes him uranium and refuses to deliver it.

Iran then came up with two suggestions both rejected by US.

1. Make the exchange in Turkey.
2. Make the exchange in batches and not send all of the uranium to France at once.

If US had accepted any of these alternatives we had a deal.

From my point of view somebody in US does not want a peaceful outcome. The problem we have is US media.

People do not know how strong these warmongers are.
photo
Wozzeck
Pearl Bay, Australia
11:02 AM on 03/31/2010
These facts must never be discussed in the media. They are only discussed at this venue by astute commenters such as you- never by blogs or articles.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
09:31 AM on 03/31/2010
I am so tired of seeing the same neo-con sourced intelligence leaks that Iran is developing nuclear devices. The same sources that said same about Saddam's WMD. The same leaks that are proven over and over, to be fakes, yet are given some sort of credibility by being rehashed in the media.
There is no change to the 2007 NIE saying that Iran had halted it's weapon program in 2003, and all its doing now is for peaceful purposes.
Some people, apparently, want another war.
09:53 AM on 03/31/2010
it does sound like it Ergon . . great blog
photo
piul05
Can I have a biscuit yet?
10:33 AM on 03/31/2010
Well said.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wisdo
semantics shamantics
08:57 AM on 03/31/2010
The U.S. intelligence community is reporting to the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear-weapons development program, two counterproliferation officials tell NEWSWEEK. U.S. agencies had previously said that Tehran halted the program in 2003.
The officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that U.S. intelligence agencies have informed policymakers at the White House and other agencies that the status of Iranian work on development and production of a nuclear bomb has not changed since the formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's "Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" in November 2007. Public portions of that report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies had "high confidence" that, as of early 2003, Iranian military units were pursuing development of a nuclear bomb, but that in the fall of that year Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
10:01 AM on 03/31/2010
That was also the year they offered peace with Israel and tried to establish contact with the U.S. Bush Cheney responded with the usual malarkey.
Sad to see the president fall in line with the same stupid policy
03:09 AM on 03/31/2010
After 30 years of sanctions Obama was going to be the president to sit and talk with Iran. But the same way that you have teabagistan in congress slowing his every efforts on fixing a variety of problems left behind by bush cheney, there is a systematic effort to slow down the process of letting the two country meet as in meeting with Iran face to face. It's the other teabagistan that is doing this, the allie.
photo
Libertarian09
Anti War Socialist with a taste for freedom
12:21 AM on 03/31/2010
"Iran cannot continue its mad race".. coming from two world leaders who sit atop nuclear arsenals these statements are worth nothing. Why "must" Iran be denied the nation security we demand for ourselves? The continuous hypocrisy of the Western nations is beyond belief.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
08:49 AM on 03/31/2010
I'm all for Iran having nuclear wepaons. Israel, the country that keeps insisting we bomb Iran on its behalf, has them too, and I'm tired of having US foreign policy dictated by a country that hasn't signed the NPT..
09:54 AM on 03/31/2010
fanned Liberatariano9 . . .
photo
booboo111
micro-bio
12:15 AM on 03/31/2010
Why the "Help Bachman repeal the bill" ad on my page?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
08:50 AM on 03/31/2010
Targeting the two trolls who show up?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:04 AM on 03/31/2010
France edges closer as England backs away. Ah, geopolitics!
photo
booboo111
micro-bio
12:13 AM on 03/31/2010
From your photo, it appears Ammadinnajacket has been using Boehner's tanning bed.
photo
cjohnathan
I speak only in hyperbolic statements...
12:25 AM on 03/31/2010
ethnic Persians don't really need tanning beds...
photo
soitgoes12
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself
11:56 PM on 03/30/2010
Another push to feed the military-industrial complex... the US needs another enemy:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0525-05.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
09:50 AM on 03/31/2010
Your summary, sir :)
"Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel
by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and to cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States. The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source"