David Cameron held another press conference in the St Stephen's Club today. Joined by William Hague he outlined a number of measures Britain should advocate against Iran for its non-compliance over the ongoing nuclear programme.
Measures the UN Security Council should institute:
- a travel ban on anyone involved in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, and on leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps
- blacklisting of Bank Saderat (used by Iran to transfer money to terrorists) and a ban on trade with IRGC companies
- ban on the selling of arms and technical assistance to Iran's military
- discouraging, but not legislating against, investment in Iran's energy sector and restricting the sale of oil and gas related technology
Additional steps the EU should take:
progressively restricting export credit guarantees to Iran, and European investment in Iranian oil and gas fields- restricting access of Iranian banks to the European financial system
- travel ban and assets freeze on members of the IRGC
- ban on new or extended loans to Iranian state-owned enterprises
They also believe the EU should show that it is willing to pursue economic and diplomatic sanctions, that are benchmarked by Iranian compliance. See our video clip of Cameron's introductory speech below:
The press Q&A session was again dominated by grammar schools amongst other issues. I asked Cameron how Britain should respond to Iran's role in the killing of British troops in southern Iraq, through their backing of Shia militias. He didn't get into specifics, just saying that Iran's role in regional instability heightened the need for action over the nuclear programme.
Deputy Editor
Related link: John Bolton - use force to prevent a nuclear Iran
At last: something we can all unite behind without any divisions, name-calling, acrimony....
Posted by: William Norton | May 22, 2007 at 14:46
Not at all William. Iran is about to become a nuclear power that could hold the world to ransom. This is a feeble response to that possibility.
Posted by: Umbrella man | May 22, 2007 at 15:31
Let's go the whole way and threaten trade sanctions on any country breaking sanctions on Iran ie. Russia, China, Germany, Venezuela
Maybe if China faced import controls in Europe and North America it wouyld not need as much oil and gas from Iran or Sudan
Posted by: TomTom | May 22, 2007 at 15:37
Time to turn the screw on our energy dependence on all manner of unpleasant regimes.
Catch: If we pursue nuclear power in this aim, we will give more unpleasant regimes a perfect excuse to pursue their on civilian programmes as a cover for their military ambitions.
Posted by: Erasmus | May 22, 2007 at 15:39
Umbrella Man: OK, so let's tell the Shadow Cabinet that the Iranians are stockpiling grammar schools....
Posted by: William Norton | May 22, 2007 at 15:49
All sensible stuff but I wonder if anything which actually happen?
Posted by: malcolm | May 22, 2007 at 16:19
All sensible stuff but I wonder if anything will actually happen?
Posted by: malcolm | May 22, 2007 at 16:20
With oil prices at a record high surely it is time for Iran to turn the screws on the West.
Posted by: Hamish | May 22, 2007 at 17:11
None of the Gulf countries will impose sanctions on Iran at this stage or at any point in the immediately forseeable future.
Without the support of these countries sanctions will be ineffective. Indeed they could cause Iranians to rally round their government when they sense that their standard of living could be affected. Are we going to put sanctions on Israel for its civil AND illegal military nuclear programme?
Posted by: Henry Mayhew | May 22, 2007 at 18:34
Israel's nuclear programme isn't illegal - they never signed the NPT.
Posted by: Adam | May 22, 2007 at 19:14
Hmm... sounds quite weak
"a travel ban on anyone involved in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, and on leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps"
.. as though they would care about travelling to the West
"blacklisting of Bank Saderat (used by Iran to transfer money to terrorists)"
.. but not the larger Bank Melli, or Sepah, Tefarat or
"and a ban on trade with IRGC companies"
.. why not go the whole hog and copy the US and ban on trade with all Iranian persons?
"ban on the selling of arms and technical assistance to Iran's military"
... don't we have that already?
"discouraging, but not legislating against, investment in Iran's energy sector and restricting the sale of oil and gas related technology"
.. ahhh, this is where it all falls apart, with Shell, BP, Total and Agip all investing in Iran and the Japanese still keen to invest in Iranian oil fields. Shell signed a $5 bn deal with Iran in February.
Posted by: Mark Williams | May 22, 2007 at 21:37
Adam,
Israel's military nuclear programme is dependent on all sorts of global skulduggery such as suborning scientists and encouraging the straightforward theft and export of designs and components, and the suppression of the legal rights of Israeli citizens.
You really shouldn't be so narrow-minded or naive. Their programme is steeped in illegality which is a major reason for their not chatting about it.
Now, when are we going to put sanctions on them?
Posted by: Henry Mayhew | May 22, 2007 at 23:28
Israel's military nuclear programme is dependent on all sorts of global skulduggery such as suborning scientists and encouraging the straightforward theft and export of designs and components, and the suppression of the legal rights of Israeli citizens.
Actually Alan Nunn May and Klaus Fuchs were British Citizens who stole secrets for the USSR.....
Just accept the inevitability of nuclear war and take bets whether it will come in the Far East, the Indian Subcontinent, or in the mIddle East first ?
Perhaps Britain might want to take precautions but that would be contrary to previous history
Posted by: TomTom | May 23, 2007 at 07:17
One thing is certain - because of the parlous state of our armed forces, talking about a military strike would be an absurdity.
Step forward successive Defence Ministers, Portillo, Rifkind et al and take a bow.
A Shadow Foreign Secretary should be able to tackle Iran in a far more robust manner, instead we are left impotently on the sidelines, able only to threaten to disrupt travel plans and have meetings to arrange more ineffective sanctions.
Before the end of 2008, Israel will do what we should be prepared to do: they will carry out strikes against Iran's nuclear plants and facilities.
Far better that we, the US and the UK, should strike and control the outcome than leave it in the hands of the protagonists in the Middle East bearpit.
It is time to re-arm and do so quickly.
Of course, that would never be the policy of today's touchy-feely, eco-friendly Conservatives.
Posted by: John Coles | May 23, 2007 at 09:09
What is proposed is good, but ultimately is that going to make Iran change its policy on nuclear power? I dont see it changing much.
Its not exactly like we are proposing putting Iran's balls in a vice, metaphorically speaking, is it?
Posted by: James Maskell | May 23, 2007 at 14:59