US, UK, Canada to Announce Coordinated Sanctions on Iran
The United States and its British and Canadian allies are preparing to roll out a coordinated set of sanctions against Iran on Monday amid growing concern that Tehran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, sources tell ABC News.
U.S. officials familiar with the plans say they target Iran’s nuclear sector as well as plugging key gaps that have allowed Iran to work around existing sanctions on its energy and financial sectors. The United Kingdom and Canada are both expected to announce unilateral measures to limit Iran’s access to their economies, with the UK essentially cutting off Iran’s access to its financial sector.
European Union ministers are expected to meet on December 1 to consider their own sanctions.
Two U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the diplomatic sensitivities involved, say the State Department will sanction Iran’s petrochemical industry, which is normally used to produce products like plastic and styrofoam but is increasingly used to refine petroleum, as international sanctions have constrained the capacity of Iran’s energy sector. The new measure aims to discourage foreign companies from investing in that industry because it could inadvertently aid Iran’s energy sector and undermine previous sanctions.
The State Department is also expected to target both foreign and Iranian entities, many controlled by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, that have begun to help out with critical tasks in Iran’s oil and gas sector, picking up the slack as foreign companies pull out for fear of running afoul of sanctions.
A State Department spokesman declined to comment for this story.
The Treasury Department, meanwhile, is expected to issue a finding that the Iranian financial system is a “jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern.”
The finding, made under section 311 of the USA Patriot Act, enables the Secretary of the Treasury to require American banks to conduct additional reporting to ensure their corresponding foreign accounts are not indirectly dealing with Iran. That extra vigilance, officials say, will have a cascade effect where foreign financial institutions are more reluctant to do business with Iran.
The State Department and Treasury Department are also expected to designate additional Iranian entities for their role in Iran’s nuclear program.
A Treasury Department spokeswoman also declined to comment for this story.
The United States and its allies have long feared that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon under the guise of a civilian nuclear energy program. Those fears were reinforced by a new report by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Association earlier this month, which for the first time sounded the alarm about “possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”
The report detailed “credible” evidence that Iran has been covertly developing a nuclear weapon design and testing components. It said Iran has built computer models to study the explosion of a nuclear bomb and is working to develop detonation devices. The report said Tehran has also built a containment vessel in which it can conduct explosive experiments and is studying how to mount a nuclear warhead on its Shahab-3 long-range missiles.
Iranian officials have dismissed the report. On Tuesday, one senior Iranian official called it “laughable.”
The IAEA report reignited calls on Capitol Hill and from prominent Republicans like presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry for the Obama administration to sanction the Iranian Central Bank, a move they say would cripple Iran’s economy and its ability to pursue a nuclear weapon. Last Thursday, House leaders including Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to President Obama urging him to sanction the Central Bank.
Despite the renewed pressure, sanctions on the Iranian Central Bank and bans on Iran’s oil and gas sector will not be included in this latest round, according to one U.S. official, citing fears that such measures could lead to a spike in oil prices that would harm America’s own economic recovery.
The United States and its allies have resorted to unilateral sanctions as other multilateral routes to pressure Tehran have been blocked. U.S. and European officials say they would like to pursue additional sanctions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council, something they have successfully done four times in recent years, however they have been met with resistance by veto-wielding Russia and China.
European countries are reportedly pursuing their own additional sanctions, though officials say none are expected to be part of Monday’s coordinated announcement.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague tipped his hand about Monday’s planned action earlier this month when he told Parliament that his government was preparing financial and energy sanctions against Iran.
“We’re in discussions about increasing this pressure and we’re also considering further unilateral measures should Iran fail to comply with their responsibilities. And while I can’t go into precise detail now on the sanctions we are considering, we are looking at additional measures against the Iranian financial sector, the oil and gas sector, and the designation of further entities and individuals involved with their nuclear program,” he said shortly after the IAEA report was issued.
A spokesman for the British embassy in Washington did not reply to requests for comment. A spokesman for the Canadian embassy in Washington declined to comment.

Email
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
Sanctions really, how about if they turn off the oil spiket for a month and see who crying first. Remember fearless leader Obama has stopped the Keystone XL pipeline
dead in it tracks. Costing the creation of 20,000 jobs. So let the price of oil continue
to rise as the election season starts we will have no problem pointing the finger at
the culprit. Just what economic recovery will happen with higher fuel prices.
Posted by: deadwrestler | November 20, 2011, 8:14 pm 8:14 pm
That oil pipeline isn’t going to put anything but a tiny dent in oil prices. OPEC can easily cancel any increase in production we can make. And 20,000 jobs when millions are out of work is like saying it cost us 20 bucks on the price of an automobile. It’s not a serious job creator compared to investing in things like infrastructure.
Posted by: numbers | November 20, 2011, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
Sanctions really, how about if they turn off the oil spiket for a month and see who crying first.
POSTED BY: DEADWRESTLER | NOVEMBER 20, 2011, 8:14 PM 8:14 PM
No such word as “spiket”: the word is “spigot”.
Posted by: Dan | November 20, 2011, 9:04 pm 9:04 pm
Stupid idea……this sanction would destroy and hurt people not government
Posted by: Rook o raast | November 20, 2011, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
Sorry ,Dan public school education.
Posted by: deadwrestler | November 20, 2011, 11:07 pm 11:07 pm
More idiotic policies from the US, UK and Canada. The latest IAEA report on Iran was a farce. It was based on documents that are known to be forgeries and relate to event before 2004. To impose more sanctions on Iran based on this flawed report is the height of idiocy. It is really embarrassing that President Obama bases his foreign policy on such flimsy evidence. He should listen to Ron Paul who said again that there is no evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Quixterius123 | November 20, 2011, 11:07 pm 11:07 pm
“And 20,000 jobs when millions are out of work is like saying it cost us 20 bucks on the price of an automobile. It’s not a serious job creator compared to investing in things like infrastructure”…………… As long as you not one of those 20,000.
Posted by: anotherday | November 21, 2011, 12:00 am 12:00 am
Sanctions really, how about if they turn off the oil spiket for a month and see who crying first.
POSTED BY: DEADWRESTLER | NOVEMBER 20, 2011, 8:14 PM 8:14 PM
No such word as “spiket”: the word is “spigot”.
POSTED BY: DAN | NOVEMBER 20, 2011, 9:04 PM 9:04 PM
Sorry ,Dan public school education.
POSTED BY: DEADWRESTLER | NOVEMBER 20, 2011, 11:07 PM 11:07 PM
Me too.
Posted by: Dan | November 21, 2011, 2:12 am 2:12 am
I think avoiding an oil increase of any type is a wise idea. #1 has anyone looked at the cost of deisel. over 4.00 a gallon. Shipping rates would go up. Many houses in the northeast still use it for heat. Lets see what that would cost. 250 gallon tank at 11 gallons a day to just have your heat set at 68 degrees. Oh it’s not you paying it! Better look again. People do not freeze so when they can’t aford the 1,100.00 gas bill the tax payer picks it up from the government. Thats just one month last time I looked that was 5 months long. In the millions spent helping the poor just for heat issues. 2# Lets say obama does not get voted another term. who would hmmm. I gues it’s Mitt… Real winner there be back in the gulf in another war. See China and Russia are just letting the pot boil. They do there thing making money off the sanctions. You take that away they feed it to North Korea. Wise choice is to go after the bank. They know if the USA cuts it’s budget to pay additional for oil or for troops deployment it lowers the dollar and the euro goes up higher. Just playing a money game. Cut too much without enough backing and it’s a war. This will not only impact just the working class but the rich too. The dept would be so bad and the dollar would fall so low that off shore accounts and companies would be at risk. No one is going to do business like that. Hate to break it but it cost over 2 million dollars to fire a rocket at a target from a war ship. The trip there the man power and the defense system not to mention all the little things. Housing market crash would be 10 times the last one. Banks would be bailing left and right. Why because Iran goes down It’s Russia and China who gets the contracts for rebuilding. And yes going to war would make about 30,000 new jobs or so. Just a requirement to look like the guy next to you. All dressed in BDUs field pack and rifle. Then health care when they return and while at war for PTSD. Tax payers would be flip that bill too. War in time maybe just maybe. But sanctions. It’s worth the try that others will follow after the european union decides. Things may change with sanctions from that and the United Nations may have a bigger impact on Russia. Pressure from enough governments they do business with may, just get them to put pressure where china is unwilling to give in. With the right amount of pressure it’s not good business for Russia. If they are funding with sanctions in place other nations will bail or not want to cut new deals with them. The only thing Russia has going for them is a natural gas pipeline… They would not like seeing a hole in that line. Trust me they will fold in time. I think they are just playing the big bad wolf does what it wants card but, Black Jack is the game and they have a 17 hand they will fold. 2nd in world power has way too much to risk. In the end that can gain with some additional contracts with Iran after the sanctions are lifted. So its a win win situation for them. China it’s really a game about breaking American banks and pushing companies to deal with them. How do u thing they have been making so much. Go to war with them is not an option. Fact is all the business kings delt with them so, Damage to them would really damage the USA. Great move republicans on that one. Bet you can’t do it again!
Posted by: krystal | November 21, 2011, 3:29 am 3:29 am
spiket or spigot, my spelling not the issue. Sanction them all you want,has not stopped
them before and will not again. Shutting oil flow off to us will drive fuel prices up
and derail the economy some more. And I believe Russia and China have no problem
buying up that oil. Obama stopped the Keystone pipeline and would not even bring up a simple solution of building a new refinery closer to the oil. With all the drilling in North
Dakota and open land where’s a better spot.
Posted by: deadwrestler | November 21, 2011, 10:57 am 10:57 am
This sounds like the storyline for an old “The Three Stooges” short!
Posted by: Common _ Sense | November 21, 2011, 11:56 am 11:56 am
“This sounds like the storyline for an old “The Three Stooges” short!” – Common _ Sense
Moe, Larry, the cheese! Moe, Larry, the cheese!
Posted by: Noz | November 21, 2011, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm