By a vote of 12-2 with one abstention, another round of United Nations sanctions were passed against Iran.
Turkey and Brazil voted against the sanctions.
Ahmadinnejad compared them to used handkerkchiefs that should be thrown in the trash-that is to say, they aren't the "crippling sanctions" that Secretary of State Clinton had promised. Much of its substance is essentially optional. Which means that many won't use it. Only certain types of weapon sales are prohibited, which means Russia can still vend anti aircraft missles, which is something of great concern to the United States. Nevertheless, Medvedev has voiced protest against the sanctions.
Thus, both the EU and the US are negotiating regional/national sanctions. The US may increase the power of the Treasury against those who sell products of ambiguous harm or negotiate similar financial services with Iran.
Some questions are-
How effective are sanctions?
has declared Iran and Venezuela to be in an Axis of Unity. Iran goes through Venezuelan banks, which are not blocked by the US, to relate financially to the US. There's also an estimated 50,000 tons of unmined uranium in VZ. An Iranian nuclear facility has been found in rural VZ.
Another point of contention?
Why did Brazil vote against the sanctions? Lula's stated that he does not want to punish Iran on the basis of insufficient evidence. In the 1970s, Brazil developed, due to a prohibition of nuclear activities, a clandestine nuclear operation. It was peaceful. Nuclear power is widespread in Brazil, though much of its revenue comes from oil deposits.
Are economic sanctions permissable?
Some believe that in totalitarian states, economic sanctions simply hurt the often impoverished populace, while the political elite has routes through which it can smuggle. And if leaders don't follow the will of the people, they're not going to budge no matter how many starve. An example? Thefamine in North Korea.