U.S. Asks U.N. to Place Sanctions on Iran

The Reagan Administration urged the United Nations on Wednesday to “move quickly” to impose sanctions on Iran following the Tehran government’s refusal to comply with the U.N. Security Council’s demand for a cease-fire in the gulf war.

“Unless there is a change in the Iranians’ present negative position . . . we believe that the (Security) Council must move quickly to consider enforcement measures,” State Department spokesman Charles Redman said.

Redman refused to say when he expects the United Nations to act, but he predicted that the Security Council would vote sanctions, most likely an arms embargo, against Iran.

“There’s reason to believe that the members of the Security Council are ready to face up to their responsibilities,” Redman said.

The Security Council, composed of representatives of 15 nations, last month ordered Iran and Iraq to stop fighting and seek a negotiated solution to their nearly seven-year-old war. The resolution, designated 598, contained no penalties. But the panel agreed to consider sanctions later if either side defied the measure.

Iraq has accepted the U.N. plan and announced that it is prepared to observe a cease-fire if Iran will do the same. Iran, in a written response provided Tuesday to Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar, said it would not comply.

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that his government decided neither to accept or reject the resolution. But the Tehran memorandum, released Wednesday by the United Nations, charged that the July 20 resolution was “formulated and adopted by the United States with the explicit intention of intervention in the Persian Gulf and the region, mustering support for Iraq in the war.”

‘Party to the Conflict’

It said that the Security Council “has in practical terms turned itself into a party to the conflict.”

In reply, Redman said: “Regrettably, that Iranian response seems to be, essentially, a denunciation of the resolution and a diatribe against the Security Council and the United States. It appears to be the same kind of obstructionism and delaying tactics that Iran has engaged in in the 3 1/2 weeks since Resolution 598 was approved.”

The cease-fire resolution was adopted unanimously by the council, but the enforcement provisions are sure to be more controversial. Under the U.N. Charter, Security Council resolutions can be vetoed by any of the five permanent members--the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China. China has sold weapons to Iran and may be reluctant to support an arms embargo.

Analysts say that Iran is not willing to accept a cease-fire because the political and military situation seems to favor the Tehran regime in the war.

Iraq, which started the war in 1980, long ago concluded that it cannot obtain through military means its original objective of ensuring navigation on the estuary that provides its only access to the Persian Gulf. By contrast, Iran still believes it can achieve its primary war aim, the ouster from power of Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein.

Although outside experts say that neither Iran nor Iraq has much chance of winning a clear-cut military victory soon, Iran is generally believed to hold the upper hand on the battlefield.

Outlining its own terms for a settlement, Iran said that both sides must end their attacks on commercial ships, a tactic that Iraq has used far more extensively than Iran. The Tehran government also demanded “strict observance of neutrality” by other nations in the region, “particularly Kuwait.” Although Kuwait is technically a noncombatant, it has made no secret of its sympathy for Iraq and has permitted Iraq to ship weapons through Kuwaiti ports.

Iran said the United Nations could end the war only by branding “Iraq as the aggressor and party responsible for the conflict as well as determining damages and war reparations” to be paid by Iraq.