US refuses visa for Iran's UN envoy choice Hamid Aboutalebi

The White House has refused to issue a US visa to Iran's nomination for UN ambassador, who was involved in seizure of the US embassy in 1979.

The decision in effect bars Hamid Aboutalebi from taking up the role at the UN, which is based in New York.

Mr Aboutalebi was linked to the student group that took dozens of people hostage at the embassy in Tehran.

President Barack Obama has come under intense pressure from the US Congress not to allow him to enter the country.

Earlier this week, the White House told the Iranian government its selection of a one-time student revolutionary to be UN ambassador was "not viable".

A spokesman for Iran's mission to the UN, Hamid Babaei, described the decision as "regrettable" and said it contravened international law.

Read More: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26994936

-- BBC 2014-04-12

Good for them !

The UN should re-think of having their headquarters in such an repressive country.

Apart of that the US still is the largest debtor of the UN because of not paying their fees they are getting more and more undemocratic in e.g. not allowing TTIP critic foreigners to enter their country (hey, you are speaking against commercial interests of our big companies, so we don't like you) or even rejecting foreign airplanes the right of passing in their airspace because they don't like one of their passengers (without no reason breaking international airtraffic regulations).

They don't rule the world, they are just a part of it, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

Bye,

Derk

The UN should re-think of having their headquarters in such an repressive country.

Apart of that the US still is the largest debtor of the UN because of not paying their fees they are getting more and more undemocratic in e.g. not allowing TTIP critic foreigners to enter their country (hey, you are speaking against commercial interests of our big companies, so we don't like you) or even rejecting foreign airplanes the right of passing in their airspace because they don't like one of their passengers (without no reason breaking international airtraffic regulations).

They don't rule the world, they are just a part of it, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

Bye,

Derk

Repressive............ , You obviously don't live in Iran then............ ........................

An off-topic post has been removed.

This is the first time this has ever been done, it is illegal and is tantamount to the US 'vetoing' Iran's choice for Ambassador. Is Iran supposed to submit a list of possibly 'acceptable' candidates to a country it doesn't even have diplomatic relations with? What's next denying the Russian ambassador a visa because of crimea?

The pretext for this is that this guy was one of the students who invaded the US embassy in Tehran (which is against international law) and took hostages during that countries overthrow of a dictator more than 30 years ago.. so the US is taking the position that 2 wrongs make a right.

You guys don't get it. An ambassador has complete immunity from US law. He can't even get a parking ticket. If he commits a crime, the worst that can happen to him is that he gets deported.

This is on US soil which is sovereign. The US doesn't think much of the UN and has refused to sign all of its most "important" treaties and is therefore not ruled by the UN.

Why the UN building is on US soil, I'll never know, but I wish all of those dodgy ambassadors from dodgy countries were housed in Europe.

Damn it, if the US doesn't want someone on its soil, it has a right to say "no," just as any country should.

Maybe one of you bleeding hearts will invite this Islamic extremist to stay at your house.

A spokesman for Iran's mission to the UN, Hamid Babaei, described the decision as "regrettable" and said it contravened international law.

So does seizing an embassy of a sovereign nation and holding its citizens hostage. Or is the U.S. to ignore that tiny detail because it happened soooo long ago?

The UN should re-think of having their headquarters in such an repressive country.

Apart of that the US still is the largest debtor of the UN because of not paying their fees they are getting more and more undemocratic in e.g. not allowing TTIP critic foreigners to enter their country (hey, you are speaking against commercial interests of our big companies, so we don't like you) or even rejecting foreign airplanes the right of passing in their airspace because they don't like one of their passengers (without no reason breaking international airtraffic regulations).

They don't rule the world, they are just a part of it, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

Bye,

Derk

Do you really think that "international regulations" trump a country's right to its sovereignty?

Debt? Why should the US pay 26% of the UN's peacekeeping missions when it has only 5% of the world's population? Link Again, the US never agreed to this and the US congress shot it down so it is only the UN which thinks it is owed money.

The whole world collectively is the one that thinks it rules the US throught the UN and other treaties, and not the other way around as you put it.

The whole rest of the world doesn't rule the US, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

The UN should re-think of having their headquarters in such an repressive country.

Apart of that the US still is the largest debtor of the UN because of not paying their fees they are getting more and more undemocratic in e.g. not allowing TTIP critic foreigners to enter their country (hey, you are speaking against commercial interests of our big companies, so we don't like you) or even rejecting foreign airplanes the right of passing in their airspace because they don't like one of their passengers (without no reason breaking international airtraffic regulations).

They don't rule the world, they are just a part of it, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

Bye,

Derk

The UN can take a long walk off a short bridge.....useless bunch the whole lot...."United Nations" united in what..???? SOCIALISM

A spokesman for Iran's mission to the UN, Hamid Babaei, described the decision as "regrettable" and said it contravened international law.

So does seizing an embassy of a sovereign nation and holding its citizens hostage. Or is the U.S. to ignore that tiny detail because it happened soooo long ago?

The seizing of the US embassy was more than regrettable; it was illegal.

However, if you look back just a little earlier, you will see the precursor for the event - the US/UK sponsored coup which overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister and installed a Western puppet who unleashed a rule of repression, torture and murder, all in the naked pursuit of oil.

You can simply select examples from history to justify a position, without understanding the bigger picture.

Those of you claiming the US are bad guys in this, I say you are wrong. If Adolf Hitler was being sent to Poland to be any kind of politician or diplomat, do you think even one person would accept this ? An extreme example, yes, granted, but this is what you are saying then US should allow it to happen.

The fact remains this man was involved in crimes against Americans and he has never payed for those crimes. America should hold a grudge and refuse him entry to their borders. Enough of you bleeding heart liberals - let's have some common bloo9dy sense prevail here.

Are you paying attention Thailand ? Terrorists are not allowed to take up diplomatic positions in civilized countries. There are a few in the caretakers ranks. Let's sort this stuff out....Yes off topic maybe but this is a Thailand forum after all...

A spokesman for Iran's mission to the UN, Hamid Babaei, described the decision as "regrettable" and said it contravened international law.

So does seizing an embassy of a sovereign nation and holding its citizens hostage. Or is the U.S. to ignore that tiny detail because it happened soooo long ago?

The seizing of the US embassy was more than regrettable; it was illegal.

However, if you look back just a little earlier, you will see the precursor for the event - the US/UK sponsored coup which overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister and installed a Western puppet who unleashed a rule of repression, torture and murder, all in the naked pursuit of oil.

You can simply select examples from history to justify a position, without understanding the bigger picture.

Sir, I may be wrong, but as far as my history goes Iran was ruled by a Shah from 1501 up to the Islamic revolution in 1979. The then Shah had previously been sent into exile briefly in 1953 after the then prime minister successfully nationalized the previous owned British oil industry there.

In 1953 a U.S. led coup re-instated the Shah. In 1957 martial law was ended and Iran actually became an ally of U.S. I could go on but we all know what happened after the 1979 uprising and the Shah was replaced ( whilst in America undergoing treatment for cancer) with the Ayotollah Khomeni returned from exile in France,who declared an Islamic Republic. It was during this uprising that the Embassy siege occurred.

Finally, I think that you may have been alluding to the installation of Sadam Hussien in Iraq.... not Iran. so understanding history is indeed crucial to understanding the bigger picture.

Regards

The U.S. did the right thing.

If you want to move the U.N. move the U.N.

But don't ask the U.S. to pay for it!

This is the first time this has ever been done, it is illegal and is tantamount to the US 'vetoing' Iran's choice for Ambassador. Is Iran supposed to submit a list of possibly 'acceptable' candidates to a country it doesn't even have diplomatic relations with? What's next denying the Russian ambassador a visa because of crimea?

The pretext for this is that this guy was one of the students who invaded the US embassy in Tehran (which is against international law) and took hostages during that countries overthrow of a dictator more than 30 years ago.. so the US is taking the position that 2 wrongs make a right.

Most countries do not choose UN ambassadors with questionable terrorism/human rights violations background.

Certainly, there other competent Iranian candidates for this position. Making such an obviously controversial choice is, in my opinion, an intended provocation. There is some internal political tension in Iran, which sometimes manifests itself in the way it reacts or deals with the USA.

The UN should re-think of having their headquarters in such an repressive country.

Apart of that the US still is the largest debtor of the UN because of not paying their fees they are getting more and more undemocratic in e.g. not allowing TTIP critic foreigners to enter their country (hey, you are speaking against commercial interests of our big companies, so we don't like you) or even rejecting foreign airplanes the right of passing in their airspace because they don't like one of their passengers (without no reason breaking international airtraffic regulations).

They don't rule the world, they are just a part of it, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

Bye,

Derk

The USA carries more than 20% of the UN budget, and more than 25% of the peacekeeping expenditure.

A spokesman for Iran's mission to the UN, Hamid Babaei, described the decision as "regrettable" and said it contravened international law.

So does seizing an embassy of a sovereign nation and holding its citizens hostage. Or is the U.S. to ignore that tiny detail because it happened soooo long ago?

The seizing of the US embassy was more than regrettable; it was illegal.

However, if you look back just a little earlier, you will see the precursor for the event - the US/UK sponsored coup which overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister and installed a Western puppet who unleashed a rule of repression, torture and murder, all in the naked pursuit of oil.

You can simply select examples from history to justify a position, without understanding the bigger picture.

Sir, I may be wrong, but as far as my history goes Iran was ruled by a Shah from 1501 up to the Islamic revolution in 1979. The then Shah had previously been sent into exile briefly in 1953 after the then prime minister successfully nationalized the previous owned British oil industry there.

In 1953 a U.S. led coup re-instated the Shah. In 1957 martial law was ended and Iran actually became an ally of U.S. I could go on but we all know what happened after the 1979 uprising and the Shah was replaced ( whilst in America undergoing treatment for cancer) with the Ayotollah Khomeni returned from exile in France,who declared an Islamic Republic. It was during this uprising that the Embassy siege occurred.

Finally, I think that you may have been alluding to the installation of Sadam Hussien in Iraq.... not Iran. so understanding history is indeed crucial to understanding the bigger picture.

Regards

I assure you that I am not referring to Sadam Hussein. The following is the introduction to Mohammad Mossadegh from Wikipedia:

Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq[a] (Persian: مُحَمَد مُصَدِق‎; IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ] ( listen); 16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967), was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA.[4][5]

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hamid1 isn't going anywhere.

Hamid2 can complain to anybody.

For once USA did the right thing IMHO.

What I didn't like in the whole story is this:

1) The bloody Teheranis knew that their 'choice' will piss off Americans - it was a deliberate act.

2) Why the bloody Obama needed 'intense pressure' from US Congress to do the right thing?

This is the first time this has ever been done, it is illegal and is tantamount to the US 'vetoing' Iran's choice for Ambassador. Is Iran supposed to submit a list of possibly 'acceptable' candidates to a country it doesn't even have diplomatic relations with? What's next denying the Russian ambassador a visa because of crimea?

The pretext for this is that this guy was one of the students who invaded the US embassy in Tehran (which is against international law) and took hostages during that countries overthrow of a dictator more than 30 years ago.. so the US is taking the position that 2 wrongs make a right.

Accepting this guy's credential as an ambassador would be an insult to the hostages, held for over a year in rotten, fearful conditions. There would be a huge outcry from the American people condemning our government, which clearly has enough problems already, for letting him even visit, much less represent Iran in any capacity whatsover. The temptation would be great to slap him in jail for 400 days or so. Hell no, we do not want this hostage taker in our country. Next!

Interesting how a topic like this brings out all the USA haters.

RuamRudy,

We can all be selective in our interpretation of history, and also in our quotes as I mentioned in my previous post Mosaddeq nationalised the then British owned oil industry, and subsequently drove the Shah into exile. The coup you mention was indeed supported by U.S and U.K. but it was orchestrated by an Iranian Faziollah Zahedi. Please read on with reference to the U.S. helping the Shah to run the country. We could debate this for years i guess, but it still does not get away from the fact that Iran tried to place a terrorist in the U.N.

Kind Regards and Happy Songkran

Extract from Wikipedia:

In 1951 Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq received the vote required from the parliament to nationalize the British-owned oil industry, in a situation known as the Abadan Crisis. Despite British pressure, including an economic blockade, the nationalization continued. Mosaddeq was briefly removed from power in 1952 but was quickly re-appointed by the shah, due to a popular uprising in support of the premier and he, in turn, forced the Shah into a brief exile in August 1953 after a failed military coup by Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri.

1953: U.S. organized coup re-installs Shiah[edit]

Shortly thereafter on August 19 a successful coup was headed by retired army general Fazlollah Zahedi, organized by the United States (CIA)^[93] with the active support of the British (MI6) (known as Operation Ajax). The coup—with a black propaganda campaign designed to turn the population against Mosaddeq—forced Mosaddeq from office. Mosaddeq was arrested and tried for treason. Found guilty, his sentence reduced to house arrest on his family estate while his foreign minister, Hossein Fatemi, was executed. Zahedi succeeded him as prime minister, and suppressed opposition to the Shah, specifically the National Front and Communist Tudeh Party.

1971 film about Iran under the Shah

Iran was ruled as an autocracy under the shah with American support from that time until the revolution. The Iranian government entered into agreement with an international consortium of foreign companies which ran the Iranian oil facilities for the next 25 years splitting profits fifty-fifty with Iran but not allowing Iran to audit their accounts or have members on their board of directors. In 1957 martial law was ended after 16 years and Iran became closer to the West, joining the Baghdad Pact and receiving military and economic aid from the US. In 1961, Iran initiated a series of economic, social, agrarian and administrative reforms to modernize the country that became known as the Shah's White Revolution.

The core of this program was land reform. Modernization and economic growth proceeded at an unprecedented rate, fueled by Iran's vast petroleum reserves, the third-largest in the world. However the reforms, including the White Revolution, did not greatly improve economic conditions and the liberal pro-Western policies alienated certain Islamic religious and political groups. In early June 1963 several days of massive rioting in support of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini following the cleric's arrest for a speech attacking the shah.

Off-topic posts have been deleted along with replies. Please stay on topic.

President Barack Obama has come under intense pressure from the US Congress not to allow him to enter the country.

Obama wanted to let that murdering terrorist sit on the UN. Why not? The only thing factual about that movie I. Frankenstein was the description of the UN. Even Huessini Mubarak was their darling, his entire life, and he used UN money to take over from Anwar Sadat.

You guys don't get it. An ambassador has complete immunity from US law. He can't even get a parking ticket. If he commits a crime, the worst that can happen to him is that he gets deported.

This is on US soil which is sovereign. The US doesn't think much of the UN and has refused to sign all of its most "important" treaties and is therefore not ruled by the UN.

Why the UN building is on US soil, I'll never know, but I wish all of those dodgy ambassadors from dodgy countries were housed in Europe.

Damn it, if the US doesn't want someone on its soil, it has a right to say "no," just as any country should.

Maybe one of you bleeding hearts will invite this Islamic extremist to stay at your house.

Thank you NeverSure, for writing this down better than I probably could have. Please, all of you from perfect countries who think America is so horrible, please, please take the United Nations and host it in your country and then you can deal with all the headaches.

President Barack Obama has come under intense pressure from the US Congress not to allow him to enter the country.

Obama wanted to let that murdering terrorist sit on the UN. Why not? The only thing factual about that movie I. Frankenstein was the description of the UN. Even Huessini Mubarak was their darling, his entire life, and he used UN money to take over from Anwar Sadat.

Songkran partying already?

Obama is presently trying to deal with Iran. There are more than one faction in Iran, and some aren't interested in dealing with the USA. Presenting a problem ambassador scores either way: If he's accepted, can say how weak the USA is, if he is not - then the USA is an oppressive regime. Win win.

Pretty sure Obama wasn't thrilled with the proposed ambassador, having the congress "pressure" him to make the call, is a fine way to try and avoid a bigger confrontation. I guess that Rouhani wasn't too thrilled with the candidate as well.

The UN should re-think of having their headquarters in such an repressive country.

Apart of that the US still is the largest debtor of the UN because of not paying their fees they are getting more and more undemocratic in e.g. not allowing TTIP critic foreigners to enter their country (hey, you are speaking against commercial interests of our big companies, so we don't like you) or even rejecting foreign airplanes the right of passing in their airspace because they don't like one of their passengers (without no reason breaking international airtraffic regulations).

They don't rule the world, they are just a part of it, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

Bye,

Derk

Do you really think that "international regulations" trump a country's right to its sovereignty?

Debt? Why should the US pay 26% of the UN's peacekeeping missions when it has only 5% of the world's population? Link

The US may have only 5% of the world's population but it is widely perceived as overtly or covertly supporting or fomenting most of the wars which require these peacekeeping forces.

The UN should re-think of having their headquarters in such an repressive country.

Apart of that the US still is the largest debtor of the UN because of not paying their fees they are getting more and more undemocratic in e.g. not allowing TTIP critic foreigners to enter their country (hey, you are speaking against commercial interests of our big companies, so we don't like you) or even rejecting foreign airplanes the right of passing in their airspace because they don't like one of their passengers (without no reason breaking international airtraffic regulations).

They don't rule the world, they are just a part of it, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

Bye,

Derk

Everyone has a right to opinion. That is of course, if you don't live in a country much less democratic than the USA.

The USA doesn't rule the world. Historically, we have deferred to numerous other countries to give that a try.

I don't know if the UN fee statement is accurate. I do know that the USA leads the way with the amount of money given, not loaned, to countries suffering from natural or man-made disasters.

While I don't always agree with the US foreign policy, it's my country and I will never be ashamed to be a citizen of the United States of America. I know people from other countries that feel like wise and good for them.

The UN should re-think of having their headquarters in such an repressive country.

Apart of that the US still is the largest debtor of the UN because of not paying their fees they are getting more and more undemocratic in e.g. not allowing TTIP critic foreigners to enter their country (hey, you are speaking against commercial interests of our big companies, so we don't like you) or even rejecting foreign airplanes the right of passing in their airspace because they don't like one of their passengers (without no reason breaking international airtraffic regulations).

They don't rule the world, they are just a part of it, but it seems that they forget it every now and then...

Bye,

Derk

Do you really think that "international regulations" trump a country's right to its sovereignty?

Debt? Why should the US pay 26% of the UN's peacekeeping missions when it has only 5% of the world's population? Link

The US may have only 5% of the world's population but it is widely perceived as overtly or covertly supporting or fomenting most of the wars which require these peacekeeping forces.

Ah...if it's "widely perceived" it must be true.

The USA also picks the tab for over 20% of the regular expenditures of the UN.

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted. Please stick to the topic.

Numerous people who would be considered as enemies of the US have been allowed into the US to speak at the UN. There visa is given a geographical limitation and they are not allowed to travel freely throughout the country. Such a visa wouldn't work very well with an ambassador.

I doubt that there is any country that would allow someone as an ambassador under similar circumstances. Iran might want to decide whether it wants representation in the UN, or if it simply wants to bite off its nose to spite its face.

I very much doubt that many people in the US would put up a fight if they wanted to move the UN somewhere else. At the first hint of it moving, I bet Donald Trump will have plans for developing the site.

Post deleted.

Posts which argue about the history of Iran are off-topic and being deleted, since they are simply going in a circle with no conclusion. The UN budget for peacekeepers is also off-topic.