South Korean President Lee Myung-bak announced that the South will close shipping lanes to the impoverished North and cease all economic activity with it. He plans to get the United Nations Security Council to address the Cheonan attack — a move that has the backing of the White House. “Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice are each consulting very closely with their Korean counterparts,” read a White House statement issued at 1 a.m. today, “as well as with Japan, China, and other UN Security Council member states in order to reach agreement on the steps in the Council.”

The operative part of the statement:

Specifically, we endorse President Lee’s demand that North Korea immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior.  U.S. support for South Korea’s defense is unequivocal, and the President has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression.  We will build on an already strong foundation of excellent cooperation between our militaries and explore further enhancements to our joint posture on the Peninsula as part of our ongoing dialogue.

Flying back from a major economic summit in China, Clinton declined to say that the Chinese, North Korea’s last remaining benefactor, saw the Cheonan incident as the U.S. and the South Koreans do.  But “the Chinese recognize the gravity of the situation we face,” she said. “The Chinese understand the reaction by the South Koreans, and they also understand our unique responsibility for the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.” Clinton added that the North Koreans have caused “a highly precarious situation” on the Korean peninsula.

Speaking last week at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointedly noted that whatever strain from two extended wars that the U.S. Army and Marine Corps feel doesn’t apply to the forces that would respond to a resumption of hostilities in Korea. “If there were a problem in Korea, our main arms would be the Navy and the Air Force,” Gates said. “And so we — those are not stretched in the same way that the — that the ground forces are. But again, the key to remember — the key thing to remember here is that this was an attack on a South Korean ship, and the South Koreans need to be in the lead in terms of proposing ways forward.”

So, at first blush, nothing really ruled in or ruled out. But judge for yourself. Gibbs:

We acknowledge the efforts that have been made by Turkey and Brazil. The proposal announced in Tehran must now be conveyed clearly and authoritatively to the IAEA before it can be considered by the international community. Given Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns. While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October, Iran said today that it would continue its 20% enrichment, which is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions and which the Iranian government originally justified by pointing to the need for fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. Furthermore, the Joint Declaration issued in Tehran is vague about Iran’s willingness to meet with the P5+1 countries to address international concerns about its nuclear program, as it also agreed to do last October.

The United States will continue to work with our international partners, and through the United Nations Security Council, to make it clear to the Iranian government that it must demonstrate through deeds – and not simply words – its willingness to live up to international obligations or face consequences, including sanctions. Iran must take the steps necessary to assure the international community that its nuclear program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes, including by complying with U.N. Security Council resolutions and cooperating fully with the IAEA. We remain committed to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear program, as part of the P5+1 dual track approach, and will be consulting closely with our partners on these developments going forward.

According to a Western diplomat who spoke in return for anonymity because he was not authorized to brief reporters, the amount of low-enriched uranium that Iran was prepared to ship to Turkey was believed to represent a little more than half its current stockpile.

“The situation has changed,” the diplomat said.

If you read on in the piece, you’ll see that Iran’s move may not be enough to satisfy the so-called P5+1′s concerns about an Iranian weapons program:

In Tehran, the Foreign Ministry spokesman told a person attending the news conference that Iran would not, for example, suspend its program to enrich uranium to 20 percent — which brings it closer to weapons grade.

Still waiting on an actual official reply from the Obama administration here. But in the meantime, Amb. Susan Rice’s next few weeks are going to be consumed with shepherding a sanctions package through a Security Council that at the very least would rather not pass a new round of sanctions on Iran. The Iranian negotiating posture to date has been to bust up punitive-minded coalitions at the last minute with the prospect of cooperation, so it’s diplomatic malpractice if this comes as a surprise. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t wavering nations who’d want to get off the sanctions bus at the first sign of Iranian openness to a longed-for enrichment deal. What the administration says — and Rice does — today in reaction to the new offering will be crucial.

Ambassador Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, will join members of Congress, foreign dignitaries and other distinguished guests in honoring awardees at this year’s Kahlil Gibran “Spirit of Humanity” Awards Gala in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, April 21, 2010.

Marking the Arab American Institute’s (AAI) 25th Anniversary, this year’s awards gala honors four individuals and one corporation for their work promoting inclusion, cultural understanding and cooperation across ethnic, racial and religious lines

With the three other veto-holding Security Council powers behind sanctions, the U.S., U.K. and France don’t need Russia or China to bless the sanctions — they need them not to stand in the way. The current thinking, bolstered by some firmer words yesterday from a Chinese official spokesman on the undesirability of a nuclear Iran, is that when Russia signals that it won’t object — which appears to be a safe assumption — China will not want to be the sticking point obstructing a sanctions package. Forestalling that outcome is why Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili is heading for Beijing.

While the Obama administration views economic sanctions as an obstacle to any military action against Iran, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to the Carter White House, views them as a prelude to it. In an interview to air later this afternoon on al-Jazeera, Brzezinski said:

“I don’t think the sanctions by themselves are going to resolve the nuclear problem. But I think there is an attempt ongoing in the United States and from outside the United States to push the United States towards a more antagonistic policy towards Iran, not excluding the threats of force, which in my view are counterproductive and which perhaps are designed on the part of some, to precipitate a direct collision between the United States and Iran.”

The United States remains firmly committed to a peaceful resolution to international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Over the past year and more, the United States has reached out to Iran in unprecedented ways, repeatedly demonstrating our commitment to work towards a diplomatic solution based on mutual respect. And yet, Iran has yet to take steps to build confidence and honor the commitments it has made.

As Security Council members, we must all continue to stand firm in our conviction that Iran must comply with its international obligations. Four years, four years have passed since the IAEA referred this serious situation to the Security Council. In that time, the P5+1 has dedicated itself to a dual-track approach to place a clear choice before Iran so that it can choose a better way forward. And the United States remains committed to this strategy.

Mr. President, in light of Iran’s continued noncompliance with its obligations, this Council must consider further measures to hold the Government of Iran accountable.

The diplomats said the proposed sanctions called for an outright ban on certain transactions with Iran, whereas the existing sanctions called on United Nations members to exercise “vigilance” or “restraint” in interacting with Iran in some areas of weapons trade, shipping and banking. The focus is on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which runs a vast array of Iranian businesses, while the oil industry is not included, diplomats said.

It’s up to Amb. Susan Rice to secure the support of the Russians and the Chinese, without which the sanctions package can’t pass through the Security Council. Diplomats from allied nations have told me they’re prepared to cobble together an ad-hoc sanctions coalition of Iranian trading partners, but their strong preference is for U.N. action.

The Vice President

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

Ambassador Susan Rice, Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations

Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (via videoconference)

Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (via videoconference)

Anne Patterson, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan (via videoconference)

Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General James E. Cartwright, USMC, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

General David Petraeus, U.S. Central Command

General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan (via videoconference)
Lieutenant General Dave Rodriguez (via videoconference)

Lietenant General William Caldwell (via videoconference)

Vice Admiral Michael LaFever (via videoconference)

Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence

CIA Director Leon Panetta

Deputy Secretary of Treasury Neal Wolin

General James Jones, National Security Advisor

Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Advisor

John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, Special Assistant to the President for Afghanistan and Pakistan

Robert Nabors, OMB Deputy Director

Adm. LaFever, if you didn’t recognize the name, is the Pentagon’s man in Pakistan.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gives a speech during the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. (Xinhua/ZUMA Press)

“They should know that our nation is so courageous that if we will make a nuclear bomb,” he said, as people in Tehran’s Azadi Square chanted “Death To The Dictator,” “we will openly announce it.”

Today is the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, which is why Ahmadinejad, beleaguered by the Green Movement challenging the regime’s legitimacy, needed to make a big international splash. But his speech might as well have been drafted by western intelligence agencies. Not only does it fail to strike a sufficiently threatening tone, it brings the major western powers that much closer to their goal of placing new multilateral economic sanctions on the Iranian government and security apparatus. That effort has already begun to get under way — Defense Secretary Robert Gates traveled abroad this week urging allied governments to support a new sanctions regime. Eyes now turn to the United Nations Security Council, where Amb. Susan Rice will see what she can get in terms of a sanctions package.

Naturally, the Green Movement is out in the streets opposing the regime on this anniversary, so just as naturally, the regime is brutalizing them. Follow Andrew Sullivan’s blog all day for what’s sure to be the most thorough English-language coverage.

Those discussions are based on a letter from Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA. In the letter, State asked Kerry to delay the Senate bill until next year so that the administration would have more time to prep for the “pressure track” and also to secure some changes to the legislation.

Kerry has sounded cautious notes on Iran sanctions for awhile. On the day that Iran’s hidden Qom enrichment facility was revealed, Kerry’s Foreign Relations Committee released a statement urging calm and deliberation before going the sanctions route: “We need to ensure that our unilateral efforts do not undermine the prospect for achieving tougher multilateral sanctions that will be most effective in bringing pressure to bear on Iran.” Members of the administration have told me the same thing, but they’ve never come out and opposed any of the congressional sanctions bills.

But Rogin reports that other senators — Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — want the administration to clarify its concerns:

The bill as it stands gives the president the right to waive sanctions against third-party countries that are cooperating with U.S. efforts to confront Iran’s nuclear program. The administration wants those countries to be exempted from the start and then have sanctions applied only when necessary.

“The administration has not made a compelling argument as to why the waiver isn’t sufficient for them to avoid doing diplomatic harm to allies, in the case where companies within their jurisdictions are doing things that may become sanctionable,” the aide said. “That’s what the waiver is there for.”