Security Council Sanctions Fail to Perturb Iran
The United Nations Security Council unanimously voted on Saturday to adopt new sanctions against Iran after its refusal to quit production of nuclear materials, according to an article in the Los Angeles Times. The decision was meant to show Iraq that continued defiance would leave it without aid, while submitting to demands would bring it rewards. Iran's foreign minister naturally opposed the sanctions, calling them "unlawful". This is the third sanction placed on Iran, and is intended to block the country's acquisition of materials used in nuclear weapons. The decision was made with some trepidation ,and an incident involving the capture of 15 Britons by Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf on Friday added to the atmosphere.
This is a very detailed article about an ongoing international affair that has developed over the past few months. The new restriction being the latest development in the saga, it is mentioned immediately in the first section, giving the defiant reaction of Iran and the aims of the EU. The next chunk of the story is devoted to detailing the history of sanctions placed upon Iran and what they have each meant in terms of their effects they have put into place. The final piece of the article is spent recounting the event of the captured British soldiers. There's a lot of attribution in the article used to flesh out the story, including quotes from ambassadors representing various countries, the Iranian prime minister, and Iranian army generals. The article is approached in a way that competently explains the different nuances of the type of story that it is.
The same story's treatment in the New York Times is comparable to that of the LA Times', but seems to come off as more immediate, with information pushed to the front of the article that the LA Times hesitates to delve into. There is also more focus on the work that went into preparing the sanctions, which te article reveals as being the result of heavy deliberations on Friday. There's also a lot more specifics about what exactly the resolution will do to Iran, including calling on other nations not to give grants or donations to the country except in the case of humanitarian projects. However, the article is not really divided into sections in the same way that the LA Times article is. In general, all the information seems to be more mixed up and strwen all over the place, but it flows well and all relates to the sanctions. There's no mention of the capture of British troops or really detailed information about the past sanctions, so the article flows easily with this narrower focus.
Between the two of them, the New York Times seems to have a lot more information up higher, and gives a lot more detail about the resolutions and their inevitable effects on the country. It is not sectioned up into chunks and it does not touch on the other aspects the way the LA Times story does, but it doesn't have to. It just does a fine job of elaborating on what has happened related to the sanctions on Iran.