U.N. tightens sanctions on Iran
Article from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/world/middleeast/25sanctions.html?ref=world
Article from the Washington Post can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400576.html
Summary: The United Nations Secruity Council voted unanimously 15-0 Saturday to ban all Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of individuals/entities linked to Iran's nuclear power program.
I thought the differences in lead between the two articles made it difficult to discern which was more effective. For example, the Washington Post lead gave specific details on the impact of the sanctions: "The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to approve a resolution that bans all Iranian arms exports and freezes some of the financial assets of 28 Iranian individuals and entities linked to Iran's military and nuclear agencies." However, the New York Times lead chose to emphasize the motivation behind the Security Council's actions:: "The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed Saturday to impose new, more stringent sanctions to press Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and rejoin negotiations over its nuclear program." Ultimately, the Post lead is more sucessful because it conveys the importance of the sanctions themselves, which is more newsworthy and informative.
The body of both articles both reflected the challenges faced by both authors in capturing the varying motives and attitudes harbored by the voting countries and Iran which lead to the sanctions. The Post article delays mention of the reasoning behind the sanctions until the third paragraph, choosing instead to frame the decision against the backdrop of Iran's detainment of British saliors. While the Times article also mentions that development, they dropped that element to the 6th paragraph, focusing instead on tensions between the West and Middle East, and voicing the concern that Iran has been supplying arms to Iraq. Notably, both articles also adressed the delicate manuevering that occured because of concern from South Africa, Indonesia, and Qatar over the objective of the sanctions.
Ultimately, the New York Times article did a better job of addressing the challenges presented in this issue and more thoroughly examined the various perspectives expressed by different countries before and after the sanctions.