u.s. companies in iran

[pinkeye]

in case this story hasn't been posted yet:


U.S. companies are operating in Iran

More than 30 U.S. corporations are doing business in Iran despite trade sanctions imposed in 1980.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Dozens of U.S. corporations are conducting business in Iran, despite a 1980 trade sanction outlawing U.S. citizens and companies from doing business there.

Importing carpets, caviar, dried fruits and nuts is still legal, but few of these companies fall under these categories.

According to one analyst, there are more than 30 U.S. corporations doing business in Iran through foreign subsidiaries or related companies.

"The business of subsidiaries of U.S. firms being able to maneuver around the U.S. sanctions...even though they're legal...I think that that's starting to rub people the wrong way," Roger Robinson of the Conflict Securities Advisory Group told CNN reporter Chris Huntington .

Vice President Cheney's old firm Halliburton (HAL: Research, Estimates) has an office in the Iranian capital, Tehran. A company spokeswoman told CNN that the subsidiary, Halliburton products and services, helps build drilling rigs in Iran's southern oil field.

Halliburton's main competitors in the oil field industry, Baker Hughes (BHI: Research, Estimates) and Smith International (SII: Research, Estimates), have foreign operations in Iran too.

There's also a Swiss-owned Caterpillar (CAT: Research, Estimates) dealership in Tehran and General Electric's (GE: Research, Estimates) Canadian Unit is working on a huge hydroelectric project there.

All of these companies told CNN that they are in full compliance with U.S. trade laws.


But Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute thinks that companies doing business in Iran are indirectly helping fund terrorism.

"The oil companies are a wholly owned subsidiary of the government...the government is the primary sponsor of terrorism," he said. "Plus they have separate organizations that are used to funnel oil profits and other profits into the terror network."

But the sanctions say that as long as a U.S. entity does not own or manage its foreign subsidiary in Iran, it's perfectly legal.

Halliburton's subsidiary, is registered in the Cayman Islands and headquartered in Dubai, with no Americans on staff.

"If the activities were carried out completely independently of the U.S. operations as part of an ongoing business practices of the foreign subsidiary, that would be all right," said Christopher Myers an attorney with Holland and Knight LLP.

"If they set that company up offshore with the express purpose of avoiding their obligations under US law, that could be illegal."

Enforcing trade sanctions falls under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, and its rules on Iran are clearly posted on their website.

The OFAC Director Richard Newcomb told CNN's Huntington that his staff is ready to crack down on any U.S. citizen or company that violates the sanctions.

But the penalties for violating the sanctions tend to be modest.

Halliburton paid $15,000 in 1997 to settle a commerce department claim that it was improperly shipping oil field equipment to Iran. At the time, Cheney had just come on as the company's CEO and he was an outspoken critic of the sanctions against Iran.

When CNN inquired about the Bush administration's policy on U.S. corporate interests in Iran the Vice President's office had no comment and directed the station back to the OFAC.

But the pressure on U.S. companies with ties to Iran is building from institutional shareholders.

Pennsylvania now requires its state pension funds to monitor investments for exposure to sponsors of terrorism.

New York City Comptroller William Thompson, who oversees the pension funds for New York City's police force and firefighters, has forced Halliburton and Conoco-Philips to review their business dealings in Iran and Syria.

"Those United States-based companies have to be really concerned and if I were in their shoes I'd take a fast look at the work that I'm doing in these nations and in the end, most of them will make the claim that its not a large piece of their business," said Thompson. "

"Well, since it isn't, get out and get out now."

But he couldn't persuade General Electric to leave.

GE's proxy stated that a review of its business in Iran would be unnecessary because, "We are compliant with U.S. law and regulations which recognize that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies can and will do business in Iran."

For decades U.S. economic interests in Iran have been at odds with national security policy, particularly when oil is involved and for now U.S. corporations have all the legal insulation they need to carry on business as usual in Iran.

[a. enders]

Hunh....

[Kriz]

And now all the pro americas will go it's a conspiracy theory by leftist twats and all the anti americas will go look USA is evil, and the flaming starts again ...

[usa320]

I really dont see how selling Catepillar machinery supports terrorism... :roll:

[pinkeye]

Sidestepping Sanctions
While the Bush administration looks the other way, U.S. companies are dodging laws that bar them from doing business with nations accused of sponsoring terrorism.

By Michael Scherer

In April, as American tanks approached the outskirts of Baghdad, Pentagon officials suggested that only U.S. companies would be allowed to take part in the postwar reconstruction of Iraq's oil fields. In strategic leaks to the press, the Defense Department offered a rationale for an American-only policy: European firms, they declared, should be excluded because they do business with Iran and other countries that sponsor terrorist organizations and harbor weapons of mass destruction.

What defense officials failed to note, however, is that many U.S. companies routinely find ways to bypass economic sanctions and export regulations that bar American citizens and companies from trading with Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Sudan. Taking advantage of legal loopholes, these corporations simply conduct their business through offshore subsidiaries that employ only foreign citizens. With no Americans on the payroll, the subsidiaries are free to ignore U.S. sanctions against the "axis of evil" and other countries identified by the Bush administration as the primary sponsors of terrorism. Other U.S. firms -- including Hewlett-Packard, Kodak, and Procter & Gamble -- ship their products to Dubai, where third parties are known to "re-export" goods to Iran.

"It's a real problem," says Michael Beck, an expert on sanctions at the University of Georgia. "American companies bypass U.S. export controls by using entities based in other countries."

In Iran -- "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," according to the State Department -- General Electric is providing four hydroelectric generators to expand a dam on the Kurun River through a Canadian subsidiary called GE Hydro and is also supplying pipeline compressors and gas turbines for Iran's burgeoning oil sector through an Italian unit called Nuovo Pignone. Not far from the Iraqi border, a subsidiary of Halliburton is helping to build a $228 million fertilizer plant, one of the world's largest. Another Halliburton division based in Sweden is providing the Iranian National Oil Co. with a $226 million semi-submersible drilling rig, while other subsidiaries operate in Libya. A British subsidiary of ConocoPhillips helped Iran survey its Azadegan oil field, and ExxonMobil only recently sold its Sudanese gas subsidiary based in Khartoum.

U.S. companies acknowledge that they routinely use overseas subsidi- aries to trade with sanctioned countries in the Middle East and else-where. "We have used foreign subsidiaries to sell oil equipment in those regions," says Scott Amann, a vice president at the oil-service firm Cooper Cameron. "We're not allowed to have an American company or American operation."

But while President Bush has drawn a line in the sand with foreign governments, warning them "you are with us or you're with the terrorists," he has done little to crack down on U.S. corporations that skirt trade embargoes designed to undercut terrorist organizations. "It is an outrage, if not actually criminal, when you have companies end-running these sanctions," says Frank Gaffney, a deputy defense secretary under Reagan and president of the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

Previous administrations have been less friendly to sanction dodgers. The Reagan administration pressured subsidiaries of Conoco and Marathon to leave Libya in the 1980s, and in 1995 the Clinton administration persuaded Conoco to abandon an Iranian oil contract arranged through a Dutch subsidiary. "If a government is strongly committed to stopping these kinds of transactions, it can do so," says Kenneth Rodman, a sanctions expert at Colby College. "There is power that the U.S. is choosing not to use for some reason."

Instead, the Bush administration has used its power behind the scenes to make it easier for American companies to do business with the very countries it has targeted in the war on terrorism. As CEO of Halliburton, **** Cheney lobbied to lift U.S. sanctions against Iran and Libya, saying they hurt business and failed to stop terrorism. As vice president, Cheney has initiated a "comprehensive review of sanctions" as part of the National Energy Review, suggesting that sanctions against oil-producing nations should be relaxed to improve "energy security." Last year the administration supported a bill that would have weakened trade restrictions on high-speed computers and other technology that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, and the Securities and Exchange Commission has delayed issuing rules that would require foreign companies to disclose their business deals in sanctioned countries.

Industry leaders have been lobbying fiercely to further loosen trade barriers. They argue that sanctions against Iran, Libya, Sudan, and other countries limit cultural and economic exchanges that could promote reform. In addition, they say, sanctions give unfair advantage to foreign companies not beholden to U.S. law. "When sanctions are proposed unilaterally, they almost never work -- and they end up shooting our guys in the foot," says William Reinsch of the National Foreign Trade Council, which spent $280,000 lobbying against sanctions in 2001.

But the point, critics say, is not whether sanctions work, but why major corporations are being allowed to sidestep the law. Sanctions enjoy broad, bipartisan support -- the most recent version of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act passed Congress by a vote of 409-6 -- and conservative Republicans have been among the most vocal champions of cutting off trade to countries that sponsor terrorist organizations. "By doing business in these countries, you are basically selling the rope that will be used to harm U.S. citizens," says Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.). "It's fundamentally immoral to me."

In April, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called on the Pentagon to investigate Halliburton's business dealings with Iran and Libya, noting that the company also provides support for American military operations. "I think many people will be surprised to learn that a company receiving millions of taxpayer dollars to support the war on terrorism has had business deals with some of the leading state sponsors of terrorism," Waxman says. "Congress should determine whether companies are complying with the spirit and the letter of U.S. law."

At the state level, lawmakers and investors have decided to take action themselves. In January, a bill requiring public pension funds to disclose their dealings with sanctioned countries was introduced in Arizona. A month later, officials who manage pensions for public employees in New York City urged shareholders of General Electric, Halliburton, and ConocoPhillips to pass resolutions requiring the companies to disclose their contracts with Iran and Syria, another "state sponsor of terrorism," saying such trade deals "violate the spirit of the law."

Proponents of the resolutions say that shareholders have a legitimate stake in the issue: Using offshore subsidiaries to evade sanctions, they note, could hurt a firm's share prices. "In this climate we are in today, the reputation of a company could be tainted if it is perceived to have ties to states that are connected to terrorism," explains Kenneth Sylvester, assistant comptroller for New York.

The pressure has had an effect. After initial resistance, Halliburton agreed to reconsider its Iranian business, while Conoco-Phillips agreed to review both Iranian and Syrian operations, avoiding a potentially embarrassing vote by shareholders. For now, though, public pensions are still being invested in companies that do business with sanctioned countries -- pensions that include the retirement funds of New York police and firefighters who were killed at the World Trade Center. "You are talking about the sons and daughters and the wives of the people who died on September 11," says Joe Alejandro, treasurer of New York's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. "They don't want money going to terrorists."

[pinkeye]

03 August 2001


Bush Signs Extension of Iran and Libya Sanctions Act
Says he approves of provisions calling for periodic review of sanctions

President Bush has signed legislation extending the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) for another five years.

In a statement issued by the White House press office on August 3, Bush said that he approves of provisions added to the ILSA legislation that call for frequent review of sanctions to assess their "effectiveness and continued suitability."

"I approve of this statutorily mandated requirement to periodically assess the effectiveness of sanctions and to recommend whether the Congress should terminate or modify the Act. The Act also continues the President's power to waive sanctions in the national interest," said Bush.

The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act was enacted in 1996. It sanctions foreign companies that provide new investments of over $40 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran or Libya, or that violate existing UN prohibitions against trade with Libya in certain goods and services such as arms, certain oil equipment, and civil aviation services. The law allows the president to waive sanctions against a foreign company if doing so is deemed to be in the U.S. national interest. U.S. companies are prohibited by U.S. law from engaging in any commercial or financial transactions with Iran or Libya.

Bush said that he shares the concerns of the Congress with "the objectionable policies and behavior of Iran and Libya," and said his administration is strengthening its efforts with other member of the international community to solve "the problems of proliferation and terrorism addressed by ILSA."

The following is the text of the White House press release:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release August 3, 2001
Statement By The President

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 1954, the "ILSA Extension Act of 2001." This Act provides for a 5-year extension of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) with amendments that affect certain of the investment provisions.

I believe that we should review sanctions frequently to assess their effectiveness and continued suitability. A new provision in this bill mandates a report on the impact of certain actions taken pursuant to the Act. I approve of this statutorily mandated requirement to periodically assess the effectiveness of sanctions and to recommend whether the Congress should terminate or modify the Act. The Act also continues the President's power to waive sanctions in the national interest.

My Administration shares the Congress' deep concerns about the objectionable policies and behavior of Iran and Libya. We are addressing these concerns in a number of ways. In particular, we are strengthening our efforts with other countries, whose cooperation is essential to pursuing the most effective approaches to solving the problems of proliferation and terrorism addressed by ILSA.

Libya must address its obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. These relate to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and require Libya to accept responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials, disclose all it knows about the bombing, renounce terrorism, and pay appropriate compensation. Cooperative action by Libya on these four issues would make it possible for us to begin to move toward a more constructive relationship.

With respect to Iran, we continue to have serious concerns over its support for terrorism, opposition to the Middle East peace process, and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. I hope that the Iranian people's recently expressed desire for a freer, more open, and more prosperous society will give our two countries an opportunity to identify areas where our interests converge, and where we can work together constructively for our mutual benefit.

George W. Bush

The White House, August 3, 2001.

[ibstolidude]

I think someone needs to look at what the sanctions actually prohibit and what it allows/excuses...it is posted on government websites.

[pinkeye]

so it doesn't matter if american companies are doing business with iran, which is part of the "axis of evil"? not only is that highly hypocritical but also totally irrational.

[budanski]

Cursed ibstolidude. kashyyk was on a roll to become the new Mortimer.

Please. continue :D

[budanski]

so it doesn't matter if american companies are doing business with iran, which is part of the "axis of evil"? not only is that highly hypocritical but also totally irrational.

Heres a great example to where only the U.S. could be hypicritical. Yet the U.N. is blind to the fact that both France and Russia could sell Iraq anything they wanted under U.N. sanctions.

[Trigger]

Why do these guys come here to spew?
Last time I checked it was 'Militaryphotos', not 'Leftistlandfill'
...so many haters....so little time :|

[usa320]

Cursed ibstolidude. kashyyk was on a roll to become the new Mortimer

lol

and lol at "leftist landfill"

[pinkeye]

the article pertains to american companies, so that is why the discussion is limited to american companies. i did not say anything about france, russia, china, or any other country doing business with iran because that is not relevant to the subject matter. the issue is why american companies continue to do business with iran, despite current american foreign policy. are you so ignorant that you fail to see the problem? why don't stop your flag-waving for a second and take the time to read the text posted rather than posting stupid comments.

hmmmm, last time i checked france did not label iran an axis of evil, so france does business with said country.

[Trigger]

Yeah, France needs at least one friend.

[pinkeye]

Why do these guys come here to spew?
Last time I checked it was 'Militaryphotos', not 'Leftistlandfill'
...so many haters....so little time :|

so you think "militaryphotos" should be limited to right-wing crap like yours? sure, posts are fine as long as they are right-wing. newsflash, not everyone is a right-wing kook like you, so grow up... besides, this issue is not right- or left-wing, for both ideological camps have criticised the business practices of the corporations. here's a suggestion, read the damn article and stop masturbating to soldier of fortune...

[budanski]

hmmm, last time i checked france voted on UN sanctions against Iraq, yet they still did business with it illegally.


the article pertains to american companies, so that is why the discussion is limited to american companies. i did not say anything about france, russia, china, or any other country doing business with iran because that is not relevant to the subject matter. the issue is why american companies continue to do business with iran, despite current american foreign policy. are you so ignorant that you fail to see the problem?

And you still dont see the hypocrisity in your statement? This only applies to U.S. policies?

[ibstolidude]

US sanctions are generally not universal..
some commodoties are excused and/or exempted...
but I guess a few minutes of research would be harder than spounting off the same old rhetoric.

BUDinski -
I just hate circular logic for an arguement and when people claim others jsut don't know yet offer no reason.
often my views are more critical of the US than fellow Americans like to see, but I feel that is my our right (PRAISE our freedom! ;)

on the same note, it is very easy to be critical, as we have hindsight and I never had to be the guy making the policy decisions..so one can only be soo critical.

People would be surprised that often I could agree with them, if they didn't rely on such shoddy arguments that are only slightly based in facts, but mostly agenda such as the embargo's/sanctions discussed here.

I guess the belief here is we should stop all goods to/from Iran, to include medical books and supplies, agricultural goods ..etc and see how much more we can cause the IRanian people to suffer....hey that would go far in showing the people of Iran the west are not demons!
ohh i guess not...

[Trigger]

kashyyk wrote:

so you think "militaryphotos" should be limited to right-wing crap like yours? sure, posts are fine as long as they are right-wing. newsflash, not everyone is a right-wing kook like you, so grow up...
No kashew (as in nuts) I don't see the need for any limitation of posts. I just find it odd that you chose this forum to lay out your case.


both ideological camps have criticised the business practices of the corporations.
OK, both camps have criticised...now what? Tell us your solution Einstein or quit playing the same broken record.


here's a suggestion, read the damn article and stop masturbating to soldier of fortune...
I read the article when you posted it. Do I get a gold star?
Why do I always get the 'masturbation' comments thrown at me?
You guys and your fixation on my genitalia...I'm starting to think it's a conspiracy.

[SOG]

so you think "militaryphotos" should be limited to right-wing crap like yours?

just stuff like, oh, i dont know, MILITARY? if you consider right wing crap military then yeah why not. either way this is politics. because it could result in mil action i dont think is an excuse to post it.

Militaryphotos.net Discussion
Topics related to the Militaryphotos.net site.

theres that MIL thing again. hmmm, wonder why i came here instead of right retard or left retard central........

i think it would go better if people posted thoughts and facts instead of other articles letting it do the talking for them. it would come out less leftist/rightist and it would be more personell.

[SOG]

here's a suggestion, read the damn article and stop masturbating to soldier of fortune...


I read the article when you posted it. Do I get a gold star?
Why do I always get the 'masturbation' comments thrown at me?
You guys and your fixation on my genitalia...I'm starting to think it's a conspiracy.

i think its the monkey. its sooooo damn verile.

[Trigger]

rofl

[usa320]

so you think "militaryphotos" should be limited to right-wing crap like yours

Yes... now go screw yourself. :bash:

[usa320]

ANd dont talk about Genetalia, or in kashyak's (or whatever the hell his name is) lack of...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/butcherbird/bruceowned.gif

[usa320]

Gotta love the silence after someone gets totally OWNED.

[a. enders]

Yes... now go screw yourself. :bash:

Your opinion is the only right opinion,eh? :cantbeli:

[usa320]

yes enders... rofl

No, im just sick of people comming to a military site to bash America...go to an America bashing site.

[James]

No one bashed America... The articles pointed out some interesting information, that's all. It was about what U.S. companies are doing (trading with the "Axis of Evil" :roll: ) vs. what the U.S. Government has set as policy... I'd think that some of you would have supported this... U.S. companies doing business with nations that might soon (I really hope not) be shooting at our troops.

Anyway, if you think that we (the U.S.) have a spotless record when it comes to Foreign Affairs, well, gosh, I don't know what to say. That's just sad.

[duck]

The Mossad has surely given Mr.Ledeen the rught set of replies, but in the heat of the moment he somehow forgot the primary terrorist sponsors are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not Iran. Should they cut his expense budget as a disciplinary measure?

[Seiyuuki]

the article pertains to american companies, so that is why the discussion is limited to american companies. i did not say anything about france, russia, china, or any other country doing business with iran because that is not relevant to the subject matter. the issue is why american companies continue to do business with iran, despite current american foreign policy. are you so ignorant that you fail to see the problem? why don't stop your flag-waving for a second and take the time to read the text posted rather than posting stupid comments.

Damn it...I hope we are all beyond grade school...USE PROPER ****OUN!!!

American, France, Russia, China, Iran!!!

Hey, isn't that interesting...

If you rearrange China and Iran...add in, oh say...Azerbaijan...you get:

American, France, Russia, Iran, China, Azerbaijan...you get AFRICA!!!