- Iran: Eight Prisoners Hanged on Drug Charges
- Daughter of late Iranian president jailed for ‘spreading lies’ - IRAN: Annual report on the death penalty 2016 - Taheri Facing the Death Penalty Again - Dedicated team seeking return of missing agent in Iran - Iran Arrests 2, Seizes Bibles During Catholic Crackdown
- Trump to welcome Netanyahu as Palestinians fear U.S. shift
- Details of Iran nuclear deal still secret as US-Tehran relations unravel - Will Trump's Next Iran Sanctions Target China's Banks? - Don’t ‘tear up’ the Iran deal. Let it fail on its own. - Iran Has Changed, But For The Worse - Iran nuclear deal ‘on life support,’ Priebus says
- Female Activist Criticizes Rouhani’s Failure to Protect Citizens
- Iran’s 1st female bodybuilder tells her story - Iranian lady becomes a Dollar Millionaire on Valentine’s Day - Two women arrested after being filmed riding motorbike in Iran - 43,000 Cases of Child Marriage in Iran - Woman Investigating Clinton Foundation Child Trafficking KILLED!
- Senior Senators, ex-US officials urge firm policy on Iran
- In backing Syria's Assad, Russia looks to outdo Iran - Six out of 10 People in France ‘Don’t Feel Safe Anywhere’ - The liberal narrative is in denial about Iran - Netanyahu urges Putin to block Iranian power corridor - Iran Poses ‘Greatest Long Term Threat’ To Mid-East Security |
Saturday 02 April 2011Unserious on Iran sanctions
REVIEW & OUTLOOK The Obama Administration has advertised its sanctions regime against Iran as the toughest ever applied and a great diplomatic success. So what are we to make of its decision this week to punish only a single company doing business with Iran's oil and gas industry—and a small fry at that? The State Department announced that it is punishing Belarusneft, a firm owned by the government of Belarus, for signing a $500 million contract in 2007 to develop an oil field in southwestern Iran. The company is now barred from working with the U.S. Export-Import Bank, receiving large loans from U.S. banks, contracting with the U.S. government and obtaining U.S. export licenses. The effect of all this? Nil. The State Department admits that Belarusneft doesn't seek to do any of these things. The sanctions may also be redundant: Belarusneft's parent company, Belneftekhim, has been under U.S. sanctions since 2007 for its connections to Belarusian President and international pariah Alexander Lukashenko. The failure to sanction bigger offenders caught the attention of Congress. "We do not believe this represents full compliance with the sanctions regime put in place by Congress," wrote Senators Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner this week. They attached a classified 54-page annex detailing international firms that are or might be in violation of U.S. sanctions. We assume the list includes, among others, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), Sinopec, Zhuhai Zhen Rong, Lukoil and Turpas—all companies known to be investing in Iran. None of this is news to the Obama Administration, which would appear to lack the political will to act against firms with friends in Beijing, Moscow and Ankara. We doubt that sanctions will stop Iran's nuclear program, but without enforcement the effort is hopeless. Chinese, Russian and Turkish companies not only allow Iran to tap its resources and access refined petroleum. They also replace the very projects previously abandoned by Western European and Japanese companies in response to U.S. pressure. When CNPC in 2009 invested roughly $2 billion in the South Azadegan fields that Japan's Inpex had vacated, it nullified the effect of Inpex's departure. CNPC and other sanctions violators also benefit from having fewer competitors. White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon said this week that "Even with all the events unfolding in the Middle East, we remain focused on the strategic imperative of ensuring that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons." Would that it were so. The Wall Street Journal |