US under fire for anti-Iran tactics

[alkemical]

US under fire for anti-Iran tactics (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4c213d46-ee9d-11db-8f38-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=fc3334c0-2f7a-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8.html)


By Stephen Fidler and Roula Khalaf in London and Guy Dinmore in Washington

Published: April 19 2007 19:18 | Last updated: April 19 2007 19:18

The Bush administration faces a growing dilemma over the pressure it is placing on European companies to suspend investment in Iran, with some US lawmakers dissatisfied with the effort and European allies worried about its tactics.

The US Treasury and State Department have sent officials across Europe, stepping up pressure on international oil and gas companies in particular not to go ahead with investment plans in Iran. They are seeking to turn the economic screws on Tehran over its nuclear programme, which has already attracted limited United Nations sanctions.

Bush administration officials testifying about Iran on Wednesday at a congressional hearing were given a roasting by Brad Sherman, the Democratic chair of a House subcommittee on terrorism and non-proliferation.

Mr Sherman repeatedly cut short Paul Simons, a State Department official, for refusing to answer “yes or no” to the question whether any foreign company had invested more than $20m (€15m, £10m) in Iran’s oil and gas industries and would thus be open to unilateral US sanctions. He also ridiculed the administration for allowing imports of Iranian caviar and carpets, and letting the World Bank lend more than $1bn to Iran.

US officials have previously said they have spoken to the chief executives and senior financial officers of several big companies, including Royal Dutch Shell, Repsol of Spain, and companies from China and Malaysia to encourage them to stop investments.

John Bruton, the European Union ambassador to Washington, expressed concern on Thursday that Treasury officials touring Europe might be threatening European companies with application of extra-territorial US legislation. The EU would “question the wisdom” of the US seeking to impose such sanctions, either retroactively or in the future. The EU-US summit to be held in Washington on April 30 would include discussions on Iran policy, he told reporters.

Stuart Levey, US undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in an interview in London that “a number” of non-financial companies had indicated their intentions to postpone investment decisions while others had said they would not take any such decisions for some time.

“I think that’s a good thing. They are obviously grappling with the issue of whether they want to invest in Iran under the circumstances and a lot of them are saying, ‘well no, not under the circumstances’. Perhaps they are hoping that the circumstances will change.” He declined to name the groups.

Mr Levey noted strong interest in Congress to take action against companies investing in Iran. But he said the administration believed such actions had “the tendency to drive wedges between the US and the third countries that we’re trying to work with to put pressure on Iran. We’re hoping to proceed in a different way.”

In a move some analysts saw as a sign of investment hesitation, Iran last week said it had extended by up to four months a deadline for Total, the French energy group, to decide whether to invest in the $10bn South Pars natural gas development. The original deadline expired at the end of March.

Shell and Repsol signed an agreement in January with Iran over a $4.3bn project that constitutes a later phase of the South Pars development. A final decision is not expected before the first quarter of next year. A Shell spokesman said the company was a year or more away from any investment decision on the project and current work in Iran was to establish its “engineering and economic feasibility”. Repsol was not available for comment.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

[Odysseus]

Iran is responsible for a lot more than the press is telling.

[defenseman]

Iran is stirring the pot continuously in the ME and world via direct and indirect support. I will say, once they officially force the UN inspectors out of the areas where they could possibly generate weapons grade materials, or any area of support thereof, the clock will start right exactly then, unless they restore them.......dman

[bendog]

We should be trying to hold up oil and gas help for them. But, we should be engaging with them in dialogue via our allies too, which bushii prohibits, or at least hinders, condi from doing. They desperately need infrastruture help. They also need tech training for a baby boom of their own. And they have to get nuke power.

Bushii acts like he's got a big stick and no carrots, when in fact he's got the oppostite.

[ant1999e]

I think we should use all our resources including diplomacy.

[Dudeskey]

I think we should use all our resources including diplomacy.

Agreed... military action should be the absolute last result... Let the Mullahs throw their president under the bus in the meantime.

[cutthemdown]

Either you want it done this way, or you want it done the hard way. You can't have it both ways. Simply not trying anything to put pressure on Iran would be crazy. If you don't want to support an attack, then you have to support doing things like sanctions and discouraging people from investing, etc etc. I mean otherwise that means you support Iran building nuclear missiles.

[Rohirrim]

Why is Iran our problem?

[cutthemdown]

Why is Iran our problem?

So you support Iran developing nuclear weapons? How can you see that as not a problem for the USA. It's almost like country is acting like they did after WW1 when they wanted to just forget about Europe and have some good times. Well we saw what that got us. A nuclear armed Iran would force Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia to also develop nuclear missiles. It really is amazing to me that liberals don't see that.

[cutthemdown]

Why is Iran our problem?

And it's not like it's only America that wants no more countries to develop nukes. It's in the best interests of the whole region, Europe, and Asia.

[Rohirrim]

So you support Iran developing nuclear weapons? How can you see that as not a problem for the USA. It's almost like country is acting like they did after WW1 when they wanted to just forget about Europe and have some good times. Well we saw what that got us. A nuclear armed Iran would force Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia to also develop nuclear missiles. It really is amazing to me that liberals don't see that.

I didn't say I want Iran to have nukes. I just want to know, why is it our problem?

[cutthemdown]

I didn't say I want Iran to have nukes. I just want to know, why is it our problem?

It's the worlds problem and we are the superpower that leads the way. I'm sorry you don't like that America is a superpower and that we spend so much in terms of lives and money to lead the way. The world looks to America to use it's influence on important issues. The power that America has gained since WW2 ended is immense and a burden, but we have all gained from it. Americas leadership is vital on an issue as big as Iranian enriching nuclear fuel in an underground facility. If they only wanted to have regular nuclear fuel they would take the Russian offer to supply it. They want to enrich way past that point and build a nuclear bomb. It's not like America is the only country that will be dealing with this issue, but we will push the agenda as its in our best interest to stop Iran.

[Bronco Bob]

It's the worlds problem and we are the superpower that leads the way. I'm sorry you don't like that America is a superpower and that we spend so much in terms of lives and money to lead the way.

Still doesn't explain why it is the US's problem that Iran has nukes.
Iran is years away from making a nuclear bomb. Iran is decades
away from making a missile that could reach the US. And the
US could wipe Iran off the map of they did. So what exactly
is the danger to the US if Iran has nukes?


The world looks to America to use it's influence on important issues.

The world resents the US sticking its nose into everyone else's tent.



The power that America has gained since WW2 ended is immense and a burden, but we have all gained from it. Americas leadership is vital on an issue as big as Iranian enriching nuclear fuel in an underground facility. If they only wanted to have regular nuclear fuel they would take the Russian offer to supply it.

And if the Russians decided to cut them off for some reason, then
where is their source? Having an indigenous refining process gives them
the ability to not be beholden to other countries.


They want to enrich way past that point and build a nuclear bomb. It's not like America is the only country that will be dealing with this issue, but we will push the agenda as its in our best interest to stop Iran.

Where is your proof? The Iranians have repeatedly insisted they are
only enriching the uranium to a level required for fuel. And there is
no evidence they have gone beyond that. So the only thing you
have is a hunch.

[cutthemdown]

unbelievable that you don't think Iran getting nukes isbad for US interests. You people are so in the minority on that so I'm not worried. I'm telling you right now any administration Repub or Dem will not allow it. Israel will nuke the whole place before they let any Mideast country that is that hostile build nukes. So no matter what this problem will be solved.

[Bronco Bob]

unbelievable that you don't think Iran getting nukes isbad for US interests. You people are so in the minority on that so I'm not worried. I'm telling you right now any administration Repub or Dem will not allow it. Israel will nuke the whole place before they let any Mideast country that is that hostile build nukes. So no matter what this problem will be solved.


So let them. Why should this be our problem?

[mhgaffney]

Iran is responsible for a lot more than the press is telling.

Good point, Quiet.

Yes, Iran was among the first Mideast states to propose a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) for the Middle East. Which would ban all nukes. And they have consistently supported this idea.

Unlike Israel, which has never signed the NPT, Iran is a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty (NPT).

The fact is that Iran has admitted IAEA inspectors to every nuclear site they have sought access, without exception. Neither Israel nor the USA have done this.

Iran has also offered to suspend its nuclear program IF the US and Israel will do likewise.

Of course, Washington and Tel Aviv have simply dismissed this offer.
MHG

[mhgaffney]

We should be trying to hold up oil and gas help for them.

The fact is that the US used all of its considerable influence after the ouster of the Shah to prevent Iran from developing its oil resources.

The US succeeded inn scaring away investment monies to increase Iran's oil production. It's why Iran's production through the 1990s failed to match the heights achieved under the Shah.

However, more recently China and possibly India have been busy -- looking after their own energy interests -- by investing $$$ to develop Iran's oilfields.

If the USA attacks Iran we will earn the instant enmity of our greatest trading partner, China, and we'll also alienate India.

Don't underestimate India.
MHG

[Rohirrim]

unbelievable that you don't think Iran getting nukes isbad for US interests. You people are so in the minority on that so I'm not worried. I'm telling you right now any administration Repub or Dem will not allow it. Israel will nuke the whole place before they let any Mideast country that is that hostile build nukes. So no matter what this problem will be solved.

Sounds to me like it's Israel's problem.

[cutthemdown]

Sounds to me like it's Israel's problem.

You sound like an isolationist. Country has tried that before and it didn't work out well. Some dude named Hitler went crazy and almost took over all of Europe.

[Dudeskey]

You sound like an isolationist. Country has tried that before and it didn't work out well. Some dude named Hitler went crazy and almost took over all of Europe.

Ahmadinejad isn't even as cose to as popular as Hitler was, so even if he truely wanted to rid israel of "Juice", he doesn't even have the political capital to do so... Domestically he's doing his damndest to salvage his standing though... At least @ the moment there seems to be somewhat of a dialogue going on ???

[Bronco Bob]

You sound like an isolationist. Country has tried that before and it didn't work out well. Some dude named Hitler went crazy and almost took over all of Europe.

The US didn't even get involved in WW2 until Germany declared
war on the US, so that isn't an apt analogy to bombing
a country pre-emptively. Bombing Iran would be more
equivalent to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor.
And I would hardly consider Iran the equivalent of WW2 Germany.
First off, who has Iran invade in the past several hundred years?
There are always regional wars, that doesn't mean they turn
into WW3, unless the bigger countries stick their noses into
where they don't belong. It's not being isolationist, it's minding
your own business and letting the countries in the region work
out their own problems.

[Rohirrim]

You sound like an isolationist. Country has tried that before and it didn't work out well. Some dude named Hitler went crazy and almost took over all of Europe.

I guess George Washington was an isolationist as well. He told us to avoid "foreign entanglements." Even if our doctrine is "Protect our crucial, economic interests," the U.S. has only one economic interest in the Middle East - protecting Saudi oil. Given that we only get 8% of our oil from them, it's not really a crucial interest for us, so we're actually protecting the interests of the rest of the world; our trading partners. Others, such as Europe and Japan, should be taking the lead there, of course, then their companies would get the oil pumping contracts, wouldn't they? Israel has (probably) as many as 200 nuclear warheads. They hardly need our help in self defense, as they've proved many times already. Many of our oil companies compete in the region for operating contracts that are worth billions. So maybe our soldiers are dying in the region to protect those contracts? That hardly seems right to me. How about you? I know we overthrew an elected leader in Iran in the 50s because he was threatening our oil contracts. Is that the basis of our "interests?" In fact, you could say that our direct interference, and gross errors, in Iran have directly led to the conflicts we face now. Same with Saddam.


Feel free to tell us what our crucial interests are in the region.

[Odysseus]

Rohirrim - Right now we in worst shape with the Russians since the cold war. They are in bed with Iran. Europe as an allie leaves a lot to be desired and China is a dark hole of questions that are not answered. We are all connected and if we don't dialogue we pay for it.

Urnal Cake - Military action has already been engaged. Right now we have to undo what was done which most people don't seem to get is where we really are. How do you unkill a population or unfear a region?

Bendog - You are right. If we don't address their issues they are going to continue pressing forward. We are coming on time when we are going to have to stir a little crap in our coffee and say Mmmm.

Cutthemdown - Ro isn't an isolationist but until you show him what the deciderer has actually decideded he has no rational point for agreement.

BroncoBob - Once you meddle in a country saying "My bad" does not absolve you and walking away from a dog fight isn't an option even if you are in the wrong. You have to reach a point of negotiation and many times that means have to have your foot on their throat.

mhgaffney - Don't mix facts, fiction and your own fears. It's poison.