In This Issue
Talking Points:
Unilateral Sanctions
AIC Press Releases & Alerts:
AIC to Host Iranian Ambassador at “US-Iran Relations: A View from Tehran”
Perspectives & Commentary:
Iran’s Domestic Environment and the Nuclear Program - speech by Farideh Farhi (Part 3 of 4)
AIC in the News:
New York Post Excerpts (January 11, 2005)
|
Picture Above (from left to right) - J. Bennett Johnston (AIC Co-Chairman), Hooshang Amirahmadi (AIC President), Richard H. Matzke (AIC Co-Chairman)
The American Iranian Council (AIC) is a nonprofit and nonpartisan tax-exempt [501 (C) 3] educational organization dedicated to improved US-Iran relations through dialogue, better understanding, and constructive engagement.
American Iranian Council
20 Nassau Street, Suite 111 | Princeton, NJ 08542
tel: 609.252.9099 | fax:609.252.9698
www.american-iranian.org
aic@american-iranian.org | update@american-iranian.org
|
|
Each week the Council publishes Talking Points in AIC UPDATE to improve dialogue on issues integral to improving US-Iran relations.
Unilateral Sanctions
Halliburton’s foreign subsidiary, the Cayman Islands-registered Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates is in line to begin oil-field service work in the South Pars field, believed to be the world's largest natural gas field. Halliburton Products & Services is a subcontractor working for Oriental Kish Co., an Iranian-based business. Halliburton has been the subject of examination of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Justice Department, and the Senate Finance Committee for its use of foreign subsidiaries to conduct business in Iran, despite federal sanctions prohibiting U.S. companies from trading directly with Iran. This news necessitates further examination of the utilization of unilateral sanctions against Iran.
The United States should use existing sanctions as both carrots and sticks to reward progress on items of concern, such as human rights, terrorism, nuclear weapons and regional peace. The use of extensive bans and restrictions on trade and investment impacts the Iranian population, hindering human development, but not changing the behavior of the state.
It would be advantageous, and not entirely out of character, if the Bush administration developed a new policy towards Iran that relieved sanctions and opened up trade. In light of the Bam earthquake, the administration eased trade restrictions, a signal of good will towards the Iranian people. In late 2004, OFAC clarified earlier rulings and authorized all transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers.
By limiting the available trade channels and conditioning access to financial markets, sanctions undermine the growth of a private sector and a civil society. As a result, neither economic nor political intentions are being realized. Moreover, unilateral sanctions are rarely effective in a global economy, since governments have the ability to seek strategic needs from other countries.
Although sanctions may be enacted with the intent to limit the Iranian government’s weapons procurements and to limit investments in Iran’s oil and gas fields, they have totally failed. In the absence of American firms, European companies have invested heavily in Iran’s oil and gas fields, while the Russians, Pakistanis and others have invested in Iran’s nuclear and military sectors.
Stemming the tide of terrorism and nuclear proliferation is a multilateral endeavor. However, unilateral sanctions isolate the United States from the allies and friends necessary to accomplish that goal. Moreover, unilateral sanctions isolate the United States from the Iranian people, thereby serving a policy of continued hostility towards the United States and instability in the region.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 12, 2005
Contact: Adam Yeeles
tel: 609-252-9099 fax: 609-252-9698
ayeeles@american-iranian.org
AIC to Host Iranian Ambassador at “US-Iran Relations: A View from Tehran”
- WHO:
- Ambassador Javad Zarif, Ph.D.,
Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations
- WHAT:
- American Iranian Council Distinguished Speakers Series:
“US-Iran Relations: A View from Tehran”
Keynote Speech by Ambassador Javad Zarif, Ph.D.
- WHEN:
- January 14, 2005 at 5 p.m.
- WHERE:
- Open Society Institute
400 West 59th Street
New York, New York, 10019
The American Iranian Council proudly presents this event, partially funded by generous grants from the Open Society Institute and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. To register for this event, please send your full name and affiliation to: register@american-iranian.org.
The American Iranian Council’s Distinguished Speakers Series provides an open platform to
encourage constructive arguments and discussions on US-Iran relations. While certain policymakers, pundits, and warmongers are hard at work pursuing a US military venture into Iran, the Council promotes events committed to fostering peace and providing a vehicle for dialogue and understanding between the United States and Iran.
The American Iranian Council (AIC) is a nonprofit and nonpartisan tax-exempt [501 (C) 3]
educational organization dedicated to improved US-Iran relations through dialogue, better understanding, and constructive engagement.
###
The following is an excerpt from the English version of a speech given by Farideh Farhi at the AIC conference “Energy Situation and Nuclear Crisis in Iran” held in Los Angeles on October 29, 2004.
Part Three of Four
Iran’s Domestic Environment and the Nuclear Program
Dr. Farideh Farhi
And here lies Iran’s domestic dilemma. In a highly transparent and public dynamic of the debate over what Iran should do, there is no way the Iranian leadership can afford to budge on the question of not being able to complete its fuel cycle in the long or even medium run. The problem is compounded by the fact that there seems to be a disagreement between the European trio and the Iranians over the content of the Saadabad agreement, with the former, along with IAEA, arguing that Iran agreed to the suspension of all enrichment-related activities (which Iran has not done) and the Iranians insisting that it only entailed enrichment itself. Whatever the Saadabad agreement was, the bottom line is that given the highly contentious domestic environment, the Iranian leadership can no longer follow through with the agreement if the agreement indeed calls for permanent suspension of all enrichment-related activities.
Now it may well be true that the Iranians are refusing to give in because they are pursuing a breakout capability, although I would think that if they were doing it they would be very stupid to do it so publicly. Still it can be granted that the Iranian leadership continues to try to keep all options open. Having said this, it is also important to understand that domestic politics in Iran has taken the issue out of a mere technical realm or a discussion of Iran’s international commitments and has turned it into a question of national sovereignty. The Iranian government cannot be seen as giving in on a right that is supposedly guaranteed on the basis of international law.
For Iran, the problem is complicated by the fact that regardless of the exchanges between the IAEA and the Iranian government, the Bush administration has appropriated the IAEA position as a smokescreen for its ambitions in the region. In its last meeting in Vienna, despite Director General El-Baradei’s expressed satisfaction with the progress of IAEA work in Iran, John Bolton, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, boasted that Iran's conduct did not "bode well for the success of a negotiated approach to dealing with this issue." John Bolton left nothing opaque about the meaning of a non-negotiated approach when he compared the situation in Iran with that of South Africa and Ukraine, both of which abandoned their military nuclear programs after the fall of the ancien régime. Keep in mind that precisely at the same moment of the IAEA meeting, as is usually the case during the meeting that a series of perhaps orchestrated reports came out suggesting the possibility of military attacks against Iran by Israel.
So here lies the Iranian government’s dilemma: If the Bush administration's point-man for negotiating a settlement does not believe in negotiation and advocates the change of the regime with which he is supposed to engage, should Iran back down and negotiate with a state that openly advocates its overthrow? As discussed publicly in Majles, wouldn’t negotiations within this context simply mean more and more demands on Iran without any guarantees or benchmarks from the other side about when the pressures will stop? If so, wouldn’t the only option left for Iran is to stand her ground, play the same game of brinkmanship played by the Israelis and Americans and hold its nuclear program as a bargaining chip to be given away only if there are some guarantees from the United States, not Europe, that the bargain will lead to some sort of end to the American hostility and open declaration for regime change in Iran?
Top academics, policymakers and professionals serve on the AIC Board. AIC UPDATE includes relevant opinions, articles, quotes, and commentaries of AIC's Board Members.
The following are brief excerpts from New York Post columnist, Kenneth Timmerman, published on January 11, 2005.
“In tandem with the American-Iranian Council, an industry-supported group that favors opening trade and diplomatic ties with Iran, the Open Society Institute will host Iran's ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday [Friday, January 14, 2005] at the Open Society Institute's offices in New York.”
“The talk by Ambassador Javad Zarif is titled, "A View from Tehran," and can be expected to present the regime's outlook on Iran, Iraq and the War on Terror.”
|
About Update
AIC Update is a public service of the American Iranian Council aimed at educating Americans, including Iranian-Americans, about US-Iran relations. AIC Update is an information resource for US-Iran relations and the efforts of the American Iranian Council to perpetuate meaningful dialogue between the United States and Iran. | Vision
The vision of the American Iranian Council is that the United States and Iran will work together, since their common interests far outweigh their differences. AIC also envisions the Iranian-American community playing an increasingly significant role in American society, and Iran becoming a democratically developed member of the global community with full respect for human rights.
| Mission
The mission of AIC is to be a constructive force, in cooperation and partnership with other organizations, in bringing the United States and Iran together, involving the Iranian-American community in the dialogue, and bringing attention to social and political conditions in Iran.
|
