EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
Washington Tells EU Firms: Quit Iran Now
Multinational companies are coming under increasing pressure from the US to stop doing business with Iran because of its nuclear programme. European operators are facing threats from Washington that they could jeopardise their US interests by continuing to deal with Tehran, with increasing evidence that European governments, mainly France, Germany and Britain, are supporting the US campaign.
It emerged last night that Siemens, one of the world's largest engineering groups and based in Germany, has pulled out of all new business dealings with Iran after pressure from the US and German governments. This follows the decision by Germany's three biggest banks, Deutsche, Commerzbank, and Dresdner, to quit Iran after a warning from US vice-president Dick Cheney that if firms remain in Tehran, they are going to have problems doing business in the US.
The Foreign Office, while sympathising with City firms, has privately backed the US warnings in recent weeks, telling companies such as Shell and BP of the risks of continuing business with Iran. The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has urged French energy firms Total and GDF not to pursue new business in Iran. Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor, is joining him in pressing for new sanctions, probably at EU level.
The US is tightening its economic squeeze on Iran and last month unilaterally imposed a new round of sanctions. It regularly complains in private to the British and other European governments that American efforts are being undermined by European companies continuing to do business with Tehran. If economic sanctions fail to have an impact by next year, pressure will mount from Mr Cheney to launch air strikes against Iran.
The under-secretary for political affairs at the US state department, Nicholas Burns, and the under-secretary at the Treasury, Stuart Levey, have made frequent trips to Europe to warn companies they face the loss of American business if they continue to deal with Iran.
BP said back in 2005 that "politically Iran is not a flyer" because of the company's huge presence in the US. Rival Shell has been tentatively moving forward with engineering studies on a large gas project in Iran but has insisted in the past that it would only take a final decision once it knew it was commercially viable. A spokesman for the company would not comment last night but industry sources said it was a "very sensitive issue", given the scale of Shell's oil business in the US.
The two British banks most frequently mentioned in Washington in relation to Iran are HSBC and Standard Chartered. Both banks have scaled down their operations in Iran but maintain a modest presence in Tehran.
Siemens insiders said the group, which is in the throes of clearing up a series of bribery and corruption cases involving payments of some €1.3bn (£900,000), would carry out existing contracts in Iran which have attracted government export credit guarantees, but would seek no new contracts. The engineering group won a contract four years ago to supply 24 power stations to the Iranians and last year secured a provisional €450m deal to supply 150 locomotives for Iran's railways.
Officials said Siemens' Iranian business amounted to less than 1% of annual group turnover of €84bn last year. This compares with sales of $21.4bn (€14.4bn or £10.1bn) in the US where the group employs 70,000. It is understood that 80% of the company's trade is in power generation but sources insisted that Siemens had no involvement in Iran's nuclear power programme. Germany is Iran's biggest trading partner, with a 2006 surplus of €4bn, but trade was down 18% in the first half of this year. UK exports to Iran fell 7% last year to £431.4m, according to the British-Iran chamber of commerce.
2007 © Guardian News
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
14 Comments so far
Show AllThis is basically what we did to Iraq in the mid 90's into the 21st century... Starve the country and it's citizens for several years... then invade.
And we will be greeted as liberators, the war will pay for itself, the world is better off without ahambamnsbanmjajahd, we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them here, the war is not about oil, the war is not about imperial domination, it's not about subjugating other nation's to our will, and more importantly we need to drain another 2-3 trillion from the US treasury (which is already 9 trillion dollars in debt).
But his actions aren't "high crimes and misdemeanors..."
All this will do nothing but strengthen Iran---make it perform and achieve its goals for itself despite actions intended to cripple it, much the way a person once a slave will be twice the average person when they're free; and make Iran more of a martyr in Muslim eyes. And when Iran goes ahead anyway who will in the end be more isolated? The U.S., because it will have "made business difficult" for those other countries/businesses who eventually discover that Iran was in fact not a serious threat to much of anything, except to the oilmen drooling for The Middle East's remaining wealth and using Cheney to make the military clamp down on "their" resource. THERE IS ALREADY MASSIVE NUCLEAR DETERRENT IN PLACE all around Iran. Hit Israel and they are toast. Hit Europe and they're toast. They know this. Why don't we?
Maybe it's more of a warning to get out so your stuff doesn't get blowed up by US cruise missiles.
The thing I find odd on the other side is that Russia has offered Nuclear materials for reactors to produce energy only and Iran rejected it. With Israel having nukes and the US in preemptive Arab, Persian war mode, I can't blame them for wanting deterrence.
Here's a slant, Iran takes Russia's nuclear materials (which is an eco-nastiness, and another topic), they use their oil to sell to help their economy, and sign a protection agreement with Russia and or China that if the US saber starts to rattle, they come to Iran's defense.
Could you imagine the look on the neocons faces?
Sorry, fantastic hypothetical, but couldn't resist.
Cheney evidently has not made enough money off Halliburton's no-bid contracts on Iraq, so they want the money from the US taxpayers grandchildren for even more generations to come.
I think Iran will survive Cheney's attempts to get everybody to shun them. There are certainly many countries that won't cooperate with Cheney's call to boycott Iran.
IOW, Iran doesn't really need the US or any allied countries that might do business with them. They aren't Iraq with no "big-boy" friends. They still have India, China, and Russia (all three are nuclear nations), and control a not inconsiderable amount of oil flow in the world, physically through the Strait of Hormuz and economically through the Iranian Bourse. The demand for oil is rising because more and more countries are increasing industries that need it.
The Bush administration approach to guaranteeing a place in the oil line takes the form of shoving to the front of the line by attacking and invading oil countries. It's madness. Far better to get on amicable terms with countries that have resources we might need, trade, and begin creative development of energy technologies at home to ease the energy crunch.
Unfortunately, the US has very little left to trade, with almost all nonmilitary industries now outsourced for cheap labor. Even then US companies don't produce many nonmilitary products the world really needs if things get really rough. The Bush administration has absolutely NO plans for development of renewable energy, just plans to USE energy.
Insanity.
I have absolutely no doubt Russian and China will come to Iran's defense.
Well, I can name *one* American company that won't be leaving Iran any time soon: Halliburton. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7119752/
Maybe, after everything else Cheney has done, it shouldn't surprise us that he's using his political authority to shove his economic competitors out of Iran.
Here's my intuit-hit.
* Iran refuses US treasury notes for anything (oil).
* We launch cruise missiles.
* Russia & China respond & they through out - FLOOD US $$ everywhere.
* Our US economy collapses--we are in Chaos--most in fear.
* The super secret military pulls off a fake (mock) negative ET landing (s).
* Martial law is imposed due to the most scariest "realities" taking place
The US is being scratched off rolodexes worldwide. People are sick of the empire drama. People are finding that it's better to shift their exchange/association away from the empire and toward their local economies.
We blackmail the world into sanctioning anybody we don't approve of. Perhaps it is time for the World to sanction the United States!
What would happen if the rest of the world declared the United States a global pariah until it decided to return to the community of civilized nations. No trade, no news coverage, no banking, no representation at the UN, NATO, or anything else. Just put us in Coventry until we return to sanity.
It would be a calculated risk, of course, that the nutsos in the WH aren't so crazy as to start Gotterdamerung and nuke everyone in sight. But barring that, perhaps it would stimulate We the People, or even, perhaps, our alleged representatives, to at the very least impeach, remove, try and convict that bunch, restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights, intact and functioning, to the Halls of Government and straighten our course out again.
Then, perhaps, Coventry could be removed and the world would speak to us again.
libertas fugit: Its a very risky line to take .
If it is not handled with kid gloves the "Global Pariah' is liable to turn ,in a flash ,into a rabid , extremely dangerous and murderous Highwayman.Forcing everyone else to pay up -or else.
When the leaders of a nation with lots of oil refuse to kiss mafiosa uncle sam's filthy ass, they get in big trouble. Bush and Cheney HAVE NO MORAL AUTHORITY and should be in jail.
======================
Watch/hear
KUCINICH: Takes House Floor, Moves for Cheney Impeachment
27 min -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYbgouqlMw
peterw November 9th, 2007 9:55 pm:
Why am I not surprised? The very fact that Cheney has been earning checks from Halliburton ever since he took office ALONE should have been reason enough to impeach him long ago. But instead we witness him ordering foreign companies to leave Iran or face the financial wrath of the US, all the while saying nothing about this particular company's ongoing dealings with the very same government. And then of course there's the no-bid Iraq contracts. And the no-bid post-Katrina contracts. And the no-bid internment camp contracts. Just what DOES it take for someone in this administration to finally be formally accused of a crime (impeached)? Do we have to witness live video of Dick Cheney eating the brains out of Keith Olbermann's skull? Personally, if I ever happened upon Dickless in person, I'd gleefully bash his brains out with a baseball bat as a favor to the entire world, and especially to my 7-year-old daugter. Damn the consequences for me, it would be a fair trade. DID YOU FOLKS AT NSA GET ALL OF THAT????