Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them.

This is from wiredispatch. This is a good move to point out the hypocrisy of the international community in relationship to the Israeli nuclear programme. It is almost politically incorrect to point out that Israel has nuclear weapons and developed them in secret supposedly even unknown to the U.S.! Of course few seem to notice the fact that the loudest complainers about Iran possibly having a nuclear weapons programme are those who already possess nuclear weapons.



Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them
Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel also submits to international safeguards
ALEXANDER G. HIGGINSAP News
May 05, 2008 15:22 EST
An Iranian envoy said Monday his government will not submit to extensive nuclear inspections while Israel stays outside the global treaty to curb the spread of atomic weapons.



document.write(""+"");






"The existing double standard shall not be tolerated anymore by non-nuclear-weapon states," Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh told a meeting of the 190 countries that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Nuclear safeguards are far from universal, he said, adding that more than 30 countries are still without a comprehensive safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure full cooperation with that U.N. body.
"Israel, with huge nuclear weapons activities, has not concluded" such an agreement or submitted its facilities to the IAEA's safeguards, Soltanieh said.
Israel, which does not discuss whether it has atomic weapons, did not sign the nonproliferation treaty, which requires all signatories except the major powers to refrain from obtaining nuclear arms. India and Pakistan, which have developed nuclear weapons, also are not signatories.
Iran did sign the treaty and is under U.N. Security Council sanctions meant to pressure the Tehran government into allowing inspections that will ensure it isn't developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its atomic program is peaceful, with the sole goal of using reactors to generate electricity.
A U.S. envoy accused Iran of "provocative and destabilizing activities" and said its leaders were responsible for leading the country into the sanctions imposed by the Security Council.
"The path of defiance is also the path of isolation, of continuing and additional sanctions and of further stunted economic opportunities for a proud and sophisticated people already suffering from economic turmoil and mismanagement by its regime's leaders," said Christopher A. Ford, U.S. special representative for nuclear nonproliferation.
Ford said Iran joined North Korea and Syria in weakening the nonproliferation treaty.
"This treaty regime faces today the most serious tests it has ever faced: the ongoing nuclear weapons proliferation challenges presented by Iran, by North Korea and now by Syria," Ford said.
Ford cited U.S. intelligence that North Korea was helping Syria in "secretly constructing a nuclear reactor that we believe was not intended for peaceful purposes." Syria denied last week that it was working on an undeclared reactor, which purportedly was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike last September.
Soltanieh said nuclear-armed powers like the United States, Britain and France are practicing "nuclear apartheid" by denying or restricting peaceful atomic technology to countries like Iran.
"Access of developing countries to peaceful nuclear materials and technologies has been continuously denied to the extent that they have had no choice than to acquire their requirements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including for medical and industrial applications, from open markets," Soltanieh said.
This usually means the material is more expensive, poorer quality and less safe, he said.
Source: AP News

US: Iran seeks nuclear weapons

Evidence shmevidence. The US has its hegemonic policy aims so evidence of Iran actually pursuing nuclear weapons' development is irrelevant. If evidence doesn't exist then manufacture it or suggest it. All that is needed is a supine media that listens more to psy-op puffery from US and other sources rather than a "technical" chap who knows about this stuff. Iraq did not teach the public anything it seems.

US: Iran seeks nuclear weapons Mon Oct 29, 1:38 PM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States on Monday brushed aside the UN nuclear watchdog agency chief's warning that there was no proof Iran seeks atomic weapons, and invited him to stay out of diplomacy with Tehran.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CNN Sunday that he had no evidence Iran was building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with their warlike rhetoric.

"He will say what he will. He is the head of a technical agency," US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "I think we can handle diplomacy on this one."

"We appreciate the work that the IAEA is performing but it is the member states of the international community that are going to be responsible of the diplomacy with respect to Iran and its nuclear program," said McCormack.

At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino said there was no doubt about Iran's plans because "this is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason that one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon."

Uranium enrichment and reprocessing produces fuel for nuclear reactors, but can also be a key step to creating the core of an atomic bomb. Iran says it wants a civilian energy program, not an atomic arsenal.

Asked whether any country enriching uranium seeks nuclear weapons, US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe clarified Perino's remarks.

"I would say that we're concerned about Iran doing this because they could have the capability to have a nuclear weapon. Each country is different, but obviously Dana was asked and was talking about Iran," he said.

Iran's leaders have repeatedly said they will never suspend enrichment, in flagrant defiance of repeated UN Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to suspend the process.

"We have put on the table for Iran a path for them to get a civil nuclear program. And all they have to do to get there is to suspend its enrichment of reprocessing of uranium and they can come to the table and we can have a further discussion," said Perino.

"It's the Iranians who have decided not to be at that table," she said.

The United States has sharply escalated its rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, while slapping a new set of sanctions on its Revolutionary Guards, accused of spreading weapons of mass destruction, and its elite Quds Force, which was designated as a supporter of terrorism.

"Iran is the largest national security challenge we have in regards to nuclear weapons today," said Perino, who contrasted Tehran's approach to North Korea's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

"We are in discussions with North Korea, through the six-party talks, and that is because North Korea agreed to give up its weapons and make a full declaration of activities that they've been pursuing," she said.

She was referring to negotiations grouping China, Japan, Russia, North and South Korea and the United States, and a deal offering Pyongyang economic and diplomatic rewards if it gives up it nuclear weapons program.

"Iran could have the same option, but they've chosen not to," the spokeswoman said.

ElBaradei walks out of IAEA session to protest EU speech

For some time ElBaradei has been simply used as an instrument of US policy. The EU for the most part goes along with the US in a similar strong anti-Iran stance that makes it difficult for ElBaradei to maintain an objective position. Any reports by El Baradei have been cherry-picked to emphasize the negative and ignore the positives. This must be frustrating to someone just trying to be as objective as they can.

Nuclear chief walks out on EU speech on IranArticle from: Agence France-PresseFont size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print From correspondents in Vienna

September 12, 2007 05:31am
UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei walked out on an afternoon session of his IAEA to protest an EU speech which did not fully support his deal for new inspections in Iran, diplomats said.

"He walked out because the EU did not support the Secretariat," a diplomat who was at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors said.

"The Europeans gave a nasty statement and the director general (ElBaradei) walked out of the room," a second diplomat said, demanding anonymity in return for revealing information about the closed-door session.

But a senior European diplomat said the EU supported Mr ElBaradei and had only reiterated the IAEA chief's view that the timetable needs "Iran's full and active cooperation".

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming declined comment but several diplomats confirmed that Mr ElBaradei had walked out in protest.

Mr ElBaradei has been under pressure as the United States and other Western countries warn that a timetable for new inspections in Iran agreed by the IAEA and Tehran last month gives the Islamic republic room to delay new UN sanctions.

They also warn that it gives Iran time to continue improving its work on enriching uranium, which makes power reactor fuel but also atom bomb material.

Still, the US and Mr ElBaradei had closed ranks yesterday, the first day of a regular meeting of the IAEA board, in urging Iran to meet the timetable and also to do more to show the world it does not seek the bomb, such as suspending uranium enrichment.

At issue is how to win guarantees that Iran's nuclear work is peaceful, with US patience wearing thin as it presses for more UN sanctions but Mr ElBaradei urging more inspections that could lead to talks on ending the crisis.

The European Union speech, given by Portuguese ambassador Joaquim Duarte as Portugal is the current EU president, came when the agenda item on safeguards in Iran came up.

Mr Duarte hammered Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment "contrary to the decisions of the (UN) Security Council", referring to three UN Security Council resolutions and two rounds of UN sanctions.

He said that since Mr ElBaradei's last report in May "Iran has further increased its enrichment capacities".

The speech only mentioned briefly the timetable the IAEA worked hard to get and did not give it the diplomatic backing Mr ElBaradei expected.

The timetable, in a report Mr ElBaradei submitted to the board yesterday, is to resolve outstanding questions in the agency's over four-year-old investigation of Iran on US charges that Tehran is using a civilian energy program to hide the development of nuclear weapons.

The speech focused on Iran's lack of cooperation, including its refusal to provide early design information on new nuclear facilities and called repeatedly on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

After walking out, Mr ElBaradei stayed away until the session was adjourned at its regular time until Thursday. The Portuguese speech was followed by speeches from Canada and Norway.

Just before the Portuguese speech, Mr ElBaradei had received a rousing statement of support from the non-aligned movement, in a speech by Cuban ambassador Norma Miguelina Goicochea Estenoz as NAM leader.

She said "NAM shares the view that this work plan (timetable) is a 'significant step forward'" and "reiterates its full confidence in the impartiality and professionalism of the Secretariat of the IAEA and its Director General, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei".

A diplomat said Mr ElBaradei had expected the same personal tone of appreciation in the EU speech and took the lack of it as a rebuff to his sustained diplomatic efforts.

How Halliburton helped make Iran a nuclear power.

This is from Project Censored.
Can you imagine Cheney saying this?“I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.” Wow! Maybe Cheney was better when he was a CEO! The fact that the US helped establish Iran's nuclear program is below the radar of the mainstream press.


#2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
Source:

Global Research.ca, August 5, 2005
Title: “Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team”
Author: Jason Leopold

Faculty Evaluator: Catherine Nelson
Student Researchers: Kristine Medeiros and Pla Herr

According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies.

Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish, to develop oil projects in Iran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information.

Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton first became public knowledge in January 2005 when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars gas-drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered to the Cayman Islands. Following the announcement, Halliburton claimed that the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. According to a BBC report, Halliburton, which took thirty to forty million dollars from its Iranian operations in 2003, “was winding down its work due to a poor business environment.”

However, Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. Leopold quotes a February 2001 report published in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is “non-American.” But like the sign over the receptionist’s head, the brochure bears the company’s name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.” Moreover mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.

In an attempt to curtail Halliburton and other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations such as Libya, Iran, and Syria, an amendment was approved in the Senate on July 26, 2005. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Susan Collins R-Maine, would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct and avoid U.S. sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

A letter, drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives, vehemently objected to the amendment, saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the U.S. and “greatly strain relations with the United States primary trading partners.” The letter warned that, “Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals.”

Collins supports the legislation, stating, “It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism—most often aimed against America.

UPDATE BY JASON LEOPOLD
During a trip to the Middle East in March 1996, Vice President Dick Cheney told a group of mostly U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships, a statement that, in hindsight, is completely hypocritical considering the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”

Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Corporation at the time he uttered those words. It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran—in violation of U.S. law—in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees.

If the U.S. ends up engaged in a war with Iran in the future, Cheney and Halliburton will bear the brunt of the blame.
But this shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Halliburton’s business activities over the past decade. The company has a long, documented history of violating U.S. sanctions and conducting business with so-called rogue nations.

No, what’s disturbing about these facts is how little attention it has received from the mainstream media. But the public record speaks for itself, as do the thousands of pages of documents obtained by various federal agencies that show how Halliburton’s business dealings in Iran helped fund terrorist activities there—including the country’s nuclear enrichment program.

When I asked Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, a couple of years ago if Halliburton would stop doing business with Iran because of concerns that the company helped fund terrorism she said, “No.” “We believe that decisions as to the nature of such governments and their actions are better made by governmental authorities and international entities such as the United Nations as opposed to individual persons or companies,” Hall said. “Putting politics aside, we and our affiliates operate in countries to the extent it is legally permissible, where our customers are active as they expect us to provide oilfield services support to their international operations. “We do not always agree with policies or actions of governments in every place that we do business and make no excuses for their behaviors. Due to the long-term nature of our business and the inevitability of political and social change, it is neither prudent nor appropriate for our company to establish our own country-by-country foreign policy.”

Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions.

An executive order signed by former President Bill Clinton in March 1995 prohibits “new investments (in Iran) by U.S. persons, including commitment of funds or other assets.” It also bars U.S. companies from performing services “that would benefit the Iranian oil industry” and provide Iran with the financial means to engage in terrorist activity.
When Bush and Cheney came into office in 2001, their administration decided it would not punish foreign oil and gas companies that invest in those countries. The sanctions imposed on countries like Iran and Libya before Bush became president were blasted by Cheney, who gave frequent speeches on the need for U.S. companies to compete with their foreign competitors, despite claims that those countries may have ties to terrorism.

“I think we’d be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions (on Iran), didn’t try to impose secondary boycotts on companies . . . trying to do business over there . . . and instead started to rebuild those relationships,” Cheney said during a 1998 business trip to Sydney, Australia, according to Australia’s Illawarra Mercury newspaper

Text of EU report on Iran

Interesting that this report although "restricted" seems to be available to the press. It provides some ammunition for those who want to attack Iran so perhaps that is part of the explanation although the report itself does not recommend an attack.


RESTRICTED


7 February 2007


Iran- reflection paper


EU and Iran: the two track approach


From the 1990s the EU has sought to persuade Iran to change its policies on the Middle East, support for terrorism, missiles and WMD, and human rights. Iranian policies have varied, making some progress vis-à-vis the worst times of the 1990s; but all these issues remain serious concerns today.

Engagement remains both the basis for solutions in these areas and the best way to develop common interests, for example in energy, drugs and trade and regional issues. A possible forum for this is the Comprehensive Dialogue, established in recognition of the opportunity represented by Khatami and never formerly [sic] abolished, though Iran has shown little interest in reviving this format. But experience suggests that in all of the cases, engagement alone is not enough: the EU must be prepared to mix incentives with disincentives; i.e. a two track approach.


Human rights, Civil Society and Public Diplomacy


The human rights situation in Iran and the condition of civil society continue to deteriorate. Freedom of expression is widely suppressed, sometimes with violence, e.g. police broke up two peaceful women’s rights demonstrations in Tehran in 2006. Shirin Ebadi’s Centre of Human Rights Defenders has been declared illegal. In September, the Iranian Supervisory Board of the Press shut down four newspapers. Restrictions on the internet have increased. Iran executed more people, including minors, in 2006 than any other country except China. The government has ignored demarches from the EU, e.g. in the case of ten Ahwazi Arabs sentenced to death without access to lawyers or an open trial. Seven of them have since been executed.

The EU has attempted to engage via the Human Rights dialogue but the Iranians have cancelled meetings since 2004. There is no evidence that these meetings have made much impact; nor has public criticism, though the Iranians dislike it. An alternative approach is to engage with the people rather than the government. As well as direct support to human rights activists (where this does not endanger them or damage their cause) assistance in other less sensitive areas, e.g. drugs, environment, health, rescue services, can help build a real civil society. Iran’s inclusion in the ERASMUS MUNDUS programme offers an opportunity to strengthen academic exchanges. The EU could also explain its policies better to a wider Iranian public. Exposure of European political figures in Persian-speaking and Iranina media- TV radio and internet – would help. Some Member States are taking initiatives in this area. The EU also has successful media training programmes in other regions whioch could be replicated in Iran.

+How can the EU improve its impact on human rights in Iran?

+How can engagement with civil society best be put into practice? Can Community instruments play a bigger role?


Iran’s regional role


Recent political change in the Middle East has boosted Iran’s self-perception as a historical great power and the natural hegemon in the region. Iran feels strengthened by its energy resources, its nuclear programme and developments in the region. But it also feels vulnerable especially to the US, fears which build on a century of Western intervention in different form.

-Saddam Hussein’s overthrow removed Iran’s most powerful regional enemy. Iran has been able to exert influence though [sic] its connections in the weak Shi’a dominated administration in Baghdad. Tehran attaches great importance to the unity of (a weakened) Iraq. The large-scale presence of US forces in Iraq is uncomfortable for Iran but they perceive the US as bogged down. One of Iran’s policy aims is to see US forces leave. Hence its support for groups opposing them.

-In Afghanistan, the fall of the Taliban also brought an end to a regime that Iran had opposed. Iran has since spent considerable sums on projects in infrastructure, agriculture, education and energy. Repatriation of the remaining almost one million Afghan refugees in Iran, and dealing with drug trafficking from Afghanistan remain important objectives. Iran is, at least, in contact with anti-Western groups.

-Iran is the primary political and financial supporter of Hizballah in Lebanon and sees Hizballah as a vital foreign and security policy tool .During the Lebanon conflict last summer, Iran maintained regular supplies of weapons to Hizballah. Many of the most lethal and sophisticated weapons that Hizballah used during the conflict were of Iranian manufacture or procured from Iran, such as the Fajr-3 missiles fired at Haifa.

-In Palestine- Iran plays a spoiling role as the only country in the region to reject the two-state solution. It is a major funder and supplier off arms for Palestinian militant groups; it has probably put its weight against a government of national unity. (An Iranian General was recently captured by Fatah during a clash with Hamas.)

All this has led to considerable unease about Iran among Arab countries (and Israel). The fact that Ahmadinejad is popular at street level does not help.

Iran feels strengthened by developments in the region but still feels it lacks recognition. Steps towards regional stabilisation, especially in the MEPP and Lebanon might help create a more productive climate for negotiation:

+What are the possibilities for the EU to reach out in areas of common interest, e.g. Afghanistan (drugs/border security), Iraq?

+Can the EU engage with Iran on regional issues, without legitimising disruptive policies and actions? And can it do so while the nuclear issue remains unresolved?


Security Issues


In the absence of guarantees of its exclusively peaceful nature, the Iranian nuclear programme- together with its missile programme- represents a security threat in the region as well as to the international non-proliferation system. Israel considers the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability as an existential threat.

Iran’s size and its comparatively well-equipped armed forces mean that today it does not face any serious military threat from the region. Its principal security concern is an attack by the US. The Iranians will have noted a change in US language concerning Iran, including in the State of the Union message, and the more aggressive US approach to Iranian interference in Iraq.

Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have so far not succeeded. The EU3/EU+3 ideas put to Iran in summer 2006 were remarkable in many respects- not least the US offer to begin dismantling their sanctions. Iran’s rejection makes it difficult to believe that, at least in the short run, they would be ready to establish the conditions for the resumption of negotiations. In practice, despite the suspension of sensitive nuclear activities following the Paris Agreement, the Iranians have pursued their programme at their own pace, the limiting factor being technical difficulties rather than resolutions by the UN or the IAEA. At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme.

UNSCR 1737- and the fact that it was adopted unanimously – has had an impact in Iran, which is not fully measurable at this stage. The sanctions contained in the Resolution have limited direct effect but they come at a moment when the economy is performing poorly, partly because of Iranian mismanagement. Ahmadinejad is under criticism because of rising inflation – officially at 12 per cent, in reality closer to 20 per cent; economic growth around 5 per cent per annum is not keeping up with the need for job creation. Foreign investment has all but dried up, partly because of the nuclear issue and associated action (e.g. restriction on Iranian banks, greater caution of export credit agencies). Without new investment, Iran risks being unable to maintain medium-term oil production, currently 50 per cent of government income.

The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone. Iran has shown great resilience to outside pressure in the past, for example during the Iran/Iraq war. The government may also exploit the sanctions to benefit nationalism or to explain economic failure. Nevertheless, Iran must understand that the pursuit of policies which the international community rejects is not cost-free.

The EU has agreed to pursue sanctions through the United Nations if the Iranians continues [sic] to reject the decisions of the IAEA Board and the UN Security Council. But it has also agreed to keep the door open to negotiations if Iran decides to meet the requirements in the UN Resolutions.

+How can Iran be persuaded to take the steps needed to start negotiations? How can we attract Iran to the negotiating table?

+Should we press for further UN sanctions if Iran fails to comply with resolution 1737? If so, in which areas?

+If we believe that the unity of the international community is important in handling Iran, how is this best maintained?

Halliburton, Cheney, Iran nuclear technology

Cheney is singing a different tune these days. This is from Project Censored that lists stories ignored by the mainstream media.


Global Research.ca, August 5, 2005
Title: “Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team”
Author: Jason Leopold

Faculty Evaluator: Catherine Nelson
Student Researchers: Kristine Medeiros and Pla Herr

According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies.

Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish, to develop oil projects in Iran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information.

Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton first became public knowledge in January 2005 when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars gas-drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered to the Cayman Islands. Following the announcement, Halliburton claimed that the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. According to a BBC report, Halliburton, which took thirty to forty million dollars from its Iranian operations in 2003, “was winding down its work due to a poor business environment.”

However, Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. Leopold quotes a February 2001 report published in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is “non-American.” But like the sign over the receptionist’s head, the brochure bears the company’s name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.” Moreover mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.

In an attempt to curtail Halliburton and other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations such as Libya, Iran, and Syria, an amendment was approved in the Senate on July 26, 2005. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Susan Collins R-Maine, would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct and avoid U.S. sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

A letter, drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives, vehemently objected to the amendment, saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the U.S. and “greatly strain relations with the United States primary trading partners.” The letter warned that, “Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals.”

Collins supports the legislation, stating, “It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism—most often aimed against America.

UPDATE BY JASON LEOPOLD
During a trip to the Middle East in March 1996, Vice President Dick Cheney told a group of mostly U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships, a statement that, in hindsight, is completely hypocritical considering the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”

Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Corporation at the time he uttered those words. It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran—in violation of U.S. law—in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees.

If the U.S. ends up engaged in a war with Iran in the future, Cheney and Halliburton will bear the brunt of the blame.
But this shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Halliburton’s business activities over the past decade. The company has a long, documented history of violating U.S. sanctions and conducting business with so-called rogue nations.

No, what’s disturbing about these facts is how little attention it has received from the mainstream media. But the public record speaks for itself, as do the thousands of pages of documents obtained by various federal agencies that show how Halliburton’s business dealings in Iran helped fund terrorist activities there—including the country’s nuclear enrichment program.

When I asked Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, a couple of years ago if Halliburton would stop doing business with Iran because of concerns that the company helped fund terrorism she said, “No.” “We believe that decisions as to the nature of such governments and their actions are better made by governmental authorities and international entities such as the United Nations as opposed to individual persons or companies,” Hall said. “Putting politics aside, we and our affiliates operate in countries to the extent it is legally permissible, where our customers are active as they expect us to provide oilfield services support to their international operations. “We do not always agree with policies or actions of governments in every place that we do business and make no excuses for their behaviors. Due to the long-term nature of our business and the inevitability of political and social change, it is neither prudent nor appropriate for our company to establish our own country-by-country foreign policy.”

Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions.

An executive order signed by former President Bill Clinton in March 1995 prohibits “new investments (in Iran) by U.S. persons, including commitment of funds or other assets.” It also bars U.S. companies from performing services “that would benefit the Iranian oil industry” and provide Iran with the financial means to engage in terrorist activity.
When Bush and Cheney came into office in 2001, their administration decided it would not punish foreign oil and gas companies that invest in those countries. The sanctions imposed on countries like Iran and Libya before Bush became president were blasted by Cheney, who gave frequent speeches on the need for U.S. companies to compete with their foreign competitors, despite claims that those countries may have ties to terrorism.

“I think we’d be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions (on Iran), didn’t try to impose secondary boycotts on companies . . . trying to do business over there . . . and instead started to rebuild those relationships,” Cheney said during a 1998 business trip to Sydney, Australia, according to Australia’s Illawarra Mercury newspaper