W&F: Iran Sanctioned? Pffffft - I doubt it very much! I farted o_O-b

Water&Food · Feb 21, 2012

Let's take a walk on the wild side.

Consider this

Effects and criticism
The U.S. forbids aircraft manufacturer Boeing to sell aircraft to Iranian aviation companies.[18] However, there are some authorizations for the export of civil aviation parts to Iran when those items are required for the safety of commercial aircraft.

A 2005 report, presented at the 36th session of the International Civil Aviation Organization, reported that the U.S. sanctions had endangered the safety of civil aviation in Iran because it prevented Iran from acquiring parts and support essential for aviation safety. It also stated that the sanctions were contrary to article 44 of the Chicago convention (to which the US is a member). The ICAO report said aviation safety affects human lives and human rights, stands above political differences, and that the assembly should bring international public pressure on the United States to lift the sanctions against Iran.[19]

The European Union had been critical of most of the U.S. trade sanctions against Iran. Some EU Member States have criticized ILSA as a "double standard" in U.S. foreign policy, in which the United States vigorously worked against the Arab League boycott of Israel while at the same time promoted a worldwide boycott of Iran. The EU Member States had threatened formal counter-action in the World Trade Organization.[3]

In 2009, there was discussion in the U.S. of implementing "crippling sanctions" against Iran, such as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, "if diplomatic overture did not show signs of success by the autumn". Professor Hamid Dabashi, of Columbia University, said in August 2009 that this was likely to bring "catastrophic humanitarian consequences", while enriching and strengthening the "security and military apparatus" of "the Pasdaran and the Basij," and having absolutely no support from "any major or even minor opposition leader" in Iran.[22] According to Bloomberg News, Boeing and Exxon have said that new Iran sanctions would cost $25 billion in U.S. exports.[23]

It has also been argued the sanctions have had the counter effect of protecting Iran in some ways, for example the 2007 imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iranian financial institutions to a high degree made Iran immune to the then emerging global recession.[24] Iranian officials argued that the sanctions created new business opportunities for Iranian companies to develop in order to fill the gap left by foreign contractors.[25][26] According to U.S. officials, Iran may lose up to $60 billion in energy investments due to global sanctions.[27]

On 18 January, 2012 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that sanctions are aimed at strangling the economy of Iran and would create much discontent toward Western nations, and potentially provoke a negative recourse.[28]
Click to expand...

Then you have this

In December 2010 it was reported that the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control had approved nearly 10,000 exceptions to U.S. sanctions rules worldwide over the preceding decade by issuing special licenses for American companies. For Iran, most of these exceptions were required by a law creating a broad humanitarian exception intended to avoid hurting the Iranian people.
Click to expand...

Then, consider this. A comment made by a reader,

Open your eyes guys, What you are seeing here is the birth of a new player in the nuclear market arena. And Never forget that Iran was sanctioned and was treated exactly the same way when it decided to nationalise its oil industry (1951), since they were - not so coincidentally - the first nation to do so in the face of the global superpowers of those day and age (UK & Co.)
Click to expand...

Now, I would like somebody here in SilverStackers to help me find a reliable source backing up the claim above. I don't dismiss it, just want verification that it is true (re: 1951 sanctions against Iran were fruitless and ineffective). Google is broken for me (which is rare)! -_-

Then, what about typical 'Humanitarian' loopholes? U.S. Approved Business With Blacklisted Nations

most of these exceptions were required by a law creating a broad humanitarian exception intended to avoid hurting the Iranian people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran#Effects_and_criticism
Click to expand...

From my understanding, agricultural and medical, humanitarian aid are to be exempted from sanctions.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for Iranians to have equal rights and humanitarium aid, I'm just pointing out to you all there are still loopholes.

Sanctions were never effective against Iraq, as Iraq were still able to 'trade' via the above mentioned loopholes.
The same for Iran.

As always (as the expression goes), the Big Bully USA wants you to believe 'they have put sanctions' on Iran, but this is merely a show. USA are fully aware Iran are still able to trade with other countries via loopholes (designed to allow Big Corporations to make Big Bucks btw).

However, then you have stories like this

MEASURES OF SUCCESS?

Yet even before the new sanctions go into effect, evidence is mounting that Western pressure may be hitting some of the wrong targets. Shipments of grain to Iran, exempt from the sanctions like other humanitarian goods, have been held up because of financial restrictions on Iranian banks that would handle the transactions

If previous sanctions efforts elsewhere are any guide, Iran's elites will find ways to insulate themselves from economic pain imposed from outside.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile,

Reuters reported this week how the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), while blacklisted by the United Nations, continues to move cargo using a web of shell companies and diverse ownership.
Click to expand...

So, what have we learned?

trying to evade sanctions raises the cost of doing business for Iran, U.S. officials say.
Click to expand...

Definition of above quote:

Trade with Iran during 'tough sanctions' will cost you a little more... okay?!?!
Click to expand...

Bummer.

Oh noes. Iran can't get paid for their fine oil via banks (as we all know), but they can still accept Gold and Silver as forms of payment. :lol:

Suckers.

Anyway, I am all for Iran (excluding the crap about hurting Israel).
.

Water&Food · Feb 21, 2012

Also, I find it very dirty of Big Corporations lobbying Government to do the following against Iran:

National Iranian Oil Company was established in 1948 under the reign of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi and prime ministership of Saed. Then Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was entrusted 1951 with the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Following the 1953 coup that overthrew Mossadegh it became a consortium of international oil companies: 40% owned by Anglo-Iranian holding, five American companies holding 40%, and the Royal Dutch/Shell and Compagnie Francaise de Petroles holding 10% each. The consortium shared profits 50-50 with Iran but did "not to open its books to Iranian auditors or to allow Iranians onto its board of directors."[7] According to the company's Web site: The victory of the Islamic revolution annulled the Consortium Agreement of 1954 and all regulations pertaining to it. The taking of power by the Islamic Republic led to the withdrawal of foreign employees from Iran's oil industry; domestic employees took full control of its affairs.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Iranian_Oil_Company#History
Click to expand...

Greedy SOBs.

Can you blame Iran for wanting to be Nuclear Armed (I am speculating that bit)? Seriously. Iran (along with other Islamic Arabian/African nations) have been bullied by the Roman Empire Multinational Corporations (mainly from Europe & USA).
.

Log in or Sign up

W&F: Iran Sanctioned? Pffffft - I doubt it very much! I farted o_O-b

Water&Food New Member

Water&Food New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

W&F: Iran Sanctioned? Pffffft - I doubt it very much! I farted o_O-b

Water&Food New Member

Water&Food New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches