DOCSLIB.ORG

Iran Sanctions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Iran Sanctions Iran Sanctions Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs January 6, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS20871 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Iran Sanctions Summary There is broad international support for imposing progressively strict economic sanctions on Iran to try to compel it to verifiably confine its nuclear program to purely peaceful uses. During 2011, there was broad agreement that sanctions had not hurt Iran’s economy to the point at which the Iranian leadership feels pressured to accommodate core Western goals on Iran’s nuclear program. However, as 2012 begins, Iran is indicating it perceives new U.S. and other sanctions affecting its vital oil export lifeline as a severe threat - to the point where Iran might threaten armed conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. It also has offered new nuclear talks in the hopes of heading off some of the oil export- related sanctions under consideration. The energy sector provides nearly 70% of Iran’s government revenues. The signs of effectiveness of sanctions mounted throughout 2011. The value of Iran’s rial has dropped dramatically over the past two years. Iranian leaders have admitted that Iran is virtually cut off from the international banking system. There have been a stream of announcements by major international firms since early 2010 that they are exiting or declining to undertake further work in the Iranian market, particularly the energy sector, taking with them often irreplaceable expertise. Partly as a result, Iran’s oil production has remained relatively steady at about 4.1 million barrels per day, defying Iranian efforts to increase production. Iran has small amounts of natural gas exports; it had none at all before Iran opened its fields to foreign investment in 1996. Even before the United States and several other countries moved to cut off Iran’s Central Bank in late 2011, several countries, particularly India, had delayed billions of dollars in oil payments for Iran because payments mechanisms had been disrupted by sanctions. However, Iran’s overall ability to limit the effects of sanctions has been aided by relatively high oil prices – prices that tend to increase as Iran threatens conflict in the Persian Gulf region. What has caused sanctions to start to affect Iranian calculations has been the broadening of international support for and compliance with them. Using the authorities of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, adopted June 9, 2010, measures adopted since mid-2010 by the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, and several other countries target the key energy and financial sectors of Iran. These measures complement the numerous U.S. laws and regulations that have long sought to try to pressure Iran, particularly the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA)—a 1996 U.S. law that mandates U.S. penalties against foreign companies that invest in Iran’s energy sector. The application of that law was broadened by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA, P.L. 111-195) as well as by Executive Order 13590 issued November 21, 2011. The issuing of that Order was accompanied by a Treasury Department determination, under Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act, that the Iranian financial system constitutes an entity of primary money laundering concern. These measures have been joined by several other countries, who took into consideration an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s possible efforts to design a nuclear explosive device, and diplomatic and financial rifts with Britain, which caused the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran on November 30, 2011. In the 112th Congress, legislation, such as S. 1048 and H.R. 1905, would enhance both the economic sanctions and human rights-related provisions of CISADA and other laws. A provision of the FY2012 defense authorization bill (H.R. 1540) sanctions foreign banks that do business with Iran’s Central Bank. For a broader analysis of policy on Iran, see CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, by Kenneth Katzman. Congressional Research Service Iran Sanctions Contents Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1 Sanctions Targeting Foreign Participation in Iran’s Energy Sector: The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), CISADA, and a November 2011 Executive Order............................................................ 1 Legislative History and Provisions............................................................................................ 2 Key ”Triggers” .................................................................................................................... 2 Mandate and Time Frame to Investigate Violations............................................................ 5 Available Sanctions Under ISA........................................................................................... 5 Waivers, Exemptions, and Termination Authority .............................................................. 6 Termination Requirements and Sunset Provisions.............................................................. 7 Interpretations of ISA and CISADA.......................................................................................... 7 Non-Application to Crude Oil or Natural Gas Purchases from Iran or to Official Credit Guarantee Agencies............................................................................................... 8 Application to Energy Pipelines.......................................................................................... 9 Application to Iranian Firms or the Revolutionary Guard ................................................ 11 Application to Liquefied Natural Gas ............................................................................... 12 Implementation of ISA and CISADA...................................................................................... 12 ISA Sanctions Determinations: September 2010 to the Present........................................ 12 Ban on U.S. Trade and Investment With Iran ................................................................................ 15 Non-Application to Foreign Refined Oil With Iranian Content .............................................. 17 Non-Application to Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Firms ......................................................... 17 Subsidiaries Exiting Iran ................................................................................................... 18 Banking: Treasury Department Financial Measures, CISADA, and Patriot Act Section 311 .............................................................................................................................................. 20 Banking Provisions of CISADA ............................................................................................. 21 Sanctions Imposed?........................................................................................................... 21 Section 311 of the Patriot Act..................................................................................................21 Terrorism List Designation-Related Sanctions .............................................................................. 22 Executive Order 13224............................................................................................................ 23 Proliferation-Related U.S. Sanctions............................................................................................. 23 Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act....................................................................................... 23 Iran-North Korea-Syria Nonproliferation Act ......................................................................... 24 Executive Order 13382............................................................................................................ 24 Foreign Aid Restrictions for Suppliers of Iran ........................................................................ 24 U.S. Efforts to Promote Divestment ..............................................................................................24 U.S. Sanctions Intended to Support Democratic Change in Iran or Alter Iran’s Foreign Policy.......................................................................................................................................... 25 Expanding Internet and Communications Freedoms............................................................... 25 Measures to Sanction Human Rights Abuses and Promote the Opposition ............................ 26 Executive Order 13438 and 13572: Sanctioning Iranian Involvement in the Region ............................................................................................................................ 27 Separate Visa Ban.............................................................................................................. 27 Blocked Iranian Property and Assets.............................................................................................27 U.N. Sanctions............................................................................................................................... 28 International Implementation and Compliance.............................................................................. 30 Congressional Research Service Iran Sanctions European Union and Other Western States.............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The IRGC in the Age of Ebrahim Raisi: Decision-Making and Factionalism in Iran’S Revolutionary Guard
    The IRGC in the Age of Ebrahim Raisi: Decision-Making and Factionalism in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard SAEID GOLKAR AUGUST 2021 KASRA AARABI Contents Executive Summary 4 The Raisi Administration, the IRGC and the Creation of a New Islamic Government 6 The IRGC as the Foundation of Raisi’s Islamic Government The Clergy and the Guard: An Inseparable Bond 16 No Coup in Sight Upholding Clerical Superiority and Preserving Religious Legitimacy The Importance of Understanding the Guard 21 Shortcomings of Existing Approaches to the IRGC A New Model for Understanding the IRGC’s Intra-elite Factionalism 25 The Economic Vertex The Political Vertex The Security-Intelligence Vertex Charting IRGC Commanders’ Positions on the New Model Shades of Islamism: The Ideological Spectrum in the IRGC Conclusion 32 About the Authors 33 Saeid Golkar Kasra Aarabi Endnotes 34 4 The IRGC in the Age of Ebrahim Raisi Executive Summary “The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] has excelled in every field it has entered both internationally and domestically, including security, defence, service provision and construction,” declared Ayatollah Ebrahim Raisi, then chief justice of Iran, in a speech to IRGC commanders on 17 March 2021.1 Four months on, Raisi, who assumes Iran’s presidency on 5 August after the country’s June 2021 election, has set his eyes on further empowering the IRGC with key ministerial and bureaucratic positions likely to be awarded to guardsmen under his new government. There is a clear reason for this ambition. Expanding the power of the IRGC serves the interests of both Raisi and his 82-year-old mentor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.
    [Show full text]
  • UNSC Res 2231
    United Nations S/RES/2231 (2015) Security Council Distr.: General 20 July 2015 Resolution 2231 (2015) th Adopted by the Security Council at its 7488 meeting, on 20 July 2015 The Security Council, Recalling the Statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, and its resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), and 1929 (2010), Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the need for all States Party to that Treaty to comply fully with their obligations, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination, Emphasizing the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes, and noting that such a solution would benefit nuclear non-proliferation, Welcoming diplomatic efforts by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Iran to reach a comprehensive, long-term and proper solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, culminating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) concluded on 14 July 2015, (S/2015/544, as attached as Annex A to this resolution) and the establishment of the Joint Commission, Welcoming Iran’s reaffirmation in the JCPOA that it will under no circumstances ever seek, develop
    [Show full text]
  • Council Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013
    16.11.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 306/3 COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, and Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. should be included again on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, on the basis of new statements of reasons concerning each of them. Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of (4) An additional entity should be included in the list of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set Iran ( 1 ), and in particular Article 46(2) thereof, out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, the identifying information in relation to another entity should be amended. Whereas: (1) On 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) (5) Following the judgment of the General Court in Case No 267/2012. T-421/11 ( 10 ), Qualitest FZE is not included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012. (2) By its judgments of 6 September 2013 in Cases T-493/10 ( 2), T-4/11 and T-5/11 ( 3 ), T-12/11 ( 4), T-13/11 ( 5), T-24/11 ( 6), T-42/12 and 181/12 ( 7), T-57/12 ( 8) and T-110/12 ( 9 ), the General Court of the European Union annulled the Council’s decisions to (6) In order to ensure that the measures provided for in this include Persia International Bank plc, Export Devel­ Regulation are effective, it should enter into force on the opment Bank of Iran, Iran Insurance Company, Post day of its publication, Bank Iran, Bank Refah Kargaran, Naser Bateni, Good Luck Shipping LLC and Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Bank Melli Iran :: History
    Bank Melli Iran :: History http://www.bmi.ir/En/BMIHistory.aspx?smnuid=10011 | (http://bmi.ir) ر (/ar/Default.aspx) | H me (/En/Default.aspx) About Us () Services () Correspondent Banking () Thursday, (/En/Default.aspx) News (http://www.bmi.ir/En/news.aspx?smnuid=10080) Regulations () A ugust 04, 2016 Units () CONCISE HISTORY OF BANK MELLI IRAN IN THE NAME OF GOD The year 1307(1928) should be regarded as a turning point in Iran's banking and economic history. It was in that year that after nearly 40 years of foreign dominance on the country's banking scene, BankMelli Iran, the first Iranian commercial bank was established and the long cherished aspiration of the Iranian nation turned into reality . With the establishment of Bank Melli Iran and consequential suspension of foreign banks licences, the then disorderly economic trend of the country was reversed and the newly founded bank began to gather momentum in strengthening of the economic structure and development of agriculture, industry and commerce by mobilizing the huge financial resources and popular savings and by chanelling credits toward productive activities. During the 85 year period ensuing the foundation of Bank Melli Iran the country has witnessed a great deal of changes and turnarounds. Bank Melli Iran which had been founded as a result of an economic exigency, developed at later stages into an active and dynamic element assuming an accelerating role in the country’s economic advancement. In the year 1310(1931) parliament granted sole powers to Bank Melli Iran to issue banknotes, thus establishing the bank as the country’s bank of issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Banking in the Middle East
    Banking in the Middle East Anwar All* ODERN BANKING in the Middle East dates from the second M half of the last century. The Ottoman Bank in Turkey, estab- lished in 1863, is, perhaps, the oldest modern banking institution in the area. Banking has made slow but steady progress ever since, the progress depending upon the pace of economic development in various countries and of the transition from predominantly barter to semi- market economies. More recently, with the emphasis placed on eco- nomic development in a number of countries, there have been definite efforts to extend banking services and diversify banking institutions. However, the improvement has by no means been uniform. In some countries, for example, a nomadic way of life still survives, and there is no regularly organized banking system or paper currency. Thus, while progress in recent years has been steady, the banking structure of the Middle East still reflects, on the whole, the economic backwardness of the area and the limitations of domestic banking. Various causes have retarded progress in the development of banking. The basic cause has been the primitive, underdeveloped, and, until com- paratively recently, the almost self-contained nature of the economy in many countries of the region. Nearly 80 per cent of the people live upon agriculture and practice primitive methods of cultivation that yield extremely low crops.1 Much of the agricultural produce does not enter the market but is consumed by the producers or bartered for services and other necessities. The monetization of the economy is thus, in varying degrees, incomplete.2 The majority of the countries export primary commodities and are dependent upon imports for most of the finished consumer goods that they need.
    [Show full text]
  • Payandan Shareholders
    PAYANDAN PAYANDAN 1. Company Background Creative Path to Growth Payandan Shareholders PAYANDAN Payandan’s shares belong to Mostazafan Foundation of Islamic Revolution. • Mostazafan Foundation owns 49% • Sina Energy Development Company owns 51% Mostazafan Foundation of Islamic Revolution Sina Energy Development Company PAYANDAN Mostazafan Foundation of Islamic Revolution PAYANDAN SEDCO Sina Financial Paya Saman Pars (Oil & Gas) & Investment Co (Road & Building) Sina Food Industries Iran Housing Group Saba Paya Sanat Sina (Power & Electricity) (Tire, Tiles, Glasswork, Textile, Etc) Ferdos Pars Sina ICT Group (Agriculture) Parsian Tourism Kaveh Pars & Transport Group (Mining) Alavi Foundation Alavi Civil (Charitable) Engineering Group Sina Energy Development Holding Company PAYANDAN SEDCO as one of subsidiaries of The Mostazafan Foundation of Islamic Revolution is considered one of pioneer holding companies in area of oil & gas which aims on huge projects in whole chains of oil and gas. Payandan (Oil & Gas General Contractor) North Drilling (Offshore Drilling) Pedex (Onshore Drilling) Behran (Oil Refinery Co) Dr Bagheri SEDCO Managing Director Coke Waste Water Refining Co Payandan in Numbers PAYANDAN +40 1974 Years ESTABLISHED +1400 +4000 EMPLOYEES CONTRACTOR +200,000,000 $ ANNUAL TURNOVER 75 COMPLETED PROJECTS Company Background PAYANDAN • 48” Zanjan-Mianeh Pipeline • 56” Saveh-Loushan • South Pars – SP No. 14 Pipeline (190KM) • South Pars – SP No. 13 • 56" Dezfoul- Kouhdasht Pipeline (160KM) 1974 1996 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 • Nargesi Gas • F & G Lavan • 56” Asaluyeh Gathering & • South Pars – SP Pipeline Injection No. 17 & 18 • 30” Iran- Payandan is • South Pars – SP No. 22,23,24 Armenia established (oil and • 48” Iraq Pipeline Naftkhane- Pipeline gas contractor) Baghdad (63KM) (113KM) • 56” Naeen-Tehran Gas Pipeline (133KM) • Parsian Gas Refinery • 56” Loushan-Rasht Gas Pipeline (81KM) • Pars Petrochemical Port • Arak Shazand Refinery • Kangan Gas Compressor Station • South Pars – SP No.
    [Show full text]
  • The General Court Annuls the Acts of the Council Freezing The
    General Court of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 99/13 Luxembourg, 6 September 2013 Judgments in Joined Cases T-35/10 and T-7/11 Bank Melli Iran; Case T-493/10 Persia International Bank plc; Joined Cases T-4/11 and T-5/11 Export Development Bank of Iran; Case T-12/11 Iran Insurance Company; Case T-13/11 Post Bank Iran; Case T-24/11 Bank Refah Kargaran; Case T-434/11 Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG; Joined Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12 Naser Bateni; Case T-57/12 Good Luck Shipping, and Press and Information Case T-110/12 Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. v Council The General Court annuls the acts of the Council freezing the funds of seven companies and one person in connection with the restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation Bank Melli Iran and Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank remain on the list of those whose funds are frozen In order to apply pressure on Iran to end its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, the Council of the European Union adopted decisions and regulations freezing the funds of persons and entities identified by the Council as being involved in nuclear proliferation. The persons and entities concerned are named in a list annexed to each of those regulations, together with a statement of the Council’s reasons for including each person or entity. The persons and entities in the cases before the Court had been designated by decisions of the Council as having been involved in Iran’s nuclear programme, and their names were therefore listed in the annexes to the regulations providing for the funds of such persons to be frozen.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 63/Wednesday, April 1, 2020/Notices
    18334 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 1, 2020 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY a.k.a. CHAGHAZARDY, MohammadKazem); Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender DOB 21 Jan 1962; nationality Iran; Additional Male; Passport D9016371 (Iran) (individual) Office of Foreign Assets Control Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary [IRAN]. Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) Identified as meeting the definition of the Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions [NPWMD] [IFSR] (Linked To: BANK SEPAH). term Government of Iran as set forth in Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv) of section 7(d) of E.O. 13599 and section AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets E.O. 13382 for acting or purporting to act for 560.304 of the ITSR, 31 CFR part 560. Control, Treasury. or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, BANK 11. SAEEDI, Mohammed; DOB 22 Nov ACTION: Notice. SEPAH, a person whose property and 1962; Additional Sanctions Information— interests in property are blocked pursuant to Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the E.O. 13382. Male; Passport W40899252 (Iran) (individual) Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 3. KHALILI, Jamshid; DOB 23 Sep 1957; [IRAN]. Control (OFAC) is publishing the names Additional Sanctions Information—Subject Identified as meeting the definition of the of one or more persons that have been to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male; term Government of Iran as set forth in Passport Y28308325 (Iran) (individual) section 7(d) of E.O. 13599 and section placed on OFAC’s Specially Designated [IRAN]. 560.304 of the ITSR, 31 CFR part 560. Nationals and Blocked Persons List Identified as meeting the definition of the 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Treasury
    Vol. 76 Thursday, No. 126 June 30, 2011 Part IV Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Chapter V Alphabetical Listings: Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons; Blocked Vessels; Persons Determined To Be the Government of Iran; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:07 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\30JNR3.SGM 30JNR3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 38534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Background additions and deletions of names, as The Department of the Treasury’s well as changes in identifying Office of Foreign Assets Control Office of Foreign Assets Control information, it provides more up-to-date (‘‘OFAC’’) maintains a list of blocked information than the list of persons 31 CFR Chapter V persons, blocked vessels, specially previously published on an annual basis designated nationals, specially at Appendix A. Alphabetical Listings: Specially Persons engaging in regulated Designated Nationals and Blocked designated terrorists, specially designated global terrorists, foreign activities are advised to check the Persons; Blocked Vessels; Persons Federal Register and the most recent Determined To Be the Government of terrorist organizations, and specially designated narcotics traffickers whose version of the SDN List posted on Iran OFAC’s Web site for updated property and interests in property are information on blocking, designation, blocked pursuant to the various AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets identification, and delisting actions economic sanctions programs Control, Treasury. before engaging in transactions that may administered by OFAC. OFAC be prohibited by the economic sanctions ACTION: Final rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Wiiw Research Report 367: EU Gas Supplies Security
    f December Research Reports | 367 | 2010 Gerhard Mangott EU Gas Supplies Security: Russian and EU Perspectives, the Role of the Caspian, the Middle East and the Maghreb Countries Gerhard Mangott EU Gas Supplies Security: Gerhard Mangott is Professor at the Department Russian and EU of Political Science, University of Innsbruck. Perspectives, the Role of This paper was prepared within the framework of the Caspian, the the project ‘European Energy Security’, financed from the Jubilee Fund of the Oesterreichische Na- Middle East and the tionalbank (Project No. 115). Maghreb Countries Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................... i 1 Russia’s strategic objectives: breaking Ukrainian transit dominance in gas trade with the EU by export routes diversification ............................................................... 1 1.1 Nord Stream (Severny Potok) (a.k.a. North European Gas Pipeline, NEGP) ... 7 1.2 South Stream (Yuzhnyi Potok) and Blue Stream II ......................................... 12 2 The EU’s South European gas corridor: options for guaranteed long-term gas supplies at reasonable cost ............................................................................... 20 2.1 Gas resources in the Caspian region ............................................................. 23 2.2 Gas export potential in the Caspian and the Middle East and its impact on the EU’s Southern gas corridor .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Iranian Leadership's Continuing Declarations of Intent to Destroy
    The Iranian Leadership’s Continuing Declarations of Intent to Destroy Israel 2009-2012 Prof. Joshua Teitelbaum Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs המרכז הירושלמי לענייני ציבור ומדינה )ע"ר( © 2012 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 13 Tel Hai Street, Jerusalem, Israel Tel. 972-2-5619281 Fax. 972-2-5619112 Email: [email protected] Website: www.jcpa.org ISBN: 978-965-218-106-0 Production Coordinator: Tommy Berzi Graphic Design: Studio Rami & Jaki - www.ramijaki.co.il An updated version of “What Iranian Leaders Really Say about Doing Away with Israel: A Refutation of the Campaign to Excuse Ahmadinejad’s Incitement to Genocide”(November 2008) 2 The Iranian Leadership’s Continuing Declarations of Intent to Destroy Israel Preface In 2008, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs published an in-depth study of the Iranian leadership’s views on Israel and Jews.1 At the time, international attention had been focused on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s October 2005 statement that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” A controversy arose at the time over whether he indeed made this remark or was mistranslated, as several academics and two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), alleged. It was demonstrated that Ahmadinejad indeed called for the destruction of Israel and his words were not misrepresented. The previous study concluded with the observation by Michael Axworthy, who served as head of the Iran Section of Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1998 to 2000: “The formula had been used before by Khomeini and others, and had been translated by representatives of the Iranian regime as ‘wiped off the map.’ Some of the dispute that has arisen over what exactly Ahmadinejad meant by it has been rather bogus.
    [Show full text]
  • Secondary Sanctions on the Iranian Financial Sector Create De Facto Embargo with Lasting Implications for the Biden Administration
    Secondary Sanctions on the Iranian Financial Sector Create De Facto Embargo with Lasting Implications for the Biden Administration Abigail Eineman IRAN WATCH REPORT John P. Caves III January 2021 1 Introduction During their confirmation hearings last week in the U.S. Senate, President Joe Biden's key national security nominees noted that the new administration was prepared to return to the nuclear accord with Iran, but warned that such a return would not be swift. First, Iran would have to resume compliance with the accord's nuclear restrictions in a verifiable manner, according to Secretary of State designate Antony Blinken, at which point the United States would resume compliance as well. President Biden’s choice for director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, estimated during her confirmation hearing that “we are a long ways from that.”1 Compliance for the United States would mean reversing at least part of the Trump administration's “maximum pressure” campaign—a set of overlapping trade and financial restrictions on almost every part of Iran's economy. The outgoing administration made such a reversal more challenging, particularly as a result of the sanctions imposed on Iran's financial sector in the administration's final months. On October 8, 2020, the United States designated Iran’s financial sector pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13902 and sanctioned eighteen Iranian banks.2 In doing so, the U.S. Treasury Department applied secondary sanctions to Iran's entire financial sector for the first time, potentially barring foreign entities from the U.S. financial system should they do business with Iranian banks.
    [Show full text]