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 March 28, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS20871 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Iran Sanctions Summary The objective of sanctions—to compel Iran to verifiably demonstrate that its nuclear program is for purely peaceful uses—has not been achieved to date. However, the international coalition that is imposing progressively strict economic sanctions on Iran is broadening and deepening, with increasingly significant effect on Iran’s economy. U.S. officials believe that these sanctions— which are now targeting Iran’s oil export lifeline - might yet cause Iran to return to the nuclear bargaining table with greater seriousness and intent toward peaceful resolution. Many judge that Iran needs an easing of sanctions because the energy sector provides nearly 70% of Iran’s government revenues. Iran’s worsening economic situation is caused by: • A decision by the European Union on January 23, 2012, to wind down purchases of Iranian crude oil by July 1, 2012. EU countries buy about 20% of Iran’s oil exports. This action 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. • Decisions by other Iranian oil purchasers, particularly Japan, to reduce purchases of Iranian oil. Those decisions are intended to comply with a provision of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 112-81, signed December 31, 2011) that prevents the opening of U.S. accounts by foreign banks that conduct transactions with Iran’s Central Bank—unless the parent country reduces substantially its purchases of Iranian oil. • The willingness of other oil producers with spare capacity, particularly Saudi Arabia, a strategic rival, to sell additional oil to countries cutting Iranian oil buys. • Industry sources said in late March 2012 that Iran’s oil sales for March have fallen dramatically from prior levels. Once the EU embargo is fully implemented, Iran’s oil sales might fall by as much as 40% (1 million barrels per day reduction out of 2.5 million barrels per day of sales). Iran is widely assessed as unable to economically sustain that level of lost oil sales. The signs of economic pressure on Iran are multiplying. The value of Iran’s rial has dropped precipitously since December 2011. Iranian leaders have admitted that Iran is virtually cut off from the international banking system and is increasingly trading through barter arrangements rather than hard currency exchange. The pullout from Iran by major international firms have slowed Iran’s efforts to modernize its energy sector and other sectors, rendering Iran unable to increase its oil production above 4.1 million barrels per day. Still, Iran has small amounts of natural gas exports; it had none at all before Iran opened its fields to foreign investment in 1996. Still, relatively high world oil prices have reduced some of the effects of the sanctions. Despite the imposition of what many now consider to be “crippling” sanctions, some in Congress believe that economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran needs to increase further and faster. In the 112th Congress, legislation, such as S. 1048, H.R. 1905, and S. 2101, would enhance both the economic sanctions and human rights-related provisions of a major 2010 Iran sanctions law (P.L. 111-195) and other laws. However, some believe that further U.S. sanctions could risk fracturing the international coalition. 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 Energy Involvement in Iran: The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), CISADA, and a November 2011 Executive Order....................................................................... 1 The Iran Sanctions Act and CISADA Amendments.................................................................. 1 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 ................................................ 10 Application to Liquefied Natural Gas ............................................................................... 11 Implementation of ISA and CISADA...................................................................................... 11 ISA Sanctions Determinations: September 2010 to the Present........................................ 12 Ban on U.S. Trade and Investment With Iran ................................................................................ 15 Implementation........................................................................................................................ 17 Non-Application to Foreign Refined Oil With Iranian Content........................................ 17 Non-Application to Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Firms ................................................... 17 Financial Sanctions: CISADA and Sanctions on Dealings with Iran’s Central Bank.................... 20 Early Efforts: Targeted Financial Measures ............................................................................ 20 Banking Provisions of CISADA ............................................................................................. 20 Sanctions Imposed?........................................................................................................... 21 Section 311 of the Patriot Act..................................................................................................21 Sanctioning Against Dealings With Iran’s Central Bank/Section 1245 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 112-81)............................................................... 22 Implementation/Exemptions Issued .................................................................................. 23 February 6, 2012, Executive Order on the Central Bank .................................................. 23 Terrorism List Designation-Related Sanctions .............................................................................. 24 Executive Order 13224: Sanctioning Terrorism Supporting Entities ...................................... 24 Proliferation-Related U.S. Sanctions............................................................................................. 25 Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act....................................................................................... 25 Iran-North Korea-Syria Nonproliferation Act ......................................................................... 26 Executive Order 13382............................................................................................................ 26 Foreign Aid Restrictions for Suppliers of Iran ........................................................................ 26 U.S. Efforts to Promote Divestment ..............................................................................................26 U.S. Sanctions Intended to Support Democratic Change in Iran or Alter Iran’s Foreign Policy.......................................................................................................................................... 27 Expanding Internet and Communications Freedoms............................................................... 27 Implementation..................................................................................................................28 Measures to Sanction Human Rights Abuses and Promote the Opposition ............................ 28 Congressional Research Service Iran Sanctions Executive Order 13438 and 13572: Sanctioning Iranian Involvement in the Region .................................................................................................................. 29 Separate Visa Ban.............................................................................................................. 29 Blocked Iranian Property and Assets.............................................................................................29 U.N. Sanctions............................................................................................................................... 30 International Implementation and Compliance.............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Case of Iran's Nuclear Program
    Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs Volume 2 Issue 2 November 2013 The Prohibition on the Use of Force for Arms Control: The Case of Iran’s Nuclear Program Mary Ellen O'Connell University of Notre Dame Law School Reyam El Molla Follow this and additional works at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia Part of the Diplomatic History Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Political Science Commons, Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Rule of Law Commons, Social History Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons ISSN: 2168-7951 Custom Citation The Prohibition on the Use of Force for Arms Control: The Case of Iran’s Nuclear Program, 2 Penn. St. J.L. & Int’l Aff. 315 (2013). The Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs is a joint publication of Penn State’s School of Law and School of International Affairs. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 2013 VOLUME 2 NO. 2 THE PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FORCE FOR ARMS CONTROL: THE CASE OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM Mary Ellen O’Connell and Reyam El Molla* In many discussions of Iran’s nuclear program, there seems to be an implicit assumption that states have a right to use military force to end the program. For example, the Institute for National Security Studies,1 an Israeli think tank, in an article titled, The Legality of an Attack against Iranian Nuclear Facilities, places emphasis on proving the necessity of an attack as a last resort but fails to indicate any accepted legal basis for resort to military force as an initial matter.2 In fact, international law does not permit the use of military force without United Nations Security Council authorization for arms control of any kind, whether to end a nuclear program, to end a chemical weapons program, or to prevent missile shipments.
    [Show full text]
  • Focus On: Sanctions Against Iran, Libya and Syria July 2011
    Focus on: sanctions against Iran, Libya and Syria July 2011 The worsening situation in Libya and Syria and the need to prevent sanction busting by Iran have provoked further tight- ening of international sanctions. The main measures approved by the EU, UN and US in recent months will have im- pacts on the economies and diplomatic relations of the above-mentioned countries. Iran . Iran’s efforts to bypass international sanctions by using foreign companies and other countries (a practice known as sanction busting) have resulted in the EU and US tightening sanctions and adding more institutions and indi- viduals to their blacklists. The aim of the sanctions, which target Iran’s finances, is to force Tehran to re-open ne- gotiations on its nuclear development programme and resolve the stalemate. Having adopted Regulation 961/2010 in October 2010, in May 2011 the European Council approved Council Im- plementing Regulation (EU) No. 503/2011 adding more people and entities to its blacklist. Among theme is the Iranian Europäisch-Iranisch Handelsbank (EIH) bank based in Hamburg, Germany, accused of breaching EC regulations and UN Security Council resolutions. In a move to raise pressure on Iran, at the beginning of June the US also decided to apply the principle of extra- territoriality. Having imposed sanctions against seven foreign companies (including the PDVSA and an Israeli group) for supplying fuel to Iranian companies, the US has continued to revise its blacklist, which includes the Iranian state-owned Bank of Industry and Mine accused of providing services to Bank Mellat and EIH already subject to US sanctions.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of US-IRAN RELATIONS by Jenny Gan
    THE FUTURE OF US-IRAN RELATIONS By Jenny Gan INTRODUCTION Over the past fifty years, the United States and Iran have experienced a tumultuous relationship that has sometimes revealed itself as a close international partnership and other times a contentious rivalry. Since 1953, the United States has helped conduct President Trump a coup d’état in 1953 to overthrow Iran’s prime minister, navigated imposing sanctions the US Embassy hostage crisis, and dealt with the Iran-Contra on Iran following scandal (“US-Iran Relations”). Despite a rocky end to the 20th the dissolution of century, following sanctions in the early 2000s, the US and Iran the US-Iran Nuclear entered a state of peace following the rising global concerns over the Deal. development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal (“US-Iran Relations”). Saul Loeb/AFP via However, the United States’ relationship with Iran took a sharp Getty Images turn following rising tensions in the Gulf, including new economic sanctions, explosions targeting oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, and US military drone surveillance over the Strait of Hormuz (“US-Iran Relations”). Tensions rose to a fever pitch after the assassination of Coup d’état – the General Qasem Soleimani by a US drone and resulted in Iran pulling forcible removal of an out of the nuclear agreement while also promising revenge against existing government the United States (Ward). from power through Best described as tumultuous, the relationship between Iran and violent means. the United States has major implications for global peace, as Iran has nuclear capabilities and is a key player in the Middle East, a region where the United States has vested economic and political interests.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • PETITIONERS V
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ET AL., PETITIONERS v. STATE OF HAWAII, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General JEFFREY B. WALL EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Deputy Solicitors General HASHIM M. MOOPPAN Deputy Assistant Attorney General JONATHAN C. BOND MICHAEL R. HUSTON Assistants to the Solicitor General SHARON SWINGLE H. THOMAS BYRON III Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Constitution and Acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to prohibit or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States when he deems it in the Nation’s interest. Exercising that authority after a worldwide review by multiple government agencies of whether foreign governments provide sufficient infor- mation to screen their nationals, the President issued Proclamation No. 9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161 (Sept. 27, 2017). In accordance with the recommendation of the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security following the multi-agency review, the Proclamation suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of cer- tain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors. The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforce- ment of the Proclamation’s entry suspensions world- wide, except as to nationals of two countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Us Policy Towards the Islamic Republic of Iran Hearing
    S. HRG. 111–746 U.S. POLICY TOWARDS THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 14, 2010 Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62–667 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. VerDate Aug 31 2005 13:35 Dec 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\62667.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JACK REED, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia BILL NELSON, Florida LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska JOHN THUNE, South Dakota EVAN BAYH, Indiana ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi JIM WEBB, Virginia GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts MARK UDALL, Colorado RICHARD BURR, North Carolina KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina DAVID VITTER, Louisiana MARK BEGICH, Alaska SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director JOSEPH W. BOWAB, Republican Staff Director (II) VerDate Aug 31 2005 13:35 Dec 07, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\62667.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB C O N T E N T S CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran Sanctions
    Iran Sanctions Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs July 9, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS20871 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) Summary Iran is subject to a wide range of U.S. sanctions, restricting trade with, investment, and U.S. foreign aid to Iran, and requiring the United States to vote against international lending to Iran. Several laws and Executive Orders extend sanctions to foreign companies that do business with Iran, as part of an effort to persuade foreign firms to choose between the Iranian market and the much larger U.S. market. A formal U.S. effort to curb international energy investment in Iran began in 1996 with the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA). No firms have been sanctioned under it and the precise effects of that law on energy investment in Iran—as separate from other factors affecting international firms’ decisions on whether to invest in Iran—has been unclear. While international pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear program has increased the hesitation of many major foreign firms to invest in Iran’s energy sector, hindering Iran’s efforts to expand oil production beyond 4.1 million barrels per day, some firms continue to see opportunity in Iran. This particularly appears to be the case for companies in Asia that appear eager to fill the void left by major European and American firms and to line up steady supplies of Iranian oil and gas. ISA was first passed at a time of tightening U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Foreign and Defense Policies
    Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies Updated May 8, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44017 SUMMARY R44017 Iran’s Foreign and Defense Policies May 8, 2019 Iran’s national security policy is the product of many overlapping and sometimes competing factors such as the ideology of Iran’s Islamic revolution, perception of threats Kenneth Katzman to the regime and to the country, long-standing national interests, and the interaction of Specialist in Middle the Iranian regime’s factions and constituencies. Iran’s leadership: Eastern Affairs x Seeks to deter or thwart U.S. or other efforts to invade or intimidate Iran or to bring about a change of regime. x Has sought to take advantage of opportunities of regional conflicts to overturn a power structure in the Middle East that it asserts favors the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Muslim Arab regimes. x Seeks to enhance its international prestige and restore a sense of “greatness” reminiscent of ancient Persian empires. x Advances its foreign policy goals, in part by providing material support to regional allied governments and armed factions. Iranian officials characterize the support as helping the region’s “oppressed” and assert that Saudi Arabia, in particular, is instigating sectarian tensions and trying to exclude Iran from regional affairs. x Sometimes disagrees on tactics and strategies. Supreme Leader Ali Khamene’i and key hardline institutions, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), oppose any compromises of Iran’s national security core goals. Iran’s elected president, Hassan Rouhani, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif support Iran’s integration into regional and international diplomacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran As an Alternative Supplier of Natural Gas to the EU Draft Online
    IRAN AS AN ALTERNATIVE SUPPLIER OF NATURAL GAS TO THE EU Draft Paper Agnieszka Byrczek Tiisetso Mogase Antje Pfeifer Tomas Rezac April 2010 NewSecEU has been funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. 1. Introduction Energy Security can be described as “the condition in which a nation and all, or most, of its citizens and businesses have access to sufficient energy resources at reasonable prices for the foreseeable future free from serious risk of major disruption of service”. 1 But other factors such as the availability of the sources, the reliability of partners and the infrastructure are also influencing energy security.2 During the last few years the European Commission started intense work on energy security in Europe. According to the Commission‘s Green Paper on security of energy supply (November 2000), if no action is taken, the EU's energy dependency will climb from 50 per cent in 2000 to 70 per cent in 2030. 3 Securing European energy supplies is therefore high on the EU's agenda. Currently, 40 per cent of EU gas imports come from Russia, 30 per cent from Algeria, and 25 per cent from Norway, but some predictions state that by 2030, over 60 per cent of EU gas imports are expected to come from Russia with overall external dependency expected to reach 80 per cent. 4 In recent years, supply of European countries with Russian gas was affected by the Russia-Ukraine dispute in winter 2006 and the disruption of gas supply in January 2009 to different amounts.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran Sanctions
    Iran Sanctions Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs February 10, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS20871 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Iran Sanctions Summary The international coalition that is imposing progressively strict economic sanctions on Iran is broadening and deepening, with increasingly significant effect on Iran’s economy. The objective, not achieved to date, remains to try to compel Iran to verifiably confine its nuclear program to purely peaceful uses. As 2012 begins, Iran sees newly-imposed multilateral sanctions against its oil exports as a severe threat - to the point where Iran is threatening to risk armed conflict. Iran also has indicated receptivity to new nuclear talks in the hopes of reversing or slowing the implementation of the oil export-related sanctions. The energy sector provides nearly 70% of Iran’s government revenues. Iran’s alarm stems from the potential loss of oil sales as a result of: • A decision by the European Union on January 23, 2012, to wind down purchases of Iranian crude oil by July 1, 2012. EU countries buy about 20% of Iran’s oil exports. This action 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. • Decisions by other Iranian oil purchasers, particularly Japan and South Korea, to reduce purchases of Iranian oil. Those decisions are intended to comply with a provision of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Easing US Sanctions on Iran JUNE 2014
    Atlantic Council SOUTH ASIA CENTER IRAN TASK FORCE BY KENNETH KATZMAN Easing US Sanctions on Iran JUNE 2014 Since the seizure of US hostages in Iran following the 1979 revolution, the US government has imposed a Atlantic Council Iran Task Force succession of economic penalties against the Islamic The Iran Task Force, launched in 2010 and chaired Republic. The complexity and severity of these by Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, performs a uranium enrichment program in 2006. However, there landscape, as well as its role in the region and the aresanctions a variety intensified of ways tofollowing provide Iran’s extensive resumption sanctions of a world,comprehensive to answer analysis the question of Iran’s of whetherinternal politicalthere are relief should there be a deal placing long-term elements within the country and region that can build the basis for an improved relationship with the West and how these elements, if they exist, restrictionsThe November on Iran’s24, 2013 nuclear Joint activities. Plan of Action (JPA) could be utilized by US policymakers. between Iran and the “P5+1” countries (United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China) pledges The Iran Task Force is a project of the Atlantic Iran comprehensive international sanctions relief if a 1 The generously by a grant from the Ploughshares Fund. JPA does not assert that the United States is the sole Council’s South Asia Center, and is supported final settlement is reached on its nuclear program. source of existing sanctions. However, US sanctions sanctions. Despite this JPA stipulation, the document are key to sanctions relief because many US sanctions implies that the administration does not necessarily penalize foreign countries and companies that conduct have the authority to commit to an outright lifting.
    [Show full text]