Doc's Talk: Iran's European Helpers

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Iran's European Helpers

Swiss and German business deals may be directly and indirectly supporting Tehran's nuclear program

WSJ

MARK DUBOWITZ AND BENJAMIN WEINTHAL

The European Union in July imposed unprecedented sanctions against Iran's energy and financial sectors. But despite the crackdown, some European companies continue to sign up for business deals in Iran that may be both directly and indirectly supporting Iran's nuclear-weapons development Take the example of Ceresola TLS. According to a hard copy of the confirmation of a contract we have obtained, the Swiss firm recently signed an agreement worth over €1 billion with Rahab Engineering Establishment in Tehran. According to the contract, Ceresola has agreed to provide Rahab with tunneling technology to facilitate the construction of a metro line in .
Take the example of Ceresola TLS. According to a hard copy of the confirmation of a contract we have obtained, the Swiss firm recently signed an agreement worth over €1 billion with Rahab Engineering Establishment in Tehran. According to the contract, Ceresola has agreed to provide Rahab with tunneling technology to facilitate the construction of a metro line in Iran. But in the past, the regime in Tehran has used similar agreements to help hide its nuclear-weapons program. Although the confirmation order lists the deal as a project for a metro line, obtaining heavy earth-moving equipment and technology is also a top priority for Iran's nuclear program. Tehran needs this know-how to hide military nuclear installations deep underground, as it did with the Qom and Natanz enrichment facilities.

A June United Nations resolution lists the similarly named Rahab Engineering Institute as one of the firms involved in "nuclear or ballistic missile activities," and says the Institute is owned by the government's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Given Iran's history of simply renaming sanctioned firms or using front companies, it may be no coincidence that both businesses have their offices on the same Valiasr Street in Tehran. Ceresola manager Doris Ceresola, whose name is listed on the confirmation order, refused to comment when asked about the possibility that Rahab Engineering Establishment and Rahab Engineering Institute could be one and the same company.

Ms. Ceresola asked to know how we obtained copies of the confirmation detailing the Swiss company's delivery of sophisticated technology to Rahab. While stating that she was "upset" that Ceresola's contract with Rahab will be exposed, Ms. Ceresola declined to comment on the nature of the contract, or whether the contract violates international sanctions. She also declined to comment on whether Ceresola was worried that its tunnel technology could be misused for Iran's nuclear program.

The Swiss, EU and U.S. governments should get those answers. Specifically, officials should determine if Rahab is in fact related to the Rahab Engineering Institute owned by the Revolutionary Guard and, if so, if it intends to use Ceresola's equipment to build new underground nuclear sites, instead of metro lines. In another example, the Swiss firm Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft Laufenburg (EGL) signed a gas contract two years ago estimated at between €18 and €20 billion with the state-owned National Iranian Gas Export Company (NIGEC). NIGEC is a subsidiary of the National Iranian Gas Company, which the U.K. placed on its Proliferation Concerns List last year. The U.N.'s June resolution spelled out in its preamble the clear nexus that exists between revenues from Iran's energy sector and its nuclear activities. The U.S. administration has from the start complained about this Swiss-Iranian business contract.

AFP/Getty Images
Ahmadinejad unveils domestically manufactured fuel rods.

"As we noted in the past when this deal was first announced, oil and gas deals with Iran send the wrong message when Iran continues to defy U.N. Security Council resolutions," a spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Bern told us. "We have raised our concerns with the Swiss government about this arrangement on multiple occasions."

The U.S. State Department and U.S. Congress are currently investigating a number of foreign companies to determine if they are in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran. While the list of the companies being scrutinized has not been made public, U.S officials have told us that they are concerned that EGL's 25-year, multi-billion euro supply agreement could violate EU and U.S. sanctions prohibiting the transfer of technology and technical expertise to Iran. The EGL supply deal may only be a simple purchase agreement. But given its size and complexity, U.S. officials have told us that they fear it may involve the transfer of technology or technical expertise by EGL, which Iran could use to develop its natural gas sector.
Asked about those U.S. concerns, EGL spokeswoman Lilly Frei told us in August: "We are not violating any regulations; and [we] follow the rules. We feel we are not really deserving to come on the sanctions list."

Neither EGL nor any other company has been sanctioned by the U.S. Senior Obama Administration officials have told us that they are "very, very close" to a decision on which firms will face penalties under U.S. law.

The EGL deal may also expose a loophole in sanctions laws. U.S. and EU rules severely limit investments in Iran's natural gas sector. In the case of U.S. law, the investment limit is $20 million per year. U.S. Congressional foreign policy staffers have expressed to us concerns that by using long-term supply contracts like EGL's to collateralize billions of dollars in energy bonds, the regime could circumvent sanctions to finance its natural gas sector. Bondholders will require evidence that Iran can make payments on these bonds and one way for Iran to do this would be to sign a long-term supply contract, using this guaranteed revenue stream in hard currencies to collateralize the bonds. The EU and U.S. need to close any loopholes that would allow this kind of investment activity.

Another EGL spokesman, Richard Rogers, declined to comment Wednesday on whether his company was concerned that its long-term contract with Iran could be used to collateralize Iranian energy bonds. At the same time, Mr. Rogers said that "the current political environment does not tolerate procurement of Iranian natural gas" through the proposed Trans Adriatic Pipeline project. However, Mr. Rogers also confirmed that EGL is in negotiations with Turkey's state-owned Botas Petroleum Pipeline Corporation, and declined to specify the nature of those negotiations. Mr. Rogers specifically declined to say whether their plans include transporting Iranian gas through a Botas pipeline in the future. Turkey, along with Brazil, voted against the U.N.'s latest round of sanctions on Iran in June. Iran currently provides Turkey with a third of its energy needs.
Like Turkey, Switzerland is not a member of the EU. While the Swiss have always insisted on neutrality, the Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported that officials in Switzerland's economics ministry have criticized Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey for not safeguarding U.S. security interests. The EU should capitalize on this discord and put pressure on the Swiss to make sure the country complies with the letter and spirit of international sanctions. The U.S. should also replace Switzerland as the representative of its diplomatic interests in Iran with a country that doesn't interpret "neutrality" as a license to let companies potentially help Iran develop—directly or indirectly—its nuclear-weapons program.

Germany also remains a problem. Europe's biggest exporter to the Islamic Republic provides roughly 60% of the technology Iran uses in its natural gas sector. The German Engineering Federation (VDMA) has long lobbied against the sort of sanctions that now prohibit European companies from investing in Iran's energy projects and providing technology or technical assistance. VDMA's members are the engine behind Germany's 14% increase in exports to Iran during the first six months of 2010 as compared to same period last year. In the Sept. 13 issue of the Handelsblatt, VDMA spokesman Klaus Friedrich referred to the European Commission's plan for mandatory approval of all payments to and from Iran as a "useless monster bureaucracy."

Chancellor Angela Merkel has still not shut down the Hamburg-based European-Iranian Trade Bank (EIH), which the U.S. Treasury Department has designated as a proliferator for what it says is the bank's role in abetting Iran's nuclear activities and earlier this month barred from accessing the American market. The EIH said in a statement that it "at all times strictly fulfills and observes applicable legal regulations and all sanctions and export guidelines."

Mrs. Merkel must take action against both the EIH and those members of the VDMA who continue their business with Iran. The Chancellor should be held to the promises she made, including to the U.S Congress and Israeli Knesset, to stop Iran's nuclear drive. The same goes for the rest of Europe.

To read on click here

Comment: Several points to state once again: First, sanctions do not work if all the participating countries do not agree to honor them even if it hurts their bottom line; Second,Iran knew and continues to know that it can "play" Western countries off one another using specific incentives and it is not only money; Third, this action by these two countries demonstrates for the "umpteenth time" the absolute failure of the Obama Administration's foreign policy-he has not ,could not and can not get these countries to support basically what are USA sanction requests. His so-called power of persuasion is null and void. His rhetoric only plays in the USA, others are not fooled at all. Finally, always follow the money.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk