For instance, the same week that Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg boasted of assurances from Royal Dutch Shell that the company would not invest in Iran, the British press reported that Shell had increased its import of Iranian crude oil and paid $1.5 billion to Tehran. Royal Dutch Shell, it could be argued, essentially just pumped $1.5 billion into the lifeblood of Irans coffers, which could be used to finance its nuclear-weapons program and support its terror subsidiaries, Hamas and Hezbollah. Why is the U.S State Department issuing public relations statements for a company that is turning the U.S. sanctions strategy into a theater of the absurd?
October 5, 2010
By Benjamin Weinthal
Berlin Pres. Barack Obama chose last week to sanction the Swiss-based Naftiran Intertrade (NICO) energy-trading company for violating the recently enhanced U.S Iran Sanctions Act, which bars significant investments in Irans energy and gas sectors.
Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are well-versed in Saul Alinskys Rules for Radicals, yet they are failing to apply its core ideas to their Iran policy. Alinsky, after all, took to heart Frederick Douglasss imperative: Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Unfortunately, the U.S. State Departments meek approach toward sanctions enforcement was on display in the handling of NICO, a subsidiary of Irans national oil company, which has no economic presence in the United States.