© IRAN-RESIST.ORG – May 25, 2010 | While we talk about new sanctions against the mullahs and their trade partners (European, Chinese or Russian), an American former senior civil servant revealed that 18 American banks were keeping relations with some Iranian financial establishments that are mentioned on the American black list. In the same way, in April 2009, the mullahs revealed that the main American banks offered them to go further by opening branches in Tehran. In June 2009, London revealed that Washington authorized in secret the Indians to maintain high level trade relations with the mullahs. Yesterday the mullahs themselves announced they won an important Indian oil call for offer that was launched in September 2009 which would not happen without the American’s approval. Washington plays a double game with the mullahs but with the international community as well.

We will never stop repeating it : Washington needs Iran’s oil and gas ; it needs Iran as an access corridor to Central Asia and Caucasia which abound in gas. At last, it needs especially the mullahs who are the idols of the Muslim street in order to induce Islamic revolutions in those both Muslim regions, create new countries and thus abolish the European, Chinese or Russian oil deals which were closed with the current States of this region. Washington covets particularly the position of leader of the world oil market (which is detained by the United Kingdom since 1908) in order to slow down China’s economic progress. However the mullahs cannot accept any agreement or even any dialogue because Washington protects Israel. Our turbaned friends would loose immediately the support of the Arab street, a support which gives them a true nuisance and haggling power. The mullahs were susceptible to some agreement if Washington would give them the right to dispose of such weapon. But such exigency is impossible because Washington needs a docile ally and not a quarrelsome and bargaining ally, which leads to sanctions. This consists in prohibiting any investment superior to 20 million dollars in the Iranian oil field which represents a catastrophe for a state-controlled economy whose sole currency resources come from oil field. By depriving the mullahs from currency, Washington tried to upset the economy in order to put the social peace in Iran at risk and then to intimidate the mullahs and force them to accept its invitation to reconcile via dialogue.

One of the essential rules of the American economic war of attrition against the mullahs is mostly the avoidance of sanctions that would be too harsh and that would overthrow those unique and irreplaceable future allies. Thus sanctions are applied with some springiness and many infringements to the rules are enacted to others by Washington. Lately, Washington asked to two of its most important partners, Turkey and Brazil, to oppose to any new sanction at the Security Council.

However the aim is not to spare the mullahs but to force them to turn towards the United States, that’s why sanctions are very harsh for the non-American companies that are active in Iran. But they are quite supple for the States that are linked with Washington and for American companies such as the 18 banks that were denounced by Avi Jorish, a former senior civil servant of the American public revenue office, or the 5 great banks that wish to settle in Tehran. Thanks to this much partial approach, Washington deprived Tehran from any alternative by making available the sole American alternative. It also remained in contact in order to obtain information about the state of the Iranian economy, indices that are indispensable to shape its pressures and then avoid the collapse of its future ally. In the meantime, Washington also deprived its competitors such as China, Russia, Europe and particularly United Kingdom from their pricy and much profitable oil contracts in Iran.

But this much ingenious policy didn’t overcome the mullahs’ reticence but they have too much to loose. The mullahs refused any appeasement and meanwhile China extended its hold on Central Asia right before it settled in Africa in a certain place named Darfur. Washington which is in a rush to slow down Chinese progress in its favourite field was then forced to offer more than the alternative of the end of sanctions or bank facilities : it started mediation missions via its trade partners (India, Turkey, Emirates) in order to offer invitations to dialogue that would be adorned with offers of investment in Iran on the condition of an entente. If Tehran had accepted, such promises would have beaten out the countries that are sanctioned by Washington such as France which has normally priority.

In 2009, the United Kingdom, the biggest potential victim of an Iranian-American strategic alliance, denounced via its press agency Reuters that Washington authorized in secret India to purchase Iranian oil after it forbade it publicly to do it. Actually if there was a point to denounce some inappropriate behaviour, there was nothing illegal considering existing sanctions because they prevent the economic partners of the United States from investing in Iranian oil and gas field but nothing was specified regarding the sale of barrels. Nevertheless we can point out that since years the mullahs have sold the operating rights to foreign companies and thus they did not own the barrels they were about to sell to the Indians. In other words, the authorization that was given for this purchase was a kind of montage to inject money into the Iranian economy and thus prevent its collapse from happening.

In January 2010, Reuters as well revealed that Washington authorized Iraq to close a 600 million dollars deal for the import of Iranian fuel. Firstly, such information surprised the British because of the very high cost price of this fuel (USD 7 to 10 per litre). Secondly it surprised because since many years Iran has to import almost 75% of its fuel needs and then it cannot be a fuel exporter. This showed that Washington just renewed the operation of punctual injection of cash in the Iranian economy. This happened at a time when the regime was facing important economic difficulties which made the Bazari want to drop it.

Three days ago (2009, 22 May), there were some new revelations about Washington’s presents but this time, they didn’t came from a British source but from the regime itself which needs to reassure the Bazari.

Tehran disclosed that the Iranian oil company IOEC (owned by Rafsanjani) won as part of a consortium made with the Indian company Essar Offshore an important call for offer related to the building of 3 platforms on a deposit of the Indian company ONGC off Mumbai. Tehran implied that the participation of Essar was due to a local legal obligation and insinuated that this company would benefit almost exclusively from the 235 million dollars that will be paid by ONGC to the consortium EOSSL. It didn’t hesitate to remind that this consortium already won a call for offer of 212 million dollars in 2009 and that it expected the results of other Indian calls for offer whose global amount would reach 1.7 billion dollars and to which it answered in 2009. The most expected result is the one of the call for offer B193/SSPL.

However, contrary to the mullahs’ assertions, ESSAR is a much powerful holding and IOEC is not specialized in the building of oil platforms. It is even unable to end by itself the works related to the installations of South Pars deposit. Thus this is again a new montage such as the one of the sale of inexistent fuel barrels to the Iraqis.

With the aim to obtain an entente, Washington, which imagined some indirect sanctions, is trying right now to behave deviously to reduce their impact. Here is a thing which will not prompt the mullahs to get more docile.

The french version of this article :
- Exclusif - Iran : Washington contourne ses propres sanctions
- (25 MAI 2010)

All our articles in English...

| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Rétablir les rel. avec les USA & Négociations directes |
| Mots Clefs | Décideurs : OBAMA |
| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Apaisement |

| Mots Clefs | Instituions : Politique Economique des mollahs |

| Mots Clefs | Enjeux : Sanctions (du Conseil de Sécurité) |

| Mots Clefs | Pays : Grande-Bretagne |
| Mots Clefs | Auteurs & Textes : selon Reuters |