US to 'choke' Iranian banks

[bishop]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...301613,00.html

WASHINGTON - According to a Saturday report by the Washington Post, the Bush administration has intensified efforts to 'choke off' the ability of Iranian banks to transfer funds to Hizbullah and Palestinian terror organizations, and subsequently, to hamper these organizations' ability to acquire weapons technology. The US, in the past, has succeeded in barring al-Qaeda access to funds by cutting off suspect banks and firms from the international banking system. It recently began to take the same steps with regards to Iran and the initiative has gathered steam in recent weeks, even as US-led efforts to facilitate UN sanctions against Iran for its nuclear activities have slowed. Pursuant to the war in Lebanon and the threat of Hizbullah rearmament, the Bush administration decided not to wait for UN sanctions to take effect before operating to cut off funds to Hizbullah.

[shield772]

This is a good thing.

[PatrickHenry]

US hegemony...

[jose]

i cant find this story "US to 'choke' Iranian banks" anywhere but on Israels ynetnews
from your link
¨Iranian banks are already barred from doing business directly with US banks, but US banks are permitted – in what are known as 'U-turn' transactions - to process payments involving Iran that begin and end with a non-Iranian foreign bank¨

[bishop]

you're just using bad keywords.. there are lots of other sources with the same story, just different headlines.. here's one more.

U.S. cracks down on Iranian bank

these "u-turn" transactions ought to be prevented, especially since that's one of the easiest ways for iran to finance hezbollah - an activity in violation of the unsc resolution.

and, the only reason why the europeans and us are freezing iranian assets is because china and russia refuse to hold iran to account.

[xyzer]

I'm not sure this....

US hegemony

fits the definition for a financial sanction resulting from just one nations foreign policy. I haven't read that any of the US allies have done the same thing Patrick? Do you have some indication of that? I realize it will have political implications..

[Lee]

It is nice to try to control funds that may flow to terrorists; however, what fraction of the oil that we consume goes into their pockets.

I have always been amazed at the people who have those support our troops ribbons on their gas consuming vehicles; they leave their cars running outside the postoffice; if one has to walk a block, it is better to drive there.

Terrorists will always have wealth as long as we buy oil in that part of the world.

Basically this country feeds those who want to kill us; we do an excellent job of supporting OPEC.

Support our troops.... Don't drive..... Walk..... Take a bicycle.... You need the exercise.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Lee It is nice to try to control funds that may flow to terrorists; however, what fraction of the oil that we consume goes into their pockets.

Exactly. By keeping them in the civilized banking system, at least we can track their monetary transactions. Forcing them to develop alternative methods may cost us that bit of intel. In addition, we may even give them the incentive to start pricing their oil in Euros.

[Lee]

Sure the isolation of funds will hamper terrorist operations on a case by case basis.

Yet, we remain at least amongst the top of the world's arms retailers. The sheer volume of wealth flowing in their direction will just mean that terrorists will set up other accounts.

The growing demand by China and others for oil does not help.

I believe that we have used this same technique against organized crime in this country.

If we have bankrupted organized crime here at home, then maybe we can do it elsewhere.

[xyzer]

Yet, we remain at least amongst the top of the world's arms retailers. The sheer volume of wealth flowing in their direction will just mean that terrorists will set up other accounts.

Is this an indictment of the free enterprise system?
Does the production and sale or armaments make the seller or producer,guilty for how the product is used?
Its the finger that pulls the trigger that kills the foe. its the animate, not the inanimate object thats guilty!

[Matt W]

Quote by: xyzer Does the production and sale or armaments make the seller or producer,guilty for how the product is used?

Just an observation - but quite a lot of weapons - such as cluster bombs, etc - are often sold with several provisios about where & when they can be used. For example - Hawk Jets sold to Indonesia by the UK had the condition attached that they wouldn't be used against insurgents (such as in East Timor), and more recently, cluster bombs sold by the US to Israel were sold only with the agreement that they would be used in formal conflicts - ie army to army.

So, I would hazard that the perception at this moment in time is that the manufacturer cannot claim innocence. If you manufacture mines and then sell them to an African despot....well. Ignorance, as they say, is no excuse.

[webjedi]

Quote by: Zeebadee By keeping them in the civilized banking system, at least we can track their monetary transactions. Forcing them to develop alternative methods may cost us that bit of intel.

Good point, but if they are frozen out of mainstream banks they will need to trade in some fungible asset, and that would make it impossible (or very difficult) to do business in Iran.

In addition, we may even give them the incentive to start pricing their oil in Euros.

Not if the Europeans follow suit. According to the article Swiss banks cut ties with Iran "earlier this year." How can we be considered to be "blazing a trail" that others have already walked on?

Quote by: Matt W If you manufacture mines and then sell them to an African despot....well. Ignorance, as they say, is no excuse.

Who in the World actually believes the rhetoric that a country is only going to use the weapons for agreed-upon purposes? They'll use it for whatever they need it for. 'Plausible deniability' is BS - plain and simple.

Did anyone see Khatami's speech at Harvard? Very disturbing.

::

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: webjedi Not if the Europeans follow suit.

Good luck. Europe is even more dependent of Iranian oil than we are.

[rmnunez]

I think the financial sector focus could work, that the US and Anglosphere control enough banking to put a serious crimp on Iranian banking capabilities. This will boost their transactional costs and cost them lots of money in intermediaries. Iranian oil wealth will buffer the impact, but if the banking institutions cooperate globally this will have impact despite Iranian oil revenues.

[Lee]

Chemical weapons sold to Hussein by Dow Chemical and other companies were used by Hussein to gas people who lived in Iraq such as the Kurds. The intent was for use against Iran.

On one hand this country tries to forestall terrorism by choking off funds; on the other hand, we arm the terrorists directly or indirectly by our gasoline usage and weapon's sales.

Sure go for free enterprise. Leave those engines running and support our troops.

[rmnunez]

That was then and this is now, 911 in between.

[webjedi]

Anglosphere - learned a new word today.

On one hand this country tries to forestall terrorism by choking off funds; on the other hand, we arm the terrorists directly or indirectly by our gasoline usage and weapon's sales.

Well that's the nature of the beast in geopolitics. If we hadn't given Osama Stinger missiles the Taliban mujahideen would never have defeated the Soviets, yet he turns around and attacks us. We liberate France from the NAZIs and when we need them at the UN where are they? We liberate China from Japanese rule and oppression and now they are our greatest threat.

What we need to do is pass some protectionist laws (if you want to call it that) that make it difficult to gain access to the American market for countries that are opposed to us. The temporary problems this would create in getting cheap products would be corrected by natural market forces.

[bishop]

Quote by: Zeebadee Good luck. Europe is even more dependent of Iranian oil than we are.

which is why it says a lot to see european banks freezing iranian assets.

one of these sanctioned banks in question has transferred $50 million to hezbollah in 2004 if my memory's correct.. if we are to hold countries to account for ceasefire resolutions, then financial transactions like this should not be permitted to occur. unless we want to force one side to obey the rules but ignore the other.

iran is blackmailing the europeans, threatening to hold back oil exports if europe agrees with sanctions - sanctions on a regime illegally producing nuclear weapons (for who knows what purpose, but we should be very wary).. i wonder what sorts of games, if any, they might try to pull whenever they do develop a nuke.

[xyzer]

Lee..

Chemical weapons sold to Hussein by Dow Chemical and other companies were used by Hussein to gas people who lived in Iraq such as the Kurds. The intent was for use against Iran

Dow Chemicals is not in the weapons making business. They make and mix chemical agents primarily for industrial use!.
Which brings up the possibility that playing the blame game in such matters could well involve everyone that manufactured any one component in the final weapon! We might even indict the transportation entity that delivered it or its components , the banks that handled the transactions and so on..ad infinitum!

[bishop]

guys... these bits about dow and iraq aren't remotely on topic here...