02-17-08, 10:48 PM #1
Haliburton sells nuke stuff to Iran
#2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
Global Research.ca, August 5, 2005
Title: “Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team”
Author: Jason Leopold
Faculty Evaluator: Catherine Nelson
Student Researchers: Kristine Medeiros and Pla Herr
According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies.
Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish, to develop oil projects in Iran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information.
Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton first became public knowledge in January 2005 when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars gas-drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered to the Cayman Islands. Following the announcement, Halliburton claimed that the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. According to a BBC report, Halliburton, which took thirty to forty million dollars from its Iranian operations in 2003, “was winding down its work due to a poor business environment.”
However, Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. Leopold quotes a February 2001 report published in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is “non-American.” But like the sign over the receptionist’s head, the brochure bears the company’s name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.” Moreover mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.
In an attempt to curtail Halliburton and other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations such as Libya, Iran, and Syria, an amendment was approved in the Senate on July 26, 2005. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Susan Collins R-Maine, would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct and avoid U.S. sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
A letter, drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives, vehemently objected to the amendment, saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the U.S. and “greatly strain relations with the United States primary trading partners.” The letter warned that, “Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals.”
Collins supports the legislation, stating, “It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism—most often aimed against America.
UPDATE BY JASON LEOPOLD
During a trip to the Middle East in March 1996, Vice President Dick Cheney told a group of mostly U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships, a statement that, in hindsight, is completely hypocritical considering the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”
Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Corporation at the time he uttered those words. It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran—in violation of U.S. law—in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees.
If the U.S. ends up engaged in a war with Iran in the future, Cheney and Halliburton will bear the brunt of the blame.
But this shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Halliburton’s business activities over the past decade. The company has a long, documented history of violating U.S. sanctions and conducting business with so-called rogue nations.
No, what’s disturbing about these facts is how little attention it has received from the mainstream media. But the public record speaks for itself, as do the thousands of pages of documents obtained by various federal agencies that show how Halliburton’s business dealings in Iran helped fund terrorist activities there—including the country’s nuclear enrichment program.
When I asked Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, a couple of years ago if Halliburton would stop doing business with Iran because of concerns that the company helped fund terrorism she said, “No.” “We believe that decisions as to the nature of such governments and their actions are better made by governmental authorities and international entities such as the United Nations as opposed to individual persons or companies,” Hall said. “Putting politics aside, we and our affiliates operate in countries to the extent it is legally permissible, where our customers are active as they expect us to provide oilfield services support to their international operations. “We do not always agree with policies or actions of governments in every place that we do business and make no excuses for their behaviors. Due to the long-term nature of our business and the inevitability of political and social change, it is neither prudent nor appropriate for our company to establish our own country-by-country foreign policy.”
Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions.
An executive order signed by former President Bill Clinton in March 1995 prohibits “new investments (in Iran) by U.S. persons, including commitment of funds or other assets.” It also bars U.S. companies from performing services “that would benefit the Iranian oil industry” and provide Iran with the financial means to engage in terrorist activity.
When Bush and Cheney came into office in 2001, their administration decided it would not punish foreign oil and gas companies that invest in those countries. The sanctions imposed on countries like Iran and Libya before Bush became president were blasted by Cheney, who gave frequent speeches on the need for U.S. companies to compete with their foreign competitors, despite claims that those countries may have ties to terrorism.
“I think we’d be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions (on Iran), didn’t try to impose secondary boycotts on companies . . . trying to do business over there . . . and instead started to rebuild those relationships,” Cheney said during a 1998 business trip to Sydney, Australia, according to Australia’s Illawarra Mercury newspaper.
02-17-08, 10:55 PM #2
Didn't US exports to Iran do something like triple over the past couple of years ?
02-19-08, 06:05 AM #3
The odd thing about the sales above is that Haliburton is directly connected to Cheney. In fact he makes money, lots of it, every time they make a sale. So he has made money off of sales of nuclear products to a country Bush has been selling to us as evil and a threat because of their nuke tech. You would think this would be an issue to be sorted out.
02-19-08, 07:19 AM #4
It's like posting messages here. You can't count on being within the rules even when you are working within the rules.
02-19-08, 07:34 AM #5
Great another act of hypocrisy by the great Bush Administration. when will people see ? If they don't. They will be the one suffering.
02-19-08, 07:40 AM #6
We are suffering, with the loss of thousands of our young adults, tremendous damage to the health of hundreds of thousands, and a crap economy. How are we supposed to produce a healthy next generation without money for food and shelter?
02-19-08, 08:11 AM #7
02-19-08, 02:06 PM #8
Not surprising, really. All our leaders do this kinda crap, manipulating the future. Heck, Donald Rumsfeld was on the company board who gave North Korea their nuclear gear as well. The reason why they seem to know so much about the things we accuse those countries of is because they have first-hand knowledge of the sales, but they don't wanna admit to it, heh. All of this is a game.
02-19-08, 02:18 PM #9
I am not suprised at all.
Next we are gonna learn that we provided the training for the hijackers on 9/11.
02-19-08, 03:45 PM #10
02-19-08, 03:46 PM #11
02-19-08, 04:23 PM #12
That's business, it shouldn't be illegal.
02-19-08, 05:50 PM #13decantemixGuest
If true, it's still not my favorite planned leak.
The Chinese walking off with optical media as well as the writers from Los Alamos is my favorite.
Close 2nd is the female government agent whom 'loss possession' of a lap top, with many, many critical components as in descriptions of operations. This is now describes as VA names/addresses. Although, initially it was described for what it was: Highly classified documentation of an 'ongoing' conflict with entities as yet undetermined/unclassified.
Good stuff, that one. Caused quite a few breeches. Including the British gentlemen who used some of the available codes to infiltrate the DOD and many bases. As well as non-military instillations used in this data gathering. I think he pulled what, about 8.2TB of info, before they realized he was unauthorized?
By S.A.M. in forum World EventsLast Post: 02-11-08, 08:42 AMReplies: 47
By Brian Foley in forum World EventsLast Post: 01-09-08, 10:31 PMReplies: 64
By madanthonywayne in forum World EventsLast Post: 01-02-08, 01:14 PMReplies: 444
By sandy in forum World EventsLast Post: 12-22-07, 04:42 AMReplies: 131
By Kiwi123 in forum World EventsLast Post: 11-08-05, 08:54 PMReplies: 26