< Back to Current Version

Iran Sanctions

Changes from May 26, 2010 to June 23, 2010

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


Iran Sanctions Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs May 26June 23, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS20871 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Iran Sanctions Summary Numerous U.S. laws and regulations have been adopted to try to slow Iran’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and curb its support for militant groups. The U.S. belief is that sanctions can reduce the revenue available to Iran’s government to support these activities sanctions, particularly those targeting Iran’s energy sector, which provides about 80% of government revenues, can reduce Iran’s ability to support its WMD programs and generate domestic pressure within Iran to adopt policies more acceptable to the international community. Some United Nations sanctions have been imposed since 2006, with many of those same objectives, although more narrowly targeted to avoid harming the civilian population of Iran. The wide range of U.S. sanctions restrict U.S. trade with and investment in Iran, prohibit U.S. foreign aid to Iran, and require the United States to vote against international lending to Iran. Several laws and executive orders authorize the imposition of U.S. penalties against foreign companies that do business with Iran, as part of an effort to persuade foreign firms to choose between the Iranian market and the much larger U.S. market. Foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms remain generally exempt from the trade ban since they operate under the laws of the countries where these subsidiaries are incorporated. Successive U.S. Administrations have identified sanctioning Iran’s energy sector as a key because Iran’s government revenues are approximately 80% dependent on oil revenues and in need of substantial foreign investment. A U.S. effortU.S. efforts to curb international energy investment in Iran’s energy sector began in 1996 with the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), but no firms have been sanctioned under it. Still, ISA, when coupled with broader factors, may have influenced some international firms’ decisions to refrain from investing in energy projects in Iran. Iran has been unable to expand oil production beyond 4.1 million barrels per day, although it does now have a gas export sector that it did not have before Iran opened its fields to foreign investment in 1996. In an effort to exploit Iran’s dependence on imports of gasoline, in the 111th Congress, H.R. 2194 (which awaits conference action expected in late June awaits action on a conference report submitted June 23, 2010), would add as ISA violations selling refined gasoline to Iran; providing shipping insurance or other services to deliver gasoline to Iran; or supplying equipment to or performing the construction of oil refineries in Iran. The Senate version would also addconference report adds a broad range of other measures further restricting the already limited limited amount of U.S. trade with Iran. The effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions on Iran, by most accounts, is unclear. Some Iranian economic sectors have clearly been harmed by sanctions, but any such effects have not, to date, caused a demonstrable shift in Iran’s commitment to its nuclear program. The sanctions have also fostered a growing perception that Iran is an international outcast, demonstrated by the announcement over the past two years by several major international firms that they are ending their business pursuits in Iran. To try to further Iran’s isolation and strengthen the domestic opposition, the Obama Administration and Congress appear to be increasingly emphasizing further measures that would sanction Iranian officials who are human rights abusers, facilitate the democracy movement’s access to information, and express outright U.S. support for the opposition. For a broader analysis of policy on Iran, see CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, by The June 22, 2010, conference agreement on H.R. 2194 follows the June 9, 2010, adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposes a ban on sales of heavy weapons to Iran and sanctions many additional Iranian entities affiliated with its Revolutionary Guard, but does not mandate the stronger measures sought by the United States such as sanctions on Iran’s energy or broad financial sector. The effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions on Iran, by most accounts, is unclear. Iran’s oil production has fallen to about 3.8 million barrels per day, from over 4 million barrels per day several years ago, although Iran now has a gas export sector that it did not have before Iran opened its fields to foreign investment in 1996. Some Iranian economic sectors have clearly been harmed by sanctions, but any such effects have not, to date, caused a demonstrable shift in Iran’s commitment to its nuclear program. The sanctions have, to some extent, fostered a growing perception that Iran is an international outcast, demonstrated by the announcement over the past two years by several major international firms that they are ending their business pursuits in Iran. To try to further Iran’s isolation and strengthen the domestic opposition, the Obama Administration and Congress appear to be increasingly emphasizing further measures that would sanction Iranian officials who are human rights abusers, facilitate the democracy movement’s access to information, and express outright U.S. support for the opposition. For a broader analysis of policy on Iran, see CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, by Kenneth Katzman. Congressional Research Service Iran Sanctions Contents Overview ....................................................................................................................................1 The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) ......................................................................................................1 Legislative History and Provisions ........................................................................................2 Key Provisions/”Triggers” and Available Sanctions .........................................................2 Available Sanctions Under ISA .......................................................................................3 Waiver and Termination Authority...................................................................................3 ISA Sunset ......................................................................................................................4 Implementation, Effectiveness, and Ongoing Challenges.......................................................4 Application to Energy Routes..........................................................................................4 Application to Energy Purchases From or Sales to Iran....................................................6 Application to Iranian Firms or the Revolutionary Guard ................................................6 Effectiveness of ISA .......................................................................................................6 Efforts in the 111th Congress to Expand ISA Application to Gasoline Production and Sales—H.R. 2194 ..............................................................................................................87 Legislation in the 111th Congress .....................................................................................9 Administration Review of Potential ISA Violations ....................................................... 1517 Ban on U.S. Trade and Investment With Iran............................................................................. 2123 Application to Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Firms ............................................................... 2224 Treasury Department “Targeted Financial Measures” ................................................................ 2426 Terrorism List Designation-Related Sanctions ........................................................................... 2527 Executive Order 13224 ....................................................................................................... 2628 Proliferation-Related Sanctions ................................................................................................. 2629 Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act ................................................................................... 2729 Iran-Syria-North Korea Nonproliferation Act ...................................................................... 2729 Executive Order 13382 ....................................................................................................... 2729 Foreign Aid Restrictions for Suppliers of Iran...................................................................... 2729 Implementation ................................................................................................................... 2730 Relations to International Sanctions........................................................................................... 2830 European/Japanese/Other Foreign Country Policy on Sanctions and Trade Agreements........... and Trade Agreements..................................................................................................... 29 32 World Bank Loans ........................................................................................................ 3033 Efforts to Promote Divestment .................................................................................................. 3133 Sanctions and Other Proposals to Support Iran’s Opposition...................................................... 3134 Expanding Internet and Communications Freedoms ............................................................ 3134 Measures to Sanction Human Rights Abuses and Promote the Opposition ........................... 3235 Blocked Iranian Property and Assets ......................................................................................... 3235 Tables Table 1. Comparison of House and SenateMajor Versions of H.R. 2194................................................................ 10 Table 2. Post-1999 Major Investments/Major Development Projects in Iran’s Energy Sector ................ Sector.................................................................................................................... 17 19 Congressional Research Service Iran Sanctions Table 3. Summary of Provisions of U.N. Resolutions on Iran Nuclear Program (1737, 1747, and 1803) 1803, and 1929)..................................................................................................................... 28 32 Table 4. Entities Sanctioned Under U.N. Resolutions and U.S. Laws and Executive Orders....................................... Orders ............................................................................................. 34 36 Contacts Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 4043 Congressional Research Service Iran Sanctions Overview The Obama Administration’s overall policy approach toward Iran has contrasted with the Bush Administration’s by actively engaging Iran in negotiations on the nuclear issue, rather than focusing only on increasing sanctions on Iran. That approach was not initially altered because of the Iranian dispute over its June 12, 2009, elections. However, with subsequent negotiations yielding no firm Iranian agreement to compromise, the Administration has turned its focus to imposing additional “biting“biting” or “crippling” U.N. sanctions against Iran. While international sanctions on Iran International sanctions on Iran (the latest of which are imposed by Resolution 1929, adopted June 9, 2010) are a relatively recent (post-2006) development. However, Iran has long been subject to one of the most stringent U.S. sanctions regime of any country in the world. Many of these sanctions overlap each other as well as the several U.N. sanctions imposed since 2006 because of Iran’s nuclear program development. While seeking to increase international sanctions against Iran, the Administration has begun to also alter some U.S. regulations to help Iran’s domestic opposition and undermine the pillars of Iran’s regime. In February 2010, the Administration Administration sanctioned additional firms linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which were a particular target of Resolution 1929. The . The Administration also has modified U.S. regulations to allow U.S. Internet software to reach Iran— a move that appears to support a congressional trend to try to help the domestic opposition in Iran. President Obama renewed for another year the U.S. trade and investment ban on Iran (Executive Order 12959) in March 2010. A particular focus of Iran-related legislation in the 111th Congress has been to expand the provisions of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) to apply to sales to Iran of gasoline and related equipment and services. ISA, in its current form, has caused differences of opinion between the United States and its European allies ever since its adoption in 1996 because it mandates U.S. imposition of sanctions on foreign firms. The Administration has sought to ensure that the congressional sanctions initiative does not hamper cooperation with key international partners whose support is needed to adopt stricter international sanctions. Still, the growing sentiment in the United States and Europe for additional international and national sanctions against Iran has caused some major international firms—some foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms and some completely international firms—to pull out of the Iranian market in order not to jeopardize their businesses in these larger markets. The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) is one among many U.S. sanctions in place against Iran. It has attracted substantial attention because it authorizes penalties against foreign firms, many of which are incorporated in countries that are allies of the United States. In the past, U.S. allies have objected to banning trade with Iran and to the U.S. imposition of sanctions, such as ISA, that apply to non-U.S. companies. This opposition has been despite the fact that most European countries share the U.S. goal of ensuring that Iran does not become a nuclear power. Congress and the Clinton Administration saw ISA as a potential mechanism to compel U.S. allies to join the United States in enacting trade sanctions against Iran. American firms are restricted from trading with or investing in Iran under separate U.S. executive measures, as discussed below. A bill now in conference in the 111th Congress proposes amending the act to curtail additional types of activity, such as selling gasoline and gasoline shipping services to Iran. Congressional Research Service 1 Iran Sanctions Legislative History and Provisions Originally called the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), ISA was enacted to try to deny Iran the resources to further its nuclear program and to support terrorist organizations such as Hizbollah, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad. Iran’s petroleum sector generates about 20% of Iran’s GDP, but its onshore oil fields and oil industry infrastructure are aging and need substantial investment. Its large natural gas resources (940 trillion cubic feet, exceeded only by Russia) were undeveloped when ISA was first enacted. Iran has 136.3 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third-largest after Saudi Arabia and Canada. The opportunity to try to harm Iran’s energy sector came in November 1995, when Iran opened its energy sector to foreign investment. To accommodate its ideology to retain control of its national resources, Iran used a “buy-back” investment program in which foreign firms recoup their investments from the proceeds of oil and gas discoveries but do not receive equity. With input from the Administration, on September 8, 1995, Senator Alfonse D’Amato introduced the “Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions Act” to sanction foreign firms’ exports to Iran of energy technology. A revised version instead sanctioning investment in Iran’s energy sector passed the Senate on December 18, 1995 (voice vote). On December 20, 1995, the Senate passed a version applying the provisions to Libya, which was refusing to yield for trial the two intelligence agents suspected in the December 21, 1988, bombing of Pan Am 103. The House passed H.R. 3107, on June 19, 1996 (415-0), and then concurred on a Senate version adopted on July 16, 1996 (unanimous consent). The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act was signed on August 5, 1996 (P.L. 104-172). Key Provisions/”Triggers” and Available Sanctions ISA consists of a number of “triggers”—transactions with Iran that would be considered violations of ISA and could cause a firm or entity to be sanctioned under ISA’s provisions. ISA provides a number of different sanctions that the President could impose that would harm a foreign firm’s business opportunities in the United States. ISA does not, and probably could not practically, compel any foreign government to take action against one of its firms. ISA requires the President to sanction companies (entities, persons) that make an “investment” of more than $20 million in one year in Iran’s energy sector,1 or that sell to Iran weapons of mass destruction (WMD) technology or “destabilizing numbers and types” of advanced conventional weapons.2 ISA is primarily targeting foreign firms, because American firms are already prohibited from investing in Iran under the 1995 trade and investment ban discussed earlier. There is no time frame for the Administration to determine that a firm has violated ISA’s provisions. P.L. 109-293, the “Iran Freedom Support Act” (signed September 30, 2006) amended 1 The definition of “investment” in ISA (Section 14 (9)) includes not only equity and royalty arrangements (including additions to existing investment, as added by P.L. 107-24) but any contract that includes “responsibility for the development of petroleum resources” of Iran. These definitions are interpreted by the State Department to include pipelines to or through Iran, as well as contracts to lead the construction, upgrading, or expansions of such energy related projects as refineries. However, the definition does not include sales of technology, goods, or services for such projects, or financing of such purchases. For Libya, the threshold was $40 million, and sanctionable activity included export to Libya of technology banned by Pan Am 103-related Security Council Resolutions 748 (March 31, 1992) and 883 (November 11, 1993). Under Section 4(d) of the Actact, for Iran, the threshold dropped to $20 million, from $40 million, one year after enactment, when U.S. allies did not join a multilateral sanctions regime against Iran. 2 This latter “trigger” was added by P.L. 109-293. Congressional Research Service 2 Iran Sanctions ISA by calling for, but not requiring, a 180-day time limit for a violation determination (there is no time limit in the original law). Other ISA amendments under that law included recommending against U.S. nuclear agreements with countries that supply nuclear technology to Iran and expanding provisions of the USA Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56) to curb money-laundering for use to further WMD programs. Earlier versions of legislation (H.R. 282, S. 333) that ultimately became P.L. 109-293 contained ISA amendment proposals that were viewed by the Bush Administration as too inflexible and restrictive, and potentially harmful to U.S. relations with its allies. These provisions included setting a mandatory 90-day time limit for the Administration to determine whether an investment is a violation; cutting U.S. foreign assistance to countries whose companies violate ISA; and applying the U.S.-Iran trade ban to foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms. Available Sanctions Under ISA Once a firm is determined to be a violator, ISA requires the imposition of two of a menu of six sanctions on that firm. The available sanctions the President can select from (Section 6) include 1. denial of Export-Import Bank loans, credits, or credit guarantees for U.S. exports to the sanctioned entity 2. denial of licenses for the U.S. export of military or militarily useful technology 3. denial of U.S. bank loans exceeding $10 million in one year 4. if the entity is a financial institution, a prohibition on its service as a primary dealer in U.S. government bonds; and/or a prohibition on its serving as a repository for U.S. government funds (each counts as one sanction) 5. prohibition on U.S. government procurement from the entity; and 6. restriction on imports from the violating entity, in accordance with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. 1701). Waiver and Termination Authority The President has the authority under ISA to waive sanctions if he certifies that doing so is important to the U.S. national interest (Section 9(c)). There was also waiver authority if the parent country of the violating firm joined a sanctions regime against Iran, but this waiver provision was changed by P.L. 109-293 to allow for a waiver determination based on U.S. vital national security interests. ISA application to Iran would terminate if Iran is determined by the Administration to have ceased its efforts to acquire WMD and is removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, and no longer “poses a significant threat” to U.S. national security and U.S. allies.3 The existing version of ISA (Section5(f)) also contains several exceptions such that the President is not required to impose sanctions that prevent procurement of defense articles and services under existing contracts, in cases where a firm is the sole source supplier of a particular defense 3 This latter termination requirement added by P.L. 109-293. This law also removed Libya from the Actact, although application to Libya effectively terminated when the President determined on April 23, 2004, that Libya had fulfilled the requirements of all U.N. resolutions on Pan Am 103. Congressional Research Service 3 Iran Sanctions article or service. The President also is not required to prevent procurement or importation of essential spare parts or component parts. In the 110th Congress, several bills contained provisions that would have further amended ISA, but they were not adopted. H.R. 1400, which passed the House on September 25, 2007 (397-16), would have removed the Administration’s ability to waive ISA sanctions under Section 9(c), national interest grounds, but it would not have imposed on the Administration a time limit to determine whether a project is sanctionable. ISA Sunset ISA was to sunset on August 5, 2001, in a climate of lessening tensions with Iran (and Libya). During 1999 and 2000, the Clinton Administration had eased the trade ban on Iran somewhat to try to engage the relatively moderate Iranian President Mohammad Khatemi. However, some maintained that Iran would view its expiration as a concession, and renewal legislation was enacted (P.L. 107-24, August 3, 2001). This law required an Administration report on ISA’s effectiveness within 24 to 30 months of enactment; that report was submitted to Congress in January 2004 and did not recommend that ISA be repealed. Currently, as discussed below, ISA is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2011 (as provided by P.L. 109-293). Implementation, Effectiveness, and Ongoing Challenges Traditionally reticent to impose economic sanctions, the European Union opposed ISA as an extraterritorial application of U.S. law and filed a formal complaint before the World Trade Organization (WTO). In April 1997, the United States and the EU agreed to avoid a trade confrontation over ISA and a separate Cuba sanctions law (P.L. 104-114). The agreement involved the dropping of the WTO complaint and the May 18, 1998, decision by the Clinton Administration to waive ISA sanctions (“national interest”—Section 9(c) waiver) on the first project determined to be in violation. That project was a $2 billion4 contract, signed in September 1997, for Total SA of France and its partners, Gazprom of Russia and Petronas of Malaysia to develop phases 2 and 3 of the 25-phase South Pars gas field. The EU pledged to increase cooperation with the United States on non-proliferation and counter-terrorism, and the Administration indicated future investments by EU firms in Iran would not be sanctioned.5 Since the Total/Petronas/Gazprom project in 1998, no projects have been determined as violations of ISA. As shown in Table 2 below, several foreign investment agreements have been agreed with Iran since the 1998 Total consortium waiver, although some have been stalled, not reached final agreement, or may not have resulted in actual production. Application to Energy Routes As noted in the footnote earlier, ISA’s definition of sanctionable “investment”—which specifies investment in Iran’s petroleum resources, defined as petroleum and natural gas—has been 4 Dollar figures for investments in Iran represent public estimates of the amounts investing firms are expected to spend over the life of a project, which might in some cases be several decades. 5 Text of announcement of waiver decision by then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, containing expectation of similar waivers in the future. http://www.parstimes.com/law/albright_southpars.html. Congressional Research Service 4 Iran Sanctions interpreted by successive administrations to include construction of energy routes to or through Iran. The Clinton and Bush Administrations used the threat of ISA sanctions to deter oil routes involving Iran and thereby successfully promoted an alternate route from Azerbaijan (Baku) to Turkey (Ceyhan). The route became operational in 2005. No determination of sanctionability was issued on a 1997 project viewed as necessary to U.S. ally Turkey—an Iran-Turkey natural gas pipeline in which each constructed the pipeline on its side of their border. State Department testimony stated that Turkey would be importing gas originating in Turkmenistan, not Iran, under a swap arrangement. However, direct Iranian gas exports to Turkey began in 2001, and, as shown in Table 2, in July 2007, a preliminary agreement was reached to build a second Iran-Turkey pipeline, through which Iranian gas would also flow to Europe. That agreement was not finalized during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Turkey in August 2008 because of Turkish commercial concerns but the deal remains under active discussion. On February 23, 2009, Iranian newspapers said Iran had formed a joint venture with a Turkish firm to export 35 billion cubic meters of gas per year to Europe; 50% of the venture would be owned by the National Iranian Gas Export Company (NIGEC). Iran and Kuwait reportedly are holding talks on the construction of a 350 mile pipeline that would bring Iranian gas to Kuwait. The two sides have apparently reached agreement on volumes (8.5 million cubic meters of gas would go to Kuwait each day) but not on price.6 In May 2009, Iran and Armenia inaugurated a natural gas pipeline between the two, built by Gazprom of Russia. Iran-India Pipeline Another pending pipeline project would run from Iran to India, through Pakistan (IPI pipeline). The three governments have stated they are committed tocarry Iranian gas, by pipeline, to Pakistan. India had been a part of the $7 billion project, which would take about three years to complete, but India did not sign a deal “finalization” that was signed by Iran and Pakistan on November 11, 2007. India had re-entered discussions on the project following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to India in April 2008, which also resulted in Indian firms’ winning preliminary Iranian approval to take equity stakes in the Azadegan oil field project and South Pars gas field Phase 12. India did not attend further talks on the project in September 2008, raising continued concerns on about three years to complete, but India was reported in June 2010 to be largely out of the project, not signing a memorandum finalizing the deal on June 12, 2010. Still, India might eventually reenter the project and Indian firms have won bids to take some equity stakes in various Iranian energy projects, as shown in the table below. India reportedly has been concerned about the security of the pipeline, the location at which the gas would be officially transferred to India, pricing of the gas, tariffs, and the source in Iran of the gas to be sold. Perhaps to address some of those concerns, but also perhaps to move forward whether or not India joins the project, in January 2009 Iran and Pakistan amended the proposed pricing formula for the exported gas to reflect new energy market conditions. However, there has been no evident movement on the project since that time. During the Bush Administration, During the Bush Administration, Secretary of State Rice on several occasions “expressed U.S. concern” about the pipeline deal or called it “unacceptable,” but no U.S. official in either the Bush or the Obama Administration has stated outright that it would be sanctioned. European Gas Pipeline Routes Iran also is attempting to position itself as a gas exporter to Europe. A potential project involving Iran is the Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Iranian gas to western Europe. Iran, 6 http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NDQ0OTY1NTU4; http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8901181055 Congressional Research Service 5 Iran Sanctions Turkey, and Austria reportedly have negotiated on that project. The Bush Administration did not support Iran’s participation in the project, and the Obama Administration apparently takes the same view, even though the project might make Europe less dependent on Russian gas supplies. Iran’s Energy Minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari said on April 2, 2009, that Iran is considering negotiating a gas export route—the “Persian Pipeline”—that would send gas to Europe via Iraq, Syria, and the Mediterranean Sea. 6 http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NDQ0OTY1NTU4; http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php? nn=8901181055. Congressional Research Service 5 Iran Sanctions Application to Energy Purchases From or Sales to Iran Major purchases of oil or natural gas from Iran would not appear to constitute violations of ISA, as it exists currently, because ISA sanctions investment in Iran, not trade with Iran (even in energy products). Nor do sales to Iran of equipment or services for Iran to build its own energy projects appear to meet the definition of investment under the Actact. Some of the deals listed in the chart later in this report involve combinations of investment and purchase. In March 2008, Switzerland’s EGL utility agreed to buy 194 trillion cubic feet per year of Iranian gas for 25 years, through a Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) to be built by 2010, a deal valued at over $15 billion. The United States criticized the deal as sending the “wrong message” to Iran. However, as testified by Under Secretary of State Burns on July 9, 2008, the deal appears to involve only purchase of Iranian gas, not exploration, and would likely not be considered an ISA violation. In August 2008, Germany’s Steiner-Prematechnik-Gastec Co. agreed to apply its method of turning gas into liquid fuel at three Iranian plants. Application to Iranian Firms or the Revolutionary Guard As noted above, any firm that meets the definition of investing in Iran’s energy sector under ISA could be determined to violate ISA. Although ISA is widely understood to apply to firms around the world that reach an investment agreement with Iran, the provisions could also be applied to Iranian firms and entities subordinate to the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), which is supervised by the Oil Ministry. However, such entities do not do business in the United States and would not likely be harmed by any of the penalties that would be imposed under ISA, if a violation were determined. Some of the major components of NIOC are: • The Iranian Offshore Oil Company; • The National Iranian Gas Export Co.; • National Iranian Tanker Company; and • Petroleum Engineering and Development Co. The actual construction and work is done through a series of contractors. Some of them, such as Khatam ol-Anbia and Oriental Kish, have been identified by the U.S. government as controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The relationship of other Iranian contractors to the Guard, if any, is unclear. Some of the Iranian contractor firms include: Pasargad Oil Co, Zagros Petrochem. Co, Sazeh Consultants, Qeshm Energy, Sadid Industrial Group, and others. Effectiveness of ISA U.S. administrations have maintained that, even without actually imposing ISA sanctions, the threat of imposing sanctions—coupled with Iran’s reputedly difficult negotiating behavior, and Congressional Research Service 6 Iran Sanctions compounded by Iran’s growing isolation because of its nuclear program—have combined to slow the development of Iran’s energy sector. As a result of sanctions and the overall climate of international isolation of Iran, its oil production has fallen somewhat to about 3.8 million barrels per day (mbd) from about 4.1 million barrels per day (mbd) in the mid-2000s. Some Members of Some Members of Congress believe that ISA would have been even more effective if successive administrations had imposed sanctions, and have expressed frustration that the executive branch has not imposed ISA sanctions. Congressional Research Service 6 Iran Sanctions Some observers maintain that, over and above the threat of ISA sanctions and the international pressure on Iran, it is Iran’s negotiating behavior that has slowed international investment in Iran’s energy sector. Some international executives that have negotiated with Iran say Iran insists on deals that leave little profit, and that Iran frequently seeks to renegotiate provisions of a contract after it is ratified. Some key energy investors in Iran, such as major European firms Repsol, Royal Dutch Shell, and Total, have announced pullouts from some of their Iran projects, declined to make further investments, or resold their investments to other companies. On July 12, 2008, Total and Petronas, the original South Pars investors, pulled out of a deal to develop a liquified natural gas (LNG) export capability at Phase 11 of South Pars, saying that investing in Iran at a time of growing international pressure over its nuclear program is “too risky.” Also in 2008, Japan significantly reduced its participation in the development of Iran’s large Azadegan field. Some of the void has been filled, at least partly, by Asian firms such as those of China and Malaysia. However, even if these agreements are implemented, these companies are perceived as not being as technically capable as those that have withdrawn from Iran. These trends have constrained Iran’s energy sector significantly; Iran’s deputy Oil Minister said in November 2008 that Iran needs about $145 billion in new investment over the next 10 years in order to build a thriving energy sector. As a result of sanctions and the overall climate of international isolation of Iran, its oil production has not grown—it remains at about 4.1 million barrels per day (mbd)—although it has not fallen either. Some With Iran’s oil production appearing to slip gradually, some analyses, including by the National Academy of Sciences, say that, partly because of growing domestic consumption, Iranian oil exports are declining to the point where Iran might Iran might have negligible exports of oil by 2015.7 Others maintain that Iran’s gas sector can more than compensate for declining oil exports, although it needs gas to re-injectreinject into its oil fields and remains a relatively minor gas exporter. It exports about 3.6 trillion cubic feet of gas, primarily to Turkey. A GAO study of December 2007, (GAO-08-58), contains a chart of post-2003 investments in Iran’s energy sector, totaling over $20 billion in investment, although the chart includes petrochemical and refinery projects, as well as projects that do not exceed the $20 million in one year threshold for ISA sanctionability. In the 110th Congress, several bills—including S. 970, S. 3227, S. 3445, H.R. 957 (passed the House on July 31, 2007), and H.R. 7112 (which passed the House on September 26, 2008)— would have (1) expanded the definition of sanctionable entities to official credit guarantee agencies, such as France’s COFACE and Germany’s Hermes, and to financial institutions and insurers generally; and (2) made investment to develop a liquified natural gas (LNG) sector in Iran a sanctionable violation. Iran has no LNG export terminals, in part because the technology for such terminals is patented by U.S. firms and unavailable for sale to Iran. 7 Stern, Roger. “The Iranian Petroleum Crisis and United States National Security,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. December 26, 2006. Congressional Research Service 7 Iran Sanctions Efforts in the 111th Congress to Expand ISA Application to Gasoline Production and Sales—H.R. 2194 ISA, as currently constituted, has limited evident applications to Iran’s gasoline dependency. Iran is dependent on gasoline imports to supply about 30%-4025%-35% of its gasoline needs. To try to reduce that dependence, Iran has plans to build or expand, possibly with foreign investment, at least eight refineries. Selling Iran equipment with which it can build or expand its refineries using its own construction capabilities would not appear to constitute “investment” under the current definition of ISA. However, taking responsibility for constructing oil refineries or petrochemical plants in 7 Stern, Roger. “The Iranian Petroleum Crisis and United States National Security,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. December 26, 2006. Congressional Research Service 7 Iran Sanctions Iran could constitute sanctionable projects under ISA because ISA’s definition of investment includes “responsibility for the development of petroleum resources located in Iran.” (Table 2 provides some information on openly announced contracts to upgrade or refurbish Iranian oil refineries.) It is not clear whether or not Iranian investments in energy projects in other countries, such as Iranian investment to help build five oil refineries in Asia (China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore) and in Syria, reported in June 2007, would constitute “investment” under ISA. Gasoline Sales As noted, selling or shipping gasoline to Iran does not appear to meet the definition of sanctionable activity under ISA. There appears to be a relatively limited group of major gasoline suppliers to Iran. In March 2010, several of them announced that they have stopped or would stop supplying gasoline to Iran.8 As noted in a New York Times report of March 7, 2010,9 some firms that have supplied Iran have received U.S. credit guarantees or contracts. The main suppliers to Iran and the status of their sales to Iran are • Vitol of Switzerland (which said in March 2010 it has stopped sales of gasoline to Iran);10 • Trafigura of Switzerland (which also says it has stopped sales); • Glencore of Switzerland; • Total of France; • Reliance Industries of India (reportedly has promised to end sales to Iran);11 • Petronas of Malaysia (said in mid-April 2010 it had stopped sales to Iran;12 • Lukoil of Russia (reportedly said in April 2010 that it will end sales to Iran);13 8 • Royal Dutch Shell of the Netherlands (which says it stopped sales to Iran in 2009);14 • British Petroleum of United Kingdom (told CRS in e-mail conversation in late 2009 that it is not selling gasoline to Iran); • ZhenHua Oil of China (China’s firms reportedly supply one-third of Iran’s gasoline imports);15 8 Information in this section derived from, Blas, Javier. “Traders Cut Iran Petrol Line.” Financial Times, March 8, 2010. 9 Becker, Jo and Ron Nixon. “U.S. Enriches Companies Defying Its Policy on Iran.” New York Times, March 7, 2010. 10 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11788115&Itemid=105. 11 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11788115&Itemid=105. 12 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/009370f0-486e-11df-9a5d-00144feab49a.html. 13 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11788115&Itemid=105 Congressional Research Service 8 Iran Sanctions • Royal Dutch Shell of the Netherlands (which says it stopped sales to Iran in 2009);14 • British Petroleum of United Kingdom (told CRS in e-mail conversation in late 2009 that it is not selling gasoline to Iran); • ZhenHua Oil of China (China’s firms reportedly supply one-third of Iran’s gasoline imports);15. 14 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11788115&Itemid=105. 15 Blas, Javier, Carola Hoyas, and Daniel Dombey. “Chinese Companies Supply Iran With Petrol.” Financial Times, September 23, 2009. Congressional Research Service 8 Iran Sanctions • Petroleos de Venezuela (reportedly reached a September 2009 deal to supply Iran with gasoline); • Kuwait’s Independent Petroleum Group supplies Iran;16 and • Munich Re, Allianz, and Hannover Re reportedly have exited the market for insuring gasoline shipments for Iran.17 The cessation of supplies to Iran by the large suppliers listed above, particularly Vitol, Glencore, and Trafigura, could affect Iran because they jointly supplied half of Iran’s imports of about 130,000 barrels per day worth of gasoline. Some accounts say refineries in Bahrain and UAE may have picked up some of the shortfall, in addition to the other suppliers listed above. Legislation in the 111th Congress A number of ideas to expand ISA’s application to gasoline sales to Iran have been advanced, although some believe that a sanction such as this would only be effective if it applied to all countries under a U.N. Security Council resolution rather than a unilateral U.S. sanction. In the 110th Congress, H.R. 2880 would have made sales to Iran of refined petroleum resources a violation of ISA. In the 111th Congress, a few initiatives have been adopted. Using U.S. funds to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with products from firms that sell over $1 million worth of gasoline to Iran is prevented by the FY2010 Energy and Water Appropriation (H.R. 3183, P.L. 111-85, signed October 28, 2009). A provision of the FY2010 consolidated appropriation (P.L. 111-117) would deny Eximbank credits to any firm that sells gasoline to Iran, provides equipment to Iran that it can use to expand its oil refinery capabilities, or performs gasoline production projects in Iran. The Senate version of a FY2011 defense authorization bill (S. 3454) would prohibit Defense Department contracts for companies that sell gasoline to Iran or otherwise violate ISA. In the past, some threats to sanction foreign gasoline sellers to IranIn the past, some threats to cut off U.S. credits have deterred sales to Iran. The Reliance Industries Ltd. of India decision to cease new sales of refined gasoline to Iran (as of December 31, 2008), mentioned above, came after several Members of Congress urged the Exim Bank of the United States to suspend assistance to Reliance, on the grounds that it was assisting Iran’s economy with the gas sales. The Exim Bank, in August 2008, had extended a total of $900 million in financing guarantees to Reliance to help it expand. 14 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11788115&Itemid=105 Blas, Javier, Carola Hoyas, and Daniel Dombey. “Chinese Companies Supply Iran With Petrol.” Financial Times, September 23, 2009. 16 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11788115&Itemid=105 17 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11788115&Itemid=105 15 Congressional Research Service 9 Iran Sanctions guarantees to Reliance to help it expand. Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA) and Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (H.R. 2194) In April 2009, several bills were introduced—H.R. 2194, S. 908, H.R. 1208, and H.R. 1985—that would amend ISA to make sanctionable efforts by foreign firms to supply refined gasoline to Iran or to supply equipment to Iran that could be used by Iran to expand or constructionconstruct oil refineries. H.R. 2194 and S. 908 were both titled the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (IRPSA). H.R. 2194 passed the House on December 15, 2009, by a vote of 412-12, with four others voting “present” and six others not voting. The opposing and “present” votes included 16 17 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11788115&Itemid=105. http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11788115&Itemid=105. Congressional Research Service 9 Iran Sanctions several Members who have opposed several post-September 11 U.S. military operations in the Middle East/South Asia region. A bill in the Senate, the “Dodd-Shelby Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act,” (S. 2799), was reported to the full Senate by the Senate Banking Committee on November 19, 2009, and passed the Senate, by voice vote, on January 28, 2010. It was adopted by the Senate under unanimous consent as a substitute amendment to H.R. 2194 on March 11, 2010, setting up conference action on the two versions of H.R. 2194. The Senate bill contains very similar provisions of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, but, as discussed in Table 1 below, adds provisions affecting U.S.-Iran trade and other issues. The House bill is considered more restrictive of presidential waiver authorities as pertaining to sanctioning firms that sell gasoline or related equipment and services to Iran. Conferees have been named in both chambers, and a public meeting of the conference, chaired by Representative Berman on the House side, and Senator Dodd on the Senate side, was held on April 28, 2010. Table 1. Comparison of House and SenateMajor Versions of H.R. 2194 House Version Senate Version Conference Report General Goals: Seeks to expand the authorities of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA, P.L. 104-172) to deter sales by foreign companies of gasoline to Iran. Contains provisions sanctioning Iran. Sanctions sales of gasoline to Iran similar to House version of H.R. H.R. 2194, but also would affect several other other U.S. sanctions against Iran already in place, including revoking revoking some exemptions to the U.S. ban on trade with Iran, and extending the U.S. trade ban with Iran to foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies. Statement of U.S. Policy on Sanctioning Iran’s Central Bank: Section 108 urges the President to use existing U.S. authorities to impose U.S. sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank or other Iranian banks engaged in proliferation or support of terrorist groups. Section2(c) and 3(a) state that it shall be U.S. policy to fully enforce ISA to encourage foreign governments: - to cease investing in Iran’s energy sector. - to sanction Iran’s Central Bank and other financial institutions that do business with the Iranian Central Bank (or any Iranian bank involved in proliferation or support of terrorist activities). Extension of ISA to Sales of Gasoline: Section 3(a) would amend ISA to make sanctionable: - the sale to Iran of equipment or services (of over $200,000 in value, or $500,000 combined sales in one year) that would enable Iran to maintain or expand its Congressional Research Service Such authorities could include Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act (31 U.S.C. 5318A), which authorizes designation of foreign banks as “of primary money laundering concern” and thereby cut off their relations with U.S. banks. Section 102(a) contains similar provisions regarding both gasoline sales and sales of equipment and services for Iran to expand its own refinery capacity. However, sets the aggregate one-year sale value at $1 million—double the level of the House bill. 10 Iran Sanctions House Version Senate Version domestic production of refined petroleum. -- or, the sale to Iran of refined petroleum products or ships, vehicles, or insurance or reinsurance to provide such gasoline to Iran (same dollar values as sale of equipment). Expansion of ISA Sanctions: Similar to House bill (Section 102(a)). Section 3(b) would mandate certain sanctions (not currently authorized by ISA) on sellers of the equipment, gasoline, or services described in Section 3(a) to include: - prohibition of any transactions in foreign exchange with sanctioned entity; - prohibition of credit or payments to the sanctioned entity; - and, prohibition on any transactions involving U.S.based property of the sanctioned entity. (These sanctions would be imposed in addition to the required two out of six sanctions currently specified in ISA.) U.S. Government Enforcement Mechanism: Section 3(b) also requires the heads of U.S. Government agencies to ensure that their agencies contract with firms that certify to the U.S. agency that they are not selling any of the equipment, products, or services to Iran (gasoline and related equipment and services) specified in Section 3(a). Section 103(b)(4) contains a similar provision, but mandates that the head of a U.S. agency may not contract with a person that meets criteria of sanctionability in the Act. Would not require the bidding/contracting firm to certify its own compliance, thereby placing the burden of verifying such compliance on the U.S. executive agency. The section contains certain penalties, such as prohibition on future bids for U.S. government contracts, to be imposed on any firm that makes a false certification about such activity. Additional Sanctions Against Suppliers of Nuclear, Missile, or Advanced Conventional Weapons Technology to Iran: No equivalent, although, as noted below, the Senate bill does contain several proliferation-related provisions. Section 3(c) provides an additional ISA sanction to be imposed on any country whose entity(ies) violate ISA by providing nuclear weapons-related technology or missile technology to Iran. The sanction to be imposed on such country is a ban on any nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and a prohibition on U.S. sales to that country of nuclear technology in accordance with such an agreement. The sanction can be waived if the President certifies to Congress that the country in question is taking effective actions against its violating entities. Alterations to Waiver and Implementation Provisions: No similar provisions Section 3(d)(1) imposes a requirement (rather than an non-binding exhortation in the existing law) that the Administration “immediately” initiate an investigation of Congressional Research Service 11 Iran Sanctions House Version Senate Version any potentially sanctionable activity under ISA. Section 3(d)(2) would require the President to certify that a waiver of penalties on violating entities described above is “vital to the national security interest of the United States.” rather than, as currently stipulated in ISA, is “important to the national interest of the United States.” Required Reports: Section 3(e) would amend ISA’s current Administration reporting requirements to also include an assessment of Iran’s support for militant movements and to acquire weapons of mass destruction technology. A new reporting requirement would be created (every six months) on firms providing Iran gasoline and related equipment and services specified above, as well as the names and dates of such activity, and any contracts such entities have with U.S. Government agencies. The required report is to include information on persons the President determines is affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), as well as persons providing material support to the IRGC ore conducting financial transactions with the IRGC or its affiliates. Section 107 contains a provision similar to the new reporting requirement of the House bill with regard to firms that sold gasoline and related equipment and services to Iran, and invested in Iran’s energy sector. The Senate bill does not require reporting on the IRGC that is stipulated in the House bill, or the report on IranG-20 trade. However, the Senate bill (Section 109) expresses the sense of Congress that the United States “continue to target” the IRGC for supporting terrorism, its role in proliferation, and its oppressive activities against the people of Iran. Also required is an Administration report, within one year of enactment, on trade between Iran and countries in the G-20. Expansion of ISA Definitions: Similar provision contained in Section 102(d). Section 3(f) would expand the definitions of investing entities, or persons, contained in ISA, to include: - export credit agencies. (Such a provision is widely considered controversial because export credit agencies are arms of their governments, and therefore sanctioning such agencies is considered a sanction against a government.) Termination Provisions: Title IV would terminate the Act’s provisions 30 days after the President certifies that Iran has: Section 3(g) would terminate sanctions against persons who are sanctioned, under the Act, for sales of WMDrelated technology, if the President certifies that Iran has ceased activities to acquire a nuclear device and has ceased enrichment of uranium and other nuclear activities. - and, has ceased the pursuit and development of WMD and ballistic missile technology. ISA Sunset: No similar provision - ceased support for international terrorism and qualifies for removal from the U.S. “terrorism list” Section 3(h) would extend all provisions of ISA until 2016. It is currently scheduled to “sunset” on December 31, 2011, as amended by the Iran Freedom Support Act (P.L. 109-293). Modification to U.S. Ban on Trade With and Investment in Iran: No provision Congressional Research Service Section 103(b)(1) would ban all imports of Iranian origin from the United States, with the exception of informational material. Currently, modifications to the U.S. trade ban with Iran (Executive Order 12959 of May 6, 1995) that became effective in 2000 permit imports of 12 Iran Sanctions House Version Senate Version Iranian luxury goods, such as carpets, caviar, nuts, and dried fruits. - Section 103(b)(2)) generally reiterates/codifies current provisions of U.S. trade ban related to U.S. exports to Iran. Provision would prohibit exports to Iran of all goods except food and medical devices, informational material, articles used for humanitarian assistance to Iran, or goods needed to ensure safe operation of civilian aircraft. Freezing of Assets/Travel Restriction on Revolutionary Guard and Related Entities and Persons. No provision Application of U.S. Trade Ban to Subsidiaries: No provision Sanctioning Certain Information Technology Sales to Iran: No provision Treasury Department Authorization No provision Hezbollah No specific provision, although, as noted above, the House bill does expand ISA reporting requirements to include Iran’s activities to support terrorist movements. Lebanese Hezbollah is named as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. State Department. Divestment No provisions Section 103(b)(3) mandates the President to freeze the assets of Iranian diplomats, IRGC, or other Iranian official personnel deemed a threat to U.S. national security under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). Provision would require freezing of assets of families and associates of persons so designated. Section 109 calls for a ban on travel of IRGC and affiliated persons. Section 104 would apply the provisions of the U.S. trade ban with Iran (Executive Order 12959) to subsidiaries of U.S. firms if the subsidiary is established or maintained for the purpose of avoiding the U.S. ban on trade with Iran . The definition of subsidiary, under the provision, is any entity that is more than 50% owned or is directed by a U.S. person or firm. Section 105 prohibits U.S. executive agencies from contracting with firms that export sensitive technology to Iran. “Sensitive technology” is defined as hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, or other technology that restricts the free flow of information in Iran or which monitor or restrict “speech” of the people of Iran. Section 106(b) authorizes $64.611 million for FY2010 (and “such sums as may be necessary” for FY2011 and 2012) for the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. The funds are authorized to ensure that countries such as Iran are not misusing the international financial system for illicit purposes. Iran is not mentioned specifically. $104.26 million is authorized by the section for FY2010 for the Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Section 110 contains a sense of Congress that the President impose the full range of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) on Hezbollah, and that the President renew international efforts to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon (as called for by U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701). Title II of the Senate bill (Section 203) prevents criminal, civil, or administrative action against any investment firm or officer or adviser based on its decision to divest from securities that: - have investments or operations in Sudan described in Congressional Research Service 13 Iran Sanctions House Version Senate Version the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 - or, engage in investments in Iran that would be considered sanctionable by the Senate bill. Prevention of Transshipment, Reexportation, or Diversion of Sensitive Items to Iran No provision Section 302 requires a report by the Director of National Intelligence that identifies all countries considered a concern to allow transshipment or diversion of WMD-related technology to Iran (technically: “items subject to the provision of the Export Administration Regulations”). Section 303 requires the Secretary of Commerce to designate a country as a “Destination of Possible Diversion Concern” if such country is considered to have inadequate export controls or is unwilling to prevent the diversion of U.S. technology to Iran. The provision stipulates government-to- government discussions are to take place to improve that country’s export control systems. If such efforts did not lead to improvement, the section would mandate designation of that country as a “Destination of Diversion Concern” and would set up a strict licensing requirement for U.S. exports of sensitive technologies to that country. Likely Effects and Timing of the Legislation Obama Administration officials are said to be concerned by some provisions of H.R. 2194 because of the legislation’s potential to weaken allied unity on Iran at a crucial time in considering new international sanctions on Iran. The Administration had reportedly sought to persuade Members to delay further work on H.R. 2194 until a new U.N. sanctions resolution is adopted—for fear that some P5+1 countries might refuse to support the U.N. resolution if there is a chance they will be sanctioned by a new U.S. law. Apparently bowing to the Administration argument, and in light of the May 18 agreement of the P5+1 on a new sanctions draft, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Berman announced on May 15, 2010 that the conference committee on H.R. 2194 would not complete its work until after the U.N. resolution is adopted and in order to assess the results of a June 16, 2010 European Union meeting, which will discuss Iran. The conference committee formally began work in April 2010. In terms of content, the outcome of the conference to reconcile the two versions is difficult to predict, but congressional sentiment to sanction Iran appears to be substantial. It is believed the final version will likely contain many of the extensive provisions of the Senate version, and some of the efforts to compel sanctions on violating firms from the House version. However, the Administration reportedly is insistent that any agreed bill automatically exempt from sanctions firms of countries that are cooperating against the Iranian nuclear program. The specific criteria that would define such “cooperation” are reportedly under discussion. The Administration concern is that countries which fear penalties under a new U.S. law would withdraw their cooperation with the United States on future sanctions resolutions and measures against Iran. Congressional Research Service 14 Iran Sanctions imports from Iran. Generally closer to the Senate version, but adds new provisions sanctioning Iranians determined to be involved in human rights abuses and requires Treasury Department to prohibit transactions with foreign banks that conduct business with Revolutionary Guard and U.N.sanctioned Iranian entities. Statement of U.S. Policy on Sanctioning Iran’s Central Bank (Bank Markazi): Section 108 urges the President to use existing U.S. authorities to impose U.S. sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank or other Iranian banks engaged in proliferation or support of terrorist groups. Section 104 (see below) contains sense of Congress urging U.S. sanctions against Iranian Central Bank and would prohibit U.S. bank dealings with any financial institution that helps the Central Bank facilitate circumvention of U.N. resolutions on Iran. Section2(c) and 3(a) state that it shall be U.S. policy to fully enforce ISA to encourage foreign governments: - to cease investing in Iran’s energy sector. - to sanction Iran’s Central Bank and other financial institutions that do business with the Iranian Central Bank (or any Iranian bank involved in proliferation or support of terrorist activities). Congressional Research Service Such authorities could include Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act (31 U.S.C. 5318A), which authorizes designation of foreign banks as “of primary money laundering concern” and thereby cut off their relations with U.S. banks. 10 Iran Sanctions House Version Extension of ISA to Sales of Gasoline: Section 3(a) would amend ISA to make sanctionable: - the sale to Iran of equipment or services (of over $200,000 in value, or $500,000 combined sales in one year) that would enable Iran to maintain or expand its domestic production of refined petroleum. Senate Version Conference Report Section 102(a) contains similar provisions regarding both gasoline sales and sales of equipment and services for Iran to expand its own refinery capacity. However, sets the aggregate one-year sale value at $1 million—double the level of the House bill. Section 102(a) contains provisions sanctioning sales of gasoline and refining services and equipment similar to both versions. Sets dollar value “trigger” at $5 million aggregate value (equipment or gasoline sales) in a one year period. Similar to House bill (Section 102(a)). Section 102(b) would add the three sanctions contained in the House and Senate versions, but: it would add these three to the existing menu of six sanctions in ISA. The President would be required to impose 3 out of the 9 specified sanctions on entities determined to be violators. (As it now exists, ISA requires the imposition of two out of six sanctions of the menu.) Section 103(b)(4) contains a similar provision, but mandates that the head of a U.S. agency may not contract with a person that meets criteria of sanctionability in the act. Would not require the bidding/contracting firm to certify its own compliance, thereby placing the burden of verifying such compliance on the U.S. executive agency. Section 102(b) contains a provision similar to the House version requiring new Treasury Dept. regulations that mandate that firms to certify that they are not in violating of ISA as a condition of receiving a U.S. government contract, and providing for penalties for any falsification. —or, the sale to Iran of refined petroleum products or ships, vehicles, or insurance or reinsurance to provide such gasoline to Iran (same dollar values as sale of equipment). Expansion of ISA Sanctions: Section 3(b) would mandate certain sanctions (not currently authorized by ISA) on sellers of the equipment, gasoline, or services described in Section 3(a) to include: - prohibition of any transactions in foreign exchange with sanctioned entity; - prohibition of credit or payments to the sanctioned entity; Specifies that what is sanctionable includes helping Iran develop not only oil and natural gas resources, but also liquefied natural gas (LNG). Products whose sales is sanctionable is specified to include LNG tankers and pipelines used to transport oil or LNG. - and, prohibition on any transactions involving U.S.-based property of the sanctioned entity. (These sanctions would be imposed in addition to the required two out of six sanctions currently specified in ISA.) U.S. Government Enforcement Mechanism: Section 3(b) also requires the heads of U.S. Government agencies to ensure that their agencies contract with firms that certify to the U.S. agency that they are not selling any of the equipment, products, or services to Iran (gasoline and related equipment and services) specified in Section 3(a). The section contains certain penalties, such as prohibition on future bids for U.S. government contracts, to be imposed on any firm that makes a false certification about such activity. Congressional Research Service 11 Iran Sanctions House Version Additional Sanctions Against Suppliers of Nuclear, Missile, or Advanced Conventional Weapons Technology to Iran: Senate Version No equivalent, although, as noted below, the Senate bill does contain several proliferation-related provisions. Section 3(c) provides an additional ISA sanction to be imposed on any country whose entity(ies) violate ISA by providing nuclear weaponsrelated technology or missile technology to Iran. Conference Report Section 102(a)(2) contains a prohibition on licensing of nuclear materials, facilities, or technology to any entity determined sanctioned under ISA (as amended). Waiver is provided on vital national security interest grounds. The sanction to be imposed on such country is a ban on any nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and a prohibition on U.S. sales to that country of nuclear technology in accordance with such an agreement. The sanction can be waived if the President certifies to Congress that the country in question is taking effective actions against its violating entities. Alterations to Waiver and Implementation Provisions: Section 3(d)(1) imposes a requirement (rather than an nonbinding exhortation in the existing law) that the Administration “immediately” initiate an investigation of any potentially sanctionable activity under ISA. Section 3(d)(2) would require the President to certify that a waiver of penalties on violating entities described above is “vital to the national security interest of the United States.” rather than, as currently stipulated in ISA, is “important to the national interest of the United States.” Congressional Research Service No similar provisions Implementation and waiver provisions closer to House version. Section 102(g) amends ISA to make mandatory the beginning of an investigation of potentially sanctionable activity, and makes mandatory a decision on sanctionability within 180 days of the beginning of such an investigation. (Currently, 180 day period is nonbinding.) Section 102(c) sets waiver standard as “necessary to the national interest” Section 102(g) also alters existing 4(c) ISA waiver to delay sanctions on firms of countries that are “closely cooperating” with U.S. efforts against Iran’s WMD programs. (This is not an automatic “carve out” for cooperating countries widely discussed in the press. 12 Iran Sanctions House Version Required Reports: Section 3(e) would amend ISA’s current Administration reporting requirements to also include an assessment of Iran’s support for militant movements and to acquire weapons of mass destruction technology. A new reporting requirement would be created (every six months) on firms providing Iran gasoline and related equipment and services specified above, as well as the names and dates of such activity, and any contracts such entities have with U.S. Government agencies. The required report is to include information on persons the President determines is affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), as well as persons providing material support to the IRGC or conducting financial transactions with the IRGC or its affiliates. Senate Version Section 107 contains a provision similar to the new reporting requirement of the House bill with regard to firms that sold gasoline and related equipment and services to Iran, and invested in Iran’s energy sector. The Senate bill does not require reporting on the IRGC that is stipulated in the House bill, or the report on Iran-G-20 trade. However, the Senate bill (Section 109) expresses the sense of Congress that the United States “continue to target” the IRGC for supporting terrorism, its role in proliferation, and its oppressive activities against the people of Iran. Conference Report Various reporting requirements throughout, including the report on Iran-G-20 trade of the House version. Includes new reporting requirement, not in either version, on the potential for ethanol and related products and services to benefit and enhance Iran’s energy sector. Requires report on investment in Iran’s energy sector. Requires report on the beneficiaries of export credit agencies of foreign countries (presumably the extent to which these agencies are guaranteeing financing for trade with Iran). Also required is an Administration report, within one year of enactment, on trade between Iran and countries in the G-20. Expansion of ISA Definitions: Section 3(f) would expand the definitions of investing entities, or persons, contained in ISA, to include: Similar provision contained in Section 102(d). Would not include export credit agencies as a sanctionable entity under ISA (as amended). Title IV would terminate the act’s provisions 30 days after the President certifies that Iran has: Terminates ISA if the President certifies that Iran has ceased WMD development, has been removed from the U.S. terrorism list, and poses no significant threat to U.S. national security, interests, or allies. - export credit agencies. (Such a provision is widely considered controversial because export credit agencies are arms of their governments, and therefore sanctioning such agencies is considered a sanction against a government.) Termination Provisions: Section 3(g) would terminate sanctions against persons who are sanctioned, under the act, for sales of WMD-related technology, if the President certifies that Iran has ceased activities to acquire a nuclear device and has ceased enrichment of uranium and other nuclear activities. Congressional Research Service - ceased support for international terrorism and qualifies for removal from the U.S. “terrorism list” - and, has ceased the pursuit and development of WMD and ballistic missile technology. 13 Iran Sanctions House Version ISA Sunset: Senate Version No similar provision Sunset provision same as House version. Section 103(b)(1) would ban all imports of Iranian origin from the United States, with the exception of informational material. Currently, modifications to the U.S. trade ban with Iran (Executive Order 12959 of May 6, 1995) that became effective in 2000 permit imports of Iranian luxury goods, such as carpets, caviar, nuts, and dried fruits. Same as Senate version. However, contains a new section that the ban on most exports to Iran not include the exportation of services for Internet communications. Section 3(h) would extend all provisions of ISA until 2016. It is currently scheduled to “sunset” on December 31, 2011, as amended by the Iran Freedom Support Act (P.L. 109-293). Modification to U.S. Ban on Trade With and Investment in Iran: No provision - Section 103(b)(2)) generally reiterates/codifies current provisions of U.S. trade ban related to U.S. exports to Iran. Provision would prohibit exports to Iran of all goods except food and medical devices, informational material, articles used for humanitarian assistance to Iran, or goods needed to ensure safe operation of civilian aircraft. Freezing of Assets/Travel Restriction on Revolutionary Guard and Related Entities and Persons. No provision Application of U.S. Trade Ban to Subsidiaries: No provision Congressional Research Service Conference Report Provision also states that the ban on most exports should not include goods or services needed to help non-governmental organizations support democracy in Iran. Both provisions designed to support opposition protesters linked to Iran’s “Green movement.” Section 103(b)(3) mandates the President to freeze the assets of Iranian diplomats, IRGC, or other Iranian official personnel deemed a threat to U.S. national security under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). Provision would require freezing of assets of families and associates of persons so designated. Section 109 calls for a ban on travel of IRGC and affiliated persons. Similar to Senate version Section 104 would apply the provisions of the U.S. trade ban with Iran (Executive Order 12959) to subsidiaries of U.S. firms if the subsidiary is established or maintained for the purpose of avoiding the U.S. ban on trade with Iran . The definition of subsidiary, under the provision, is any entity that is more than 50% owned or is directed by a U.S. person or firm. No provision 14 Iran Sanctions House Version Mandatory Sanctions on Financial Institutions that Help Iran’s Sanctioned Entities: Senate Version No provision No provision Conference Report Contains new section that requires the Treasury Department to develop regulations to prohibit U.S. financial transactions with any foreign financial institution that: - facilitates efforts by the Revolutionary Guard to acquire WMD or fund terrorism - facilitate the activities of any person sanctioned under U.N. resolutions on Iran. - facilitates the efforts by Iran’s Central Bank to support the Guard’s WMD acquisition efforts or support any U.N.- sanctioned entity Sanctions on Iranian Human Rights Abusers: No provision Section 105 makes ineligible for a U.S. visa, blocks U.S, property, and prevents transactions with any Iranian official determined complicit in serious human rights abuses against Iranian citizens since the June 12, 2009 Iranian presidential election. Section 105 prohibits U.S. executive agencies from contracting with firms that export sensitive technology to Iran. “Sensitive technology” is defined as hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, or other technology that restricts the free flow of information in Iran or which monitor or restrict “speech” of the people of Iran. Section 106 of the conference report is similar to Senate version. Section 106(b) authorizes $64.611 million for FY2010 (and “such sums as may be necessary” for FY2011 and 2012) for the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. The funds are authorized to ensure that countries such as Iran are not misusing the international financial system for illicit purposes. Iran is not mentioned specifically. $104.26 million is authorized by the section for FY2010 for the Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Section 109 authorizes $102 million for FY2011 and “sums as may be necessary” for FY2012 and 2013 to the Treasury Department Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Another $100 million is authorized for FY2011 for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and $113 million for FY2011 for the Burea of Industry and Security for the Department of Commerce No provision Sanctioning Certain Information Technology Sales to Iran: No provision Treasury Department Authorization to prevent misuse of the U.S. financial system by iran or other countries. No provision Congressional Research Service 15 Iran Sanctions House Version Hezbollah No specific provision, although, as noted above, the House bill does expand ISA reporting requirements to include Iran’s activities to support terrorist movements. Lebanese Hezbollah is named as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. State Department. Divestment No provisions Senate Version Conference Report Section 110 contains a sense of Congress that the President impose the full range of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) on Hezbollah, and that the President renew international efforts to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon (as called for by U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701). Section 113 similar to Senate version. Title II of the Senate bill (Section 203) prevents criminal, civil, or administrative action against any investment firm or officer or adviser based on its decision to divest from securities that: Similar to Senate version - have investments or operations in Sudan described in the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 - or, engage in investments in Iran that would be considered sanctionable by the Senate bill. Prevention of Transshipment, Reexportation, or Diversion of Sensitive Items to Iran No provision Section 302 requires a report by the Director of National Intelligence that identifies all countries considered a concern to allow transshipment or diversion of WMD-related technology to Iran (technically: “items subject to the provision of the Export Administration Regulations”). Similar to Senate version, but does not provide for prior negotiations before designating a country as a “Destination of Possible Diversion Concern.” Section 303 requires the Secretary of Commerce to designate a country as a “Destination of Possible Diversion Concern” if such country is considered to have inadequate export controls or is unwilling to prevent the diversion of U.S. technology to Iran. The provision stipulates government-togovernment discussions are to take place to improve that country’s export control systems. If such efforts did not lead to improvement, the section would mandate designation of that country as a “Destination of Diversion Concern” and would set up a strict licensing requirement for U.S. exports of sensitive technologies to that country. Congressional Research Service 16 Iran Sanctions Conference Action on H.R. 2194: Content, Effects and Timing A public meeting of the House-Senate conference, chaired by Representative Berman on the House side, and Senator Dodd on the Senate side, was held on April 28, 2010. Obama Administration officials were said to be concerned by some provisions of H.R. 2194 because of the legislation’s potential to weaken allied unity on Iran. The Administration sought successfully to persuade Members to delay further work on H.R. 2194 until a new U.N. sanctions resolution is adopted—for fear that some P5+1 countries might refuse to support the U.N. resolution if there is a chance they will be sanctioned by a new U.S. law. Apparently responding to the Administration argument, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Berman announced on May 15, 2010, that the conference committee on H.R. 2194 would not complete its work until after the U.N. resolution is adopted and in order to assess the results of a June 16, 2010, European Union meeting, which will discuss Iran. The U.N. Resolution was adopted on June 9, 2010, presumably moving aside that obstacle to conference action completion. The conference report is in the process of being finalized as of June 23, 2010, and might be voted on the week of June 28. As widely predicted, the version of the conference report now circulating appears to contain many of the extensive provisions of the Senate version, and some of the efforts to compel sanctions on violating firms from the House version. The Administration reportedly insisted that any agreed bill automatically exempt from sanctions firms of countries that are cooperating against the Iranian nuclear program. The Administration concern is that countries which fear penalties under a new U.S. law would withdraw their cooperation with the United States on future sanctions resolutions and measures against Iran. That concern is addressed in the conference report, although it appears to expand waiver authority rather than provide a blanket exemption for “cooperating countries.” As widely predicted, the conference report contains provisions to sanction Iranian human rights abusers, including denial of visas for their travel to the United States and freezing of their assets. Those supporting these bills say that the legislation will strengthen President Obama’s ability to obtain an agreement with Iran that might impose limitations on its nuclear program. The legislation might demonstrate to Iran that there are substantial downsides to rebuffing international criticism of its nuclear program. Iran’s dependence on gasoline imports could, at the very least, cause Iran’s government to have to spend more for such imports. Others, however, believe the government would not import more gasoline, but rather ration it or reduce subsidies for it in an effort to reduce gasoline consumption. Many believe that Iran has many willing gasoline suppliers who might ignore a U.S. law along these lines. Still others believe that a gasoline ban would cause Iranians to blame the United States and United Nations for its plight and cause Iranians to rally around President Ahmadinejad and rebuild his popularity.18 Administration Review of Potential ISA Violations19 Several Members of Congress have, in recent years, questioned why there have been no penalties imposed for violations of ISA. State Department reports to Congress on ISA, required every six months, have routinely stated that U.S. diplomats raise U.S. policy concerns about Iran with investing companies and their parent countries. However, these reports have not specifically 18 Askari, Hossein and Trita Parsi. “Throwing Ahmadinejad a Lifeline.” New York Times op-ed. August 15, 2009. Much of this section is derived from a meeting between the CRS author and officials of the State Department’s Economics Bureau, which is tasked with the referenced review of investment projects. November 24, 2009. 19 Congressional Research Service 17 Iran Sanctions stated which foreign companies, if any, were being investigated for ISA violations. No publication of such deals has been placed in the Federal Register (requirement of Section 5e of ISA). In 2008, possibly sensing some congressional unrest over this fact, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns testified on July 9, 2008 (House Foreign Affairs Committee), that the Statoil project (listed in Table 2) is under review for ISA sanctions. Statoil is incorporated in Norway, which is not an EU member and which would therefore not fall under the 1998 U.S.-EU agreement discussed above. Burns did not mention any of the other projects, and no other specific projects have been named since. Nor was there a formal State Department determination on Statoil subsequently. Possibly in response to the new legislative initiatives in the 111th Congress, and to an October 2009 letter signed by 50 Members of Congress referencing the CRS table below, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on October 28, 2009, that the Obama Administration would review investments in Iran for violations of ISA. Feltman testified that the preliminary review would be completed within 45 days (by December 11) to determine which projects, if any, require further investigation. Feltman testified that some announced projects were for political purposes and did not result in actual investment. State Department officials told CRS in November 2009 that projects involving Iran and Venezuela appeared to fall into the category of symbolic announcement rather than actual implemented projects. On February 25, 2010, Secretary of State Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the State Department’s preliminary review was completed in early February and that some of the cases reviewed “deserve[] more consideration” and were undergoing additional scrutiny. The preliminary review, according to the testimony, was conducted, in part, through State Department officials’ contacts with their counterpart officials abroad and corporation 18 Askari, Hossein and Trita Parsi. “Throwing Ahmadinejad a Lifeline.” New York Times op-ed. August 15, 2009. Much of this section is derived from a meeting between the CRS author and officials of the State Department’s Economics Bureau, which is tasked with the referenced review of investment projects. November 24, 2009. 19 Congressional Research Service 15 Iran Sanctions officials. The additional investigations of problematic investments will involve the intelligence community, according to Secretary Clinton. State Department officials told CRS in November 2009 that any projects that the State Department plan is to complete the additional investigation and determine violations within 180 days of the completion of the preliminary review. (The 180day time frame is, according to the Department officials, consistent with the Iran Freedom Support Act amendments to ISA discussed above.) In part because the preliminary review was not completed by mid-December 2009, as was expected, Representative Mark Kirk and Representative Ron Klein circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter requesting support for “The Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act” providing for a monthly GAO report on potential ISA violators, and completion of an investigation of potential violations within 45 days of any GAO identification of possible violations. Congressional Research Service 1618 Table 2. Post-1999 Major Investments/Major Development Projects in Iran’s Energy Sector Date Feb. 1999 Apr. 1999 Nov. 1999 Apr. 2000 July 2000 Mar. 2001 June 2001 May 2002 Field/Project Doroud (oil) Field/Project February 1999 Doroud (oil) April 1999 Balal (oil) Nov. 1999 Soroush and Nowruz (oil) April 2000 Anaran bloc (oil) July 2000 March 2001 June 2001 May 2002 Sept. 2002 October 2002 CRS-19 (Energy Information Agency, Department of Energy, August 2006.) Balal (oil) (“Balal Field Development in Iran Completed,” World Market Research Centre, May 17, 2004.) Soroush and Nowruz (oil) (“News in Brief: Iran.” Middle East Economic Digest, (MEED) January 24, 2003.) Anaran bloc (oil) (MEED Special Report, December 16, 2005, pp. 48-50.) Phase 4 and 5, South Pars (gas) (Petroleum Economist, December 1, 2004.) Caspian Sea oil exploration—construction of submersible drilling rig for Iranian partner (IPR Strategic Business Information Database, March 11, 2001.) Oct. 2002 Jan. 2004 CRS-17Company(ies)/Status (If Known) Value Output/Goal Totalfina Elf (France)/ENI (Italy) $1 billion 205,000 bpd Totalfina Elf/ Bow Valley (Canada)/ENI $300 million 40,000 bpd Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands)/Japex (Japan) $800 million 190,000 bpd Norsk Hydro (Norway)/Gazprom (Russia)/Lukoil (Russia) No No production to date $120 million 65,000 Gas onstream as of Dec. 2004 $1.9 $1.9 billion 2 billion cu.ft./day (cfd) GVA Consultants (Sweden) $225 $225 million NA $1 billion 100,000 bpd $80 million 25,000 bpd $1.6 billion 2 billion cfd ENI Gas onstream as of Dec. 2004 GVA Consultants (Sweden)$2.65 billion 3 billion cfd ENI Darkhovin (oil) ENI (“Darkhovin Production Doubles.” Gulf Daily News, May 1, 2008.) Field in production Masjid-e-Soleyman (oil) (“CNPC Gains Upstream Foothold.” MEED, September 3, 2004.) Phase 9 + 10, South Pars (gas) Sep. 2002 Company(ies)/Status (If Known) Sheer Energy Sheer Energy (Canada)/China National National Petroleum Company (CNPC). Local partner is Naftgaran Engineering LG (South Korea) (“OIEC Surpasses South Korean Company in South Pars.” IPR Strategic Business Information Database, November 15, 2004.) On stream as of early 2009 Phase 6, 7, 8, South Pars (gas) Statoil (Norway) (Petroleum Economist, March 1, 2006.) began producing late 2008 $2.65 billion 3 billion cfd Azadegan (oil) Inpex (Japan) 10% stake. $200 260,000 bpd Date Field/Project (“Japan Mulls Azadegan Options.” APS Review Oil Market Trends, November 27, 2006.) Company(ies)/Status (If Known) CNPC. agreed to develop “north Azadegan” in Jan. 2009 Value Output/Goal million (Inpex stake); China $1.76 billion Petrobras (Brazil) Tusan Block Aug. 2004 Date Field/Project January 2004 Azadegan (oil) (“Japan Mulls Azadegan Options.” APS Review Oil Market Trends, November 27, 2006.) Tusan Block August 2004 October 2004 2005 (“Iran-Petrobras Operations.” APS Review Gas Market Trends, April 6, 2009; “Brazil’s Petrobras Petrobras Sees Few Prospects for Iran Oil.”) ,” (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0317110720090703 idUSN0317110720090703.) Yadavaran (oil) Oct. 2004 2005 (“Iran, China’s Sinopec Ink Yadavaran Oilfield Development Contract.” Payvand’s Iran News, December 9, 2009.) Saveh bloc (oil) GAO report, cited below Oil found in block in Feb. 2009, but not in commercial quantity, according to the firm $178 Company(ies)/Status (If Known) Value Output/Goal Inpex (Japan) 10% stake. CNPC. agreed to develop “north Azadegan” in Jan. 2009 $200 million (Inpex stake); China $1.76 billion 260,000 bpd $178 million No production Sinopec (China), deal finalized finalized December 9, 2007 $2 billion 300,000 bpd PTT (Thailand) ? ? Sinopec (China) $20 million ? Sinopec (China); JGC (Japan) $959 million Expansion to produce 250,000 bpd Norsk Hydro (Norway) $49 million ? million ? Petrobras (Brazil) Oil found in block in Feb. 2009, but not in commercial quantity, according to the firm Garmsar bloc (oil) June 2006 Deal finalized in June 2009 ("China'“China’s Sinopec signs a deal to develop oil block in Iran - report",,” Forbes, 20 June 2009, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2006/06/20/afx2829188.html.) Arak Refinery expansion July 2006 Sept. 2006 (GAO report; Fimco FZE Machinery Website; http://www.fimco.org/index.php?option= com_content&task=view&id=70&Itemid=78.) Sept. 2006 Khorramabad block (oil) March 2007 (PR Strategic Business Information Database, September 18, 2006) Esfahan refinery upgrade Mar. 07 Dec. 2007 (“Daelim, Others to Upgrade Iran’s Esfahan Refinery.” Chemical News and Intelligence, March 19, 2007.) Daelim (S. Korea) NA Golshan and Ferdows onshore and offshore gas fields and LNG plant Dec. 2007 contract modified but reaffirmed December 2008 (GAO report; Oil Daily, January 14, 2008.) CRS-18 Daelim (S. Korea)20 SKS Ventures, Petrofield Subsidiary (Malaysia) NA $16 $16 billion 3.4 billion cfd Date Field/Project Company(ies)/Status (If Known) 2007 (unspec.) Jofeir Field (oil) Belneftekhim (Belarus) (unspec) GAO report cited below No production to date 2008 Feb. 2008 Apr. 2008 ? Dayyer Bloc (Persian Gulf, offshore, oil) GAO report cited below Edison (Italy) February 2008 Lavan field (offshore natural gas) PGNiG (Poland) GAO report cited below Status unclear April 2008 Moghan 2 (onshore oil and gas, Ardebil province) ? January 2009 Nov. 2009 GAO report cited below Kermanshah petrochemical plant (new construction) GAO report cited below INA (Croatia) Nov. 2009 Value Output/Goal $450 million 40,000 bpd $44 million ? $2 billion $40-$140 million (dispute over size) 300,000 metric tons/yr Uhde (Germany) “North Azadegan” (Chinadaily.com. “CNPC to Develop Azadegan Oilfield,” http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/ bizchina/2009-01/16/content_7403699.htm.) South Pars: Phase 12—Part 2 and Part 3 (“Italy, South Korea To Develop South Pars Phase 12.” Press TV (Iran)., November 3, 2009., http://www.presstv.com/pop/Print/?id=110308.) Output/Goal $450 million 40,000 bpd $44 million ? $2 billion $40 $140 million (dispute over size) ? 300,000 metric tons/yr Uhde (Germany) “North Azadegan” Jan. 2009 Value CNPC (China) $1.75 CNPC (China) $1.75 billion Daelim (S. Korea)—Part 2; Tecnimont (Italy)—Part 3 $4 billion ($2 bn each ($2 bn each part) CNPC (China) $4.7 billion China National Offshore Oil Co. $16 billion 75,000 bpd billion South Pars: Phase 11 Feb. February 2010 Drilling to Begin in March 2010 (“CNPC in Gas Deal, Beefs Up Tehran Team—Source.,” Reuters India, February 10, 2010., http://in.reuters.com.articlePrint?articleId=INTOE61909U20100210.) Totals: $41 billion investment Other Pending/Preliminary Deals North Pars Gas Field (offshore gas). Includes gas purchases (Dec. 2006) CRS-19 3.6 billion cfd $41 billion investment CRS-21 ? 75,000 bpd Company(ies)/Status (If Known) Value Output/Goal China National Offshore Oil Co. $16 billion 3.6 billion cfd Royal Dutch Shell, Repsol (Spain) $4.3 billion ? Phase 22, 23, 24 - South Pars (gas), incl. transport Iranian gas to Turkey, and on to Europe and building three three power plants in Iran. Initialed July 2007; not finalized to date. Turkish Petroleum Company Company (TPAO) $12. billion 2 billion cfd Iran’s Kish gas field (April 2008) Includes pipeline from Iran to Oman Oman (co-financing of project) $7 billion 1 billion cfd Phase 12 South Pars (gas)—part 1. Incl. LNG terminal construction and Farzad-B natural gas bloc (March 2009) China-led consortium; project originally subscribed in May 2007 by OMV (Austria); possibly taken over over by Indian firms (ONGC, Oil India Ltd., Hinduja, Petronet) $8 billion+ 20 million tonnes of LNG annually by 2012 South Pars gas field (September 2009) Petroleos de Venezuela S.A.; 10% stake in venture $760 million Sinopec $up to $6 billion if new refinery is is built Date Field/Project Other Pending/Preliminary Deals North Pars Gas Field (offshore gas). Includes gas purchases (December 2006) (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200705/19/print20070519_376139.html.) Phase 13, 14 - South Pars (gas); (Feb. 2007). Deadline to finalize as May 20, 2009 apparently not met; firms submitted revised proposals to Iran in June 2009. (http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=77040&hmpn=1.) (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112062&sectionid=351020103.) Abadan refinery upgradeUpgrade and expansion; building a new refinery at Hormuz on the Persian Gulf coast (August 2009) Sources: As noted in table, a wide variety of other press announcements and sources, CRS conversations with officials of the State Department Bureau of Economics (November 2009), CRS conversations with officials of embassies of the parent government of some of the listed companies (2005-2009). Some reported deals come from a March 2010 GAO report, “Firms Reported in Open Sources as Having Commercial Activity in Iran’s Oil, Gas, and Petrochemical Sectors.” GAO-10-515R Iran’s Oil, Gas, and Petrochemical Sectors. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10515r.pdf. The GAO report lists 41 firms with “commercial activity in Iran’s energy sector; several of the listed agreements do not appear to constitute “investment,” as defined in ISA. Note: CRS has neither the authority nor the means to determine which of these projects, if any, might constitute a violation of the Iran Sanctions Act. CRS has no way to confirm the precise status of any of the announced investments, and some investments may have been resold to other firms or terms altered since agreement. In virtually all cases, such investments and contracts represent private agreements between Iran and its instruments and the investing firms, and firms are not necessarily required to confirm or publicly release the terms of their arrangements with Iran. $20 million+ investments in oil and gas fields, refinery upgrades, and major project leadership are included in this table. Responsibility for a project to develop Iran’s energy sector is part of ISA investment definition. CRS-2022 Iran Sanctions Ban on U.S. Trade and Investment With Iran ISA was enacted, in part, because U.S. allies refused to adopt a ban on trade with and investment in Iran. Such a U.S. ban was imposed on May 6, 1995, when President Clinton issued Executive Order 12959.20 This followed an earlier March 1995 executive order barring U.S. investment in Iran’s energy sector. The trade and investment ban was intended to blunt criticism that U.S. trade with Iran made U.S. appeals for multilateral containment of Iran less credible. Each March since 1995 (and most recently on March 10, 2010), the U.S. Administration has renewed a declaration of a state of emergency that triggered the investment ban. Some modifications to the trade ban since 1999 account for the trade between the United States and Iran which was about $350 million worth of goods for all of 2009 ($281 million in exports to Iran, and $67 million in imports from Iran). That is about half the value of the bilateral trade in 2008. The U.S. ban on trade and investment does not apply to foreign firms. Neither is foreign trade with Iran in purely civilian goods banned by any U.N. Security Council resolution. A very wide range of foreign firms conduct trade with or have a corporate presence with Iran. Some of the well-known firms include Alcatel-Lucent of France; Bank of Tokyou-Mitsubishi UFJ; BNP Paribas of France; Bosch of Germany; Canon of Japan; Fiat SPA of Italy; Ericsson of Sweden; ING Group of the Netherlands; Mercedes of Germany; Renault of France; Samsung of South Korea; Sony of Japan; Volkswagen of Germany; Volvo of Sweden; ThyssenKrupp of Germany; and numerous others. As discussed further later, Siemens of Germany was active in the Iran telecommunications infrastructure market, but announced in February 2010 that it would cease pursuing business in Iran. KPMG of the Netherlands reportedly pulled out of the Iran market as of April 2010. Some of the foreign firms that trade with Iran, such as Mitsui and Co. of Japan; Mitsui of Japan, ABB Ltd of Switzerland, Alstom of France, and Schneider Electric of France, are discussed in the March 7, 2010, New York Times article on foreign firms that do business with Iran and also receive U.S. contracts or financing. The Times article does not claim that these firms have violated any U.S. sanctions laws. The following conditions and modifications, as administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the Treasury Department, apply: • Some goods related to the safe operation of civilian aircraft may be licensed for export to Iran, and as recently as September 2006, the George W. Bush Administration, in the interests of safe operations of civilian aircraft, permitted a sale by General Electric of Airbus engine spare parts to be installed on several Iran Air passenger aircraft (by European airline contractors). 20 The Executive Order was issued under the authority of: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; Section 505 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 (22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9) and Section 301 of Title 3, United States Code. An August 1997 amendment to the trade ban (Executive Order 13059) prevented U.S. companies from knowingly exporting goods to a third country for incorporation into products destined for Iran. Congressional Research Service 2123 Iran Sanctions • U.S. firms may not negotiate with Iran or to trade Iranian oil overseas, but U.S. companies may apply for licenses to conduct “swaps” of Caspian Sea oil with Iran. A Mobil Corporation application to do so was denied in April 1999. • According to the regulations that implement the trade ban (Iranian Transactions Regulations, Part 560 of the Code of Federal Regulations,) the ban does not apply to personal communications, or to humanitarian donations. However, U.S. nongovernment U.S. non-government organizations (NGOs) require a specific license to operate in Iran. Some NGOs say the licensing requirements are too onerous to make work in Iran practical. • Since April 1999, commercial sales of food and medical products to Iran have been allowed, on a case-by-case basis and subject to OFAC licensing. According to OFAC in April 2007, licenses for exports of medicines to treat HIV and leukemia are routinely expedited for sale to Iran, and license applications are viewed favorably for business school exchanges, earthquake safety seminars, plant and animal conservation, and medical training in Iran. Private letters of credit can be used to finance approved transactions, but no U.S. government credit guarantees are available, and U.S. exporters are not permitted to deal directly with Iranian banks. The FY2001 agriculture appropriations law (P.L. 106-387) contained a provision banning the use of official credit guarantees for food and medical sales to Iran and other countries on the U.S. terrorism list, except Cuba, although allowing for a presidential waiver to permit such credit guarantees. No U.S. Administration has authorized credit guarantees, to date. • In April 2000, the trade ban was further eased to allow U.S. importation of Iranian nuts, dried fruits, carpets, and caviar. The United States was the largest market for Iranian carpets before the 1979 revolution, but U.S. anti-dumping tariffs imposed on Iranian products in 1986 dampened of many Iranian products. The tariff on Iranian carpets is now about 3%-6%, and the duty on Iranian caviar is about 15%. In December 2004, U.S. sanctions were further modified to allow Americans to freely engage in ordinary publishing activities with entities in Iran (and Cuba and Sudan). As of mid-2007, the product most imported from Iran by U.S. importers is pomegranate juice concentrate. In the 110th Congress, H.R. 1400, S. 970, S. 3445, and H.R. 7112 would have re-imposedreimposed the full import ban. Application to Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Firms The U.S. trade ban does not bar subsidiaries of U.S. firms from dealing with Iran, as long as the subsidiary has no operational relationship to the parent company. The March 7, 2010, New York Times article, cited above, discusses some subsidiaries of U.S. firms that have been active in Iran and which have received U.S. government contracts, grants, loans, or loan guarantees. Among major foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms that have traded with Iran are the following: • Halliburton. On January 11, 2005, Iran said it had contracted with U.S. company Halliburton, and an Iranian company, Oriental Kish, to drill for gas in Phases 9 and 10 of South Pars. Halliburton reportedly provided $30 million to $35 million worth of services per year through Oriental Kish, leaving unclear whether Halliburton would be considered in violation of the U.S. trade and investment Congressional Research Service 2224 Iran Sanctions ban or the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA)21—because the deals involved a subsidiary of Halliburton (Cayman Islands-registered Halliburton Products and Service, Ltd., based in Dubai). On April 10, 2007, Halliburton announced that its subsidiaries were, as promised in January 2005, no longer operating in Iran. • General Electric (GE). The firm announced in February 2005 that it would seek no new business in Iran, and it reportedly wound down pre-existingpreexisting contracts by July 2008. GE was selling Iran equipment and services for hydroelectric, oil and gas services, and medical diagnostic projects through Italian, Canadian, and French subsidiaries. • Foreign subsidiaries of several other U.S. energy equipment firms have been and may still be in the Iranian market, according to their “10-K” filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These include Natco Group,22 Overseas Shipholding Group, 23 UOP (a Honeywell subsidiary),24 Itron25, Fluor, 26 Flowserve,27 Parker Drilling, Vantage Energy Services, 28 Weatherford, 29and a few others. However, in March 2010, Ingersoll Rand, maker of air compressors and cooling systems, said it would no longer allow its subsidiaries to do business in Iran.30 On March 1, 2010, Caterpillar Corp. said it had altered its policies to prevent foreign subsidiaries from selling equipment to independent dealers that have been reselling the equipment to Iran.31 In April 2010, it was reported that foreign partners of several U.S. or other U.S. accounting firms had cut their ties with Iran, including partners of PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst and Young. 32 The pullout of KPMG was discussed above. • An Irish subsidiary of the Coca Cola company provides syrup for the U.S.-brand soft drink to an Iranian distributor, Khoshgovar. Local versions of both Coke and of Pepsi (with Iranian-made syrups) are also marketed in Iran by distributors who licensed the recipes for those soft drinks before the Islamic revolution and before the trade ban was imposed on Iran. 21 “Iran Says Halliburton Won Drilling Contract.” Washington Times, January 11, 2005. Form 10-K Filed for fiscal year ended December 31, 2008. 23 Prada, Paulo, and Betsy McKay. Trading Outcry Intensifies. Wall Street Journal, March 27, 2007; Brush, Michael. Are You Investing in Terrorism? MSN Money, July 9, 2007. 24 New York Times, March 7, 2010, cited previously. 25 Subsidiaries of the Registrant at December 31, 2009. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/780571/ 000078057110000007/ex_21-1.htm. 26 “Exhibit to 10-K Filed February 25, 2009.” Officials of Fluor claim that their only dealings with Iran involve property in Iran owned by a Fluor subsidiary, which the subsidiary has been unable to dispose of. CRS conversation with Fluor, December 2009. 27 Form 10-K for Fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. 28 Form 10-K for Fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. 22 29 Form 10-K for Fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, claims firm directed its subsidiaries to cease new business in Iran and Cuba, Syria, and Sudan as of September 2007. 30 Nixon, Ron. “2 Corporations Say Business With Tehran Will Be Curbed.” New York Times, March 11, 2010. 31 “Caterpillar Says Tightens ‘No-Iran’ Business Policy.” Reuters, March 1, 2010. 32 Baker, Peter. “U.S. and Foreign Companies Feeling Pressure to Sever Ties With Iran.” New York Times, April 24, 2010. Congressional Research Service 2325 Iran Sanctions In the 110th Congress, S. 970, S. 3227, S. 3445, and three House-passed bills (H.R. 1400, H.R. 7112, and H.R. 957)—would have applied sanctions to the parent companies of U.S. subsidiaries if those subsidiaries are directed by the parent company to trade with Iran. The Senate version of H.R. 2194, which awaits conference action, contains a similar provision. Treasury Department “Targeted Financial Financial Measures” Various “targeted financial measures” have been undertaken by the Treasury Department, particularly the office of Under Secretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey (who has remained in the Obama Administration). Since 2006, strengthened by leverage provided in five U.N. Security Council Resolutions, Levey and other officials have been able to convince numerous foreign banks that dealing with Iran entails financial risk and furthers terrorism and proliferation. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has described Levey as having “led the design of a remarkably successful program”33with33 with regard to targeting Iran’s proliferation networks. The actions have, according to the International Monetary Fund, partly dried up financing for energy industry and other projects in Iran. In the first The United States has also worked extensively with its partners in the multilateral Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to achieve a directive by that group in February 2010 that its members “protect the international financial system from the ongoing and substantial money laundering and terrorist financing risks from Iran.” In a major summation of the effort, Treasury and State Departments officials, in April 17, 2008, testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said they had persuaded at least 40 banks banks not to provide financing for exports to Iran or to process dollar transactions for Iranian banks. Among those that have pulled out of Iran are UBS (Switzerland), HSBC (Britain), Germany’s Commerzbank A.G. and Deutsche Bank AG. U.S. financial diplomacy has reportedly convinced convinced Kuwaiti banks to stop transactions with Iranian accounts,34 and some banks in Asia (primarily South Korea and Japan) and the rest of the Middle East have done the same. The International International Monetary Fund and other sources report that these measures are making it more difficult to fund energy industry and other projects in Iran and for importers/exporters to conduct trade in expensive items. Some of these results have come about through U.S. pressure. In 2004, the Treasury Department fined UBS $100 million for the unauthorized movement of U.S. dollars to Iran and other sanctioned countries, and in December 2005, the Treasury Department fined Dutch bank ABN Amro $80 million for failing to fully report the processing of financial transactions involving Iran’s Bank Melli (and another bank partially owned by Libya). In the biggest such instance, on December 16, 2009, the Treasury Department announced that Credit Suisse would pay a $536 million settlement to the United States for illicitly processing Iranian transactions with U.S. banks. Credit Suisse, according to the Treasury Department, saw business opportunity by picking up the transactions business from a competitor who had, in accordance with U.S. regulations discussed below, ceased processing dollar transactions for Iranian banks. Credit Suisse also pledged to cease doing business with Iran. In action intended to cut Iran off from the U.S. banking system, on September 6, 2006, the Treasury Department barred U.S. banks from handling any indirect transactions (“U-turn 33 Hearing of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Federal News Service, May 21, 2009. 34 Mufson, Steven and Robin Wright. “Iran Adapts to Economic Pressure.” Washington Post, October 29, 2007. Congressional Research Service 24 Iran Sanctions 26 Iran Sanctions In action intended to cut Iran off from the U.S. banking system, on September 6, 2006, the Treasury Department barred U.S. banks from handling any indirect transactions (“U-turn transactions, meaning transactions with non-Iranian foreign banks that are handling transactions on behalf of an Iranian bank) with Iran’s Bank Saderat (see above), which the Administration accuses of providing funds to Hezbollah. 35 Bank Sepah is subject to asset freezes and transactions limitations as a result of Resolutions 1737 and 1747. The Treasury Department extended that UTurn restriction to all Iranian banks on November 6, 2008. Thus far, the Treasury Department has not designated any bank as a “money laundering entity” for Iran-related transactions (under Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act), although some say that step has been threatened at times. Nor has Treasury imposed any specific sanctions against Bank Markazi (Central Bank) which, according to a February 25, 2008, Wall Street Journal story, is helping other Iranian banks circumvent the U.S. and U.N. banking pressure. Several European countries reportedly oppose such a sanction as an extreme step with potential humanitarian consequences, for example by preventing Iran from keeping its currency stable. S. 3445, a Senate bill in the 110th Congress, and a counterpart passed by the House on September 26, 2008 (H.R. 7112), called for this sanction. The Senate version of H.R. 2194, the “Dodd-Shelby” bill, referenced above, in the 111th Congress has a similar provision. Resolution 1929 references the need for vigilance in dealing with Iran’s Central Bank but does not mandate any new sanctions against it. In enforcing U.S. sanctions, on December 17, 2008, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a civil action seeking to seize the assets of the Assa Company, a UK-chartered entity. Assa allegedly was maintaining the interests of Bank Melli in an office building in New York City. An Iranian foundation, the Alavi Foundation, allegedly is an investor in the building. However, Treasury Department officials say that some of these efforts have gone as far as possible and, in concert with statements by Secretary of State Clinton and other officials in early 2010, Treasury officials are attempting to target the Revolutionary Guard and its corporate arms and suppliers. Four Guard-related Iranian firms, and one Guard official affiliated with the Guard’s corporate activities, were designated by the Treasury Department as proliferation entities under Executive Order 13382. Revolutionary Guard-affiliated firms are targeted extensively for sanctions under Resolution 1929. Terrorism List Designation-Related Sanctions Several U.S. sanctions are in effect as a result of Iran’s presence on the U.S. “terrorism list.” The list was established by Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-72, as amended), sanctioning countries determined to have provided repeated support for acts of international terrorism. Iran was added to the list in January 1984, following the October 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon (believed perpetrated by Hezbollah). Sanctions imposed as a consequence include a ban on U.S. foreign aid to Iran; restrictions on U.S. exports to Iran of dual use items; and requires the United States to vote against international loans to Iran. • 35 The terrorism list designation restricts sales of U.S. dual use items (Export Administration Act, as continued through presidential authorities under the Kessler, Glenn. “U.S. Moves to Isolate Iranian Banks.” Washington Post, September 9, 2006. Congressional Research Service 27 Iran Sanctions International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, as implemented by executive orders), and, under other laws, bans direct U.S. financial assistance (Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act, FAA, P.L. 87-195) and arms sales (Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, P.L. 95-92, as amended), and requires the United States to vote to oppose multilateral lending to the designated Kessler, Glenn. “U.S. Moves to Isolate Iranian Banks.” Washington Post, September 9, 2006. Congressional Research Service 25 Iran Sanctions countries (Section 327 of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, P.L. 104-132). Waivers are provided under these laws, but successive foreign aid appropriations laws since the late 1980s ban direct assistance to Iran (loans, credits, insurance, Eximbank credits) without providing for a waiver. • Section 307 of the FAA (added in 1985) names Iran as unable to benefit from U.S. contributions to international organizations, and require proportionate cuts if these institutions work in Iran. No waiver is provided for. • The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (Sections 325 and 326 of P.L. 104-132) requires the President to withhold U.S. foreign assistance to any country that provides to a terrorism list country foreign assistance or arms. Waivers are provided. U.S. sanctions laws do not bar disaster aid, and the United States donated $125,000, through relief agencies, to help victims of two earthquakes in Iran (February and May 1997), and another $350,000 worth of aid to the victims of a June 22, 2002, earthquake. (The World Bank provided some earthquake related lending as well.) The United States provided $5.7 million in assistance (out of total governmental pledges of about $32 million, of which $17 million have been remitted) to the victims of the December 2003 earthquake in Bam, Iran, which killed as many as 40,000 people and destroyed 90% of Bam’s buildings. The United States military flew in 68,000 kilograms of supplies to Bam. In the Bam case, there was also a temporary exemption made in the regulations to allow for donations to Iran of humanitarian goods by American citizens and organizations. Those exemptions were extended several times but expired in March 2004. Executive Order 13224 The separate, but related, Executive Order 13324 (September 23, 2001) authorizes the President to freeze the assets of and bar U.S. transactions with entities determined to be supporting international terrorism. This order, issued two weeks after the September 11 attacks, under the authority of the IEEPA, the National Emergencies Act, the U.N. Participation Act of 1945, and Section 301 of the U.S. Code, was intended to primarily target Al Qaeda-related entities. However, it has increasingly been applied to Iranian entities. Such Iran-related entities named and sanctioned under this order are in Table 4 at the end of this report. Table 4 includes the names of Iranian entities sanctioned under other orders and under United Nations resolutions pertaining to Iran’s nuclear program. Congressional Research Service 28 Iran Sanctions Proliferation-Related Sanctions Iran is prevented from receiving advanced technology from the United States under relevant and Iran-specific anti-proliferation laws36 and by Executive Order 13382 (June 28, 2005). 36 Such laws include the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). Congressional Research Service 26 Iran Sanctions Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act The Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act (P.L. 102-484) requires denial of license applications for exports to Iran of dual use items, and imposes sanctions on foreign countries that transfer to Iran “destabilizing numbers and types of conventional weapons,” as well as WMD technology. The Iran-Iraq Act (Section 1603) also provides for a “presumption of denial” for all dual use exports to Iran (which would include computer software). A waiver to permit such exports, on a case-bycase basis, is provided for. Iran-Syria-North Korea Nonproliferation Act The Iran Nonproliferation Act (P.L. 106-178), now called the Iran-Syria-North Korea NonProliferation Act) authorizes sanctions on foreign persons (individuals or corporations, not countries or governments) that are determined by the Administration to have assisted Iran’s WMD programs. It bans U.S. extraordinary payments to the Russian Aviation and Space Agency in connection with the international space station unless the President can certify that the agency or entities under its control had not transferred any WMD or missile technology to Iran within the year prior.37 (A Continuing Resolution for FY2009, which funded the U.S. government through March 2009, waived this law to allow NASA to continue to use Russian vehicles to access the International Space Station.) Executive Order 13382 Executive Order 13382 allows the President to block the assets of proliferators of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their supporters under the authority granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and Section 301 of Title 3, United States Code. Foreign Aid Restrictions for Suppliers of Iran In addition, successive foreign aid appropriations punish the Russian Federation for assisting Iran by withholding 60% of any U.S. assistance to the Russian Federation unless it terminates technical assistance to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missiles programs. Implementation The George W. Bush Administration decided to impose sanctions for violations of the executive orders and laws discussed above, and it sanctioned numerous entities as discussed below. The Obama Administration has continued to sanction entities under these provisions. Iranian entities designated under these laws and orders are listed in Table 4 at the end of this report, including the four Revolutionary Guard-affiliated firms designated under E.O. 13382 in February 2010. 37 36 Such laws include the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The provision contains certain exceptions to ensure the safety of astronauts, but it nonetheless threatened to limit U.S. access to the international space station after April 2006, when Russia started charging the United States for transportation on its Soyuz spacecraft. Legislation in the 109th Congress (S. 1713, P.L. 109-112) amended the provision in order to facilitate continued U.S. access and extended INA sanctions provisions to Syria. 37 Congressional Research Service 27 Iran Sanctions 29 Iran Sanctions Implementation The George W. Bush Administration decided to impose sanctions for violations of the executive orders and laws discussed above, and it sanctioned numerous entities as discussed below. The Obama Administration has continued to sanction entities under these provisions. Iranian entities designated under these laws and orders are listed in Table 4 at the end of this report, including the four Revolutionary Guard-affiliated firms designated under E.O. 13382 in February 2010. Despite these efforts, Iran has used loopholes and other devices, such as front companies, to elude U.S. and international sanctions. Some of these efforts focus on countries perceived as having lax enforcement of export control laws, such as UAE and Malaysia. In some cases, Iran has been able, according to some reports, to obtain sophisticated technology even from U.S. firms.38 Relations to International Sanctions The U.S. sanctions discussed in this report are more comprehensive than those imposed, to date, by the United Nations Security Council. However, there is some overlap between the U.N. sanctions and those imposed by the United States and some of its allies under their separate national authorities. As part of a multilateral process of attempting to convince Iran to choose the path of negotiations or face further penalty, during 2006-2008, three U.N. Security Council resolutions—1737, 1747, and 1803—imposed sanctions primarily on Iran’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) infrastructure. While pressing for sanctions, the multilateral group negotiation with Iran (“P5+1:” the Security Council permanent members, plus Germany) at the same time offered Iran incentives to suspend uranium enrichment; the last meeting between Iran and the P5+1 to discuss these issues was in July 2008. The negotiations made little progress, and then entered a hiatus for the U.S. presidential election, the establishment of the Obama Administration, and then the Iranian presidential election. Iranian However, after many months of negotiations, Resolution 1929 was adopted on June 9, 2010, by a vote of 12-2 (Turkey and Brazil), with one abstention (Lebanon). (Iranian entities and persons sanctioned by the United Nations are included in Table 4 at the end of this report.) The main provisions of the existing U.N. sanctions are below. Table 3. Summary of Provisions of U.N. Resolutions on Iran Nuclear Program (1737, 1747, and 1803) Require Iran to suspend uranium enrichment (all) Prohibit transfer to Iran of nuclear, missile, and dual use items to Iran, except for use in light water reactors (1737) Prohibit Iran from exporting arms or WMD-useful technology (1747) Freeze the assets of 40 named Iranian persons and entities, including Bank Sepah, and several Iranian front companies Require that countries exercise restraint with respect to travel of 35 named Iranians and ban the travel of 5 others Call on states not to export arms to Iran or support new business with Iran Call for restraint in any international lending to Iran (with the exception of humanitarian projects) (1747). Call for vigilance with respect to the foreign activities of all Iranian banks, particularly Bank Melli and Bank Saderat (1803), Calls on countries to inspect cargoes carried by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines if there are indications they carry cargo banned for carriage to Iran. (1803) Source: Text of U.N. Security Council resolutions 1737, 1747, and 1803. http://www.un.org. More information on specific provisions of each of these resolutions is in CRS Report. CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, by Kenneth Katzman. 38 Warrick, Joby. “Iran Using Fronts to Get Bomb Parts From U.S.” Washington Post, January 11, 2009; Institute for Science and International Security. “Iranian Entities’ Illicit Military Procurement Networks.” David Albright, Paul Brannan, and Andrea Scheel. January 12, 2009. Congressional Research Service 28 Iran Sanctions About ten months into the Obama Administration, P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran took place on October 1, 2009, and were viewed as productive, including a tentative agreement by Iran to ship out 70% of its stockpile of enriched uranium out of Iran for reprocessing into a medically useful form. However, Iran’s refusal to agree to implementing terms by the end of 2009 prompted renewed discussions between the United States and its partners about new international sanctions. On May 18, 2010, Secretary of State Clinton announced that the P5+1 countries had reached agreement on a new U.N. sanctions resolution. The main points of the draft (which is discussed in more detail and in context of the broader nuclear issue in CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses) are: 39 • It targets additional (unspecified to date) Revolutionary Guard officials and affiliated firms for asset freezes. • It gives countries the authorization to inspect any shipments - and to dispose of its cargo - if the shipments are suspected to carry contraband items. This provision is modeled after a similar provision imposed on North Korea, which did cause that country to reverse some of its shipments. • It bans sales to Iran of most categories of heavy arms to Iran and requests restraint in sales of light arms. • The draft requires countries to insist that their companies refrain from doing business with Iran if there is reason to believe that such business could further Iran’s WMD programs. • It requests, but does not mandate, that countries prohibit Iranian banks to open in their countries, or for their banks to open in Iran. • The draft did not include some measures discussed in press reports on the negotiations, including: barring any foreign investment in Iranian bond offerings; bar arms sales to Iran; banning insurance for transport contracts for shipments involving Iran; banning international investment in Iran’s energy sector; and banning the provision of trade credits to Iran. It is expected that final action on the draft will happen in June, at which time Mexico takes over the U.N. Security Council presidency (from Lebanon in May). The new sanctions, although far from “crippling” or “biting,” might affirm Iran’s growing isolation if U.S. allies and corporations in allied countries announce new bilateral sanctions or pullouts from the Iran market. European/Japanese/Other Foreign Country Policy on Sanctions and Trade points of the resolution are: 39 • It targets several additional firms affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard firms for asset freezes. • It makes mandatory a ban on travel for Iranian persons named in it and in previous resolutions—including those Iranians for whom there was a nonbinding travel ban in previous resolutions. 38 Warrick, Joby. “Iran Using Fronts to Get Bomb Parts From U.S.” Washington Post, January 11, 2009; Institute for Science and International Security. “Iranian Entities’ Illicit Military Procurement Networks.” David Albright, Paul Brannan, and Andrea Scheel. January 12, 2009. 39 Text of the resolution is at http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/ Draft_resolution_on_Iran_annexes.pdf. Congressional Research Service 30 Iran Sanctions • It gives countries the authorization to inspect any shipments—and to dispose of its cargo—if the shipments are suspected to carry contraband items. However, inspections on the high seas are subject to concurrence by the country that owns that ship. This provision is modeled after a similar provision imposed on North Korea, which did cause that country to reverse some of its shipments. • It prohibits countries from allowing Iran to invest in uranium mining and related nuclear technologies, or nuclear-capable ballistic missile technology. • It bans sales to Iran of most categories of heavy arms to Iran and requests restraint in sales of light arms, but does not bar sales of missiles not on the “U.N. Registry of Conventional Arms.” • It requires countries to insist that their companies refrain from doing business with Iran if there is reason to believe that such business could further Iran’s WMD programs. • It requests, but does not mandate, that countries prohibit Iranian banks to open in their countries, or for their banks to open in Iran, if doing so could contribute to Iran’s WMD activities. • The resolution sets up a “panel of experts,” which the Obama Administration says will be chaired by longtime arms control official Robert Einhorn, to assess the effect of the resolution and previous Iran resolutions, and suggest ways of more effective implementation. • The resolution did not make mandatory some measures discussed in press reports on the negotiations, including barring any foreign investment in Iranian bond offerings; banning insurance for transport contracts for shipments involving Iran; banning international investment in Iran’s energy sector; banning the provision of trade credits to Iran, or banning all financial dealings with Iranian banks. The resolution attracted mixed reviews; President Obama, in a statement, said it “…will put in place the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government.”40 Some experts and press accounts said the resolution is unlikely to affect Iran’s nuclear decisionmaking. President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and a joint P5+1 statement expressed that the intent of the Resolution was to bring Iran back to the bargaining table in earnest. An annex to the Resolution reinforced that point; the Annex presents the modified offer of incentives and a new relationship between Iran and the international community, presented to Iran in June 2008. On June 11, 2010, the European Union foreign policy representative, Baroness Catherine Ashton, wrote to Iran’s nuclear negotiator, Sayed Jallili, inviting him to restart formal nuclear talks. However, in order to keep pressure on Iran, on June 16, 2010, the EU began a foreign ministerial meeting that resulted in a declaration, subject to technical subsequent expert talks and ministerial affirmation, to implement many of the authorities of Resolution 1929. The measures announced included an EU ban on new investment in Iran’s energy sector, particular its ability to refine oil into gasoline. 41 40 The text of President Obama’s statement is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-unitednations-security-council-resolution-iran-sanctions. 41 Fidler, Stephen. “EU Shapes Expanded Sanctions Against Iran.” Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2010. Congressional Research Service 31 Iran Sanctions Table 3. Summary of Provisions of U.N. Resolutions on Iran Nuclear Program (1737, 1747, 1803, and 1929) Require Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, and to refrain from any development of ballistic missiles that are nuclear capable (1929) Prohibit transfer to Iran of nuclear, missile, and dual use items to Iran, except for use in light-water reactors Prohibit Iran from exporting arms or WMD-useful technology Prohibit Iran from investing abroad in uranium mining, related nuclear technologies or nuclear capable ballistic missile technology Freeze the assets of over 80 named Iranian persons and entities, including Bank Sepah, and several corporate affiliates of the Revolutionary Guard. Require that countries ban the travel of over 40 named Iranians Mandates that countries not export major combat systems to Iran Calls for “vigilance” (a non-binding call to cut off business) with respect to all Iranian banks, particularly Bank Melli and Bank Saderat. Calls for vigilance (voluntary restraint) with respect to providing international lending to Iran and providing trade credits and other financing and financial interactions. Calls on countries to inspect cargoes carried by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines – or by any ships in national or international waters - if there are indications they carry cargo banned for carriage to Iran. Searches in international waters would require concurrence of the country where the ship is registered. A Sanctions Committee, composed of the fifteen members of the Security Council, monitors Implementation of all Iran sanctions and collects and disseminates information on Iranian violations and other entities involved in banned activities. A “panel of experts” is empowered by 1929 to make recommendations for improved enforcement. Source: Text of U.N. Security Council resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803, and 1929. http://www.un.org. More information on specific provisions of each of these resolutions is in CRS Report. CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, by Kenneth Katzman. European/Japanese/Other Foreign Country Policy on Sanctions and Trade Agreements U.S. allies support the Obama Administration approach toward Iran more so than the George W. Bush Administration approach, which was perceived as primarily punitive. U.S. and European/allied approaches have been converging since 2002, when the nuclear issue came to the fore. The EU countries have begun to implement some sanctions that exceed those mandated in Security Council resolutions. In line with U.N. resolutions, EU countries have banned all dual use exports for military end users in Iran. Several EU countries are discouraging their companies from making any new investments in or soliciting any new business with Iran, and several 39 Text of the draft is at: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/iranresolution_051810.pdf. Congressional Research Service 29 Iran Sanctions European and Asian firms have pulled out of the Iran market in 2010. Several EU countries now support sanctions on Iran that they opposed in earlier years. Negotiations with Iran on a “Trade and Cooperation Agreement” (TCA) are not currently being held; such an agreement would have lowered the tariffs or increased quotas for Iranian exports to the EU countries.4042 Similarly, there is insufficient international support to grant Iran membership 42 During the active period of talks, which began in December 2002, there were working groups focused not only on the TCA terms and proliferation issues but also on Iran’s human rights record, Iran’s efforts to derail the Middle East peace process, Iranian-sponsored terrorism, counter-narcotics, refugees, migration issues, and the Iranian opposition PMOI. Congressional Research Service 32 Iran Sanctions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) until there is progress on the nuclear issue. Iran first attempted to apply to join the WTO in July 1996. On 22 occasions after that, representatives of the Clinton and then the George W. Bush Administration blocked Iran from applying (applications must be by consensus of the 148 members). As discussed above, as part of an effort to assist the EU-3 nuclear talks with Iran, at a WTO meeting in May 2005, no opposition to Iran’s application was registered, and Iran formally began accession talks. Current allied policies are a shift since the 1990s, when EU countries maintained a policy of “critical dialogue” with Iran, and the EU and Japan refused to join the 1995 U.S. trade and investment ban on Iran. The European dialogue with Iran was suspended in April 1997 in response to the German terrorism trial (“Mykonos trial”) that found high-level Iranian involvement in killing Iranian dissidents in Germany, but resumed in May 1998 during Khatemi’s presidency. In the 1990s, European and Japanese creditors—over U.S. objections—rescheduled about $16 billion in Iranian debt. These countries (governments and private creditors) rescheduled the debt bilaterally, in spite of Paris Club rules that call for multilateral rescheduling. In July 2002, Iran tapped international capital markets for the first time since the Islamic revolution, selling $500 million in bonds to European banks. World Bank Loans The EU and Japan appear to have made new international lending to Iran contingent on Iran’s response to international nuclear demands. This represents a narrowing of past differences between the United States and its allies on this issue. Acting under provisions of successive foreign aid laws (which require the United States to vote against international loans to countries named by the United States as sponsors of international terrorism), in 1993 the United States voted its 16.5% share of the World Bank against loans to Iran of $460 million for electricity, health, and irrigation projects, but the loans were approved. To block that lending, the FY1994FY1996 foreign aid appropriations (P.L. 103-87, P.L. 103-306, and P.L. 104-107) cut the amount appropriated for the U.S. contribution to the Bank by the amount of those loans. The legislation contributed to a temporary halt in new Bank lending to Iran. During 1999-2005, Iran’s moderating image had led the World Bank to consider new loans over U.S. opposition. In May 2000, the United States’ allies outvoted the United States to approve $232 million in loans for health and sewage projects. During April 2003-May 2005, a total of $725 million in loans were approved for environmental management, housing reform, water and sanitation projects, and land management projects, in addition to $400 million in loans for earthquake relief. 40 During the active period of talks, which began in December 2002, there were working groups focused not only on the TCA terms and proliferation issues but also on Iran’s human rights record, Iran’s efforts to derail the Middle East peace process, Iranian-sponsored terrorism, counter-narcotics, refugees, migration issues, and the Iranian opposition PMOI. Congressional Research Service 30 Iran Sanctions Efforts to Promote Divestment A growing trend not only in Congress but in several states is to require or call for or require divestment of shares of firms that have invested in Iran’s energy sector (at the same levels considered sanctionable under the Iran Sanctions Act). 4143 The concept of these sanctions is to express the view of Western and other democracies that Iran is an outcast internationally. 43 For information on the steps taken by individual states, see National Conference of State Legislatures. State Divestment Legislation. Congressional Research Service 33 Iran Sanctions Legislation in the 110th Congress, H.R. 1400, did not require divestment, but requires a presidential report on firms that have invested in Iran’s energy sector. Another bill, H.R. 1357, required government pension funds to divest of shares in firms that have made ISA-sanctionable investments in Iran’s energy sector and bar government and private pension funds from future investments in such firms. Two other bills, H.R. 2347 (passed by the House on July 31, 2007) and S. 1430, would protect mutual fund and other investment companies from shareholder action for any losses that would occur from divesting in firms that have investing in Iran’s energy sector. In the 111th Congress, H.R. 1327 (Iran Sanctions Enabling Act), a bill similar to H.R. 2347 of the 110th Congress, was reported by the Financial Services Committee on April 28, 2009. It passed the House on October 14, 2009, by a vote of 414-6. A similar bill. S. 1065, has been introduced in the Senate. Some provisions along these lines are contained in the Senate version of H.R. 2194. Sanctions and Other Proposals to Support Iran’s Opposition A major trend in the 111th Congress, after the Iran election dispute, has been efforts to promote the prospects for the domestic opposition in Iran. Proposals to target the Revolutionary Guard for sanctions represent the trend toward measures that undermine the legitimacy of Iran’s regime and express support for the growing domestic opposition in Iran. The Revolutionary Guard is involved in Iran’s WMD programs but it is also the key instrument through which the regime is trying to suppress the pro-democracy protest. Some of the proposals discussed below could potentially be included in any House and Senate conference agreement on H.R. 2194. Expanding Internet and Communications Freedoms Some Members have focused on expanding Internet freedom in Iran or preventing the Iranian government from using the Internet to identify opponents. Subtitle D of the FY2010 Defense Authorization (P.L. 111-84), called the “VOICE” (Victims of Iranian Censorship) Act contains several provisions to increase U.S. broadcasting to Iran and to identify (in a report to be submitted 180 days after enactment, or April 25, 2009) companies that are selling Iran technology equipment that it can use to suppress or monitor the internet usage of Iranians. The VOICE Act also authorizes funds to document Iranian human rights abuses since the June 12, 2009, presidential election. Another provision of P.L. 111-84 (Section 1241) requires an Administration 41 For information on the steps taken by individual states, see National Conference of State Legislatures. State Divestment Legislation. Congressional Research Service 31 Iran Sanctions report, not later than January 31, 2010, on U.S. enforcement of sanctions against Iran, and the effect of those sanctions on Iran. S. 1475 and H.R. 3284, the “Reduce Iranian Cyber-Suppression Act,” would authorize the President to ban U.S. government contracts with foreign companies that sell technology that Iran could use to monitor or control Iranian usage of the internet. Firms, including a joint venture between Nokia (Finland) and Siemens (Germany), reportedly sold such technology to Iran in 2008.4244 Perhaps to avoid further embarrassment, Siemens announced on January 27, 2010, that it would stop signing new business deals in Iran as of mid-2010.43 Some question whether such a 45 Some question whether such a 44 45 Rhoads, Christopher. “Iran’s Web Spying Aided by Western Technology.” Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2009. End, Aurelia. “Siemens Quits Iran Amid Mounting Diplomatic Tensions.” Agence France Press, January 27, 2010. Congressional Research Service 34 Iran Sanctions sanction might reduce allied cooperation with the United States if allied companies are so sanctioned. Some provisions along these lines are contained in the Senate version of H.R. 2194 and in the conference report on the legislation that is now circulating. Also in line with this trend, on March 8, 2010, OFAC amended the Iran Transactions Regulations that implement the U.S.-Iran trade ban to provide for a general license for providing to Iranians free mass market software in order to facilitate internet communications. The ruling appears to incorporate the major features of a legislative proposal, H.R. 4301, the “Iran Digital Empowerment Act.” The OFAC determination required a waiver of the provision of the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act (Section 1606 waiver provision) discussed above. Measures to Sanction Human Rights Abuses and Promote the the Opposition Another reflection of this trend have been efforts to sanction regime officials involved in suppressing the domestic opposition in Iran. Senator John McCain proposed to offer amendments to S. 2799 (the Senate version of what is now H.R. 2194) during Senate consideration of the bill. These amendments would have focused on Iran’s human rights abuses and suppression of protests. Due to procedural issues, the amendments were not offered and S. 2799 was passed by voice vote. However, he subsequently introduced S. 3022, the “Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act,” which would authorize financial sanctions and a ban on U.S. visas for Iranian officials determined to have committed human rights abuses against Iranian citizens. Companion measures in the House are H.R. 4647 and H.R. 4649, which differ only slightly with each other. Some observers say that the conference committeereport on H.R. 2194 is likely to include the major provisions of these bills. Another bill, introduced by Senator Cornyn and Senator Brownback, (S. 3008) the “Iran Democratic Transition Act,” calls for a forthright declaration that it is the policy of the United States to support efforts by the Iranian people to remove the regime from power. It calls for the use of U.S. broadcasting and humanitarian funds to help democratic organizations in Iran. Blocked Iranian Property and Assets Iranian leaders continue to assert that the United States is holding Iranian assets, and that this is an impediment to improved relations. A U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal at the Hague continues to arbitrate cases resulting from the 1980 break in relations and freezing of some of Iran’s assets. 42 43 Rhoads, Christopher. “Iran’s Web Spying Aided by Western Technology.” Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2009. End, Aurelia. “Siemens Quits Iran Amid Mounting Diplomatic Tensions.” Agence France Press, January 27, 2010. Congressional Research Service 32 Iran Sanctions Major cases yet to be decided center on hundreds of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases between the United States and the Shah’s regime, which Iran claims it paid for but were unfulfilled. About $400 million in proceeds from the resale of that equipment was placed in a DOD FMS account, and about $22 million in Iranian diplomatic property remains blocked, although U.S. funds have been disbursed—credited against the DOD FMS account—to pay judgments against Iran for past acts of terrorism against Americans. Other disputes include the mistaken U.S. shoot-down on July 3, 1988, of an Iranian Airbus passenger jet (Iran Air flight 655), for which the United States, in accordance with an ICJ judgment, paid Iran $61.8 million in compensation ($300,000 per wage earning victim, $150,000 per non-wage earner) for the 248 Iranians killed. The United States has not compensated Iran for the airplane itself. As it has in past similar cases, the Bush Congressional Research Service 35 Iran Sanctions Administration opposed a terrorism lawsuit against Iran by victims of the U.S. Embassy Tehran seizure on the grounds of diplomatic obligation.44 44 See CRS Report RL31258, Suits Against Terrorist States by Victims of Terrorism, by Jennifer K. Elsea. Congressional Research Service 33 Iran Sanctions46 Table 4. Entities Sanctioned Under U.N. Resolutions and U.S. Laws and Executive Orders (Persons listed are identified by the positions they held when designated; some have since changed.) Entities Named for Sanctions Under Resolution 1737 Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEIO) Mesbah Energy Company (Arak supplier) Kalaye Electric (Natanz supplier)) Pars Trash Company (centrifuge program) Farayand Technique (centrifuge program) Defense Industries Organization (DIO) 7th of Tir (DIO subordinate) Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG)—missile program Shahid Bagheri Industrial Group (SBIG)—missile program Fajr Industrial Group (missile program) Mohammad Qanadi, AEIO Vice President Behman Asgarpour (Arak manager) Ehsan Monajemi (Natanz construction manager) Jafar Mohammadi (Adviser to AEIO) Gen. Hosein Salimi (Commander, IRGC Air Force) Dawood Agha Jani (Natanz official) Ali Hajinia Leilabadi (director of Mesbah Energy) Lt. Gen. Mohammad Mehdi Nejad Nouri (Malak Ashtar University of Defence Technology rector) Bahmanyar Morteza Bahmanyar (AIO official) Reza Gholi Esmaeli (AIO official) Ahmad Vahid Dastjerdi (head of Aerospace Industries Org., AIO) Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi (Commander in Chief, IRGC) 46 See CRS Report RL31258, Suits Against Terrorist States by Victims of Terrorism, by Jennifer K. Elsea. Congressional Research Service 36 Iran Sanctions Entities/Persons Added by Resolution 1747 Ammunition and Metallurgy Industries Group (controls 7th of Tir) Parchin Chemical Industries (branch of DIO) Karaj Nuclear Research Center Novin Energy Company Cruise Missile Industry Group Sanam Industrial Group (subordinate to AIO) Ya Mahdi Industries Group Kavoshyar Company (subsidiary of AEIO) Sho’a Aviation (produces IRGC light aircraft for asymmetric warfare) Bank Sepah (funds AIO and subordinate entities) Esfahan Nuclear Fuel Research and Production Center and Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center Qods Aeronautics Industries (produces UAV’s, para-gliders for IRGC asymmetric warfare) Pars Aviation Services Company (maintains IRGC Air Force equipment) Congressional Research Service 34 Iran Sanctions Gen. Mohammad Baqr Zolqadr (IRGC officer serving as deputy Interior Minister Brig. Gen. Qasem Soleimani (Qods Force commander) Fereidoun Abbasi-Davani (senior defense scientist) Mohasen Fakrizadeh-Mahabai (defense scientist) Seyed Jaber Safdari (Natanz manager) Mohsen Hojati (head of Fajr Industrial Group) Ahmad Derakshandeh (head of Bank Sepah) Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi (IRGC ground forces commander) Amir Rahimi (head of Esfahan nuclear facilities) Mehrdada Akhlaghi Ketabachi (head of SBIG) Naser Maleki (head of SHIG) Brig. Gen. Morteza Reza’i (Deputy commander-in-chief, IRGC) Vice Admiral Ali Akbar Ahmadiyan (chief of IRGC Joint Staff) Brig. Gen. Mohammad Hejazi (Basij commander) Entities Added by Resolution 1803 Thirteen Iranians named in Annex 1 to Resolution 1803; all reputedly involved in various aspects of nuclear program. Bans travel for five named Iranians. Electro Sanam Co. Abzar Boresh Kaveh Co. (centrifuge production) Barzaganin Tejaral Tavanmad Saccal Jabber Ibn Hayan Khorasan Metallurgy Industries Niru Battery Manufacturing Co. (Makes batteries for Iranian military and missile systems) Ettehad Technical Group (AIO front co.) Industrial Factories of Precision Congressional Research Service 37 Iran Sanctions Joza Industrial Co. Pshgam (Pioneer) Energy Industries Tamas Co. (involved in uranium enrichment) Safety Equipment Procurement (AIO front, involved in missiles) Entities Added by Resolution 1929 Over 40 entities added; makes mandatory a previously non-binding travel ban on most named Iranians of previous resolutions. Adds one individual banned for travel – AEIO head Javad Rahiqi Amin Industrial Complex Armament Industries Group Defense Technology and Science Research Center (owned or controlled by Ministry of Defense)……. Doostan International Company Farasakht Industries First East Export Bank, PLC (only bank added by 1929) Kaveh Cutting Tools Company M. Babaie Industries Malek Ashtar University (subordinate of Defense Technology and Science Research Center, above) Ministry of Defense Logistics Export (sells Iranian made arms to customers worldwide) Mizan Machinery Manufacturing Modern Industries Technique Company Nuclear Research Center for Agriculture and Medicine (research component of the AEIO) Pejman Industrial Services Corp. Sabalan Company Sahand Aluminum Parts Industrial Company Shahid Karrazi Industries Shahid Sattari Industries Shahid Sayyade Shirazi Industries (acts on behalf of the DIO) Special Industries Group (another subordinate of DIO) Tiz Pars (cover name for SHIG) Yazd Metallurgy Industries The following are Revolutionary Guard affiliated firms, several are subsidiaries of Khatam ol-Anbiya, the main Guard construction affiliate: Fater Institute Garaghe Sazendegi Ghaem Gorb Karbala Gorb Nooh Hara Company Imensazan Consultant Engineers Institute Khatam ol-Anbiya Makin Congressional Research Service 38 Iran Sanctions Omran Sahel Oriental Oil Kish Rah Sahel Rahab Engineering Institute Sahel Consultant Engineers Sepanir Sepasad Engineering Company The following are entities owned or controlled by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL): Irano Hind Shipping Company IRISL Benelux South Shipping Line Iran Entities Designated Under U.S. Executive Order 13382 (many designations coincident with designations under U.N. resolutions) Entity Date Named Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (Iran) June 2005, September 2007 Shahid Bakeri Industrial Group (Iran) June 2005, February 2009 Atomic Energy Organization of Iran June 2005 Novin Energy Company (Iran) January 2006 Mesbah Energy Company (Iran) January 2006 Four Chinese entities: Beijing Alite Technologies, LIMMT Economic and Trading Company, China Great Wall Industry Corp, and China National Precision Machinery June 2006 Congressional Research Service 35 Iran Sanctions Import/Export Corp. June 2006 Sanam Industrial Group (Iran) July 2006 Ya Mahdi Industries Group (Iran) July 2006 Bank Sepah (Iran) January 2007 Defense Industries Organization (Iran) March 2007 Pars Trash (Iran, nuclear program) June 2007 Farayand Technique (Iran, nuclear program) June 2007 Fajr Industries Group (Iran, missile program) June 2007 Mizan Machine Manufacturing Group (Iran, missile prog.) June 2007 Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO) (Iran) September 2007 Korea Mining and Development Corp. (N. Korea) September 2007 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) October 21, 2007 Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics October 21, 2007 Bank Melli (Iran’s largest bank, widely used by Guard); Bank Melli Iran Zao (Moscow); Melli Bank PC (U.K.) October 21, 2007 Bank Kargoshaee October 21, 2007 Arian Bank (joint venture between Melli and Bank Saderat). Based in Afghanistan October 21, 2007 Congressional Research Service 39 Iran Sanctions Bank Mellat (provides banking services to Iran’s nuclear sector); Mellat Bank SB CJSC (Armenia). Reportedly has $1.4 billion in assets in UAE October 21, 2007 Persia International Bank PLC (U.K.) October 21, 2007 Khatam ol Anbiya Gharargah Sazendegi Nooh (main IRGC construction and contracting arm, with $7 billion in oil, gas deals) October 21, 2007 Oriental Oil Kish (Iranian oil exploration firm) October 21, 2007 Ghorb Karbala; Ghorb Nooh (synonymous with Khatam ol Anbiya) October 21, 2007 Sepasad Engineering Company (Guard construction affiliate) October 21, 2007 Omran Sahel (Guard construction affiliate) October 21, 2007 Sahel Consultant Engineering (Guard construction affiliate) October 21, 2007 Hara Company October 21, 2007 Gharargahe Sazandegi Ghaem October 21, 2007 Bahmanyar Morteza Bahmanyar (AIO, Iran missile official, see above under Resolution 1737) October 21, 2007 Ahmad Vahid Dastjerdi (AIO head, Iran missile program) October 21, 2007 Reza Gholi Esmaeli (AIO, see under Resolution 1737) October 21, 2007 Morteza Reza’i (deputy commander, IRGC) See also Resolution 1747 October 21, 2007 Mohammad Hejazi (Basij commander). Also, Resolution 1747 October 21, 2007 Ali Akbar Ahmadian (Chief of IRGC Joint Staff). Resolution 1747 October 21, 2007 Congressional Research Service 36 Iran Sanctions Hosein Salimi (IRGC Air Force commander). Resolution 1737 October 21, 2007 Qasem Soleimani (Qods Force commander). Resolution 1747 October 21, 2007 Future Bank (Bahrain-based but allegedly controlled by Bank Melli) March 12, 2008 Yahya Rahim Safavi (former IRGC Commander in Chief July 8, 2008 Mohsen Fakrizadeh-Mahabadi (senior Defense Ministry scientist) July 8, 2008 Dawood Agha-Jani (head of Natanz enrichment site) July 8, 2008 Mohsen Hojati (head of Fajr Industries, involved in missile program) July 8, 2008 Mehrdada Akhlaghi Ketabachi (heads Shahid Bakeri Industrial Group) July 8, 2008 Naser Maliki (heads Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group) July 8, 2008 Tamas Company (involved in uranium enrichment) July 8, 2008 Shahid Sattari Industries (makes equipment for Shahid Bakeri) July 8, 2008 7th of Tir (involved in developing centrifuge technology) July 8, 2008 Congressional Research Service 40 Iran Sanctions Ammunition and Metallurgy Industries Group (partner of 7th of Tir) July 8, 2008 7th July 8, 2008 Parchin Chemical Industries (deals in chemicals used in ballistic missile programs) July 8, 2008 Karaj Nuclear Research Center August 12, 2008 Esfahan Nuclear Fuel Research and Production Center (NFRPC) August 12, 2008 Jabber Ibn Hayyan (reports to Atomic Energy Org. of Iran, AEIO) August 12, 2008 Safety Equipment Procurement Company August 12, 2008 Joza Industrial Company (front company for Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group, SHIG) August 12, 2008 Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) and 18 affiliates, including Val Fajr 8; Kazar; Irinvestship; Shipping Computer Services; Iran o Misr Shipping; Iran o Hind; IRISL Marine Services; Iriatal Shipping; South Shipping; IRISL Multimodal; Oasis; IRISL Europe; IRISL Benelux; IRISL China; Asia Marine Network; CISCO Shipping; and IRISL Malta September 10, 2008 Firms affiliated to the Ministry of Defense, including Armament Industries Group; Farasakht Industries; Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Co.; Iran Communications Industries; Iran Electronics Industries; and Shiraz Electronics Industries September 17, 2008 Export Development Bank of Iran. Provides financial services to Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics October 22, 2008 Assa Corporation (alleged front for Bank Melli involved in managing property in New York City on behalf of Iran) December 17, 2008 11 Entities Tied to Bank Melli: Bank Melli Iran Investment March 3, 2009 Congressional Research Service 37 Iran Sanctions (BMIIC); Bank Melli Printing and Publishing; Melli Investment Holding; Mehr Cayman Ltd.; Cement Investment and Development; Mazandaran Cement Co.; Shomal Cement; Mazandaran Textile; Melli Agrochemical; First Persian Equity Fund; BMIIC Intel. General Trading March 3, 2009 IRGC General Rostam Qasemi, head of Khatem ol-Anbiya Construction Headquarters (key corporate arm of the IRGC) February 10, 2010 (see also October 21, 2007) Fater Engineering Institute (linked to Khatem ol-Anbiya) February 10, 2010 Imensazen Consultant Engineers Institute (linked to Khatem Khatem ol-Anbiya) February 10, 2010 Makin Institute (linked to Khatem ol-Anbiya) February 10, 2010 Rahab Institute (linked to Khatem on-Anbiya) February 10, 2010 Entities Sanctioned on June 16, 2010 under E.O. 13382: - Post Bank of Iran - IRGC Air Force - IRGC Missile Command - Rah Sahel and Sepanir Oil and Gas Engineering (for ties to Khatem ol-Anibya IRGC construction affiliate) - Mohammad Ali Jafari – IRGC Commander-in-Chief since September 2007 Congressional Research Service 41 Iran Sanctions - Mohammad Reza Naqdi – Head of the IRGC’s Basij militia force that suppresses dissent (since October 2009) - Ahmad Vahedi – Defense Minister - javedan Mehr Toos, Javad Karimi Sabet (procurement brokers or atomic energy managers) - Naval Defense Missile Inddustry Group (controlled by the Aircraft Industries Org that manages Iran’s missile programs) - Five front companies for IRISL: Hafiz Darya Shipping Co.; Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management Co.; Safiran Payam Darya; and Hong Kong-based Seibow Limited and Seibow Logistics. Also identified on June 16 were 27 vessels linked to IRISKL and 71 new names of already designated IRISL ships. Several Iranian entities were also designated as owned or controlled by Iran for purposes of the ban on U.S. trade with Iran. Entities Sanctioned Under Executive Order 13224 (Terrorism Entities) Qods Force October 21, 2007 Bank Saderat (allegedly used to funnel Iranian money to Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, and other Iranian supported terrorist groups) October 21, 2007 Al Qaeda Operatives in Iran: Saad bin Laden; Mustafa Hamid; Muhammad Rab’a al-Bahtiyti; Alis Saleh Husain January 16, 2009 Entities Sanctioned Under the Iran North Korea Syria Non-Proliferation Act and other U.S. Proliferation Laws (Executive Order 12938) Baltic State Technical University and Glavkosmos, both of Russia July 30, 1998 (E.O. 12938). Both removed in 2010 – Baltic on Jan. 29, 2010 and Glavkosmos on March 4, 2010 D. Mendeleyev University of Chemical Technology of Russia and Moscow Aviation Institute January 8, 1999 (E.O. 12938). Both removed on May 21, 2010 Norinco (China). For alleged missile technology sale to Iran. May 2003 Taiwan Foreign Trade General Corporation (Taiwan) July 4, 2003 Tula Instrument Design Bureau (Russia). For alleged sales of laser-guided artillery shells to Iran. September 17, 2003 (also designated under Executive Order 12938), removed May 21, 2010 13 entities sanctioned including companies from Russia, China, Belarus, Macedonia, North Korea, UAE, and Taiwan. April 7, 2004 14 entities from China, North Korea, Belarus, India (two nuclear scientists, Dr. Surendar and Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad), Russia, Spain, and Ukraine. September 29, 2004 14 entities, mostly from China, for alleged supplying of Iran’s missile program. Many, such as North Korea’s Changgwang Sinyong and China’s Norinco and Great Wall Industry Corp, have been sanctioned several times previously. Newly sanctioned entities included North Korea’s Paeksan Associated Corporation, and Taiwan’s Ecoma Enterprise Co. December 2004 and January 2005 9 entities, including those from China (Norinco yet again), India (two chemical companies), and Austria. Sanctions against Dr. Surendar of India (see September 29, 2004) were ended, presumably because of information exonerating him. December 26, 2005 7 entities. Two Indian chemical companies (Balaji Amines and Prachi Poly Products); two Russian firms August 4, 2006 (see below for Rosobornexport removal) Congressional Research Service 38 Iran Sanctions (Rosobornexport and aircraft manufacturer Sukhoi); two North Korean entities (Korean Mining and Industrial Development, and Korea Pugang Trading); and one Cuban August 4, 2006 (see below for Rosobornexport removal) Congressional Research Service 42 Iran Sanctions entity (Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology). 9 entities. Rosobornexport, Tula Design, and Komna Design Office of Machine Building, and Alexei Safonov (Russia); Zibo Chemical, China National Aerotechnology, and China National Electrical (China). Korean Mining and Industrial Development (North Korea) for WMD or advanced weapons sales to Iran (and Syria). January 2007 (see below for Tula and Rosoboronexport removal) 14 entities, including Lebanese Hezbollah. Some were penalized for transactions with Syria. Among the new entities sanctioned for assisting Iran were Shanghai NonFerrous Metals Pudong Development Trade Company (China); Iran’s Defense Industries Organization; Sokkia Company (Singapore); Challenger Corporation (Malaysia); Target Airfreight (Malaysia); Aerospace Logistics Services (Mexico); and Arif Durrani (Pakistani national). April 23, 2007 13 entities: China Xinshidai Co.; China Shipbuilding and Offshore International Corp.; Huazhong CNC (China); IRGC; Korea Mining Development Corp. (North Korea); Korea Taesong Trading Co. (NK); Yolin/Yullin Tech, Inc. (South Korea); Rosoboronexport (Russia sate arms export agency); Sudan Master Technology; Sudan Technical Center Co; Army Supply Bureau (Syria); R and M International FZCO (UAE); Venezuelan Military Industries Co. (CAVIM); October 23, 2008. Rosoboronexport removed May May 21, 2010. Entities Designated as Threats to Iraqi Stability under Executive Order 13438 Ahmad Forouzandeh. Commander of the Qods Force Ramazan Headquarters, accused of fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq and of organizing training in Iran for Iraqi Shiite militia fighters January 9, 2008 Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani. Iran based leader of network that funnels Iranian arms to Shiite militias in Iraq. January 9, 2008 Isma’il al-Lami (Abu Dura). Shiite militia leader, breakaway from Sadr Mahdi Army, alleged to have committed mass kidnapings and planned assassination attempts against Iraqi Sunni politicians January 9, 2008 Mishan al-Jabburi. Financier of Sunni insurgents, owner of pro-insurgent Al-Zawra television, now banned January 9, 2008 Al Zawra Television Station January 9, 2008 Khata’ib Hezbollah (pro-Iranian Mahdi splinter group) July 2, 2009 Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis July 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service 39 Iran Sanctions Author Contact Information Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs kkatzman@crs.loc.gov, 7-7612 Congressional Research Service 4043