Bush declared in no uncertain terms that Iran was "the world's primary state sponsor of terror" and went on to admonish those who “support terrorism” by doing business with terrorist nations.

Sanctions were imposed on Iran 10 years ago. Since then, several US companies have continued to do business there, using a corporate shell game to skirt the edges of the law, however every convoluted offshore subsidiary traces back to Halliburton HQ in Texas. Many of these are oil companies, the most famous (or should I say infamous) is Halliburton.




By doing business with Iran, are Halliburton et al "supporting terrorism"?

If sanctions were imposed to keep companies from doing business with terrorist states or states that support terrorism, should Halliburton and other US companies be ordered out of Iran immediately?

Should stiffer penalties be assessed against these companies for violating the sanctions?

By doing business with Iran, are Halliburton et al "supporting terrorism"?

I wouldn't say so in general. That's not a simple cause-effect situation. However, in the eyes of the administration it would be necessary to isolate any countries that are considered to support terrorism. To circumvent this tactic of isolation can be considered harmful to the fight against terror.

If sanctions were imposed to keep companies from doing business with terrorist states or states that support terrorism, should Halliburton and other US companies be ordered out of Iran immediately?
It would be a necessary step if the American administration considers Iran to be supporting terrorism.

Should stiffer penalties be assessed against these companies for violating the sanctions?[
Definitely, only sanctions that outweigh the profits are effective.

What is peculiar though is that Dick Cheney was the Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, so he must have known that his company has contracts that collide with the spirit of those sanctions, maybe he was actively engaged in these actions, we don't know.

This is exactly what many people in other countries are sick and tired of: The obvious hypocrisy of the American government.
Actions and words are fundamentally diverse, the war against terror is fought bravely, but when oil interests or money is involved, those words are meaningless and against the best interest of the nation. Another example: To propagate free trade but impose protective tariffs when the own economy is suffering the same effect as those countries that are urged to open markets.
Sick and tired of it.

I am anxious to see what the American government will do now if anything to prevent these actions of undermining the sanctions in the future.

When the administration focused on France and other countries that did business with Iraq despite the sanctions, the public outcry was great, called traitors and supporters of terrorism. I wonder what the American public will do now.

By doing business with Iran, are Halliburton et al "supporting terrorism"?

If it's true that using illegal drugs supports terrorism, then yes, in the same kind of general logic, doing business with Iran supports terrorism too.

But that logic is very faulty for both situations. If the money can be traced to terrorism, then there's a very large problem here.

If sanctions were imposed to keep companies from doing business with terrorist states or states that support terrorism, should Halliburton and other US companies be ordered out of Iran immediately?

To keep consistently on message, yes, this administration should push for this action. I don't think this administration cares about staying on messages created during the first term.

Should stiffer penalties be assessed against these companies for violating the sanctions?

The penalties should be made stiff enough to remove the profit motive of doing business with identifited axis of evil states.

The thing is though, we all pretty much know the whole terrorist thing has been and continues to be used to the advantage of whatever agenda is currently being pushed. Messages and actions change to suit, so there you go.

I don't expect any big uproar about this most recent expose' of true intent. I do expect rationalizations and spins to be provided, thus making everything okay.

By doing business with Iran, are Halliburton et al "supporting terrorism"?

If you accept the notion that Iran is the greatest supporter of global terrorism (a claim made by the Bush administration I believe) then yes. Halliburton is supporting terrorism by supporting Iran.


If sanctions were imposed to keep companies from doing business with terrorist states or states that support terrorism, should Halliburton and other US companies be ordered out of Iran immediately?

Of course. Otherwise what is the real point of those sanctions?


Should stiffer penalties be assessed against these companies for violating the sanctions?

Only if they are actually held to account. If Halliburton has a free pass from the US government then it is the US government and not just Haliburton that should be brought to account.



The American public will do nothing. As usual.

By doing business with Iran, are Halliburton et al "supporting terrorism"?Of course it is. Iran is the only country in the world that posts it's terrorism budget. So yes all companies doing business with Iran are supporting terrorism

If sanctions were imposed to keep companies from doing business with terrorist states or states that support terrorism, should Halliburton and other US companies be ordered out of Iran immediately?Yesterday would be a good date. They should never have been there in the first place

Should stiffer penalties be assessed against these companies for violating the sanctions? I would support criminal charges against the senior executives, including the entire board of Halliburton. Charge them with aid and abetting terrorism. That might begin to get the attention of American corporation after the almighty dollar despite endangering Americans. The civil penalties should begin at something like triple what they made. Then and only then would the world sit up and take notice that we mean business in this war on terrorism.

By doing business with Iran, are Halliburton et al "supporting terrorism"?

If sanctions were imposed to keep companies from doing business with terrorist states or states that support terrorism, should Halliburton and other US companies be ordered out of Iran immediately?

Should stiffer penalties be assessed against these companies for violating the sanctions?


I'll try to answer all three of these questions "free form".....

I've seen numerous reports about this including one done by Lisa Myers on NBC. Sorry, I don't have the link to that one, but I think based on the hard evidence that there is no question Halliburton is doing business with Iran and in effect supporting terrorism. No question in my mind whatsoever. This makes Halliburton a de facto terrorist organization and if we're going to apply the Patriot Act to terrorist organizations, then it should be applied here. Shut 'em down. I'm serious. Seize their assests, freeze their bank accounts, arrest their leaders. If this thing goes to Cheney, and I don't think it does, then I will be first in line to call for his removal. This kind of crap really ticks me off.....

Aquilla, I don't think I could agree with you more if I tried. My real concern over this issue is how willing the present administration & Congress will be to scrutinize it. Even if Cheney isn't involved (which believe it or not I'm willing to say innocent until proven guilty for now), this whole thing stinks.

Specifically, to answer the three questions. Yes, yes, yes. MNC's like Halliburton (and I suspect a few more) are extremely culpable in this game, arguably playing both sides imo. It wreaks of a Bond movie a few years ago with the guy from the Infinity commercials (name escapes me and I'm trying to leave work).

If sanctions were imposed to keep companies from doing business with terrorist states or states that support terrorism, should Halliburton and other US companies be ordered out of Iran immediately?

We made a fuss about France and Kofi Annan while we either tolerated broken sanctions to protect our interests or were complicit in the act.



Halliburton and friends will get slapped with fines again. Without heavy public pressure even Eliot Spitzer couldn't sic these overzealous capitalists.

In formulating my first post, I seem to have melded two thoughts together. There are many other US companies doing business in Iran, Halliburton being the most well-known. All of them use off-shore "headquarters" to skirt the issue of working in a sanctioned country. GE, MSN(BC)'s parent company, was one of those companies. They voluntarily closed up shop in Iran.

Halliburton may say they're closing up shop, but you'll notice my second quote source says they will be allowed to meet "prior committments". Heck, that could be YEARS! Pretty slick.

Hey, this might be the first topic both sides of the political aisle agree on!

I suppose I'll play the Devil's Advocate... again. The company of Halliburton has, from an economic sense, committed no fiscal wrong. By entering Iran and continuing the life of their business, corporate leaders of Halliburton have created more jobs for Americans. Americans need jobs now more than ever, and although I do not think the jobs should be found on foreign soil or in other nations holdings I do believe that Halliburton has contributed to the welfare of American citizens.
It really depends on what kind of punishments. Granted sanctions were broken, but not a law. A sanction is a kind of un-substanced law. Without the means to support a law there is nothing. So the belief probably driving Halliburton: the law that cannot be broken can surely be bent. Conceivably the corporation is provided more jobs and providing more monetary means by which to operate their company.
Not only does the continuation of the company do good for any who work within their means, but it also serves America. I believe that the price of Halliburton doing business in Iran is well worth it. America operates on the capital of its citizens. Without tax payments from both corporate giants and the people working for it the nation has no room for which to expand roads, provide salaries to teachers, etc.
So, if you sit down and think it through: Halliburton does not benefit or promote the act of terrorism at all. In reality, as I have said before, the true benefits lie with us. We gain the rewards reaped by any American-run system, not terrorists. Sure, they do business in a hostile land but does it mean that it is no more good business? People of eastern Asia don’t quite agree with the American language, yet they speak it for the good of commerce. Should companies like Halliburton simply cease to exist simply because American’s don’t trust the middle-east?
To shift beliefs a bit, yes. I think that penalties should be considerably raised when laws/sanctions are violated. Not only does it invite further breaking of rules but it also states that any law/sanction can be disregarded at the liking of anyone. Not the most humble message big business could be sending to America. Yet still, the punishments should be increased so in no uncertain terms violators of the law will be dealt with.


Brief answer to question two:

I do not believe that companies should be ordered out of Iran. I think that it places limits on our system of free-enterprise. It would almost be compared to a state of overseas communism: no more commerce with that nation because they do not agree with our views. Simply put: no.

As much as I support American commerce, there is a limit. Halliburton and company have clearly crossed that limit and then some.

I do not care if it matched our entire GNP, that just would not matter if it caused another American to lose their life.

Frankly just because an American company is making money doesn't matter, these people should be sent to Gitmo and be treated the same as other terrorists. The President stated quite clearly that those that support terrorism are as guilty as those that carry it out, so lets start treating them the same. No matter how much campaign contributions they may or may not have given.

It doesn't pass the smell test in any regard.

Well advocated, VDemosthenes, but doesn't that logic also place France and Germany beyond all possible blame for breaking sanctions in Iraq?

I don't want to take the thread off topic, so if you wish to debate it let's do it by PM or another thread (better), but I can't help but think that your logic ultimately would ultimately lead to companies breaking any law or regulation they felt like if they thought there was a buck in it.

Companies are already subject to different laws from those applied to individuals. And, in many cases, these laws are more lenient on companies where there is a direct analogy - they are only taxed on profits, where individuals are taxed on total income, for example.

I, for one, would like to see legislation moving to iron out these anomalies, rather than give even greater passes to corporations. Especially to corporations with close ties to the political elite, such as Halliburton (though she does look good in a bikini ).

And of course, this CNN article is complete rubbish, and the writer is either ignorant of the facts or has no journalistic integrity at all. These "unclassified State Department documents" reveal absolutely no "open secrets" because they were never secrets at all. Shortly after the first Gulf war, Jordan approached the Security Council and explained its intentions. Iraq owed them an extreme debt, and discounted oil was to be their method of debt payment. This information was public at the time...and remained a matter of public policy, renewed each year, entitled the Jordanian-Iraqi trade protocol (approved by a U.N. committee enforcing economic sanctions). The deal was an exception from the U.N. sanctions because Amman was unable to find an alternative source for oil supplies at concessionary terms.

Furthermore, we certainly were not complicit or approving of Turkey's illicit transactions with Iraq. The pumping station was on the Iraq-Turkey pipeline, and U.N monitoring and aid distribution facilities were put in place. At the very most, you might argue we didn't do enough to prevent surreptitious transactions, though I'm not sure how. SHould we have sanctioned Turkey? We didn't sanction anyone else for illicit buying so why would we choose to single out Turkey, the most democrat Muslim country in the area? And we certainly took the sanctions more seriously than most other countries (with the exception of the UK).

Per the question to be debated, as far as I'm concerned, if true, was should hold Halliburten accountable. Hang 'em high. And we should also boycott foreign companies that do business in Iran (I think we already do after renewing the ILSA). Otherwise, those companies are the rough equivalent of a Caymen Island go-between for us.

In this case, I happen to think that the allegations are true, and probably legal. Based on the NBC report, which by the way acknowledged that GE had also done business with Iran through a foreign subsidary, Halliburton has used a company incorporated off-shore to skirt the sanctions. This may be legal, but it's completely unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

But, there's a problem I think with all of this, a political problem. When it comes to Halliburton there is a "cry wolf" syndrome that's going to happen and be exploited by Halliburton's defenders. The Democrats have been railing against Cheney and Halliburton for so long over things that were purely political potshots that now any new allegations, even ones that are serious and true, will be easily painted as just more politics. "There they go again....." kind of thing.

I am truly outraged by this and I would like to see some strong sanctions taken against Halliburton and it's leadership for this. I mean jail time, some serious jail time. Here we have an American company in bed with a nation who is subsidizing terrorists who are killing our people in Iraq, and some of those people even work for this company! How warped is that? But, to get anything done, it's going to take some Republicans to come out against it and not just some Republicans, but the right ones. Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe aren't going to cut it on this one. We need people like John Warner, Rick Santorum, Duke Cunningham and Duncan Hunter to do this. This from a pure political standpoint. When guys like those four start talking about a problem like this, there's going to be a whole lot of people that are going to start listening.

Edited to add.....

Just so y'all know, yeah, I'm working the problem......

Aquilla, I did mention in my original post and here that there are many other companies (30, I believe) doing the same thing. And at least GE did the right thing. I doubt Halliburton has the same intentions. The loophole that allows them to complete "existing projects" will be milked for all its worth. Halliburton hardly needs any help scapegoating itself. Rather than "blame" the Democrats for "railing against Cheney and Halliburton", why don't you rail against the Republican apologists who allow the activity to continue?

Mrs. P:

The only reaction I could find to the CNN article is on Washington Times:



I will take your word for the Jordan approaching the security council, though I wish I knew what restrictions applied, if any. This fact introduces some interesting problems. It does explain Jordan's opposition to smart sanctions before the war, but if Jordan and Turkey really provided Saddam with 85% of his "illicit" income, heck, let's say half, it undercuts the administration's allegation that Saddam was using his "ill-gotten gains" to develop WMD. Nor can "America's interests" explain the US turning a blind eye to Jordan shipping the Iraqi oil to other M.E. countries before the invasion, unless that too was waived by the U.S. and the UNSC. And if not waived, did it occur more than once.

The problem, DaffyGrl, is that the Democrats have over-played their hand when it comes to Halliburton. They have thrown the kitchen sink at the Cheney/Halliburton connection with a bunch of spurious garbage for so long that most Americans no longer pay any attention to it. Now, here comes a legitimate problem with Halliburton and if the Democrats bring it up, most people are just going to roll their eyes with the "same ole-same ole". That's why I think it is going to take a solid-core Republican like the ones I mentioned to make this issue.

If Henry Waxman tries it, he's going to be blown off because he investigates every Republican he can find. It's easy to blow him off. If, on the other hand, Duke Cunningham makes an issue of this, people are going to sit up and pay attention to it. Do you think Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter et all are going to mess with him and try to blow him off? Guess again. Even the White House isn't going to mess around with that guy and discount his concerns. If someone like him makes this an issue, it's an issue and partisan politics fly out the window.

I'd personally very much agree with you Aquilla. This will get laughed off if the Democrats even breathe a word about it. It'll be less than a few hours before every right wing pundit on radio and TV is nailing them for it. In my opinion that is wrong, but that's another story.

So, yes the only way anything will happen on this is if a respectable Republican stands up and speaks out against it. What makes you think we have any willing to stick their necks out though?

As we can all clearly see from this thread this is something that should transcend political lines, but the sad fact is that it won't. I may be cynical, but I really don't believe anything will be done.

Not so sure on that Aquilla. The conservative propaganda machine is very well pleased with itself--they will go after any Republican who steps out of line and questions anything republican these days. Hannity and Coulter wouldn't hesitate to try and decimate anyone they consider offering shelter to any idea or line of questioning that could possibly benefit Democrats. The current success of bush policy has made many of these bloated talking heads very arrogant. If the republicans are going to pay for any overreaching this time it will because of these demagogues drunk with their current power.
While I agree that Halliburton has been used too much to raise any real wave of support--I disagree with why you think it won't matter. It won't matter because it has been seen time and time again that nothing will be done. To many people--even on your side of the ilse, Halliburton just has too much juice to be harmed--they are just short of Untouchable. Their connections with so many prominent politicians and businessmen offers them immunity to almost anything short of active murder of civilians. They don't have corporate lawyers but consigliere.

I would love to see Republicans call Halliburton on its hypocrisy greed and IMO outright criminal behavior--again IMO it would offer a show of sticking with one's core principles not seen in politics in a long time--slapping down those who believe they are beyond the law.