Obama tried to avoid sanctions

Yesterday, we reported that the Senate’s Subcommittee on Investigations has found that the Obama Administration lied to both Congress and the media, concerning its attempt to circumvent U.S. sanctions on Iran. Today, we examine the Committee’s findings of fact and recommendations.

The curious desperation of the Obama Administration to help Iran was illustrated by the White House move to encourage foreign banks to assist the Tehran regime. The just-released Report of the Senate’s Permanent SubCommittee on Investigations notes that “The State Department and Treasury Department held at least 200 meetings or ‘roadshows’ around the world to encourage other countries to do business with Iran. Treasury Department officials downplayed any potential future penalties or fines, stating that 95 percent of the time, The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) sends a warning letter or takes no action. And at least one European regulator who attended an OFAC roadshow, commented that foreign financial institutions felt ‘political pressure’ to conduct business with Iran and Iranian companies. ”

Review of U.S. Treasury Department’s License to Convert Iranian Assets Using the U.S. Financial System: MAJORITY REPORT PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

FINDINGS OF FACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings of Fact

(1) Under the JPOA, Iran transferred roughly $13.4 billion in oil revenue assets to restricted accounts overseas. Iran deposited $8.8 billion of that oil revenue in one restricted account at Bank Muscat in Muscat, Oman.

(2) Following Implementation Day for the JCPOA, Iran began to seek the benefits of the deal, including requesting access to assets frozen in restricted accounts. While other countries were free to do business with Iran, primary sanctions by the United States remained in place under the terms of the JCPOA. This meant it continued to be illegal for U.S. persons and entities to do business with Iranian persons and entities.

(3) Iran requested access to the U.S. financial system. Three days after Implementation Day, Bank Muscat contacted OFAC on behalf of the Central Bank of Iran. Bank Muscat sought to convert $5.7 billion in Omai rials into euros on behalf of Iran. Because the rial is pegged to the U.S. dollar, the most efficient conversion was with an intermediary step through a U.S. bank using U.S. dollars. However, other options to convert the rials into euros without using the U.S. dollar existed.

(4) U.S. government officials testified before Congress that Iran was not granted access to the U.S. financial system under the JCPOA. In July 2015, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, under the JCPOA, Iran “will continue to be denied access to the [U.S.’s] financial and commercial market.” Later that same month, the Treasury Department’s Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Adam Szubin, testified to the Senate Banking Committee: “Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.” Ambassador Thomas Shannon from the State Department testified that there would not be an “exchange of dollars inside the U.S. financial system” and that Iran would not have access to the larger U.S. financial system.

(5) The Treasury Department issued a specific license to authorize Iran’s assets at Bank Muscat to be converted to U.S. dollars through the U.S. financial system. On February 24, 2016, OFAC issued a specific license to Bank Muscat authorizing Iranian assets worth roughly $5.7 billion to flow through the U.S. financial system. The Bank Muscat specific license expired on February 28, 2017.

(6) For the duration of the specific license, Bank Muscat was authorized to use the U.S. financial system to convert additional future Iranian deposits, known as “fresh funds.” One Bank Muscat executive wrote this was a “gigantic breakthrough which has assured Iran of almost full global financial inclusion.”

(7) U.S. government officials encouraged two U.S. banks to convert Iran’s rials. Following the issuance of the specific license, OFAC contacted two U.S. banks to convert Iran’s rials to U.S. dollars. A State Department official even suggested that Secretary Kerry or Secretary Lew should contact the U.S. banks and encourage them to facilitate the conversion. Both banks declined to complete the transaction due to compliance, reputational, and legal risks associated with doing business with Iran.

(8) The Senior State Department Official negotiating implementation of the JCPOA understood giving Iran access to the U.S. financial system was prohibited by U.S. sanctions and outside the relief under the JCPOA or JPOA. That official wrote to his Iranian counterpart that the specific license “exceeded” the U.S. commitments under the JCPOA. He continued that the Treasury Department authorized the transaction “as a gesture of support” to Iran.

Hereby what is to be done? Think to yourself levitra tab 20mg robertrobb.com for a moment. A http://robertrobb.com/petersen-denied-the-presumption-of-innocence/ buy generic levitra medicinal drug like Sildenafil Citrate helps improve erection by boosting blood flow. Erectile dysfunction is an inability to retain a satisfactory erection while the sexual levitra on line intercourse. Many women are reluctant or too embarrassed to discuss their medical needs in a levitra overnight public place;- Lower costs, as well as tightens Pubo Coccygeal that enhance your performance in the bed. (9) Treasury Department officials strongly considered issuing a general license authorizing all foreign financial institutions to conduct similar transactions using the U.S. financial system to convert Iranian assets. One official at the National Security Council emailed concerns about linking the general license to the JCPOA. In response, a Treasury Department official disagreed and asserted a general license must be linked to the JCPOA and revoked in the event of a snapback. That general license was never issued once it was evident that U.S. financial institutions did not appear eager to conduct foreign currency exchanges on behalf of Iran. 7

(10) Materials prepared for Treasury Secretary Lew to testify before Congress about the JCPOA suggested he disclose the specific license to Bank Muscat “if pressed.” In his testimony, Secretary Lew did not disclose the specific license authorizing Iran to access the U.S. financial system. In fact, the Treasury Department maintained Iran was not given access to the U.S. financial system, nor was the U.S. government working to give them access.

(11) When the two U.S. correspondent banks declined to convert the funds, other options were considered. The other options considered included Bank Muscat coordinating with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Bank for International Settlements, and the Central Bank of Germany. None of these options were effectuated.

(12) The State Department and Treasury Department held at least 200 meetings or “roadshows” around the world to encourage other countries to do business with Iran. Treasury Department officials downplayed any potential future penalties or fines, stating that 95 percent of the time, OFAC sends a warning letter or takes no action. And at least one European regulator who attended an OFAC roadshow, commented that foreign financial institutions felt “political pressure” to conduct business with Iran and Iranian companies.

(13) Treasury Department officials proactively contacted foreign financial institutions to provide information about the JCPOA’s sanctions relief. In one example, an OFAC compliance officer proactively contacted a foreign financial institution to make sure they “understood Iran sanctions relief.” The communication left the foreign financial institution confused, since that foreign financial institution “had no business with Iran.” (14) Iran’s assets remained at Bank Muscat. Despite issuing the specific license to allow Iran to access the U.S. financial system, Bank Muscat was unable to effectuate the conversion using the U.S. dollar. The State Department indicated Iran converted the funds in small increments using European banks and without accessing the U.S. financial system.

Recommendations

(1) Informed future negotiations with Iran. The current Administration should be aware of the importance of Iran accessing the U.S. financial system in any future negotiations regarding sanctions relief with Iran. The Administration should brief congressional committees of jurisdiction 8 and oversight committees periodically and on request of the status of any future negotiations.

(2) Congress should require the Treasury Department to provide notice of any specific license to Congress. The notice to Congress should be provided to all congressional committees of jurisdiction and oversight committees within a reasonable time prior to the license taking effect. The notice should, at minimum, include a copy of the specific license.

(3) Understand other sanctions relief granted to Iran. The Treasury Department should immediately provide all JPOA and JCPOA related specific licenses and comfort letters to congressional committees of jurisdiction and oversight committees.

(4) Agencies should increase coordination with regard to sanctions. The State and Treasury Departments should closely coordinate when discussing sanctions relief to ensure that State Department policy goals can be properly executed with Treasury Department tools, such as general or specific licenses.

(5) Increased policing of U.S. sanctions policies. OFAC should effectively police U.S. sanctions and ensure the current sanctions regime is properly enforced. OFAC officials should also refrain from telling foreign persons and entities that violations of U.S. sanctions only result in an enforcement action five percent of the time.

Illustration: Pixabay

A just-released report from the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Committee reveals that the Obama administration violated existing sanctions on Iran and clandestinely attempted to give that nation unlawful access to America’s financial system. The White House specifically and repeatedly lied to both Congress and the American public about this.

In March 2016, Senators Marco Rubio and Mark Kirk wrote to the Treasury Department to seek clarity on “new reports suggesting the Administration is working to give Iran access to the U.S. financial system or to dollar transactions outside of the U.S. financial system.” The Treasury Department falsely responded in June 2016: “To be clear, the U.S. Department of Treasury is not working on behalf of Iran to enable Iranian access to U.S. dollars elsewhere in the international financial system, nor are we assisting Iran in gaining access to dollar payment systems outside the U.S. financial system. The Administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system. Just three months earlier, the same agency issued a specific license for Iran to access to the U.S. financial system and the U.S. dollar.”

Previous to the 2016 deception, in July 2015, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, the Iran Nuclear Agreement) that Iran “will continue to be denied access to the [U.S.’s] financial and commercial market.” Later that same month, the Treasury Department’s Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Adam Szubin, testified to the Senate Banking Committee: “Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.”

Under existing sanctions, it was illegal for any individual, entity, or financial institutions to do business with Iran or parties on behalf of Iran. This ban also included any “U-Turn” transactions—which are transactions by or on behalf of an Iranian bank in which a U.S. bank acted solely as an intermediary to convert one foreign currency into dollars and then to another foreign currency.

The joint dysfunction is treated in a variety of ways buy your doctor must cialis professional cipla OK it. Earlier sildenafil pfizer there was no proper cure to the issue of erectile dysfunction is a serious but common one. Diabetes is a slowly progressive, autoimmune disorder; associated with faulty regulation of order cheap viagra immune system; thus, attacking and destroying insulin production and/or insulin functioning. Purchase named buy viagra line and various IMPOTENCE PROBLEMS relief medication working with safe and sound internet obtaining models when taking advantage of definite prudence in the obtaining plus transport approach. Obama’s clandestine move, which gave license to Bank Muscat to do an end-run around the sanctions, ultimately failed because U.S. banks refused to cooperate. According to the report, they refused “primarily due to the unwillingness to take on the legal and compliance risk posed by the complex conversion, but also reputational concerns in doing business with a comprehensively sanction country like Iran.” Without a willing U.S. correspondent bank, Iran’s assets remained at Bank Muscat. Undeterred by the banks’ appropriate move, Obama’s Treasury and State Department officials sought other ways to move the funds. Discussions involved coordinating with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Bank for International Settlements, and the Central Bank of Germany. The Report notes that “None of these alternatives were effectuated.”

Officials of the former Administration have refused to comment.

The Report notes that “For 30 years, the United States and its international partners imposed a strict sanctions regime against the Government of Iran to influence Iranian policy. In 2011, the United States and other world powers implemented crippling financial sanctions on Iran in response to the country’s enrichment of uranium and development of nuclear weapons. The sanctions took a toll on the country and its people. The pressure of effective sanctions afforded the United States an opportunity to work to achieve concessions in exchange for sanctions relief. As the United States negotiated with Iran, one important U.S. interest consistently remained off-limits: Iran would not be granted access to either the U.S. financial system or the U.S. dollar. This notwithstanding, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the U.S. State Department, granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system. Even after the specific license was issued, U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system.”

The Report Continues Tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.