• 24 April 2009
  • Posted By Patrick Disney
  • Diplomacy, Legislative Agenda, Sanctions

More on latest AIPAC sanctions bill

Yesterday, we reported how Congress is considering two competing approaches to the Iran issue: sanctions vs. smart power.  While I think we’ve made our position pretty well known, I thought it would be helpful to look deeper into the new sanctions bill to see exactly what it’s calling for.

Basically, H.R. 1985 lowers the threshold for triggering sanctions on anyone investing in Iran’s petroleum industry from $40million to $20million.  AND it imposes sanctions on anyone who has:

‘(A) provided Iran with refined petroleum resources;

‘(B) engaged in an activity, including production, brokerage, insurance, and tanker delivery services, that could contribute to Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum resources; or

‘(C) provided Iran with goods, services, or technology for refining petroleum.’.

It also expresses the sense of Congress that the US should encourage foreign governments to stop state-owned investments in Iran’s energy sector and exports of refined petroleum to Iran AND where possible, require private entities to do the same.

In my opinion, the clause going after Lloyds of London for insuring oil tankers raises some hackles, particularly now that piracy is back in vogue.  Taken to its logical conclusion, I would think that part (B) above could target important American companies and companies of our allies–anyone who builds ships that might be used to send oil to Iran, anyone who helps purchase those ships, anyone who insures them, and anyone who operates them falls under this provision.  And part C probably includes many or most of the top global energy companies (if UANI’s divestment list is any indication).

This is a pretty aggressive expansion of sanctions against Iran; there’s simply no security argument for doing this other than to bring Iran to its knees (which is hardly the negotiating position we’ll need for talks to have any chance of success).

More to come.  Stay tuned.

Posted By Patrick Disney

    One Response to “More on latest AIPAC sanctions bill”

  1. Anthony says:

    disgusting is all i can say!

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Sign the Petition


7,350 signatures

Tell Google: Stop playing Persian Gulf name games!

May 14, 2012
Larry Page
Chief Executive Officer
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043

Dear Mr. Page:

It has come to our attention that Google has begun omitting the title of the Persian Gulf from its Google Maps application. This is a disconcerting development given the undisputed historic and geographic precedent of the name Persian Gulf, and the more recent history of opening up the name to political, ethnic, and territorial disputes. However unintentionally, in adopting this practice, Google is participating in a dangerous effort to foment tensions and ethnic divisions in the Middle East by politicizing the region’s geographic nomenclature. Members of the Iranian-American community are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts, particularly at a time when regional tensions already have been pushed to the brink and threaten to spill over into conflict. As the largest grassroots organization in the Iranian-American community, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) calls on Google to not allow its products to become propaganda tools and to immediately reinstate the historically accurate, apolitical title of “Persian Gulf” in all of its informational products, including Google Maps.

Historically, the name “Persian Gulf” is undisputed. The Greek geographer and astronomer Ptolemy referencing in his writings the “Aquarius Persico.” The Romans referred to the "Mare Persicum." The Arabs historically call the body of water, "Bahr al-Farsia." The legal precedent of this nomenclature is also indisputable, with both the United Nations and the United States Board of Geographic Names confirming the sole legitimacy of the term “Persian Gulf.” Agreement on this matter has also been codified by the signatures of all six bordering Arab countries on United Nations directives declaring this body of water to be the Persian Gulf.

But in the past century, and particularly at times of escalating tensions, there have been efforts to exploit the name of the Persian Gulf as a political tool to foment ethnic division. From colonial interests to Arab interests to Iranian interests, the opening of debate regarding the name of the Persian Gulf has been a recent phenomenon that has been exploited for political gain by all sides. Google should not enable these politicized efforts.

In the 1930s, British adviser to Bahrain Sir Charles Belgrave proposed to rename the Persian Gulf, “Arabian Gulf,” a proposal that was rejected by the British Colonial and Foreign offices. Two decades later, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company resurrected the term during its dispute with Mohammad Mossadegh, the Iranian Prime Minister whose battle with British oil interests would end in a U.S.-sponsored coup d'état that continues to haunt U.S.-Iran relations. In the 1960s, the title “Arabian Gulf” became central to propaganda efforts during the Pan-Arabism era aimed at exploiting ethnic divisions in the region to unite Arabs against non-Arabs, namely Iranians and Israelis. The term was later employed by Saddam Hussein to justify his aims at territorial expansion. Osama Bin Laden even adopted the phrase in an attempt to rally Arab populations by emphasizing ethnic rivalries in the Middle East.

We have serious concerns that Google is now playing into these efforts of geographic politicization. Unfortunately, this is not the first time Google has stirred controversy on this topic. In 2008, Google Earth began including the term “Arabian Gulf” in addition to Persian Gulf as the name for the body of water. NIAC and others called on you then to stop using this ethnically divisive propaganda term, but to no avail. Instead of following the example of organizations like the National Geographic Society, which in 2004 used term “Arabian Gulf” in its maps but recognized the error and corrected it, Google has apparently decided to allow its informational products to become politicized.

Google should rectify this situation and immediately include the proper name for the Persian Gulf in Google Maps and all of its informational products. The exclusion of the title of the Persian Gulf diminishes your applications as informational tools, and raises questions about the integrity and accuracy of information provided by Google.

We strongly urge you to stay true to Google’s mission – “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” – without distorting or politicizing that information. We look forward to an explanation from you regarding the recent removal of the Persian Gulf name from Google Maps and call on you to immediately correct this mistake.



Share this with your friends: