UANI

CNBC: "While the international movement to pressure companies into leaving Iran has had a great deal of success over the past few years, there is one argument that seems to never go away. For years now, Western firms have attempted to justify their business in Iran by claiming that if they were to pull out, their competitors from other countries—notably China—would rush in to fill the vacuum. The prevailing wisdom is that Chinese companies and lawmakers in Beijing do not lose much sleep over Iran’s illegal nuclear weapons program, its sponsorship of global terrorism, or its egregious human rights record. Yet now, in a move that could change the entire dynamic on the drive to economically isolate Iran’s regime, one Chinese company has done the unthinkable, and chosen to voluntarily stop pursuing new business activities in Iran. The company, Huawei Technologies Co., is the world’s second-largest supplier of telecommunications equipment, and until recently has maintained a robust, 1000-employee presence in Iran... And while there may have been other factors that influenced Huawei’s decision, this was not just a raw calculation based on market share and profit. I speak from personal experience on this point, as my colleagues at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and I participated in weeks of substantive discussions with Huawei representatives, all of whom took seriously the concerns raised about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, its well-known sponsorship of organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, and, of course, the potential danger that Huawei technology was being used by the Iranian government to oppress its own citizens... The Huawei case has disproved the pessimistic thought that it is pointless to engage Chinese companies on issues such as proliferation and human rights. Clearly, a Chinese company IS capable of making a conscientious and responsible decision."

Washington Times: "In recent years, the United States has imposed a punishing sanctions regime on Iran's banking sector. To further increase Tehran's level of financial pain, a great number of congressional and advocacy groups have repeatedly called on the White House to blacklist the Central Bank of Iran (CBI). Doing so, the thinking goes, would seriously hamper the Islamic republic's ability to abuse international markets in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Yet unbeknownst to most lawmakers and Washington policymakers, the U.S. Treasury actually has blacklisted the CBI, and not once, but twice in recent years. The real question is why the U.S. government has not enforced its own sanctions regime. The CBI has been accused of helping fund Iran's nuclear weapons program, facilitate money transfers to terrorist organizations and proliferate weapons of mass destruction. The Treasury Department has publicly declared that between 2001 and 2006, the CBI facilitated a $50 million payment for Hezbollah... The United States maintains a number of 'blacklists' sponsored by different agencies, including but not limited to the Departments of State, Treasury and Commerce. The Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list is a broad compilation of persons and entities - a 'list of lists' - administered by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Those on the SDN list include not only persons and entities involved in terrorism, but also weapons proliferators, drug traffickers and those designated under country-specific sanctions programs. Today, the SDN list has more than 6,000 entries, including the Central Bank of Iran. Unless specifically exempted, all U.S. persons and entities must block any property in which an SDN has an interest and report the action to OFAC. Blocked property may not be 'transferred, withdrawn, exported, paid, or otherwise dealt in' without prior authorization from OFAC. If OFAC thinks a person or institution has violated the law, it has several options at its disposal, including cease-and-desist orders, civil penalties, suspension or revocation of licenses, and criminal charges... At this point, concerned parties should advocate a number of measures. The United States should ask banks that provide services of any kind to the Central Bank of Iran to cease doing so immediately. If they refuse to comply, the U.S. government should take immediate legal action in accordance with the PATRIOT Act and the U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 981, freezing any U.S.-based assets they hold and blocking their access to American markets. Moving against the Central Bank would necessitate indirect action because the bank does not appear to possess assets in America. However, the U.S. government does have the power to freeze the funds deposited in a foreign bank on behalf of the Central Bank if the foreign bank maintains an account (known as an 'interbank' or 'correspondent account') at a U.S. financial institution or has actual operations or property in the United States. Washington should begin implementing the SDN as soon as possible. At a minimum, Treasury should designate one or a number of the biggest offenders among those engaging in business transactions with Iran's Central Bank. This would likely cause many, if not most, of the companies and banks currently doing business with, or on behalf of, the Central Bank to cut their ties."