[promoted by BooMan]
I’m sure you are familiar with the saber-rattling from the Bush administration about Iran, the “military option still on the table” kind of talk. But what you may not know is that the Bush administration has been working very hard to protect Iran. Unbelievable but true.
Today’s Washington Post had an article concerning some of the Americans who were held hostage in Iran for 444 days in 1979-80.
At an emotional meeting this month at the State Department, steps from the office of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a group of former American hostages released by Iran a quarter of a century ago, accompanied by lawyers and some relatives, confronted two of Rice’s most senior aides.
The families’ grievance: Why has the Bush administration, which has labeled Iran one of the world’s most dangerous regimes and has called the hostages American heroes, fought their efforts to win damages for their ordeal from the Islamic republic?
Last week the State Department objected when Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) tried to address the issue in a House bill that would maintain sanctions against Iran for its links to terrorism, forcing the lawmaker to withdraw his proposal.
“We have 52 of our finest Americans who were held hostage,” Sherman said. “They go to court, and you know who appears against them? The State Department.”
So the Bush administration has stepped in twice: one to prevent Rep. Sherman from linking Iran to terrorism and secondly, to prevent the former hostages from suing Iran. Why?
They say it is because of the “Algiers Accords”, the agreement signed to end the hostage crisis in 1981. I did a search for this document and it is mighty difficult to find online. Luckily I tracked it down here (PDF) and it’s got some strange things to say:
The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.
Really? Well isn’t that interesting. Especially because Condoleezza Rice said the State Department was pledging 75 million dollars to “install democracy” in Iran, which sounds to me like a pretty clear case of interfering in their internal affairs.
So the Bush administration protects Iran when it comes to the American hostages based on the “sanctity” of the Algiers Accords but somehow feels free to violate them by paying 75 million dollars for exile groups to meet and internal dissenters in Iran.
Back to the Wapo:
“This administration has not been shy about breaking international agreements,” said Barry Rosen, who was press attache at the U.S. Embassy and who now heads the Afghanistan Education Project at Columbia University’s Teachers College. “The administration appears to be in contradiction of itself. It seems to me the Algiers Accords should be dead and buried.”
Rosen, angry that others have “laid claim to millions and millions of dollars of compensation,” added: “This may sound weird, but if I were made aware of that agreement, I would have stayed in Iran.”
William J. Daugherty, a CIA employee who spent 425 days in solitary confinement during the crisis and is now a college professor, said the State Department is being “deceitful and dishonest.” He added that “you can’t argue that getting people to rise up against their government is not interfering in a country’s affairs.” He said that, after taxes, the check he received under the 1986 detention benefit was $17,000. “This came from the U.S. taxpayer, which none of us wanted to happen,” he said. “We have always wanted Iran to pay for what it did.”
So why exactly would the Bush administration defend the Algiers Accords? I mean this is the “Axis of Evil” after all, right?
U.S. officials say that supporting democracy does not amount to interference under international law. And they say abrogating the Algiers Accords, though not a formal treaty, would be viewed overseas as a serious breach of international norms, harming U.S. interests. U.S. banks and companies have been able to settle claims with Iran because of the accords.
Ah yes, there’s the key. Banks and companies = worth protecting. Former hostages = here’s 17 grand and shut up.
But American companies don’t do business in Iran, do they? Don’t be so naive:
General Electric Co., , which has been accused of collecting “blood money” by doing business in Iran, will stop accepting any new orders for business in the country, company officials said Wednesday.
Under current law, U.S. firms are not allowed to do business with nations deemed by the United States to sponsor terrorism. But the law does not specifically bar foreign subsidiaries from such business.
“Our business activities in Iran are fully compliant with U.S. law,” said Gary Sheffer, a GE spokesman. GE did about $270 million in business last year in Iran.
“It’s just another Halliburton oil and gas operation. The company name is emblazoned everywhere: On trucks, equipment, large storage silos and workers’ uniforms.
But this isn’t Texas. It’s Iran. U.S. companies aren’t supposed to do business here.
Yet, in January, Halliburton won a contract to drill at a huge Iranian gas field called Pars, which an Iranian government spokesman said “served the interests” of Iran.
Now the whole picture is a lot clearer, isn’t it? And you thought the Dubai ports deal was dirty.
Crossposted from the new Flogging the Simian
