From Newsweek's online edition:

 

Feb. 16 - Only weeks before Halliburton made headlines by announcing it was pulling out of Iran?a nation George W. Bush has labeled part of the ?axis of evil??the Texas-based oil services firm quietly signed a major new business deal to help develop Tehran?s natural gas fields.

 

Halliburton?s new Iran contract, moreover, appears to suggest a far closer connection with the country?s hard-line government than the firm has ever acknowledged.

 

The deal, diplomatic sources tell NEWSWEEK, was signed with an Iranian oil company whose principals include Sirus Naseri, Tehran?s chief international negotiator on matters relating to the country?s hotly-disputed nuclear enrichment program?a project the Bush administration has charged is intended to develop nuclear weapons.

 

There are few matters more sensitive for Halliburton than its dealings with Iran. The company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, last year disclosed that it had received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Texas in connection with a Justice Department investigation into allegations that the firm violated U.S. sanctions law prohibiting American companies from directly doing business in Iran. (U.S. firms are barred from doing direct business in Iran, but under a confusing quilt of federal regulations, their foreign subsidiaries may do so as long as they operate ?independently? from U.S. management.)

 

Documents disclosed by the company indicate that the Justice Department probe into Halliburton?s Iran dealings, like a separate Justice investigation into alleged foreign bribes paid by a Halliburton-connected consortium to officials in Nigeria, cover the period that Cheney was Halliburton CEO.

 

Halliburton?s new deal, in which it will participate in a $308 million project to develop Iran?s huge South Pars natural gas fields, was not at first publicly announced by the company. But after the South Pars project, and its role, was reported in the Iranian press in mid-Janury, Halliburton publicly confirmed that its Dubai-based subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Limited, had been awarded a subcontract on the project that, a Halliburton official told NEWSWEEK today, will net the parent firm between $30 million and $35 million over the next several years.

 

The new Halliburton project, congressional investigators say, raises substantial questions about the Jan. 28, 2005 public announcement by Halliburton CEO (and Cheney successor) David Lesar that the firm plans to cease doing business in Iran. Lesar made no reference to the South Pars project in his conference call with investment analysts that day, when he blamed ?the political nature of the attacks on Halliburton? for the media attention given the company?s Iranian business.

 

But overlooked in most of the press coverage of the announcement was that Lesar?s statement contained enough wiggle room to permit Halliburton to continue participating in the new South Pars project. After telling the analysts that ?we have decided to exit Iran and will wind down our operations there??a decision he attributed to the current ?business environment? in Iran?Lesar quickly added that the company would continue ?fulfilling our existing contracts and commitments.? He also added another caveat: ?If the U.S. sanctions are lifted in the future, or more of our customers go there, we will return to this market.?

 

Lesar?s announcement was little more than ?PR damage control,? said one congressional investigator who has closely followed Halliburton?s dealings. ?They?re still acting like the sanctions law are a big joke,? the investigator added. Lesar?s comments also raise another question that are central to questions about the Iran sanctions: How could Lesar, as Halliburton CEO, decide to pull out of the Iran market at all and then reserve the right to ?return to this market? if all of its business in Iran is, as Halliburton has repeatedly argued, been conducted by a foreign subsidiary (Halliburton Products and Services) that is acting ?independently? of management in Houston?

 

Halliburton has consistently argued that it is not in violation of U.S. sanctions law because Halliburton Products & Services Limited (which is registered in the Cayman Islands but located in Dubai) operates autonomously without direction from senior management in Houston. In documents the company has submitted to investigators, for example, Halliburton has stated that Halliburton Product & Services' 133 employes include no Americans and that its five-person board of directors includes four British citizens and one Canadian citizen; ?none of them is a U.S. permanent resident alien? or green card holder. ?Day to day management and decision-making responsibility at HPSL resides with the Management Director (who is a British citizen) and other local management, all of whom reside in Dubai.?

 

But other company documents and sources familiar with the Justice Department investigation suggest that, at the very least, U.S. government officials have had questions about the Dubai-based subsidiary?s ?independence? for some time. Company disclosures show that the Treasury Department?s Office of Foreign Assets Control first questioned Halliburton about whether it was in compliance of U.S. sanctions against Iran as early as mid-2001. In January, 2004, Treasury raised the issue again after a "60 Minutes" report that Halliburton Products & Services was located in, and receiving mail, in the same Dubai office tower address where another of the company?s principal?and indisputably U.S.-controlled subsidiaries, Kellog Brown & Root?also had offices. This led, according to a company report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, to a referral of the matter by Treasury to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation. Halliburton then received its first a grand jury subpoena for documents on September 16, 2004, according to the firm?s latest filing with the SEC.

 

A Halliburton official, who asked not to be identified, noted that a Congressional anti-Iran sanctions law?and Treasury Department regulations interpreting it?expressly allowed foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies that ?ran their own affairs? to continue doing business in Iran. This, the official said, is in contrast to U.S.-imposed sanctions on Cuba and North Korea, which explicitly cover all foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies. (Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, is pushing legislation to close what he considers the current loophole in the law by prohibiting any foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from doing business in Iran.)

 

Responding to questions from NEWSWEEK, Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall noted today that Halliburton is merely one of a number of U.S. subcontractors to Oriental Kish, the Iranian oil company that is in charge of the South Pars natural gas project. ?I?d like to point out that we have no ownership in Oriental Kish Co. and we certainly did not form it,? Hall said in an e-mail response. ?We are a subcontractor to Oriental. In addition, many of our American-based competitors were awarded a piece of this work as well. The facts show that HPSL (Halliburton Products and Services Limited), a foreign-owned subsidiary, was selected for about $30-$35 million in work out of an anticipated $308 million for the total project.?

 

Still, the figures cited by Hall for the size of the new project?even though spread out over about three years?are substantial in relation to Halliburton?s overall business dealings in Iran. Company documents obtained by NEWSWEEK show that Halliburton?s revenue from Iran?principally through the Dubai-based Halliburton Products and Services, but also including five other foreign subsidiaries?grew from $31 million a year in 2001 (when Bush first called Iran an ?axis of evil? nation for its support of terrorism) to $42.5 million in 2003.

 

In addition, the role of Naseri?Iran?s nuclear negotiator?as a principal in Oriental Kish and the South Pars project has raised questions about the project. Naseri, according to a Western diplomatic source, was a former senior Iranian diplomat who, until two years ago, served as Tehran?s ambassador to a permanent United Nations disarmament conference in Geneva. A couple of years ago, the diplomat said, Naseri left the Iranian government to get involved in the oil business and is widely known to be involved with Halliburton Product & Services in oil-field activities.

 

But when the U.S., its allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency recently stepped up pressure on Iran regarding its nuclear activities, the diplomat said, Naseri rejoined the Iranian team handling international negotiations. He is described as one of the Iranian's main negotiators in talks with the IAEA, Britain, France and Germany and is described as a "very slick and sophisticated" negotiator. This week, Naseri was reportedly in Vienna and also traveled to other European capitals in connection with the nuclear talks. Diplomats say he serves as a key advisor to Hassan Rowhani, Iran's hard-line national security advisor, on the nuclear issue.

 

Halliburton spokeswoman Hall said the company ?does not have any knowledge? that Naseri was ?directly involved? in negotiations with Halliburton Products and Services and is ?not aware of any other roles.? As for how Halliburton?s role in Iran fits in with larger U.S. foreign policy in Iran, Hall responded: ?We are in the [oil] service business, not the foreign policy business. We have followed and will continue to follow applicable laws.?

 

The U.S. Congress needs to close the loophole that allows Halliburton to still make money off of Iran.

The U.S. Congress needs to close the loophole that allows Halliburton to still make money off of Iran.

 

Why? They'd just contract with someone else.

 

If we can extract some jack from the Mullahs, I'd say go for it.

688906[/snapback]

The money Halliburton is making from Iran doesn't help the general population much, just the people that work at that company.

 

They shouldn't be allowed to do business via this loophole if they are the only company that can do that.

I still don't think any U.S. companies should be getting money from one of the world's leading terrorist-producing nations.

Please, if it were Al Gore that ran Halliburton once, youd be all over this.

We're not talking about medical supplies here.

 

I missed where it said that there were some other companies doing business with Iran, so once I noticed that error, I corrected my position.

 

That's also very true, if Al Gore or Bill Clinton had been in charge of Halliburton, you would have been the one to post this article, not me.

We're not talking about medical supplies here.

 

I missed where it said that there were some other companies doing business with Iran, so once I noticed that error, I corrected my position.

 

That's also very true, if Al Gore or Bill Clinton had been in charge of Halliburton, you would have been the one to post this article, not me.

689263[/snapback]

 

If Algore were in charge of Halliburton, you wouldn't be complaining.

689813[/snapback]

Yes, I would be complaining. I never liked Al Gore.

We're not talking about medical supplies here.

 

I missed where it said that there were some other companies doing business with Iran, so once I noticed that error, I corrected my position.

 

That's also very true, if Al Gore or Bill Clinton had been in charge of Halliburton, you would have been the one to post this article, not me.

689263[/snapback]

 

If Algore were in charge of Halliburton, you wouldn't be complaining.

689813[/snapback]

Yes, I would be complaining. I never liked Al Gore.

689819[/snapback]

 

Thats not the point. So something that you see as wrong is only wrong if someone you dont like is doing it? So if Clinton (or any other president you like) would have invaded iraq you wouldnt have cared, but since bush is doing it, then its a tragedy? Please clarify your position, because if thats the case its very sad

It wouldn't have mattered to me what president invaded Iraq under false pretenses. When the President of the United States lies to the American people, knowing full well what he's doing, I lose all respect for that man, whether he is a Democrat or Republican.

 

I agreed with Desert Storm, since we were one of many countries helping Kuwait.

Halliburton stock before the war in Iraq was selling for about $15-20 per stock. Now it is up to about $42 per stock. Instead of bitching about how Haliburton did this and Haliburton did that, you could have invested some money on their stocks (say $5-10K) and made a good profit yourself. Anyone with some money available to invest could have done this, and it's not like it was that difficult to predict that their stock was going to boom given their involvement in Iraq.

It wouldn't have mattered to me what president invaded Iraq under false pretenses. When the President of the United States lies to the American people, knowing full well what he's doing, I lose all respect for that man, whether he is a Democrat or Republican.

 

I agreed with Desert Storm, since we were one of many countries helping Kuwait.

690703[/snapback]

So I presume you have no respect for Clinton then? He lied. too.

690773[/snapback]

Lied about what? Having sex with an intern? Whoopee. I don't care about his personal life, as much as I do how he handles our military.

That's not flip-flopping. There's a clear difference between Clinton lying about having sex with a woman and Bush sending us into a war under false pretenses.

That's not flip-flopping. There's a clear difference between Clinton lying about having sex with a woman and Bush sending us into a war under false pretenses.

690933[/snapback]

Its pointless FutureGM. Trying to have a substantive discussion on the original topic is near impossible. He would rather change the converastion to some inane pointless principle and then claim victory in the debate to make himself feel good. God knows he needs to.

That's not flip-flopping. There's a clear difference between Clinton lying about having sex with a woman and Bush sending us into a war under false pretenses.

690933[/snapback]

You're dodging the Bosnia question. Clinton plainly lied about Bosnia since we're still there and no end is in sight.

691105[/snapback]

We're not there anymore, I posted an article about this recently when you made that point. In fact, we pulled our troops out last December to make room for a NATO peacekeeping force from other countries.

 

Besides, you're missing the whole point here. The Iraq war is a waste because we have lost nearly 1500 soldiers in the country, and never found any WMD's.

 

Last I checked, we didn't lost 1500 soldiers fighting in Bosnia/Kosovo. I don't even think we lost 10 total, in nearly 10 years of involvement.

We're not there anymore, I posted an article about this recently when you made that point. In fact, we pulled our troops out last December to make room for a NATO peacekeeping force from other countries.

 

Besides, you're missing the whole point here. The Iraq war is a waste because we have lost nearly 1500 soldiers in the country, and never found any WMD's.

 

Last I checked, we didn't lost 1500 soldiers fighting in Bosnia/Kosovo. I don't even think we lost 10 total, in nearly 10 years of involvement.

 

Nice spin attempt, but it doesn't excuse Clinton's lies about the initial deployment. which went on for close to a decade rather than the promised 18 months.

 

Why can't you just admit that Clinton lied about the Bosnia deployment?

 

And then there was l'affair Haiti...

 

In fact Clinton never even got congressional approval for the initial blockade of Haiti - at least Dubbya got congressional approval for the Iraq deal. The Haiti deployment - nominally promised to be for a few months, turned into about two years. Yet another Clinton lie.

691393[/snapback]

What you fail to realize is that I don't care about those smaller things that Clinton did, they are insignificant compared to Bush's lies, which brought us into a war. Why can't you see the difference??

 

I think everyone would agree that 1500 U.S. lives>the number of Americans lost in all military operations before that, dating back to the first Gulf War.

It wouldn't have mattered to me what president invaded Iraq under false pretenses. When the President of the United States lies to the American people, knowing full well what he's doing, I lose all respect for that man, whether he is a Democrat or Republican.

 

I agreed with Desert Storm, since we were one of many countries helping Kuwait.

690703[/snapback]

 

Prove to me that he knew the intelligence was faulty. Please use official documents not news articles.

It wouldn't have mattered to me what president invaded Iraq under false pretenses. When the President of the United States lies to the American people, knowing full well what he's doing, I lose all respect for that man, whether he is a Democrat or Republican.

 

I agreed with Desert Storm, since we were one of many countries helping Kuwait.

690703[/snapback]

So I presume you have no respect for Clinton then? He lied. too.

690773[/snapback]

Lied about what? Having sex with an intern? Whoopee. I don't care about his personal life, as much as I do how he handles our military.

690806[/snapback]

 

There was actual proof due to a confession that clinton lied UNDER OATH. Which is illegal.

Don't say you do not like Bush because he lied. Every President we have had since the day you were born more than likely has lied about something, it is in the nature of their job. Clinton lied about military deployments as tonyi pointed out, but you like Clinton so no matter how many facts are presented to you about him lying, you will dance around it and say "but it is not the same blah blah". Politicians lie, that is a fact. Just admit that you hate Bush because he is not the guy you wanted to be President, and you will always hate Bush no matter what he does because he is a Repubblican(kind of like the "anti-Americans" in Europe). Don't try to act like you are open to listening to both perspectives, you are wearing Democrat glasses and you know it, and it is obvious in your Bush-bashing posts.

 

*now expects to be labeled a Bush supporter*

Don't say you do not like Bush because he lied. Every President we have had since the day you were born more than likely has lied about something, it is in the nature of their job. Clinton lied about military deployments as tonyi pointed out, but you like Clinton so no matter how many facts are presented to you about him lying, you will dance around it and say "but it is not the same blah blah". Politicians lie, that is a fact. Just admit that you hate Bush because he is not the guy you wanted to be President, and you will always hate Bush no matter what he does because he is a Repubblican(kind of like the "anti-Americans" in Europe). Don't try to act like you are open to listening to both perspectives, you are wearing Democrat glasses and you know it, and it is obvious in your Bush-bashing posts.

 

*now expects to be labeled a Bush supporter*

691501[/snapback]

I can't believe you don't see a difference between lying about having sex with an intern and lying about WMD's to start a war in which at least 11,500 people have died, U.S. and Iraqi deaths included.

 

Nobody died when Clinton got a "White House special", as it has been called.

Don't say you do not like Bush because he lied. Every President we have had since the day you were born more than likely has lied about something, it is in the nature of their job. Clinton lied about military deployments as tonyi pointed out, but you like Clinton so no matter how many facts are presented to you about him lying, you will dance around it and say "but it is not the same blah blah". Politicians lie, that is a fact. Just admit that you hate Bush because he is not the guy you wanted to be President, and you will always hate Bush no matter what he does because he is a Repubblican(kind of like the "anti-Americans" in Europe). Don't try to act like you are open to listening to both perspectives, you are wearing Democrat glasses and you know it, and it is obvious in your Bush-bashing posts.

 

*now expects to be labeled a Bush supporter*

691501[/snapback]

Dude, wouldnt you expect a little bit more when a president asks the nation to sacrifice a thousand plus soliders? I bet youre the kind of person who gets married, has 20 affairs, lies about it, then tells your wife you she cant get mad because she lied about spending 20 bucks. Both lied!

 

Amazing that you equate tonyi's silly examples with the war in Iraq.

Don't say you do not like Bush because he lied. Every President we have had since the day you were born more than likely has lied about something, it is in the nature of their job. Clinton lied about military deployments as tonyi pointed out, but you like Clinton so no matter how many facts are presented to you about him lying, you will dance around it and say "but it is not the same blah blah". Politicians lie, that is a fact. Just admit that you hate Bush because he is not the guy you wanted to be President, and you will always hate Bush no matter what he does because he is a Repubblican(kind of like the "anti-Americans" in Europe). Don't try to act like you are open to listening to both perspectives, you are wearing Democrat glasses and you know it, and it is obvious in your Bush-bashing posts.

 

*now expects to be labeled a Bush supporter*

691501[/snapback]

Dude, wouldnt you expect a little bit more when a president asks the nation to sacrifice a thousand plus soliders? I bet youre the kind of person who gets married, has 20 affairs, lies about it, then tells your wife you she cant get mad because she lied about spending 20 bucks. Both lied!

 

Amazing that you equate tonyi's silly examples with the war in Iraq.

691534[/snapback]

Exactly the point I'm trying to make, no soldiers died when Clinton got a b/j in the White House, and only a handful did when we went into Kosovo. Case closed.

 

You could even blame the whole Mogadishu incident on Clinton, and that's only around 20 U.S. combat deaths from 1992-2000. Not too shabby if you ask me.

I was referring to the lies about Bosnia that tonyi pointed out, apparently you do not like to read things the way they were written.

I am not excusing Bush for anything, I am just saying that some people on these boards are not open to an open discussion, they have their beliefs and that's that.

 

Not as many US troops died in Bosnia, but they could have...no President can predict that.

 

Spell checked for you.

I was refferring to the lies about Bosnia that tonyi pointed out, apperenty you do not like to read things the way they were written.

I am not excusing Bush for anything, I am just saying that some people on these boards are not open to an open discussion, they have their beliefs and that's that.

 

Not as many US troops died in Bosnia, but they could have...no President can predict that.

691550[/snapback]

It's hard for U.S. troops to die in a war that was mostly fought from the air.

 

You should also learn how to spell. :thumbup

I can spell just fine, thank you. So I slipped with two f's in referring, and apparently with an e. It happens when I'm typing, especially since I am not from an English speaking country...you should learn how to think.

ok Sandroimbuto, since you are going to use tonyi as your foundation, wanna tell us where Clinton specifically lied about the reasons for going to Bosnia or Kosovo? Clearly neither futureGM nor I are getting on Bush's case about how long Iraq has taken. Clearly war length can be variable.

 

Id like you to provide that for us since you accuse us of ignoring it.

 

and btw, how many troops have we lost in that region 18 months after Clinton said we would be done? Sounds to me like Clinton didnt lie at all but rather tonyi is drowning it in semantics.

I didn't say he lied about going there, I just used what tonyi said. He lied about the troops being there for only 18 months...I admit I'm taking tonyi's word on that too, but it isn't hard to believe.

 

It still is a lie that involves the use of the armed forces, even if to a lesser scale.

 

edit: Don't get so defensive, I'm not trying to attack your hero Clinton here. All I am saying is that it makes no sense to not like a politician because he lied to you because all politicians lie. You can say that you do not like him because he lied to you about a specific thing and lies about that specific thing anger you, that would be different.