| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
“There is clearly a gap between our actions and our rhetoric.”
"British aid mocks sanctions threat against Iran," by Jonathan Leake and Sarah Baxter for The Sunday Times:
The government faces a diplomatic row with America over disclosures that it has provided the Iranian regime with financial support worth about £290m while at the same time calling for sanctions.
The money was offered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) to support British firms exporting to Iran, mainly to the country’s petrochemical industry.
Many of the loans were being negotiated while British ministers were threatening sanctions against Iran for creating a nuclear enrichment facility to make atomic weapons.
Last week Gordon Brown called for new sanctions against Iran in addition to those already imposed by the United Nations security council. The prime minister wants a ban on investment in the oil and gas industries if Iran does not agree to end the production of enriched uranium.
This weekend government sources signalled their embarrassment over the ECGD’s activities. “There is clearly a gap between our actions and our rhetoric,” said one Whitehall insider.
The US administration has been privately lobbying Britain to end the financial support. Stuart Levey, the US Treasury official responsible for terrorism and financial intelligence, stepped up the pressure in private discussions with British ministers in London in July, claiming that such export credits were inconsistent with UN sanctions.
Danielle Pletka, an expert on trade links with Iran at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, said: “You can’t subsidise with one hand and sanction with the other.
Britain is saying the European Union needs to do more but it needs to lead by example, not just by its mouth.”
The government is also under political pressure at home. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said: “Our government must make up its mind about export credit guarantees to Iran. Britain should lead the way with a clear, unequivocal commitment to banning new export credit guarantees to Iran.”
[...]
Last week the Foreign Office said that money earned by the Iranian oil industry was used to support its nuclear enrichment programme and the Iraq insurgency.
Posted by Marisol at November 18, 2007 9:02 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Britain is ruled by idiots.
How can an offer like this be made after British sailors were taken hostage ?
The life of a British citizen Sir Salman Rushdie threatened ?
5 British IT specialists kidnapped in Iraq by Iranian agents ?
The shame of it all !
Where are the people who know how to fight down and dirty, bar room style ?
All we have is the like of Milliband that $hitless little semen stain to represent us abroad.
What is going on.
Rant over
Regards
AI
Posted by: apostate_islam![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 18, 2007 9:59 AM
"support worth about £290m"... "to support British firms exporting to Iran, mainly to the country’s petrochemical industry."
Given the extremely high price of crude oil, why do these firms need support for doing business in the petro industry? Or are British citizens subsidizing the very industry that charges them so much? Why the corporate welfare?
at November 18, 2007 11:05 AM
Should like to make a point here-not because I support mad mullahs of Iran-but because of claims of hypocrisy.
HOW CAN U.S & U.K JUSTIFY SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN
WHEN THEY ARE BOTH APPEASING DHIMMIS OF SAUDI ARABIA?
According to Gordon Brown, 'The United Kingdom &
Saudi Kingdom have 'SHARED VALUES.' Wow. What would these be Gordon? Chop Chop Square and totalitarian State. Or are you referring to future implementation of Sharia Law in Britain ?
The huge number & steadily growing Wahhabi influenced Jihadists in Mosques, all prepared to
detonate themselves and Infidels on British soil?
At least Iranian women are allowed to drive, I believe.
Do U.S & U.K care to remember how many billions they poured into Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein in
power-no complaints about what a MONSTER he was then-to keep war against Iran going?
PRIOR TO THE SHAH, DEMOCRATIC AMERICA HAD REMOVED
ONLY DEMOCRATIC LEADER IRAN EVER HAD.
We are surely much more threatened by Pakistan's
Nukes which was 'allowed' by their ally America
although India protested against it at the time...
at November 18, 2007 4:13 PM
And we wonder why Iran laughs at us? What possible alternative do they have?
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 18, 2007 4:20 PM
The disparity between these 2, Eng. and the U.S. is deliberately done, by both govs. in order to confused the common citizen.
ANother thing, looking at the Iran of the Shah, with 20/20 hindsight, looking at the viciousness and violence of the Iranians at the time, behaving like proper islamics - remembering the reports of the intractible people, their reports about how they suffered at the hands of Savak (which was the Secret Police)- I now wonder about the truth of these reports. Seeing how violent one sect is against the other - Shiites against Sunnis, the average Iranian after all was fundamentalist to the core, and wanted their way, and were were not prepared to ever give in - the rabble continued picking at the laws ( pretty liberal at the time)- finding fault with everything the Shah did - picking at the police, and the Shah- the rabble were out to murder him - what did one think the Shah was going to do? Pat them on the head and let them go?
Perhaps the truth of Savak was NOT what we, in the West, were led to believe.
Posted by: allat at November 18, 2007 11:22 PM
Negotiate from strength, never negotiate from weakness. What purpose does it serve to appease Iran's nuclear (bomb) ambitions? None! So stop being 'nice' to them, they do not deserve it. Why support another Sharia totalitarian state? Of course, my solutions go beyond 'sanctions'. I say we bomb them, pure and simple. And then let's talk.
Britain is ruled by idiots.
How can an offer like this be made after British sailors were taken hostage ?
-Posted by: apostate_islam
It makes no sense to talk sense to those primitive Sharia idiots who are calling for the last days of their 12 hidden Imam. Let them have it, we have the tech power, they have only bull to counter. So let them have it. And mark my words, OIL WILL NOT double, but crash when the time comes, as the longs cash in, and shorts evaporate. Mark my words. An Iran strike is already 'priced in' $95 oil, and Amhedenijad, Chavez, and OPEC be damned. Hit them, and you'll see! All they have, and the Brits supporting it, is BLUFF.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 19, 2007 12:09 AM
Oh dear me, how horrid of us.
I worked on an Iranian project too, mea culpa.
Except....except...
the firm doing the project was M W Kellogg, a subsidiary of Halliburton - yes, THAT Halliburton.
The Yanks had no problem trousering the money, just wanted to show clean hands over there.
Hypocrites.
at November 19, 2007 7:51 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)