By Kaveh L. Afrasiabi

A proposed bill before the Massachusetts legislature calls for restricting ownership of securities in companies with active investment in Iran's petroleum industry.  Although the proposed bill, H, 4270, is limited to state pension fund and targets only "sizable investments in Iran's petroleum industry," if adopted it is bound to have a disproportionate impact, less in terms of any effect on the Iranian regime, which has withstood 30 years of US sanctions, and more in terms of the dozens of foreign, mostly European, energy, i.e., oil and gas, companies that do business with Iran.

In addition to the French Total, Russia's Gazprom, Italy's Eni, Austria's OMV, the latter's long list includes, more recently, the Swiss energy giant EGL that signed a 25-year, 10-25 billion Euro deal with Teheran in March.  Also, last year Malaysia signed a $15 billion energy deal with Iran, and China too is on the verge of signing an agreement for a $16 billion investment to develop an Iranian gas field and build an LNG (liquefied natural gas) plant.

It is a sure bet that the proposed bill would have very little if any tangible effect on the foreign companies making investment in Iran's oil and gas industry and, hence, the result will be simply symbolic, save any unwanted headaches between the Commonwealth and some of those companies with which the state's pension funds may have investment relations

But, there are other compelling arguments against this legislation.  It has the obverse effect of perpetuating the image of an American bully that dictates to the rest of the world about how to conduct their business and,  notwithstanding the recent US intelligence estimate that confirms Iran is not presently  involved in nuclear weapons proliferation, simply lacks the necessary legitimation to be very convincing.  The rationale behind this legislation, to inflict punitive measures against Iran, purportedly for defying the UN's call to halt uranium enrichment activities and for its other "rogue" behavior such as supporting the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian extremists, actually works against it, by throwing the Commonwealth's lawmakers in a contentious international crisis that is complex and multifaceted, e.g., it raises the issue of US's nuclear double standards and Israel's nuclear arsenal, to which the US has completely turned a blind eye, much to the chagrin of the Arab and Muslim world. Consequently, this legislation is likely to contribute to the credibility problem of the US in the Middle East as well.

What is more, in light of the recent recommendations of the Iraq Study Group for engaging Iran, as well as Syria, on Iraq, such legislations paraded before the nation's state lawmakers runs contrary to those recommendations and perpetuates the anti-Apartheid scenario of isolating the target state, even though the Iran scenario is vastly different and, as the US and Iran have engaged in several rounds of bilateral dialogue on Iran, the net of US and Iran shared interests, not only in Iraq but also Afghanistan, point at the need for further engagement and confidence-building.

Instead of adopting this counterproductive bill, the state's lawmakers should explore ways in which the ties of friendship between Iran and US can be enhanced and the wall of distrust between the two nations removed, step by step.  Iran is, after all, a major regional player and, as seen in its recent mediation of conflict between the Iraqi government and the Shiite Mahdi army, can play a constructive role in regional conflict management.  The proponents of H, 4270, unfortunately fail to see this and have self-servingly relied on a simplistic picture of what is, undoubtedly, a much more complex reality, requiring the carrots of incentives for cooperation instead of the stick of punishments and divestment.  In fact, the very logic of divestment bill has the opposite effect of divesting the US of potential leverage, in the form of shared interests and nets of interdependence that could conceivably be useful in future negotiations with Iran on the nuclear standoff, Iraq, and other contentious issues between Iran and the US.

With respect to the Iranian people, on the other hand, there is no doubt that the vast majority of Iranians yearn for normal relations with the US and, yet,  given the depth of Iranian nationalism, most are opposed to such coercive measures that remind them of past instances of US misbehavior toward Iran, dating back to the US's role in the 1953 coup that overthrew a democratic government, US's support for Saddam Hussain's war on Iran during the 1980s, etc. 

Indeed, if the Commonwealth's lawmakers are interested in reaching out to the Iranian people, they could send a clear message to them by soundly rejecting H, 4270 and, instead, adopting alternative proposals that would work toward the fulfillment of a US "diplomatic surge" in the region that inevitably must include one of its most influential players, Iran.

... Payvand News - 04/17/08 ...