Removing the IRGC from the FTO List Risks Nothing

As we wait for the resumption of the Iran nuclear negotiations, reports indicate that the “final hurdle” is Iran’s demand for the removal of a key sanctions designation. Iranian negotiators are seeking the removal of the Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) designation placed on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), part of Iran’s armed forces. The FTO designation was imposed by the Trump administration in April 2019.

President Biden will probably lift this designation to clear the way for the mutual restoration of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The restoration of the JCPOA would see Iran’s nuclear programme once again placed under the strictest monitoring and verification regime ever devised, ending a four-year period of growing concerns over possible Iranian proliferation. But even with the enormous security gains on offer, Republic lawmakers and other critics are suggesting that the removal of the FTO designation is an unacceptable concession to make.

The arguments being made against the removal of the FTO designation are weak. More judicious critics of the move concede that little is at stake. Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has written that the designation “was largely symbolic” and that its removal “would have few if any legal implications.” Still, he considers removing the FTO label to be a “terrible idea”—a determination that reflects how politics can trump pragmatism in American policymaking.

Levitt makes four arguments as to why Biden should not remove the FTO designation. First, he argues that Iran is treating the removal of the FTO designation as a red line because the leadership “wants something it can point to when attempting to persuade investors that it is not really involved in terrorism.” Levitt ignores the fact that the Iranian leadership has not demanded the undoing of October 2017 designation of the IRGC as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). Nor has Iran insisted that its status under US law as a State Sponsor of Terror be rescinded. Iran is obviously not seeking to change the minds of foreign investors, whose decisions to engage in the Iranian market will remain predicated on significant due diligence to avoid transacting with IRGC entities, all of which will remain under sanctions. Iranian negotiators are seeking the removal of the FTO designation to demonstrate to the IRGC’s leadership that a constructive stance towards diplomacy with the United States can bear fruit. It is precisely because the imposition of the FTO designation was politically symbolic that its removal is being sought.  

Second, Levitt argues that because Iran has insisted that the “nuclear negotiations must remain focused on its nuclear activities alone,” it would be a mistake to “provide relief from any terrorism-related sanctions.” Doing so would “undermine the efficacy of other non-nuclear sanctions.” But this argument is undercut by the Trump administration’s own messaging. The White House statement on the FTO designation makes clear that the move was not imposed as a discrete action to counter Iranian terrorism, but rather as a means to “significantly expand the scope and scale of our maximum pressure on the Iranian regime.” A central feature of the “maximum pressure” campaign was the “sanctions wall,” a rapid expansion in the scope of the Iran sanctions programme intended to make it more difficult for President Biden to re-enter the Iran nuclear deal.

Given that the FTO designation was symbolic and that its removal will not meaningfully change the legal status of the IRGC, the designation was clearly imposed with another goal in mind. The FTO designation was a non-nuclear sanctions measure imposed to make nuclear diplomacy more difficult. If removing the designation is necessary to secure the tremendous national security benefits of the JCPOA, then doing so is justified. In fact, failing to remove the designation would undermine the efficacy of US sanctions policy because it would prove that presidents can tie the hands of their successors in ways that make diplomacy nearly impossible to conduct.

On a related note, Levitt claims that “to protect the credibility of US sanctions authorities worldwide… the IRGC should not be removed from the FTO list until there is evidence it has ceased terrorist activities.” This is, on face, the most logical argument being made by those opposed to the removal of the FTO designation. The IRGC will almost certainly continue to engage in its “forward defence” activities, including support for proxies that the US considers terrorist groups, in the aftermath of the nuclear deal. At the same time, removing the designation would not increase the threat posed by the IRGC. Speaking to reporters last week, CENTCOM commander General Kenneth McKenzie explained that he did not expect the removal of the FTO designation on the IRGC to impact US forces. “In terms of the way we think about [the IRGC], in the terms of the way we think about the threat, and what they do on a daily basis across the theatre, I don't think much would change,” he stated.

Given that any operational impact will be limited, there are two reasons why the removal of the FTO designation is warranted absent a change in behaviour. First, the removal of the FTO designation cannot be construed as a signal that the IRGC has ceased its support for terrorism. The organisation will remain subject to wide range of sanctions, including the SDGT designation and there will be no change in messaging from the Biden administration on this point. Second, the US government also assesses that the IRGC has major influence over Iran’s national security doctrine. That the nuclear negotiations have reached this late stage clearly demonstrates that there is a consensus among Iranian policymakers, including among the ranks of the IRGC, that restoring compliance with the JCPOA is in the country’s interest. Returning to Levitt’s concern over the credibility of US sanctions, a symbolic move to recognise the IRGC’s inherent support for the successful conclusion of the Iran nuclear negotiations is sensible, especially as the Biden administration aims for future dialogue on a wider set of security concerns.

Finally, Levitt points to a “serious messaging problem” and claims that “America’s partners and allies in the region” would be dismayed if the US were to “take pressure off the [IRGC] by delisting it.” Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid have written a joint letter urging President Biden not to scrap the FTO designation. Reports claim that UAE leaders are “shocked” that the FTO designation may be removed. But these various protests appear to be part of the horse-trading by partners and allies that has long burdened Biden’s efforts to restore the nuclear deal. By seeking to impose political costs at this late stage, regional leaders are aiming to extract their own concessions from the Biden administration as part of their acquiescence to a nuclear deal that looks increasingly likely.

Even so, GCC leaders have yet to directly comment on the possibility that the FTO designation will be removed. The possibility of removal became public knowledge in the summer of last year. The GCC issued a joint statement with the United States in support of the JCPOA last November. It is highly unlikely that the GCC leaders would treat the removal of the FTO designation as a kind of red line given their interest in maintaining a regional security dialogue that includes bilateral engagement with Iran. Senior Saudi and Emirati officials have held meetings with Iranian officials, including those linked to the IRGC, over the past year. Consider also that the UAE just hosted an unrepentant Bashar al-Assad, leaving the Biden administration “troubled.” Clearly, regional leaders are ready to set optics aside when there are hard security benefits to be gained.  

Given the noise about the FTO issue over the last few weeks, the Biden administration is already paying a political cost for the anticipated removal of the designation. But the administration should not lose sight of what will be gained. Removing the designation in no way changes the legal or political status of the IRGC, but it does enable the restoration of the Iran nuclear deal. For those who care about US national security, the choice is clear.

Photo: IRNA

Iranian Bankers Fear IRGC Terrorism Designation Dooms Vital Financial Reforms

Reform-minded Iranians, especially those inside the ailing banking system, are worried that the US government’s step to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization has doomed a years-long effort to get the Islamic Republic off a consequential global blacklist.

The administration of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has been working hard to meet the requirements of the action plan set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the intergovernmental organization established with the mandate of combatting money laundering and terrorism financing.

The required reforms have caused deep political divisions, with opponents arguing that Iran will be compromising its sovereignty should it appease the FATF, while porposents argue that failing to pass the required legislation will eliminate final links Iran maintains with foreign financial institutions while under US sanctions.

Undaunted even as death threats were made against them, a majority of Iran’s parliament voted to pass all four FATF bills over the course of several months. The supervisory Guardian Council then ratified two of the laws, while two others were considered deficient. The council and parliament have failed to find a consensus on adjustments to these two bills, which pertain to regulations that deter terrorist financing and organized crime. Now the powerful Expediency Council must vote to break the deadlock on ratification.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking for Iran to show progress on the FATF action plan. At the end of its February plenary sessions, the FATF announced, “If by June 2019, Iran does not enact the remaining legislation in line with FATF Standards, then the FATF will require increased supervisory examination for branches and subsidiaries of financial institutions based in Iran.”

When the Trump administration took the controversial move to designate the IRGC a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), the first time the FTO designation had been applied to a part of a foreign state, the condemnations in Iran came swiftly.

As Rohollah Faghihi reports for Al Monitor, hardliners opposed to engagement with the West pointed to the FTO designation to show the futility of the FATF reforms. The day after the FTO designation was announced, Expediency Council member Gholamreza Mesbahi-Moqadam said the designation has decreased the chances that the FATF bills woild be ratified. “The move has strengthened the council’s [unfavorable] stance about the FATF and the chances of the bills not being approved has increased,” he said. Others have even placed the chances of ratification at zero.

Members of Iranians banking community, who have been advocating for FATF reforms for years as part of a larger drive for modernization of the financial sector, share in this pessimism. A senior Iranian banker speaking to Bourse & Bazaar on condition of anonymity agreed that the FTO designation has harmed the odds of the bill passing, by shifting the environment away from constructive discussion and cooperation towards sloganeering.

“The designation has major political implications, the full scope of which has yet to become clear, but I find it unlikely that the bills will be approved under current circumstances,” the banker said. “Essentially whenever the situation gains an emotional aspect, decisions also become largely emotional.”

Several high-level Iranian officials have also confirmed that the FTO designation will have an impact on the FATF bills. Secretary of the Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei, who counts himself among those opposed to the bills, has said the FTO designation will be factored in forthcoming decisions based on “national interests.”

Meanwhile, Laya Joneydi, Iran’s Vice President for Legal Affairs, suggested it was a mistake to conflate decision-making about the FATF bills and the FTO designation since the two issues are “fully separable.” She did, however, point out that the designation will prompt the Rouhani government to consider any new “reservations” about the two bills.

A source inside the Central Bank of Iran also confirmed to Bourse & Bazaar on condition of anonymity that the IRGC designation should be expected to have an impact on the FATF bills.

“The central bank has always been in favor of having the bills pass into law, but we have already concluded all expert reviews of the bills and now everything depends on the views of the Expediency Council. At at the moment it seems the number of council members opposed to the bills is higher,” the source said.

Central Bank Governor Abdolnasser Hemmati has on multiple occasions voices his support for enacting the bills into law, saying Iran needs to do more to comply with international financial standards. In his latest remarks in early March, he said safeguarding and strengthening what little international banking ties Iran retains is a “necessity.”

In late February, Rouhani mounted his strongest support yet for the bills, saying “we cannot give the country to 10-20 people and say we follow your decisions”. The president called on the Expediency Council to facilitate passage of the bills lest Iran lose its already tenuous link to the global financial system.

But not everyone inside Iran’s isolated banking system is pessimistic about salvaging the FATF action plan.

“The bills will certainly face delays, but we predict that they will ultimately be signed into law,” a senior member of a banking sector association told Bourse & Bazaar on condition of anonymity.

The official likened the situation surrounding the issue to the Iran nuclear deal, noting that many analysts thought such a multilateral agreement could never be reached given opposition from hardliners.

“I believe some members of the Expediency Council harbor doubts about some of the contents of the FATF bills but are not opposed to them outright. Those doubts will be cleared in time,” the official said.

The question remains whether the FATF will continue to show patience as Iran’s complex domestic politics slow the pace of reform even further.

Photo: IRNA

Economic War on Iran is America’s New ‘Forever War’

This article was originally published in the Asia Times.

The administration of US President Donald Trump last week designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, part of Iran’s armed forces, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. A White House statement boasted that it was “the first time that the United States has ever named a part of another government as an FTO” and declared that the “action will significantly expand the scope and scale of our maximum pressure on the Iranian regime.”

In a briefing related to the announcement of the new designation, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters that he hopes “other governments and the private sector will now see more clearly how deeply the IRGC has enmeshed itself in the Iranian economy through both licit and illicit means”.

While there is no doubt that the Trump administration is waging a self-described “financial war” on Iran, designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization has little to do with adding new economic pressure, despite the administration’s claims. As sanctions attorney Tyler Cullis has argued, the IRGC and the wider Iranian economy are already subject to a “veritable labyrinth of US sanctions” meaning that “the designation of the IRGC as an FTO has limited, if any, immediate practical consequence.”

While the new designation does introduce increased criminal liabilities for those individuals or entities that can be shown to have provided “material support” to the IRGC, legitimate businesses were adequately deterred from engaging with the IRGC because of risks stemming from pre-existing sanctions designations.

Building a Sanctions Wall

The new designation may have limited economic impact, but it has certainly proved politically provocative. In Tehran, leaders from across political lines were unified in their condemnation of the designation and in their solidarity with the IRGC. In Washington, officials at the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency reportedly consider the move counterproductive, possibility putting US military and intelligence assets in the Middle East at risk of blowback. In Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron has called for all sides to practice restraint. He also spoke to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani by phone to reassure him of European support for the nuclear deal, which the US abandoned in May 2018.

In Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi told reporters that his government had tried to persuade the Trump administration not to proceed with the designation, noting that any escalation “would make us all losers.”

With the future of both the Iran nuclear deal and prospects for US-Iran diplomacy at stake, a political fallout is the clear intention behind designating the IRGC a terrorist organization. In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal published just a week before the designation, the head of the hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies called for the Trump administration to create a “sanctions wall” that would hobble efforts by a potential Democratic president to re-enter the Iran nuclear deal in 2021. Mark Dubowitz has been among the most vocal proponents of designating the IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

To understand how the FTO designation helps build a “sanctions wall,” it is important to consider how such a designation fits into the recent development of US sanctions powers. Today’s financialized sanctions were largely developed in response to the “forever wars” of the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the realization that the “war on terror” could not be won through conventional military conflict.

With public sentiment turning against further military deployments, and with the threat of terrorism expanding in part because of the fallout of the US invasions in the Middle East, the Treasury Department was tasked to develop new sanctions powers intended to weaken terrorist organizations by cutting their access to financial resources. As described by Juan Zarate, who served as deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism under president George W Bush, the US sought to develop its means of “financial war,” in which sanctions would “increasingly become the national-security tools of choice for the hard international security issues facing the United States.”

By the time Barack Obama took office as president, the use of sanctions in the “global war on terror” was overtaken by a new national-security imperative: addressing the perceived threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation. Suddenly, sanctions tools that had been developed primarily to target terrorist financing were being turned against governments, in part by leaning on the formal designation of countries like Iran as “state sponsors of terror.”

Building a Stigma

The application of sanctions seemed sensible – the US would leverage its primacy in the global financial system in order to block the assets of terrorist organizations and their state sponsors, while also putting their commercial enablers in legal jeopardy. Obama saw “diplomacy, backed with strong sanctions” as a direct alternative to reliance on military brinksmanship – ”a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position.”

But there were unintended effects. While the US was tightening its sanctions on Iran, American officials toured the world warning companies that, despite their extensive due diligence, the opaque nature of the Iranian system meant an ever-present risk that routine commercial transactions could see funds diverted to designated groups that finance terrorism.

The stigma that arose around Iran’s economy and particularly its financial sector was so great that when Obama’s bet on diplomacy and sanctions finally paid off in the form of the historic JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) nuclear deal, he ultimately proved unable to deliver Iran the economic benefits of sanctions relief promised as part of the agreement, bringing it to the brink of collapse. Even though the US lifted a large proportion of its sanctions on Iran as a matter of legal fact, companies and the banks Tehran needed remained fearful to engage, rendering the practical impact negligible.

Opponents of Obama’s nuclear deal were quick to recognize this fact. When Trump came into office having promised to tear up a “decaying and rotten deal.” some even argued that his administration could advance its anti-Iran agenda while remaining in the JCPOA on the basis that Iran was receiving no meaningful benefits. Eventually Trump did withdraw from the agreement, but as hawks opposed to engagement with Iran look to the post-Trump future, whether that future arrives in 2021 or 2025, there is a clear desire to exploit the ways in which sanctions themselves have proven a liability to diplomacy.

In this way, given the lack of practical impact, the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization has little to do with the activities of the corps as a military force, concerning though they may be.

Rather, by designating part of Iran’s state as a terrorist organization, a label that extends to millions of conscripts, those who wish to build a “sanctions wall” are seeking to close a political feedback loop. Not only does the FTO designation aim retroactively to justify the whole architecture of US sanctions on Iran, but even if the political circumstances between Washington and Tehran change in the future, sanctions will continue to be justified as a matter basic definitions. A future US administration seeking to lift sanctions on Iran will not merely need to argue the political expediency of that decision – it will now be forced in effect to “redefine” the most powerful force in Iranian national security, a tall order after 40 years of entrenched animosity.

What the FTO designation makes clear it that “financial war” on Iran is America’s new “forever war.”

Photo Credit: IRNA

Political Risks Outweigh Legal Impact of IRGC Terrorism Designation

This article was originally published by The Black List.

The Trump administration announced the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)—a branch of Iran’s armed forces—as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  In the White House press statement, President Trump called the designation “unprecedented,” underscoring that it represents “the first time that the United States has ever named a part of another government as a FTO.”   

Trump underlined that the designation “will significantly expand the scope and scale of our maximum pressure on the Iranian regime.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo echoed those remarks in his own press conference announcing the designation, noting that the designation “will help starve the regime of the means to execute [the IRGC’s] destructive policy.” Helping amp up the designation action, US officials (dubiously) argued that the designation will target more than 11 million people comprising the IRGC’s network.

Hyperbole aside, the practical effect of the FTO designation is negligible at best. Considering the multiple sanctions programs under which the IRGC is currently designated, the FTO designation appears entirely superfluous, exerting no additional substantial pressure against the IRGC.  

On the other hand, the risks to the US from the designation could be severe. As long reported, the Department of Defense and the CIA have been steadfastly opposed to designating the IRGC an FTO—viewing the designation as fraught with consequences for US troops and without material benefit for the United States. Their opposition appears to have been overcome, however, by those in the White House and State Department who have rallied to increase the pressure-in substance or rhetoric-against Iran regardless of the potential consequences.

Legal Authority for FTO Designation and the Sanctions Consequences

12 U.S.C. § 1189 authorizes the Secretary of State to designate an organization an FTO if the Secretary finds that the organization is a foreign organization that engages in terrorist activity that threatens US nationals or US national security. The Secretary’s intent to designate a foreign organization an FTO is first communicated to members of the Congress, along with the findings and factual basis for the Secretary’s decision to designate the organization, which explains the apparent delay between President Trump’s announcement and the formal designation of the IRGC as an FTO.  

The immediate consequences of an FTO designation are limited in scope.  Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1189(2)(C), the Secretary of Treasury is given discretionary authority to require US financial institutions to block all financial transactions involving assets of an FTO. In addition, all members of an FTO are prohibited from entering the United States under 12 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3). This latter provision could be used to block Iranian persons who performed mandatory military service in Iran from entering the United States. This could explain the “11 million people” claim by members of the Trump administration.

Preexisting US Sanctions Targeting IRGC

The IRGC is already designated under multiple U.S. sanctions authorities—most of which cover the ground of an FTO designation. For instance, the IRGC is designated under:

• E.O. 13224 as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist;

• E.O. 13382 as a WMD Proliferator;

• E.O. 13553 as a human rights abuser; and

• E.O. 13606 as a human rights abuser as well.

These designations have significant U.S. secondary sanctions consequences. For instance, 31 C.F.R. § 561.201 exposes foreign financial institutions that conduct a significant financial transaction with, or provide significant financial services for or on behalf of the IRGC or a person designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 or E.O. 13382, to correspondent or payable-through account sanctions. In addition, the Iran Freedom Counter-Proliferation Act subjects foreign banks to correspondent or payable-through account sanctions, and foreign persons to menu-based sanctions, for engaging in significant transactions with Iranian persons, which would include the IRGC.

Due to the serious secondary sanctions consequences inherent in dealing with the IRGC, OFAC has long given the IRGC its own program tag “[IRGC]” to aid foreign persons seeking to comply with U.S. sanctions targeting the group.  

In addition, multiple US statutory authorities require the President to identify officials, agents, or affiliates of the IRGC and to impose sanctions with respect to them. These reporting requirements ensure that the U.S. remains hyper-focused on the IRGC and its activities and prepared to impose additional designations as warranted.

Practical Consequences of FTO Designation

Amidst this veritable labyrinth of US sanctions targeting the IRGC, the designation of the IRGC as an FTO has limited, if any, immediate practical consequence.  For instance, the blocking of the IRGC’s assets is already mandated by the executive authorities under which the IRGC is designated—some of which also impose visa requirements.  Iranian persons who formerly served in the IRGC have long been subject to intensified scrutiny from US immigration authorities and have often been denied entry on these grounds.

The sole possible additional consequence arising from an FTO designation is the extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction afforded over foreign persons acting outside the United States that knowingly provide material support to an FTO.  18 U.S.C. § 2339B states that persons who knowingly provide material support or resources to an FTO or attempt or conspire to do so are subject to fine or imprisonment of not more than twenty (20) years (unless death results from the prohibited act). Material support is defined broadly to include any property or service.

18 U.S.C. § 2339B(d)(1) expressly provides for extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction, stating that there is jurisdiction over an offense “if . . . after the conduct required for the offense occurs an offender is brought into or found within the United States, even if the conduct required for the offense occurs outside the United States.” This means that foreign persons providing material support to an FTO are subject to criminal prosecution in the United States, even if the foreign person has no legal status in the United States; acted outside of the United States; and the conduct did not touch or otherwise have effects within the United States.

This provision could lead foreign parties conducting business with Iran to exercise even more heightened due diligence with regard to their dealings. Yet, the consequences of dealing with the IRGC are already especially dire, and foreign parties doing legitimate trade with Iran are likely to have taken steps to ensure the absence of IRGC-related parties.       

So What’s the Purpose...?

Considering the negligible benefits of an FTO designation, the Trump administration appears to have two things in mind through its designation of the IRGC: (1) to invite an Iranian response that could collapse the nuclear deal and risk a broader conflict with the United States; and (2) to use the threat of criminal prosecution to deter even legitimate business with Iran, as members of the Trump administration have long claimed that the IRGC controls broad sectors of the Iranian economy. This latter element could also be used to constrain a future President from re-entering the Iran nuclear accord and complying with its terms, considering the potential political pitfalls inherent in rescinding the FTO designation.

Indeed, chief proponent of the FTO designation and close adviser to the Trump administration Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies stated that the designation “just layers on top of all of the current sanctions an additional and more expansive, punitive measure that will deter more business and . . . diminish current business that’s still ongoing between the Europeans and the Iranians, and the Asians and the Iranians.” The purpose of this, he earlier wrote, is to “make the case for dismantling these sanctions [hard],” thereby “block[ing] [the next administration] from delivering sanctions relief to Iran” consistent with the Iran nuclear accord.

Such motivations—if accurately depicting internal deliberations by the administration—would prove a grave abuse of the FTO designation process and the broader use of US sanctions authorities to target activities anathema to US security interests.   

Photo Credit: IRNA