What's the Deal with Iran's Foreign Exchange Reserves?

Editors note: The IMF has now updated the footnote referenced in this piece to reflect their estimate of Iran’s gross international reserves in 2020, which stood at $115.4 billion.

When it comes to Iran, even economic data can cause controversy. The International Monetary Fund’s latest regional report for the Middle East and Central Asia places Iran’s gross international reserves at $4 billion in 2020, a tiny fraction of the $122.5 billion of reserves Iran held in 2018, and down further from the estimate of $8.8 billion published in October of last year.

For some, the IMF data was evidence of Iran’s stunning economic decline, achieved through “maximum pressure” sanctions. Former Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon tweeted a screenshot of a table from the IMF report, stating that “accessible foreign exchange reserves plunged to $4 billion in 2020 from $123 billion in 2018.” Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a key architect of the Trump administration’s maximum pressure policy, responded to Solomon’s tweet, boasting that “over 96% of Iran’s foreign exchange reserves have been wiped out.”  

Radio Farda ran a story claiming that Iran’s gross international reserves had collapsed to $40 billion, a figure they reached by concluding that the $4 billion of accessible reserves reflects 10 percent of Iran’s total reserves. Faced with these dire estimates, Iran’s central bank governor Abdolnasser Hemmati responded on Instagram, criticising the IMF and stating that they had used incorrect data in their report.  

The controversy stems from a misunderstanding of the assumptions made by the IMF in estimating Iran’s gross international reserves. A footnote in the statistical appendix of the latest Regional Economic Outlook report explains that the gross international reserves data for Iran “has been amended to reflect the amount of external assets that is readily available and controlled by the monetary authorities after the re-introduction of financial sanctions.”  

Since the Trump administration reimposed sanctions on Iran’s financial system in 2018, Iranian authorities have been unable to use most of their foreign assets, a situation exemplified by the current dispute over $7 billion of frozen assets held in banks in South Korea. For this reason, IMF economists estimate that only “only 10 percent of the previously reported gross international reserves are readily available for [balance of payments] purposes from 2019.” This estimate is likely derived from statements made by Trump administration Iran envoy Brian Hook in December 2019. Hook claimed that Iran retained access to just 10 percent of its $100 billion of reserves due to sanctions—Pompeo probably had this soundbite in mind when he tweeted that the $4 billion estimate meant that 96 percent of Iran’s reserves had been “wiped out.”

Given that Iran’s financial assets are a target of US sanctions, Iranian authorities do not publish their own figures on gross international reserves, although they do publish information on quarterly data on changes to reserves and a more general figure for “foreign assets.” That leaves the IMF little option but to run with the 10 percent figure to estimate what proportion of Iran’s reserves are readily accessible. Another assumption made by the IMF is that any balance of payments deficit Iran runs will need to be financed exclusively from that smaller pool of accessible reserves—this is indicated in the footnote, but it could have been made clearer.  

Working backwards, the $4 billion figure reflects 10 percent of 2019 total reserves minus Iran’s balance of payments deficit in 2020, which can be estimated from the difference between the 2019 and 2020 estimates for accessible reserves—$8.4 billion. Given the decline in accessible reserves it attributable to the balance of payments deficit, there has been no dramatic fall in Iran’s gross international reserves, which are estimated at $123.8 billion for 2019 and down by $8.4 billion to $115.4 billion for 2020. The relative stability of such reserves is corroborated by data from the Central Bank of Iran on changes to international reserves, which decreased by an average of just $1.15 billion per year between March 2017 and March 2020. Logically, if Iran is unable to access or spend the money, there is no real way for its reserves to be “wiped out.”

Iran’s dwindling accessible reserves pose a major challenge for authorities—$4 billion is equivalent to just under three weeks of Iran’s annual import total. Iranian officials will hope that the resumption of trade post-pandemic and the resurgence of Iranian oil sales will ease the country’s balance of payments crisis. Indeed, the IMF sees accessible reserves rising to $12.2 billion this year, suggesting a balance of payments surplus of $8.2 billion. Importantly, this projection does not take into account sanctions relief Iran may receive as part of ongoing negotiations with the United States.

For now, what a closer inspection of the data makes clear is that those who claimed that Iran’s foreign exchange reserves have collapsed are wrong—total reserves today are higher than in 2019, when Hook was boasting about the success of maximum pressure. Iran remains a wealthy country, albeit without the means to use much of its wealth.

Photo: Getty Images

U.S.-Iran Talks Will Falter Unless Abdolnaser Hemmati Is at the Table

By Esfandyar Batmanghelidj and Saheb Sadeghi

The United States and Iran may soon be sitting at the negotiating table once again. In just the last week, the Biden administration has offered to restart negotiations, and Iran has struck a deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency to slow moves to limit inspections of its nuclear program. A window of opportunity has emerged for the two sides to talk, likely in a format facilitated by the European Union. If and when the United States and Iran sit across from one another again, there is a key figure who ought to be present—Abdolnaser Hemmati, the governor of Iran’s central bank.

In many respects, Iran’s central bank was the primary target of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s economic war on Iran. Much of the economic hardship that Iran has experienced due to the reimposition of secondary sanctions can be attributed to the Trump administration’s success in limiting the central bank’s access to its foreign exchange reserves.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Iran retains access to just $8.8 billion of readily available foreign currency, roughly one-tenth of its total reserves. Without access to its reserves held in countries like Iraq, South Korea, Japan, and Germany, the central bank has struggled to forestall the weakening of Iran’s currency, which is today worth less than one-fifth of its value prior to Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This deep depreciation made imported goods more expensive, contributing to annual inflation rates of nearly 50 percent.

Hemmati, a veteran banker, was appointed as central bank governor in July 2018, parachuting in just a few months before secondary sanctions were fully reimposed on Iran. He has performed remarkably well in difficult circumstances. Iran’s currency was regaining value for most of 2019, a trend disrupted by the COVID-19 crisis, which hit the country’s economy hard, throwing trade into disarray.

Since reaching a historic low in October 2020 of just over 320,000 rials to the dollar on the free market, the currency has since stabilized at around 250,000 rials to the dollar—with this stability helping to undergird Iran’s slow economic recovery. Along the way, Hemmati has proved an adept communicator, using his Instagram account, the central bank’s website, and even select interviews with international media to outline his priorities and reassure the Iranian public about the bank’s capacity to defend the rial from hyperinflation.

Iran has not faced a full-blown economic meltdown, despite the best efforts of the Trump administration. But the country finds itself in a painful period of economic stagnation, and sanctions relief will be needed should any government wish to deliver on promises of prosperity. However, Trump sought to make sanctions relief more difficult.

In September 2019, the Trump administration designated Iran’s central bank under a terrorism authority, a move that jeopardized long-standing exemptions permitting the bank to play a crucial role in facilitating the purchase of humanitarian goods such as food and medicine.

In February 2020, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a new general license to allay those concerns. But more troubling was the intention behind the terrorism designation, which was applied to Iran’s central bank for the express purpose of making it harder for a potential Democratic administration to lift sanctions on the bank in the future.

The Biden administration will likely need to remove this designation to bring the bank back to its original status under the JCPOA—but removing a designation ostensibly tied to Iran’s purported support for terrorism may prove politically tricky as part of U.S. reentry into an agreement focused exclusively on the country’s nuclear program.

Lifting sanctions was difficult even before the Trump administration’s cynical moves. Iran’s experience of sanctions relief following the implementation of the JCPOA was disappointing. International banks remained hesitant to process Iran-related transactions, citing unclear guidance on how to conduct business in a compliant manner and the risks of punitive fines if the remaining sanctions were inadvertently violated.

This limited the rebound in trade and, particularly, investment in Iran. While there had been some technical exchanges on banking during the JCPOA negotiations, including working-level exchanges with Iran’s central bank, these were largely focused on the unfreezing of Iran’s assets—the challenges Tehran faced in mundane banking blindsided the JCPOA parties.

In March 2016, then-Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew noted that the “experience with Iran demonstrates how difficult [sanctions lifting] can be.” Despite what Lew referred to as “widespread global outreach” by officials at the U.S. Treasury and State departments, the banking challenges persisted and continued to stymie trade and investment until Trump’s eventual withdrawal from the nuclear deal.

In an interview last July, Valiollah Seif, who was central bank governor at the time of the JCPOA negotiations, suggested that Iran had not had the right experts in the room. “The JCPOA could solve the problem related to oil sales at that time, but it could not solve our banking problems. … Our economic and banking expert team was weak in the JCPOA talks,” he said.

Understandably, Iranian leaders are keen to get sanctions relief right this time around. In a recent speech, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted that any sanctions relief offered by the United States must take place “in practice” and not just “on paper.” Moreover, the efficacy of that sanctions relief will need to be “verified.”

What’s clear is that as new negotiations approach, the JCPOA parties cannot rely on diplomats to untangle the complex knots that have constricted Iran’s banking ties for so long. To ensure sanctions relief succeeds, Hemmati ought to be in the room as part of a high-level technical dialogue, which could eventually include top officials such as U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire.

There are a few reasons why a dialogue on sanctions relief, which would be similar in structure to the pre-JCPOA exchanges on nuclear issues between then-U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, ought to center on Hemmati.

First, Hemmati has emerged as a key figure of Iran’s economic diplomacy. In the last two years, he has made trips to Iraq, Oman, South Korea, and China in order to ensure Iran retained functional financial channels with key trade partners while the Trump administration sought to put pressure on the governments of these countries. His participation in the new talks would be a natural extension of this global outreach, and most of the sanctions relief benefits promised by the United States will need to be delivered via third countries. Hemmati is the only stakeholder to have full technical knowledge of the challenges U.S. sanctions have posed in economic relations with key trade partners.

Second, Hemmati’s stewardship will be critical for the implementation of both early and late-stage sanctions relief measures. Whether it is the easing of access to foreign reserves or the granting of Iran’s COVID-19 IMF loan—both under consideration as early economic gestures by the Biden administration—or the consideration of new economic incentives such as reauthorization of the “dollar U-turn,” an exemption revoked in 2008 that allowed U.S. banks to process Iran-related transactions in cases where a payment is being made between two non-Iranian foreign banks, effective implementation depends on Iran’s central bank.

Importantly, the international community will also expect Iran to continue to reform its banking sector in line with international standards. On this point, Hemmati has been a key champion, stating recently that if the JCPOA were revived, Iran would need to complete adoption of the action plan set forth by the Financial Action Task Force, a standards-setting body, in order to see the benefits of sanctions relief in the banking sector.

Finally, Hemmati would bring some technocratic continuity to the economic implementation of a restored JCPOA. There is considerable concern that the possible arrival of a new Iranian president in August could leave any diplomatic agreement vulnerable to changing politics in Tehran.

While it may be possible for some of Iran’s top diplomats to remain in their posts in a new administration, it is Hemmati, whose term ends in 2023, who is best positioned to offer institutional continuity on implementation issues. He has proved to be an adept political operator. By insisting on the central bank’s technocratic independence, he has largely avoided the attacks regularly made against members of the Rouhani government.

He also maintains a good relationship with Khamenei and has been able to turn to the supreme leader to insulate the bank’s policies from political attacks. It is often argued that restoring the JCPOA would help boost the fortunes of Iran’s political moderates, but it is equally important for U.S. President Joe Biden to strengthen the hand of Iran’s technocrats who work on policies, not politics.

The Biden administration’s early appointments made clear that when it comes to Iran, personnel is policy. The same holds true in Tehran. If the right people are not in the room during upcoming negotiations, not only will the agreed policies be deficient, but so too will implementation falter. The United States, the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and Germany need to provide Iran a pathway to the normalization of its banking ties—to do so, it would make sense to engage Iran’s top banker.

Esfandyar Batmanghelidj is the founder of the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation.

Saheb Sadeghi is a columnist and foreign-policy analyst on Iran and the Middle East.

Photo: IRNA

The Plan to Save the Iran Deal Needs Private-Sector Buy-In

With the election of Joe Biden to the US presidency dialogue, between Washington and Tehran appears to once again be possible. Both Tehran and the Biden team have expressed a willingness to consider a “clean” return to the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear agreement) if the other does the same. Namely – Iran would revert its nuclear activities to within the limits set out in the JCPOA, which it began breaching in May 2019, and the US would once again lift sanctions on Iran as prescribed by the agreement.

Reality, of course, will be more complicated. Securing economic benefits will be a priority for Tehran in any dialogue on the future of the deal, or any agreement that may succeed it. However, as became clear following the initial removal of US and international sanctions on Iran in 2016, the degree to which sanctions-lifting on paper translates to economic relief in practice depends in no small part on the willingness of the private sector to engage with the Iranian market. If the US and E3 hope to present renewed trade and investment as a credible and meaningful incentive for Iranian cooperation, it will be necessary to both address private sector concerns and manage Iranian expectations.

At the moment, many businesses around the world have opted out of engaging with Iran. The scope and complexity of US economic measures against Iran, as well as the high costs of potentially losing access to the US market and financial system in case of an accidental breach, is sufficient to turn even the most well-resourced compliance departments off of engaging with Iran. Iran is also one of only two countries—alongside North Korea—on the “blacklist” put forth by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard-setter on countering financial crime. As a result of Iran’s failure to address “strategic deficiencies” in its financial crime regime the FATF currently requires jurisdictions to apply “enhanced due diligence” to their transactions with Iran, leading many banks to opt out of transacting with the country altogether. This means that businesses struggle to access financial infrastructure necessary for doing business with Iran.

There is some indication that, even if US sanctions on Iran were lifted, the uptake for private sector engagement with Iran would remain slow and limited. A few weeks ago, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani reportedly requested that Iran’s Expediency Council reprise its review of legislation that would address the deficiencies in Iran’s financial crime legislation called out by the FATF, which may help address some private sector concerns. However, persistent challenges in relations between Iran and the US and E3 will continue to create uncertainty for businesses. On December 17, the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning Iran’s detention and execution of human rights defenders and prisoners of conscience and called for the application of targeted financial sanctions on the Iranian individuals responsible. A few days earlier, a European Union-funded virtual business conference was postponed following the execution in Iran of journalist Rouhollah Zam.

Furthermore, some key US economic measures against Iran—for instance, sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as well as the designation of Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern—are not related to Iran’s nuclear activities and may not be lifted as part of a return to the nuclear deal. These sanctions will continue to create complexity for banks and other businesses and will factor into private sector risk calculus. The possibility of another snap-back of US nuclear-related and secondary sanctions on Iran under a future change of administration in Washington will also discourage businesses investment. Persistent concerns over exposure to US sanctions within the financial sector in particular will complicate renewed economic engagement with Iran, as businesses will have trouble finding banks willing to support financial transactions with Iranian counterparts. Efforts by the incoming Biden administration to figure out the legal and regulatory logistics of sanctions-lifting, while ensuring that sanctions remain an effective tool of US foreign policy, will therefore also have to address challenges in the practical  implementation of sanctions-relief.

Reversing the economic impacts of private sector reticence to engage with Iran will be top of mind for the Islamic Republic as it engages with the new Biden administration. Tehran has previously called for compensation for “damages” to the Iranian economy caused by US sanctions – although Iranian leadership appears to have dropped such demands as a pre-condition for an Iranian return to compliance with the JCPOA in recent statements. And while Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei expressed support for seeking sanctions-removal in recent marks directed at Iranian officials and the Iranian public, he also stressed the importance of “nullifying” the impact of sanctions on the Iranian economy. He distinguished “neutralizing” sanctions from sanctions-lifting and seemed to express scepticism over US and European ability to deliver on the former.

Assessing business’ levels of interest in re-engaging with the Iranian market and addressing concerns where possible will lend greater weight to US and European incentives of economic relief, hopefully encouraging greater cooperation from Iran in any future diplomacy—whether on its nuclear programme or more broadly. Relaying to Tehran the results of these private sector consultations may also help manage Iranian expectations on the level of foreign economic interest it can expect following sanctions lifting while also stressing the need for Iran to get its financial regime in order. On the part of Washington, this may include preparing comfort letters, granting sanctions exemptions, updating general licenses and expanding the guidance issued via the Office for Foreign Assets Control “Frequently Asked Questions” on Iran sanctions.

By consulting with their private sectors, the European governments can also better-understand business concerns and uncertainties around engagement with the Iranian market and how these may shift—or fail to do so—with the lifting of US sanctions. In October 2020, the European Commission launched a “Due Diligence Help Desk” aimed at supporting European companies in navigating European sanctions on Iran. While the platforms are well-intentioned and may provide businesses with helpful guidance, it is unclear how effective they will be in practice. The platforms do not address some of the key challenges raised earlier, including the lack of financial infrastructure to support transactions with Iran and concerns over exposure to US sanctions. The UK and European governments may wish to identify and reach out to specific sectors that are likely to be of greatest importance to renewed trade with Iran—for instance, the banking sector or those engaged in energy trade—to ensure they have the assurances, guidance, and infrastructure they need to proceed with confidence. Coordinated efforts across capitals—for instance, through the issuing of joint guidance by American, British, and European financial regulators, as well as dialogue with the US on the concerns of UK and European businesses—will also be valuable.

As renewed diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear question gets underway, it will have to be supplemented by consultations with businesses to assess whether the private sector will be able to make good on economic promises made at the negotiating table, as well as to manage Iranian expectations. At the same time, understanding and, where possible, addressing private sector concerns will help businesses do what they do best—moving goods, people, and capital to ensure that the lifting of sanctions on paper translates into real economic uplift for Iran.

Photo: IRNA

Trump Administration Pressures Global Financial Watchdog to ‘Blacklist’ Iran

This article was originally published by Responsible Statecraft.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global body that sets standards to combat money laundering and terrorist finance, has placed Iran back on its infamous “blacklist,” following the failure of Iranian policymakers to enact two key bills in accordance with an action plan set in 2016.

The FATF statement, issued on Friday at the conclusion of the body’s latest plenary meeting, calls on members to “to apply effective countermeasures” following Iran’s failure to implement “the Palermo and Terrorist Financing Conventions in line with the FATF Standards.”

Such countermeasures include increase monitoring, reporting, and auditing of Iran-related financial transactions for all financial institutions worldwide. While members can decide how to reimpose the countermeasures, the decision taken by FATF serves as a kind of external validation of the Trump administration’s claims that the Iranian financial system is regularly used to facilitate money laundering and terrorist finance on a massive scale. This characterization is a principle justification for the administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign and U.S. officials had been dogged in pressuring FATF to call “time out” on Iran’s reform process.

The FATF decision will be deeply disappointing to many officials in the Rouhani administration who had expended extraordinary political capital to try and get the necessary legislation enacted, succeeding in getting four key bills passed by parliament, but only managing to have two bills enacted into law. Opposition by hardliners had been fierce — the FATF issue was linked to the slow-rolling crisis around the nuclear deal and the Trump administration’s sanctions campaign. The politicization of the action plan reforms — both in Tehran and in Washington — was perhaps unprecedented in the history, putting “the task force is between a rock and a hard place,” as Tom Keatinge, as RUSI Director of the Centre for Financial Crimes and Security Studies, has recently observed.

The FATF’s decision could have a significant impact on Iran’s economy, but likely indirectly. Iranian officials who advocated for implementation of the action plan insisted that failure to do so would lead to international banks, including banks in Russia and China, to cut ties with Iran. More precisely, the reimpositon of countermeasures means that it will be exceedingly difficult for Iran to open any new cross-border financial channels. But the countermeasures set to be reimposed, including FATF’s exhortation of its members to impose enhanced supervision and reporting requirements for financial institutions handling Iran-related payments reflect a level of oversight already adopted by the few global financial institutions that continue to transact with Iran. For example, European officials do not expect the FATF decision to interfere with the operationalization of INSTEX, the mechanism established to support European trade with Iran, given the longstanding policies of the banks on which INSTEX will rely.

Existing banking channels are unlikely to be constricted for the express reason that Iran is back on the blacklist — although this does not preclude that the FATF decision will be used as a timely excuse to stop handling Iran-related payments by some banks.

The more likely damage to Iran’s economy will arise from the setback that FATF’s decision represents for the wider push for financial transparency reforms in Iran, which including everything from calls for greater fiscal transparency to the adoption of international standards for accounting. In May of last year, I wrote about how this broad campaign was suffering under the pressures of a “financial war” waged by the Trump administration. Although “transparency has become a discourse and ongoing demand” in Iran, to use the words of one reformist parliamentarian, a pervading paranoia got in the way of reforms, including those required by the FATF.

As I wrote at the time, many Iranians increasingly feared that when sanctions were being applied too aggressively, any increase in financial transparency was “akin to exposing the location of a piece of critical infrastructure and leaving it vulnerable to attack.” The Trump administration sought to actively stoke this paranoia through its use of public messaging and sanctions designations, causing a significant rift with European partners engaged in a technical dialogue with the Rouhani administration over the reform process.

I have been closely following the FATF issue for three years, during which time I have had the opportunity to discuss the action plan and its implementation with American, European, and Iranian officials as well as business leaders engaged in trade between Europe and Iran. There remain many unknowns about the economic impact and the damage the countermeasures will have. But what is profoundly clear is how easy it was for the Trump administration to seek to interfere with the apolitical work of FATF and the fragile process of financial transparency reforms in Iran, even though that process was driven in large part by the concerns of the Iranian electorate around systemic corruption.

In this way, the FATF experience offers a cautionary tale. To whatever extent the current nuclear deal will remain resilient in the face of the Trump administration’s maximum pressure and reduced compliance from Iran, and to whatever extent a new deal may be strengthened to avoid a repeat of the current crisis, any diplomatic reset with Iran will require greater protection of the myriad technical processes of reconnection and reform that will be necessary to ensure that promises are delivered. We promised to give Iran a chance. We failed those who tried to take it.

Photo: FATF

Treasury Department Makes Unprecedented Iran Sanctions Move

On Thursday, Swiss authorities announced that they had processed a pilot transaction through the Swiss Humanitarian Trade Arrangement (SHTA), a new payment channel that intends to ease the sale of food and medicine to Iran by Swiss companies. Work on this channel began in late 2018 following the Trump administration’s reimposition of secondary sanctions on Iran.

Expectations around the mechanism should be tempered with caution. The Trump administration dragged its feet for over a year before supporting the mechanism, despite clear evidence that sanctions were causing humanitarian harm. Additionally, Iranians might be reluctant to use the mechanism. There are concerns that some of the conditions imposed on the SHTA by the Treasury Department could be used as a part of a “fishing expedition” for information that could be used to interfere with routine trade.

But hidden in the mechanics of SHTA’s initial 2.3 million-euro transaction is an unprecedented provision that could help address growing concerns that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign will be impossible to lift even in the aftermath of new negotiations with Iran.

The relevant provision is hidden in the jargon of a statement issued last October describing Treasury’s framework for SHTA: “Provided that foreign financial institutions commit to implement stringent, enhanced due-diligence steps, the framework will enable them to seek written confirmation from Treasury that the proposed financial channel will not be exposed to U.S. sanctions.”

A press release on the SHTA released by Swiss authorities confirms that the initial transaction was processed on the basis that the Treasury Department “has given the necessary assurances to the Swiss bank involved for this specific transaction.”

Such assurances, when provided in written form, are called “letters of comfort.” This is likely the first ever transaction in which the department addressed the concerns of a foreign financial institution by providing a letter of comfort, despite the fact that the transaction was technically sanctions exempt.

This is highly significant, given that the architects of the Trump administration's Iran policy have spoken publicly about their efforts to build a “sanctions wall.” Building the wall involves creating a web of complex designations related to Iran’s role as a “state sponsor of terrorism, including its terror-financing central bank; its missile program, which is progressing toward an intercontinental ballistic missile; and its human-rights abuses and corruption.” The intention is to heighten the risk perception of banks and businesses in order to keep them from doing business with Iran even if a new deal is stuck.

For those who do want to do business in Iran, this problem first surfaced during the Obama administration. In the months immediately following the implementation of the nuclear deal with Iran, U.S. officials toured Europe and encouraged companies to go ahead with their plans for Iran, and financial institutions to process Iran-related payments on behalf of their clients. But companies found themselves hitting a wall as banks remained reticent to offer the required services.

Bankers were anxious about what was and wasn’t allowed, and made their concerns known at a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry. But the Obama administration resisted calls from European bankers and officials to provide letters of comfort, relying instead on the technical permissions afforded under sanctions relief and their verbal encouragement.

This approach might have sufficed had more time been available for economic operators to develop a new understanding of the compliance risks emanating from Iran, but the election of President Donald Trump and his campaign promises to discard the Iran nuclear deal cut short any such period of recalibration. Had the Obama administration employed comfort letters, more trade and investment could have been completed in the period between the nuclear deal’s implementation and Trump’s inauguration.

Here, the launch of SHTA establishes an important and hopeful precedent, and may improve the prospects of negotiations toward an end to the U.S.-Iranian standoff. Fears of a “sanctions wall” have contributed to Tehran’s unwillingness to enter any talks. But if Trump or any future president credibly combines quick and decisive sanctions relief with letters of comfort, it would be a game-changer for multinational companies engaged in Iran and the banks on which they rely.

Photo: Wikicommons

INSTEX Develops New Service in Bid to Fast-Track Iran Transactions

The state-owned company at the center of European efforts to save the Iran nuclear deal is entering its next phase of development. In a push to process transactions more quickly, INSTEX is rolling out a new factoring service for European exporters. The company is also making new hires that will enable it to expand operations in the coming year. 

Having reached the end of his six-month contract, Per Fischer is stepping down as the president of INSTEX, the state-owned company established by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom to support trade with Iran. Fischer’s replacement is former German ambassador to Iran Bernd Erbel. A career diplomat, Erbel has been posted in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and served as ambassador to Iraq prior to his stint as ambassador to Iran. 

The change in leadership comes as INSTEX finalizes several other management hires. By filling these roles, INSTEX will enter a new phase of operation as a standalone company based in Paris. Until now, both INSTEX’s outreach to European companies and its coordination with its Iranian counterpart, STFI, has been led by civil servants at the foreign and economy ministries of the company’s three founding shareholders. 

Fischer, a former Commerzbank executive, had been selected as the company’s first president due to his banking background. But Erbel, who lacks commercial experience, will have a different mission as he assumes his leadership role. Erbel will leave key commercial responsibilities to the new managers, focusing instead on ensuring a constructive working relationship between INSTEX and STFI. In recent weeks, cooperation between the two entities has slowed. Iranian authorities have called for INSTEX to be funded by Iran’s oil revenues—a move that would leave INSTEX vulnerable to sanctions from the United States. 

Erbel’s deep knowledge of Iran may help him navigate the tensions surrounding the INSTEX project in Tehran and reassure Iranian stakeholders of the seriousness of European efforts to develop the mechanism further. 

The goal for INSTEX remains to ease Europe-Iran trade by developing a netting mechanism that eliminates the need for a cross-border financial transactions. In this model, INSTEX will coordinate payment instructions between companies engaged in bilateral trade between Europe and Iran, enabling European exporters to receive payment for sales to Iran from funds that are already within Europe. The counterpart entity, STFI, will then mirror those transactions, allowing Iranian exporters to get paid with funds already in Iran. 

Delayed by political disagreements, INSTEX and STFI remain in the process of establishing the netting mechanism. But in a bid to fast-track transactions, INSTEX has opted to roll out a new service that does not require the direct participation of its Iranian counterpart. INSTEX is now in advanced negotiations to a provide factoring service to an initial cohort of European companies.

In factoring transactions, INSTEX will purchase the expired invoices of European exporters who have failed to receive payment for sanctions-exempt goods sold to Iran. The focus on expired invoices allows INSTEX to avoid lengthy French regulatory approvals for a full factoring service. Importantly, INSTEX will not require the goods in question to have been delivered to the Iranian buyer in order for the European exporter to factor its receivables. In this sense, the service approximates a kind of trade finance. 

According to a draft contract between INSTEX and a European company seen by Bourse & Bazaar, the purchase price paid to the European exporter by INSTEX would amount to 95 percent of the “assigned receivable.” In other words, INSTEX will charge a 5 percent fee as part of its factoring service. This fee will vary based on the transaction.

Such costs are not negligible for European exporters, especially when considering that INSTEX will require each transaction to undergo third-party due diligence at the exporter’s expense. Yet they are commensurate with the transaction fees typically charged by banks in those cases in which the bank is willing to accept funds originating in Iran. Moreover, for European companies burdened with unpaid invoices, the certainty of payment from INSTEX, a state-owned European company, is inherently attractive.

In some respects, the factoring service is a more appealing solution for companies than the netting mechanism service which INSTEX still intends to operationalize. However, factoring is inherently less scalable as it requires significant capital to be made available to INSTEX in order purchase invoices. INSTEX will also assume the burden of seeking payment from the Iranian debtor.

However, should the factoring solution prove popular, it may be the case that INSTEX could subsequently transfer its newly assigned receivables to STFI, making it possible for Iranian importers to pay STFI for goods purchased from European exporters. Alternatively, INSTEX could open an account either in Iran or at the Iranian bank branch based in Europe in order to receive payment for the outstanding invoices. While conceived as a stopgap solution, the experience with factoring could help INSTEX develop a more robust netting mechanism.

As it welcomes new leadership and pivots to a new service, INSTEX resembles any ordinary startup at a key stage of its development. Like all startups, INSTEX continues to face many hurdles—its success is far from assured, particularly in the darkening political climate. But the individuals responsible for its development are responding to pressure from demanding shareholders and skeptical customers with creative solutions—an encouraging sign.

Photo: Anna McMaster

Trading With Iran Via the Special Purpose Vehicle: How It Can Work

This article has been republished with permission from the European Council on Foreign Relations. 

Following weeks of speculation, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany (the E3) have formally registered a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to help facilitate trade with Iran – trade that the return of US sanctions has significantly hampered. This comes after months of technical coordination between member states led by the European External Action Service. While reactions in Tehran have been mixed, this is a significant demonstration of Europe’s commitment to preserving the Iran nuclear deal after President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from it.

The E3’s foreign ministers issued a joint statement with a brief overview of this new mechanism, called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), but have provided little clarity on the details of how it works. This is understandable given that they must finalise several technical aspects of INSTEX before it becomes operational. INSTEX will initially focus “on the sectors most essential to the Iranian population – such as pharmaceutical, medical devices and agri-food goods”. This means that, for now, INSTEX will avoid a direct clash with the White House, since US sanctions permit these categories of trade due to their humanitarian nature.

But the exact method INSTEX uses will be the first instance in which Europe tries to mitigate the effects of US secondary sanctions on what it sees as legitimate trade. Companies in Europe and Iran are eager to know if the system can be of practical use. The assessment below lays out INSTEX’s likely structure.

Sovereign Shield

An important element of the mechanism is its sovereign backing from the E3. The supervisory board of INSTEX will include senior European diplomats such as UK Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Simon McDonald; Miguel Berger, head of the economic department at the German Foreign Office; and Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, secretary-general of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs. The E3 governments are also shareholders of INSTEX.

The E3 have gone to great lengths to create a diplomatic shield around INSTEX and to share risk among the biggest economies in Europe. With the E3 having stuck their necks out, several other European countries are also considering joining the SPV as shareholders. While this does not eliminate the risk of US pressure on the mechanism, it does substantially raise the stakes for Washington should it seek to directly sanction or otherwise coerce a sovereign European entity or its senior management board – as it has with the European private sector.

It is important that the Iranian government now establishes another SPV to mirror INSTEX inside Iran. To persuade European companies to use the SPV, the Iranian entity will need to meet high standards of transparency in anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regulations. Thus, the E3 would prefer that the Iranian SPV was either a new company or operated under an Iranian bank that has not been subject to US secondary sanctions. This is likely to reduce the risk that the US administration will apply pressure to INSTEX’s operations.

In theory, Iran should establish its SPV more quickly than the E3 did their mechanism, given that Tehran will not need to balance the interests of several countries. However, it is inevitable that this issue will be caught up in extensive political debate in Iran. To speed up this process, Tehran should carefully consider offers from the European Union and the E3 on technical assistance in launching an Iranian SPV.

The Mechanism Behind INSTEX

INSTEX is best understood as an international trade intermediary that provides services to ease trade between Europe and Iran. Although the new company is not a bank, it will have a role in coordinating payments relating to trade with Iran. This coordination is necessary. Iranian importers have struggled to purchase and receive euros from the Central Bank of Iran on time – as is necessary to make payments to European suppliers. Even when they do acquire euros, Iranian importers struggle to make payments to suppliers, as European banks remain hesitant to accept funds originating in Iran. This holds true even for humanitarian trade that is formally exempt from sanctions: several exporters of food and medicine to Iran have reportedly experienced disruptions in recent months, contributing to troubling shortages and sharp price increases.

INSTEX will seek to facilitate Europe-Iran trade while reducing the need for transactions between the European and Iranian financial systems. It will do this by allowing European exporters to receive payments for sales to Iran from funds that are already within Europe, and vice versa. For example:

• A European exporter with an order for medicine from an Iranian importer provides INSTEX with the relevant documentation on the transaction. This will include evidence that the importer has practised reasonable due diligence in relation to the Iranian buyer and the end user. Crucially for European companies, INSTEX will not provide the requisite due diligence service.

• Once it has approved the sale, INSTEX will register it on a ledger of trade.

• INSTEX will examine its ledger to identify an instance in which a European importer has registered a purchase of pistachios from an Iranian exporter.

• INSTEX will then approve a payment from the European importer of pistachios to the European exporter of medicine, meaning that the payment can be made from one European bank to another without using funds that originated in Iran.

• To complete the process of trade intermediation, the Iranian counterpart to INSTEX will coordinate a similar payment from the Iranian importer of medicine to the Iranian exporter of pistachios. These funds will remain within Iran.

While it is novel for European governments to establish a state-owned company that performs this function, the basic mechanism at work here will not be new to international companies active in Iran. The innovative aspects of the new mechanism are its scale and the backing it receives from European countries rather than companies.

These transactions will not always match up perfectly, individually or in aggregate. This is particularly so given the European companies have stopped purchasing Iranian oil. Even companies in Greece and Italy that received US waivers to continue importing Iranian oil have reportedly not used them. Overall, European trade in food with Iran is roughly balanced: according to data from Eurostat, in the first eleven months of 2017, the EU’s food exports to Iran totalled €298m and its imports of similar goods from the country totalled €292m. The bloc’s trade in medicine and medical devices is far more imbalanced, with exports totalling €851m and imports just €27m in the period. As such, there will likely be greater demand for the new mechanism in facilitating sales to Iran than purchases from the country.

INSTEX will need to find a way to balance payments within both overall trade flow and at an operational level, so that payments can be settled in timely fashion – ideally, within 60 days. In balancing overall trade, European policymakers should attempt to maximise Iranian food exports to Europe through the mechanism.

Additionally, as has been suggested by European and Iranian officials, it may be possible to invite non-European countries to join the new mechanism. The SPV is more likely to succeed if it links with revenues related to Iran’s oil exports to countries such as China, India, and Japan.

INSTEX will expand gradually, accepting clients in a way that maintains a general balance in the ledger. At times, INSTEX may need to step in to top up the funds available to pay European exporters. To do so, the mechanism will need working capital. It could raise this capital either through contributions from European countries that are, or are becoming, shareholders in it. INSTEX could also charge a commission fee for the use of its services, thereby creating reserves that it can use to balance trade within a given payment period. Currently, banks that facilitate payments to and from Iran typically charge 2-3 percent of the transaction’s value, a high fee. INSTEX could reasonably charge a similar fee, thereby generating cash flow.

Speedy Implementation Required

It is hard to tell how much trade will flow through the mechanism. Ideally, normal correspondent banking channels should continue to facilitate a large portion of Europe-Iran humanitarian trade. INSTEX will step in to facilitate trade that might otherwise not occur given the currency and banking restrictions outlined above. On this basis, the initial version of the mechanism will have been a success if it eventually facilitates trade in the order of tens of millions of euros each year, perhaps intermediating around 5 percent of the total value of European exports to Iran. In this scenario, Europe could then consider expanding the mechanism to a wider range of trade.

Both Iran and the E3 should expect a teething period while the mechanism adjusts to best serve commercial actors. For European treasury managers and compliance officers tasked with finding workable financial channels with Iran, complexity has long been the norm. If the INSTEX channel proves reliable, companies are likely to use its services.

The E3 should undertake the necessary technical arrangements to operationalise INSTEX as quickly as possible. The new managing director of INSTEX will need to tour Europe to meet business executives and policymakers. They will need to engage in extensive outreach with European operators to persuade them to use the SPV – and, more importantly, with European banks that are instrumental to it – by settling accounts between European companies. The European External Action Service should be closely involved in this coordination effort across Europe.

By acting swiftly, Europe will boost its credibility with Iran, where the government is scrambling to manage the economic fallout of the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal and is increasingly under pressure to reduce compliance with the agreement. This will also increase the E3’s leverage with the US administration by demonstrating that they have substantive resilience against US sanctions.

Photo Credit: AFP

Europe’s SPV Will Be a ‘Rare Victory’ Only if Iran Makes it So

This article was originally published in Persian in Etemad Newspaper.

In a recent speech, President Rouhani declared that Iran had achieved a “rare victory” insofar as Europe is seeking ways to sustain its trade with Iran in the face of US sanctions. While this may be true in a political sense, practically speaking, the President is declaring victory too soon. Iran should be doing much more to ensure Europe’s efforts result in solutions that can maximize the flow of trade while banking ties remain restricted.

As US sanctions are reimposed, European efforts to sustain trade center on the creation of a new “special purpose vehicle” (SPV) which will serve to reduce the reliance of Europe-Iran commerce on the international financial system. The SPV, which will be owned by a group of European states with strong commercial ties to Iran and will help coordinate the “netting” of Europe-Iran trade, minimizing the need for cross-border financial transactions. There seems to be serious political will. In an interview with the Financial Times, French economy minister Bruno Le Maire expressed his hope that the SPV would evolve into a “real intergovernmental institution that will serve as the financial instrument of Europe’s independence.” The new mechanism “should allow us to trade in any product, with any country, so long as it is in line with international law and Europe’s commitments.”

The necessary technical work is proving complex, but continues to move forward. While the SPV is expected to be legally registered in the next few weeks, it will take more time for the new entity to become fully operational. The Iranian government seems content to exercise “strategic patience” as it waits for the SPV to come online. But while this patience is commendable, Iran should be taking a much more active role in shaping the SPV to suit its needs.

There is a precedent for Iran to take a more active role in implementing new financial mechanisms. When the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), the precursor to the JCPOA, was agreed on November 24, 2013, Iran received its first round of sanctions relief. This relief included the creation of a channel to facilitate humanitarian-related transactions including trade in food and  medicine at a time when strict banking sanctions remained in place.

The OFAC guidelines issued upon implementation of the JPOA outline that the “[foreign financial institutions] whose involvement is sought by Iran in hosting this new mechanism will be contacted directly by the USG and provided specific guidance.” What this means is that Iranian technical assistance was crucial in helping the United States identify the foreign banks that could facilitate humanitarian trade if given the proper assurances.

Today, same kind of Iranian input is necessary to ensure the European SPV is effective, particularly for the sake of sustaining humanitarian trade. There are two areas where Iran must play a more active role in advising its European partners on the structure and operation of the SPV.

First, Iran should ensure Europe to establishes multiple SPVs so that sanction-exempt humanitarian trade can be facilitated through a separate channel from sanctionable trade such as oil exports. Presently, only a single SPV is being considered by European governments. While facilitating all trade through a single entity is consistent with EU law, which does not see trade in food as different from trade in oil, for example, creating a single SPV will make the new mechanism more vulnerable to US sanctions. Given that in the short term, the SPV will be focused on humanitarian trade, it would be sensible to create a dedicated channel for these transactions. US officials have publicly promised they do not seek to inhibit humanitarian trade. Any mechanism focused exclusively on humanitarian trade is unlikely to be targeted by additional sanctions.  

Second, the SPV will need to conduct due diligence on each of transactions it facilitates. This will be a costly and time-intensive process. In order to maximize the volume of trade that the SPV can facilitate, Iran should create tools that will make it easier for the managers of the SPV to conduct the necessary due diligence. For example, the SPV could be given access, via a portal administered by the Central Bank of Iran, to registration and ownership information of Iranian companies currently only available to Iranian banks. Iran could also nominate a list of well-established companies authorized to use the SPV, reducing the risk that the SPV will be overwhelmed with unprofessional requests or abused by untransparent actors.

If the SPV can be implemented successfully, it would indeed be a rare victory in which Iran’s trading relationships will become less vulnerable to US economic warfare. But this opportunity is as urgent as it is historic and, over the next few months, Iran must take a more active role in shaping the planned European mechanisms to ensure their optimal operation. 

Photo Credit: IRNA

America’s Latest Wave of Iran Sanctions: An Explainer

This article was originally published by the European Council on Foreign Relations.

On 5 November, the Trump administration’s latest and most significant wave of sanctions against Iran came into effect. The US Treasury has issued a list of more than 700 Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) and Blocked Persons, which includes roughly 300 entities that did not feature in Obama-era sanctions. The designations combine with a series of briefings from senior US administration officials, along with fact sheets and guidelines from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Below is an overview what we know so far about how the US will implement its sanctions. 

Waivers allow Iran to maintain some of its oil exports

American sanctions targeting Iran’s oil exports and related banking activity will cause many companies and countries to halt or reduce their purchases of Iranian oil. The US administration has stressed that, in contrast to Obama-era measures, the latest sanctions target Iranian condensate as much as crude oil, thereby affecting another source of energy revenue.

Yet the US administration has issued Significant Reduction Exemptions (SREs) to eight countries: China, India, Italy, Greece, Japan, South Korean, Turkey, and Taiwan. Iraq did not receive an SRE, but obtained a waiver to continue purchasing Iranian electricity.

The United States did not issue a formal response to the joint letter from the E3 (Germany, France, and the United Kingdom) issued in June 2018 to request that EU companies be exempt from secondary sanctions. Other EU member states were surprised that Italy and Greece obtained waivers, suggesting that they separately negotiated country-specific rather than EU-wide exemptions. That China sought a waiver indicates that it may be avoiding confrontation with the US as it seeks to sustain trade with Iran.

The US authorities will review these waivers periodically (it is unclear when), requiring recipient countries to prove that they have substantially reduced their imports of Iranian oil (under Obama-era sanctions, these reductions were around 20 percent). According to Secretary of State Pompeo, two of the countries will eventually “completely end imports as part of their agreements”, but – again – the timing is unclear.

The US has abandoned its stated objective of reducing Iran’s oil exports to “zero”, seemingly due to concerns that this would cause a spike in global oil prices. However, revenues from Iran’s oil sales will be held in escrow accounts and can only be used for trade in humanitarian goods or other non-sanctioned products. As such, the US administration is insisting that its oil waivers are still consistent with its aim of ensuring that Iran’s government has “zero oil revenue” that can be used for “malign activity” in the region.

Banking measures allow for limited humanitarian trade

While most Iranian financial institutions are subject to US secondary sanctions, a few of Iran’s private banks are exempt from these measures. In principle, these banks can facilitate humanitarian trade even with US companies, a situation akin to that prior to the implementation of the sanctions relief that followed the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Until recently, four private companies were responsible for facilitating nearly all of Iran’s humanitarian trade: Parsian Bank, Middle East Bank, Saman Bank, and Pasargad Bank. But, on 16 October, the US Treasury named Parsian Bank as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. This new measure bans the bank from facilitating humanitarian trade. Responding to the designation, Kourosh Parvizian, Parsian’s CEO, described the new sanctions as a “mistake” that threatened “a bank that handles the transactions behind the majority of imports of foodstuffs, medicine and other humanitarian trade items for the Iranian people.”

The US clearly intended the designation of Parsian Bank to send a message to the Iranian financial system and its international counterparties. Commenting on the thin grounds for designating the bank a terrorist organisation, sanctions attorneys have expressed concern about the US Treasury’s approach to humanitarian trade.

The Parsian designation will loom over the remaining entities engaged in humanitarian trade with Iran, reminding them that the US could block their access to the international financial system at any moment. For now, the White House has not applied new terrorism- or proliferation-related designations to Middle East Bank, Pasargad Bank, or Saman Bank. This is crucial to these companies’ capacity to facilitate humanitarian trade.

OFAC guidelines state: “broadly speaking, transactions for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran are not sanctionable unless they involve persons on the SDN List that have been designated in connection with Iran’s support for international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” Companies that use these banks to conduct transactions for humanitarian trade must ensure that no other SDN-listed entities are involved in this trade.

Overall, the manner in which the US has reimposed sanctions allows humanitarian trade to continue. But the US has not taken any steps to actively safeguard vital trade in food and medicine, leaving European companies in the lurch about the risks involved in humanitarian trade linked with Iran and placing the citizens of Iran under intense pressure.

Partly to address this urgent problem, Switzerland is negotiating directly with the US authorities to create a humanitarian banking channel with Iran. Under Obama-era sanctions, several small Swiss merchant banks maintained ties with the likes of Parsian, Middle East Bank, Saman, and Pasargad. That the Swiss government now considers it necessary to intervene could indicate that these Swiss banks are more reluctant to engage with Iranian companies due to the Trump administration’s aggressive stance on all Iran-related commerce. Home to several major pharmaceuticals manufacturers, food companies, and commodities traders, Switzerland is perhaps Iran’s most important partner in humanitarian trade.

Iran’s access to SWIFT has been significantly restricted but not blocked

For several months, there has been widespread speculation about whether the US would pressure Belgium-based financial messaging organisation SWIFT to block payments from all Iranian banks. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin noted the US has required SWIFT to disconnects any Iranian entity that the country designates as a terrorist or proliferation entity. For now, a handful of Iranian banks that are not subject to designations will likely remain connected to SWIFT.

On Monday, SWIFT stated that it would suspend some Iranian banks’ access to its network, noting “this step, while regrettable, has been taken in the interest of the stability and integrity of the wider global financial system”. The move is unsurprising given Mnuchin’s warning that “SWIFT would be subject to US sanctions if it provides financial messaging services to certain designated Iranian financial institutions”. Thus, it is possible that there will be a showdown between the European Union and the US if SWIFT decides not to disconnect all targeted Iranian entities and the US Treasury responds with sanctions against the organisation.

Expanded targeting of civilian aircraft and maritime vessels

American sanctions on aircraft belonging to Iran Air, the country’s national carrier, will complicate its operations. Under Obama-era sanctions, such measures made it difficult for Iran Air to receive ground handling and refuelling services at many European airports. This forced Iran Air planes flying between Europe and Iran to refuel in third countries.

Notably, the US Treasury has targeted Iran Air’s recently acquired ATR regional aircraft, which largely conduct domestic flights. The move may be designed to complicate maintenance of the aircraft, increasing safety risks for Iranian passengers.

The US Treasury has also sanctioned a wide range of Iranian oil tankers, as well as other cargo vessels and container ships. This will restrict Iran’s ability to engage in trade, as ports may refuse to service the vessels.

Civilian nuclear cooperation is permitted in limited cases

The US has placed the Atomic Energy Agency Organization of Iran on its SDN list, subjecting it to secondary sanctions. The organisation is the main entity responsible for implementing Iran’s nuclear-related obligations under the JCPOA.

To fully comply with the agreement, Iran must make several adjustments to its nuclear programme, such as redesigning its heavy water reactor at Arak and converting the Fordow enrichment facility into a research complex. To carry out this technical work, Iran is cooperating with the United Kingdom, China, and Russia.

The US has clarified that “all nuclear cooperation with Iran, except for the limited activities for which waivers are being granted, will be sanctionable”. Nonetheless, the US has granted sanctions waivers to non-proliferation projects at Arak, Bushehr, and Fordow facilities, noting that “each of the waivers we are granting is conditional on the cooperation of the various stakeholders”.

The US is monitoring Europe’s planned SPV

In response to America’s reimposition of sanctions this year, the EU and E3 governments reiterated their intention to create a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), a new mechanism to facilitate trade with Iran while reducing Iranian reliance on the international financial system. European officials still hope to legally establish the SPV in the coming weeks, but the mechanism is unlikely to become operational for several months. When asked by reporters about the SPV, US policy adviser Brian Hook noted that the “United States will not hesitate to sanction any sanctionable activity in connection with our Iran sanctions regime”.

European governments could establish an SPV to facilitate humanitarian trade alone, thereby minimising the risk that the US will target the mechanism. But it appears that they are planning a single SPV that would include trade the US regards as sanctionable.

That the White House has issued some waivers to allow for civil nuclear cooperation with Iran signals its desire to maintain the JCPOA’s limitations on Iran without allowing the country any of the tangible economic benefits envisaged under the deal. According to one senior Iranian official, unless the remaining JCPOA parties can provide Iran with a meaningful economic package in the coming months, Tehran is likely to re-evaluate its stance on the agreement. In this respect, it is crucial that Europe demonstrates its ability to successfully launch the SPV and, together with China and Russia, takes both economic and political measures to signal that the JCPOA can weather the American sanctions storm.

Photo Credit: IRNA

Bankless Task: Can Europe Stay Connected to Iran?

This article is re-published with permission from the European Council on Foreign Relations. 

As part of the effort to salvage the Iran nuclear deal, European governments have vowed to sustain their economic ties—not least their banking connections—with Iran. From 4 November, American sanctions targeting Iran’s banks will make it extremely difficult for European companies to engage in transactions with firms in the country. Many of the pathways to reducing the secondary impact of US secondary sanctions on the European financial sector present significant technical and political challenges—which stem from the US financial system’s global dominance and the integration of the US and European banking sectors. Moreover, the Iranian financial sector must take several proactive steps to ensure it meets the international compliance standards European banks require.

The Banking Blockage

With the incoming US sanctions, European companies face an even greater struggle to engage in transactions with Iran. For instance, Swedish automaker Volvo is leaving Iran because, as one of its spokesman put it, “with all these sanctions and everything that the United States put [in place] ... the [banking] system doesn’t work in Iran … We can’t get paid.”

This problem has driven most of the multinationals once active in the Iranian market to suspend their operations there, ahead of the new round of US sanctions. There is a widespread expectation that several Iranian private banks and the Central Bank of Iran will be designated entities under the measures.

Some European companies, such as Airbus and Total, require a licence or waiver from the US authorities to continue their operations in Iran, as they work in sectors subject to targeted sanctions. Many areas of Iranian trade, such as that in basic goods, are either unsanctionable or will be exempt from the measures. Yet US sanctions have adversely affected even these areas, as outlined in a recent ruling of the International Court of Justice.

Such restrictions on trade arise from the contamination risk that US secondary sanctions pose to European financial institutions, which generates unique pressure on the Iranian banking sector. This risk combines with Iran’s current shortfalls in meeting its commitments under a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) action plan – although the recent passage of the Combating Financing of Terrorism Bill suggests that Tehran is raising its compliance standards. Until the FATF changes Iran’s designation as a high-risk jurisdiction, global financial institutions will limit their dealings with Iranian banks.

Since President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May this year and announced the re-imposition of secondary sanctions on Iran, banks in Europe have come under growing direct and indirect pressure from American regulators. Following the repeal of international sanctions on Iran in 2016, many large European banks began quietly facilitating transactions involving Iran for their largest industrial clients, especially those with long-standing operations in the country. Among these institutions, Danske Bank was the most visibly open to business with Iran, even opening a €500 million line of credit to support Danish firms’ expansion in the country. But as it falls into disrepute over suspected money laundering at its Estonian subsidiary, Danske Bank has opted to cease transactions involving Iran as an immediate show of responsiveness to US regulators. More broadly, banks tend to jettison their business with Iran if regulators exert pressure on them, even in the absence of a direct compliance issue.

Meanwhile, small European banks are coming under pressure from their larger competitors. When these institutions, which have relatively limited exposure to the US financial system, engage in Iran-related transactions, their routine SEPA transfers – payments to other banks within the Single European Payments Area – are often refused outright. This isolates the banks and complicates other aspects of their business. And the refusals extend beyond Europe. Asian banks have shown increasing concern about dealing with small European financial institutions that engage in business with Iran, understanding that they too could fall foul of the US authorities.

Europeans banks have been reluctant to engage with Iran due to fears about the response from their shareholders and creditors. This is most clear in the case of the European Investment Bank (EIB), which has refused to invest in Iran. European governments (which number among the bank’s shareholders) encouraged the EIB to consider lending to Iran, but the bank’s leadership felt that investing in the country would jeopardise its ability to raise capital from American institutional investors in the bond market.

Europe’s Possible Solutions

Despite their efforts to sustain economic channels with Iran, European governments have been unable to ease this pressure on banks. With US sanctions on Iran’s banking sector due to come into effect soon, European countries are now considering measures that would facilitate trade transactions with Iran through a new legal and institutional structure.

On the sidelines of the recent United Nations General Assembly, EU High Representative Federica Mogherini announced that “EU Member States will set up a legal entity to facilitate legitimate financial transactions with Iran and this will allow European companies to continue trade with Iran, in accordance with European Union law, and could be opened to other partners in the world”.

European governments have been reviewing this legal entity, known as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), for months. The timing of this public announcement suggests that they have a degree of confidence that the SPV can become operational, and that Europe can use the model to showcase its ability to deliver on its commitments.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo immediately responded that he was “disturbed and indeed deeply disappointed” at the news. US National Security Advisor John Bolton commented: “we will be watching the development of this structure that doesn’t exist yet and has no target date to be created. We do not intend to allow our sanctions to be evaded by Europe or anybody else.”

There remains scant detail on the SPV. In her statement, Mogherini added that more information will become available “as the technical work continues in the coming days”. It may be advisable for European actors involved in the creation of the SPV to keep the details private for now. Operationalising the SPV will require a period of trial and error. Making the details of the project public in its early stages would provide the structure’s opponents with further opportunities to undermine it.

Can the SPV Model Work?

Reportedly, an internal European Commission paper describes the European Union’s efforts to “bundle and reduce cross-border payments to and from Iran”. In this way, the SPV would “avoid or severely restrict the role of commercial banks in the payment system and protect payment transactions with Iran from US sanctions”. European policymakers’ apparent consideration of this approach indicates that they want to avoid placing critical European financial institutions, such as the EIB, in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.

To operationalise the SPV, policymakers will need to quickly make progress in several technical areas. Firstly, European governments need to determine how aggressively they will push back against US sanctions; this is a consideration of the first order for the structure and operation of the SPV. Theoretically, the SPV could facilitate payments for what the US authorities consider to be sanctionable activity. Indeed, European officials have openly discussed their intention to use the SPV to support purchases of Iranian oil.

As guidelines from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control make clear, even barter arrangements involving petroleum or petroleum products from Iran are sanctionable – on the basis that they provide “material support” to Iran’s oil industry “regardless of whether a financial institution is involved”. However, because the envisaged SPV would bypass the US financial system and foreign branches of US banks, the American authorities would have no direct jurisdiction over it. Thus, transactions the SPV facilitated would not give rise to the same kind of civil liability that led to hefty fines on Europe’s largest banks in the previous era of sanctions.

The US authorities could, in theory, prevent entities engaged in the SPV from accessing the US market. American officials have stressed that US sanctions will target European central banks and SWIFT – an international payments messaging system headquartered in Belgium – if these institutions facilitate transactions with Iran. Furthermore, this targeting would extend beyond entities engaged in oil purchases, covering all companies that use the SPV to engage in transactions with Iran – even those in sectors that are exempt from sanctions, such food and pharmaceuticals.

European governments working on the SPV will have to find a way to counter such measures. On a technical level, they may be able to use creative structuring solutions. The SPV could be set up primarily as a payment mechanism for only small and medium-sized companies that are content to be excluded from the US market. And the mandate of the SPV could initially facilitate just payments for trade that is exempt from US sanctions.

The SPV is most likely to succeed if takes this approach, starting off small and gradually expanding. The basic structure of the vehicle is replicable. One SPV could focus on sanctionable trade related to support for Iran’s oil, automotive, or aviation sectors. Another could be limited to sanctions-exempt trade in consumer goods, food, and pharmaceuticals – allowing multinationals to use it as a convenient payment channel. With multiple SPVs available, companies could engage with Iranian entities in accordance with their appetite for risk and their business models.

Each SPV could take a different form. It could be a stand-alone, state-owned bank; a conduit for payments that European central banks ultimately facilitate; or simply a clearing house for companies that transfer money to Iran, repatriate funds from the country, or engage in barter trade with it.

The process of establishing the SPV will prove instructive in testing the limits of America’s sanctions power and US willingness to use sanctions as a weapon against its putative allies. Reports indicate that the US Department of the Treasury is already starting to push back against the White House over proposals to sanction European financial institutions, particularly SWIFT, for maintaining ties with Iran.

Of course, creating the SPV will require significant technical work. For its part, Iran will need to demonstrate that its financial system is also continuing to reform in accordance with international standards on money-laundering and terrorism financing. European governments will closely watch the country’s progress in implementing the FATF action plan ahead of an important review on 14-19 October.

From a political perspective, Iran has drawn encouragement from European countries’ sustained and unanimous commitment to the nuclear agreement. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani praised Europe for taking a “big step” to maintain trade. Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, stated that while implementing the SPV will be difficult, Iran is willing to show “a little bit more patience” with Europe. The SPV is an important immediate contribution to improving conditions for trade between Europe and Iran, but both sides must view it as the start of a road map for long-term economic engagement.

Photo Credit: Depositphoto

Europe's SWIFT Problem

This article was originally published by Moneyness. 

German foreign minister Heiko Maas recently penned an article in which he said that "it’s essential that we strengthen European autonomy by establishing payment channels that are independent of the US, creating a European Monetary Fund and building up an independent Swift system."

So what exactly is Maas's quibble with SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication? SWIFT is a proprietary messaging system that banks can use communicate information about cross border payments.  President Trump has threatened to impose sanctions on SWIFT if it doesn't remove a set of Iranian banks from the SWIFT directory. 

For Heiko Maas, this is a problem. Iran and Germany remain signatories to the same nuclear deal that Trump reneged on earlier this year. The deal committed Iran to cutting back its uranium enrichment program and allowing foreign inspectors access to nuclear sites, in return obligating signatories like Germany to normalize economic relations with Iran, including allowing the unrestricted sale of oil. If Iran is bumped from SWIFT, it could prevent Germany from meeting its side of the deal, potentially scuppering the whole thing. So a fully functioning SWIFT, one that can't be manipulated by foreign bullies, is key to Germany meeting its current foreign policy goals. 

SWIFT is vital because it is a universal standard. If I want to send you USD 10,000 from my bank in Canada to your bank in Singapore to pay for services rendered, bank employees will use SWIFT terminals and codes to communicate how to manipulate the various bank ledgers involved in the transaction. If a bank has been banished from SWIFT, then it can no longer use what is effectively a universal banker's language for making money smoothly flow across borders. 

It would be as-if you were at a party but unlike all the other party-goers were prohibited from using words to communicate. Sure, you could get your points across through hand gestures and stick drawings, but people would find conversing with you to be tiring and might prefer to avoid you. Without access to SWIFT, Iranian banks will be in the same situation as the mute party-goer. Sure, they can always use other types of communication like email, telex or fax to convey banking instructions, but these would be cumbersome since they would require counterparties to learn a new and clunky process, and they wouldn't necessarily be secure. 

It seems odd that Maas is complaining about SWIFT's independence given that it is located in Belgium, which is home territory. But Trump, who is on the other side of the Atlantic, can still influence the network. The way that he plans to bend SWIFT to his will is by threatening members of its board with potential asset expropriations, criminal charges, travel bans, as well as punishing the companies they work for by restricting them from conducting business in the U.S.

How credible is this threat? SWIFT's board is made up of executives from twenty-five of the world's largest banks, including two Americans: Citigroup's Yawar Shah and J.P Morgan's Emma Loftus. No matter how erratic and silly he is, I really can't imagine Trump following up on his threat. Would he ban all twenty-five banks, including Citigroup and J.P. Morgan, from doing business in the U.S.? Not a chance, that would decimate the global banking system and the U.S. along with it. Requiring U.S. banks do stop using SWIFT would be equally foolish. Would he risk ridicule by putting two American bank executives—Shah and Loftus—under house arrest for non-compliance? I doubt it.    

If SWIFT doesn't comply with US requirements that Iranian banks be cut off from its network, SWIFT board members (such as Yawar Shah) will face asset freezes & travel bans, and the banks that employ them (Citigroup) will be cut from the payments system: https://t.co/tVntv3USzs pic.twitter.com/XAiLOKPdtk

— JP Koning (@jp_koning) June 6, 2018

No, the SWIFT board is TBTP, or too-big-to-be-punished. But even if Trump's threat is not a credible one, surely SWIFT will fall in line anyways. Large international businesses generally comply with the requests of governments, especially the American one. But there's a kicker. European law prohibits European businesses from complying with foreign sanctions unless the have secured EU permission to do so. This leaves SWIFT in an awfully tight place. Which of the two jurisdictions' laws will it choose to break? Assuming it can't get EU permission to comply with U.S. sanctions, then it can either illegally comply with U.S. law, or it can legally contravene U.S. laws. Either way, something has to give.   

Europe can win this battle, a point that Axel Hellman makes for Al-Monitor. After all, SWIFT is located in Belgium, not New York, and jurisdiction over SWIFT surely trumps lack of jurisdiction. Indeed, on its website SWIFT says that its policy is to defer to the EU on these matters:

"Whilst sanctions are imposed independently in different jurisdictions around the world, SWIFT cannot arbitrarily choose which jurisdiction’s sanction regime to follow. Being incorporated under Belgian law it must instead comply with related EU regulation, as confirmed by the Belgian government."

Consider too that SWIFT itself is supposed to be committed to a policy of non-censorship. Chairman Yawar Shah once said that “neutrality is in SWIFT’s DNA.” So from an ideological perspective it would seem that SWIFT would be aligned with Europe's more inclusive stance.

Of course, SWIFT's stated commitment to neutrality conflicts with the fact that it has banned Iran from the network before. In early 2012, U.S. pressure on SWIFT grew in the form of proposed legislation that would punish the messaging provider should it fail to ban Iranian users. SWIFT prevaricated, noting in early February that it would await the "right multilateral legal framework" before acting. In March 2012, the EU Council passed a resolution prohibiting financial messaging providers from servicing Iranian banks, upon which SWIFT disconnected them. It was only in 2015, after passage of the nuclear deal, that SWIFT reconnected Iran. (I get this timeline from the very readable Routledge Global Institutions book on SWIFT, by Suzan Scott and Markos Zachariadis).

The takeaway here is that SWIFT only severed Iranian banks in response to European regulations, in turn a product of a conversation between American and European leaders. SWIFT will seemingly compromise its neutrality if there is a sufficient level of global agreement on the issue followed up by a European directive, not an American one. 

If Heiko Maas wants an "independent SWIFT," the above analysis would seem to illustrate that he already has it. Thanks to its European backstop, SWIFT is already independent enough to say no to U.S. bullying. As long as they are willing, European officials can force a showdown over SWIFT that they are destined to win, thus helping to preserve the Iranian nuclear deal. 

But maybe European officials don't want to go down this potentially contentious path. Perhaps they would prefer to preserve the peace and grant SWIFT an exemption that allows the organization to comply with U.S. sanctions, thus cutting Iran off from the messaging network, while trying to cobble together some sort of alternative messaging system in order to salvage the nuclear deal. Maybe this alternative is what Maas is referring to when he talks of a building an "independent SWIFT."

An alternative messaging service would have to be capable of providing bankers with sufficient usability so that Iranian oil sales can proceed fluidly. In a recent paper, Esfandyar Batmanghelidj and Axel Hellman give some clues into what this system would look like. During the previous SWIFT ban, several European banks were able to maintain their relationships with Iranian financial institutions by using "ad hoc messaging systems." These ad hoc solutions could be revived, note Batmanghelidj and Hellman. 

Using this ad hoc system, so-called gateway banks—those that have both access to the ECB's large value payments system Target2 and limited exposure to the U.S. financial system—would conduct euro transactions on behalf of buyers and sellers of Iranian oil. Since presumably only a few gateways would be necessary to conduct this trade, it would be relatively painless for them to learn the new messaging language and the set of processes involved. For instance, instead of using SWIFT bank identifier codes to indicate account numbers, Batmanghelidj and Hellman point to the possibility of using IBAN numbers, an entirely different international standard. 

This independent ad-hoc system would probably work, on the condition that the European monetary authorities continue providing gateway banks that serve Iranian clients with access to the ECB's Target2 payments system. This is a point I stressed in my previous blog post. It isn't access to SWIFT that is the lynchpin of the nuclear deal, it is access to European central banks. But as long as folks like Heiko Maas get their way, I don't see why this sponsorship wouldn't be forthcoming. In response, Trump could always try to sanction the European central bank(s) that allow this ad-hoc system to continue. But an escalation of U.S. bullying from the mere corporate level (i.e. SWIFT) to the level of a friendly sovereign nation would constitute an even more nutty policy. I just don't see it happening.

At stake here is something far larger than just Iran. As I recently wrote for the Sound Money Project, financial inclusion is a principle worth fighting for. If one bully can unilaterally ban Iran from the global payments system, who is to say the next victim won't be Canada, or Qatar, or Russia, or  China? Europe needs to stand up to the U.S. on this battle, either by forcing a SWIFT showdown or by sponsoring an ad hoc alternative—not because Iran is an angel—but because we need censorship-resistant financial utilities.

Photo Credit: B&B

Three Years Later: Europe’s Last Push on the Iran Nuclear Deal

This article has been republished with permission from the European Council on Foreign Relations. 

The Iran nuclear agreement marked its third anniversary in a gloomy state. Despite repeated attempts to keep him on board, US President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the deal – signed on 14 July 2015 under the formal title the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and thereby pulled the rug from under Europe’s feet. European policymakers are now focused on salvaging the agreement. For a growing number of European corporate decision-makers, the deal is already dead. In reality, the JCPOA is on life support and the next few months could open either its next or final chapter. Despite the significant challenges they face, European governments have some limited time to avert the deal’s collapse.

In 2015, global powers unanimously hailed the agreement as a historic achievement that proved the effectiveness of multilateral diplomacy. Indeed, the JCPOA provides unprecedented oversight of Iran’s nuclear programme. Furthermore, the agreement states that parties anticipate it will “positively contribute to regional and international peace and security." Many hoped that the resolution of the nuclear dispute would result in a new understanding between the West and Iran, opening a pathway for detente rather than confrontation. Relations between Europe and Iran have certainly made gains in this direction, but the Trump administration’s maximalist stance on Tehran has created an extremely hazardous environment for all remaining stakeholders in the nuclear deal.

Washington's Pressure Package

Since the formal US exit from the agreement in May this year, the Trump administration has sought to sabotage European efforts to sustain the agreement. This has involved a policy of relentlessly threatening and otherwise pressuring any country or company inclined to maintain economic channels with Iran, by weaponising US secondary sanctions. Reportedly, the US administration recently rejected an appeal by the EU foreign ministers to negotiate broad exemptions to such sanctions for European companies. The US clearly intends to specifically target European trade with Iran – although there remain questions about its ability to do so and the reach of US enforcement.

Together with its allies in the Middle East – particularly Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia – the Trump administration is increasing its efforts to squeeze Iran on multiple fronts. As a new report by the European Council on Foreign Relations outlines, this anti-Iran front views the collapse of the JCPOA as the trigger for a wider policy aimed at confronting Iran. The policy seeks to cause a deep economic crisis in the country, creating domestic divisions intended to bring about regime change. As part of this, the Trump administration has signalled its willingness to go further than any previous administration by choking off Iran’s oil exports. 

European Resistance to US Sanctions

European leaders’ have repeatedly stated their commitment to upholding the JCPOA. Policymakers are making genuine efforts to find an economic package that minimises the impact of looming US secondary sanctions to sustain Iranian compliance with the deal. But these efforts have yet to generate an environment in which a reasonable number of European entities can make a firm commercial decision to continue doing business with Iran.

Although the European Union’s leaders remain unified in their support of the JCPOA, divisions are emerging between the 28 member states over how far they are willing to test the limits of US secondary sanctions. Moreover, several proposed ideas for safeguarding European companies against extraterritorial US sanctions would require months or even years to implement, as they require alternative financial mechanisms that are ring-fenced from US exposure. European governments are also falling short in the political momentum needed to salvage the nuclear deal. For instance, Germany and the United Kingdom are now far more preoccupied with challenges at home than they were in 2015, and EU institutions are focused on averting further transatlantic divide on trade and NATO.

Unsurprisingly, many European firms have little confidence that European policymakers will create the conditions necessary to protect them from US secondary sanctions, including by providing alternative mechanisms for doing business with Iran that are compliant with US sanctions. This has resulted in a wave of pre-emptive corporate overcompliance with impending US regulations and a decline in European business with Iran even before sanctions come into force.

Iran's Patience Wearing Thin

This month, the foreign ministers of France, the UK, Germany, Russia, and China (the E3+2) met with Iran to discuss political and economic pathways through which they could safeguard the JCPOA. And Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, visited Austria and Switzerland to deliver two overarching messages. The first was that Iran’s patience was wearing thin and its full compliance with the JCPOA was only feasible if it continued to receive tangible benefits from the agreement. The second was that Tehran would abandon the agreement if it became unable to maintain oil exports and, accordingly, its share in global energy markets.

Rouhani’s visit followed a tense OPEC meeting, Trump’s call for Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, and weeks of speculation about the extent to which the US could pressure other countries to halt exports of Iranian oil. In Europe, Rouhani stated: “assuming that Iran could become the only oil producer unable to export its oil is a wrong assumption”. 

The leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was quick to emphasise that elite forces were prepared to act on Rouhani’s words, noting: “we will make the enemy understand that either everyone can use the Strait of Hormuz or no one”. Iran has issued such warnings in the past, including during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and in 2011 in advance of the EU and US embargo on Iranian oil. Iran may retaliate against any US attempts to curb its oil exports by disrupting regional crude shipments in the strait, through which 35% of all seaborne oil exports pass. Such measures seem unlikely for now – given the risk of military escalation with US and regional naval forces, and of damaging relations with China and Russia, which wish to keep energy markets stable.

Rouhani’s statement suggests that Iran is hardening its position. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force, unexpectedly welcomed Rouhani’s threat.

Despite the significant political and economic challenges shaping Iranian domestic politics, the Trump administration’s maximalist posture may inadvertently lead to a consensus between the Rouhani government and the military elite on how to respond to national security threats. This may abruptly or gradually prompt the Iranian political establishment to shift away from diplomacy with Europe and towards confrontation with the US. Calculations on whether the JCPOA can be sustained will heavily influence this decision.

Iran is likely to continue implementing the JCPOA and engaging in diplomacy with Europe for at least a few more months, as it assesses the impact of US sanctions on its economic relations with Europe, China, and India (particularly in relation to oil exports), as well as the likely trajectory of US domestic politics in the aftermath of midterm elections.

Necessary European Action

Unless one side backs down, Tehran and Washington will escalate their dispute in a manner that poses real risks to European interests in non-proliferation, security in the Middle East, and global energy supply. It is imperative that in the coming weeks and months European governments redouble their efforts to sustain the nuclear agreement and ease regional tensions.

Firstly, they should continue to explicitly warn the US and their partners in the Middle East that they will not support a strategy aimed at destabilising Iran internally or pursuing regime change in the country. Such an approach risks destabilising a country of 80 million people close to Europe’s border. At the same time, European governments should address their many areas of disagreement with Iran – most urgently, those involving regional security. As ECFR’s new report recommends, this should be done in a strategically careful manner that avoids fuelling further conflict in the Middle East.

Secondly, European governments must strive to fulfil their commitments under the JCPOA. They have made a good start by incorporating US secondary sanctions into the EU Blocking Regulation, due to be amended in August. But they need to quickly implement more practical solutions that will affect companies’ calculations on Iran (for a detailed list of recommendations, see the box below). Otherwise, there will be an exodus of European firms from the Iranian market.

European efforts to keep Iran in the JCPOA will face major challenges, including US attempts at sabotage. The Trump administration will look to use the JCPOA as a bargaining chip in its bilateral negotiations with Europe, China, and Russia on trade policy, tariffs, and sanctions. Therefore, European leaders must make important decisions about how far they are willing to go to secure a nuclear agreement borne out of more than a decade of diplomacy. They can only do so if they act collectively and firmly. Yet they must do so to prevent escalation between the West and Iran that will have disastrous consequences for global security.

Recommendations

1. The EU/E3 should accelerate measures to establish a foundation for sustaining financial channels (including SWIFT) with Iran before November, when the US will introduce secondary sanctions designed to hit Iran’s oil and banking sector. In this, European central and state banks will have act as a bridging mechanism. While there are ways of moving funds to and from Iran, state banks will have to engage in operations that provide settlement and clearing facilities. At the same time, European governments should remind Iran that their banking relationship can only continue if the country follows the Financial Action Task Force’s road map.

2. The EU and member states should devise a financial framework within which European companies (particularly small and medium-sized enterprises) can do business with Iran while complying with US sanctions. Technical experts have called for the creation of special purpose vehicles or “gateway banks” (supported by European state banks). These mechanisms will need to avoid direct links between Iranian entities and European private banks. Cooperation on this should extend into a larger structure that crosses a coalition of willing member states, thereby sharing risk between them.

3. The EU and member states (particularly leading importers of Iranian oil such as France, Greece, Italy and Spain) should increase their coordination with China and Russia on measures to minimise the impact of US secondary sanctions on Iranian oil exports. European countries should firmly reject any proposed US framework for significant oil reduction from Iran in return for waivers to continue limited oil exports. This would amount to legitimising the US secondary sanctions architecture. Russia and Iran are already in talks over significant Russian investment in the Iranian energy market, which could reportedly involve increased purchases of Iranian oil that could be reprocessed for global distribution via Russia. The E3 and China, together with other relevant private sector entities, should investigate whether it is feasible to offset potential reductions in Iranian oil exports through oil-swap arrangements with non-signatories to the JCPOA such as Turkey and Iraq.

4. The European Commission should incorporate clear guidelines for European companies into amendments to the EU Blocking Regulation. The regulation includes a compensation mechanism (Article 6) that allows European entities to seek compensation if they become subject to extraterritorial US financial penalties. As this mechanism has rarely been enforced, its limits remain unclear. The European Commission should work with member states, regulators and the private sector to clarify and facilitate access to compensation, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises that do business with Iran.

5. The European Commission should mandate a competent body to facilitate legitimate European business with Iran. The body should provide comprehensive oversight of the US Treasury’s enforcement of extraterritorial sanctions. This should involve a reporting mechanism that assesses the legal and other tactics the US Treasury adopts against European companies, pursuant to secondary sanctions. The body should also assist European companies subject to US investigations.

6. The European Commission should address discrimination and overcompliance relating to trade and investment with Iran in the European banking sector. As this problem is a direct consequence of US secondary sanctions, European leaders should primarily address it through regulatory measures that set a burden of proof requiring company boards to certify that their decisions are legally grounded under European law. The Blocking Regulation can provide a foundation for such measures. European regulatory bodies should provide greater oversight of European commercial banks’ decisions to block the flow of funds relating to Iran, reducing the likelihood that such decisions will be arbitrary.

7. The E3/EU should not invest heavily in attempts to negotiate with the US administration on exemptions from secondary sanctions, given the Trump White House’s clear lack of interest in treating European allies amicably. The E3/EU should shift to a more firm and robust negotiating posture similar to their stance on US trade tariffs. They should warn the US about the costs for Western energy consumers of reducing purchases of Iranian oil at a time when Libyan, Venezuelan, and Nigerian exports have been disrupted, given that it remains uncertain whether Saudi Arabia and Russia will increase production to offset this disruption. European governments should limit the US Treasury’s space to demonstrate the power of sanctions in Europe. EU member states should urgently engage in private consultations to prepare countermeasures against US attempts to pressure SWIFT and its board members or to target European entities – using specially designated nationals lists – for doing business with Iran deemed legitimate under EU law.

Photo Credit: IRNA

High Stakes for Iran in Upcoming FATF Meeting

A few days ahead of an international meeting in which Iran’s efforts to improve anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) standards will be reviewed, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared to pour cold water on the reform process. Yet, it is premature to assume that Iran’s consultations with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) are suddenly over after two years of close coordination. FATF, a financial crime watchdog that develops and monitors international AML/CFT standards, faces an important decision on Iran. The stakes are high for Iran, which is seeking to reintegrate into the global economy and there are reasons to believe that FATF’s decision may have repercussions that go far beyond its June 24-29 plenary in Paris.

Consequences of Iran's AML/CFT Deficiencies

If FATF believes that Iran is not adhering to its action plan to upgrade AML/CFT standards, the intergovernmental body could call on its 37 members to reimpose strict financial safeguards. These so-called "countermeasures" would discourage or even lead to the termination of relationships between Iranian and foreign banks, and possibly include Iran losing access to global bank messaging service SWIFT. Alternatively, FATF may decide Iran has made sufficient progress to warrant an extension to the two-year suspension of the countermeasures. Regardless, there are no indications that Iran will be removed from FATF’s black list of high-risk jurisdictions and financial institutions will continue to be urged to conduct enhanced due diligence (EDD) on Iranian-related business relationships and transactions.

This type of guidance places a significant risk management burden on global banks. Through customer due diligence, banks collect information to identify and verify customers in order to comply with regulations and report suspicious activity. EDD comprises several extra steps, such as probing sources of funds, scrutinizing financial statements, and conducting thorough investigations of relevant businesses or individuals. Because of the high level of scrutiny required for the Iranian market, most foreign banks did not return even after the international nuclear deal was implemented in 2016.

Foreign financial institutions, especially those with a US presence, are unlikely to change this calculation without an improvement to transparency and governance in the local banking sector. In particular, foreign banks are worried about unwittingly facilitating transactions with sanctioned entities. Due to ongoing fears of reputational and legal liabilities, Iran’s access to the international financial system is diminished by de-risking practices of global banks for the foreseeable future. 

How Iran Stands to Benefit from Reform

Although the chance to be removed from FATF’s black list is a clear reason for Iran to complete the organization’s action plan, the long-term economic impact of reforms provides another vital incentive. Mismanagement, corruption, and fragmentation in the banking sector dampens economic potential. Iran’s bad debt, estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars, fuels fears of an imminent banking crisis. Strengthening Iran’s banking sector to align with international standards, a priority highlighted by the IMF, would lay the foundation for a more stable economy and promote reintegration with the international financial system.

FATF-related reforms will not be a panacea for Iran’s economy. This year the currency lost over 20 percent of its value against the US dollar (and much more on the black market) between January and June, foreign companies are considering plans to wind down billion-dollar investments, and a drop in oil revenue looms because of the impending renewal of US secondary sanctions. Nevertheless, if reforms convince some foreign banks to stay even after US sanctions are re-imposed, it could offer a lifeline to an economy under tremendous pressure. Moreover, new rules that improve Iranian banks’ transparency are vital to address a major grievance from protests late last year: the need to root out financial sector corruption that enriches elites and undercuts economic opportunities for the working class. 

Iran’s Progress To Date

Despite Iran’s recent decision to delay vital CFT legislation, the government is taking several steps to satisfy the terms of its action plan. The Rouhani administration regularly engages with FATF experts even though there is fierce internal opposition from many of the same political, religious, and military actors who opposed the nuclear deal. In February, FATF credited Iran for establishing a cash declaration regime. In June, a draft bill to amend the AML law was approved by parliament’s judiciary commission and legislators ratified Iran’s accession to an international convention on combating transnational crime. Similarly, Iranian officials are working to implement several technical AML rules that FATF cited in a statement following the organization’s February plenary. Although full implementation will not be realized within two years of beginning the reform process, Iran continues to work toward compliance with international standards across several areas.

The widest gulf between Iran’s commitments and FATF’s expectations remains on criminalizing terrorist financing. To fully comply with FATF standards, text would need to be changed in Iran’s legislation for amending the counter-terrorist financing law and acceding to a related international convention. Both bills contain CFT exemptions for certain types of militant groups, but there is no precedent for FATF accepting legislation with such conditions. Resolving these issues will not be easy, but the political will to be removed from FATF’s black list (if not eventually acceding to FATF) should prompt ongoing discussions.

It is in this context that Khamenei’s June 20 statements, intimating that parliament should abandon the FATF process, are important. Just like in the run up to the international nuclear deal, Khamenei’s maximalist comments are open to interpretation because they may be intended for several distinctive audiences. Domestically, Khamenei is trying to assuage fears from his traditional allies who believe the FATF process is a foreign ploy to weaken the IRGC and hamper Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah. However, this sentiment must be balanced against palpable angst among Iranians that believe the troubled banking sector threatens their livelihoods. This could be why Khamenei mentioned that “some of the provisions of the international treaties may be good” before suggesting that Iran legislate on money laundering and terrorist financing issues independently.

From an international perspective, Khamenei is seeking to increase pressure on European countries to receive the most favorable economic terms possible after the US pulled out of the nuclear deal. Initially, Iran cited ongoing negotiations to salvage the nuclear deal as the primary reason for delaying by two months FATF-related legislation. Only three weeks ago, Khamenei indicated strong support for Iran’s newly established High Council for Economic Coordination. This council, which is composed of leaders from the country’s executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government, is coordinating a unified response to US sanctions. That is why it should not be overlooked that their first decision was to speed up the process for implementing the FATF action plan. Khamenei may be fed up with the FATF process, but he also may be negotiating. 

FATF and Trans-Atlantic Tensions

Leading up to FATF’s plenary session in February, there were indications that the US strongly supported reprimanding Pakistan for its failure to combat terrorist financing. Yet, the decision was delayed until at least the June meeting after three FATF members (China, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia) allegedly intervened on Pakistan’s behalf. The decision exposed a potential break from strong US influence within FATF. It was also a radical departure from the intergovernmental body’s typical decision-making process that relies on consensus rulings.

Coupled with rising trans-Atlantic tensions on foreign policy and trade issues, this calls into question whether the US will be able to build consensus should it seek to reimpose countermeasures against Iran. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine European governments supporting FATF action that further constrains their efforts to salvage the nuclear deal. Beyond European countries, there are several FATF members (China, India, Russia, Turkey) that will be even less inclined to support countermeasures that hurt the foreign investment strategies of their banks, state-run entities, and private companies.

It is possible that neither the US nor Iran will be satisfied with the FATF meeting’s outcome. Still, Iran’s FATF process offers clear benefits to both. For Iran, staying engaged provides much-needed support for a weakened banking sector and a path to reintegration with the global economy. For the US, it provides a global forum to keep pressure on Iran to do more to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

From an international AML/CFT perspective, it also makes sense to keep Iran engaged in the FATF process. Certain Iranian actors, including some banks, grew quite adept at facilitating transactions to evade sanctions over the past several decades. With the return of stringent US sanctions, these vested local interests stand to benefit once again. Re-imposing countermeasures now will reduce vital coordination to protect the global financial system from new money laundering threats. There may come a time when FATF countermeasures are viewed as the only viable option to combat AML/CFT threats emanating from Iran. However, more time is needed to support Iranian efforts to bring about legislative and regulatory reforms. For now, this is the best way to fulfill FATF’s mission to counter threats to the integrity of the international financial system.

Photo Credit: Financial Services Commission

Over-Compliance on Iran Sanctions Can Lead to Discrimination

Ireland’s Workplace Relations Commission has fined an unnamed bank EUR 20,000 for discrimination against an Iranian couple. As reported by the Irish Times:

WRC Adjudication Officer Marian Duffy found that the bank did discriminate against the two on the grounds of race. Ms. Duffy said that ‘alternative methods to counter money laundering/terrorist financing and US sanction breaches were open to the respondent… These include the implementation of robust IT systems and procedures, customer advice/guidance and information systems and/or a helpline as part of the process to monitor account activities.’

The comission found that the bank’s policy was neither appropriate nor necessary to achieve its stated aims and therefore was not objectively justified. The bank fundamentally was racially discriminatory in their actions. The bank had stated previously that it has no appetite for dealing with Iranian affiliated customers over risks of sanctions and as a result of maintaining a small presence in the US.

In another example of discrimination, S&P Global Platts had banned Iranian nationals from attending a conference it was holding in London over sanctions fears. The company reserved this ban rapidly following a report in the Financial Times which sparked outrage.

In both the case of the Irish bank and the S&P conference, we see an an overreaction to Iran sanctions, which will only be exacerbated by the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). 

OFAC and the New Culture of Compliance

Compliance officers have a job to do. That job is not easy. Since the global financial crisis in 2008 a whole heap of new regulations have been introduced surrounding financial services on all fronts. Some industries, such as shipping, are plagued by fraud and corruption relating to banking and letters of credit. This leaves compliance officers with the fear of being held personally liable (as officers responsible for anti-money laundering often are) for even the slightest of mistakes. These mistakes can, of course, have serious personal ramifications.

The “take no chances” attitude now common among compliance officers looking to protect a banks from potential breaches and the resulting penalties, is only intensified when you add the factor of Iran.

On one hand banks see Iran as a nation with a large, successful patriotic diaspora who, regardless of what views they hold, have a deep connection to their country both sentimentally, physically, and often financially. Iran is a country with a huge consumer market and significant economic potential. But there is a catch—Iran is on the wrong side of the most powerful financial enforcement authority in the world; Office of Foreign Assets Control, known as OFAC.

For those who maintain connections to Iran—practitioners, businessmen, professionals and Iranians abroad alike—discrimination is unfortunately not uncommon. Bank accounts connected to Iranians or used for Iran related business have been regularly closed over the last ten years, including the accounts of students who rely fully on money sent by family in Iran.

The reason for these closures can be traced to OFAC, part of the US Department of Treasury. OFAC has issued fines ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars against varying institutions—from RBS to Standard & Chartered, and even the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE. In fact, OFAC has generated so much income from sanctions penalties, that the UK decided to set up its own version, OFSI (Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation) in 2016.

From just a brief look at the scale of fines involved—USD 1.2 billion levied on ZTE alone—it is not hard to see why a compliance officer would not want to follow the law to the letter. But therein lies the paradox: which law?

Conflict of Laws and Regulation

We live in an ever-growing and increasingly interconnected financial market. United States is, and shall remain for this generation at least, the crown jewel at the heart of the global financial market. International companies make more money being present in the US market than in any other market, and this requires being on the “right side” of US laws. For this reason, many companies instinctively abide by US laws even in jurisdictions where these laws would seem not apply.

Since the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, the European Union has permitted its companies to invest in Iran by lifting most of the sanctions. But the United States had only removed secondary sanctions as part of the nuclear deal, not the primary sanctions which restrict “US persons” from trading with Iran. Following President Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, and the announcement that secondary sanctions would be returning, many consider the deal to be doomed. But the remaining signatories remain in compliance with the agreement for now. 

This has left compliance officers at many multinational companies somewhat confused. What laws ought they abide by, those of the EU or the US? On international trade, the answer is simple. If you have connections to the US or a desire the conduct business in the US market, it is best you comply with US regulations.

However, it is also important not to breach local laws in other jurisdictions in which you operate. There can be a contradistinction between abiding by sanctions and breaking the law. For example, a compliance officer may advise against doing business with Iran, but he/she cannot take a broad brush approach and punish Iranian customers by virtue of their race. While the “take no chances” approach to sanctions may make it attractive to comply with US regulations absolutely, without considering local laws, companies are playing with fire and leaving their organizations at risk of unlawful activity that could have serious consequences.

On matters relating to human affairs, it simply does not matter at all if a company has a US presence, discrimination can and should have very severe consequences. OFAC guidance is vague on a whole range of matters, including instances where there is a conflict between EU and US law. But case precedent is building in Europe against acts of over-compliance. Regulators and judges may not be as harsh now, as there may be some understanding of the confusion stemming from a fluid situation. But the courts will be far harsher later, once their position has been established.

It is therefore imperative, before any overreaction has been made by the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, that local legal advice is taken. Remember, we are not back in the former sanctions era of 2006-2015. The EU is not participating in sanctions against Iran.

Finally, those on the receiving end of such discrimination should take immediate legal advice. The more cases which are pursued, the greater the chance that justice will prevail in the end. As relayed in the word’s of Arcesilaus, “Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice.”

Photo Credit: Surrey Court

A Swedish Training Program May Hold the Answer to Iran’s Banking Challenges

For nearly a year, “banking challenges” have vexed business leaders and investors seeking to work in Iran. While some corresponding banking relationships have been re-established between Iranian and smaller European banks, the scope and type of transactions remain limited. The largest European banks are unwilling to work with Iran. The reasons for these blockages are numerous, but the blame most often falls to the obstinance of the US Department of the Treasury, and in particular, to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, for not providing adequate guidance or licensing provisions to lend confidence to major European banks that transactions with Iran are acceptable.

However, there are additional reasons unrelated to sanctions enforcement, that have reduced the appetite for conducting business in Iran. Across Europe and the United States, new and more stringent rules for banking risk management practices, which include the introduction of personal liability for compliance officers in the event of failures, have changed the risk appetite of financial institutions. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that three of the world’s largest financial institutions—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—“have expanded their corporate governance teams significantly in response to growing pressure from policymakers and clients.” The “stewardship” team at BlackRock now includes 31 specially-trained individuals. Similar expansions are taking place in compliance and risk management departments. In short, international best-practice now requires more people and more specialized training than ever before. For Iran’s banking sector, these changes raise the prospect of being left behind even in the aftermath of sanctions relief.

But history teaches us that banking sectors can catch up quickly, if provided the right support. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the former Eastern Bloc countries were struggling not merely to establish connections to Western banks, but also to adopt the fundamental structures of market economies. At the same time, financial institutions in the West were rapidly adopting new technologies, as the financial industry met with the digitalization of the economy. Just as countries like Russia, Ukraine, and Poland were reformulating their basic economic priorities, the pace of change was increasing in the world’s dominant economies.

In response to these challenges, Western governments made significant efforts to institute “capacity-building” programs across a wide range of areas including democratic governance, economic liberalization, formation of commercial law, management of industrial sectors, and reform of education systems. Naturally, banking was a crucial area of focus. The provision of financial assistance by organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank was tied to participation in “training and technical assistance” programs that sought to ensure institutions in post-Communist states were able to make responsible use of the financial support. These programs were largely successful, with banking standards rising within a decade to levels that encouraged global banks to take ownership positions in regional banks—examples include both HSBC Bank Poland and Ukraine’s Raiffeisen Bank Aval.

If capacity-building programs were able to support the establishment of extensive banking relations in countries where an independent financial sector did not even exist prior to 1990, their application in Iran should be able to generate results even faster. Iran boasts a highly sophisticated banking sector which maintained significant relations with major European banks prior to the imposition of financial sanctions in 2011. Many of Iran’s top bankers were educated in the United States and Europe. Majid Ghassemi, Chairman of Pasargad Bank, and former governor of the Central Bank of Iran, holds a PhD from the University of Southampton. Vali Zarrabieh, Chairman of Saman Bank, holds masters degrees from both CASS Business School in London and from Manchester Business School. The CEO of Middle East Bank, Parviz Aghili, holds a PhD from the University of Wisconsin. Yet, while a strong knowledge base exists in the boardrooms of many of Iran’s largest banks, there is a gap in knowledge and technical ability in middle management, particularly as many of Iran’s best and brightest young bankers seek their fortunes abroad.  

Despite this fact, there has been little effort to rekindle education as a basis for the advancement of Iran’s financial sector in the post-sanctions era. In order to gain the confidence of the world's major banks, Iran's first prerogative will be to meet the standards of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in the areas of anti-money laundering and counter terrorist finance. While FATF officials have had an ongoing dialogue with senior Iranian bankers and financial regulators, there is little evidence of a comprehensive effort to provide training that would reflect capacity-building within the sector at large. Similarly, while senior IMF officials have visited Iran and assessed economic reform efforts, no major commitments have been made to provide training or assistance. The Governor of the Central Bank of Iran, Valiollah Seif, suggested the creation of an IMF training center in Iran during a meeting with IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde in April, 2015. Lagarde, herself, raised the prospect of training in a meeting with Iran’s Minister of Finance Ali Tayebnia in October, 2016.

In the absence of training and technical assistance, European banks will remain skeptical that Iranian banks are applying exacting compliance and governance standards. In order to build trust in the Iranian banking sector, a more wide-ranging effort is needed to educate and train the next generation of bankers in Iran, with a specific focus on the new regulatory and governance requirements that are currently coming into force. Encouragingly, such programs already exist. These protocols have long been offered to bankers in developing sectors worldwide. It is simply a matter of getting Iranian bankers involved.

One possible model is the Risk Management in Banking International Training Program (ITP) designed by KPMG Sweden. For over a decade, the program has worked to transfer Swedish and international standard risk management practices to countries with developing financial sectors. ITP was created as part of KPMG Sweden’s commitment to corporate social responsibility, and also as a means to build deeper connections in growth markets worldwide. The program is delivered with the stewardship and funding of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).

The program seeks to improve capacity across five key areas: financial markets, lending processes, regulation and supervision, risk management, and project management. Participants hail from a wide range of countries, including African nations such as Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda, post-Communist states such as Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, and countries further afield including Thailand, Indonesia, and even North Korea. Indicatively, there have been no participants from Iran. Of the participants, 82% were between 21-40 years old, reflecting an important focus on junior and mid-career training that can help establish improved practices for the routine function of the bank, while also empowering the next generation of banking leadership. A total of 216 financial institutions, of which 131 were commercial banks, were included in the program. The remaining institutions included central banks, finance ministries, pension authorities, and insurance companies.

An extensive evaluation of the KPMG program, published by SIDA in 2014, looked at the efficacy of the initiative over the previous decade, and made three key observations: the transfer of skills was broadly achieved, new technical skills were adopted in financial institutions, and finally, elements of the training were largely sustained in subsequent years. The SIDA evaluation also found that the effort, though delivered in partnership with a private company, was broadly consistent with the international development commitments of the Swedish government. While the KPMG example is among the largest and most successful in Europe, similar development programs exist in other European countries and could be extended to Iran.

With the big four advisory firms hovering and with European governments keen to support Iran’s re-entry into international markets, it would be relatively easy to coordinate the key stakeholders to make a training program similar to KPMG Sweden’s ITP available to Iranian participants. Moreover, by funding such initiatives, major European corporations and banks could address thorny reputational concerns. These companies could demonstrate their strong commitment to establishing relations with their Iranian counterparts, while simultaneously indicating that it is of the utmost importance for the Iranian financial sector to upgrade its standards. In an ideal world, even American banks and regulatory bodies could play a role in supporting capacity-building, particularly as US sanctions provide clear provisions for education and training initiatives. However, due to President Trump's brash and ill-advised executive order, the prospects of any such training remain limited.

It is clear that full banking relations between Iranian and European banks will take time to re-institute. Rather than simply wishing for change, capacity-building programs are the vital next step. There is plenty that Iran's banking sector can learn while it awaits the rightful opportunity to fully participate in the global financial marketplace. 

Photo Credit: President.ir

The New "Normal": Why the World's Banks Need to Rethink Iran

On Monday April 27th, legal proceedings began at Manchester Civil Justice Centre in the United Kingdom. Blackstone Solicitors, a small legal practice led by Emma Nawaz was challenging the banking behemoth Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) in court. On behalf of her clients, Nawaz is claiming that RBS discriminated against people of Iranian heritage, whose bank accounts were closed in 2013.  The legal action was first filed in the same year, buthas taken nearly two years go to court. The case is expected to last 5 days.

The legal action is the latest in string of legal actions by Iranian individuals and companies, battling against the interference of sanctions. Normal citizens have been pit against a major financial firm, in a David versus Goliath scenario.  

As reported in the international press in 2013, and most recently in the Financial Tribune, the claimants allege that RBS breached Britain's much-vaunted Equality Act of 2010 in the course of closing accounts belonging to entire families. One of the claimants was a nine-year-old girl.

Emma Nawaz, the solicitor dealing with the case said, “The decision by RBS to close the bank accounts of customers connected to Iran is shocking and goes far beyond any reasonable interpretation of the sanctions rules."

She added that, “These are ordinary people who contribute to society and have become victims of racism by a high street bank simply for wanting to have a current account”.

In response, RBS' spokesperson said that they were required to comply with their legal and regulatory obligations and were unable to comment particular cases of individuals."

One might wonder why a bank such as RBS would even bother closing the accounts of these Iranians, most of whom were UK citizens with no commercial ties to Iran. What could the aforementioned “regulatory obligations” entail?

It is worth noting that in 2013, the same year when the Nawaz’ clients had there accounts closed, RBS was fined USD $100 million by American authorities for breaching sanctions on Iran, Burma, and Cuba among other countries.

Similar fines have been levied on banks such as HSBC ($1.9 billion in 2012) and Lloyds ($350 million in 2009). Both HSBC and Lloyds have similarly closed down the accounts of individuals with Iranian heritage.

And it is not just in the UK that Iranians have had bank accounts closed. Similar actions have been taken in Canada—where Iranian university student Arash Khodadadi had his account closed by CIBC—and also in the United Arab Emirates, where blanket policies affected the many Iranians who maintain accounts in Dubai.

Looking to these facts, a pattern emerges. Banks have been regularly curtailing the activities of everyday Iranians, even in the absence of definable regulatory issues. It has simply been easier for banks to close accounts than to prove to authorities that they are not in breach of sanctions.

While account closure policies have harmed Iranians outside of Iran, the risk aversion of banks has also caused harm to Iranians within Iran. Notably, banks remain reluctant to handle funds even for projects that are permissible under specific or general licenses. For example, the volume of humanitarian trade between the West and Iran is lower than would be expected because of a lack of “comfort” among banks about trade with Iran, even trade that is clearly legal.  

The implication is troubling. We would hope that the discrimination against Iranian clients should be coming to an end considering that the recent JCPOA agreement between Iran and the P5+1 world powers indicates an improving political climate. However the legacy of risk aversion may linger on for years to come, with a punitive impact on everyday Iranians.

The question is how banks will weigh the rewards and risks of engaging Iran as it approaches a “post-sanctions” era.  They will surely remain vigilant when it comes to rule breakers as sanctions are partially lifted. Yet at the same time, financial firms will surely be setting up small exploratory operations, “Iran Desks” to explore the possibilities of entering the Iranian market once again. 

If the nuclear deal does go-ahead by the June deadline, then Iran could expect an initial interest by a number of global banks and financial institutions. Firstly, given the risk aversion outlined above, it is highly unlikely that banks such as HSBC, RBS, Credit Suisse or any other of the major European or American players would enter the Iranian banking sector immediately after any agreement. At best, these banks may engage in humanitarian trade finance, but only if there is a high degree of confidence that they will not be stung by further fines.

To understand what might unfold in Iran, it is worth considering what has transpired in other “frontier markets.” Myanmar, with about one-fifth the gross domestic product of Iran, is the most recent example of what a post-sanctions environment is like.

Myanmar began its détente with the US in earnest in 2011. The easing of financial sanctions followed in 2013. This set the stage for foreign banks to increase their in-country activities. In October of 2014, three Japanese banks— Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (BTMU), Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp and Mizuho Bank— were the first top-tier financial institutions to earn operating licenses for Myanmar. A further 6 banks from the Asia Pacific region won licenses, but none as large as the Japanese brand-name firms.

In April of this year, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation two banks that have been fined over sanctions breaches before, opened the first foreign bank branches in Myanmar.

These two banks are also notable in the case of Iran, which does significant oil trade with Japan and has continued to do so under the 2013 JPOA framework. This trade amounted to 172,154 barrels-per-day in 2014, with imports rising by 25% in the early months of 2015. Iran accepts payment for this oil in its accounts at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation while also maintaining a sovereign account at Bank of Japan.

These two Japanese banks therefore represent financial institutions that have been stung by fines for sanctions non-compliance, and yet have been bold enough to enter into a post-sanctions market within the first 1-2 years of its opening. Importantly, these are also banks with significant exposure to the Iranian economy. American and European banks have not exhibited the same gusto for post-sanctions markets, nor do they have such a fundamental connection to Iran trade. Therefore, we might expect Japanese banks to lead the charge.

What is encouraging is that the Japanese financial sector is highly developed and well regulated, with standards in line with global best practices. If Japanese banks lead the way, they could offer the proof-of-concept for similarly operating American and European banks to follow into Iran.

Furthermore, Iran is unlike Myanmar in one key way. It has its own domestic financial industry, with significant regulations and a wide range of institutions.

The country currently boasts thousands of branches, ATM and EPOS systems based on an clearance and automated payment system called Shetab, and consumer tools like online banking. The public and private banking industry is currently going through a shakeup courtesy of the Central Bank of Iran in order to prepare for possible foreign competition.

There is no easy way to predict how an “end of sanctions” scenario will play out, but considering the extent of Iran’s banking industry development and the attractiveness of the market, the potential rewards are clear. But as the RBS episode shows, banks will need to fundamentally “rethink” Iran itself.  Hopefully somewhere in that process, everyday Iranians will start to find the world’s banks welcoming them once again. 

Photo Credit: Vahid Salemi, AP