Apr

13

Closed for the Weekend


Posted by at 7:48 pm on April 13, 2010
Category: BISIran Sanctions

Bladerunner 51“Hillbilly,” a regular reader and commenter here, brought to my attention news reports last week, like this one, that indicated that the Bladerunner 51, a high-speed boat that holds the speed record for circumnavigating Great Britain, is now in the hands of the Iranian Navy. Regular readers may recall a post on this blog in January 2009 about a Temporary Denial Order (“TDO”) issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) which attempted to block the transfer of the craft by a South African company, Icarus Marine (Pty) Ltd. BIS believed that Icarus was planning to load the Bladerunner 51 onto an Iranian merchant shipping vessel and send it to the Tadbir Sanaat Sharif Technology Development Center in Tehran. Thereafter it was feared that the boat would be transferred to the Iranian Navy, which would try to use the boat as an attack craft.

When I first wrote about the TDO, I expressed some scepticism about its effectiveness. Certainly the two Iranian entities named in the order would simply ignore it, and there was no obvious reason that the South African party would obey it. Now, however, it appears that the TDO had another purpose, at least according to this article in the Washington Post:

The U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security asked South African authorities to block the transfer. It voiced concern that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards intended to use the boat as a “fast attack craft.” The bureau noted that similar vessels had been armed with “torpedoes, rocket launchers and anti-ship missiles.”

Nonetheless, the loading went ahead because, according to one source, no one saw the U.S. notice sent by fax on a weekend.

So, if this report is to be believed, the TDO was designed not as much to deter Icarus but to prompt the South African government to take action and prevent the loading of the Bladerunner 51 onto the Iranian merchant vessel. That plan failed because BIS sent the TDO on a weekend, when the South African government was, not surprisingly, closed.

Another interesting factoid is that the U.S. also had a plan for special forces to intercept the Iranian merchant vessel carrying the Bladerunner 51. That plan was called off, no doubt because of the concern that the Bladerunner, as then configured, was not subject to the arms embargo set forth in paragraph 5 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1747.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


3 Comments:


Do you think this will prompt the BIS to revisit the classificaiton of personal vehicles or at least the Bladerunner 51 to then place them on the CCL? Would that then require a license if an owner of a Bladrunner 51 wanted to spend the winter with their boat off the coast of some tropical (low cost) thrid world nation?

Comment by Sig on April 14th, 2010 @ 7:36 am

@ Sig.: Surface vessels are already “on” the CCL in ECCN 8A992. The Cat engines are also under AT controls. The value of the Cat engines, taken together with any other US content, is presumably in excess of 10% of fair market value of the boat, so as to make it “subject to the EAR”. Even in the absence of the TDO, for those who belief in the tooth fairy and the validity of the EAR under IEEPA, the boat would have required a license to Iran and a license would not have been granted. So, in order to require a license for such boats or engines to go to “third world nations” the ECCN would have to be amended to something more strict – a move which would not play well in Peoria and which a certain former Senator from Illinois would likely not tolerate.

Comment by Hillbilly on April 14th, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

A couple of things to note:

The “arms embargo” is actually an embargo of Iranian EXPORTS. As regards conventional arms imports, states are required merely to observe “vigilance and restraint”.

Whilst it’s possible that the fax was sent at the weekend, this does rather smell of a cover story – it’s far more plausible that the US requested that SA prevent the shipment, and were told to politely naff off, as no local laws were being broken, the boat was not a proscribed item, and the recipient of the boat was not on a list of UN-sanctioned Iranian entities.

Comment by dan on April 15th, 2010 @ 5:51 am