Report

Crude Reality

Iran's oil exports keep rising. Is that cause for concern?

Iran is exporting more oil than it did last year, and in greater amounts than the limit the United States placed on exports under the on-going negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, according to the latest oil market data.

But conflicting and complicated data about oil sales make it hard to present black-and-white arguments about whether the limited relief given to Iran as part of the nuclear negotiations agreed last November is providing a lifeline to Tehran or not. Iran hawks point to rising oil exports to argue that the United States is giving away negotiating leverage; the Obama administration says it is comfortable with Iran's current exports and is focused on the six-month talks.

The latest data come just ahead of the next round of high-level talks between Iran and six major powers, slated for next week in Vienna. Friday's monthly oil market report by the International Energy Agency shows Iranian oil exports reaching a one-year peak of about 1.4 million barrels a day in February, up from 1.1 million barrels a day in 2013. The Obama administration said it aims to limit Iranian oil exports to about 1 million barrels a day under the limited sanctions relief agreed to as part of the nuclear negotiations.

The problem is that monthly oil-market data fluctuate sharply and are constantly revised, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the strength of Iran's oil sector or U.S. efforts to rein it in. Critics who fear that sanctions relief is easing the economic stranglehold on Tehran point to oil sales as a worrisome indicator.

"The increase in Iranian oil exports is further evidence that countries may now be more willing to test the will of the Obama administration in enforcing oil sanctions," said Mark Dubowitz, executive director of Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group that has spearheaded efforts in Washington to tighten economic pressure on Iran. A Senate bill that would ratchet up sanctions against Iran has not yet come to the floor and isn't likely to, given a near-certain White House veto.

"State and Treasury officials have their work cut out for them between now and July to prevent Tehran from driving an oil tanker through the sanctions regime," Dubowitz added. Since November, U.S. officials say they have been doing precisely that, meeting with the small number of countries that are entitled to import Iranian oil and pressing them to keep their imports in the first half of this year at 2013 levels.

While oil export data varies month-to-month, there are signs that the administration's diplomatic offensive is paying dividends. India, for example, bought a lot more Iranian oil in January than it was buying the year before: about 415,000 barrels a day, according to the latest IEA estimate.

U.S. officials went to New Delhi to impress upon the government that it needed to cut back to last year's import levels. Reuters reported last week that the Indian government said it would reduce its  purchases through the first half of the year. And according to the latest IEA report, India cut back sharply on Iranian oil imports in February, to about 175,000 barrels a day, below the amount it imported in late 2013, or around 200,000 barrels a day.

But India also illustrates part of the problem with the IEA's monthly market report. Initially, the IEA estimated that India had imported only about 240,000 barrels per day in January, not far above its 2013 average. But U.S. officials, who track a range of oil market data and customs information from importing countries, were already looking at Indian purchases with growing alarm. In the end, the IEA revised upward its estimate of India's January purchases from Iran to 415,000 barrels a day.

China is another big importer of Iranian oil that presents a challenge for market watchers and U.S. officials. The IEA on Friday revised downward its initial January estimate of Chinese imports of Iranian oil. And in the latest release, the IEA said China had further cut Iranian purchases in February from about 565,000 barrels a day to 385,000 barrels a day.

But the IEA also said that the total picture of Chinese imports is muddy because there are several oil tankers off the coast that haven't unloaded, plus notable volumes of oil that could be entering the Chinese market via Indonesia. "As a result, Chinese imports are likely to be revised upward next month on final data," the IEA said.

U.S. officials say they have had constructive conversations with Chinese officials regarding Iranian oil purchases, and stress that China is a partner in the joint plan of agreement reached last November. That means that, unlike the past two years, when Beijing railed against what it called "unilateral" U.S. sanctions on Iran, China is part of the current agreement to cap Iran's oil trade, officials said.

Finally, the question of just how much "oil" Iran is exporting depends on what is meant by "oil." Crude oil, the heavier liquid pumped out of reservoirs, is specifically targeted by U.S. sanctions. Condensates, which are lighter liquid hydrocarbons usually derived from natural gas, aren't.

But the IEA oil figures lump together crude oil and condensates, which make Iran's export totals seem higher than the cap the U.S. wants to impose. "Higher Iranian imports in recent months reflect, in large part, increased sales of condensates to Asian buyers," the IEA said.

U.S. officials, for their part, focus on the crude oil totals, the subject of sanctions, and believe their patient diplomacy is paying off.

"For now, we are comfortable with where things are," said a senior administration official.

Dieter Nagl - AFP - Getty

Report

Cutting Off Your Nose

Making Russia an enemy in the fight against criminal finance could be costly.

Barack Obama's administration has spent weeks threatening tough sanctions against Russia, only to impose modest measures like visa bans. The White House has good reason to proceed carefully: Targeting Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine could undermine the ongoing U.S.-led efforts to crack down on the financing of everything from drugs to nuclear weapons.

President Obama has authorized the Treasury Department to prepare for potential sanctions that would freeze the assets of Russian officials linked to the invasion, but it's unclear how far the White House will actually be willing to go. Obama used a meeting with acting Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Patsenyuk this week to again warn Russia that there would be "a cost" for the incursion into Ukraine, but so far the United States has posed only visa bans on a limited number of Russian and Ukrainian officials.

The West has powerful tools at its disposal for use against Russia, including potentially levying sanctions against certain Russian banks and companies. That would be a huge, and dangerous, gamble. Russia has promised to retaliate for any Western sanctions, perhaps by seizing the assets of American firms operating in Russia. The bigger risk, though, is that Russia could do everything in its power to prevent the United States and its allies from using the global financial system to combat other foes.

Russia has been instrumental in isolating North Korea and Iran by refusing to veto hard-hitting United Nations Security Council sanctions resolutions. Those measures have been credited with hobbling the Iranian economy and bringing Iranian negotiators back to the table to talk about dismantling the country's nuclear program. American sanctions against Moscow could persuade Russian strongman Vladimir Putin to retaliate by ignoring current sanctions, expanding his commercial dealings with Tehran, and vetoing any new effort to impose new sanctions if the current nuclear talks end without a deal.

Earlier this year, reports that Russia was negotiating an oil deal with Iran fed fears that Russia is more foe than friend. U.S. lawmakers questioned whether Russia was taking the interim nuclear pact with Iran as a free pass to ignore the sanctions that remain in place and buy more Iranian oil. U.S. officials responded by warning Russia that it could be sanctioned for buying or trading goods for Iranian oil, and so far the deal hasn't gone through.

Russia would have a multitude of ways of responding. It could stop helping the U.S.-led effort to ferret out financial transactions of drug kingpins, weapons traffickers, and terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Russia has signed on with international efforts to combat money laundering, bribery, and nuclear weapons proliferators by stepping up oversight of the financial system, isolating bad actors, and freezing their assets. If Russia becomes a target of those same efforts, it will likely be less enthusiastic about enforcing them against others.

Over the past 10 years, the United States has pushed, prodded, and cajoled the rest of the world -- including Russia -- into doing a better job of monitoring the global financial system to prevent it from being used for criminal activity. In 2000, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a standard-setting body that pushes countries to rein in illegal activity by reviewing their regulatory systems, named Russia as a haven for money laundering due to its lack of laws and proper oversight. Russia joined FATF in 2003, and the following year the Russian Central Bank started shutting down lawless Russian banks, including one that accepted $1 million in ransom money after two Russian executives were kidnapped and killed.

Although Russia's record for enforcement is far from spotless, it has improved over the past few years. An October 2013 FATF review found that Russia had corrected problems uncovered in an earlier probe. "Russia has taken sufficient measures to be removed from the regular follow-up process," FATF concluded in its report. It's an effort that Putin has championed as a way of arguing that Russia deserves to be known as a legitimate, honest place to do business. On March 4, he applauded Russian law enforcement for identifying more than 42,000 financial crimes in 2013, according to Russian state-run media. Russian authorities have been particularly cooperative when the effort impacts Russian interests, like cracking down on international criminal organizations that operate within Russia's borders, according to current and former U.S. officials.

If the United States tries to isolate Russia financially, Juan Zarate, formerly a senior Treasury Department official charged with overseeing the Bush administration's sanctions program, said the effort could backfire. If Russian banks are cut off from the financial system by sanctions, they could react by slacking off on enforcement of those rules or creating financial havens for sanctions-breakers and criminals.

"Russia begins to serve more as a repository for financial flows that we would normally want isolated," said Zarate. "Suddenly Russian banks are doing more business with Iranian banks."

In his book Treasury's War: The Unleashing of a New Era of Financial Warfare, Zarate describes the ways that other countries might use financial weapons pioneered by the United States against it. In an example that illustrates how this could happen, Zarate writes that Russia approached China with a proposal to sell its stakes in U.S. government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the middle of the 2008 financial crisis. Suddenly putting hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of the Fannie and Freddie debt up for sale could have prompted a market panic that would have required Washington to put more money into the bailout of the U.S.-backed finance giants. Although Chinese officials declined, the plan could have cast a pall over the U.S. financial system and deepened the global financial crisis. The idea was never realized, but some saw it as evidence of Russian interest in upending the U.S.-dominant global financial system, an effort that could accelerate if Moscow decided to retaliate for potential U.S. sanctions.

The Obama administration has been slowly ratcheting up the sanctions rhetoric, but some lawmakers have sought to compel the administration to respond more forcefully. The Senate is considering legislation that would require the president to impose sanctions on anyone who undermines Ukrainian security or sovereignty. The provision is attached to an aid package lawmakers are trying to put together for Ukraine, but it's unclear what will become of the effort after it stalled this week.

European support for sanctions is also growing in the face of Russian intransigence. After moving troops into Crimea nearly two weeks ago, Russia has refused to budge and the diplomatic efforts initially favored by key German leaders have floundered. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had been reluctant to use financial and economic tools against Russia, said Wednesday that sanctions would be "unavoidable" if Russia didn't move to de-escalate the Ukraine conflict. A Russian-backed secession vote in Crimea set for Sunday could provoke the West to finally make good on sanctions threats.

While U.S. policymakers are divided over whether Russia is a crucial partner or an antagonist, some see Russia's less-than-perfect enforcement of financial rules as a possible opportunity: The United States could go after money-laundering violations or sanctions-busting without launching a campaign of broad sanctions against Russian banks or companies.

Tim Ash, a financial analyst who has been watching the Ukraine situation closely, calls this approach "stealth sanctions." He said that tightening the regulatory environment on Russian banks and companies could make it harder for Russia to find buyers for its government bonds, which could create a whole raft of problems for Moscow. It could also further turn investors away from Russia and prompt more of them to pull their money out of the country.

Ash, head of emerging markets research at Standard Bank Group, said the move has another advantage -- it might evoke a "less severe" response from Russia. After all, the United States wouldn't have to create any new rules, just tighten the screws on the old ones.

Filippo Monteforte / AFP / Getty Images