Halliburton's Move About Iran???

There is going to be a great deal written and said about the movement of much of Halliburton senior executive structure to Dubai. These will range from the apologist claiming this is an indictment of the amount of regulations companies face in the United States to the escaping while the escaping is good theory. In truth, there is likely a number of reasons behind this, including the very real possibility that some of the theories connected with fringe elements might in fact have an element of truth.

After all there is no denying that one of their most important contacts within the US government is in fact leaving government service within the next two years and there is every reason to believe that the new leadership in the US Congress would like nothing better, despite ties of some of the hard lefts strongest allies investing in the Halliburton, than to go after an organization with such obvious ties to the administration. However, perhaps the answer is as much about business as it is politics. In particular international business and politics as much as the domestic realm.

In 2004, Halliburton came under a great deal of pressure over its contracts in relation with the government of Iran. At that time Halliburton finally gave in to a combination of pressure from stockholders, government officials, and the possibility that the position adopted in New York , (security based investing which is based on the concept of socially responsible investing used by the environmental movement) might spread making it very difficult for multinationals (in particular those in the energy sector) from doing business with such countries as Iran.

However, despite Halliburton’s assurance that they were pulling out of Iran, they continued to their operations inside Iran. Interestingly, these operations we maintained through their Dubai based subsidiary Halliburton Products & Services Limited, which has been their primary means of skirting sanctions on Iran.

Obviously, the Iran market does not represent enough of a single motivating factor, however when taken in to consideration with such other issues as the domestic political furry over the Dubai Port Worlds, rise of security as an issue in investing, and the very real possibility of other issues such as Sudan (Darfur), China (Human Rights) and Russia (political freedom) to name a few means that the reputation as the region’s criminal crossroads means that the relocation to Dubai will provide this company the freedom to deal with some of the worlds most unsavory regimes and individuals in this world.

Perhaps just as “war is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means” international business has become nothing more than war by other means in which the prize is not land but investment capital.