No man can serve two masters
We’re adopting a biblical theme this week after the Israeli lobby group Shurat HaDin sought to bring down the wrath of the righteous upon the head of Inmarsat for alleging it was “a direct participator in Iran’s terrorist activities and nuclear weapons program”.
In a letter to Inmarsat, the group warned it “against providing prohibited guidance services to Iranian oil tankers and Iranian military vessels”, going on to say that “Inmarsat’s actions would expose the telecommunications giant to criminal prosecution and civil liability from Americans and others who suffer as a result of Iran’s international sponsorship of terrorism”.
So far so theatrical, but Shurat HaDin’s director, Nitsana Darshan-Leitne added that the organisation would “not tolerate Inmarsat’s – or any corporation’s – profiting from the blood of innocent people” and that this was “a simple issue of justice: Inmarsat must uphold its legal obligations in compliance with US Treasury regulations and immediately cease its support for Iran”.
DigitalShip described the letter as ‘extraordinary’ and that was being generous. This is an issue far too serious for levity: the force of the US sanctions effort against Iran has already affected the classification, insurance and flag state communities, so perhaps someone felt satcoms was the next appropriate target.
Inmarsat issued an immediate rebuttal which said the company sought “to comply with all applicable sanctions laws and regulations. Inmarsat does not sell telecommunications services to any Iranian entity, or to any entity on the US Office of Foreign Assets Control list of Specially Designated Nationals”.
The point it didn’t labour was the most obvious. The US Treasury Department list of companies, individuals and property that it suspects of being under Iranian control and on which the Inmarsat name appears, dates from a time when it could not have been aware of the identity of any of its end-users.
As was also alluded to in the rebuttal, there is a fine line between safety and politics and flirting with it also has the potential to cost lives. Inmarsat owes its existence to its founding convention which requires it to make its services available for the ‘benefit of ships of all nations [without] discrimination on the basis of nationality’.
As the letter notes, this is the second time Shurat HaDin has attempted to bring legal action against Inmarsat. What it doesn’t mention is that the previous case was dropped before it even had to be defended.
A well-placed source tells MaritimeInsight they suspect this latest attack might have more to do with fund-raising than anything more concerted. After all, if Shurat HaDin came up with this idea by themselves (and let’s hope that is the case), then presumably similar letters have being despatched to other satellite service providers and similar press releases being prepared.
And while the usual suspects have rather predictably used this as yet another stick with which to beat Inmarsat, there is a final, simple reason why they, as well as Shurat HaDin are some way wide of the mark on this one too.
No less an authority than the New Testament reminds us that no man can serve two masters. So it is hardly likely that Inmarsat would want to (or be able to) have anything to do with a pariah state when its best-known customer is… Yes, Uncle Sam himself.
Ends