By on April 4, 2012

Car companies severing ties with Iran are making headlines. After GM’s new partner PSA decided to stop sending parts to Iran, Hyundai “has quietly ended its business dealings with Iran, where it had extensive operations,” says the New York Times. The Times chalks this up as a win for “United Against Nuclear Iran, an American group that has advocated economic sanctions.” UANI keeps a list of companies that still do business with Iran, it also lists companies that have withdrawn from doing so. Hyundai has received a check mark in the “withdrawn” list.

Detroit is looking nervously at that list. Let’s have a look as well.

The UANI list is a veritable who’s who of the auto business. Just about anybody who is somebody is listed as having ties to the unshaven part of the axis of evil. Interestingly and coincidentally, the two American car companies that were saved by the U.S. Government are listed as still dealing with the enemy: Chrysler and General Motors. The company that was not bailed out, Ford, is not on the list of Iran-collaborateurs.

No longer doing business with Iran
Hyundai Motor Company South Korea
Karsan Otomotiv Turkey
Still doing business with Iran
Antonov Co. Ukraine
BMW Germany
Bridgestone Corporation Japan
Carl Schenck AG Germany
Chana Auto Co. China
Chery China
Chrysler USA
Citroen France
Daimler Germany
Durr AG Germany
Fiat S.p.A. Italy
General Motors USA
Hoegh Autoliners Norway
Honda Motor Co. Japan
Isuzu Japan
Iveco Italy
Kamaz Russia
Kia Motors South Korea
Lifan Industry Group Co. China
Mazda Japan
Mercedes-Benz Germany
Mitsubishi Japan
Nissan Japan
Peugeot France
Porsche AG Germany
Proton Holdings Bhd Malaysia
Renault France
Subaru Japan
Suzuki Japan
Toyota Motor Corporation Japan
Valeo France
Venirauto Industrias CA Venezuela
Volkswagen Germany
Volvo Sweden

TTAC simply reprints the list as compiled by the UANI. Their list, not ours. We make no representations as to its correctness. PSA, which says it has withdrawn from doing business with Teheran, is still listed as consorting with the enemy (as “Citroen,” and again as “Peugeot”). So is Toyota, which had announced its pull-out from Iran two years ago.

It should be noted that doing business with entities in Iran is not illegal per se. There is a European embargo against Iranian oil.  The U.S.  has imposed sanctions  on Iranian imports, and on some export to Iran. Companies wanting to do business with Iran need a license from the Department of Treasury. Doing business with Iran has become increasingly complicated after Iranian banks were disconnected from international payment systems.

Because it is not illegal to do business with Iran, the UANI pressure group wants to make companies decide between business with Iran and business with the U.S. government. United Against Nuclear Iran is proposing legislation that denies U.S. government contracts to “automotive entities” that do not sever ties with Iran.

If passed, this law could become costly for General Motors. On the UANI website, GM is listed as having nearly $2.9 billion worth of  U.S. government business.

Yesterday, the UANI started leaning on Nissan, supplier on NYC’s “Taxi of Tomorrow.” When will the true recipients of government largesse, Chrysler and GM, be in the crosshairs of the anti-Iranian nuke campaigners?


Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

6 Comments on “Anti-Iran Pressure Group Takes Hyundai Off Axis Of Evil Black List, Keeps GM And Chrysler On...”

  • avatar

    Seing the implications for France of this extreme lobby campaign from that UANI,(French jobs are lost at PSA from this all-american campaign, while the French people is a long-time friend with Iranian people, whoever is governing us and them), I decided to have a look at the UANI board. I was not disappointed to find a former director of Mossad as high in the advisory board, as well as a bunch of neocons. As a wholly American lobby, their targets are naturally third parties from France or Japan, not American companies. What did you expect? this is an economical war US vs Iran, and US first sends the (foreign) pawns to the front, not the king and queen.

    Therefore I just take it as it is, a neocons attack on their traditional archenemy. Nothing new under the sun, and this UANI should not be given so much voice. The fact that some US lobbies make it more and more difficult for Iranian people to just trade with the world and develop their country can only increase resentment against the US. And even Iranian expatriates, vocal enemies of Ahmadinejad, will stand behind their country in such cases, just as anybody with some patriotism would do.
    Who can believe that trading Peugeots can contribute to the development of nuclear weapons? In History, between the threat of war and international trading, what is always the reason for the development of weapons, nuclear or not? Trading is the cement of peace, as proven by the relationships developed in the fifties between US and Japan or Germany and France/UK. But neocons and history are not seeing each other very often.

    • 0 avatar

      This is a good point. The US and its allies did very little business with the USSR, and the result was a 45-year-long mexican standoff. On the other hand, we have lots of trade and more-or-less friendly competition with China, and nobody takes seriously the idea that we’re going to start nuking each other any day now.

    • 0 avatar

      As a conservative (“realcon”?), I agree, although I did not always hold this position. The US trade embargo with Cuba is an excellent example of how commercial trade sanctions don’t work, except to hurt the people living under the regime you hate.

      I’ve come to believe that one of the best ways to evangelize freedom is to do business with people. As aristurtle says, China would be crazy to consider war with the US at this point.

      However, from a public policy point of view, my views on Iran are mixed. At one level I believe they do have a right to develop nuclear weapons as a sovereign nation, unlike the current rhetoric coming from both the left and right. At the least, it seems wrong for the US to dictate who is ‘allowed’ to have nukes and who isn’t. On the other hand, Iran’s leader has repeatedly promised mass destruction of another sovereign nation (Israel), a claim that should be taken seriously by Israel and its friends. Except in wartime, I can’t think of another example of a nation’s leader promising the destruction of another country.

      In this case, it’s interesting to see that Hyundai is out of Iran, but Kia is still listed as “in”.

  • avatar
    Athos Nobile

    It would be nice that those guys explain what kind of business does GM and Chrysler have with Iran, other than their relationships with Fiat Group and PSA.

    In any case, instead of weakening the country, what this sanctions ultimately will achieve is reinforce their resilience.

  • avatar

    Yes it’s all true!
    you have focused on the point!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • NormSV650: 2008 SV650-SF.
  • FreedMike: Not a chance I’d bet my life or someone else’s on this tech.
  • FreedMike: Not trying to be snarky…just an FYI that it was covered.
  • 28-Cars-Later: “If you’re not seeing dead EVs today, you won’t see them later.” 2.3% market share with...
  • 28-Cars-Later: This feels like a remake of “Better Off Dead”.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber