No Questions Asked

Do you wonder why our country is in such a mess? Just look at Congress. Facing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, they couldn’t muster the strength to study the issues in a nonpartisan manner and find a resolution. Other nations have faced similar crisis, most recently Sweden. But did Congress consider how that country resolved the situtation? Nope. Instead, they put together a horrendous bailout package for Wall Street at the expense of taxpayers. It is filled with pork barrel projects.

Here’s what nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said about it:

Well, I think it remains a very bad bill. It is a disappointment, but not a surprise, that the administration came up with a bill that is again based on trickle-down economics. You throw enough money at Wall Street, and some of it will trickle down to the rest of the economy. It’s like a patient suffering from giving a massive blood transfusion while there’s internal bleeding; it doesn’t do anything about the basic source of the hemorrhaging, the foreclosure problem. But that having been said, it is better than doing nothing, and hopefully after the election, we can repair the very many mistakes in it.
But this particular way of getting it through, I have to say, really smells. They added—you know, the cost was already $700 billion. They added $150 billion of tax benefits. Some of these are really quite, quite amazing, the kinds of things that they put in: tax credit to American Samoan businesses—you mentioned a couple already in your talk—50 percent tax credit for some expenditures or maintaining railroad tracks, motor sports racetrack property given a seven-year recovery period. You can go down the list. What they did was basically old-fashioned, corrupt bribery. They found out—I was joking that they talked about a reverse auction for the—for buying the distressed assets; they had a reverse auction for buying congressmen, and they put in anything they needed to do to get the congressional support for a basically flawed bill.

The US Senate is due to vote on a civil nuclear deal between the India and US to end a three-decade ban on nuclear trade with India, reports say.

The US House of Representatives passed the agreement on Saturday. After the Senate’s final approval President George W Bush can sign it into law.

India says the deal with the US is vital for it to meet its rising civil energy demands.

But critics say the deal creates a dangerous precedent.

They say it effectively allows India to expand its nuclear power industry without requiring it to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as other nations must.

Under the terms of the accord, India would get access to US civilian nuclear technology and fuel.

‘Bipartisan support’

In return, Delhi would open its civilian nuclear facilities to inspection - but its nuclear weapons sites would remain off-limits.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said she hoped the agreement will clear its last hurdle, saying that it had “strong bipartisan support”.

“I certainly hope it can get done, because it would be a landmark agreement for India and the US,” she was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

Congress Has 43,457,362 Reasons to Help Goldman Sachs

Embattled Firm and Its Employees Spread Millions Around Washington in Donations and Lobbying Expenses

The embattled Goldman Sachs investment banking firm and its employees have spent more than $43 million dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions to cultivate friends and buy influence in Washington, D.C. since 1989, according to an ABC News analysis of campaign finance records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

As a group, Goldman Sachs bankers have been the country’s top political campaign contributors this year and have given $29.5 million in contributions since 1989, according to the Center.

“They are almost in a class by themselves,” said Sheila Krumholz, the executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics.

“Their top executives are in a class that is way above the clout and name-dropping that most other American businesses can achieve,” says Krumholz.

The firm has been badly shaken by the financial crisis, with management seeking emergency infusions of cash. The bailout legislation, proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, reportedly led financier Warren Buffett to put $5 billion into Goldman Sachs because he felt the government would make sure Goldman Sachs survived and could unload some of its most troubled loans.

Before becoming Treasury Secretary, Paulson was chairman of Goldman Sachs, earning over $140 million in compensation during his seven years as the firm’s top officer, according to company filings. Upon taking office, Paulson divested himself of his 3.23 million Goldman shares, reportedly worth $485 million at the time, to comply with government ethics rules.

A spokesperson for the Treasury Department told ABC News that the department has a long history of bringing the expertise of Wall Street to the office of Secretary.

“The issues Treasury is working on right now involve financial institutions and the economy broadly. It’s entirely appropriate for Secretary Paulson to engage in matters that impact the financial markets broadly,” said the spokesperson.

Goldman Sachs bankers are also the number one contributors to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, giving $691,930 to his campaign in this cycle, according to the records.

John McCain’s campaign has received substantially less from Goldman Sachs employees, $208,395, although they are, as a group, his fourth largest contributor.

In the 2008 election cycle, Goldman Sachs bankers have come up with $4.8 million in contributions to federal candidates, according to the records. 72 per cent of Goldman’s money this year has gone to Democratic candidates and the national party, the majority party in Congress.

Employees of Goldman Sachs are listed as a top contributor to 55 separate members of Congress.

I am proud of the American public for writing to their members of Congress and loudly voicing opposition to the administration’s horrendous bailout proposal. The question left unanswered is, will our representatives remember that they are serving at the will of the people? I am so optimistic about this latest surge of public outcry, there may be hope for our country yet!

Americans’ anger is in full bloom, jumping off the screen in capital letters and exclamation points, in the e-mail in-boxes of elected representatives in the nation’s capital.

“I am hoping Congress can find the backbone to stand on their feet and not their knees before BIG BUSINESS,” one correspondent wrote to Representative Jim McDermott of Washington.

“I’d rather leave a better world to my children — NOT A BANKRUPT NATION. Whew! Pardon my shouting,” wrote another.

Mr. McDermott is a liberal Democrat, but his e-mail messages look a lot like the ones that Representative Candice S. Miller, a conservative Republican from Michigan, is receiving. “NO BAILOUT, I am a registered republican,” one constituent wrote. “I will vote and campaign hard against you if we have to subsidize the very people that have sold out MY COUNTRY.”

The backlash, in phone calls as well as e-mail messages, is putting lawmakers in a quandary as they weigh what many regard as the most consequential decision of their careers: whether to agree to President Bush’s request to spend an estimated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the financial services system.

Around the country, Republican and Democratic voters are rising up in outright opposition to the White House plan or, at the very least, to express concern that it is being pushed through Congress in haste.

Lawmakers, in turn, are agonizing over what to do. Mrs. Miller said she had been “trying to be very deliberative about it,” listening to administration officials like Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., consulting with bankers from her district and independent experts. She sounded torn Wednesday, saying she was looking for guidance from Republican leaders and hoping they would come together with their Democratic counterparts on a bipartisan plan.

“I would say it’s the most concerned I’ve been since I’ve been in Congress,” said the congresswoman, a former Michigan secretary of state who won her House seat in 2002. “I appreciate all of the input that I’m getting from my constituents, but I’m just not reacting to that — I can’t until I understand it better and feel comfortable with my vote. And I’m not sure how I’m going to be voting yet.”

Meanwhile, the complaints keep coming, and several Congressional offices agreed to share them with reporters, though only on condition that the senders’ names not be published, for privacy reasons.

Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, has received nearly 17,000 e-mail messages, nearly all opposed to the bailout, her office said. More than 2,000 constituents called Ms. Boxer’s California office on Tuesday alone; just 40 favored the bailout. Her Washington office received 918 calls. Just one supported the rescue plan.

Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said he had been getting 2,000 e-mail messages and telephone calls a day, roughly 95 percent opposed. When Senator Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent who votes with Democrats, posted a petition on his Web site asking Mr. Paulson to require that taxpayers receive an equity stake in the bailed-out companies, more than 20,000 people signed.

“We certainly have never brought in 20,000 names in a day and a half,” Mr. Sanders said, sounding astonished. “For us, that’s off the wall.”

It is much the same on the Republican side. Aides to Senator Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican who has called the bailout plan “un-American,” said the senator had received more constituent reaction to the bailout plan than to any issue since the immigration debate.

Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois, said he had not seen such an outpouring since President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999.

Constituent communications, of course, are no shock to lawmakers, especially since the age of e-mail messages and automated “robo-calls” make it possible for voters to vent en masse. But members of Congress say reaction to the bailout does not appear orchestrated or coordinated, but rather individual expressions that come from the grass roots and run across the philosophical spectrum.

War opponents, for instance, are telling lawmakers that they are tired of an administration that, in Mr. McDermott’s words, has “cried wolf” and played “the fear card” too many times by leading the nation into war in Iraq to find nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and curbing civil rights in the name of pursuing terrorists.

“The last time that Congress hurriedly passed legislation that the administration presented as ‘urgent’ we got the Patriot Act, with its mix of necessary reforms and onerous civil rights abuses,” one of Senator Brown’s constituents wrote. “Do not fall into this trap again.”

Others, invoking the Bush administration’s efforts to expand executive authority, are irate over the idea that one person — Mr. Paulson, and then his successor — would control so much taxpayer money. “So many people have said to me, ‘This is a democracy; this isn’t a dictatorship,’ ” Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said.

Fiscal conservatives, on the other hand, see the White House abandoning core principles, marching down a treacherous road toward government intervention in the markets. “We are turning into a socialist country,” one voter warned an aide to Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico. “Let the markets work.”

But in the end, from the right or the left, lawmakers say the message is the same: Slow down, catch your breath and do not make any rash decisions, no matter what the White House says.

“This is too serious a problem for the administration to expect us to just rubber-stamp a $700 billion proposal and rush to get out of town,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. “That’s something my constituents definitely won’t tolerate.”

Every American needs to be aware that this bailout package provides even more unchecked power to the administration. Essentially the proposal calls for giving $700 billion to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and allowing him to spend it however he wants without the possibility of review (See sec. 8 below). It will not help taxpayers, it may not save the economy. But it will very seriously diminish the power that we the people have. Read it, consider whether you want the same people who have mishandled the war in Iraq and the economy to spend another unchecked $700 billion — that is $2,500 for every American. Reject this proposal. Write to your member of Congress and urge them to vote NO to the further destruction of the country and the Constitution. Let’s demand accountability. Take America back.

If you need a reminder about how our money has been handled by the administration up until now, find more information here.

Here is the bailout proposal:

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY

TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.–The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.–The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for–

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer. (EDITORS NOTE: NO MENTION ABOUT HOW THEY WILL DO THIS)

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.–The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.–The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.–The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.–The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time (NOTE: ANY ONE TIME?)

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.–The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.–The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.–The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

I am becoming increasingly troubled by the one-sided news stories that are portraying Iran as a menace much the same way Iraq was portrayed in 2002-2003. We need to remember how we were deceived in the past — by lies and propaganda that was spread through the media. Let’s smarten up and demand real information this time. If we rely on information distributed by the administration, half truths and blurry images we are in real trouble.

Here’s an excellent piece that ran today on AntiWar.com:

Viewpoint: Living with Iraq’s violence
An Iraqi member of staff at the BBC Baghdad bureau reflects on the daily toll the violence is taking on the people of his country. For security reasons, the author’s name is not being published.

Violent death in Iraq is an everyday event. In Baghdad people put up signs on the street to announce deaths. I am always surprised to read one which says that someone died of natural causes.

Because it is so common, you get used to the number of violent deaths. The problem is you just bury it deep inside you. It becomes like a time bomb, you never know when it is going to explode.

All these feelings of fear, sadness and frustration burst out of me one morning last week when I lost Marwan, a relative of mine.

Marwan’s day began as usual. He got into his car and started the engine. But rather than driving off, his car blew up when the engine warmed up. He died instantly.

Marwan was a police officer. I suppose that it is why he was targeted.

The tragedy didn’t end there. A few minutes later, his wife Wafa shot herself when she realised her husband was dead. The couple left behind a baby boy Ahmad who is only 11 months old.

This wasn’t the only tragedy in Wafa’s life. Two years ago, a Shia militia, the Mehdi Army, assassinated her brother-in-law Waheed.

Four years ago, a rocket which was fired by Sunni insurgents from devastated her family when it hit Wafa’s aunt’s house.

Wafa’s 12-year-old cousin Mustafa was killed. Her mother, who was visiting the house, was paralysed and Wafa’s six-year-old brother Saad lost one eye.

Tragedies like the one Wafa experienced have become part of the life of most Iraqis. It is very unusual not to have a tragedy in the family.

Mourning events have replaced birthdays and wedding parties. You are always surrounded by death. The unwanted guest will visit you at any moment.

You will see it on TV, you will hear it on the radio, and you’ll read about it in the newspapers. Even when you think that it is hundreds of miles away from you, it will touch you in some way.

WHY ARE YOU CALLING?

As a journalist I have to gather information about bombings across Iraq. Last week there was a large bomb near Mosul, one of Iraq’s main cities.

I have a book full of telephone numbers, which I was given by a former colleague who left the office. Other numbers I collected myself.

There was this number for a doctor in Mosul that I tried to call. I wanted to get information about the latest casualties. A young woman answered the phone. She was very curious as to why I was calling.

“Why are you calling,” she asked. “Where did you get this number from? How do you know this doctor?”

Her reaction was very unusual. It took me a while to realise that this woman was the doctor’s daughter.

She started crying and said: “My father was assassinated two years ago in his clinic”.

I could hear in her voice the unspoken question: Why he had been assassinated? I could feel that she’d been asking the same question for two years. I apologised and expressed my sympathy.

After I hung up I realised what I could have said to the doctor’s daughter.

“My poor young woman, your father died in vain just like Marwan, Mustafa, Wafa and thousands and thousands of Iraqis,” I could have said.

“We have become the firewood in a war which has no logic and victims of warriors who lack honour and nobility. Warriors we read about in history books at least had honour.”

I think it is time to seriously consider going to that remote island I have always dreamed of.

MY IRAQ

Just before I finished writing these comments a police source called me to say that a man had got a court order to evict a bad tenant from an apartment he owns.

The tenant did not want to give the apartment back to the owner in a good condition, so instead he blew it up injuring two civilians.

This is my Iraq.

I love this! People need to see for themselves what waterboarding is so they can decide whether it is torture or not. I believe it is torture. It is a crime against humanity and the US government should be forced to stop.

Children’s cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants is being used as part of an art installation to protest against water-boarding as a form of torture.

The Water-boarding Thrill Ride by artist Steve Powers has been installed at Coney Island theme park in New York.

A sign on the outside shows SpongeBob saying “It don’t Gitmo better!” - a reference to Guantanamo Bay - as another character pours water over him.

The US has admitted using the simulated drowning method on terrorism suspects.

For one dollar, visitors get to look through a barred window at a Guantanamo-like interrogation, enacted by animated robots.

A hooded figure leans over a man in an orange jumpsuit, whose face is covered with a towel and his body tethered to a tilted plane.

‘Crazy’

Lights then come on and water pours into the man’s nose and mouth, producing convulsions for 15 seconds.

Powers says his aim is to provoke people into thinking about the interrogation technique, which simulates the feeling of drowning and is denounced by human rights groups as a form of torture.

“Robot water-boarding became a way of exploring the issue without doing any harm,” he told The New York Times.

“It’s putting a unique experience on the table. And it doesn’t take a great leap of the imagination to look in there and say: ‘That’s really what’s going on? That’s crazy.’”

Marion Tracey, 57, from New Jersey, said she found the installation disturbing and made her think of her father who had nightmares after returning from World War II.

“In all wars, horrible things happen - I’d rather not see it,” she said.

Alex Soto, 23, said he thought it was a good thing for people to learn about water-boarding, but added: “It is pretty twisted.”

Powers says he plans to subject himself to water-boarding by a professional trained in interrogation techniques later this month.

The installation will then be moved to Manhattan’s Park Avenue Armoury.

This is a joke — the man who leads an administration that has practiced widespread torture and “extraordinary renditions;” has unlawfully imprisoned Americans and immigrants has denied the writ of habeas corpus and has at least two illegal detention centers — believes that he can comment on China’s human rights record? The world must be chuckling.

George Bush urges China to improve its human rights records

US President George W Bush has expressed “deep concerns” over China’s human rights record in a speech on the eve of the Beijing Olympics.

“The US believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings,” he said in the Thai capital Bangkok.

He praised China’s economy but said only respect for human rights would let it realise its full potential.

Mr Bush has been criticised by some campaigners for going to the Games.

He was due to fly to Beijing following the speech in Bangkok, a stop on his final trip to Asia before he leaves office in January.

The wide-ranging address was more nuanced than Mr Bush’s past speeches on China, the BBC’s Jonathan Head reports from Bangkok.

It is unlikely to cause much offense in China, our correspondent says, and many people will see it more as a valedictory speech for Mr Bush’s record in Asia rather than an outline of future US policy.

‘Firm opposition’

President Bush said he was optimistic about China’s future and said change in China would arrive “on its own terms”.

But his criticisms of China’s human rights record were clear.

“America stands in firm opposition to China’s detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates and religious activists,” he said.

“We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly and labour rights not to antagonise China’s leaders but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential.

“And we press for openness and justice not to impose our beliefs, but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs.”

Beijing police dragged away three US Christians who tried to demonstrate on Tiananmen Square on Thursday in support of religious freedom.

A plainclothes policeman was amongst the security officials who stepped in and led Reverend Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defence Coalition in Washington, away from the centre of the square.

Four pro-Tibet activists from Britain and the US were arrested and held briefly in Beijing on Wednesday after a protest close to the Olympic stadium.

China’s terms

The US, Mr Bush said, recognised that the growth sparked by China’s free market reforms was “good for the Chinese people” and the country’s’ purchasing power was “good for the world”.

On foreign policy, he commended China’s “critical leadership role” in the negotiations to end North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme, and the “constructive relationship” between Beijing and Washington over Taiwan.

But without going into detail, he added that China as a “global economic leader” had the duty to “act responsibly on matters from energy to the environment to development in Africa”.

“Ultimately,” said Mr Bush, “only China can decide what course it will follow.”

“Change in China will arrive on its own terms and in keeping with its own history and traditions.”

While “optimistic about China’s future”, he added:

“Young people who grow up with the freedom to trade goods will ultimately demand the freedom to trade ideas, especially on an unrestricted internet.”

This was an apparent reference to Chinese restrictions on certain news and human rights websites.

Beijing recently appeared to ease its curbs after foreign journalists covering the Olympic Games in China complained about being denied access.

Burma refugees

Mr Bush’s address also called for an end to what he described as tyranny in Thailand’s neighbour, Burma.

Friday’s Olympic opening ceremony coincides with the 20th anniversary of a democracy uprising in Burma, which was crushed by the military.

“Together, we seek an end to tyranny in Burma,” he said. “The noble cause has many devoted champions, and I happen to be married to one of them.”

First lady Laura Bush flew to the Thai-Burmese border to spend the day at the Mae La refugee camp where about 35,000 refugees live, having fled their homes.

An interesting blog piece dispelling the recent rumors about an alleged nuclear bomb facility being built in the Khuzestan Province in Iran.

Two days ago, I received an e-mail from a friend of mine with a link to an Arab publication as well as MEMRI translation of the news about Iran’s secret nuclear plant being made in Ahvaz.

Since I was born in that town, the news got my attention.

Briefly, the report said that Tehran has started building a secret nuclear plant for manufacturing atomic bombs in Al-Zarqan Area near Al-Ahwaz City in southwest Iran and its border with Iraq and that a lot of people have been relocated by force. The report said the plant was ordered not to employ Arab speaking people or any other locals. I had not heard of the city of Al-Zarqan before, but then I realized that the Arabs do not have the letter G in their language and they replace it with ‘q’ or ‘qh’. So the name in Farsi is Zargan.

…First of all, the plant (according to some official broadcasts from IRI) is undergoing a major upgrade/re-construction as well as they are adding several additions to its original power stations (link in Farsi). This upgrade was announced and many Iranian and foreign companies were bidding for the job (see also here), so again, this showed that the project was nothing secret.

Another important fact about the power plant was that it was privatized in 2004 and it is no longer in the hands of the Iranian Tavanir (state owned company that controls all nationalized power stations in Iran).

Read more here.

Full disclosure, it is my husband’s blog.