By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Nov 15 2016 (IPS)

Will a President Trump intend to put U.S. business first and preserve and expand the U.S. manufacturing workforce as part of his plan to make America great again? Or will he hold to the reflexive anti-Iran positions of the Republican Congressional majority, Sheldon Adelson, and the neoconservatives, including the NeverTrumpers who, with Democrats marginalized across the board, are already seeking ways to gain influence with whomever the president-elect chooses to advise him?

That’s the question that will likely come to the fore next week when the House of Representatives is likely to vote on legislation that would effectively ban Boeing from exporting at least 80 planes to Iran’s national air carrier. The sale is part of a deal that could total as much as $25 billion and employ many thousands of skilled workers across the United States.

The House Rules Committee, led by the committee’s trade panel chair Bill Huizenga (R-MI), has made action of the bill priority number one when Congress returns from its long election recess on Monday. A floor vote could come as early as next Wednesday. The bill, which will likely be merged with another that would prohibit the Export-Import Bank from helping finance any deals involving Iran, was drafted in response to the Treasury Department’s approval earlier this fall of Boeing to sell and/or lease commercial aircraft to Iran Air. Just last week, Iran’s deputy transport minister said that the final details of the deal should be worked out “within days.”

So, if Trump wants to preserve and expand the U.S. manufacturing base, supporting a deal of this scale with this particular company would seem to be very attractive, particularly because Boeing itself has been shedding a significant share of its workforce over the last months due to a dearth of new orders
Boeing employs 150,000 workers in the U.S. The commercial aviation division, which is most relevant to the pending Iran Air deal, employs 85,000 workers (not counting administrative staff). As the biggest single U.S. exporter of manufactured goods, Boeing has thousands of workers in each of nine states, notably Washington State (with about half its U.S. workforce) and California, but also red states including Alabama, Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. It also has hundreds of staff at its corporate headquarters in Illinois, which is one reason why the outgoing senator, Mark Kirk—otherwise a staunch AIPAC supporter behind virtually every effort to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal—never took a clear stand on the Boeing sale. In the past 12 months, the company has paid nearly $50 billion to more than 13,600 businesses, supporting an additional 1.5 million supplier-related jobs across the country. So, if Trump wants to preserve and expand the U.S. manufacturing base, supporting a deal of this scale with this particular company would seem to be very attractive, particularly because Boeing itself has been shedding a significant share of its workforce over the last months due to a dearth of new orders.

Of course, Trump has repeatedly denounced the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, vowing from time to time to either discard or renegotiate the nuclear deal. Back in June, when Boeing entered into formal talks over the sale, his campaign decried it, insisting that “the world’s largest state sponsor of terror …would not have been allowed to enter into these negotiations with Boeing without Clinton’s disastrous Iran Nuclear Deal.” But, as noted by Foreign Policy’s John Hudson at the time, Trump has also complained that one of the reasons the JCPOA was so “disastrous” was because it removed sanctions on Boeing’s chief rival, Airbus (which has entered into a somewhat bigger deal with Iran Air), while retaining Washington’s unilateral sanctions that prevented Boeing from selling planes. “Iran is going to buy 116 jetliners with a small part of the $150 billion [sic] we are giving them…but they won’t buy from U.S., rather than Airbus,” he tweeted in January.

“They bought 118 Airbus planes, not Boeing planes,” he elaborated on CNN. “They’re spending all of their money in Europe. It’s so unfair and it’s so incompetent. We’re handing over $150 billion [sic]. We get nothing,” he complained to Anderson Cooper.

This was, of course, before the Treasury Department issued the license to Boeing in September that made an agreement possible. Since then, Trump, like Kirk, has not expressed a firm opinion on the deal even while he has continued denouncing the JCPOA.

In the absence of a clear statement in opposition from the president-elect, the pending legislation will easily pass the House this week if it comes up for a vote. But it’s not yet clear what the Senate will do, and no doubt some key senators in the Republican majority will be looking for guidance from Trump Tower.

One very big question is what the larger U.S. business community will do and, if they do anything at all, how Trump will react. So far, Boeing has been flying pretty much solo in gaining approval to negotiate with Iran. Most big U.S. companies share Trump’s complaint about the lack of advantages given them by the JCPOA compared to their foreign competition, and offering more exemptions from U.S. sanctions would have been a political bridge too far for the Obama administration. With Trump now bound for the White House, the main challenge for groups like The Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Foreign Trade Council at this point is how to persuade Trump to modify his positions on trade and immigration, which of course are much more important in business terms than Iran.

Nonetheless, the Boeing deal could be a very important precedent for U.S.-based multinational corporations. If Trump indicated his support for the deal consistent with his commitments to creating jobs and expanding the economy, it would boost not only those companies that see in Iran a huge untapped market for their goods and services. It would also signal a major advance in one of big businesses’ long-term struggles: fighting unilateral U.S. economic sanctions enacted by Congress. If Boeing prevails, other companies have a lot to gain.

So, Trump faces a key Iran-related decision. Does he side with U.S. business and workers in the interests of “America First”? Or does he listen to knee-jerk, pro-Likud Iran hawks who argue that Boeing aircraft could be used to transport terrorists but whose real agenda is to destroy an agreement curbing Iran’s nuclear program, even at the risk of alienating Washington’s NATO allies and provoking another major war in the Greater Middle East that will cost the U.S. Treasury many billions of dollars?

This piece was originally published in Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy Lobelog.com

The 100-billion-dollar deal for commercial jetliners was announced at the Dubai, UAE airshow, pictured above on Nov. 17, 2013. Credit: Attila Malarik/cc by 2.0

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 21 2013 (IPS)

The multi-billion-dollar Middle East arms market – bolstered by hefty purchases by oil-blessed Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait and Qatar – has always been one of the biggest bonanzas to the U.S. defence industry.

But a staggering 100-billion-dollar deal last week for the sale of Boeing’s new 777X commercial jets to three airlines in the UAE and Qatar threatens to outpace U.S. military sales."The size of the market for purely civilian aircraft isn't a significant concern for those of us who worry about the sophisticated military equipment that's being sold around the world." -- Natalie Goldring

William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project at the Centre for International Policy, told IPS U.S. arms sales to the Middle East and Persian Gulf have reached record levels in recent years.

“They have elevated the United States to a position of dominance in the world market, controlling 78 percent, as of 2011,” he said.

And most notable, he pointed out, is a 60-billion-dollar package to Saudi Arabia the U.S. Congress was notified of in 2010.

“It was the biggest arms deal ever concluded by the United States with any country,” said Hartung.

Last week’s multi-billion-dollar deals for commercial airliners may supplant arms sales as the largest source of income from U.S. aerospace deals to the region over the next few years, he predicted. Still, the administration of President Barack Obama has been aggressively pushing U.S. arms sales, so if they decline it won’t be for lack of trying on the part of the administration and U.S. industry, said Hartung.

The 100-billion-dollar deal – for commercial jetliners announced at the Dubai, UAE airshow – was signed by Emirates and Etihad airlines (of UAE) and Qatar Airways, with deliveries slated for 2020.

The total contracts for commercial jet sales to countries in the Middle East were estimated at more than 150 billion dollars, according to one published report.

Boeing, which is based in the United States, said it had orders for 342 planes just on the first day of the airshow.

Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow with the Security Studies Programme in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, told IPS the Dubai Airshow represents a potential windfall for the Boeing aircraft company.

However, she said, it is important to separate the public relations efforts at air shows from the actual deliveries.

“Companies negotiate for months to reach agreements that they can announce with great fanfare at the beginning of the major international air shows like Dubai,” Goldring said.

But not all orders become contracts, and not all contracts result in deliveries. That means any announcements at air shows are likely to be overstated, she noted.

However, Goldring pointed out, contracts to sell commercial aircraft overseas are an economic boost to manufacturers, stockholders, and the communities in which the aircraft are built.

Such sales avoid the short- and long-term risks of military sales, she added.

Goldring said some have suggested the commercial aircraft market may overshadow the military market.

“The size of the market for purely civilian aircraft isn’t a significant concern for those of us who worry about the sophisticated military equipment that’s being sold around the world,” said Goldring, who also represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations on conventional weapons and arms trade issues.

Other proposed Middle East arms sales include 4.7 billion dollars in military equipment to Iraq; a 1.1-billion-dollar deal for early warning radar to Qatar; a 588-million-dollar package of C-130J airlifters to Libya; and a 200-million-dollar deal to support Kuwait’s fleet of F/A-18 fighters.

In contrast, the other two major arms buyers in the Middle East, namely Egypt and Israel, are not cash customers but receive virtually all of their weapons at no cost, as part of U.S. military aid.

Hartung told IPS the Saudi deal includes fighter planes, attack helicopters, air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, armoured vehicles, bombs, guns and ammunition – virtually enough to upgrade the entire Saudi armed forces. Boeing, he said, was the biggest beneficiary of the deal.

The only missing items in the Saudi package were combat ships and a large-scale missile defence, which are now in the works.

The rearming of Iraq — drawing from Iraqi oil revenues, not U.S. aid — has also been a large boost to U.S. producers, said Hartung. He said that large U.S. producers are looking to foreign sales to fill in gaps that are occurring as a result of the downward trend in Pentagon weapon spending over the past few years.

“That being said, it’s hard to see how arms sales to the region can continue at this pace — they are certainly saturating the Saudi market, which is far and away the largest in the region,” Hartung said.

However, the funds from a given deal are generally spent out over a five- to 10-year period, so there will be a steady income to U.S. firms from the deals announced in 2010 to the present for some time.

“Even so, while it’s not a certainty, there’s a chance that the recent huge arms deals to the region may be a bit of a bubble,” Hartung warned.

Goldring told IPS the proposed arms sales to Middle East nations haven’t been adequately scrutinised. Even the Israelis, who often worry about sales to potential military adversaries, have apparently chosen to argue for increased military assistance to Israel instead of opposing these sales, she added.

The signing of the Arms Trade Treaty this fall by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was welcome news. Now its time for the United States to live up to those commitments, she noted.

“All proposed military sales should be evaluated to ensure that they’re consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Arms Trade Treaty,” Goldring said.

For example, she said, any weapons sales that are likely to be used for internal repression should be blocked, consistent with the Treaty’s provisions.

Overseas military sales carry many risks. The weapons are often usable for decades, she added.

“That means that when the U.S. government sells weapons to overseas customers, it’s assuming their governments will be stable for that period of time,” she said.

Government instability among weapons recipients increases the risk that U.S. weapons will fall into adversaries hands, and potentially even be used against U.S. forces, Goldring warned. Commercial aircraft sales simply don’t involve the same risks as military sales, she said.