Why is Halliburton still in Iran?

I was quite shocked when I read this over at PP. Erick wrote:

On March 31, 2009, Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade sent Barack Obama a letter regarding their conversation on “the need to prevent funding from the G-20 package from going to Iran.”

According to Sherman’s letter, “the World Bank has been providing assistance to Iran throughout this decade, and continues to do so as we speak. From 2000-2005, some $1.35 billion was approved for Iran in nine separate loan packages.” Further, Sherman insisted, “Iran should not receive any benefits from any of the institutions – World Bank, IMF or any other multilateral institution – that will be utilized by the G-20 to assist with the global recovery while Tehran insists on violating United Nations Security Council Resolutions concerning its nuclear program.”

I can agree with you on this Erick, I think that we should not be sending money to Iran as long as they continue to be a threat. I, however, do believe we should engage in diplomatic talks with them at the same time. We can use the money as a bargaining chip.

As is mentioned by the first response to the Blog Entry, it seems that Halliburton, the company VP Dick Cheney use to work for, is still being granted contract in Iran. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) had the following to say:

"I am baffled that any American company would want to have employees operating in Iran. I would think they'd be ashamed. We don't want American companies propping up a government that's dedicated to our destruction"

As for Halliburton, any group that is working inside Iran should be ashamed of themselves. Iran constantly works against efforts by the United States to promote legitimate, peaceful solutions to the problems in the Middle East. I believe that Halliburton should be denounced and their contracts with the United States should be pulled unless they pull out of Iran. I think it is in the Bible somewhere:

Matthew 6:24 - "No one can serve two masters, because either he will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other.