At last, on Christmas Eve, a federal holiday, the New York Times finally releases its analysis of documents it received from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) as a result of its Freedom of Information Act request relating to licenses granted for exports to sanctioned countries such as Iran. The result? The reporters throw themselves on the fainting couch because a company has exported cupcake sprinkles to Iran, presumably on the notion that this will enrich the Iranian government and aid its nuclear program. I suspect that this conclusion may have prompted the Times editors to publish the story on a federal holiday when five people besides myself will be reading the newspaper. It keeps the laughter down.

The principal problem with Jo Becker’s story is her complete misunderstanding of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (“TSRA”), legislation which permits a wide variety of exports to sanctioned countries. She seems to believe that the act restricts such exports to humanitarian aid and then uses that misconception to criticize OFAC for licensing the aforementioned cake sprinkles as well as — and this is not a joke — popcorn, hot sauce, chewing gum, cigarettes, food coloring and sugar.

The problem is that TSRA isn’t restricted to humanitarian aid. It permits the exports of agricultural commodities, medicine and medical devices without reference to whether the New York Times or Ms. Becker thinks the product is humanitarian aid. All of the aforementioned products seem to fit clearly within the definition of agricultural commodities. Even if food coloring might not, does Red Dye No. 2 have some role in uranium enrichment which nuclear scientists have so far missed?

I’ll be writing more about the article over the coming days. I still have Christmas shopping to finish. But two other things deserve immediate comment.

First, the article is oddly silent about the large volume of licensed exports to Cuba under TSRA. This, at a very minimum, suggests an odd ideological bent by Ms. Becker. The article argues that food sales to Iran indirectly benefit the government of Iran, an argument that has traditionally also been made to support the Cuba blockade. The new foreign policy adopted by the Times would appear to be “Castro good, mullahs bad.”

Second, a note at the end of the article states, without any apparent realization of the hypocrisy involved, that “Ron Nixon contributed reporting from Washington, and William Yong from Tehran.” Unless Mr. Yong works for free, lives under a bridge in Tehran, and subsists solely on air, the New York Times is doing business in Iran at the same time it is whipping up a tsunami of outrage about other companies doing business there.

There is, however, one good side to the Times reporting. As part of the article, the Times includes a detailed summary of a number of the licenses granted and the reason they were granted. This information, which has heretofore been zealously guarded by OFAC, which prefers to operate under cover of darkness, will be of immense use to export compliance officers and lawyers because they reveal a number of broader rationales that the agency has used to grant non-TSRA licenses.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Both my law firm and I have represented companies named in the story and have obtained licenses permitting those companies to export items to Iran under TSRA.

Dandle, to most of you, is a verb meaning to dance a small child up and down on one’s knee. Others, particularly regular readers of this blog, will recognize it as the surpassingly odd name of an Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (“IRISL”) cargo ship formerly known as Twelfth Ocean, which was rechristened the Dandle by the Iranians after the vessel was placed by the Office of Foreign Asset Controls (“OFAC”) on its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (“SDN List”).

The news media was all over yesterday’s announcement by OFAC of new sanctions against various entities in Iran, but it was baffled by, and largely ignored, a General License issued at the same time yesterday by OFAC with respect to the Dandle and its equally oddly named sister ship, the Decritive. The General License states:

effective December 21, 2010, all transactions are authorized related to the arrest, detention, and judicial sale of the MV Dandle (a.k.a. Twelfth Ocean, IMO No. 9209348), and the MV Decretive (a.k.a. Sixth Ocean, IMO No. 9349679), which were identified as blocked property on September 10,2008, under the names Twelfth Ocean and Sixth Ocean, respectively (the “Vessels”), pursuant to Executive Order 13382 of June 28,2005 (70 FR 38567, July 1,2005) (“E.O. 13382”). Such transactions include, but are not limited to, bidding on the purchase of the vessels; paying deposits; providing financing, insurance, or funding in connection with the purchase; and, in furtherance of the arrest, detention, and judicial sale of the Vessels, providing vessel management services; providing port agency services; purchasing of bunkers; repairing or modifying the Vessels for commercial use; providing crewing; and hiring surveyors to inspect the vessels.

With a little snooping around I learned from a Financial Times article (free registration required) that five IRISL ships have been arrested by creditors over loan disputes in Singapore, Hong Kong and Malta. And according to this screen grab from tracking site marinetraffic.com, the Dandle appears to be sitting in Malta at the moment. I can’t locate the Decretive.

Without this General License, which expires on January 31, 2012, no U.S. person could participate in any judicial sale by the creditors of the arrested vessel due its being on the SDN list and blocked as a result. The General License also indicates that after the judicial sale the new owner may show evidence of its ownership of the vessel to have it unblocked. Why there is no license permitting participation of U.S. persons in the judicial sales of the other three vessels is, at least to me, completely unclear.