What is the cost of being against us

Frank Gaffney:

The outcome of the present, global conflict may ultimately turn on the implementation of a policy it took President Bush just seven words to declare on Nov. 6, 2001: "You're either with us or against us."
For too long, it has been possible for far too many around the world to have it both ways. This must stop.
In particular, the time has come to make it clear to those who are helping our enemies that they are not with us -- and that there are real costs associated with being against us.
Every one of us can contribute to this effort by making an example of a company contemplating doing a lot more business with Islamofascist Iran, at the very moment it is aggressively pursuing (with help from North Korea) nuclear arms and the ever-longer-range ballistic missiles with which to deliver them. Presumably these are the means by which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad intends to realize his oft-stated goals of wiping Israel "off the map" and bringing about "a world without America."
A company that is at the moment a prime candidate for such treatment is Royal Dutch Shell. According to the Conflict Security Advisory Group (CSAG) -- an independent market research firm whose Global Security Risk Monitor online database is the industry standard for assessing publicly traded companies that do business with terrorist-sponsoring regimes -- this Anglo-Dutch corporation has done billions of dollars of business over the years with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It even has four offices in Tehran.
Last week, however, Shell Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer told participants in a conference call that his firm and a Spanish oil company, Repsol, have entered into a preliminary understanding to help the Iranian regime develop part of its vast South Pars natural gas reserve. Press reports indicate Tehran believes the deal is worth $10 billion.
To be sure, that $10 billion will translate into profits for Shell and its partner. It will, though, also afford the Islamofascists in Iran revenue streams that will enable them to support more terrorists, to kill more Americans and Iraqis, to destabilize the region and to prepare genocidal attacks on this country as well as our ally, Israel.
Making such a huge, further investment in Iran would, in short, be a very unfriendly act. And Shell must understand it will be regarded, and treated, as such.
For one thing, the Bush administration should interpose the strongest possible objections to putatively allied governments in London and The Hague that export guarantees and insurance for this deal would seriously complicate bilateral and trilateral relations. For another, the Treasury Department should make life miserable for any banks that might contemplate helping underwrite such an investment.
The real power to punish Royal Dutch Shell for being against us in this War for the Free World, however, should lie with American investors and consumers. The Roosevelt Anti-Terror Multi-Cap Fund (RATF) is the first mutual fund in the nation to be certified by the Conflict Securities Advisory Group as "terror-free." It holds in portfolio neither Shell nor any other publicly traded companies doing business in Iran, Sudan, Syria or North Korea. Nationwide Financial, E-Trade, Ameritrade and Schwab have begun offering RATF as an option on their investment platforms.
...

OK, no more Shell gas. And, no more Citgo which is controlled by Chavez. Maybe this is another reason why Exxon-Mobil had such huge profits past year. Shell has quite a corporate presence in the US and clearly its US business is much more significant than investments in a hostile state tot he US. Houston is a major base for Shell in this country, with a sky scrapper bearing its name and research and refinery facilities scattered around the area.