Mr Levey said Washington had evidence the bank transferred millions of dollars to terrorist organisations in the Middle East. He said direct transfers had taken place between 2001 and 2006 from the Central Bank of Iran to Bank Saderat’s London branch. Funds had then been moved to the bank’s Beirut branch for distribution to the Islamist group Hizbollah in Lebanon.

First, of course, I rather doubt the Iranians were actually directing funds to Lebanon via London, whatever the Americans think they found (and I no longer have the least confidence in their claims).

Second, the intervention of this kind of politics into financial transfers can cut both ways. US and Western interests also can become further targets.

Mr Levey said Iranian money had also been transferred to other organisations such as Hamas - the islamist group which now runs the Palestinian Authority - and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

While the US lists Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation the EU does not. Mr Levey’s trip has taken in London and Paris so far and he will also visit Rome before moving onto Singapore.

In the case of Bank Saderat, Mr Levey said there had been “very very blatant evidence of the facilitation of terrorism in particular.”

And is the EU "terror financing" for working with Hezbullah and Hamas in their capacities as parts of legitimate, elected parties?

The slavering Right Bolshies, who have a real Bolshevik tendancy to run around throwing labels functionally similar to "Kulak" in their indefinate elasticity and short-term political nature, well they would likely say yes.

Not that this has the slightest coherence in the context of the US supposedly focusing on democratisation - although it does rather keep with the Bolshy type incoherent hypocrisy.

Earlier this week Bank Saderat issued a statement that all its domestic and foreign operations were “completely in accordance with Islamic banking and international rules and regulations”. It said the US was trying to create “problems” in its international activities “particularly with European banks”, but that it would find “suitable solutions” to thwart Washington’s “hostile intentions”.

While declining to comment on other Iranian banks, Mr Levey made clear Washington’s determination to act if sufficient evidence were available. Such evidence is crucial in the US strategy of furthering its aims by persuading international banks to isolate financial institutions involved in terrorist financing.

Mr Levey cited Banco Delta Asia the Macao-based bank identified last year by the US as a key conduit for money for the North Korean regime. BDA had been identified as a “primary money laundering concern” for Pyongyang.

But it had been left up to international banks to draw their own conclusions and isolate the offender, Mr Levey indicated.

Politics.

Politics.

And foolish and futile politics at that.

While the big money center banks are convenient, there are lots of ways around them (although it does raise cost).

The US Treasury has been taking on a major role in Washington’s “war on terror” but Mr Levey recognised it had limited means to influence foreign banks. But he stressed the importance of reputational damage as a factor for big international banks.

Of course reputational damage in whose eyes.

The more such actions are (rightly) seen as pure political maneuvers, the less "damaging" they are.