Author Topic: Iran  (Read 502213 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Iran in desperate straights
« Reply #950 on: July 06, 2018, 08:54:49 AM »
In Iran, every time one problem seems to go away, another one takes its place. Recent protests are a case in point. Just as the demonstrations over economic grievances in Tehran had died down, new ones began in Khuzestan. People throughout the region have taken to the streets to decry how the government is mishandling the ongoing water shortage. (Protesters claim Iran continues to sell potable water to Iraq and Kuwait, even as 230 Iranians were allegedly poisoned by contaminated drinking water.) Unrest related to water issues has been simmering in Khuzestan since March, but officials just can’t seem to get a handle on it. Social media posts from Wednesday suggest Iran has deployed more forces to the cities of Khorramshahr and Abadan to quell the unrest.

Meanwhile, President Hasan Rouhani is in Europe desperately trying to salvage the Iran nuclear deal by encouraging France, Germany and the United Kingdom to abide by their prior trade and investment commitments, saying that “if the remaining signatories can guarantee Iran’s benefits, Iran will remain in the nuclear deal without the U.S.” Given the threats the U.S. has made against any country that continues to work with Tehran, and the willingness shown by the Trump administration to impose economic hardship even on its allies, it’s highly unlikely that Europe is willing to run afoul of the U.S., especially when Washington is already starting a trade war with Europe. Put simply, the U.S. can hurt Europe more than Iran can help Europe, so Rouhani’s calls for help will probably go unheeded.

With the U.S. trying to force every customer to stop buying Iranian oil, the government in Tehran will have a hard time making up lost revenue. Losing oil revenue is bad enough, but it comes at an especially bad time for Iran – the government budget is already stretched thin in support of military operations in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and the Iranian public claims that government spending on social programs is already inadequate. Eliminating the demand for Iranian oil, moreover, would hasten the decline of the Iranian rial, which has been plunging in recent months and was the proximate cause of the most recent bout of protests in Tehran.

Rouhani is no doubt aware of the futility of his mission to Europe, so he has raised the stakes. On July 2, during his strip to Switzerland, angry that other countries would be able to ship oil from the region but Iran would not, Rouhani threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which as much as 30 percent of all daily seaborne hydrocarbons pass. Shortly thereafter, Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, the expeditionary arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, stood behind Rouhani’s statement, signaling that the military was ready to close the strait in defense of Iran’s national interest. The failure of the Iran nuclear deal aggravated the divisions between Iran’s reformist camp, of which Rouhani is a member, and the hard-line camp, of which Soleimani is a member. It’s possible that the cancellation of oil imports will be the issue that unites them. (It’s also possible that the reformers, having staked so much of their credibility on the nuclear deal, have lost face and are now subordinated to the security establishment.)


 

(click to enlarge)


Unsurprisingly, the U.S. didn’t appreciate Rouhani’s threat. Closing the strait would send oil prices skyrocketing and hurt the economy of Saudi Arabia, Washington's stalwart ally in the region. Washington responded by vowing to keep the Persian Gulf open – a response that necessarily requires the direct use of force, which would obviously mark a change in how the U.S. deals with Iran. Iran’s navy could never beat the U.S. Navy in open combat, but it’s hard to imagine the U.S. public has much of an appetite for another military conflict in the Middle East. Iran isn’t especially interested in a conflict either, but the government is getting desperate. With less to lose, Iran will be willing to take bigger risks.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
WSJ: The oil weapon can fell Iran
« Reply #951 on: July 06, 2018, 09:26:03 AM »

By Nawaf E. Obaid
July 1, 2018 4:36 p.m. ET
76 COMMENTS

Mass protests are nothing new in Iran. But nearly 40 years into the failed experiment of the Islamic Republic, an end may be near.

Iran’s economy is in shambles and its public finances are teetering. Given that about 60% of Tehran’s budget comes from petroleum exports, the best way for the U.S. to hasten regime change is to tighten sanctions while closely coordinating with regional allies to increase global oil supplies and lower prices. The State Department’s recent announcement that countries will face stringent sanctions if they don’t halt Iranian oil imports by Nov. 4 is a crucial first step. Tehran’s mullahs cannot survive a sustained oil price of $60 a barrel with practically no export revenue.

Regime change in Tehran is vital to Saudi Arabia’s national security. Stopping Iran’s efforts at establishing regional hegemony is the kingdom’s highest foreign-policy priority. Riyadh is already spending tens of billions of dollars combating Iranian destabilization campaigns from Syria and Lebanon to Yemen to even Morocco. With some $500 billion in foreign reserves and one of the cheapest oil extraction costs in the world, the Saudis can weather lower oil prices for years.

Three main factors are pushing Iran to the financial breaking point: public-debt obligations on the brink of default, President Hassan Rouhani’s massive subsidies to politically powerful farming communities, and the mounting costs of its attempts to foment chaos throughout the Arab world.

For the U.S., sustaining a policy of economic pressure will require unprecedented cooperation. There are three preconditions for success, one of which is already being met.

First, Saudi Arabia and Russia—the world’s top two oil exporters—have reached an agreement to increase output. The Saudis plan to ramp up production to as much as 11.5 million barrels a day to drive down prices and eventually make up for lost Iranian oil. Since Moscow is in a position to benefit from a policy freeing it from production quotas and in no position to stop it, it agreed.

Second, as Iran suffers from its lack of indigenous capital and technology to increase sustained oil production and exports, Saudi Arabia and its allies, especially the United Arab Emirates, should join the U.S. in instituting sanctions against the few international oil companies that will still be willing to invest in Iran’s upstream industry.

Third, because Iran lacks access to foreign financial markets and U.S. banks are banned from doing business there, its remaining hope is European, and to a lesser extent Asian, banks. The Treasury should send a clear message to foreign financial institutions, including those based in Dubai, that they’ll lose access to U.S. capital markets if they float new credit to Tehran in any form after Nov. 4.

If President Trump, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and their allies wish to end the widespread terror caused by this so-called Islamic Republic, they should commit to using oil as a nonlethal weapon.

Mr. Obaid is a visiting fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: The oil weapon can fell Iran
« Reply #953 on: July 07, 2018, 10:46:14 AM »
"Iran’s economy is in shambles and its public finances are teetering. Given that about 60% of Tehran’s budget comes from petroleum exports, the best way for the U.S. to hasten regime change is to tighten sanctions while closely coordinating with regional allies to increase global oil supplies and lower prices. "


Fracking brought down the Ayatollahs in Iran and OPEC including Saudi and the Gulf states are trying to bring down oil prices.  Who knew?  Getting tired of winning?  
« Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 10:48:46 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Iran's options
« Reply #954 on: July 23, 2018, 04:38:40 PM »
Iran and the United States enjoyed a brief rapprochement when they signed the Iran nuclear deal, but the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement backed Tehran into a corner. For months, political infighting and public unrest over the country’s poor economic performance has considerably weakened Iran’s regional position. Now it seems rival political factions have come together to deliver a coherent Iranian response. And just in time: The first wave of U.S. sanctions will be reintroduced on Aug. 6. (The second and final wave will follow 90 days later, on Nov. 4.)

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said during a speech on Saturday that he supported a policy of blocking regional oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz if Iranian trade partners bowed to U.S. pressure to stop buying Iranian oil. President Hassan Rouhani followed that with his own eyebrow-raising speech on Sunday in which he echoed Khamenei’s threat and warned the U.S. about “play[ing] with the lion’s tale.” (Neither leader was specific about how Iran intends to close the strait, but at least they’re on the same page.) U.S. President Donald Trump’s threatening tweets late Sunday have grabbed the headlines, but it was Iran that started the war of words. In the wake of Trump’s reply, Iran’s chief of staff accused the U.S. of preparing to attack Iran, while a commander of the Basij paramilitary force accused it of psychological warfare. Iran’s foreign minister, in a clear message to the U.S., tweeted that Iran had lasted millennia and had seen empires fall, ending with a warning (mimicking Trump’s own threat): “BE CAUTIOUS!”

Iran’s political struggles are notoriously opaque, and the weekend’s developments are not clear-cut. While Rouhani, the president who engineered the rapprochement on Iran’s end, is talking more like a commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC has been noticeably silent. Indeed, an aide to the supreme leader had to deny on Saturday that the commander of the IRGC was going to be replaced. If the Iranian government is revving up to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy, it’s hard to figure out how that would mean a shake-up of the IRGC. It’s unclear why the denial was necessary – perhaps Rouhani is attempting to use his swing toward hawkishness to eliminate rivals. Whatever the case may be, it’s premature to say Iran’s newfound internal political coherence will endure.

Even so, no matter what faction emerges on top, whether by consensus or power grab, it is becoming clear that at this point Iran has relatively few options and has been forced into the arms of Russia and China. The logical starting point is Russia. On July 11, a few days before the Helsinki summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Khamenei dispatched his top foreign policy adviser to Moscow. The objective may have been to get the two countries on the same page, implying that they have been coordinating their moves since the summit.

For Moscow, the name of the game is leverage. This is the second time in recent years Russia has looked to the Middle East for leverage over Washington. Russia’s first attempt, of course, was to parlay its intervention in Syria into considerations in Eastern Europe, specifically Ukraine. For the price of having propped up Bashar Assad, whose forces have been critical to the defeat of the Islamic State, Russia hoped the U.S. might be willing to compromise on Ukraine. In the end, Syria was not important enough to the U.S. to bargain, but Iran may be a different story. If Russia can demonstrate the ability to keep Iran in line, the U.S. may be willing to deal. If nothing else, encouraging Iran’s defiance raises the price of oil, which is good for Russia.

China is Iran’s other option. Beijing seems willing to go toe to toe with the U.S., at least for a while, as it assesses the damage from the burgeoning trade spat. China has given no indication that it will stop importing oil from Iran for fear of potential U.S. sanctions. If anything, it looks poised to increase its purchases, especially if the price is depressed because of the barriers around Western markets. For China, too, this could translate into leverage when dealing with the United States. At the very least, it’s cheap oil in a region China will be drawn toward more as its import needs grow.

Iran doesn’t want to be a pawn, but that will be the price of aligning itself more closely with Russia and China, and for Tehran, that’s better than kowtowing to the United States. The U.S. made the first move when it canceled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and now Iran has shown it has no intention of backing down. The next move belongs to Washington, and it will probably involve Moscow and Beijing.

Like in the North Korea situation, pure interest would dictate that the U.S. defuse the Iran issue, or at least deal with it in such a way so as not to improve Russia’s or China’s position. But in U.S. politics, the Iran issue is hostage to more than pure geopolitical interests. Whatever happens next, the first true ripples of the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA are becoming visible, and the U.S. faces hard decisions about how to prioritize its wide-ranging foreign policy imperatives.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Update on revolution in Iran, podcast
« Reply #955 on: July 31, 2018, 05:19:37 AM »
Steve Hayward interviews Kelly Jane Torrance of the Weekly Standard who covers Iranian dissidents. Great insights including what the NYT won't cover and why, what the Iranian people think of Trump and Obama. Things have changed in the protests in the last month.  Regime tried to kill dissidents in France including that reporter. Worth your time if this subject interests you.  Click on the play arrow at the bottom of this page:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/07/the-power-line-show-ep-81-a-next-iranian-revolution.php

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Iran, troubles and grumbles
« Reply #956 on: July 31, 2018, 10:33:57 AM »
Indicators of Iran’s political stability continue to flash negative. Its currency is falling in value –AP reported that on the black-market exchange, the Iranian rial dropped to 112,000 to the dollar on Sunday from 98,000 the day before, while the steady decline of the official rate continues. A reformist newspaper headline led with a story about a potential “economy coup,” while the newspaper for a minority party in the Iranian parliament said Iran is moving toward a crisis that can be solved only by shaking up senior levels of government. A leading hard-line paper, while blaming economic issues on Iran’s enemies, also called for “revolutionary decisions” to resolve the country’s woes. Al-Monitor reported that the latest factional dispute in the Iranian government has pitted Iran’s chief of staff against a vice president. The country’s top security body released two prominent opposition leaders from prison. The Majlis Research Center, the research arm of the Iranian parliament, published a report on the controversial issue of mandatory hijab wearing and discovered that 55 percent of Iranian women are against such a policy. And this is in just the past 48 hours – and as small protests over water scarcity and other economic issues continue.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Iran preparing for the worst?
« Reply #957 on: July 31, 2018, 05:14:15 PM »
July 31, 2018
By GPF Staff


Preparing for the Worst in Iran


That the IRGC is hedging its bets shows how seriously it takes the risk of revolution, however remote it may be.


On Tuesday, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Mohammad Ali Jafari, wrote a letter to Iranian President Hasan Rouhani that was subsequently published by Tasnim News Agency, a private company with strong ties to the IRGC. In the letter, Jafari criticized Rouhani for working harder on the campaign trail – and fighting his political enemies – than he was trying to solve the country’s economic problems, which are getting worse by the day. Inflation is spiraling out of control. Encouraging Rouhani to take undefined “revolutionary action” to rein in prices, Jafari also stressed that all of Iran must join in bringing relief to the most vulnerable segments of society.

The letter is the most ominous signal in what has been a difficult past few days for Iran. The black-market exchange rate for the Iranian rial to the dollar has fallen to 122,000, while the official rate has decreased to 44,000. The black-market rate is now more than double what it was in April, when it first seemed that the rial’s depreciation – and the protests it introduced – might actually threaten the Rouhani government. On Monday, the new governor of the central bank released a statement saying the bank would enact extraordinary measures in the coming days. Yet the rial continues to plunge, and posts on social media show protests popping up around the country again.


 

(click to enlarge)


It’s no secret that the Rouhani administration and the IRGC are often at odds with each other. Rouhani himself had a plan to undermine the IRGC's influence: He wanted to use the money recouped by the Iran nuclear deal to improve the economy and thus take some power back from the IRGC, which is believed to control as much as 60 percent of the Iranian economy. Indeed, Rouhani had already been trying to change the status quo, even going so far as to arrest certain IRGC members and forcing IRGC-held companies to transfer title back to the state, which will eventually privatize them. Rouhani had plenty of support in this regard – not just from the reformist faction he leads but from the supreme leader himself.

The problem for Rouhani is that the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal all but ruined his plan. With the Iranian economy already in shambles and with sanctions due to return in August, it’s unclear how the president can craft a new one. Iran has some $90 billion in foreign reserves, and though these reserves may buy the government some time, they won’t buy very much of it. The government already tried to benchmark the rial in April, but the policy failed quickly, forcing Tehran to discontinue it in June. The government has also tried the scapegoat approach, having recently arrested around 60 people and charged them with “economic disruption,” but these people’s incarcerations have convinced no one that the economy is now healthy.

As for the IRGC, it isn’t interested in removing Rouhani from power, at least not by a coup. The IRGC’s legitimacy is derived from its role as protector of the revolution, and a putsch would call that legitimacy into question. The IRGC is more interested in co-opting the system and harnessing power within it than it is in ousting the regime itself. It may not see eye to eye with Rouhani on all matters of state (and to be clear, the IRGC thought the nuclear deal was doomed to fail from the start), but revolution and the uncertainty that surrounds it are more detrimental to its bottom line than a president with whom it disagrees.

It’s therefore unclear what exactly Jafari meant in his letter when he called for revolutionary action. What is clear is that the IRGC is giving Rouhani just enough rope to hang himself while sending a message that it stands with the Iranian people, just in case. Doing so undercuts Rouhani’s power and deflects anger away from the IRGC, whose costly ambitions in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon have aroused the ire of protesters. Even if the Rouhani administration does stabilize the situation, there is still no clear path for economic success, increasing the likelihood that a pro-IRGC candidate could win the next elections.

Unlike in incidents past, these protesters are not just students. These are ordinary citizens who are quickly losing their life savings and are struggling to put food on their tables. So far, their numbers are small enough not to threaten the government, but if the value of the rial keeps falling and inflation keeps rising, that may not be the case for long. The IRGC letter seems to be preparing for an outcome in which Iran may have to call in the IRGC to clear the streets and restore order – which the IRGC will have to spin.

It’s unlikely that this will happen, but the situation is now such that it can’t be dismissed. The worse the situation gets for everyday Iranians and the harder it is for Iranian economic elites to make money, the more unpredictable conditions on the ground may become, and the higher the possibility for a single event to lead to a spontaneous protest movement large enough to force very difficult decisions on Iran’s leadership. That the IRGC is hedging its bets shows how seriously it takes the risk, however remote it may be.





Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF on US sanctions vs. EU
« Reply #958 on: August 07, 2018, 12:08:47 PM »
The United States and the European Union have officially reached an impasse on how to deal with Iran. The first batch of U.S. sanctions reimposed after the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal will kick in at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday. The European Union – united on this rare occasion – has opposed the move from the beginning. When the U.S. sanctions resume, a revised version of an obscure 1996 EU law referred to as a “blocking statute” will come into effect to shield European firms doing business in Iran from the effects of the sanctions. But the EU’s efforts to protect its companies and to prop up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will be ineffective. The divergence in strategic thinking between Brussels and Washington, meanwhile, will only deepen with time.

The U.S. and the EU had their fair share of disagreements long before the current U.S. administration came to power. The blocking statute, after all, was originally passed in response to U.S. sanctions against Cuba in the 1990s as well as much less consequential sanctions against Libya and, coincidentally, Iran. The statute blocks European companies from pulling out of Iran due to pressure from sanctions without the expressed approval of the European Commission. It also enables EU operators to sue for damages against the entity that imposed the sanctions (in this case, the U.S. government) and prevents any foreign court ruling from applying to EU companies.

At first blush, this seems like an impressive show of unity from the EU, led by France, Germany and even the United Kingdom. (The U.K.’s foreign secretary signed a joint statement committing the U.K. to help ensure European companies doing business in Iran will be protected, so at least on this issue, London will be in lockstep with Brussels even after Brexit is official.) But the statute suffers from two fatal flaws. Before it can be applied, it must be proved that a company is withdrawing from Iran specifically because of U.S. sanctions. But Iran is a hard place to do business even without the sanctions in place, and any company, in the interest of avoiding U.S. repercussions, can make a compelling case that it is leaving for reasons unrelated to sanctions.

In addition, and perhaps more paralyzing, the European Commission has no way to enforce the statute, so enforcement falls to individual member states. That means that if, for example, an Italian energy firm or a Danish shipping company withdraws from Iran because of U.S. sanctions, the Italian or Danish government itself must then punish the company. European companies are more concerned with profits than policy, so enforcing the penalties prescribed by the statute would be an unpopular move. For many of the EU companies involved in Iran, facing sanctions from the U.S. and losing access to the U.S. market is a non-starter, even if they can recoup some of the damages later.

The U.S. and EU see this issue so differently mainly because of energy. The EU imported 37 percent of its natural gas and 30 percent of its petroleum oil from Russia last year. A 2014 European Parliament report concluded that Iran is “a credible alternative to Russia” for both natural gas and oil, and the EU has been pursuing that alternative with gusto ever since the JCPOA was signed. Iran has the second-largest natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world – and unlike Russia, which frequently uses its energy supplies as leverage, Iran has no objectives or ambitions in Europe except to make money.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Iran
« Reply #959 on: August 13, 2018, 08:29:46 AM »


Iran has purged parts of its government in response to domestic unrest. Nearly 70 people, including members of the Tehran province city councils and the mayoral office in Zabol, were arrested over the weekend for corruption, smuggling and hoarding of goods. At least 100 more officials have been prohibited from leaving the country. The supreme leader and the minister of intelligence have come out in support of the purge. It would be tempting to dismiss this particular anti-corruption drive were it not for the scale. Earlier firings could be excused as a capitulation to the demands of protesters. The government’s actions over the weekend are clearly more proactive than that.
The purges alone won’t be enough to spare Iran from U.S. sanctions. Japan, South Korea and the European Union have ordered their banks to suspend activity in Tehran. China and Russia, however, are still open for business. Iran plans to cut the sale price of its oil to Asian markets in September, closer to the imposition of new sanctions that will target the energy sector, to attract business, but that may be too little, too late.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
The Shah's son writes in the WSJ: Iranians want our country back
« Reply #960 on: August 16, 2018, 10:25:36 AM »


Iranians Want Our Country Back
Civil disobedience, public demonstrations and strikes aim at a systemic collapse of the regime.
Protesters at Tehran’s grand bazaar, June 25.
By Reza Pahlavi
Aug. 15, 2018 6:57 p.m. ET

The Iranian people have a message: We want our country back.

As cities across Iran erupted in another round of nationwide protest against the Islamic Republic, a young man named Reza Otadi joined his neighbors on the streets of Karaj, northwest of Tehran. They shouted “Death to the dictator!” and “Clerics get lost!” Shortly thereafter, Reza was identified by the regime’s domestic-security apparatus. On the evening of Aug. 3, as he made his way home, regime security forces shot and killed him. He was 26.

We know only so much about Reza Otadi. We know that he was a shopkeeper and that he was engaged to be married. We know from his Twitter profile that he tweeted only once, on May 22: “#IranRegimeChange—for freedom, a better life, tranquillity, emotional and economic security, and laughter without stress.” In this solitary, somber yet resolute tweet, Otadi captured the sentiments of an entire nation. Perhaps he knew, and saw no need to say anything more.

The protests in Iran are the latest chapter in an almost 40-year struggle. They are not just about economic grievances—“the price of eggs,” as some regime sympathizers have said. They are much broader in their scope and deeper in their objective than any single economic or social issue.

The national protest movement building in Iran recognizes and decries the social, political and economic injustices of life under the Islamic Republic. It understands them as symptoms of a single disease—the Islamic Republic, both its ideology and its structure. The Iranian protest movement targets the disease, not merely its symptoms, whether corruption or repression. My compatriots seek to put an end to the Islamic Republic not only because it is authoritarian, corrupt and incompetent, but because it is un-Iranian and anti-Iranian.

From its inception, the regime has sought to subvert Iran by transforming it from a nation into a cause. It changed our centuries-old flag. It discourages or prevents the teaching of our literature and history. It denies our people the right to gather for special occasions at the tombs of their heros, such as Cyrus the Great and Ferdowsi. Under its castelike system of religious and gender apartheid, it assigns each Iranian a particular legal and social status, with women and religious minorities occupying second, third or lower degrees of citizenship. In a land famous for its poetry and music, it has censored and at times brutally suppressed both.

Iranians have had enough. In the streets and across social media, the popular chant, “We will reclaim Iran even if we must die to do so,” reverberates with urgency and determination. Iranians want liberty, justice and opportunity, but they also want their country to enjoy dignity, pride and respect. They want to retake their rightful place among the community of nations. They want to be known and admired for the great cultural and scientific contributions of their ancient civilization. They want to be sought out by other countries as trusted friends and partners as they take charge of their own country and lead it into a new chapter of history. In short, my compatriots want to reclaim Iran from the Islamic Republic.

In February, the regime “celebrated” its 39th anniversary, never less popular or more in crisis. It faces multiple existential challenges simultaneously, all of its own creation: an economy in disarray, widespread environmental devastation, defections from the security forces, unprecedented nationwide protests and labor strikes, and, most significantly, an increasingly fearless population engaging in daily acts of resistance and rejection.

Like many authoritarian regimes, the Islamic Republic rules in fear of the people. It has responded to the latest wave of protests as it often does: by insulting, threatening, jailing, torturing and killing innocent Iranians. It has also slowed or shut off internet and telephone services in Tehran, Karaj, Qom and other cities in an effort to prevent the public from coordinating and from sharing their struggle, and the regime’s brutal response, with the outside world.

For decades I have advocated the establishment of a secular democracy in Iran. I have said that the path toward that goal begins with acknowledgment of two fundamental truths: that the Islamic Republic poses an existential threat to Iran and its people, and that the Islamic Republic cannot be reformed. This path demands civil disobedience, public demonstrations and national strikes aimed at a systemic collapse of the regime. That is the direction of events in Iran today.

After the regime ends, this path must continue with free and fair elections for a constitutional assembly. Ultimately it must arrive at a national referendum on the establishment of a secular democracy designed to safeguard each citizen’s human rights.

My life’s mission is not to assume a personal leadership role in the future state; it is, and has been for more than 39 years, to serve as a source of hope, a voice for unity, and an instrument of change for the Iranian people. Once my compatriots have reached the milestone of a national referendum—once the Iranian people have the chance to select, for the first time, the leaders of their choosing—my mission will be fulfilled.

Like the revolutionaries who founded the United States of America, Reza Otadi harbored aspirations for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” His crime was protesting peacefully for those aspirations. Like countless others who have challenged the Islamic Republic during its almost four decades in power, he died for them. His example lays bare the essence of the Iran protests. Iran is replete with millions of Reza Otadis, and I am certain that they will soon reclaim our country and rebuild it.

Mr. Pahlavi is the eldest son of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and an advocate of secular democracy for Iran.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: No relief for Iran
« Reply #963 on: October 15, 2018, 12:12:44 PM »
No relief for Iran. The domestic unrest that has plagued the government in Tehran appears to be getting worse. Over the weekend, teachers from at least 21 cities across the country announced they would go on strike to protest low salaries and poor living conditions. Meanwhile, in western Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps continues to clash with Kurdish rebels. But perhaps more concerning are the reports that the IRGC was connected to the Sept. 22 attack in Ahvaz. (The Islamic State and Arab separatists have both claimed responsibility for the attack.) Given all the domestic pressures already on the regime, any cracks in the military are extremely problematic and pose a high risk of the government’s downfall.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
WSJ: A Swift Iran decision
« Reply #964 on: October 17, 2018, 11:53:13 AM »
A Swift Iran Decision
Iranian banks have to be expelled from the global financing network.
122 Comments
By The Editorial Board
Updated Oct. 17, 2018 8:34 a.m. ET
The logo of global secure financial messaging services cooperative Swift.
The logo of global secure financial messaging services cooperative Swift. Photo: Chris Helgren/Reuters

Another trans-Atlantic showdown is looming as the Trump Administration prepares its next tranche of financial sanctions on Iran, and the puzzle is why Europe keeps backing itself into a corner. Brussels and European Union states seem ready to stage a battle with Washington over an obscure but important financial-service network—against Europe’s own interests.

The looming brouhaha concerns Swift, the Belgium-based cooperative that manages the global system that banks use to communicate with each other for cross-border transactions. The Trump Administration will soon lay out its plans for financial sanctions on Tehran to take effect in November, as Washington reintroduces sanctions lifted under the Obama Administration’s 2015 nuclear deal. One question is whether the new sanctions include Swift.
Potomac Watch Podcast
Elizabeth Warren's Ancestry; Racial Preferences at Harvard

They will have to in order to be effective, because cutting Iran off from Swift’s services is one of the best ways to ensure that financial sanctions bite. Were Swift to sever ties with Iranian banks, Iranian companies and financial institutions would struggle to transfer money to and from the rest of the world.

Alternatives exist, but none offer Swift’s global reach or security. Europe’s much-vaunted “special-purpose vehicle” for trading around U.S. financial sanctions, announced last month, is expected to be little more than a glorified barter arrangement with limited scope.

Swift is particularly prone to U.S. pressure because the American financial system looms so large in the world. Swift’s board includes representatives of European and American banks, and many messages across its network travel to or from the U.S. Some Europeans believe Washington wields too much influence over a network they think should operate on a multilateral consensus like a financial EU.

Swift cooperated with the U.S. against Iran from 2012-2016 when the Obama Administration sought to pressure the mullahs. But Swift officials say Europe and the U.S. agreed on that policy. Now they say they’re being coerced by the U.S. without European assent.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas recently floated the idea that Europe could develop its own messaging system as an alternative to Swift, in part to undermine Washington’s ability to impose financial sanctions. China and Russia would be delighted to have an alternative that let them avoid U.S. influence.

Swift officials say the U.S. should worry that an alternative would undermine Swift’s ability to help the U.S. and Europe monitor terror transactions. But terrorists already know to avoid Swift and use other ways to finance their operations. In any case, an alternative would be difficult to make work given the expansive reach of U.S. institutions and the dollar in global finance.

Brussels also has passed a “blocking statute” making it illegal for European companies to comply with U.S.-imposed sanctions. This could be used to lean on Swift to ignore a Washington ban on doing business with Iran. But most European companies have already made clear that they will choose doing business with the U.S. over Iran.

On Tuesday, 30 policy experts and former U.S. officials urged the Trump Administration to include Swift in sanctions. The statement’s signers include former Sen. Joe Lieberman and former national security advisers Richard Allen and Robert McFarlane.

Despite the discord over the nuclear deal, America and Europe share many common interests on Iran and global financial flows. Those include shared concerns over Iran’s ballistic-missile program, which isn’t covered by the 2015 deal, Tehran’s regional meddling, and sunset clauses in the Obama agreement.

European governments are also increasingly concerned about global money laundering and other illicit money flows. Preserving Swift as the main global financial-messaging system is as much in Europe’s interest as America’s. U.S. sanctions that bring Tehran back to the table to address the gaping holes in the 2015 deal are good for Europe and the U.S., and Swift can help toward that goal.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: US Sanctions squeezing IRGC, possible effects in Syria
« Reply #965 on: October 18, 2018, 08:55:58 AM »
More Iran sanctions. The United States recently levied yet another round of sanctions against Iran, this time targeting a financial network accused of funding the Basij force, a paramilitary unit within the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The idea is to deny money to the IRGC, which has extensive interests in virtually all sectors of the Iranian economy. But there may be an ulterior motive. The Trump administration is concurrently developing a new plan to dislodge Iranian forces from Syria. If Iran doesn’t have the money to support foreign intervention, then that would save the U.S. the trouble of violating its own terms for using force in Syria, or so the thinking goes. How this will assist the fight against jihadists or remove longtime Iranian ally Bashar Assad from power is anyone’s guess. Still, it’s a low-cost, mostly consequence-free and politically anodyne policy to pursue ahead of midterm elections.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Stratfor: latest sanctions against Iran cast a wide net
« Reply #966 on: October 18, 2018, 09:10:40 AM »
second post

U.S.: The Latest Sanctions Against Iran Cast a Wide Secondary Net


The United States is deepening its efforts to contain Iran's regional influence and weaken its government, and the main tool in its arsenal is economic sanctions. Its latest round of secondary sanctions on Iran-linked entities strikes at companies that even have tenuous links to the main target and threatens to implicate companies that do business with Iran in any way.

See Iran's Arc of Influence

What Happened

The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned 20 Iranian companies and financial institutions and reclassified nine more as Specially Designated Global Terrorist entities subject to secondary U.S. sanctions. While the Treasury Department's imposition of sanctions on Iran is nothing new, the nuances of this latest move mark a significant escalation in U.S. strategy. The 20 businesses are tied to the Bonyad Taayon Basij network, which has established a number of shell companies in Iran's auto, mining, metals and banking sectors to mask ownership as a way to shield itself from sanctions. OFAC now claims that the companies in this network have dealings across the Middle East and Europe that make them worthy targets. The critical difference between this set of sanctions and earlier ones is that the penalized organizations have multiple — in the most extreme case, seven to eight — degrees of separation from the terrorist entity, which is the Basij or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Why It Matters

The shift in OFAC guidelines presents a nightmare for corporate compliance officers trying to practice due diligence in monitoring any links to Iranian entities that could be ensnared in a U.S. sanctions net several transactions down the line. The increasingly hard-line and unilateralist approach to U.S. secondary sanctions policy comes as the European Union is still trying to navigate a web of legal complications in setting up a special-purpose vehicle (SPV) to maintain financial transactions with Iran. OFAC's more stringent guidelines will only further hinder those efforts. Moreover, targeting more reputable Iranian entities such as the privately owned Parsian Bank, the sixth-largest company in Iran, further tightens Iran's ability to maintain financial links for basic humanitarian trade. The White House insists that it is maintaining humanitarian carve-outs in its sanctions against Iran, but the International Court of Justice has sounded the alarm that the current direction of the restrictions could amount to a violation of international law. The White House, however, appears to be less concerned about the humanitarian repercussions of sanctions this time around since a big component of its strategy is to create a groundswell of public dissent across Iran that will either coerce it to negotiate on U.S. terms or drive the country toward regime change.

The OFAC expansion also comes as Iran's political institutions are debating financial reforms that aim to remove it from the international Financial Action Task Force's blacklist and facilitate its financial dealings with willing trading partners. However, if OFAC substantially raises the risk for the European Union and other entities in trying to circumvent a wide U.S. sanctions net, Iranian politicians' motivation to complete the reforms could wane. As a result, Iran will have far fewer options to maintain trade links with the outside world than they did during the last big sanctions wave in 2012 under U.S. President Barack Obama. In addition, the outcome of an internal White House debate over whether to move forward in sanctioning SWIFT, the global financial messaging service, is another potential pressure point that could dry up Iran's external financial links.

Other current and potential sanctions targets of the United States, including China and Russia, will be monitoring the precedent closely as Washington works to sharpen its secondary sanctions tools.

Background

As an illustration of how the latest OFAC sanctions work, take Iran's Sina Bank and Parsian Bank. They are being targeted for providing services to Andisheh Mehvaran Investment Co., which was designated because it is controlled or owned by Iran Zinc Mines Corp., which was designated because it is controlled or owned by Taktar Investment Co., which was designated because it is controlled or owned by Technotar Engineering Co., which was designated because it is controlled or owned by Mehr Eqtesad Iranian Investment Co., which was designated because it is controlled or owned by Mehr Eqtesad Bank, which was designated because it is  controlled or owned by Bonyad Taavon Basij, which was designated because it is controlled or owned by the Basij, which was designated because it is controlled or owned by the IRGC — the last two of which are the core sanction targets for terrorist activities. This amounts to seven degrees of separation between the Iranian bank and the Basij and eight for the IRGC. This effectively sends a message that any financial links with Iran could face secondary U.S. sanctions.

Key Dates

FATF deadline: The Financial Action Task Force is meeting for its regular, plenary meeting from Oct. 14 to 19. By passing legislation to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism, Iran has been working to remove itself from the task force's blacklist and stave off the reimposition of countermeasures. Four pieces of legislation were passed by parliament before the plenary session; three of those have been approved by the Guardian Council, but only one has been completed.

Nov. 4: U.S. sanctions against Iran's energy sector and central bank transactions are reimposed.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Will China comply with US sanctions on Iran?
« Reply #967 on: October 26, 2018, 09:13:59 AM »
Will China comply with U.S. sanctions on Iran? The Wall Street Journal reports that China’s largest oil refiners, China National Petroleum Corp. and China Petrochemical Corp., have yet to purchase oil from Iran for the month of November. The news seems to corroborate an earlier report from Reuters that said the Bank of Kunlun, allegedly a financial conduit between China and Iran, will cease to accept yuan-denominated Iranian payments starting Nov. 1, according to unnamed sources. If true, China’s compliance is a huge concession. The country imports substantial amounts of oil – from Iran alone it imports roughly 600,000 barrels per day. Abiding by U.S. sanctions means China will have to spend a premium on its imports. It would also put China in the better graces of the U.S. than India, which Washington has been courting for a stronger relationship all year. This is one of the clearest indicators yet that Beijing is as willing to offer concessions as it is eager to find leverage against the U.S. to ease the pressure on Chinese exports.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1693
    • View Profile
Chabahar Port
« Reply #968 on: October 28, 2018, 07:07:37 PM »


This is an interesting picture, with 4 points worth commenting.

1. Shows CPEC in Pakistan, the one belt one road network being build by China. This is turning out to be a disaster for Pak. The terms of the 45-60 Billion $ loans are opaque, with rumors of a guaranteed 18-30% interest rate to China. China is building coal plants with imported Chinese labor, and imported coal. After getting their guaranteed loans, the electricity from those coal plants is too expensive and not competetive. The CPEC roads go through Balochistan and POK (Pak Occupied Kashmir, ie Indian claimed territory), which India does not support. Balochistan is in turmoil as the baloch dont like pakistanis. Furthermore there is no water in Balochistan, so all the investment there will come to naught. One year ago, the Pakis were thrilled about CPEC, now that they understand it, they want to get out. There is no way that Pak can pay the loans. China has a tendency to give loans and then if one cannot pay them, they occupy territory, e.g. in Humbatonta port in Siri Lanka.

2. The other important point is the Chabahar to Afghanistan rail road from Gwadar port. This pathway neutralizes any advantage that Pak may have had through CPEC. Pak overplayed their hand, by not allowing Afghan goods passage to India and vice-versa. If Pak had done that, they would be minting money and good will. Since India has spent a lot of money on it, they will not allow the CPEC project to succeed. So Pak is sitting on wasted resources. The Chabahar pathway does not go through rebel territory in Iran as opposed to CPEC which goes through Balochistan, where Baloch attacks on CPEC are quite a daily occurrence.

3. India's trade in oil with Iran and India's support for Chabahar port. Iran and India have had historically and culturally good relations with Iran. I believe the US supported the Chabahar port over CPEC to stick it to the pakis and Chinese. I think the US will grumble about India's trade with Iran and will make a show and threaten sanctions, but will not do anything about it, because in the scheme of things India-US are working very closely in the Indo-Pacific to counter China, which is the real game. Iran is just a side show, the US will punish Iran with sanctions, but not via India. This is the same reason that US will threaten sanctions over India's purchase of S-400 missiles from Russia, but will do nothing. India purchases a lot of weapons from the US, and they will not want to mess that relationship by applying sanctions on India. India-Iran can trade in Rupees and Rials, I have also heard of Gold being used for payments, bypassing SWIFT.

4. Pak is in discussions with the IMF, they have a long history of being bailed out by the IMF again and again. There is no way they can pay for anything through CPEC. Pak is a beggar nation, IMF has demanded they devalue the pak rupee (PKR) to 150 PKR/$, disclose business terms with the CPEC agreement (which is anathema to Pak). If they get a bail out, inflation will spike in Pak. They really need to be put out of their misery. So last week they begged the Saudis for dollars who obliged, but will likely demand their pound of flesh. It could be supplying cannon fodder in Yemen, or perhaps Pak recognizing Israel (Supposedly, with a push coming from Trump, to improve Saudi optics with the Khashoggi case). Yesterday, a civilian Israeli plane landed in Pak for 10 hrs, and the rumor mill is buzzing.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2018, 07:38:52 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #969 on: October 28, 2018, 07:52:19 PM »
Very impressive analysis YA, thank you very much.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Europe souring on Iran?
« Reply #970 on: November 21, 2018, 04:35:43 AM »
Europe may be souring on Iran. On Monday, EU foreign ministers signaled support for EU-wide sanctions on Iranian intelligence officials following failed assassination attempts against Iranian exiles in France and Denmark earlier this year. This doesn’t mean that the EU will throw its support behind the broad U.S. oil sanctions on Iran, but it would be a notable show of European unity. (Just last March, the United Kingdom, France and Germany failed to gain unanimous backing for sanctions aimed at curbing Iran’s ballistic missile program.) And it could halt the progress the European Union has made on designing bartering mechanisms that would allow European firms to circumvent U.S. sanctions. Energy markets are already behaving as if this move will bolster the U.S. effort to choke off Iranian crude exports, with WTI and Brent futures jumping Monday, ending more than a month of price declines. (Reports that the U.S. is preparing to designate Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism will likely add to the effect.) And if Europe stops serving as a lifeline for Iran, it would increase the likelihood that Tehran pulls out of the 2015 nuclear deal, by which Iran continues to abide, according to an IAEA report from last week.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Iran will bear weight of sanctions
« Reply #971 on: November 21, 2018, 05:23:44 AM »
Second post

    Iran's economy will enter a sharp recession in 2019, but Tehran can capably manage any political fallout that may follow.
    Economically, Iran will emphasize prudent management and protection of precious hard currency reserves while boosting domestic investment through its public sector and trying to continue financial sector reform.
    While it focuses on economic survival in the face of sanctions, however, Iran will make only limited progress on much-needed longer-term reforms, such as strengthening the private sector.
    Iran's squabbling political factions will try to take advantage of the economic environment, but in the face of the crisis, they will work together to prioritize regime preservation.

Editor's Note: This assessment is part of a series of analyses supporting Stratfor's upcoming 2019 Annual Forecast. These assessments are designed to provide more context and in-depth analysis on key developments in the coming year.

A year ago on Iran's black market, one U.S. dollar would bring 41,000 Iranian rials. Today, it would take more than three times as many rials, about 125,000, to buy a dollar. One year ago, Iran was free to export as much oil as it was capable of producing. Today, the United States has reapplied sanctions related to both Iran's oil exports, which provide about a third of government revenue, and its financial dealings. And while the White House has granted sanctions waivers to a few of Iran's oil customers, the waivers are only temporary, ensuring that Iranian oil exports will fall further in 2019.

To put it bluntly, 2019 will be disastrous for Iran's economy, perhaps even precipitating significant economic and social unrest, much like the start of 2018. But while the Iranian economy will bend under the weight of sanctions, they will not break the Islamic republic. Iran's leadership has a long history of dealing with sanctions and economic isolation, and 40 years of practice has made the government particularly adept at survival.

The Big Picture

Iran currently faces sanctions as painful as any that it has ever experienced, but the country's tolerance for economic pain remains high. So while the pressure of sanctions will eventually force Iran to negotiate with the United States, it will not feel the need to do so in 2019. But to cope, Tehran has chosen insulating its economy from sanctions over continuing overdue reforms, leaving many of the economy's long-term economic issues unresolved.

See Iran's Arc of Influence

A Long History of Economic Pressure

Iran has faced some level of sanctions since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 spawned the lengthy hostage crisis that led the United States to break off most economic ties and implement sanctions. Over time, the U.S. sanctions have become increasingly complex, and increasingly effective at disrupting the Iranian economy. When Iran's fledgling nuclear program was uncovered, sanctions intensified correspondingly, culminating with the United States and the European Union piling on particularly debilitating penalties in 2012. Those penalties sent the Iranian economy into a tailspin, driving the growth in its real gross domestic product down by 7.7 percent.

But even that sanctions-spawned economic collapse was not enough to bring Iran to its knees for a few reasons that apply to its current situation as well. First, Iran had become adept at managing U.S.-imposed sanctions by diversifying its ties to economies beyond the West, including Russia's, China's and India's. Russia and China in particular lent Iran political support in helping it develop its economy to operate outside the U.S.-dominated global financial system. Second, while oil exports were an important source of government revenue, the country's economy possessed enough diversity to be able to withstand short-term pressure. Third, in the face of the sanctions by a hostile power, the government's appeals to Iranian nationalism bolster support among the populace. And finally, rather than the chance that the sudden onslaught of sanctions will send the country into an economic tailspin, it is Iran's larger structural economic deficiencies that pose its biggest economic risk. Sanctions can increase the economic drag caused by its structural problems, but Iran has thus far coped by taking pragmatic steps to work around sanctions pressure and offering piecemeal concessions to reduce their impact.

Dealing with a Financial Crisis

Sanctions will force Iran to continue to focus on coping with a financial crisis in 2019. The rial's collapse in value has already caused inflation to steadily creep upward. The International Monetary Fund estimates it could approach a 40 percent annual rate by the end of the year, a stark reversal of President Hassan Rouhani's achievement of reducing inflation to below 10 percent in both 2016 and 2017, its lowest levels in 25 years. The increasing scarcity of hard currency in Iran and the continued outflow of cash from the country will force the government to enact strict capital controls. For example, Iran is demanding that exporters repatriate foreign cash they receive in payment for goods in a more timely fashion. In addition, the country will implement other controls designed to keep supplies of hard cash and gold inside the country and under the control of the government, including instituting limits on the amount of gold or cash that individuals are allowed to possess.

A graphic showing the value of Iran's currency under the weight of U.S. sanctions.

These rules will be backed by stiff penalties. In August, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei authorized the creation of special courts to deal with financial crimes. Several Iranians already have been sentenced to death for financial crimes. Sentences were carried out Nov. 14 for two of them, including a currency trader dubbed the "Sultan of Coins," who had been determined to have possession of two tons of gold. The imperative for Iran to maintain the rial's value and control as much of its hard currencies as possible is clear: While Iran possesses more than $130 billion worth of foreign exchange reserves, sanctions have put much of that off-limits to the government, with less than $50 billion thought to be accessible.

Iran must maintain its supply of dollars and euros, which allows it to keep the official (and subsidized) currency exchange rate low enough to control prices of essential goods and staples like medical supplies, food imports and the like, and reduce the danger that rising costs will trigger widespread unrest. After all, memories of the famed "chicken crisis" of 2012 are still fresh in Iran. In July of that year, the price of chicken tripled, driving street protests that shook the government to the point that it even limited the broadcast of images of chickens for fear of further inflaming social unrest.

Iran's economic growth strategy — and, for that matter, its strategy to limit economic contraction — relies heavily on two things: continuing oil exports and fighting unemployment by providing jobs in the public sector (much of which is funded by oil revenue). Iran will need to do everything it can in 2019 to maximize oil sales and the revenue they provide (or, more likely, the inflows of bartered goods that its oil customers provide in exchange). While the United States has granted sanctions waivers to some of Iran's oil clients, it has required most to set up escrow accounts so that cash from oil sales does not flow back to Tehran. That structure will force Iran to essentially convert its oil revenue directly into goods imports. Iran, of course, will continue its efforts to smuggle oil in exchange for hard currency as it did when it faced similar sanctions.

Despite its efforts, Iran's oil income will remain severely restricted. While bartering will be somewhat useful in providing Iran with the goods it needs, the country would prefer to have access to its cash and to the global financial system. But the United States has forced the SWIFT system that facilitates international transactions to cut off most Iranian banks, leaving only a few connected to process humanitarian-related trade, such as for food and medical imports. It's not likely that Iran will gain greater access to the global financial system, even if the European Union follows through with a promise to set up a special-purpose vehicle to circumvent U.S. sanctions for trade with Iran. Even if it materializes, that mechanism would be relatively ineffective because of compliance risk issues that will inhibit companies from participating lest they run afoul of the United States. Still, the ability to barter for industrial goods plus the limited SWIFT access will be important for Iran.

The Resistance Economy

Although the term was not coined until this decade, Iran's economic strategy since the revolution has been establishing what Khamenei calls a "resistance economy." To Iran, that would be a self-sufficient one capable of withstanding international threats and pressure. This theme will be a key part of Iran's economic strategy next year.

Iran will be forced to rely more heavily on its domestic companies, particularly ones owned by the state and parastatal entities like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). When Rouhani was re-elected in 2017, he called for the IRGC to get out of business, but its companies — including construction giant Khatam al-Anbia — will be a crucial part of Iran's domestic development strategy as it tries to weather the renewed oil sanctions. Iran will rely on investment by bonyads — state-backed charitable trusts — and the public sector to offset lost foreign investment and to maintain some economic activity in key sectors.

One bright aspect of the sanctions, at least for Iranian economic restructuring, will be the reduced demand for investment by the oil sector as compared with what it would need to maintain production growth or high production levels. The government will therefore be able to shift money away from oil (including what it would spend on the associated costs of supplies such as steel and concrete) to either the export market or other industries where needed.

It will not be enough for Iran to develop a self-sufficient economy based on domestic industry, however, considering Iranian dependence on critical imported technologies. Iran does have a relatively robust auto-manufacturing sector, but it is not capable of producing many of the parts it uses in complex components such as engines and gearboxes, relying instead on imports. The scarcity of hard currency not reserved for food and medicine will make importing those parts difficult for Iran's industrial base. Moreover, the increasingly lopsided unofficial currency exchange rate — which those importers would use — is increasing the cost of manufacturing considerably. Tehran wants to fix prices of key industrial goods like cellphones and cars as much as possible to placate the powerful merchant and middle classes, meaning that manufacturers will feel the pinch.

Despite the measures it will take to protect its economy, Iran will enter a sharp recession in 2019, with gross domestic product expected to contract by about 3.6 percent next year.

Not only will Iran's economy continue to depend on foreign inputs, it is beset with many structural inefficiencies. Ironically, the renewed U.S. pressure will force Iran to respond by making legitimate structural reforms that will aid its economy in the long run. Even as former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's populist economic policies drained the country's reserves, Tehran implemented a number of reforms under his presidency to reduce public subsidies, remove price controls on goods like gasoline and privatize some key industries (though his political allies were largely the beneficiaries of those deals).

Considering Iran's previous actions under economic pressure, it can be expected to make wholehearted attempts at reforming some inefficiencies this time around. Unlike Ahmadinejad, who didn't value the advice of technocrats, Rouhani has tried to empower a team of economic experts consistently throughout his term. Even though his previous economic minister lost his job in October and the head of Iran's central bank was sacked over the summer, Rouhani has not replaced them with political appointees. Instead, he has used them as scapegoats, but allowed each to retain informal power behind the scenes while filling their positions with other technocrats.

One central focus of Rouhani's government has been on reforming Iran's messy banking sector. The estimated rate of nonperforming loans in the sector is a whopping 11.4 percent. And even that may belie the true problems with most loan portfolios because of the sector's lack of transparency. The reform push has several facets, including strengthening the central bank's powers to regulate the sector. Another controversial aspect has been passing four transparency laws to strengthen the country's compliance with international rules designed to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism in order to get off the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF's) blacklist.

Rouhani has expended a lot of political capital on the FATF issue, but Iran's hard-liners feel that reforming the terrorism-financing rules will limit Iran's ability to fund its allies abroad like Hezbollah. The moves to increase transparency also will run into resistance from Iran's politically connected elites, who will try to protect the patronage networks they have amassed.

The Economy May Break, but the Republic Will Not

Despite the measures it will take to protect its economy, Iran will enter a sharp recession in 2019, with gross domestic product expected to contract by about 3.6 percent next year. Due to perhaps more technocratic management by Rouhani's economic team, the economic decline in 2019 could be only half of what Iran experienced in 2012.

Nevertheless, the government will have to contend with several acute economic problems: rising rates of unemployment among both youths and the general workforce; growing food and medicine scarcity; and spiraling prices. But Tehran possesses sufficient means of political and social control to stave off disaster. There will be protests, including some that may be widespread and significant, but the state security apparatus has enough tools to deal with them so long as Iran's notoriously fragmented political leadership remains unified enough to protect the system. Among other levers, the government controls Iran's cyberspace and its media, has a near-monopoly on force, and can push ideological messages to shore up public support. Iranians themselves also have a high tolerance for privation: The older generation recalls the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, while the younger experienced sanctions-related difficulties in 2012-15. Their tolerance for hardship will reduce the political pressure that the hard economic times will bring. There would need to be prolonged economic decline to drive fragmentation in the political and security systems' cohesion.

While Iran's political system will remain united in the face of the threat, behind the scenes, its members will all be jockeying for power. Iran is at a crossroads politically and economically, and its political factions will push competing visions of the country's optimal path forward. Rouhani has tried to lead the country toward more economic engagement with the outside world. His fellow moderates and reformists want to continue down that path — and many of Iran's pragmatic conservatives, including potential presidential contender Ali Larijani, see merit in that position as well.

The political currents in 2019 will be influenced by Iran's conservative and moderate factions as they position themselves for 2020 parliamentary elections, where the reformists and moderates want to keep their gains, while Iran's conservatives want to make a comeback. The faction that makes the most gains in those elections will have a leg up in 2021 presidential elections, putting themselves in position to lead negotiations with the United States.

Between Sanctions and Reform

For 40 years, Iran's economic strategy and its political system has oscillated between circling the wagons to deal with economic crisis — many induced by sanctions — and strong pushes for wider structural economic and social reform. Iran has many long-term challenges ahead, including growing unemployment among youths and its highly skilled workforce. It also struggles with low female labor participation and an underdeveloped private sector.

But in times of crisis, Iran can only make so much progress on repairing its economic structure — and often reverts to past practices out of pragmatic need, as it is doing currently by empowering the public sector. While the short-term sanctions-induced crisis won't break the Iranian political system, continuing to push off solutions to long-term economic problems could.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19754
    • View Profile
Iran building nukes
« Reply #972 on: November 22, 2018, 05:03:57 AM »
despite obama's / Kerry's brilliant statesmanship that was to save us all:

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-secret-plans-build-five-nuclear-warheads/

This is a shock  :-o  ( :wink:)
As Dough might say :

" who could have guessed?"
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 08:58:50 AM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Iran "never sought wiping out any country"?!?
« Reply #976 on: December 24, 2018, 10:57:27 AM »


Iran tries to speak softly but doesn’t have a big stick. Iran, which has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, is changing its tone. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, claimed that Iran has “never sought wiping out any country,” a clear reference to Israel. He instead laid the blame on Saudi Arabia for trying to destroy Iran. The about-face in this statement is notable. It could be Iran’s attempt to redirect attention from its presence throughout the Middle East, or a sign that the myriad pressures it is facing internally and externally are beginning to have an effect on the way it feels it must present itself to the world. At the same time, the Iranian navy conducted an exercise that involved firing several rockets near the Strait of Hormuz, where the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier is currently conducting patrols.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: GPF: Iran "never sought wiping out any country"?!?
« Reply #977 on: December 24, 2018, 12:10:08 PM »


Iran tries to speak softly but doesn’t have a big stick. Iran, which has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, is changing its tone. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, claimed that Iran has “never sought wiping out any country,” a clear reference to Israel. He instead laid the blame on Saudi Arabia for trying to destroy Iran. The about-face in this statement is notable. It could be Iran’s attempt to redirect attention from its presence throughout the Middle East, or a sign that the myriad pressures it is facing internally and externally are beginning to have an effect on the way it feels it must present itself to the world. At the same time, the Iranian navy conducted an exercise that involved firing several rockets near the Strait of Hormuz, where the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier is currently conducting patrols.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/louis-farrakhan-chants-death-to-america-during-visit-to-iran/

"May America have a tired feeling?"

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Iran's budget
« Reply #978 on: December 27, 2018, 12:16:40 PM »
Iran’s predictable budget. President Hassan Rouhani has presented parliament with a $113 billion budget for next year, and it is very much a product of the times. U.S. sanctions, drought and poor living conditions are taking a toll on the economy. According to the Statistical Center of Iran, gross national product grew by just 0.3 percent in the first half of the year (totaling $374 billion), down from 5.6 percent the previous year. Agriculture and industry contracted, though oil and services grew slightly. Inflation stands between 18 percent and 35 percent, depending on which estimates you believe. Yet Rouhani vowed to maintain state subsidies for water, electricity, fuel, education and health, all of which will cost some $90 billion, and to increase the budget of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to $6 billion – a 26 percent rise. (Iran’s overall defense budget, however, will shrink by 27 percent.) But Rouhani’s appropriations make sense; cutting certain subsidies led to nationwide protests earlier this year, and the IRGC will be indispensable for keeping the peace in these dire economic circumstances.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Iran, Spengler
« Reply #979 on: December 31, 2018, 06:19:11 PM »
Curious about Spengler's work on another thread, this piece is loaded with facts and analysis about Iran:
http://www.atimes.com/article/iran-wrecked-economy-fund-war-syria/

From March 2017 but still very relevant with some adjustments for the time elapsed.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Re: Iran
« Reply #980 on: December 31, 2018, 10:01:31 PM »
Timely to bring this up from the Memory Hole!


bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Iranian Revolution and Its Legacy of Terrorism
« Reply #983 on: January 07, 2019, 06:53:02 AM »
https://www.lawfareblog.com/iranian-revolution-and-its-legacy-terrorism

"For the clerical regime in Iran, support for terrorism ...was often strategically self-defeating."


I wish our adversaries would act in their own people's best interest.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19441
    • View Profile
Re: Iran, terror in Argentina
« Reply #984 on: January 16, 2019, 06:28:20 PM »
Washington Times:  Strange story of strange happenings in Argentina that start with terror out of Iran:

https://outline.com/UddTGs

For more than a decade, Alberto Nisman had been investigating the worst terrorist attack ever committed on Argentine soil: The 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. Eighty-five people were killed and hundreds injured.

Four years ago this week, the federal prosecutor was putting the finishing touches on a report that would accuse former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and a dozen others of helping cover up the Islamic Republic of Iran’s responsibility for the attack.
...
Long before implicating Argentine officials in a conspiracy, Mr. Nisman had found solid evidence that officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran planned and financed the AMIA bombing, and that Hezbollah, its terrorist proxy, carried it out.
...
Mrs. Kirchner says on tape: “We have to kill him.”
---------------------

[Besides militant anti-semitism] Why is Iran committing terror attacks in Argentina?  Why is the former President covering it up?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 06:40:32 PM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Iran: Retrospective on a Revolution
« Reply #986 on: February 12, 2019, 08:10:25 AM »



Iran: Retrospective on a Revolution

A look back at the 1979 revolution that shaped the Iran of today.

Xander Snyder |February 11, 2019

What makes a revolution? Mass dissatisfaction with the existing order certainly plays a role, but anger is only the first ingredient. Iran’s successful 1979 revolution, which overthrew Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was the result of a confluence of factors. The populace resented the regime’s political repression and its modernization reforms that left many impoverished and displaced. The shah was widely perceived as a Western puppet installed after the ouster of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. And, critically, Iran’s clerics wanted to establish a modern-day Islamic republic. Today, Iran is facing threats from all directions and may be approaching the edge of a precipice. There are echoes of 1979 in today’s crisis, but there are significant differences, too. On the 40th anniversary of the Islamic revolution, we take a look back – and see what 1979 can teach us about Iran today.

1979

A driving force of Iranians’ anger in 1979 was the fallout from the shah’s modernization reforms. The shah had two key motivations for these reforms: to weaken power relations and to appease the United States – both in a bid to hold onto power.

The economic reforms, designed to jump-start rapid economic development, promoted large-scale enterprises that could both compete internationally and generate surpluses of agricultural products at home. The shah’s government expropriated landlords’ holdings and redistributed them to peasants. This model was instituted at the expense of power structures that had bound laborer to landlord in a nearly feudal relationship. The landlords were not the only elite class he sought to weaken. The clergy, another center of power, was stripped of its adjudicating role in certain legal disputes that had remained outside the government’s purview. In both cases, the shah was working to minimize the chance that a powerful opposition could arise and challenge his relatively young regime.

The shah wasn’t the only one concerned about his grip on power. The U.S. – the shah’s key backer that had helped reinstall him after the coup against Mossadegh – feared that conditions in Iran were ripe for a communist revolution. (Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev at one point claimed that “the regime in Iran will fall like a rotten apple.”) The U.S. believed that if Iran could achieve rapid economic development, it would increase the standard of living and avoid a class-based revolution, and it pressed the shah to make changes.

The reforms backfired. The sudden fracture of traditional relationships and other rapid societal changes left so many lives in limbo that opposition sprung up simultaneously across many social strata. This made for a remarkable alliance that included the disenfranchised middle class, which despised the shah for disrupting their trade; rural Iranians, whose lives were upended by land reform and the expansion of cash economies; landlords, who were stripped of their property; academics and students, who saw the regime as oppressive and desired freedom of thought and expression; and the clergy, whose power was hobbled by the regime.

This formidable opposition began to coalesce around a shared goal: bringing down the shah. But a key question remained: Who would replace him? The answer came in the form of the ulema – the deeply respected Islamic scholars of religion and law. These scholars and clerics could unite the opposition under a religious cloak, binding together the disparate interests under a shared, righteous identity. Once the opposition was united, it was not long before the shah fell.

Iran Today

Forty years later, Iran is beset by familiar problems, chief among them a crumbling economy. The collapse of Iran’s currency, the rial, has driven up the cost of living and eroded the savings of the poor and middle class alike. It has made imported feed for livestock even more costly. And food has become so expensive that, according to reports that surfaced late last year, the government may have been subsidizing and rationing imported food. The financial system is riddled with nonperforming loans, and banks are struggling to find sources of funding to recapitalize.

(click to enlarge)

At the same time, drought affects 97 percent of the country, and severe drought affects 28 percent of the population, driving farmers and agricultural workers to urban areas in search of alternative livelihoods. People have blamed the government’s poor water management for exacerbating the problem. Moreover, in 2018 the regime faced large-scale, nationwide protests, in part over cuts to cash subsidies, the savings from which were used to fund Iran’s military operations abroad. (The subsidies were later reinstated to appease protesters.) Adding insult to injury, the U.S. reimposed sanctions on Iran last year, cutting its oil exports – one of the country’s main revenue streams – by over 50 percent, according to some estimates.

(click to enlarge)

As in the years preceding 1979, economic hardship is hitting a broad swath of Iran’s population. Everyone is hurting: farmers who can’t find water or pay for feed for livestock, merchants who can’t afford to import their products, and anyone whose savings to buy a car or house have been torpedoed by the failing currency. Even after a security crackdown and regime concessions quelled the early 2018 protests, demonstrations have regularly popped up across the country.

Iran’s economic situation has become so severe that its leadership is considering drastic measures. On Feb. 6, Iranian news website ISNA reported that Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted to implement “structural reforms” within the next four months. But when questions arose about what exactly these reforms would entail, the parliament’s public relations office quickly walked back the statement. Iran’s clerics, undoubtedly familiar with how the shah’s structural reforms infuriated the populace, know that such reforms can have unintended, uncontrollable consequences. Statements like Larijani’s, therefore, are dangerous. They raise expectations of real change, which could lead to disappointment and even anti-regime sentiment if the people don’t see substantial improvements in economic conditions.

Larijani’s announcement aside, it seems likely the regime is mulling more serious changes to pacify growing public discontent. After all, it’s harder to put down a revolution than to avoid one in the first place. The mere consideration of 1979-scale reforms indicates that the regime has to find options beyond just muddling through the status quo. Still, Iran today isn’t facing the same kind of pressure it had to cope with in 1979. There’s no powerful ally pushing for reform; the U.S. is still applying pressure, but no longer as an ally, and sanctions have failed to compel sweeping changes in Iran in the past. With more room to breathe than the shah had, the current regime will be able to dull the pain of reforms through a more gradual rollout, hoping to avoid antagonizing poor and rich, urban and rural all at once.

But structural reforms might also affect the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Upon ascending to power, the clergy established the IRGC, separate from the military’s chain of command, to safeguard the revolution and its ruling clerics. The IRGC controls a huge chunk of the economy (some estimates put it at one-third) and its members hold significant governmental leadership positions. It seems unlikely the government will confiscate the IRGC’s wealth, as the shah confiscated landowners’ holdings. But the regime has to perform a difficult balancing act with the budget: It must tighten its belt while still keeping the IRGC happy. Khamenei allowed the government to draw from the National Development Fund to keep defense spending high. (Notably, the NDF is a sovereign wealth fund meant to invest in projects with economic returns, such as infrastructure and oil sites. Its funds are not normally spent on defense.) The regime may also have to decrease its spending on engagements abroad; indeed, the budgetary squeeze is the main reason we expect Iran to pull back from Yemen and Syria in 2019. At the same time, Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani have called on the IRGC to give up some of its economic holdings, and the government arrested a dozen IRGC members and associates to force repayment of certain earnings. In response, the IRGC divested its shares in Iran’s telecom company. Still, these seem like token gestures; it’s unlikely Iran’s clerics would impinge on the IRGC’s power enough to anger the very force that ensures their survival.

Another Revolution?

Though protests continue, they lack a common purpose that brought together the 1979 revolutionary factions. But this doesn’t mean regime change is impossible. The IRGC is the most powerful organization in Iran, and in the event of a nationwide uprising with slogans like “down with the clerics,” it is the most capable entity to take advantage of and fill the resulting power vacuum. This would not amount to a social revolution of the sort seen in 1979, but a political revolution or coup d’etat that places the country under military control.

Iran does not seem to be on the verge of implosion, but its leaders are finding a shrinking number of solutions to Iran’s problems. Some of the few options that remain risk recreating the kind of opposition that led to the current regime’s ascendancy in the first place – a thought not lost on Khamenei. Iran’s leaders will likely continue to do what they do best – pound their chests, fire missiles and brag about the regime’s strength – while in private desperately trying to manage an economic transition that mollifies the Iranian public without destroying the regime itself.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: George Friedman: The Fall of the Shah, 40 years later
« Reply #987 on: February 12, 2019, 08:29:58 AM »
second post:

By George Friedman


The Fall of the Shah: 40 Years Later


The lessons learned through the collapse of his regime remain with us today.


Yesterday, on the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, we published an article explaining what the revolution can teach us about the economic and political problems facing Iran now. Today, I’d like to focus on the geopolitical implications of the revolution that saw the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It was a formidable time for the country, but the existing geopolitics of the region remained largely intact.

Most observers didn’t expect the shah to fall, although many claimed afterward that they had predicted it. The shah, who was essentially installed by the United States and Britain, was used as a bulwark of the American containment strategy. He unseated democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who the U.S. feared was aligned with the Soviets, and helped to block Soviet access to the Persian Gulf. He claimed to be the heir to the Iranian monarchy, but in reality, he sat on the throne because of a coup staged in 1925 by his father, Reza Shah Pahlavi, a military officer who himself had no connections to the long line of Persian monarchs.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi enjoyed immense wealth but left his people profoundly unsatisfied, both economically and spiritually. Emulating Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, his father had sought a secular, militarist and authoritarian path to modernization. Iran’s merchant class didn’t care much about the modernization plans and demanded a cut of the country’s wealth. The shah appeared indifferent to their plight.

Khomeini did not. He bound up the grievances of the merchants and the peasants with the tenets of Shiite Islam. While sitting in exile in Paris, he sent copies of his sermons and speeches in which he laid out how the shah had betrayed Islam and stolen the wealth of the nation through his lavish and lascivious lifestyle. Experts dismissed him and the growing dissatisfaction, believing that discontent was a constant reality in Iran and that the shah could contain it.

From the American point of view, the shah was a great comfort. In 1973, OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, had cut off oil shipments to the United States and parts of Europe. At the time, the Saudis were involved in the Arab-Israeli War and sought to outflank Soviet-sponsored Arab movements, especially Palestinian ones. The Soviets had supported coups in Iraq and Syria and backed paramilitary groups from both countries that were formally designed to confront Israel but were actually far more focused on Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia could be destabilized and the flow of oil interrupted, the Soviets thought, the position of the United States and Western Europe would be vastly weakened.

But the Saudis beat the Soviets to the punch by imposing an oil embargo themselves, undercutting Soviet attempts to make it appear that Saudi Arabia was an American puppet. The price of oil soared, creating a global recession. For the United States, the embargo was a mixture of pain and pleasure. On one hand, it caused massive economic disruption. On the other, it was Saudi Arabia, not a Soviet-linked Palestinian group, presiding over an Arab renaissance.

Iran, an enemy of Saudi Arabia, continued to ship oil to the West and made a lot of money in the process, which it largely spent on defense. There was serious talk of Iran becoming a regional hegemon and a nuclear power. The U.S. didn’t vigorously object to any of this. Given the global oil shortage, even after the embargo had ended, the United States had two overriding interests: to contain the Soviet Union and its apparent proxy, Iraq, and to ensure access to the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. intelligence worked closely with SAVAK, the shah’s intelligence service. The agency became Washington’s chief source of information on Iran – but SAVAK didn’t transmit any warning about the uprising to the U.S., either because it didn’t want to or because it didn’t anticipate the level of the unrest. Moreover, the United States’ other intelligence sources in Iran were part of the elite – the higher the sources, the greater the knowledge they can share, or so the U.S. believed. The problem, however, was that the elites were profiting from their ties to the regime and so were unlikely to reveal evidence of its demise until it was too late.

More important, it’s not easy to find sources who know when uprisings will occur and how they will turn out. The last people to know the shah was going to fall were those in the powerful classes, on whom the U.S. relied for intelligence. The idea that an extreme Shiite leader, sitting in exile in Paris, could manage an uprising against the man who could have brought the country to regional hegemony ran counter to all notions of power and continuity in Washington. President Jimmy Carter went out of his way to show his support for the shah almost to the end. It was inconceivable that the powerful would not remain powerful, or that a trained army could not defeat a rabble of protesters.

Those outside the government were equally deluded. Human rights groups loathed the shah for torturing and murdering his people. They made the same mistake that similar groups often make: believing that if a vile government is overthrown, what replaces it will be better. To appease his dissenters, Khomeini appointed a moderate, Mehdi Bazargan, as prime minister. But Bazargan’s liberal positions came into conflict with those of the radical Shiites who controlled the revolution, and his government fell.

The U.S. learned two lessons from this experience. First, you can’t rely solely on official intelligence sources to figure out what’s happening on the ground. Sometimes, the most valuable piece of intel is the reality staring you in the face. Second, geopolitics can be shifted but not obliterated. Iran under an Islamic regime was as hostile to Iraq and the Saudis and ambivalent toward the Kurds as it was under a secular one. Some things changed (Iran became hostile toward the United States), but other things stayed the same (its tensions with the Soviets continued). And as hostile as the U.S.-Iran relationship became, the U.S. continued to help supply Iran with weapons (hence the Iran-Contra affair). Geopolitically, regime change doesn’t alter as much as you might expect.

I’m still surprised at the failure of truly intelligent men and women in and out of government to understand that the shah was about to fall. In the 1980s, many of us were equally unable to grasp that the Soviets were hanging on for dear life. What is so obvious in retrospect was shrouded in the moment. But it shouldn’t have been. It was there for all to see, but recognizing it required looking behind the appearance of power and breaking the habit of believing that things always stay the same. The fall of the shah meant many things, but the failure to foresee his demise was ultimately about a lack of imagination and the inability to grasp that what was true yesterday might not be true tomorrow.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Europe shifting on Iran
« Reply #989 on: April 03, 2019, 09:41:35 AM »
Europe shifting on Iran? In a letter sent to U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, France, Germany and Britain warned that Iran’s recent development and launching of ballistic missiles are part of efforts to develop nuclear-capable missiles and violate a 2015 U.N. resolution. The statement is notable given Europe’s objection to the reimposition of U.S. sanctions on Iran. Diplomatic concerns over Iran’s missile program, which led to Washington’s decision to reapply sanctions in the first place, may be an indication that Europe is moving toward backing U.S. pressure on Iran.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: George Friedman: The New American Deployment
« Reply #991 on: May 07, 2019, 09:56:14 AM »

May 7, 2019
By George Friedman
The US, Iran and a New American Deployment


Iran’s influence has spread across the Middle East, and the U.S. is pushing back.


The United States has announced that it is deploying a carrier battle group and a bomber group to the Middle East. The reason given is that U.S. intelligence has detected an Iranian threat against U.S. and allied assets in the region. The United States has stated that it does not want war with Iran but is prepared to defend its interests in the region. It’s not clear what threat the U.S. detected, but since this force will take some time to reach the area, we can assume that the threat is not perceived to be imminent. And we will assume that the type of threat the U.S. believes is posed by Iran can be countered by the type and amount of air power deployed. But as with all such deployments, there are military, psychological and political components that must be understood.

Fallout From the U.S. Drawdown

Since the Obama administration, Washington’s strategy has been to recognize that the United States’ massive interventions in the Middle East failed to achieve their political goals but imposed substantial costs on the U.S. military and unbalanced the U.S. global posture. They may have disrupted al-Qaida but did not create effective regimes that could themselves suppress jihadist groups. The deployments were neither achieving their goal nor supporting U.S. strategies. Washington understood that withdrawing U.S. forces from the region would have political consequences but concluded that the threat posed by these consequences was acceptable.

The drawdown in U.S. forces redefined regional dynamics. The underlying strategic issue in the region has been the relationship between the Arab world, surrounding non-Arab states like Israel, Turkey and Iran, and great powers, like the United Kingdom and the United States. With the U.S. drawdown, the latter became less significant, while the relationships among the Arab and regional non-Arab powers became critical. At the time, the greatest threat came from Iran. For Iran, the Arab world was a historic threat but one that presented an immediate opportunity.


 

(click to enlarge)


The threat and opportunity coalesced in the rise of the Islamic State, which occurred in parallel with the slow drawdown of U.S. forces. Shiite-majority Iran saw the radical Islamic, Sunni and Arab force as a threat to its interests, and particularly to its historic interest in Iraq (of which the nearly decadelong war in the 1980s was just one manifestation). Tehran could not tolerate a jihadist government in Baghdad, so it intervened, organizing and leading the Iraqi army. Ironically, at that point, Iranian and American interests coincided; both simply wanted to break the Islamic State. Once IS was broken, the U.S. continued its drawdown in Iraq while Iran became an increasingly dominant political factor in an Arab country with a large Shiite population.

This created a much larger and historic opportunity for Iran. Iran’s strategy was to exploit the Arab world’s Sunni-Shiite divide, using its commonality with Shiites to challenge Sunni Arab powers – especially Saudi Arabia. In Lebanon, Iran had already established a powerful position through Hezbollah, a Shiite Arab force, and it saw another opportunity in Syria. While the Alawite regime of President Bashar Assad was secular, the Alawites are a Shiite sect with historical ties to Iran. During Syria’s civil war, Iran intensified its support of the Assad regime and aligned with the Russian intervention. Tehran and Moscow had a common interest in weakening U.S. power in the region and a shared strategy of using the U.S. drawdown to do so. Iran and Russia were historical antagonists, but both had an overriding interest to weaken the United States, psychologically if not in actual global power.

Pressure on Iran

Iran has therefore emerged as a major regional force. It is a dominant power in Iraq and Lebanon, a significant force in Syria and is deeply engaged in the war in Yemen. It is in the process of surrounding Saudi Arabia, a country with which it has fought wars going back to the 1960s; indeed, in many ways, the Saudi-Iranian enmity is the foundation of regional dynamics. In the past, as during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, U.S. strategy would be to use main force to block Iran. But the new American strategy has been careful to limit American exposure. Therefore, the U.S. now wants to rely on regional powers to act when it is in their interests to do so, rather than to take direct action itself.

The result has been the emergence of an Israeli-Saudi coalition that includes nations on the Persian Gulf’s western coast. This force is dangerous to Iran. Iran has power around Saudi Arabia, but it is what might be called thin power. With the exception of Lebanon, its power in other countries is neither deeply rooted nor indestructible; rather, it is spread dangerously wide and shallow. And the cooperation that has emerged between Israel and Arab, anti-Iran powers is substantial. In addition to the political power being exerted on Iran, it’s under pressure from the economic sanctions put in place by the United States putatively because of Iran’s nuclear program. In reality, the sanctions fit into the U.S. strategy of reducing military exposure while using diplomatic and economic means to exert pressure. Iran, whose economy had been getting weaker on its own, has been significantly affected by U.S. economic actions.

Iran’s expansion has come under significant pressure. The Israelis have been attacking Iranian positions in Syria, and Russia – ostensibly Iran’s ally but one that’s not eager to see a powerful Iran in the Caucasus – has not made any attempt to stop them. Pressure in Yemen has also placed Iran in a difficult position. Iran remains influential in Iraq, but everywhere else, its expansion has run into serious problems.

Still, Iran has countered where it can. Tehran has been supplying Hamas for some time, but the relationship between the Sunni and Shiite entities has been necessarily complex. (Though Hamas still managed a significant rocket attack on Israel this weekend.) One of Iran’s political options is to draw Israel into attacks on Gaza and Lebanon and portray itself as the only major power in the Muslim world challenging Israel while many others are effectively allied with Israel. The problem with that strategy is that it could also energize jihadists, and they are not Iran’s friends.

Therefore, Iran has to either fold some of its cards or somehow strike. The U.S. has warned that an attack against its allies is possible. The issue now for the U.S. is that, given Iran’s economic problems and the broad but weak hold it has in the region, the drawdown of U.S. forces makes it less risky for Iran to take action. At the same time, reinserting large numbers of ground forces is not something the U.S. wants to do.

Instead, we see the deployment of U.S. air power in the form of a carrier battle group and land-based powers. The U.S. is positioning itself so that, if Iran carries out some operation to stabilize its position, the U.S. can respond with airstrikes. The problem is that, in Syria and Lebanon, Israel is capable of managing air power, and strikes in Iraq will find few targets worthy of the force. What the United States has threatened, without making any explicit threats, is airstrikes on Iran itself if it carries out operations against U.S. allies. But the force the U.S. is deploying is not large enough for a sustained air campaign. So, the threat it’s making at this time is one of limited air action, with further action readily available.

The U.S. deployment is a test of two things. First, whether air power is a significant enough threat to force the Iranians to refrain from aggressive actions in the region. Second, whether it is enough to reverse the Iranian expansion. Iran is embroiled in domestic issues, and the Iranian public, rather than rallying to the flag, might see American airstrikes as yet another miscalculation by the Iranian government. I certainly don’t know which it will be, nor do I think the U.S. government knows. But I suspect that the Iranian government doesn’t know for sure either, and that might limit their risk-taking.

Behind all this is the fact that the U.S. intervention in the region ultimately failed to achieve its political goals and led to the drawdown of the U.S. main force, leaving only limited forces pursuing very limited ends. Without a global power imposing force, the region rearranged itself, as the U.S. had hoped it would, but the rearrangement put Iran in a powerful position, which the U.S. certainly didn’t want. Anticipating that Iran will try to strike against the new anti-Iran coalition, the U.S. is trying to reassert its power without redeploying ground forces. In the end, the Israelis, the Saudis and the (hitherto unmentioned) Turks have more at stake than the U.S. and therefore need to take the risks, either way.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Iran
« Reply #995 on: May 14, 2019, 08:56:29 AM »
All the news worth knowing today.


Things to target in the Middle East. Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen claim to have launched drone attacks on “vital Saudi installations” on Saudi Arabia’s 750 mile-long East-West Pipeline. Though they did not specify what they hit, Saudi Arabia said the targets were oil pumps. The attacks do not appear to have caused major damage, but the pipeline – the volume of which has already been reduced to an estimated 100,000 barrels per day, down from 500,000-700,000 bpd in recent years – was shut down temporarily just in case. The pipeline is strategically valuable; it allows Saudi oil exports to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf chokepoint that Iran has threatened to block repeatedly in the past. This, of course, comes a day after four oil tankers, two of them Saudi, were targeted near the strait in “sabotage attacks” believed to be involving small limpet mines. Late on Monday, unnamed U.S. officials told Reuters and the Wall Street Journal that Washington’s initial intelligence assessment puts the blame for the tanker incidents on Iran, though that has yet to be corroborated. There’s no evidence to suggest the pipeline and tanker incidents are connected. But, at minimum, it highlights just how many sensitive assets Iran and its allies could target in a conflict.

Iran makes an offer. The government in Tehran has expressed interest in a deal that would ease some of the pressure on its finances, Reuters reported, citing unnamed European diplomats. The rumor is that Iran would remain a party to the nuclear deal in exchange for being allowed to export 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. (Iran recently said it would abandon certain portions of the agreement.) Some Iranian officials have claimed that oil exports in May could drop to as low as 500,000 bpd, a substantial decline compared to its 2018 peak of 2.8 million bpd. India, which is one of Iran’s biggest buyers and one of the main reasons the U.S. issued waivers in the first place, reportedly only had one refinery take up Saudi Arabia’s offerof additional supply for the month of June.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
GPF: Sabotage in the Persian Gulf?
« Reply #996 on: May 14, 2019, 09:14:43 AM »
second post

By Xander Snyder


The US, Iran and ‘Sabotage’ in the Persian Gulf


Four oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz were targets of “sabotage” attacks from unknown sources.


A week after the United States deployed an aircraft carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Middle East to counter an unspecified Iranian threat, four oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz were targeted by a “sabotage” attack from unknown sources. Two of the ships were Saudi, one of which was en route to pick up oil and deliver it to the U.S. The other two were Norwegian and Emirati. All of the ships were reportedly sabotaged near the Fujairah Emirate, which houses a refueling hub south of the strait on the Gulf of Oman. None of the ships sank, and no individuals have been reported killed or injured.


 

(click to enlarge)


So far, little is known about the attacks. The Norwegian ship, the Andrea Victory, was reportedly “struck by an unknown object,” according to the ship’s operator, and video footage shows a hole in its hull near the waterline. A reporter from Sky News Arabia, a partly Emirati-owned news agency, captured video footage of the Al Marzoqah, one of the Saudi ships, that showed no identifiable damage. Separately, Lebanese news channel Al Mayadeen reported that seven Emirati oil tankers were damaged in an explosion at the port of Fujairah, a charge that was subsequently taken up in Iranian media and that the United Arab Emirates denied. Neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE has blamed Iran publicly. The UAE said it has requested support from a team of U.S. investigators and that it will refrain from making any conclusions until the investigation is complete.
The initial assessment from the U.S. investigators, according to American officials who spoke with CBS News on Monday, was that Iran or its proxies were behind the attacks. The team hasn’t reached a final conclusion yet, but Iran would seem to be the most likely suspect. It has, after all, threatened for years to take action in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has also launched sabotage and asymmetric attacks against more powerful adversaries before. By demonstrating the vulnerability of shipping in the Persian Gulf, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could beat its chest without seriously escalating an already tense situation to the point that the U.S. would need to get involved.

At the same time, it’s not entirely clear what Iran would gain from such low-grade attacks. If anything, Iranian leaders appear to have been spooked by the U.S. deployment last week. In a closed-door session with Iran’s Parliament over the weekend, IRGC chief Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami said that, while Iran is prepared for war with the U.S., it doesn’t expect war.

(Unsurprisingly, Iranian leaders certainly aren’t claiming responsibility for the attack and have called the incident “regretful.”)

Nothing about a war with the U.S. would benefit Iran. Its economy is in shambles. Its people are struggling financially as the persistently weak rial drives up demand for hard assets that are ever further out of reach for the average Iranian. Drought plagues the country, driving disaffected farmers into crowded cities. And the regime is so strapped for cash that there have been reports that Hezbollah (an Iran-funded proxy) is struggling to pay its fighters. On top of this, the country’s oil export revenue has been declining because of reimposed U.S. sanctions. Iran cannot win a war with the U.S., which means that at least some factions within the country are seeking a way out of their current predicament.

Despite its bellicose rhetoric, the IRGC likely doesn’t want war, either. While it is angling to pull power away from President Hassan Rouhani and other moderates who supported the nuclear deal with the U.S., if all the political infighting brings only the threat of war with the U.S., the public may begin to question the efficacy of the IRGC’s policies, too. Showcasing its ability to pose a low-level threat to Persian Gulf shipping channels could be a way for the IRGC to offer a tangible policy without risking U.S. retaliation and without letting the situation get out of its control.

But it wouldn’t make the IRGC look particularly strong, either. Sabotage attacks like the ones conducted over the weekend – which at present look to have caused, at most, minor damage – don’t fundamentally change Iran’s strategic position, help Iran get around U.S. sanctions, or strengthen Iran’s allied militias’ prospects anywhere in the Middle East. The benefit of such attacks, in other words, is superficial at best, showcasing the limited options available to the IRGC rather than its military prowess.

For its part, the U.S. has remained quiet so far, with President Donald Trump issuing only a vague threat to Iran “if something happens.” As of Sunday, the U.S. began flying what it has referred to as “deterrence flights” over the Persian Gulf with its recently deployed B-52s, as well as F-35s and F-15s, but it’s unclear whether there’s a connection between these flights and the apparent sabotage.

All things considered, the situation doesn’t seem to benefit any of the typical players that have an interest in Persian Gulf transit. For now, then, we’ll count this as another variable in the ongoing U.S.-Iran standoff.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Russia-Iran
« Reply #997 on: May 17, 2019, 08:45:40 AM »
 

Russia, Iran: Anticipating Moscow's Next Move Amid Heightened U.S. Pressure

Russia has been in diplomatic overdrive over the past two weeks following Iran's announcement that it was suspending some of its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Shortly after Tehran's JCPOA announcement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, during which Lavrov criticized the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Then following a May 14 meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the Russian city of Sochi, Lavrov expressed Russia's desire to keep the uptick in U.S.-Iranian tensions from escalating to a military conflict, but warned that such an outcome remained a possibility due to hard-line U.S. policies toward Iran.

The Big Picture
________________________________________
As tensions intensify over Iran's nuclear development, Russia could become an increasingly important player in helping stave off U.S. pressure on Tehran. Moscow will seize the opportunity to gain leverage in its own standoff with Washington by increasing support to Iran — though the extent to which it will be able to do so will be limited by Russia's own complex relations with the Middle Eastern country.
________________________________________
Iran's Arc of Influence
What It Could Mean

Lavrov's recent statements, combined with Russia's varying strategic intentions with Iran and the United States, portend that Moscow will try to use Washington's heightened concern with Tehran to push for concessions from the United States in other areas, such as sanctions, Ukraine and arms control. In doing so, Moscow could strategically increase its support for Iran in the coming weeks in an effort to gain more leverage for use against Washington in negotiations. Such actions to watch for include:
•   Increased nuclear support (e.g., developing reactors or shipping JCPOA-banned uranium to Iran).
•   Increased economic support (e.g., setting up oil smuggling networks or other actions aimed at circumventing current U.S. sanctions).
•   Increased diplomatic support (e.g., voting against U.N. initiatives backed by the United States).
•   Increased security support (e.g., sending Russian personnel, missiles and other weaponry to sensitive nuclear and military sites to complicate U.S. military strategies).

What to Keep in Mind

Russia's own intentions with Iran will limit the type of support it will provide. Russia appreciates having a key anti-U.S. ally in Iran, and wants to ensure it stays that way. Thus, it remains opposed to U.S. efforts to support regime change in Iran through sanctions and leaving the JCPOA. But at the same time, Moscow wants to ensure Tehran doesn't gain enough military power that it could more directly challenge Russia down the line. And for this reason, it also does not want to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

Russia could try to use heightened concerns with Iran to push for concessions from the United States on other ongoing issues, such as sanctions, Ukraine and arms control.

This complex push-and-pull relationship can perhaps best be evidenced by Russia's periodic support in building the nuclear reactor in the Iranian city of Bushehr. The power plant doesn't lend itself (at least not directly) to the production of weapons-grade materials, but some of its supply chains do lend themselves to parts of Iran's weapons program. Though the plant remains unfinished, the civilian intent of Bushehr's design nonetheless emphasizes Russian willingness to continue to assist Iran in more peaceful endeavors while still supporting its nuclear power efforts.

For its part, Iran welcomes Russian support when it comes to maintaining the JCPOA — namely, the sanctions relief the deal is intended to provide. But due to Russia's history of involvement in the country, Tehran also remains wary of getting too close Moscow for fear of being subjected once again to its overwhelming influence.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile
Stratfor time line: Iran
« Reply #998 on: May 18, 2019, 01:16:09 PM »
The U.S.-Iran Confrontation: How Did We Get Here?
Defiance in the face of U.S. pressure has been the hallmark of Iranian foreign policy for decades. But the current confrontation between the United States and Iran is breaking new ground.
(DRAGANA STOJANOVIC/Shutterstock)
Print
LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook
Mail
Save As PDF
Bookmark
Listen
Editor's Note:

Since 1979, the United States and Iran have been locked in varying degrees of confrontation. Since the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, Washington has taken an increasingly tough sanctions line. Now, Tehran and Washington's diplomatic confrontation is escalating, which increases the risk of a military conflict. Because a general regional war would have a devastating impact on global energy markets and the countries surrounding the Persian Gulf, Washington and Tehran are attempting to outmaneuver each other without resorting to open conflict. The United States is signaling to Iran that it must come to the negotiating table again for a new deal or face economic collapse, or worse. Meanwhile, Iran is trying to show the United States that the costs of imposing its power on Iran outweigh the benefits — and that Iranian forces are willing to retaliate against U.S. pressure, be it economic or military.

Assembled in this compendium are a number of essential Stratfor analyses that set the scene for the current phase of escalation between the United States and Iran.
The Geopolitics of Iran: Holding the Center of a Mountain Fortress

Dec. 16, 2011: Iran is secure from conceivable invasion. It enhances this security by using two tactics. First, it creates uncertainty as to whether it has an offensive nuclear capability. Second, it projects a carefully honed image of ideological extremism that makes it appear unpredictable. It makes itself appear threatening and unstable. Paradoxically, this increases the caution used in dealing with it because the main option, an air attack, has historically been ineffective without a follow-on ground attack. If just nuclear facilities are attacked and the attack fails, Iranian reaction is unpredictable and potentially disproportionate. Iranian posturing enhances the uncertainty. The threat of an air attack is deterred by Iran’s threat of an attack against sea-lanes. Such attacks would not be effective, but even a low-probability disruption of the world’s oil supply is a risk not worth taking.
What 'Energy Security' Looks Like in the 21st Century

Sept. 19, 2017: Rather than preserving its access to oil, then, the United States is more interested in protecting itself from price changes in the market at large. After all, sharp dips in Middle Eastern oil production would push energy prices upward worldwide — including in the United States. A lengthy shipping shutdown in the Strait of Hormuz, moreover, would wreak havoc among Asian economies by restricting their energy supplies, carrying consequences that would ripple throughout the global economy as well. In light of these concerns, it is no surprise that the United States and Saudi Arabia remain such close allies: Riyadh has a long-standing policy of maintaining enough spare capacity to quickly ramp up its production in order to stabilize oil-starved markets.
Why Iran Is Threatening to Close the Strait of Hormuz

July 5, 2018: If all U.S. allies stop importing Iranian oil, the country could ultimately see its oil exports drop to as low as 1 million barrels per day (bpd) from its current 2.28 million bpd, resulting in a big loss of revenue. That dire prospect, amplified by the need to hit back at Washington and save face in some way, is prompting Iran to dredge up its familiar threat to shut off the Strait of Hormuz to any trade. The mere threat of closing the strait increases market uncertainty, stokes oil prices and creates some leverage for Iran without requiring that it follow through.
A map of the Persian Gulf.
Back Under U.S. Sanctions, Iran Looks for a Plan B

July 23, 2018: The Iranian government will probably try to postpone negotiations with the United States until after the next U.S. presidential election in 2020 in hopes that Trump does not win a second term. A president from the Democratic Party would likely be less aggressive toward Iran and may even emphasize the nuclear issue, ignoring some aspects of regional strategy — as former President Barack Obama's administration did. The trick, of course, will be withstanding the Trump administration's pressure in the meantime. If economic conditions in Iran continue to decline, more large-scale protests like the ones that happened earlier this year or like the 2009 Green Movement could erupt. The IRGC will, in turn, try to suppress public unrest — all the while trying to gain control of the political system. But if it fails, the threat of a popular uprising may be enough to force the government to compromise in negotiations with the United States on the issues it once considered red lines.
Deciphering the War of Words Between the U.S. and Iran

July 24, 2018: Similar to its handling of North Korea, the Trump administration, now stacked with Iran hawks, believes that in a best-case scenario a maximum pressure campaign — one that involves ditching the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, snapping back all sanctions against Iran and denying waivers to Iran's trading partners while threatening military action — could eventually drive the Iranian government back to the negotiating table to rewrite the nuclear deal. Short of that highly dubious outcome, at least during the Trump presidency, the White House has been remarkably open about its intent to use a combination of economic turmoil, propaganda efforts and potentially covert activity in collaboration with Israel and Saudi Arabia to create the conditions for regime change from the ground up.
Iran Faces Bleak Options as the U.S. Turns the Screws

April 24, 2019: The United States' campaign of "maximum pressure" against Iran has been no bluff. In announcing its intention to deprive Tehran of all oil revenue, Washington is moving into uncharted territory, as it previously offered sanctions waivers to importers of Iranian oil. So what does Iran do now? Until now, Tehran has adopted a pragmatic response to U.S. President Donald Trump's harsh stance, remaining within the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as the 2015 nuclear deal is formally known, and avoiding other retaliation even if it hasn't benefited economically from maintaining its moderation. But given Iran's bleak economic prospects as a result of the United States' punishing line, Tehran's patience could soon wear thin. An Iranian retaliation in the form of renewed uranium enrichment or attacks on shipping would certainly invite a furious U.S. response, yet it's not clear if Washington's aggressive campaign would ever achieve the United States' ultimate goal: altering Iranian foreign policies that undermine U.S. allies in the Middle East.
The Ripple Effects of the U.S. Move to Stop Oil Flows From Iran

April 22, 2019: Iran will ratchet up its rhetoric about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz or using Yemen's Houthis to halt maritime traffic through the Bab el-Mandeb, but the country faces significant restrictions in actually shutting down either chokepoint even if it could stage a one-off attack on a tanker. Tehran will also take a long look at whether it wants to respond by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal — although doing that could prompt the United States to stage a limited military strike on nuclear targets in Iran, which, accordingly, would threaten more oil production in the region.
A map showing global oil shipping routes.
What the U.S. Withdrawal Will Do to the Iran Nuclear Deal

May 8, 2018: To counter Trump, Iran will emphasize its resistance-economy strategy, which entails less dependence on imports and better relations with other countries willing to navigate — and risk — U.S. sanctions. These moves will increase opportunities for Iran's domestic heavy industries, but it is uncertain what effects they will have on Iran's economic assault on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The government will also try to mitigate the sanctions by reducing economic ties to places that are likely to buckle under to U.S. pressure or take steps toward more friendly partners such as China, Russia, Qatar and India.
Why the EU and Iran Have Little Hope of Rescuing the Nuclear Deal

May 16, 2018: Brussels has few options if it wishes to sidestep the U.S. sanctions on non-energy trade. The European Union could impose "blocking" regulations to inhibit the imposition of U.S. sanctions on EU territory by prohibiting European companies from complying with Washington's sanctions. The bloc considered similar regulations, including freezing U.S. assets, in the 1990s to protect firms conducting business with Cuba and Iran from running afoul of U.S. sanctions, which Brussels viewed as an extraterritorial application of U.S. law that undermined European sovereignty. The blocking regulations protected companies doing business with Cuba, although the European Union never required the measures for Iran because it reached an exemption deal with the United States for investments in Iran's energy sector. This time, however, the United States is unlikely to be as accommodating.
Iran Is Inching Away From the Nuclear Deal. What Happens Now?

May 8, 2019: Iran's leadership has assessed that, over the next few years, it must respond to the U.S. provocations against the JCPOA, not only to ensure its own negotiating credibility but to gain leverage if future talks materialize. Today's moves may not cross the threshold into those that cause the European Union to immediately reapply sanctions or the United States to conduct a limited military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. However, those actions could come 60 days from now, if Iran follows through on threats to enrich uranium above the 3.67 percent level enshrined in the JCPOA and start modernization work on the Arak heavy water reactor. Both of these directly shorten the breakout timeline for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72241
    • View Profile