With Joe Biden’s presidency, further positive progress is expected to occur in the Middle East. However, the region’s future under Biden could also get a lot worse.

This is particularly likely if a new nuclear deal with Iran and the US starts to fade and military options rise to the foreground.

A New Middle East

When Joe Biden takes office as President on Wednesday, he will hardly recognize the Middle East. When he left office four years ago, the Arab states were deeply divided, but the greatest danger was averted: a war over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Today it is the other way around, the Arab nations have arranged themselves into a fairly united power bloc, but Iran’s nuclear program is in full swing.

It raises the question of what tasks lie ahead for Biden. Moreover, any action Biden may or may not take will have far-reaching implications for the region and Europe. After all, part of the EU is now within the range of Iranian missiles, and Berlin and Paris are part of the current Iranian nuclear deal.

The shift in the Middle East is perfectly demonstrated when looking at Israel. It received three gifts from Trump during his tenure. He relocated the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Jerusalem as the capital and settlements in the West Bank, and facilitated normalization agreements between the Arab states, including Sudan, to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. As a result, Netanyahu doesn’t care much about the Palestinians now. He doesn’t have to give them anything anymore because he himself has practically everything he wants, all while Israel will now continue to grow into the supreme power in the region.

Internal Divisions Still Remain

On the other hand, the Arabs are united on the outside but are still divided internally. Ten years after the start of the Arab uprisings, the new problems are still the old ones: corruption, harassment, unemployment, a lack of prospects, a regime of fear. The end of the Emiratis and Saudis’ blockade against Qatar, the continued subsidization of Egypt by the Gulf Arabs may look like unity. But Iraqis and Saudis, Syrians and Jordanians, Emiratis and Qataris continue to distrust each other.

What brings them together is not America or Israel, but the Iranian threat.

This threat is weaker today than when Trump took office. The harsh economic sanctions have drained the country, and strengthening Israel automatically weakens Iran. But all of this comes at a high price: Iran has restarted its nuclear program and announced that it wants to enrich uranium that is suitable for nuclear weapons to 20 percent. According to the 2016 nuclear agreement, only 3.67 percent were allowed.

This is so dangerous because the step from 3.67 percent to 20 percent is the decisive one. From that level, Iran can quickly enrich itself to a level that would open the way to manufacture nuclear weapons. A law that the hardliners crammed through in Tehran also wants to limit inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In doing so, they apparently want to rule out a return to the nuclear agreement from the outset.

If Joe Biden seeks to prevent escalation, he must act very quickly after taking office to revive the nuclear agreement and bring the principle of disarmament back to the Middle East. He doesn’t have much time. The Iranians celebrate Newroz in March, after which the campaigns for the presidential election begin in June. Meanwhile, the hardliners will push the fortification forward as fast as possible.

If things go the way that Iranian radicals want only military options will be on the table by this autumn instead of a nuclear deal. Biden would then face a perilous conflict, to which Trump arguably lit the fuse.

L'articolo Joe Biden in the Middle East proviene da InsideOver.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard recently announced that they have been working on an underground missile program. The timing is no coincidence.

Why is Iran Revealing Their New Missile Program Now?

Amid heightened tensions with the US and Israel, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced the completion of an underground missile base in the Persian Gulf, though without specifying the exact location.

“The base is one of several of these types that house strategic missiles,” said the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Major General Hossein Salami. “These projectiles have a range of several hundred kilometers and are very accurate,” he added.

At the beginning of July 2020, the Revolutionary Guard announced that they had built underground “on- and offshore missile cities” in the Persian Gulf in order to “deter the country’s enemies from military aggression.” In July, the Guard said they had successfully conducted tests in the region underground ballistic missiles and a military satellite.

“The underground missiles hidden deep underground were fired successfully and without a launchpad,” said Amir-Ali Hajisadeh, Iran’s aerospace department commander. State television showed videos and pictures.

Iran’s Government Likes to Showcase the Nation’s Military Prowess

There are repeated reports in Iran of new military achievements. However, most cannot be independently verified. Iran has one of the most extensive missile programs in the region and calls it an essential part of a deterrence strategy and retaliatory option. On the other hand, the West sees missiles as a threat to regional stability and potential delivery systems for nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, according to its supreme spiritual leader, the Islamic Republic is not insisting on the US returning to the Vienna International Nuclear Agreement but is still calling for the US sanctions to be lifted. It is not about “whether America comes back or not; we are in no hurry, and we do not insist on her return,” said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran. “Our rational and logical demand is the lifting of the brutal sanctions.”

“If the other party is practically not fulfilling any of its obligations, it is not logical for the Islamic Republic to honor all of its obligations,” Khamenei said in a speech on television. “When the US returns to its commitments, we will return to ours.”

What’s Next For the Iran Nuclear Deal and Iran’s Relationship with the West?

The 2015 nuclear deal aims to ensure that Iran does not acquire the capabilities to build a nuclear bomb. US President Donald Trump, who was voted out in November, unilaterally terminated the agreement, which he considered inadequate, in May 2018 and then put new tough sanctions against Tehran into force.

So far, he has tried in vain to persuade Tehran to make concessions on the nuclear and missile program and to support local militias. Since then, Iran has also gradually withdrawn from the agreement. Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, agreed to return to the agreement, provided that Iran strictly adhered to the conditions.

Other parties to the deal, notably Germany, Britain, and France, have urged Iran to return to its commitments. It was only on Monday that Tehran officially enriched uranium to 20 percent, which is a clear violation of the nuclear agreement.

However, the situation remains complicated, especially with regard to Iran’s elections in June. President Hassan Rouhani, a reformist by Iran’s standards, cannot run again. Given that his legacy will be synonymous with the nuclear deal, he would like to agree with the US and free his country from the sanctions, which have crippled Iran’s economy and significantly decreased Rouhani’s popularity.

Meanwhile, the hardliners in the government, including former members of the Revolutionary Guard, hope to become Rouhani’s successor and end the latter’s approach of opening the country up to the West. They have thus begun to sabotage Rouhani’s tactics to prevent him from succeeding in the nuclear dispute and put themselves in a good position for the elections. After the increase in uranium enrichment and the South Korean tanker incident, the missile base is yet another piece of the puzzle for hardliners to achieve their aims.

L'articolo Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Unveils Strategic New Missile Base proviene da InsideOver.

Following an embarrassing defeat for the Trump administration at the United Nations last week, which witnessed the international body’s Security Council reject the US’s bid to extend an arms embargo on Iran beyond its expiration in October, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo moved on Thursday to restore UN sanctions on Iran.

Pompeo argued that Tehran was in violation of a nuclear deal it struck with global powers in 2015, even though US President Donald Trump abandoned the pact two years ago.

US Allies Nowhere to be Found at UN

The US’s defeat at the Security Council on Thursday August 13 was humiliating because none of Washington’s allies such as Britain, Germany and France supported an arms embargo extension.

Furthermore, Russia and China, who also vetoed an arms embargo extension, are closely aligned with Iran. This already presents the Trump administration with numerous obstacles if it intends to reinstate the arms embargo.

Iran Could Purchase Dangerous Weapons to use Against US Interests

The logic behind the US President’s thinking is that if the UN fails to extend the embargo, then there is a substantial risk that Iran will be allowed to purchase weapons that could pose a threat to Washington.

Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association argues that attempting to unilaterally snapback sanctions would be “a dangerous escalation in the Trump administration’s already irresponsible policy toward Iran.” He added that even if the US’s latest move succeeds, Iran has threatened to take further retaliatory action, which could involve boosting its uranium enrichment capabilities, curtailing cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, and maybe even exiting the 2015 deal itself.

This event has the potential to initiate a crisis of legitimacy at the Security Council. If the US reimposes sanctions without the authority of the UN, then that would be deemed illegal. This sets a dangerous precedent for selective implementation of UN sanctions in the future, which could paralyze the Security Council’s ability to enforce sanctions on North Korea.

Is the UN Security Council’s Legitimacy Under Threat?

However, James Jay Carafano of Fox News suggests that U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which implemented the 2015 deal, means that the U.S. has the right to reinstate – or snapback – sanctions on Iran for violating the pact.

He explains that snapback is a must-do step to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear weapons program.

Despite this, the Fox News journalist believes that the Iranian Government was never interested in curbing its ambitions for a nuclear program, because of a cache of tens of thousands of documents the Israelis seized from Tehran detailing its weapons program.

The Trump administration has also consistently stated that Tehran is breaching the 2015 deal. The original agreement has many flaws to it such as its failure to prevent Iran from sponsoring terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. But the US President has been unable to draft an alternative to Obama’s landmark deal.

Iran Has Already Breached Obama’s 2015 Deal

Even Joe Biden, who has publicly stated that the US will rejoin the 2015 pact if he becomes president in November, will find it hard to enforce the agreement as Iran has violated many of its core elements since Trump cancelled Washington’s participation in the pact in 2018.

Regardless, the Iranian Government never allowed its nuclear facilities to be inspected before Trump quit the 2015 accord.

Pompeo has accused Britain, France and Germany of “making an enormous mistake not to extend this arms embargo,” and he is right. They are refusing to resist Iran’s attempts to develop its nuclear program, and Russia and China will only encourage Tehran to pursue such an ambition.

Trump Needs His Allies to Address the Challenge of Iran

Equally, the Trump administration needs to consult its allies’ views more. Last year, French President Emmanuel Macron was instrumental in drawing up a four-point plan that could have resulted in Iran surrendering its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of US sanctions. But relations between Iran and the US have become so toxic that the US and Iranian Presidents have so far failed to act on Macron’s words.

Therefore, extending the arms embargo against Iran will be impossible to achieve as long as China and Russia continue to veto an extension to the arms embargo at the UN Security Council. The US President must focus his energies on drafting a new agreement to replace the 2015 accord instead.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration will have to rebuild its bridges with its allies first, as the US President cannot tackle the threat that Iran poses alone.

L'articolo Can Trump Persuade the UN to Back the Arms Embargo on Iran? proviene da InsideOver.

When the US announced its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, Paris, London and Berlin envisioned to act as a mediator to save the deal. They failed miserably. The current conflict with Iran further amplifies how helpless Europe has been and will be outside of its continent.

For the first three days after Soleimani’s death, Europe’s leaders were suspiciously reluctant to address the events in Iran in-depth. It changed on Sunday when one was able to admire the unique and special empty but sanctimonious European diplomacy that has been sold to the public for years.

Thus on Sunday, the usual scenario occurred. European leaders requested, expressed their regrets, and appealed to the actors involved. A practical solution was not offered, and the crisis caused by Soleimani’s death has hit Europeans hard and exposed their international procurement.

It was seen again when Iran announced on Sunday that it was be obliged by the 2015 nuclear deal. EU chief diplomat Borrell said he “deeply regrets” Iran’s withdrawal. At the same time, he called on all those involved to be cautious: “The current spiral of violence must be stopped before it gets out of control.” The governments of France, Germany, and Great Britain uttered similar words, stating that “the current spiral of violence in Iraq must be ended.”

This declaration by the EU has been its signature move in the crisis so far, aimed to deescalate the situation and ease everyone involved. The issues with this notion: the actors involved will not even listen.

An example of this is Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif. On the weekend, he spoke to Borrell. However, Zarif has no real authority in Iran’s political system. Ergo, he is not the person Europe should speak to in the first place. However, Zarif appears to be the only person the regime is offering. For one reason in particular: despite all the hyped meetings, passionate statements and lofty demands of the past, Europe has never had significant influence in the post World War II Middle East.

After the successful conclusion of the 2015 nuclear deal, Europe gained some influence. The fact that the Europeans could not keep the US in the deal has made them irrelevant again in Tehran, however. Berlin, London, and France had vouched that the US would also abide by the agreement in the long term. In addition, Iran saw little of the promised investments from Europe. Trump’s exit was then considered as Europe’s ultimate weakness and betrayal.

Even worse. Europe could not even prevent the consequences of the US sanctions utilizing an introduced defense law, which was supposed to secure European investments in the region. It did not stop companies from withdrawing from doing business with Iran.

Despite all of it, Europe continues to bet on diplomacy and appeasement. The very same diplomacy which has had no effect in the region over the years. Germany’s Foreign Minister Maas announced that Europe would lead de-escalation initiatives in the United Nations. Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Asselborn even said that Europe’s “only weapon” was diplomacy and that it would “never engage militarily” in the Middle East. Instead, Europe’s task was to “convey” to both sides and to “deescalate”.

How exactly could the latter possibly be facilitated? No one, including Asselborn, seems to know. Europe simply does not have the means to deescalate. Their influence on Iran and Iraq is nil, making the calls for de-escalation only a diplomatic charade. A charade in which an actual dialogue with Iran is nonexistent.

L'articolo The Iran Crisis and Europe’s No-Show proviene da InsideOver.

In Iran, attention is now shifting onto elections being held in February as all 290 parliamentary seats are being contested. The standoff between the US and the Islamic Republic is likely to influence voting intentions, and whatever the result, it will determine the future direction of US-Iranian relations.

President Hassan Rouhani’s landmark achievement was the 2015 Iran Deal he signed with former US President Barack Obama, but since Donald Trump scrapped the agreement, America’s campaign of ‘maximum pressure’ has led to anger at the establishment among many citizens.

The mid-November protests, which resulted in hundreds of demonstrators being killed by security forces, showed that this event drastically changed the attitude of many politicians and people towards elections in their country. Radio Farda reported that on December 8th, a pro-reform website called Asr Iran ran an opinion poll asking voters which candidates they are likely to vote for. Over 63 percent of the 24,000 people who participated in the poll ticked ‘none of the above’, which was their way of saying they will not vote at all.

Some reformist politicians like Mostafa Tajzadeh and Abbas Abdi insist that there is no way out of Iran’s ongoing problems other than resorting to ballot boxes. But it is hard to make this argument to people when they perceive Rouhani as a liar.

During the 2017 presidential election, the current President said if Iranians re-elected him, every single sanction that has been imposed on their country by the US will be lifted. Since then, the opposite has happened.

Furthermore, the reformists are losing celebrity support. A former football player called Ali Karimi and Reza Sadeghi, a famous singer, both wrote on social media that they regret supporting Rouhani two years ago. If Trump wanted his sanctions to decrease support for Iran’s government, he has succeeded in achieving his aim.

However, if ultra-conservatives, or principlists, perform well in February’s poll, the stalemate between Tehran and Washington is only likely to intensify. Those who fundamentally oppose Trump’s policy of lifting sanctions in favour of reducing Iran’s nuclear weapons are finding that their position is being strengthened. Jalal Mirzaei told an OPEC meeting that Trump becoming US President has weakened the reformists.

But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said US sanctions had been ‘incredibly effective’, so there is no chance of the Trump administration shifting its current stance any time soon.

Some of the principlists’ most notable candidates include a former military officer and an ex-mayor of Tehran named Mohammad-Bagher Qalibaf; Vahid Yaminpour, a TV personality; and legal scholar Hamid Rasaei. If they win February’s election, then a lurch to the right risks emboldening the security services’ proxy forces in Yemen and Syria, raising the chances of a confrontation with the US.

Oil Minister Bijn Namdar Zanganeh, one of Rouhani’s closest allies, is being targeted by the ultra-conservatives for impeachment since a US ban on critical oil exports tipped the country into recession. This could cause the government to be overwhelmed by interrogations and weaken the Iranian President at a time when he is attempting to repair US-Iranian relations.

Mohammadali Abtahi, a reformist cleric jailed in 2009, told Shargh newspaper that ‘unpopular conservatives would only emerge as victorious if turnout is low.’ This is because hardliners traditionally vote under instruction from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Another factor going against the reformists is that Iran’s Guardian Council disqualified almost 3,000 of their candidates. Only 30 have been approved. Therefore, it will be harder for the reformists to contest all the 290 seats on offer.

Trump would do well to engage with Rouhani before February’s poll. Unfortunately, the US President’s actions are only likely to increase support for those who are principally opposed to American intervention at all, and that will make it harder for the Trump administration to reach an accord with Iran.

L'articolo What Impact Could Parliamentary Elections Have on US-Iranian Relations? proviene da InsideOver.

Over the weekend, Iraq’s parliament began the process of electing a new leader following the resignation of the country’s former Prime Minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi. There is severe unrest spreading throughout the nation as security forces killed 45 civilians who were protesting around Nasiriyah on Thursday.

Many demonstrators are angry that Iran continues to influence Iraqi politics. Last Wednesday, government forces showed brute force following the firebombing of the Iranian consulate in Najaf.

When the US liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein in 2003, they intended to introduce democracy to the nation. With the country divided into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish sects, Iraq’s governance had been determined along sectarian lines. Its institutions were used as fiefdoms by ministers whose political allegiances has often transcended loyalty to the state.

This has resulted in corruption and nepotism throughout the nation’s public sector. Many Iraqis have been robbed of opportunities since the nation’s oil wealth was plundered. Youths are angry that state revenues have been looted, leaving them disenfranchised. 200,000 people have been demonstrating in Baghdad and other cities ever since.

Disenchantment towards Iran has been widespread among many different sectors of Iraq’s population. Tribal leaders have concentrated on murdering security forces in the wake of the killings, which they say were orchestrated by Iranian officials who have played a crucial role in the crackdown. Qassem Suleimani is an example of an Iranian general who initiated a brutal response that began a month ago.

Furthermore, Tehran has been playing an influential role in Iraq’s affairs since the US withdrawal of 2011. The Guardian reports that the Islamic Republic is concerned about Hadi al-Ameri, the leader of the Popular Mobilisation Units (PMF), which were formed to defeat the Islamic State, becoming a potential successor to Mahdi.

As the Brookings Institute suggests, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who founded the PMF, cannot dissolve the organisation because doing so would spark a public backlash that could undermine Iraq’s Shia establishment. Although they are loyal to the Iraqi state, there are groups within the PMF who are beholden to Tehran.

US President Donald Trump should be very concerned about Iran’s influence over Iraq. The 2015 Iran Deal Barack Obama concluded failed to tackle Tehran’s interference in neighbouring countries’ elections. Since Trump has scrapped the agreement, all the nations involved in implementing the 2015 deal have failed to negotiate a new one. But the situation in Iraq is an opportunity for Western leaders to curb Iran’s electoral influence.

Iraq’s army is not strong enough to fight Iran-sponsored terrorist groups like Asaib Ahl al-Haq, which has attacked US and Iraqi personnel and civilians since they were founded in 2003. Sistani is Iraq’s best hope of resisting Iran’s influence. He successfully combated US interference in Iraq’s new constitution and ensured his country was governed by an elected assembly instead of Washington-backed elites.

If Trump is serious about thwarting Iran’s dominance, he has a responsibility to protect Iraq from its neighbour. US troops must be temporarily deployed to Baghdad to contain Iran’s proxies, which now control places like Kirkuk.

But there are other actions the US can take to contain Tehran that do not require military intervention. They could help the Iraqi government allocate $1 billion to the PMF from its national budget, but restrict their access to the billions of dollars the international community contributes towards the reconstruction of Iraq. They could also help the PMF shape Iraq’s political system according to their ideologies.

Maybe the US could also work alongside Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia Iraqi cleric who visited Iran last month and has been a longstanding opponent of Iranian interference. Whilst he is opposed to US dominance in Iraq as well, US veteran Michael D. Sullivan wrote in Foreign Policy that he is the only politician who understands America can help strengthen his country’s security forces. Following Abdul-Mahdi’s resignation, he could play an influential role in Iraqi politics.

Trump should take Iranian influence in Iraq seriously, and he has plenty of options as to how he can tackle this crisis.

L'articolo America and Iran’s Influence on Iraq’s Elections Amid Civil Unrest proviene da InsideOver.

Speculation is rife on the course the showdown between Saudi Arabia and Iran will take in the coming days. This is especially so after media reports emerged to allege the presence of links between Iran and the attacks on oil processing facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia in September this year.

According to the reports, Iran started preparing for the attacks four months earlier in its bid to punish the US for pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran, on one hand, and world powers, on the other. Over five meetings, Iranian military commanders debated a list of targets, including US military bases in the Gulf, seaports in Saudi Arabia and Saudi oil installations, the reports said. Iran at the end opted for the oil installations and these were the state-owned Aramco oil processing facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia.

By picking these facilities as targets, Iran wanted to avoid a direct military confrontation with the US. It also wanted to avoid the possibility of a devastating American military reprisal in case American targets were at the heart of the attacks. Eighteen drones were used in staging the attacks on the Aramco processing plants on September 14. Three low-flying missiles were also used in inflicting damage on the facility. They temporarily brought Saudi Arabia’s oil production down to the half and caused world oil supply to drop by 5%. This caused a surge in world crude prices. Even before media reports in this regard, Saudi Arabia pointed accusing fingers at Tehran.

On November 23, Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Adel al-Jubeir, said Iran was responsible for the attacks on the Aramco oil installations in September. Speaking at the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain, Jubeir added that his country had asked the United Nations to send experts to investigate the issue. “We asked friendly states and the United Nations to send experts to investigate the attacks,” Jubeir said. “The results will be unveiled soon.” He said the drones and missiles that attacked the installations were manufactured in Iran and that the missiles and the drones arrived from the northern side of Saudi Arabia, not its southern side.

“This is why we hold Iran responsible for the attacks,” Jubeir said. “We expect the international community to take steps to bring Iran to account. We said repeatedly that we do not want war, but the Iranians cannot be allowed to evade being questioned for their wrongdoing.” The Iran-backed Houthi militia of Yemen claimed responsibility for the attacks in their bid to absolve the Iranians from international blame and probably punishment. Nevertheless, the US and Saudi Arabia rejected this claim of responsibility. The sophistication of the attacks, they said, pointed to Iranian involvement.

True, Iran wanted to take revenge on the US for pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal and imposing sanctions on it by striking at a close ally. vNevertheless, the attacks on the Aramco oil installations were the latest development in a long ideological conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, one where religion comes at the center. Iran has been throwing its full weight behind Shiite regimes, forces, and groups in the region since its 1979 Islamic Revolution.

In a way, this destabilizes some Arab states with sizeable Shiite populations and tightens the noose around majority Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab Gulf. The two countries have spent tens of billions of dollars in the past nine years in backing rival political forces; militias; governments, and organizations. They are involved in proxy wars in Syria and Yemen. They move the strings in Iraq and Lebanon.

Nobody knows for sure what Saudi Arabia will do in the coming days to make Iran pay for its alleged attacks on the Aramco oil processing facilities. Riyadh is now apparently consulting with its allies, especially the United Arab Emirates, where Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman arrived on November 27, on the most appropriate action. The coming few days will show what it will do.

L'articolo Uncertain Future For Saudi Arabia-Iran Showdown proviene da InsideOver.

Iran, a country with a population of over 80 million people is facing a new crisis which threatens to destabilize its government. In the face of numerous sanctions imposed by the United States, the locals are now stepping onto the streets to fight for their rights. The primary concern among those is the increase in fuel prices. Setting cars on fire, vandalizing shops and facing off against security officials, mainly the Revolutionary Guard Corps, has not come at an easy price. Many Iranians risk losing their lives but that is just the beginning.

Iranians are suffering from what they call a crisis that has taken over their homeland. What they look for now in the face of dark sanctions and problems looming on the state is an uncertain future that might risk the lives of millions of citizens. However, the problems cannot only be blamed on the Iranian government since numerous issues need to be taken into account. Firstly, the biggest problem that Iran faces today could be linked to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The JCPOA is an agreement signed by Iran, China, France, Russia, Germany, United Kingdom and the United States. The 2015 agreement aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear activities and prevent the enrichment of uranium.

This was just the beginning as the United States and the United Nations planned to impose a multitude of sanctions if Iran refrained from keeping its commitments. These sanctions mainly targeted a range of Iranian diplomats and entities which included the government and the financial sectors. These weren’t the only planned sanctions; anyone trading with Iran would also be sanctioned under the demonic agenda set by the institutions. Iran has stated on several different occasions that its nuclear activities were not being run to produce nuclear weapons but were solely being used to develop nuclear energy. There might be a difference in opinion but the Iranian government has reiterated its stance regarding its nuclear activities on many different occasions.

Coming back to the country itself, we must realize that Iran is facing immense pressure from the international community to cut down on nuclear rejuvenations. Facing so many sanctions over time, it has embroiled the country’s economy in a complete meltdown. The protests that recently erupted across the country were due to some of the decisions the government took considering the hefty sanctions it was facing. The Iranian government sharply raised fuel prices which acted as a blowback since citizens took to the streets denouncing the move and called on the government to reverse its policies.

Iran is an extremely oil-rich country. Given the circumstances, the government should not have raised the prices but it was forced to do so since the economic problems took a turn for the worse. Sharp inflation in the country, basic rights in jeopardy and a bleak future led to mass protests. During these protests, the internet remained shut down as the government tried to peacefully quell the demonstrations. However, that brought more agony and anger as protesters torched numerous buildings, gas stations and everything and anything that came in their way.

The Iranian government dispatched the special Revolutionary Guard Corps to disperse protesters however, things turned violent. Amnesty International says at least 143 protesters have been killed in the disturbances. The number is yet to be confirmed by those in Tehran but sources say it could be much higher than expected. Considering the blockade of the internet, numerous conflicting reports have emerged stating that the guards converged on a more violent technique by shooting protesters. A country already facing a financial crunch, the protests added more costs and burden for the government.

The loss of lives, economic costs and people demanding their rights. Stories emerging from Iran give us a new perspective that people do want change and they need it immediately. Despite the rise in protests, the government did eventually manage to secure peace in the country. It said the protests were a ‘conspiracy’ designed by the United States to bring down the Iranian government. It may or may not be the case, since the United States has targeted Iranians through its ‘maximum pressure’ campaign, a move it says would cripple the Iranian economy and would subsequently leave the officials with no other option but to give in to American demands.

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says ‘global arrogance’ against Iran would soon be quelled as he believes the Iranian people trust higher authorities to solve their problems. Modern-day problems require modern solutions and this is something which needs to be highlighted. The only solution to the chaos in the country would be mediation between the members of the JCPOA. Iran should also be willing to comply with international agreements and hopefully try to get the United States back on the negotiating table since it opted an exit in 2018. With France and Germany somewhat supporting Iran, a peaceful outcome could be calibrated where all sides benefit from one each other’s policies, regulations and cooperation.

L'articolo Iran’s Reluctance to Back Down in the Face of Crisis proviene da InsideOver.

The past few months have seen a fair share of angry citizens across the globe, from protests over election rigging in Bolivia to massive agitations in Hong Kong. In that backdrop, it doesn’t come off as a surprise when Iranians took to the streets after the government jacked up fuel prices. 

The country’s Supreme Council of Economic Coordination on November 15 jacked up petrol rates by 50 per cent to $0.13, while also introducing a limit for private use at 60 litres, exceeding which the fuel will cost $0.26 per additional litre. 

The decision was taken to help a cash-strapped government raise money to fund a social security programme for the poorest citizens. However, the move backfired hard as thousands of Iranians stormed the streets across the country, leading to protests which turned violent and saw arson and other property damage as well.  

Security forces cracked down hard and the violence that ensued killed some 106 people, as per Amnesty International. In response, the government imposed a near-total internet shutdown, with connectivity down to around 5% of its ordinary levels. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei hit back at the demonstrators, calling those destroying property “bandits” and the entire agitation a conspiracy of the enemy, while throwing his support behind the fuel rate increase. 

Why would an issue related to fiscal adjustments and domestic pricing be linked with foreign schemes? The issue is much more complicated in that: like elsewhere in the Middle East, local is very much international. Much of the economic woes of Iran can be sourced back to the sanctions imposed on the country, that too unilaterally by the US President Trump after his revocation of the nuclear deal.

The Joint Comprehensive Action Plan of 2015 was supposed to rid Iran of international sanctions in exchange for giving up its nuclear ambitions and opening up nuclear sites to inspection. For a while, it materialised too as economic growth spiked to over 16% in 2016 but with the advent of Trump in White House, the situation became bleak as promised liberalisation and investments didn’t come through since few were ready to take on the wrath of an unpredictable US President. 

Even though the European Union continued to stick to its original position and didn’t detract from the deal, not much happened beyond word of mouth. The key demand of Iran getting more buyers for its oil was barely met. 

Unsurprisingly then, the country’s growth rate has been on a downward trajectory since 2016 and is expected to contract by a significant 8.7% in 2019-20. On the other hand, inflation stood at a staggering 30.5% over the last year, further worsening an already bleak economic outlook. 

That explains why petrol prices despite being cheap by international standards bit citizens hard while response by the government suggests an increasingly desperate government looking for a quick fix. The country’s rich history of protests, witnessing sizeable demonstrations in 2017-28 too, puts any government in a tough spot. 

No room to manoeuvre

Keeping in view the recent developments, Rouhani doesn’t have too much room to manoeuvre domestically, and to take attention from the pressing economic matters, he is likely to play the political card at a more global stage. 

Just earlier this month, Iran stopped an inspector from the International Atomic Energy Agency from visiting its nuclear site while also injecting uranium gas into its Fordo plant, raising concerns if the country is again moving towards weapons-grade enrichment levels. 

For now, at least, the protests seem to be over thanks to the heavy crackdown by security forces with connectivity yet to be properly restored. However, the underlying economic factors are going to remain, and largely beyond its control. 

The Iranian leadership, both religious and political, has been fairly composed and calculated in the wake of US unpredictability but with economic time bomb ticking, that patience is likely to run out soon enough, which might prompt it to behave more like a security state. To prevent any such mishap, as well as the abandonment of the 2015 deal, the European Union must step up for a leadership role left by an inward-looking US, and deliver on the promises it helped ink four years ago, or risk an even more belligerent Iran. 

L'articolo Iran’s Ticking Time Bomb proviene da InsideOver.