Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Sanctions Forced Iran to Slash Bloated Energy Subsidies

Economic sanctions may have slowed Iran’s nuclear development, but the republic’s decision to cut subsidies on basic commodities appears to have mostly cut consumption and not ignited popular protest.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

Touring Iran's Arab rivals this week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sounded almost triumphant as she asserted that economic sanctions have helped slow Tehran's nuclear progress.

But U.S. and international efforts to isolate Iran have, ironically, pushed the Islamic government do something it has needed to do for years: phase out costly consumer subsidies that promoted waste and depressed export earnings for oil and gas.

At the end of last year, the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad almost doubled the price of petrol to 70 U.S. cents a litre and reduced subsidies on electricity, water, wheat flour and other staples that cost the regime between 70 and 100 billion dollars a year. Despite dire predictions from critics inside and outside Iran, there have been only isolated protests and Iranians appear to be doing what the reforms intended: reducing consumption.

The government cushioned the blow with initial lump sum cash payments of about 80 dollars to 70 percent of Iranian households. Also, most Iranians have not yet received new higher utility bills and many have stockpiled consumer goods.

While it will take time for the shock of higher prices to work through the system, so far "it looks like the plan is proceeding smoothly, which surprised some outside of Iran who see rebellion under every rock," said Kevan Harris, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University who travels frequently to Iran.

It is noteworthy that Iran is proceeding with the reforms at a time when price hikes have triggered riots in Tunisia. Pakistan, fearing similar unrest and a government collapse, has backtracked on increasing fuel prices in defiance of the International Monetary Fund.

IMF officials, writing recently in an online publication, the IMF Survey Online, said that ending subsidies "should remove distortions and restore efficiency in the economy" and allow Iran "to export more oil and thus generate more revenue".

Iranians have learned over the past three decades to adjust to sanctions and pride themselves on their independence. Rationing was introduced during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war – when most of the world sided with Iraq – and oil production collapsed.

Afterwards, the government kept prices for staples and energy low "to appease a war-weary society", wrote Semira Nikou of the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) in "The Iran Primer", a recent joint publication of USIP and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

But the burden on the budget became unsupportable as Iran's population more than doubled after the 1979 revolution. Subsidies in 2009 – about 4,000 dollars for a family of four – cost about a third of Iran's 335-billion-dollar GDP. Petrol was cheaper than bottled water – a fact reflected in Tehran's hideous traffic and pollution-choked air.

Recent reports from Tehran suggest a drop of six to 10 percent in traffic volume and similar reductions in the use of electricity and water. The air is more breathable in the capital, although that may reflect recent rain and snow more than subsidy reform.

Middle class Iranians say the cuts are largely directed against them since the wealthy can afford the hikes and the poor consume relatively little. One Tehrani who spoke to IPS on condition of anonymity said potential protesters among the lower classes might be intimidated by fear of losing future cash payments if they are arrested.

If the price hikes reduce consumption without stirring social unrest, that could bolster Ahmadinejad, whose popularity has sunk following fraud-tainted elections in 2009, a vicious crackdown on civil society and disputes with parliament and other government bodies. In recent days, Ahmadinejad and his top advisers have noted smugly that his more liberal predecessors – Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani – sought to cut subsidies but faltered in the face of domestic political opposition.

Still, Ahmadinejad is blamed for initial economic illiteracy – giving cash handouts to the poor and forcing banks to loan money at artificially low rates – which pushed inflation up to 30 percent during his first term as president.

His rhetoric about the Holocaust and Israel encouraged the imposition of severe foreign economic sanctions – ostensibly directed at Iran's nuclear program. Separate U.S. legislation has chased away much-needed investment in Iran's energy sector, putting future production and prosperity at risk. Unemployment is in double digits and the brain drain of educated professionals, particularly young people, is rising.

Still, Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, a professor of economics at Virginia Tech and an expert on the Iranian economy, said the subsidy phase-out "will ultimately strengthen the Iranian economy for the simple reason that the economy was heading the wrong way bingeing on very cheap energy. What does a person do, who needs to lose weight but has access to free dessert? Lose the free dessert first!"

With the world's 17th largest economy, minimal foreign debt and underground oil resources estimated by the IMF at 10 trillion dollars and natural gas reserves at four trillion dollars, Iran has enormous potential, especially if it can resolve its quarrels with the international community. (The next round of talks on Iran's nuclear program is scheduled to take place Jan. 21-22 in Istanbul.)

Salehi-Isfahani, who recently returned from a visit to Iran, predicted that inflation – which had dropped to around 10 percent – would rise to 20 percent in the short term. However, that "does not necessarily mean unrest because of the rather clever way the poor have been compensated in advance," he said.

"I just came back from Iran and from what I saw and heard most people agreed that this had to be done, but many doubted the government's ability to implement it well," he said. "If the government has been able to convince most people that living in an oil-rich country does not entitle them to cheap energy, it has taken a huge step."

Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert at the University of Hawaii, said the streets remain calm in part because of heavy security and because "people are tired" after months of political tension.

She added, however, that criticism has also been muted because "the announced price increases were way more than expected and there is a very clear sense that if it doesn't work it will be a disaster for everyone. So everyone is holding their breath, hoping for the best."

 

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share