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

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.