Articles

Iranian Protests And The Working Class

by Esfandyar Batmanghelidj 1st January 2018

In February of 2017, I wrote about Iran’s “forgotten man,” the member of the working class who seemed invisible in the talk of the country’s post-sanctions recovery:

What has been lost is an appreciation that the “normalization” of relations between Iran and the international community is as much about elevating “normal Iranians” into a global consciousness, as it is about matters of international commercial, financial, and legal integration. While there has been progress in building awareness of Iran’s young and highly educated elite, whose start-ups and entrepreneurial verve play into the inherent coverage biases of the international media, a larger swath of society remains ignored. By a similar token, the rise of the “Iranian consumer” with untapped purchasing power and Western tastes has been much heralded, but the reporting fails to appreciate that Iran’s upper-middle class rests upon a much larger base whose primary economic function is not consumption, but rather production.

With the new wave of protests sweeping Iran, it seems that the country’s forgotten men and women may be mobilizing to ensure their voices are heard in Iran and around the world. There is a growing consensus that the protests are comprised primarily of members of the working class, who are most vulnerable to chronic unemployment and a rises in the cost of living.

The idea that these are working class protests has explanatory power. First, if the protests are indeed a working-class mobilization, then they are less surprising, and can be seen as akin to the regular “bread riots” that took place during Ahmadinejad’s second term, when Iran’s economy suffered its sharpest contractions.

Second, a working class outlook may explain why the political slogans and imagery of the Green Movement have not been deployed by the protestors. The Green Movement was a predominately middle class movement focused on civil rights, which emerged in response to a chosen candidate being fraudulently denied an election victory. Solidarity with lower class voters was limited and economic grievances were not a central focus.

Third, such a demographic composition may explain the support conservative political groups in Iran have given to the protestors, despite the spectacle and soundtrack of anti-state slogans that have marked many of the gatherings. Conservative politicians are being careful not to alienate members of their base, while trying to cast the protests the predictable outcome of Rouhani’s economic policies. Moreover, a working class composition of the protests can explain how exactly Iran witnessed a successful presidential election with historic turnout and a clear victor just six months before mass mobilizations in cities across the country to protest the government. It may be that those turning to protest now feel their voice was not heard in the May elections.

A simple comparative review of upper-middle income countries such as Iran—including Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, and Russia, among others—demonstrates that while protests end with political expressions, they usually begin with economic motivations. That Iran’s working classes are ready to mobilize, and that the mobilization was so quick, makes sense within the context of Iran’s current economic malaise.

It is generally overlooked when discussing Iran’s post-sanctions economy that Rouhani has operated an austerity budget since his election in 2013. Some even describe his policies as “neoliberal.” While an imperfect descriptor, his administration’s economic approach does broadly correspond to the neoliberal “Washington consensus,” which seeks economic reform through trade liberalization, privatization, tax reform, and limited public spending, focus on foreign direct investment, among other policies.

Such an economic approach is in many ways understandable. Rouhani is seeking to correct the populist excesses of the Ahmadinejad administration while also addressing longstanding structural issues in Iran’s economy such as its overextended welfare system, a reliance on state-owned enterprise, and cronyism and corruption. But these are, by dint of difficulty, long-term reform projects, which may not fully cohere until after Rouhani’s tenure has ended. In a way, it is laudable that the administration is applying such an outlook for the benefit of what Homa Katouzian has called a “short-term society.” But the near-term political costs are becoming clear.

Rouhani’s budget is ultimately ill-suited to addressing the economic imperative of job creation, which is urgent and at the heart of popular dissatisfaction. As economist Djavad Salehi-Esfahani has written in response to Rouhani’s most recent budget:

One of the main stated goals of this budget is to create jobs, but it is hard to see how it can do that by slashing the development budget at a time that interest rates are very high (they exceed inflation by 5 percentage points or more). The unemployment rate has been rising in the five years that Rouhani has been in office, mainly because of increased supply pressure, but low demand has been an equal culprit. With unfavorable news about the future of the nuclear deal and the removal of sanctions, thanks to the 180-degree turn in US policy toward Iran, the prospects for a foreign-investment driven recovery are dim. With public patience running low, the debates in the parliament over this budget should be more serious than the usual haggling over the needs of special interests.

Most governments in Rouhani’s position pursue expansionary monetary policy and boost public spending to try to drive investment and economic growth. But Iran faces a series of economic challenges that complicate such a response. For example, the principle economic achievement of the Rouhani administration has been to bring inflation under control. The International Monetary Fund expects inflation to sit below 10% this year, down from 40% in 2013. Controlling inflation is critical to bringing stability to prices in Iran’s basket of goods, where other market forces continue to drive up prices. Any attempt to pump money into Iran’s economy to spur investment risks undermining the success on inflation.

Additionally, in the face of low-growth, central banks commonly lower interest rates to make it cheaper to finance new investment. But Iran’s interest rates are being slowly rolled back from a high of 22% to the present level of 18%. Slow adjustments are necessary due to Iran’s banks being overleveraged. Reducing the interest rate too drastically, especially as inflation remains stubborn, would have two effects. First, savers would see their deposits lose value. This would predominately hurt lower-income savers who have a less diversified range of assets. Members of the middle class still benefit from asset appreciation in still robust categories like real estate, stocks, or even gold. Middle class fortunes have improved somewhat following the nuclear deal for this reason. On the contrary, members of the working class rely on interest-bearing deposits accounts to conserve wealth and are therefore very vulnerable to fluctuations in interest rates. The controversy over the unsustainable interest rates offered by unlicensed savings and loan institutions, which spurred protests in cities across Iran in the summer 2017, is indicative of the vulnerability.

Second, a lower interest rate would threaten the financial wellbeing of many of Iran’s banks, which have long skirted reserve ratios and amassed toxic debt. Any attendant drop in deposits would make it even harder for banks to shore up their reserves, making politically fraught recapitalization by the central bank more likely. In the recent assessment of Parviz Aghili, CEO of Iran’s Middle East Bank, it would cost as much as $200 billion to bring Iran’s $700 billion balance sheet in compliance with Basel III standards, which call for a minimum leverage ratio of 6%. By comparison, Rouhani’s total budget for the next Iranian calendar year is $104 billion.

In the face of limited options, the Rouhani administration believed that post-sanctions trade and investment, made possible by the sanctions relief afforded under the Iran nuclear deal, would enable the country to kick-start growth and investment that supports job creation. But the economic dividend of the nuclear deal has not materialized as anticipated. The majority of business leaders believe that this is primarily due to external factors, namely President Trump’s threats to re-impose sanctions on Iran, rather than Iran’s own challenging business environment. The nuclear deal has been so central to Rouhani’s economic plan, with the nuclear deal and investment deals basically conflated in much of the discourse, that the concern around the future of the nuclear deal has also hit confidence in Rouhani’s economic management at large.

Overall, Rouhani is running an austerity budget because he is between a rock and a hard place. The policies he is adopting are economically sensible and necessary—so much so that the budgets have been passed despite pushback from parliament and other corners of the Iranian power structure as to the approach, neoliberal or not. But the policies are politically costly, testing the patience of a people who feel that the hopes for a better livelihood slipping away as the years pass. As Mohammad Ali Shabani writes, the circumstances in Iran can be described by the concept of the J-curve, which posits that mobilizations occur “when a long period of rising expectations and gratifications is followed by a period during which gratifications … suddenly drop off while expectations … continue to rise.”

We cannot fault Iranians for their rising expectations, for they are a people who know their immense potential. This is especially true of the working classes, who have built Iran’s diversified economy with their labor and the country’s rich culture with their values. As Iran has grown richer and more advanced, the burgeoning middle class has come to represent the future. But the recent experiences of wealthier economies offer a cautionary tale about “forgetting” the working classes, and sacrificing their expectations to protect the gratification of others.

In 1987, a Rogue U.S. Navy Admiral Schemed for War With Iran

the Iran-Iraq War had turned the Persian Gulf into a shooting gallery. As part of a total war strategy, both Baghdad and Tehran targeted

By Edward Chang

By 1987, the Iran-Iraq War had turned the Persian Gulf into a shooting gallery. As part of a total war strategy, both Baghdad and Tehran targeted merchant shipping to impede the other side’s war effort. During eight years of brutal fighting, hundreds of commercial vessels, many belonging to neutral countries, were attacked, costing the lives of hundreds of merchant seamen and causing millions of dollars in damage. Read More »

Trump Is Strengthening Iran’s Radicals

BY:Abbas Milani

US President Donald Trump’s decision to pursue a more aggressive Iran policy underscores his administration’s misunderstanding of the Iranian regime. Shelving the 2015 nuclear deal would not only heighten regional tensions; it would also embolden the very hardliners that the US has been seeking to contain.

STANFORD – The United States and Iran have rarely agreed on how to proceed with nuclear talks or other elements of their bilateral relations. But synergies and similarities between two factions – Iranian hardliners and the hawks of the current US administration – are as counterintuitive as they are profound. Indeed, Donald Trump’s new Iran strategy has given radicals in Tehran reason to celebrate, as they have found in the US president an unwitting ally in their quest for political dominance.

For years, Iran’s “conservative radicals” – a concept that combines extreme conservatism in matters of faith and philosophy with radical views on violence – have argued that negotiation and rapprochement with the US are foolish and futile. The US, these hardliners believe, is interested only in regime change, and to fight Islam in the region.

This view has led Iran to align more closely with Russia and China. But as crippling nuclear-related sanctions in recent years brought the Iranian economy to the verge of collapse, Iran’s conservatives were forced to negotiate in good faith with the international community.
Even without sanctions, the Iranian economy would have been under severe strain. Corruption and mismanagement, along with structural and external challenges – such as falling oil prices, water shortages, and an aging unemployed population – had already weakened economic growth. The fact that China and Russia joined the most recent round of sanctions had made the radicals’ position less tenable.

But if Iran’s hardliners were frustrated by previous negotiations, their disappointment vanished yesterday. Trump’s move to challenge the 2015 nuclear deal – formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA – has given them an unanticipated victory. While the most effective sanctions had already been lifted, and are unlikely to be re-imposed, Iran’s conservatives have gained political points that they can use against their opponents at home.

Within Iran, a powerful coalition of moderate forces – ranging from reformists and dissidents to civil-society actors – has long advocated for a more engaged foreign policy. Wary of Russia’s influence and uncertain of China’s intentions, these forces have supported a continued Western orientation in economic and political ties. Moderates advocated for more responsible foreign policy and caution on the country’s nuclear program. And they sought to deepen ties to the Iranian diaspora, in the hope that closer relationships could help solve some of Iran’s most daunting economic challenges.

Iranian moderates understood that the nuclear deal reached with the international community was flawed. But they supported it nonetheless, hoping to leverage it for more freedom at home. President Hassan Rouhani famously promised a domestic version of the deal to heal Iran’s political wounds, and to further address its economic woes. That pledge reflected Rouhani’s broader effort to challenge and curtail the power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is rooted in the IRGC’s control of large swaths of the Iranian economy. Now, with Trump’s move, Rouhani’s agenda, and that of the entire moderate coalition, is in jeopardy.

Most of those in the US who supported the nuclear deal were also aware of its flaws. But they saw the deal as an opportunity to engage Iranians who oppose the conservative radicals. American supporters believed that the vibrancy of Iranian civil society and social media boded well for the country, and hoped an Iran that was open to global markets would become more liberal politically.
Critics of the deal object that Iran’s testing of ballistic missiles has continued unabated after the JCPOA was enacted. But it is folly to think that the US can curb Iran’s nuclear and regional activities by unilaterally walking away. In fact, the deal’s ultimate goal – to slow enrichment of uranium and halt nuclear testing – appears to have worked. Whatever problem Trump has with the agreement, it is worth remembering that no country can fix what it has rejected. And rejecting the JCPOA would only encourage the Iranian regime to resume the very activities that the deal was meant to contain or curtail.
Trump’s challenge to the JCPOA will most likely encourage other egregious behavior as well. One reason for the radicals’ regional shenanigans – such as supporting militias in Yemen, Palestine, and Lebanon – is the belief that confrontation with the US or Israel is inevitable. Proxy forces like Hezbollah are, from this perspective, a tool either for deterring aggression or for deployment when fighting begins.
It is true that Iran’s proxies have not holstered their guns as a result of the nuclear agreement. But tensions with the US did diminish. Now, following Trump’s about-face, the possibility of confrontation between Iran and the US has returned, which will only embolden the resolve of Iran’s proxy forces.
Unilateral US abrogation of the JCPOA is, in short, the worst of all policy options. No matter what Trump says, there are plenty of people in Iran, and the US, who share this view.
FEATURED

Tackling Non-Inclusive Growth

Sep 26, 2017 MICHAEL SPENCE
Europe’s Return to Crisis?

Oct 11, 2017 DANIEL GROS
Spain’s Crisis is Europe’s Opportunity

Oct 6, 2017 YANIS VAROUFAKIS
Growth Without Industrialization?

Egypt, Hamas and Palestine

If Egypt is the big winner in the new developments, Israel must be the biggest loser.

The Arab Weekly
Mohamad Kawas

Since making public its General Policies and Principles document last May, Hamas has continued with the changes regarding the occupation forces and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The announced moves are very subdued and theoretical for the moment. Hamas’s actions were not dictated by ideological considerations alone. Its rap­prochement with Egypt, for example, was the result of Gaza’s geographical constraints and the realisation inside Hamas that the organisation cannot escape its confinement without Cairo’s help.

Hamas needed a way out and Fatah’s Mohammed Dahlan and his colleagues provided Hamas with the needed connection with the outside world, especially with Cairo and Abu Dhabi.

Hamas is looking for breathing space that cannot be provided by its exclusive relations with Doha, Ankara and Tehran. In this respect, the change in Hamas’s strategic choices reflects the predicament of political Islam. The various branch organisations are veering from the official discourse of the mother organisa­tion, which sounds outdated.

In its dealings with Hamas, Cairo is fully aware that it is working with the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brother­hood. Those in charge of the Hamas file in Cairo could not care less about the policy changes announced by Hamas. They might mean nothing. This is why Egyptian relations with Hamas are being handled by the Egyptian intelligence services.

The same services are handling Egypt’s involvement in the reconciliation efforts between Hamas and Fatah. Cairo has chosen a security-based approach to anything involving Hamas and has imposed its will on the organisation. Egypt cannot indeed afford to be lax when it comes to a potential threat to its national security from its Sinai neighbour.

Hamas has thus revised its strategic choices and decided to go back to its original position within the Palestinian front. It no longer claims exclusive control of Gaza and has dismantled its government to give way to the National Palestinian Authority. Hamas wouldn’t have chosen this path were it not for the painful messages from Cairo during the last few years. The punishment measures decided by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas were severe enough to drive both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to seek Cairo’s help in ending Gaza’s tragedy.

Hamas must have been at the end of its rope; otherwise, it would not have accepted to meet with Dahlan and his companions. Dahlan’s connections in the region were in contradiction, if not in conflict, with Hamas’s connec­tions. Hamas, however, was smart enough to accept political deal­ings based on interests and only interests, not ideology.

The funny thing though is that Hamas’s backing down does not represent a victory for the Palestinian Authority and Abbas. Rather, it is a clear victory for Egypt. When Abbas hurried to meet with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, he was more concerned about Dahlan’s increas­ing popularity in Gaza than about Palestinian reconciliation.

If these new changes in the Palestinian context come to pass, they would certainly pull the carpet from under certain coun­tries in the region that have used support for the Palestinian cause as a front for other agendas far removed from the Palestinian cause.

Cairo, on the other hand, is more interested in reaping the benefits of the new situation than in punishing the loser. This is why it continues to deal with Hamas regardless of the latter’s eager­ness to strike a coalition with Turkey or Iran.

If Egypt is the big winner in the new developments, Israel must be the biggest loser. The Israelis have based their entire Palestinian strategy on the assumption that there will not be a unified Palestinian front to deal with. They relished the idea that the Palestinian leadership is nothing more than a bunch of competing factions and ideologies. They easily sold to the rest of the world the idea of scrapping the two-state solution not because it was Israel’s wish but because there wasn’t a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

Some world capitals, especially Washington, are dealing with the division among the Palestinians as if it were permanent rather than a passing phenomenon. By normalising its relations with Hamas, Egypt’s aim was to close the void created by the rift in 2007 between Hamas and Fatah and push towards Palestinian unity. The objective is to breathe new life into Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, a feat that the whole world has failed to accomplish.

Still, Egypt’s accomplishment has a lot to do with conflicts in the region, such as the crisis with Qatar, Egypt’s open dispute with Ankara and Iran’s plans for the region.

Whether Egypt’s unification effort bears fruit is contingent on Hamas’s commitment to a purely Palestinian agenda and on the unexpected effects of the contra­dictory coalitions in the region.

Iran: Woman Asylum Seeker Lashed 80 Times After Being Deported From Norway

Leila Bayat was sentenced to 80 lashes for drinking alcohol in Iran. She applied for asylum in Norway but her asylum was denied and she was returned back to Iran after 8 years. Yesterday her flogging sentence was carried out in Tehran

IRAN HUMAN RIGHTS (20 SEPTEMER 2017): The Iranian asylum seeker Leila Bayat, who was deported from Norway on 8 March 2017, has received 80 lashes in Tehran. During the investigation of her asylum case, the Norwegian authorities didn’t approve the documents regarding Leila Bayat’s flogging sentence and denied her asylum. Read More »

America’s Jews Are Driving U.S. Wars

Shouldn’t they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?

By Philip Giraldi

September 19, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?” Read More »

The opening of the Trans-persian Railway by reza shah

The Trans-persian Railway was a major railway building project started in 1927 and completed in 1938, under the direction of the Persian monarch, Reza Shah, and entirely with indigenous capital. It links the capital with the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea. The railway connected Bandar Shah in the north and Bandar Shahpur in the south via Ahvaz, Ghom and capital. During the land reforms implemented by Mohammad Reza Shah in 1963 as part of the “White Revolution” the Trans-persian railway was extended to link Tehran to Mashhad, Tabriz, and Isfahan.

More than the Qatari crisis in Erdogan’s Gulf talks

by:Mohamad Kawas

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent visits to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar can only be understood as a required first step to defusing tensions with the Gulf countries that was created by his rash reactions to the Qatar crisis, reactions unworthy of a major power. Read More »