By Nader Uskowi
Yesterday’s lack of clarity over a possible ban on refueling Iranian passenger planes in some European and Middle Eastern airports could be the result of uncertainties over the extent of the new US sanctions against Iran. Did a ban on selling gasoline to Iran include the ban on selling jet fuel to Iran Air? Notwithstanding that uncertainty, one thing is becoming clear: the US sanctions will have major effect on gasoline sale to Iran.
Almost all major refineries capable of producing and exporting gasoline are stopping their sale to Iran. Reports from Iran indicate dramatic drop in availability of gasoline in the wholesale market, as much as half the volume of last month. The most likely outcome of such shortage will be as a dramatic rise in gasoline prices. The government-controlled rate is expected to hit 900 tomans per liter ($3 per gallon), with unrestricted prices not unthinkable hitting 1,500 tomans ($5 per gallon). These prices will produce inflationary pressures and above all will create public dismay. Until recently people were paying a fraction of these prices to fill up their cars.
The new US sanctions are also creating problems for the country’s banking system, a serious situation that we will continue monitoring.
I am not arguing that the new US sanctions in themselves will be game changers. Countries can and do adjust to harsh economic conditions. It is argued, however, that the Iranian government needs to take these realities into account in making its final decision on the country’s nuclear program. I believe its resilience to maintain the program intact, even under heavy international pressure, has indeed been shown. The leadership should now base its decision solely on the national interests of Iran. If it is in the country’s interests to end its current economic woes, a compromise in enrichment program is indeed in order. Leaders are expected to make difficult and unpopular decisions and the Iranian leaders need to abandon populist policies and start making very difficult decisions.
If you were dealing with Hondurans or Czechs or Philippinos, then yes, calculations as such would be considered reasonable.
ReplyDeleteBut you're dealing with Iranians. They consider this from a legalist perspective, and will not back down. And you wait and see, they'll come up with their own ways of dealing with this adversity, and they'll press on.
In the meantime, don't expect things to go too rosy for ISAF/NATO in Afghanistan, or the Coalition's way in the political standoff in Iraq.
The gasoline subsidies needed to end as all economists have stated, and now Iran has the excuse to end them while blaming the sanctions!
ReplyDeleteIran's economy is largely moving towards relations with the east. Fortuantely this comes at a time when the west is largely weakening and losing their qualitative advantage (except for Germany of course).
Your so called 'analysis' of the current illegal and anti Iranian sanctions are nothing but American NeoCon rehtoric and wishfull thinking.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that so many so called Iranians become more "western" than the authentic population of the west, as soon as they set foot in a western country?
Do you/they have to prove that you are anti Iran in the hope that the west accepts you as one of them?!! Iran is and has always worked within the parameters of the NPT and as such has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The sanctions placed upon Iran are political and not due to its deviation from the rules of the NPT.
Grow some b***s man!! Defend Iran's right to knowledge, advancement and independance.
Anon 6:42 PM,
ReplyDeletePolitics is the art of possible. The nuclear issue in Iran cannot be considered solely a "legalist" issue, it is more than anything a political issue, and as such it need a political solution. And Islamic Republic is not above politics, and as much as the leadership might want to paint the issue in legal terms. Iran's success or failure in dealing with this political issue has no relations to ISAF/NATO in Afghanistan or coalition forces in Iraq. Iran should decide its next move on its own merits.
Anon 7:17 PM,,
If you believe that the sanctions were positive, forcing Iran to go the route of self-reliance, then you should have sided with the west and against Turkey and Brazil. after all those two countries wanted to make a compromise which would have been bad based on your analysis. It's time to be more objective about our analyses and not to fashion them in a way to favor the government's decisions, no matter what.
Anon 8:29,
defending Iran does not, and should not, mean defending the present government's policies. Governments come and go, and they make a lot of mistakes in the process. Again, defending Iran and its rights does not mean defending government's policies.
are you joking the more section they are getting the better and better are become reality as soon as section effected iran will produce from 40 million to 58 million in matter of 24 hours only short of 2 million litter per days as of to days iran fuel reserved is enaugh for 2 years even no liter of feul sales to iranian government for years to come in 2011 the refind capacity will reach to 110 million per days so they would not worry about it only things will make them worry the inspection of iranian ship an international water that may cause heavy war in the middle east which iran will retaliate that ,in this section which is truely violation an international prenciple iran has right to react againest usa and they follower.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Uskowi,
ReplyDeleteDefending Iran under all circumstances is a duty we must cherish.
Govt.'s come and go but Irans enemies are always the same .
UK, USA are the spearhead of Irans enemies, (in the past and present and in the future.
Sorry if you can not see it
Nahid / Hamburg
Mr. Uskowi,
ReplyDeleteYour argument is essentially that Iran should give in to this political/economic pressure and change it's domestic energy policy.
Why should it do this? Iran has done nothing wrong the US/EU/UN policies are nothing short of bullying. They have no relation to reality or international law. In face the Iran-Brazil-Turkey idea was a serious compromise and effort to reach a resolution to this situation but it's rejection by the west demonstrates their bad faith.
Iran is being targeted because of it's independent stance and political system. The US/UK/EU cannot accept the idea of a Middle Eastern state acting in it's own interests, haven't you noticed how they interact with most other state's from that region.
Unfortunately conditions of injustice exist in the world, but simply giving up isn't the answer. By this logic the palestinians should all just move to another country or accept living with no rights. Or the blacks of south africa should have just not bothered fighting apartheid because it might have threatened their ability to get jobs.
Yes, pragmatism, logic and diplomacy need to be used, but these tools can't succeed when your counterparts are not basing any of their decisions on these principles.
Why is it that so many so called Iranians become more "western" than the authentic population of the west, as soon as they set foot in a western country? The one's in Austria are the worst of the lot!
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with the UAE
ReplyDeleteNobody can top Iran.
ReplyDeleteAll Snctions are more psycho affect than real affect.
Refusing seling Creosin to iran is a fake news, and ban of some old Iranian plane to Eu does not really matter.
Mahan air was also banned fom Germany at 2007, now it is flying again.
Your comment concerning politics being the art of the possible would be relevant if the "political game" was played on an even playing field.
ReplyDeleteSince it is not, one has to concentrate and identify the illegality and the flawed logic of these sanctions.
I assume that by referring to Iran as the "Islamic Republic", and omitting the county's name -Iran -, you were trying to portray any defence of Iran and its rights, as the ranting of an Islamist! Well you are sadly mistaken. My comments and stance has nothing to do with protecting the current gov in Iran or her religion. That is something to be decided by Iranians in the country and not by X pats or the MKO traitor terrorists or foreign nations that want to keep the Mid East under their thumb.
Most freethinking people have and always will, condemn any system that abuses its powers and or its population - where ever it occures.
But, believe it or not, it even happened under the Shah!! Was that ok because he was USA's boy? Based on your comments and the only links to right wing NeoCon media sources on your site, I can only assume your answer would be a big yes!
In the pursuance of a balanced view/outlook on the current situations, why not also have links to other more independent sites?
You are confusing the current political problems with the National Interest of Iran and Iranians.
This confusion is exactly what the anti Iran cabal want the world to concentrate on.
As an independent observer, I do not want Iran to be "ridden" by any country - be it Imperial USA/Isrl or Imperial Russia or China.
That is why Iran needs to have INDEPENDENT internal capabilities in order to withstand all the current and future external pressures.
Do you honestly believe that the USA or any country wants Iran to have a true democracy?
Did they pay any attention to the free and fair elections (according to UN and European monitors) held in Palestine, which brought Hamas to power??
What were the USA and their EU lap dog's responses to Khatami when he suspended the enrichment process for 2.5 years?
Why did your freedom, “democracy and human rights” loving countries remove Mosadegh (the ONLY democratically elected leader in Iran, by paying mercenaries such as the Rashidian brothers and other traitors) and replace him with their own poodle?
When did Iran (Islamic or not) EVER attack another country or even threaten to attack another country?
If your answer is to point to Ahmadinejad’s speech where it was reported that he threatened Isrl , then you have not read the full text of his speech in Farsi.
Iran has always said that, IF ATTACKED, it will respond by DEFENDING itself with all its might.
SELF DEFENCE is the right of any nation - INCLUDING Iran, or do you think that Iran should not have that right because it will not bend over for the world’s only hyper power!?
This is all about USA's expansion into areas it wants to control. How many countries is it occupying (including military bases across the world) and how many other countries and their leaders are bribed, cajoled and threatened to 'play nice' or they will get the US economic and or military 'boot'?
How many wars have they started in the past 100 years? How many coups have they organised/financed?
Even though I accept and abhor the fact that some Iranians in Iran are suffering due to possible economic mis-management (this could be a separate discussion), I do not believe that capitulating and accepting the USA/Israel's dictates (Threats) expressed verbally every day and subsequently through the UNSC sanctions, are to Iran's short or long term advantage.
By the way, why is the USN even in the Persian Gulf? Furthermore, acting as if it owns it? Why does US have 12+ military bases in Persian Gulf and the surrounding area?
Are they trying to ensure democracy reigns in Iran (or bombs rain in Iran – sorry, poor joke!)?
Would they accept Iranian warships parked off Frisco bay? I doubt it.
Since so many comments were directed at this blogger, let me try to respond to the most challenging issues raised. First, few short factual points:
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:09 AM,
I was a political prisoner under the shah. It serves you well not to make accusations without knowing your subjects well. The main news resources used in this blog are Fars New Agency, IRNA, ISNA, Mehr, Kayhan as well as AFP and AP. Interesting you group them together as “NeoCon.” Reminds me of older days that whenever someone did not have strong logic to make an argument, he/she would accuse the opposing side as “Communist.” How things never change!
Nahid jan,
Enemies change overtime. A statement identifying Iran’s future enemies does not make sense. Iran fought a bloody war with Iraq, now Iraq is considered an ally. US fought in Vietnam, now the two countries are cooperating in many fronts. You are correct that I don’t see your point (but I am not sorry for it!)
Now to the very challenging comments by Nahid, Anon 5:12 AM and Anon 10:09 AM:
I am not arguing that politics is the art of surrender, but it is the art of politics. Allow me concentrate on uranium enrichment program to make my point. Few factual points first:
1. Iran’s supreme leader has declared on many occasions that Iran is not after making the bomb; that he considers the bomb and any work on building it as haram.
2. Iran’s senior leadership has always maintained that the enrichment program is part of the country’s energy plans, nothing to do with military use.
3. Iran has no operating nuclear reactor. Bushehr is going online probably next year. Russians are providing the fuel for it.
4. Even if Iran would not trust Russians to provide fuel for Busheher, they have much more LEU on their inventory to run Bushehr and other future reactors whenever they come on line.
5. Iran has shown that it does have the technological know-how on how to enrich uranium.
Based on the above, unless the Iranian leadership is not telling us the truth about the bomb, Iran does not need an ounce of extra LEU to run its nuclear reactors. It cannot argue it needs all the enriched uranium for its “energy” policy.
This is what politics as art of possible come to play: if Iran does not need any more LEU for its energy plans, and if it is not after making the bomb, and after it has shown the world that it is indeed capable to enrich uranium against all international pressure, why would it want to continue the program unchanged and unabated? Is it now in Iran’s national interests to continue with a program that it claims has no real value anymore for its intended purpose? I believe it is not. The leadership should so explain this to the public, declare victory for its enrichment capabilities and abilities to reach its goals, and start on a path of normalization of its relations with the West. That’s the art of politics on this particular issue.
Since so many comments were directed at this blogger, let me try to respond to the most challenging issues raised. First, few short factual points:
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:09 AM,
I was a political prisoner under the shah. It serves you well not to make accusations without knowing your subjects well. The main news resources used in this blog are Fars New Agency, IRNA, ISNA, Mehr, Kayhan as well as AFP and AP. Interesting you group them together as “NeoCon.” Reminds me of older days that whenever someone did not have strong logic to make an argument, he/she would accuse the opposing side as “Communist.” How things never change!
Nahid jan,
Enemies change overtime. A statement identifying Iran’s future enemies does not make sense. Iran fought a bloody war with Iraq, now Iraq is considered an ally. US fought in Vietnam, now the two countries are cooperating in many fronts. You are correct that I don’t see your point (but I am not sorry for it!)
I continue with very challenging comments by Nahid, Anon 5:12 AM and Anon 10:09 AM in the next section (too large to publish all at once in the comment section).
I am not arguing that politics is the art of surrender, but it is the art of politics. Allow me concentrate on uranium enrichment program to make my point. Few factual points first:
ReplyDelete1. Iran’s supreme leader has declared on many occasions that Iran is not after making the bomb; that he considers the bomb and any work on building it as haram.
2. Iran’s senior leadership has always maintained that the enrichment program is part of the country’s energy plans, nothing to do with military use.
3. Iran has no operating nuclear reactor. Bushehr is going online probably next year. Russians are providing the fuel for it.
4. Even if Iran would not trust Russians to provide fuel for Busheher, they have much more LEU on their inventory to run Bushehr and other future reactors whenever they come on line.
5. Iran has shown that it does have the technological know-how on how to enrich uranium.
Based on the above, unless the Iranian leadership is not telling us the truth about the bomb, Iran does not need an ounce of extra LEU to run its nuclear reactors. It cannot argue it needs all the enriched uranium for its “energy” policy.
This is what politics as art of possible come to play: if Iran does not need any more LEU for its energy plans, and if it is not after making the bomb, and after it has shown the world that it is indeed capable to enrich uranium against all international pressure, why would it want to continue the program unchanged and unabated? Is it now in Iran’s national interests to continue with a program that it claims has no real value anymore for its intended purpose? I believe it is not. The leadership should so explain this to the public, declare victory for its enrichment capabilities and abilities to reach its goals, and start on a path of normalization of its relations with the West. That’s the art of politics on this particular issue.
US/UK and Zionist bloodlust for Iran has nothing to do with the nuclear program but Iran's independent stance of the global stage. Even a very naive pro-US propgandist would be aware that this is all about maintaining Zionist regional hegemony and much less to do with any other issue.
ReplyDeleteHowever, considering the weakening US global situation and a bankrupt deadbeat economy, even the ne--crazies would find ot difficult to tackle Iran, particulraly with the abyss in Af-Pak and Iraq. All these issues are inter-related and Iran should avail every avenue to defend itself and its people from global thugs.
This is not about Iran's internal politics but about national survival and its is incumbent upon all Iranians and fair-minded people to support Iran against these illegal and desperate sanctions by arrogant and bullying "powers" sliding into the dustbin of history.
I am certain Iran with weather this imperialist road-bump too. The world's geo-strategic tectonic plates are shifting towards Asia and Iran is ideally situated to benefit from this shift with more self-reliance and steadfast resistance to foreign destabilization efforts.
Unfortunately sloganeering does not win real debates!
ReplyDeleteI think these issues are beyond debates and wishful propaganda but about REALPOLITIK. The world is changing and that is the reality without sloganeering. For the past 32 years an assortment of "Iranians in exile", particularly in the US, with a vested interest to please their masters have been feeding disinformation about imminent "regime change". I think we have all been over that bridge too far on numerous occassions. Only time will tell.
ReplyDelete