Iran Complies with Nuclear Deal; Sanctions Are Lifted

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/world/middleeast/iran-sanctions-lifted-nuclear-deal.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

by jseliger • 11 years ago

264 234 11 years ago

nytimes.com

agorabinary3• 11 years ago

A great lecture on Iran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtELk8S3dhU

Really gives some perspective on an oft-misunderstood place.

nashashmi3• 11 years ago

I would use this video to respond every comment here. But then that would be quite annoying.

lingben5• 11 years ago

While Rick Steves is a warm and wonderful person he is no authority on Iran. He visited Iran and was carefully stage managed to present only the positive side of things and completely ignore the rest.

He is not a historian, he is not a sociologist, he is not an orientalist, he has zero credentials or background which would make him in any way an authority or a source of insight.

He went to Iran and had a great time visiting different cities and sites. And he talked to many people, while government minders were close by but off camera.

Therefore, this presentation is what it is: an anecdotal account of one man's carefully choreographed visit to a country.

And I'll add that I'm saying this as an Iranian - I wish I didn't have to add that but it seems that sometimes good intentioned people see anything negative written about Iran or a 'brown' country and automatically think it is motivated by racism or bigotry.

markdown6• 11 years ago

He visited Iran and was carefully stage managed to present only the positive side of things and completely ignore the rest.

The US govt has been "informing" us about the negative side of things for decades. We had nothing new to learn about that side. To show us the other side was what was and is needed.

nashashmi3• 11 years ago

He is not a historian, he is not a sociologist, he is not an orientalist, he has zero credentials or background which would make him in any way an authority or a source of insight.

He has traveled the world and visited lots of countries and viewed them with an open mind. He can make comparisons and contrasts. He can derive lessons as he did in the video where he touted the benefits of church/state separation. I think he has some expertise now. And definitely more than the theoretical historians, sociologists, orientalists who have never been in the field like he has.

while government minders were close by but off camera.

Never mentioned this on camera. But he did mention that security would often inquire and investigate what he was up to.

was carefully stage managed

He was not really stage managed. His focus was on the Iranian side of Iran, the human side, not the government side. And if he found information that he could not document, he spoke about it. That is not 'stage managed'.

agorabinary3• 11 years ago

If you had watched the video you would see the parts where he addresses your critiques. He explores the everyday life of many different Iranians, particularly those in the urban areas, and makes efforts to highlight the positive and negative attitudes towards the West.

You don't have to have a doctorate in Iranian studies to learn and understand for yourself that Western media's portrayal of Iran is deeply biased. Of course, Iran's portrayal of the West is equally biased. The key is to listen to the grievances of both sides within the context of a historical understanding and form judgments from there. This is exactly what Rick Steves has done.

Steves mentions in his video that every schoolboy and girl know of the 1953 coup and the CIA's involvement. The vast majority of Americans are entirely oblivious of this event when forming opinions of Iran. Isn't this valuable information for Steves to communicate with his Western audience?

vonklaus• 11 years ago

Makes a lot of sense. The scrawny kid with low self esteem who has a bad family life so he lashes out from time to time, is entirely ostracized by all the popular kids until he agrees to turn in his red ruder bb gun.

noir_lord2• 11 years ago

Not sure I'd call the US scrawny.

Retric2• 11 years ago

The sad thing is Iran used to be reasonably liberal in the 1960's. Based on pictures from that time period, but politics got really ugly.

IMO, it's a classic case of nut-jobs on both sides of a boarder causing pain for a wide range of people.

gotchange2• 11 years ago

That's true to some extent but only in urban areas. Rural areas where Khomeni drew his huge support from were in dreadful conditions and as reactionary and conservative as they get.

api• 11 years ago

There was a general global religious reactionary backlash in the 70s and 80s. Over here we got the moral majority and such.

c3534l• 11 years ago

Maybe overthrowing their democratic government and replacing it with a brutal dictatorship wasn't the most intelligent thing the American government did.

refurb8• 11 years ago

You need to a bit more reading.

The US/UK did not "overthrow" a democratically elected gov't. Mossadegh's gov't had become very unpopular and there were mass protests across the country.

I agree that the US/UK fully supported the Shah in his attempt to take over the gov't, but overall the effect was more a nudge than a bullet to the head.

HillRat• 11 years ago

It was social liberalism masking a particularly virulent and corrupt regime under the Shah. The greatest mistake the West made in dealing with modern Iran was to support the coup against Mossadeqh; it ushered in a period of political oppression that even CIA admitted was unsustainable, and which led inexorably to the Bazaari-Clericalist revolution. (Khomeini's supporters weren't the only anti-establishment revolutionaries, but they seized the reins of power first and then began systematically reducing the liberal and Marxist opposition.)

1024core2• 11 years ago

The sad thing is Iran used to be reasonably liberal in the 1960's. Based on pictures from that time period, but politics got really ugly.

It still is, compared to it's neighbors.

noir_lord2• 11 years ago

Considering the neighbours, a Sith lord would be considered liberal at the moment.

joosters• 11 years ago

That depends on how liberal you believe a coup d'état is...

Iran's prime minister was overthrown by the UK and the USA because Iran wanted to nationalise its oil companies. The UK & USA weren't having any of that and put their own choice of government in charge.

Naturally, this had a large influence on the eventual Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the country's swing away from the west.

kobayashi12• 11 years ago

IMO, it's a classic case of nut-jobs on both sides of a boarder causing pain for a wide range of people.

I think this is a classic statement meant to be non-controversial enough that everyone can read their own opinion into it, but is inaccurate and adds nothing of substance to the conversation.

Iran didn't become the illiberal theocracy that it is today because of 'nut jobs outside its borders', but because the student revolution that ousted the Shah was co-opted by the hardline clerics, led by Ruhollah Khomeini, who were better organized than the student protestors.

The most reasonable argument for external forces being responsible for Iran's current state as a repressive regime, and as the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism, is that Khomeini wasn't even inside Iran at the time of the revolution, and swooped in just in time to capitalize on the revolutionary struggle of others.

Retric2• 11 years ago

I was more thinking democracy > dictatorship > theocracy. I suspect the direct democracy > theocracy jump is harder, but I could be wrong. So, in this case the external nut-jobs would be the CIA in 1950's.

littletimmy• 11 years ago

"Politics got really ugly" is a kind way of saying "the US fucked it up".

joezydeco3• 11 years ago

Crude oil is expected to fall another $2-$3 on Monday after this news. Curious what that will do to the rest of the market.

msoad2• 11 years ago

One very welcome change is reconnection of SWIFT network to Iran. You can't believe how hard it is right now to send money to Iran. This hit me when I had to transfer money to my family in their extremely hard times, when my brother had an accident and needed cash for treatments.

I hope this trend continues and Iran comes back to the international scene. It's good for everyone. Iran is very similar to Israel. Most of people are normal but there is a small percentage of extremist who have a lot of voice. Lucky for Israel they have a better constitution and governance model.

kobayashi12• 11 years ago

Israel and Iran are far from alike. It's likely true that Iranians are, to our best knowledge, some of the most reasonable and liberal-minded in the Middle East, but Israel does not simply have a "better constitution and governance model". In Iran, the extremists are running the place, and are a large segment of society. In Israel, extremists are marginalized, and even the degree of their extremism is less than that of the Iranian leadership.

I am less welcoming of the news that Iran will be reconnected to SWIFT, as I think that the real good news would be the downfall of the Mullahs and the rise of a representative, reasonable Iranian government, in peace with its neighbours and its own citizens.

msoad2• 11 years ago

It's proven (North Korea) that crippling a country's economy does not lead to downfall of its government. I wish it was that simple though!

toni• 11 years ago

My sincere apology for all the downvotes you have received on this comment. I have close Iranian friends who exactly share your point of view, as opposed to other overly optimistic and simplistic comments you see in this thread which applaud lifting the sanctions.

I hope these downvotes don't make you disappointed about bringing out your message. Take care and stay safe wherever you are.

tyre4• 11 years ago

This is terrific news!

As with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy.

The implications of this are tremendous (not in order of importance):

1) Oil prices will continue to fall as Iran is able to supply the global markets. Many oil states rely on money from natural resources to preserve monarchies. Money for freedom only works so long as the money keeps flowing.

2) Our (US) reliance on Saudi Arabia will diminish as there are now two powers in the region to work with. Having strong relations with both Shiite and Sunni powers in the Middle East will likely reduce sectarian violence. We're light years from being out of the woods, but this is big step in the right direction.

3) The Iranian people will gain access to the world economy. From a human rights perspective, they are the biggest winners here. As with Sunni/Shiite relations, no doubt a long way to go (the Ayatollah is a tyrant,) but you gotta celebrate the wins when you can.

4) De-escalation of our conflict with Iran. We saw it with Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea. Invasion + nation building is sexy, but highly ineffective. Having one less nuclear power that calls for our destruction is certainly a nice to have.

5) Shows Americans that diplomacy can work. Iranians don't hate Americans, they hate what America represents. To them, we represent a superpower that gives little to no thought of anyone else's sovereignty. We assassinated their democratically elected leader and backed the Shah, which got us into this mess. Diplomacy is far less sexy and easily criticized, but that's a huge part of getting this deal done.

Note: Many of these are over-simplified. Nonetheless, this is a pretty big deal and a cause for celebration.

tyre4• 11 years ago

On a more speculative note, regarding Saudi Arabia, this could indirectly lead to the declassification of the full 9/11 report. We know that SA was heavily involved but absolutely could not risk our relationship with them by releasing the full findings.

Perhaps now that we have more options in the Middle East, we can recalibrate towards the truth.

(Left out of original comment because this is wild speculation.)

salimmadjd2• 11 years ago

Exactly! The IranDeal was all about giving US more options in mideast. Saudis had ensure to maintain their monopoly as being the only US option and as a result they could get away with indirectly funding and supporting ISIS, etc. There is probably "more" stuff that will come out from US-Iran before Obama's end of term as this relationship will expand his legacy and it will provide the Iranian counterpart opportunity to show they are ready to be part of the world.

kobayashi12• 11 years ago

Having strong relations with both Shiite and Sunni powers in the Middle East will likely reduce sectarian violence.

This is a ridiculously optimistic, naïve, and shallow reading of the situation.

To better understand the current state of sectarian conflict, I highly recommend reading Kenneth Pollack's recent Brookings essay. [0] To quote:

Indeed, both the civil wars and the spillover they generate have also produced a general mobilization of the Middle East’s Shiites, instigated and led by Iran. And that includes the Shiites in the Saudi kingdom. Officials in private and press reports occasionally note that hundreds of Saudi security service personnel have been killed and wounded in operations in the Eastern Province, the home to the vast majority of the kingdom’s Shiites. Americans tend not to pay attention to these operations because we see them as proof that the Saudis have things well in hand; but another way to look at it is that the Saudis are fighting pitched battles with someone in the cities of the Eastern Province. In other words, there seems to be a much higher degree of mobilization and violent confrontation among the Saudi Shiites than most realize.

[0] http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/01/08-fear-...

tyre4• 11 years ago

It is optimistic, but not naive.

I'm not saying that our relations will in any way reduce the two sides' hatred for each other. The US now has a vested interest in reducing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

If we have a diplomatic partner on one side of the fight (e.g. only the Saudis), our response must be to either support their interests in the region or stay out of it. If we have interests on both sides, our options are to either push for peace or to play the sides against each other in hopes of chaos and a mutual weakness.

We may end up pushing for the latter, as was the case in the Iran-Iraq war, but with a shared enemy in the Islamic State and our long-overdue recognition that chaos hurts our own security and economic interests, it is in our own self-interest that we advocate for stability.

Let me be clear: both Iran and Saudi Arabia are ruled by theocratic despots. They will continue to revile each other and assert themselves in the region. But it is far easier to turn a blind eye on their bad behaviour when we have no other option (both in SA and Pakistan.)

bhouston4• 11 years ago

The Kenneth Pollack article really makes Saudi Arabia look bad. The Saudi Arabian regime is actually more autocratic and less democratic than Iran.

hackuser14• 11 years ago

ridiculously

As an aside, when I see hyperbole like that in a comment, I stop reading. I assume the reader is just ranting (and I really don't need to read yet another rant on the Internet) and even the valuable content is going to have subtle facts, analysis and judgement sacrificed for dramatic overstatement.

(Sorry to pick on this comment, I know it's a widespread phenomenon.)

lazaroclapp• 11 years ago

opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy.

Not saying that might not be true now a days, taking the optimistic view. But keep in mind that Iran took the first step towards democracy (from a quasi-sultanistic plain autocracy to a theocratic republic hybrid) when it closed itself to the world economy and ousted the Shah.

I know you mention that part of history in your fifth point, but this is probably something that is important to acknowledge when talking about Iran relations. Traditionally speaking, the Iranian people have many more reasons to associate the United States with even worse dictatorships, rather than with democracy.

grecy• 11 years ago

I wonder if it also means US citizens will again be permitted to enter Iran as tourists.

They currently can't, and it's presenting a problem for people driving/riding round the world.

tyre4• 11 years ago

US citizens can currently visit Iran but must be accompanied by a tour guide.

Neither the state department nor the Iranian government would like one to do so, but Americans can still visit the country.

wildmusings11• 11 years ago

Iran is not shy about its imperial ambitions and the barbaric tactics it pursues them with. Why are we putting our heads in the sand? Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, these are just some of the groups that Iran has funded, armed, and sponsored at various points in time, including the present day. The same Iran, led by the same people, that we so eagerly made this deal with.

What's happening is nothing but appeasement.

Don't take my word for it, this wiki article is a good starting point for more information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

x0x0• 11 years ago

As opposed to our dear friends, the Saudis?

twelvechairs2• 11 years ago

Many around the world would consider the USA worse in this regard than iran

jacquesm• 11 years ago

Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, these are just some of the groups that Iran has funded

The US has funded most of those very same groups, only at different points in time.

Htsthbjig• 11 years ago

Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran?

Do you realize the US funded Sadam Hussein in a war against Iran?

Do you realize the US invaded Iraq?

Do you realize the US has supported terrorist Muslim organizations when they benefited from that? The most recent example the "moderate fighters" against al-Assad whose American weapons ended in hands of the most fanatical ISIS groups.

Imperial ambitions? Let me ask you something: What the Hell is doing the US of America tens of thousands of miles afar from his country? For me Imperial ambitions applies to other countries much better than Iran.

refurb8• 11 years ago

I'm kind of surprised you're getting downvoted so bad. Your tone may have been over the top, but I don't see anything factually wrong.

It's common knowledge that Iran supports groups that have committed terrorist acts.

Camillo• 11 years ago

As with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy.

Saying this kind of thing in 2016 is not merely naive, but sits firmly in the territory of culpable ignorance. That was Clinton's official line when he brought China into the WTO, and the following decade and a half have proven that it is perfectly possible to have a fully globally integrated market economy without making any concessions to democracy.

Apart from that, what the fall of the Berlin Wall shows is that annexing a smaller country is the first step towards extending your system of government to it, be it democracy or otherwise.

bhouston4• 11 years ago

Well, in the Iranian situation there is already more democratic than China. I hope that because the Iranian liberals were the ones that negotiated this deal, although with permission of the Supreme Leader, it will bolster the liberal's standing in the country even further and increase their credibility and their openness to the rest of the world.

aianus• 11 years ago

fully globally integrated market economy

You should hear the hoops rich Chinese have to jump through to expatriate their capital. Fully globally integrated market economy my ass.

toyg• 11 years ago

China is changing, slowly but surely. The amount of instability in the regime is growing, newer generations are slowly opting out of mainstream values, protests about inequality are growing... These things take time. Look at Putin: the more you demonize and isolate him, the stronger he gets with internal public opinion. Same with China -- which is why the leadership is bent on provoking in the South China Sea: they need newer enemies to distract public opinion.

toephu2• 11 years ago

What's the deal with this whole push for democracy? (nevermind, checked your company, I see your angle now). As if it's the holy grail of form of governments? Yeah, democracy really turned India around..

Food for thought: Would you rather be an Indian living in India, or a Chinese living in China?

bhouston4• 11 years ago

There are a lot more differences between India and China than just democracy.

hackuser14• 11 years ago

There is a very strong, unmistakeable relationship between democracy and quality of life, by almost any measure. All of the most free, most prosperous, safest, healthiest, best educated, etc. nations in the world are democracies.

More importantly there is a moral requirement for democracy in some form: People have a right to self-determination.

India seems to be doing relatively well, though it's hard to find anything to compare it to (Pakistan?). Democracy isn't sufficient by itself; democracies can be corrupt, poor, etc. Someone said long ago: democracies are the worst form of government - except for all the alternatives.

addicted• 11 years ago

Comparing 2 wildly different countries with wildly different cultures and histories and attributing the reason one's better than the other to a singular property is absolutely meaningless.

And the answer to your question isn't very obvious. There are many reasons to pick either answer. I'd guess for an individual the answer would depend almost entirely on their personal value system (e.g., someone very religious, or someone who values having 2 or more kids very heavily would almost immediately exclude China from the equation. On the other hand, there are few values which would lead to someone immediately eliminating India as an option).

tootie• 11 years ago

China today, but I'd bet India in 25-50 years.

jernfrost3• 11 years ago

Democracy might not be efficient but it is the best safeguard we have against severe abuses. Look at China they might have benefited from their autocracy in recent years, but they paid dearly for it during the cultural revolution. India has been spared horrors like that exactly because they have been a democracy.

Other than that I think the countries are too different to make any hard conclusions. China has very strong traditions for effective administration going thousands of years back. This has likely been of more profound importance than dictatorship. Japan after the war managed to grow very rapidly under democracy. So did Germany.

While economic development in India has always been difficult. Even during the British dictatorship in India they had problems getting any kind of modern business going.

I think India suffers from not really being a single country and from being dam hot. It is harder to get stuff done under such heat. Productivity will pick up there when aircondition becomes far more common.

Really I think India should be multiple countries. When you put together lots of countries which are too different, you will get too many conflicts which will make progress grind to a halt.

baudehlo4• 11 years ago

One significant point I feel you missed is that it proved that the sanctions worked, albeit taking a very long time. Iran's economy has suffered badly (eg a cheap car there such as a Hyundai is 4 times the price it is elsewhere). And that has been a clear reason for them to accept the terms of this deal.

Next stop Cuba?

hackuser14• 11 years ago

Based on reading a lot of foreign policy literature, experts see sanctions as a specific tool for specific situations, but very over-used. The following is what a well-read amateur has absorbed (in the absence of anyone with actual expertise - that would be very welcome!):

Governments and publics tend to see sanctions as a solution to every problem, especially where they don't want to have to actually pay or sacrifice anything. They think it's a freebie, a way to get something done witout putting any skin in the game: 'We don't want to risk any lives or have to give anything up to get what we want - let's use sanctions!' Note that you won't see sanctions where it will have a serious economic impact on the sanctioning country; for example, the U.S. isn't going to enact significant trade sanctions on China.

Also, sanctions tend to have the harshest effects on the most vulnerable. In the kinds of countries that are sanctioned, the poor starve and their unelected oppressors continue to live affluent lives.

That's why in the the last decade or two, the U.S. and others have used the tactic of targeted sanctions, aimed specifically at the people in power. Sanctions freeze their personal assets in overseas banks (where they often stash their money), deny access to western markets and financial services for the businesses run by them and their leading supporters, etc. Apparently, denying the leaders travel visas to the west has a real impact (perhaps they lose status when then can't take their families on vacation to Paris and New York?).

It seems to have accomplished something in Iran (but at what cost to the poor and oppressed there?). It hasn't worked yet in North Korea, and their population already is starving. Cuban sanctions are, I think, the old-fashioned non-targeted sanctions and have been ineffective or at least clearly insufficient. Also, as I said, it's not the right tool for every job.

4714• 11 years ago

I would be skeptical to say if the sanctions worked.

Did it stop Iran from creating a nuclear program? No. Did it allow for a change in government? No.

Mainly the people who suffered most were the common people of Iran. The government in Iran took advantage of this situation to radicalize people against the US even more.

lawnchair_larry• 11 years ago

The problem with sanctions is not whether or not they "work".

tn13• 11 years ago

The Iran deal has probably saved a lot of money for Americans. What matters here is if Iran honors this deal in letter if not in spirit.

While the Iranian regime is going to hate all things non-muslim the population with good access to other countries and trade is likely to get de-radicalized at much faster rate.

RobertoG• 11 years ago

The Iran deal has probably saved a lot of Iranian lives.

American lives too, but probably less, taking into account how this things go normally.

For a moment, it just looked like that this could finish like Iraq again.

It's not like if nobody was pushing for war in the American establishment, whatever the Iranians did.

refurb8• 11 years ago

Invasion + nation building is sexy, but highly ineffective.

Is it? There have been some very successful examples: Japan, Germany, South Korea....

nkozyra• 11 years ago

Hard to describe these as invasions, at least in the sense Iraq was.

Paradigma113• 11 years ago

What democratically elected leader did the USA assasinate?

hackuser14• 11 years ago

Salvador Allende in Chile comes to mind. I think the head of Congo/Zaire before Mobutu met a similar fate. Sukarno in Indonesia, but I don't know if the U.S. played as big a role there.

Of course an American might not have actually pulled the trigger, but the U.S. was a/the primary mover in many of these situations. IIRC, President Carter issued an executive order banning the assassination of foreign leaders.

clarkmoody• 11 years ago

All of your points are great but have nothing to do with this:

first step towards democracy.

More importantly, when countries are strong trade partners, they are way less likely to fight. War would hurt both parties through loss of economic activity more than it would benefit either as aggressor.

The United States has been the aggressor / meddler in too much of the world for too long. It's good to see when diplomacy works, since we've been taking the "last resort" of war WAY too often.

refurb8• 11 years ago

as there are now two powers in the region to work with

This agreement is a minor deescalation of tensions. I wouldn't go as far as to say the US has another friend in the Middle East.

girvo2• 11 years ago

Yeah. It's good news, definitely, but there's still a long way to go. It'll be interesting to see if they can keep up the diplomatic momentum once Kerry is gone, because he's been rather instrumental for a lot of this (as per a fascinating Aljazeera) report I watched today)

amalag11• 11 years ago

I have been very neutral towards Obama ( I voted third party in both recent national elections) and don't like how cozy he is with corporate interests, but he has impressed me with what he has accomplished. Iran, Cuba, Healthcare and a few other programs that may have had some initial resistance but are in the best interests of the US and will be an enduring legacy.

JanezStupar• 11 years ago

2) Our (US) reliance on Saudi Arabia will diminish as there are now two powers in the region to work with.

One can hardly talk about US reliance on SA nowadays. US imports only 24% of its petroleum[1]. Only 13% of which comes from SA[2].

The fact that US reliance on foreign petroleum has fallen from 60% to 24% and is projected to fall to less than 10% in the next couple of years is IMO the reason why the Iran deal was possible at all. SA had no say in it.

[1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 [2]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm

tim333• 11 years ago

opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy.

It helps on the whole but it's ironic that Iran was partly democratic in the 40s which ended with a coup organized by the CIA and MI6 because Iran had been trading oil internationally and tried to get a bigger cut from BP, roughly.

gotchange2• 11 years ago

Iran will use the roughly $100 billion in frozen assets it will receive to support terrorism and other misadventures.
Iran’s support for terrorism, its imprisonment of dissidents and even some Americans, its meddling in Iraq and Syria and its arms trade.

Funny that Saudi Arabia is guilty of all the above if not 10X worse but not a single word from those republicans. This speaks volumes of the power of the Saudi lobby in the US political system and how their wealth could influence decisions and policies in the US.

nashashmi3• 11 years ago

This speaks volume of the power of the Saudi lobby

... or it shows the systematic hate for Iran.

enraged_camel2• 11 years ago

Why "or"? Can't it be both?

joezydeco3• 11 years ago

Except that allowing Iran to export even more oil keeps the price of crude down on the floor. Saudi Arabia can't survive oil staying at $30 for the next decade.

So maybe this is an end-run around the Saudis and letting things sort themselves out naturally?

mapt3• 11 years ago

From what I understand? Saudi Arabia has plenty of money banked; They can survive a decade without the sort of windfall profits they've enjoyed.

"SAMA's net foreign assets totaled $628 billion in November, down from a record high of $737 billion in August 2014,"

The marginal price to produce a barrel of Saudi crude is still the lowest in the world, at just three USD. What's going die out once the equipment is worn out (or require extensive subsidy) are marginal plays in developed countries like Canada, the US, and the North Sea, the Arctic, the deep offshore drilling, tight or heavy oil, tar sands, tar shales, smaller fields without economies of scale, and all forms of biodiesel & ethanol (yes, even the most efficient, Brazilian ethanol).

All the oil-dependent economies are going to suffer and compensate monetarily, by drawing down sovereign wealth or cutting expenditures, but the harder bound is the level at which it makes economic sense to stop drilling. Production prices in the above settings are high enough that they just can't make money at $30/barrel, which is a whole other category of problem than not making enough money to feed the government budget which has ballooned only in the last decade taking advantage of higher prices.

http://knoema.com/vyronoe/cost-of-oil-production-by-country

pmorici• 11 years ago

"allowing Iran to export even more oil keeps the price of crude down on the floor"

That's probably the best case scenario for the rest of the world. Cheap energy and keep the amount of money middle eastern countries have to fight each other to a minimum.

wildmusings11• 11 years ago

I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, particularly their global proselytizing of radical Islam and internal repression of opposing thought, but they're not comparable with Iran. Iran directly arms and funds terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. They funded terrorists in Iraq with the sole purpose of killing as many American troops as possible and undermining the new Iraqi government. They are allies of Al-Qaeda and provided material support to their operations, including US embassy bombings and 9/11. They've also continued to support the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Even though they are not shy about their imperial intentions in the Middle East, the West seems to be sticking its head in the sand. The risk of an Iranian-dominated Middle East should not be under-estimated. They already have their hands on Syrian, Lebanese, Yemeni, and Iraqi politics. They exert their influence by extortion. If you don't bend to their will, Revolutionary Guard-backed insurgents blow you up.

markdown6• 11 years ago

Without evidence (from reputable news sources outside of USA), I'm going to have to ignore your claims. Sounds like the propaganda US politicians spew. Iran has a long history of supporting freedom fighters (terrorists if you're on the other side), but so has Saudi Arabia... and they were responsible for 9/11, which pretty much trumps all else.

RealGeek• 11 years ago

9/11 terrorists were not from Iran or Iraq, they were Saudi nationals.

1024core2• 11 years ago

I don't know why we're so ensconced in Saudi arms. Iran is much more liberal than Saudi Arabia; and Iran doesn't export the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam (Wahabbism) which is causing headaches all over the world.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the "but... but... Iran said they would wipe Israel off the map!!!1!" crowd.

lingben5• 11 years ago

This is such an ignorant statement that it is difficult to decide how exactly to unpack it. As an Iranian let me attempt to do so anyway:

First, Iran is Shia, not Sunni. So, no, they are not Wahabi. Just like the Queen of England is not Catholic but rather Anglican (Protestant).

Second, it is arguable whether Iran is more liberal than Saudi Arabia. In some instances it is. In others it is not. This is a matter of religious debate. Just like Saudi Arabia, as a Muslim, you can not simply stop being a Muslim or convert to another religion or become an atheist.

Iran also has consistently persecuted non-Shia Muslims (including Sunnis, Sufis, Ahmadiys, etc.) as well as the Bahais who are the largest religious minority in Iran.

The reality is that Iran implements Sharia just like Saudi Arabia. They chop off hands, blind people, hang people in public hangings off cranes, etc. The Iranian version of Sharia is a little different than that of Saudi Arabia. This is because they are Shia and have a different version of Islam, not because they are full of sugar and spice and everything nice.

Third, Iran certainly does exports their version of Islam just like Saudi Arabia. The most obvious one right now is Yemen where the Houthis are being used by Iran as a proxy to fight Saudi Arabia.

But Iran has also funded Shia Muslims in Nigeria [1] and elsewhere in Africa. They also created and continue to fund Hizbollah to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year as well as shiploads of weapons and explosives which Hizbollah uses as a terrorist organization to perpetrate untold atrocities.

Iran has also perpetrated many acts of aggression and terrorism globally: Kenya, Thailand, Argentina (AMIA bombing), Paraguay, etc. [2]

[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/23/nigeria-s-k... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce... [2] for more complete list, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

It is only as a consequence of a wholesale ignorance of the reality of the Iranian regime, its government's motivating philosophy, and its brutal autocratic and dictatorial grip on power that someone could say what you've just said.

If this comes across as a sharp response it is because I'm tired of people giving Iran a pass by way of a false comparison to Saudi Arabia and/or misunderstanding or not taking the time in the first place to inform themselves about the realities of the current regime.

As an Iranian who has had family members and friends of my family imprisoned on trumped up charges, tortured and killed and their property seized (to then be charged for the bullet that killed them) it is unconscionable to give such a blood soaked regime a pass of any kind.[3]

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_fee

enraged_camel2• 11 years ago

>Just like Saudi Arabia, as a Muslim, you can not simply stop being a Muslim or convert to another religion or become an atheist.

Why not? Can't you just stop praying five times a day and going to the mosque etc.? Are they mandatory activities?

bronz4• 11 years ago

You seem to know a lot about Iranian politics, would you recommend something to read to bring an American up to speed on Iranian culture and politics both domestic and international?

selimthegrim3• 11 years ago

I've never heard of Ahmadis in Iran - I didn't think they'd be foolhardy enough to preach there.

audessuscest• 11 years ago

They always did. It's just that now we agree to recognize it...

jameslk4• 11 years ago

Now if only we could do away with the double standard and hold Isreal responsible for their nuclear escapades[0] too.

0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

TheGuyWhoCodes13• 11 years ago

Israel never publicly announced the willing and need to destroy another country, and it doesn't not support terror organization with monetary and military aid, it has never carried out terror attacks specially targeted at civilians. So yes double standards indeed.

quinnchr3• 11 years ago

Actually Israel has a long history of state sponsored terrorism, see Irgun and their incorporation into the IDF at the dawn of Israeli statehood.

In fact they haven't just supported terrorism, they've used direct military action to intentionally kill civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre

And they even currently support terrorist organizations that specifically target civilians: http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-isra...

jameslk4• 11 years ago

This is a really poor argument for why Israel is allowed to skirt the Non-Proliferation Treaty scot-free. The less nuclear weapons we have to worry about, the better. But instead, the US rewards them with billions of dollars and high-tech weaponry[0]. When other countries do the same, like Iran, they receive sanctions and threats of military action (Iran is even a member of the NPT[1]). Worse yet, Iran has been clear about its intentions[2] and there's been high-profile accounts of intelligence officials agreeing that Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons[3][4]. And we wonder what kind of message this double standard sends to the rest of the world...

0. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_nuclear_program_o...

4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cabl...

vkou• 11 years ago

Really? Because the past six decades have made it pretty clear that its first priority is wiping Palestine off the map.

salimmadjd2• 11 years ago

This is a tremendous news politically and economically.

Economics - 1 - the price of oil has been declining since the IranDeal was signed. In US alone the annual savings as result of cheaper gas and cheaper food (food production costs is strongly tied to gas prices) is about $500B/year (from $4/gallon - $2/gallon). Basically providing additional $500B in spending money in US. 2 - globally, the lower price of food and gas can potentially provide additional spending money.

3 - Iran has crumbling infrastructure and need numerous foreign contractors to rebuild (European and Chinese have already signed up). Sadly US companies will not be able to participate.

4 - Iran has potential for a large consumer market.

Politically -

1 - US will finally have a second option (let's call it the second front) in middle east. We in US have been keeping a blind eye toward Saudis, their indirect financing of ISIS and all types of jihadist fighters in region from Libya, Syria, Africa, Afghanistan, etc.

2 - Iran will be tapped into helping stabilize Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (there is already talks of providing and exist for Assad)

3 - Iran's gas can provide a hedge (at least the fear of an Iranian pipeline) against Russia. This probably wont happen as Iran relies more on Russia than Europe and will probably maintain that role, but that's a possibility.

4 - The open Iran is forced to further integrate globally. This has always been the fear of the hardliners and it'll be resisted by some within, however, there seem to be an understanding that stopping progress is a futile task.

5 - One of the largest women secondary eduction (close to 70% of college students are women), it will eventually play out as a potential model for other regional muslim countries to emulate.

6 - It will force Saudis to change. Saudis are extremely worried about the IranDeal. But their biggest existential threat is not militarily, but culturally. From having 70% women college students, to hybrid system of government. Iran socioeconomic role, will put pressure internally on Saudi rulers and it will force them make uncomfortable changes or face internal turmoil.

jernfrost3• 11 years ago

Very interesting with the high number of women in college. In the long run I think they will bury Saudi Arabia. Once oil runs out Saudi will have nothing but Iran will have a much stronger foundation to build on.

They already got lots of industry like car manufacture.

bane• 11 years ago

This an incredibly subtle deal.

- Iran gets access to global markets, and in time tourism (there's an incredible number of amazingly beautiful things in Iran for tourists to see, from ancient to modern ski resorts)

- Iranian oil will keep prices in the toilet, this is basically a way for the U.S. to punish Saudi Arabia for decades of support for various maleficent actors. Except it doesn't involve an invasion, a takeover, or anything else beyond economic sabotage. The Saudis have also had decades to form a more diverse economy, and for various reasons haven't managed to do it...this has kept them vulnerable to this kind of action and it helps free the the major users of Saudi oil from "vendor lock-in"

- It demonstrates that cool, calm, collected diplomacy can actually work. However, many people will forget that the U.S. and Iran have been fighting a proxy war for decades. It hasn't been a hot war, but Stuxnet, various revolutionary movements and so on have been bits of that war. This isn't just Iran throwing in the towel because the sanctions finally worked, its because all of the other major leverage points Iran could muster were defeated.

- While the sanctions by themselves failed to work, they helped create a political climate inside of Iran that favored this outcome instead of having another go at saber rattling.

- This helps provide a mildly more palatable "friend" in the region than Pakistan

mschuster912• 11 years ago

- Iranian oil will keep prices in the toilet, this is basically a way for the U.S. to punish Saudi Arabia for decades of support for various maleficent actors.

While I'd certainly support letting SA rot to pieces for their misdeeds, SA alone could with a single move end the low oil prices. It's more like SA wants to screw over both Russia and the US, because neither country can produce oil at 10$ per barrel like SA can.

It hasn't been a hot war, but Stuxnet, various revolutionary movements and so on have been bits of that war.

Stuxnet was Israeli with US cooperation, iirc. Not that this makes stuff any better. Only problem is that Israel can and will ignore US opinions if they feel threatened. Unfortunately, Israel is in possession of nuclear bombs and their current government is extremely right-wing; I'm not sure if Israel won't escalate the war to "really hot" now that a deal has passed and they will be afraid that Iran will try to subvert it.

chadzawistowski• 11 years ago

Stuxnet was Israeli with US cooperation, iirc. Yes, and they targeted the Iranian computers that control their cetrifuges, to sabotage them.

selimthegrim3• 11 years ago

What's wrong with Pakistan? No mandated hijab, no execution of gays, no deep packet inspection...

atonse• 11 years ago

Extremely powerful intelligence agency that basically pulls (or tries to pull) the strings on the rest of the government.

Actual tested nuclear weapons with some nuclear scientists sympathizing with extremist Islamist views, not just a bourgeoning nuclear program.

Pseudo-militaristic rule. (Going back and forth between military and civilian rule, with various coups over the decades).

Slow loss of control of various extremist elements?

I don't know, I'd say Pakistan is pretty risky as well.

amalag11• 11 years ago

There are scholars who have advocated for the US to ally with Iran more than Pakistan. C Christine Fair has written scathing books and articles on Pakistan and its Islamist Jihadist army. She says most countries have an army, but in Pakistan the army has a country. US funds given to Pakistan are put in very dangerous hands.

Her recent article is quite good: http://business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/pathank...

rajacombinator• 11 years ago

Nice (surprising) to see some let up in the US's brutal war of aggression against Iran!

bronz4• 11 years ago

So what did he mean when he said that Iran would be able to access its holdings abroad?

"A senior American official said Saturday that Iran will be able to access about $50 billion of a reported $100 billion in holdings abroad, although others have used higher estimates."

mikeyouse• 11 years ago

Prior to the sanctions, Iran had billions of dollars invested in foreign banks and infrastructure. Their access to this money was cut off when the sanctions were put into place and we're slowly allowing them access. Here's an article from 2014 with more detail:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-assets-usa-idUSBREA0G...

bronz4• 11 years ago

Thank you.

refurb8• 11 years ago

Access money that is outside of Iran. Most countries have assets in other countries. Preventing the movement of this money is pretty typical form of sanctions.

TheGuyWhoCodes13• 11 years ago

This is the worst news this year. More money for terror, seems legit.

agorabinary3• 11 years ago

The single best way to reduce terrorism, civil strife, and violence in general is greater prosperity. Keeping people poor, ignorant and frustrated is a guarantee of future terrorism.

TheGuyWhoCodes13• 11 years ago

If only that new found prosperity wouldn't be used directly for terrorism I would agree with you. Lack of prosperity and poor education, didn't contribute to the sanctions been put on Iran but of direct action by the government. Lifting them will not help Iran become western democracy or less fanatic it's left wing bullshit.

amalag11• 11 years ago

Iran is state sponsor of terrorism but probably less than Pakistan whom the US government funds a lot more. The Taliban is sheltered and supported in Pakistan. Iran would be a far better strategic ally. Their Israel obsession can be cured, it is not pathological.

The Iran population is probably a lot more favorable to the US than Pakistan. Iranians are actually a lot more secular, the government is a lot more fanatic than the average person. That is not true in other countries.

The US needs to help shape Iran's future. An adversial relationship is not the best for that.

TheGuyWhoCodes13• 11 years ago

Haha, I have been down voted to oblivion... I guess that what you get for not using a throwaway...

This is only good for big corporations going to cash in on a new land of fresh business opportunities, pure greed.

jernfrost3• 11 years ago

Very exciting news, that made me happy about the news for a change. I am confident we can make Iran into a normal country if we show them some good will. It is a country full of all political stripes like anywhere else. The confrontational policies of the past has emboldened the Iranian hardliners.

It is time to embolden the moderates and reformers in Iran! When you read about the details of Iranian society, it is very clear that they have a huge amount of potential. Regular Iranians are the most positive to the west in the region. Religion is in strong decline there. They got a lot of real industry there. They are big car manufacturers e.g. They have more scientific output than the whole Arab world combined. Their strain of Islam is not as extremist as the one found among the gulf states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jemen etc.

We got to give the Iranians reasons to believe that playing well with the west will give them a lot more benefits than antagonizing Israel.

I support Israel's existence but I really wish they had a more moderate and constructive leader than Bibbi. He really comes across as a deranged conspiracy theorist. To make real progress we really need to get Iran and Israel to make the peace.

Iran Complies with Nuclear Deal; Sanctions Are Lifted

Related Stories