Iran Paid for Su-35 Jets, But Russia Won’t Deliver Them

Earlier this month, Brigadier General Hamid Vahedi, Iran’s air force commander, ended weeks of speculation about the imminent delivery Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets. “Regarding the purchase of Su-35 fighter jets [from Russia], we need them, but we do not know when they will be added to our squadron. This is related to the decision of [Iran’s] high-ranking officials,” he stated in an interview on state TV.

Vahedi's comments sparked speculation about dysfunction in the Russia-Iran partnership, including that Israel had successfully convinced Russia to postpone delivery of the advanced fighter jets to Iran.

While officials in Tehran continue to pursue a partnership with Russia, it is increasingly clear that Russian officials see their relationship with Iran as little more than a card that can be played according to their needs.

Russia’s potential sale of Su-35 jets to Iran has been connected to the deeper military cooperation between the two countries since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Iranian drones are being used by Russian forces to bomb Ukrainian cities. The first drones were transferred from Iran to Russia around one year ago.

But Iran has been waiting for far more than a year to receive the Su-35, which would prove a major upgrade in capabilities for Iran’s aging air force, largely comprised of American jets in service since before the 1979 revolution.

According to one current and one former diplomat with direct knowledge of the matter, Iran made “full payment” for 50 Su-35 fighter jets during the second term of President Hassan Rouhani. The officials requested anonymity given the sensitivity of Iran’s arms purchases. According to the former diplomat, at the time of purchase Russia had promised to deliver the Su-35s in 2023. Neither source expects that the deliveries will be made this year.

A third source, a security official, speaking on background, expressed disappointment that Vahedi’s “uncoordinated interview” had called attention to the fact that the deliveries were now in doubt. Iranian officials feel embarrassment over Russia’s failure to adhere to commitments.

The delay in the delivery could be traced to the strong relationship between Russia and Israel. In June, Axios reported that Israeli officials confronted Russian counterparts over Russia’s growing military cooperation with Iran and the possibility of Russia providing Iran advanced weapon systems. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disclosed the “open and frank” dialogue with Russian officials in a closed-door hearing with Israeli lawmakers on June 13.

In the view of the former diplomat, due to their arrogance, Iranian hardliners “fell into the trap” of believing that they were an equal partner to Russia, simply because “the Russians are queuing up to buy arms from them.”

The drone transfers have contributed to Iran’s political isolation, giving Western officials the impression of deepening cooperation between Russia and Iran, even as the Iranian Foreign Ministry continues to claim that Iran remains a neutral party in the Ukraine war. According to the security official, neutrality remains the consensus position of the Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, but he warned that country’s military brass may not all share that same view.

Notwithstanding the ambitions of Iranian generals, Russia continues to treat Iran far worse than an ally. Earlier this week, Russia issued a joint statement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), affirming the United Arab Emirate’s claims on three Iranian islands: the Greater Tunb, the Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa. The statement enraged Iranian officials. Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader, called Russia’s assent to the statement “a move borne of naivety.” Iran’s foreign minister and its government spokesperson stressed in statements that Iran will not tolerate claims on the three islands from any party. The officials had made such statements before—a China-GCC joint statement from December 2022 caused a similar public outcry.

As Iranian officials are forced to defend their ties with Russia once again, a question remains. Why does Iran have so little leverage over Russia, even after the Russian invasion of Ukraine? The answer lies in the mindset of Iranian officials.

Back in May, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, declared that “Dignity in foreign policy means saying no to the diplomacy of begging.” The slogan “diplomacy of begging” has become popular among conservatives and the hardliners, who have used it to condemn the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and to accuse former Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif of begging the West for sanctions relief. But if begging the West for sanctions relief is wrong, why are hardliners eager to beg Russia for the Sukhoi jets?

Tehran’s ties with Moscow were never built on trust. They were built on mutual fears and mutual needs. Were the administration of President Ebrahim Raisi to realize that looking to the West does not preclude political and economic relations with Russia and China, Iran could strengthen its position in the Middle East and regain leverage in its relationship with Russia. Until then, the Russians will continue to look at their relationship with Iran as a nothing more than playing card.

Photo: Wikicommons

EU Embargo of Russian Oil Spells Trouble for Iran

European Union leaders have agreed on a landmark embargo of Russian oil that will seek to slash imports by 90 percent by the end of the year. The embargo represents a major intensification of European sanctions on Russia following the invasion of Ukraine.

For most oil producers, the embargo will be a boon. While the measures were widely expected and therefore may have been partly priced-in by traders, oil prices jumped on the news. Saudi Arabia, for one, is already planning how it will spend the windfall enabled by high oil prices.

But for Iran, and to a lesser extent Venezuela, the embargo of Russian oil is bad news. For countries whose oil exports are subject to U.S. or EU sanctions, China is the buyer of last resort. For several years, China has been the sole country to continue significant purchases Iranian and Venezuelan crude oil, ignoring the threat of U.S. secondary sanctions. These imports have been an important contributor to Iran’s economic resilience under sanctions. However, this is not because revenues are flowing back to Iran. The revenues accruing in China are being used to sustain Iran’s imports of crucial intermediate goods for the country’s manufacturing base.

Iran has also benefited from increased financial resources in the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia, two countries which are serving to intermediate Chinese imports of Iranian oil. Most Iranian oil arriving in China is declared as an import from the UAE or Malaysia. As it stands, Iran is consistently exporting more than 1 million barrels per day of crude oil to China.

Russia’s rise as a major energy exporter to China corresponds to the period in which Iranian oil was taken off the market due to the impacts of US, EU, and UN sanctions programmes—Iran’s demise as an oil exporter helped open the door for Russian exports.

The new EU embargo on Russian oil will intensify competition between Russia and Iran in China’s oil market. Russian suppliers are already offering buyers a 30 percent discount on benchmark prices, a much steeper discount than Iran has offered Chinese buyers in recent years. Russia and Iran will be competing for the business of the limited number of Chinese refiners willing to process “sanctioned” oil.

Already, some Chinese “teapot” refiners are replacing Iranian oil with Russian oil because of the attractive discounts on offer. So far, customs data does not reflect a dramatic swing away from Iranian imports. But it is early days and the embargo will dramatically change incentives. According to the IEA, around “60 percent of Russia’s oil exports go to OECD Europe, and another 20 percent go to China.” While some customers, such as India, might import the Russian barrels that would have otherwise gone to Europe, political and economic realities will require Russia to push more oil into the Chinese market.

Looking to Chinese customs data for April, Russia’s ability to squeeze Iran becomes clear. It is clearly a more important supplier of crude oil to China. While logistical bottlenecks might prevent an immediate jump in Chinese purchases, all of the Russian barrels already flowing to China are newly subject to discounts—China can insist on lower prices now that the EU embargo is in place. This in turn creates pressure for Iran to match Russian discounts or risk losing market share.

While it is possible that the further pressure on global supply might push oil prices even higher, minimising the loss of revenue for Iran even as Chinese imports fall, in the medium term, Russia has the means to bully Iran due to its lower fiscal breakeven price and lower production costs. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Vladimir Putin boasted that Russia could withstand oil prices of as low as $25 dollars per barrel for as long as a decade. Iran’s oil sector, already weakened by a decade of sanctions, does not have the same ability to endure low prices. In short, Russia can afford to undercut Iran. 

Plus, for whatever period that Russian oil is not subject to U.S. secondary sanctions, Chinese tankers and refiners may prefer to handle Russian crude, due to the lower risk of enforcement action.

Iran has a couple of options here. First, it could try and negotiate an arrangement with Russia, agreeing not to engage in a race to the bottom when it comes to pricing their sanctioned barrels for China. Iran might even be able to play a role as an intermediary in Russian energy exports to China, importing refined products across the Caspian and exporting crude oil to China as part of a swap arrangement. But this kind of cooperation is highly unlikely given the track record of Russia-Iran relations and the fact that Russia sees Iran as the junior partner in the relationship.  

The second option would be for Iran to try and get itself out of this predicament by taking decisive steps to restore the nuclear deal. Doing so would see the rollback of U.S. secondary sanctions on Iranian oil and enable the resumption of exports to European buyers precisely when those buyers need it most. Earlier this month, EU High Representative Josep Borrell commented on the heightened value of the nuclear deal for Europe in the wake of the Russia crisis. He told the Financial Times that “Europeans will be very much beneficiaries from this deal” as the “the situation has changed now.” He added that “it would be very much interesting for us to have another [crude] supplier.”

Earlier this week, Iranian officials boasted that oil revenues were up 60 percent year-on-year owing to the high oil prices. But the situation has changed now. As the EU moves forward with its historic embargo, Iran’s oil revenues are suddenly in Russian crosshairs.

Photo: Kremlin.ru

Responding to Sanctions from the Supply-Side

One of the fundamental asymmetries of sanctions policy is that countries that apply sanctions have many opportunities to do so. Countries targeted by sanctions are usually only targeted once. Those using sanctions get to practice their economic statecraft. Those facing sanctions get a single shot to try and secure their economic survival.  

The question of how countries use their one shot has been little studied, especially since the emergence of financial sanctions as the primary tool of Western economic statecraft. This is a fundamentally important area of study. The efficacy of sanctions is a function of the resilience of the target. If a target can resist the coercive effects of sanctions in the medium-run, it is less likely that the sanctions will lead to the intended change in behaviour, particularly if the intended behaviour change is significant. Being able to estimate the resilience of the target is therefore a requirement for the judicious use of sanctions.

In a recent essay, I discussed how the Russian economy might respond to sanctions. My analysis drew on the experience of Iran, a country that has proven remarkably resilient in the face of the most expansive sanctions ever imposed. President Trump’s Iran envoy, Brian Hook, once stated “Because of our pressure, Iran’s leaders are facing a decision: Either negotiate with us or manage economic collapse.” We know that Iran managed to stave economic such a collapse. But was Iran’s response to the sanctions-induced economic crisis a good one?

Iranian economic policymaking is about as deft as in most middle-income countries. The grit of firms and households, which fought hard to prevent their own financial ruin, flattered Iranian policymakers. There were some successful policy interventions, such as a move to better regulate foreign exchange through the creation of a new parallel market, and the limited use of cash transfers to soften the blow of the economic downturn on households. But overall, it is difficult to conclude that Iran is a case study for an effective policy response to a sanctions crisis.

This is not to say Iran lacks sharp minds. But in the fog of economic war, a misunderstanding of the nature of the economic crisis and a reliance on textbook economics, combined to prevent a more nimble and effective policy response. The policy failure reflected an inability to respond to the key economic impact of sanctions—higher rates of inflation—with the correct set of policy tools. The Iranian government responded to persistent high inflation through a combination of monetary and fiscal interventions. Absent was any active industrial policy. This may come as a surprise. Helmed by a “revolutionary” government, Iran might have been expected to favour economic centralisation and public investment in its response to economic crises. But as a review of the statements and commentary of leading economic policymakers and economists makes clear, whether the interventions were monetarist or Keynesian, they have generally been focused on shielding aggregate demand from the sanctions pressure by seeking to control inflation or to compensate for its effects.

In a recent op-ed in the Financial Times, Iran’s finance minister, Ehran Khandouzi declared that the Raisi administration is seeking “to change the course of fiscal policy,” by aiming to “promote economic growth, price stability, and inclusive growth.” As part of this plan, Khandouzi called for “increasing government investment,” noting that the “public sector must play a more active role in investing in physical capital.” The timing of the op-ed was curious—talks over the future of the Iran nuclear negotiations have languished. By publishing his commentary in a leading international newspaper, Khandouzi may have been aiming to signal the Raisi administration’s readiness to engage with the global economy. Even so, the message of the op-ed was calculated. While Khandouzi notes that the negotiations in Vienna “could potentially lead to positive economic outcomes for Iran,” he concludes by explaining that the country is “ready for whatever scenario emerges — pessimistic or otherwise.”

In recent years, supply-side responses to inflation have come to the fore, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic during which Western governments experienced inflationary pressures directly related to supply chain disruptions. As Yakov Feygin has written, the COVID-19 crisis “created bottlenecks in the production of practically every commodity.” For Feygin and other supply-side economists, the pandemic was a clarifying moment that “an active industrial policy” was a necessary part of any response to the “upward pressure on prices” that emerged as households continued to demand consumer goods and durables at a time when factories were forced to cut back production. Such an industrial policy would see policymakers “use the spending power of the government to issue long-term capital to vital but low-margin sectors.”

Could Khandouzi’s call for a “change in fiscal policy” see the emergence of an active industrial policy and a true supply-side response to inflation? Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, has frequently cited the need to increase domestic production, which has been interpreted as a nod to import substitution. In an address given in March marking the start of the Iranian new year, Khamenei declared that “Production is the key to solving economic problems and the path to pass through economic difficulties.” However, looking beyond the Supreme Leader’s slogans, it is notable that more economic policymakers in Iran are increasingly connecting the specific problem of high prices to the challenge of low production. In a 2020 interview, Ali Salehabadi, now serving as governor of the Central Bank of Iran, expressed a decidedly supply-side outlook. “It goes without saying that the root of inflation in our country is not only monetary, but also related to real variables such as production. That is, increasing production in the long run will reduce inflation. Therefore, the growth of production will make the preparations for improving the living and economic conditions of the people,” he said. For his part, Khandouzi highlighted how “negative net investment in recent years” is “severely undermining future production and household welfare.”

There is no doubt that sanctions induce monetary and fiscal shocks that explain a significant portion of their inflationary impact. Moves to freeze Iran’s central bank reserves led to a shortage of foreign exchange. This weakened the Iranian rial. The Iranian government also printed money to finance budget deficits caused by the impact of sanctions on government revenues, principally oil revenues. But to fully capture the macroeconomic impact of sanctions it is important to look at goods, and not money alone. Financial sanctions hurt because they are the most effective means to determine what goods a target country can buy and sell in global markets. Sure, sectoral sanctions and export controls impact trade, putting pressure on the target country’s balance of payments. But countries have a knack at finding new buyers and suppliers (and intermediaries) who are willing to skirt these measures. What proves harder is finding banks willing to facilitate payments to those buyers or suppliers. It was not until financial sanctions cut Iranian banks, including the country’s central bank, from the global financial system in 2012, that there was a major impact on Iran’s current account. If an economy is highly import dependent, these disruptions have a direct inflationary impact. If the targeted country is relatively industrialised, producing more of the goods it consumes domestically, then the impact is less direct. This is the case in Iran and likely for Russia. In Iran, a decade of diminished imports of raw materials and intermediate goods have suppressed industrial output, in turn creating upward pressure on prices. In other words, consumer prices rose because producer prices rose. Iran experienced a supply-side shock.

As the short-run shock gives way to medium-run stagnation, persistent inflation and other economic impacts, such as unemployment, will lead to reduced demand—this is demand destruction. But in the immediate period after the imposition of sanctions demand remains mostly unchanged, even as inflation mounts. Households are inherently reluctant to cut back on spending in ways that will appreciably reduce quality of life and will therefore dip into savings. As prices rise further, families will increase the proportion of their expenditure on key categories, such as food and other consumer goods, including durables—demand for these goods is relatively inelastic. These are also the goods that Iran’s manufacturing sector tends to produce, given the large domestic market. This is partly why the supply-side challenge emerges. Consider the spending behaviours of a middle-class family in the aftermath of a sanctions shock. As the economic outlook worsens and as inflation expectations rise, that family will cut back on discretionary spending. They may delay the purchase of a luxury car or cancel a planned vacation abroad. But those decisions do not alleviate broader, society-wide price pressure because that consumption was either met through imports or facilitated by the Iranian services sector and not underpinned by domestic industry.

In more formal terms, under a major sanctions programme, aggregate demand in the targeted economy will fall. But in a relatively developed economy with a large domestic manufacturing base, the contraction in aggregate demand will be smaller than the contraction in aggregate supply for two reasons. First, uncertainty over future demand will see producers reduce investment. While sceptical of government interventions, Iranian private sector business leaders have sounded the alarm that a decade of low-investment is hitting production. Second, even when firms do have the means to invest, they may not be able to do so. Sanctions can prevent firms from acquiring the needed machinery and equipment, leading to the degradation of the capital stock and a drop in output. For example, sanctions on the Iranian oil sector made the acquisition of equipment more difficult, leading to concerns over the productive capacity of oil and gas fields.

Implicit in this analysis is the assumption that in the medium-run, sanctions will be lifted. Even so, the effects of reduced investment are significant. In the short-term, as producer prices rise, aggregate supply falls faster than demand, adding to inflationary pressure. But the nature of this contraction is where the real pain of sanctions lies. The shift in aggregate supply is not temporary, and it cannot be fully reversed through the lifting of sanctions because of a change in the elasticity of aggregate supply. In other words, enduring sanctions makes it fundamentally more difficult for an economy to bounce back when sanctions are eventually lifted in the medium-run. The relationship between the elasticity of aggregate supply and extended economic recessions has not been well-studied. This may be because a normal recession, even if lengthy, does not inherently impact the components of long-run aggregate supply—land, labour, capital and, productivity. But sanctions do not cause normal recessions. Sanctions prevent investment in capital goods by prohibiting or complicating the import of machinery and equipment. In this way, the prolonged lack of investment leads to a degradation of the capital stock. Mothballed facilities can be difficult to recommission and those assembly lines that do restart may be using obsolete technology. Iran’s leading automaker still produces the Peugeot 206, which was first introduced in France in 1998. In this way, while the lifting of sanctions may lead to a recovery of demand, particularly as restored foreign exchange revenues serve to strengthen the currency and boost purchasing power, producers may not be able to rapidly increase output in response to the expansion in demand.

The implication is that policymakers ought to think about major sanctions programmes—those that induce several years of high inflation—from the supply-side. In the short-run, the primary economic impact of sanctions is higher inflation, but in the medium-run, even after the lifting of sanctions, the pain of sanctions lingers as supply remains constrained. This is also why the beneficial impact of sanctions relief on the monetary and fiscal situation of the target country may not be sufficient to lead to a normalisation in price levels. On one hand, the upfront capital expenditure necessary to overhaul productive sectors may be prohibitively high after an extended period of underinvestment—in the aggregate, the targeted economy will struggle to ramp-up production at pre-sanctions rates. On the other hand, turning to imports to compensate for the new inelasticity of domestic supply will introduce its own price pressures, particularly given the lingering effects of sanctions on foreign trade, such as higher transaction costs. Under these conditions, sanctions relief is insufficient to deliver growth. As Nicholas Mulder and I have argued, countries ravaged by sanctions require sanctions reconstruction.

This analysis suggests that true sanctions resilience requires supply-side interventions. Finding ways to prevent the contraction in output is more important than trying to shore consumption, especially given the ways in which greater inelasticity in supply will diminish the prospects for the sanctioned country to recover under conditions when sanctions are eventually lifted. Taking this view, the response of Iranian policymakers to the inflation problem is peculiar. The focus on monetary policy reflects a textbook approach. Even in the aftermath of sanctions that obviously degraded supply chains and limited production, Iranian officials primarily viewed inflation as a phenomenon related to the growing money supply, which needed to be addressed through tighter monetary policy and higher interest rates. To put it another way, the response to the crisis focused on the production of money and the price of money, even though the sanctions crisis was largely, if not predominantly, about the production of goods and the price of those goods. This is why the rise of supply-side rhetoric among Iranian economic policymakers is so intriguing.

Beyond the economic significance of any forthcoming change in Iran’s policy response to sanctions, there are political implications that ought to be considered. If belated supply-side interventions make countries like Iran more resilient to sanctions, beyond the levels of resilience currently observed following faltering and orthodox demand-side interventions, sanctions may become less effective over time, especially as those countries yet to be targeted with economic weapons learn from the experiences of those that have.  

Counterintuitively, greater economic resilience among sanctions targets may also benefit those states imposing sanctions. If targeted countries can successfully devise an industrial policy that minimises the negative impact on the elasticity of aggregate supply, for example through financial support for productive firms and greater efforts to protect supply chains for machinery and equipment, it will make the economy more responsive to sanctions relief and reduce medium-run price distortions. Policymakers applying sanctions tend to do so under the false impression that sanctions can be imposed and lifted with the flip of a switch. Sanctions can certainly be imposed quickly—the sanctions imposed on Russia were applied with record speed. But their rollback is laborious, and the economic benefits can be slow to materialise, in large part due to the changes in the components of aggregate supply. Good sanctions policy requires maximising short-run pain while minimising medium-run harms. For both policymakers applying sanctions and those seeking to resist sanctions, better policy outcomes require supply-side thinking.

Photo: IRNA

Iran, Russia, and the Limits of Financial War

In response to Vladimir Putin’s increasingly brutal invasion of Ukraine, the West has declared a financial war on Russia. The US Department of Treasury unveiled new sanctions on the Russian financial sector late last week, measures that “target nearly 80 percent of all banking assets” in the country. Forthcoming sanctions on the Central Bank of Russia (CBR), announced by the European Union jointly with the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, will effectively freeze Russia’s gross international reserves. Further measures targeting Russia’s energy sector will make the Western sanctions programme among the most expansive ever devised, and certainly the most significant to target such a large economy. There has been impressive coordination between US and European authorities in designing and implementing these sanctions, which have been justified by Putin’s provocations. In their rapid imposition and their broad scope, these sanctions are clearly intended to have significant deleterious effects on the Russian economy. The strategy has shifted from deterrence to attrition and from targeted measures to full financial war.  

The only other comparable financial war waged by the United States and Europe has targeted Iran. The Iran sanctions were applied more gradually than those being applied to Russia today. But in 2012, Iran’s central bank assets and energy exports were targeted in move that will be the model for the sanctions on CBR and Russia’s energy industry. These sanctions were initially multilateral in nature, with UN, US, and EU measures imposed in tandem. The multilateral sanctions were in place until 2016, when the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) saw the lifting of most UN and EU sanctions as well as US secondary sanctions. Iran benefited from sanctions relief for just two years, enough time for a return to economic growth, but not enough time for a remediation of the harm that sanctions had caused most Iranian households. In 2018, President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed US secondary sanctions on Iran, once again thrusting Iran into an economic crisis, later compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Broadly speaking, the financial war on Iran has been in effect for a decade. The damage incurred by the Iranian economy has been extensive. Currency volatility and high inflation have sapped Iranian purchasing power, pushing millions of Iranians below the poverty line. Chronic weaknesses of the Iranian economy, such as high unemployment and systemic corruption have been exacerbated. Still, despite the many hardships, the Iranian economy did not collapse. Rather, the economy stagnated, growing an average of just 0.37 percent between 2012 and 2020. When excluding 2016 and 2017—the two years of sanctions relief under the JCPOA—the average falls to -1.96 percent. A decade of stagnation and the diminishing welfare of ordinary Iranians combined to create new political pressures on the Iranian government. Labour mobilisations have become commonplace and there have been multiple waves of nationwide protests focused on economic grievances. These protests have been violently suppressed by authorities. Even so, the Iranian government is today pursuing sanctions relief—in the context of renewed negotiations over the JCPOA—not because of fears an impending economic collapse, but because of a view that economic resilience allows Iran to engage in negotiations from a position of relative strength, seeking the conditions for a return to growth.

Unsurprisingly, Iran has become a touchpoint in the discussion around the growing Russia sanctions programme. But the focus has been the Iranian precedent for key moves, such as the removal of Russian banks from the SWIFT messaging network. So far, there has been little consideration of what the outcomes of the financial war on Iran might tell us about the prospects for the financial war on Russia. The cases are not only comparable because of the kinds of sanctions that are being applied, but because the two economies share important similarities. Of course, Russia and Iran are both major energy producers and revenues from oil and gas exports are centrally important for government budgets. But the two countries also boast large manufacturing sectors principally supplying internal markets. Despite general corruption and rentierism, key institutions exhibit technocratic sophistication.

In response to the 2012 and 2018 sanctions shocks, Iran demonstrated that its flawed economy could undergo structural adjustments to sanctions pressure. Such adjustments begin immediately, meaning economies targeted by sanctions can return to fragile growth in as little as a year. In Iran, this capacity for adjustment reflected the bottom-up resilience of households and companies seeking to survive the financial war. The Iranian state lucked out. Officials boasted of their “resistance economy” policies, despite failing to develop a cohesive response to sanctions pressure. Meanwhile, the composition of the Iranian economy meant that sanctions pressure could be absorbed. There is reason to believe that Russia will also absorb such pressure. Across key indicators, Russia appears in a stronger position than Iran was at the outset of its financial war.  

Access to Foreign Exchange

Sanctions targeting a country’s central bank are the most significant measure in any financial war because of the direct impact on the national currency. During the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign, Iranian authorities maintained ready access to just 10 percent of the country’s gross international reserves, putting enormous pressure on the Iranian currency and making it very difficult for Iran to manage deficits with key trade partners. In January 2018, a few months before Trump announced his withdrawal from the nuclear deal, the free market dollar exchange rate in Iran was IRR 46,000. Today the exchange rate is IRR 263,000. The dramatic devaluation of the rial is often cited as evidence of the devastating impact of US sanctions. Indeed, devaluation made imported goods, including foodstuffs like wheat, on which Iranian households rely, more expensive. But the Iranian government demonstrated an ability to return order to currency markets, both by finding ways to supply foreign exchange into the market despite sanctions and also through better technical management of the market itself, including through the creation of a parallel market whereby exporters are required to sell foreign exchange earnings to importers. Russia is arguably in a better position than Iran to weather the attack on the value of its currency. It has gone through this storm before—the rouble lost half its value following the imposition of more limited sanctions in 2014, as part of the Western response to the annexation of Crimea. In response to the latest crisis, CBR has already hiked interest rates to 20 percent and imposed a new requirement for companies to repatriate foreign exchange earnings. If we assume that the 10 percent figure represents maximum efficacy for the freezing of central bank reserves, then that would leave CBR with access to approximately $63 billion. However, Russian reserves are equivalent to about 42 percent of GDP. In 2012, Iran’s reserves (then $104 billion) amounted to just 17 percent of GDP. So even if a similarly small percentage of the reserves remain available to CBR following the implementation of the financial sanctions, Russian authorities could fare better than their Iranian counterparts in stabilising the value of the rouble after the latest devaluation shock caused by the financial sanctions.  

Energy Revenues and Fiscal Space

Despite initial attempts to create carve-outs for Russia’s energy exports, motivated by a desire to shield Europe from an economic shock and to leave room for escalation, it now appears likely that Russian energy exports will be targeted by Western sanctions. In the case of Iran, such sanctions provided highly effective in reducing exports of crude oil and mostly effective at reducing exports of petrochemical products. Broadly speaking the purpose of energy sanctions is to induce a fiscal crisis. Even in periods in which Iran was permitted to export limited volumes of crude oil under so-called Significant Reduction Exemption waivers, the revenues from these sales could only be used for humanitarian trade, meaning that the fiscal constraints remained significant. In the lead-up to 2012, oil sales accounted for around 80 percent of Iran’s total exports and around 60 percent of government revenues. Russia has a significantly lower dependence on energy sales, which today account for around 60 percent of exports and around 40 percent of government revenues. Tax administration in Russia is also significantly more developed than in Iran. In 2020, the Russian government collected $387 billion in tax revenue, equivalent to around one-fourth of GDP. By comparison, tax revenue in Iran was just $32 billion in 2012, equivalent to one-twentieth of GDP. Like the Iranian government, the Russian government is not heavily indebted. In 2012, Iran’s government debt was equivalent to 10 percent of GDP. Government debt in Russia was equivalent to 16 percent of GDP in 2021. The Russian government is likely to have more fiscal space than Iran in the aftermath of the sanctions shock given a similar debt level and more robust revenue sources. Notably, Iran did not really use what fiscal space it had as part of its response to sanctions, choosing to run austerity budgets aimed at slowing inflation. Russia could take a different approach, directing state investment to compensate for the lost growth in the energy sector.

Dependence on Manufacturing

Russia is the world’s second largest consumer of natural gas. Iran is the fourth. These high rates of consumption reflect that natural gas is used for heating homes, for power generation, and as feedstock in the manufacturing sector. The energy sector in Russia will contract dramatically just as it has in Iran over the last decade, but it will not collapse in large part because of the important role of the manufacturing sector in the adjustment to sanctions and wider economic resilience. In 2012, Iran’s manufacturing sector accounted for 14.4 percent of GDP. In Russia, based on data for 2020, the manufacturing sector accounted for 13.3 percent of GDP. The sectors are of similar importance to their respective economies. But these statistics also underestimate that importance. The relative size of the manufacturing sector in Russia and Iran fluctuates with the oil price—high prices mean that the oil sector contributes more than usual to GDP. Moreover, in both countries the manufacturing sector is a larger employer than the energy sector, given the relatively limited manpower necessary to operate modern energy infrastructure. Manufacturing is the sector that really matters.

The latest World Bank report on Iran, which details the country’s fragile economic recovery, notes that recent growth has been driven by manufacturing. The report points to two aspects of the adjustment to sanctions: “Less market competition—due to import restrictions on nonessential goods—and the price competitiveness of manufacturing and mining production—following the currency depreciation.” The resilience of Iran’s manufacturing sector under sanctions has been further detailed in a study by Hadi Esfahani, who used firm-level data to show that “manufacturing firms adapted to the sanctions environment, and many resumed growth based on domestic demand and resources.” While the sanctions shock does lead to a contraction in the manufacturing sector, it is declining output, not “exits” that are to blame. In other words, manufacturing firms do not tend to go out of business. In fact, manufacturers who produce goods for export markets, especially regional markets, can grow their profit margins as they earn foreign exchange. This adjustment is easiest for firms engaged in light manufacturing, as demand for consumer goods is relatively inelastic and as production of these goods is less capital intensive, shielding manufacturers from higher producer prices. But to take advantage of these conditions, manufacturing firms must maintain output.

Shifts in Trade Composition

The fundamental challenge for the Iranian manufacturing sector since 2012 has been disruptions in the supply of inputs and high producer prices. In this way, the impact of sanctions on imports of industrial goods may be more consequential for the targeted economy than the impact of sanctions on the sale of energy products. Iranian manufacturing firms remain in business and continue to produce for a large domestic market and newly growing regional demand. But to do so, they needed to maintain imports of industrial equipment. Purchasing managers’ index data for Iran makes clear that the primary constraint on the manufacturing sector’s economic performance under sanctions has been the reduction in raw materials and intermediate goods inventories and the high cost of replenishing those inventories. Historically, intermediate inputs and equipment were sourced from Europe. But beginning in the late 2000s, China became a larger supplier. The financial war on Iran accelerated the shift in the country’s trade composition as Chinese suppliers proved more willing to sell to Iran in the face of sanctions. One way to express the relative importance of Chinese and European supply is to look at the ratio of exports from the two suppliers. In 2012, Iran imported 1.2 times more goods from China than it did from the European Union. But machinery imports (HS Chapters 84 and 85) from China and Europe were about equal. By comparison, Russia is significantly more dependent on Europe as its financial war begins. The total value of all imports from the European Union is about twice that from China. The dependence is slightly lower when looking at machinery—the total value of Chinese machinery exports to Russia is 70 percent of European Union exports.

On one hand, this higher dependence may mean that the sanctions shock to the Russian manufacturing sector will be greater than that in Iran. But on the other hand, it demonstrates that Russia has yet to make the “Eastward turn” that many have observed in Iran and other Eurasian economies. To be clear, Chinese firms did not completely ignore Western sanctions on Iran and did engage in de-risking that left Iran behind its regional neighbours with regards to economic ties to China. Bilateral trade has stagnated since 2012 and the inability of Iran to maintain significant oil sales to China for large periods over the last decade also posed financial challenges for maintaining industrial imports. But whereas Iran is one of China’s many economic partners in West Asia, Russia has presented itself as a unique geopolitical partner within a wider Eurasian context. This may make the difference as Russian manufacturers seek alternative suppliers for crucial industrial goods.  

Capital and Its Survival Instincts

If Russia does demonstrate a similar kind of economic resilience to Iran, that does not mean that there will not be economic hardship. In Iran, annual inflation exceeded 30 percent following the 2012 and 2018 sanctions shocks. Skyrocketing prices, especially for food products, pushed many working-class families into poverty. For a once upwardly mobile middle class, the diminished standard of living has been embittering. For most in Iran’s upper class, sanctions have been a nuisance. For some among the wealthy, they have been a boon.  

One unique feature of the Russia sanctions programme is the focus on oligarchs and the perverse influence that individuals with extreme wealth have on the country’s politics, particularly in their perceived fealty to Putin. Western officials are directly targeting these oligarchs, both by targeting their personal assets and through measures targeted at the conglomerates they own. The Moscow Exchange suspended trading last week after a massive sell-off saw the main index fall 50 percent. European and American regulators are promising to review the lax rules that have allowed Russian oligarchs to purchase extensive real estate in Western cities. In both capital markets and real estate, the wealth of Russia’s ruling classes has been augmented by the commingling of domestic and foreign investor capital. As foreign investors retreat from Russia, and as high-net worth Russians are blocked from foreign real estate markets, oligarchs will take a hit. But capital has its own survival instincts.

Russia’s capital markets are far more developed than those of Iran. Unlike the Moscow Exchange, the Tehran Stock Exchange has never hosted significant foreign investment. Still, capital markets did play a role in Iran’s sanctions response in a way that diminished the political, if not absolute economic, impact of sanctions. In 2019, deep into Trump’s restarted financial war on Iran, the Tehran Stock Exchange was the world’s best performing equity market, with market value doubling in dollar terms. There were three reasons for this remarkable performance. First, many listed companies, particularly manufacturing firms, were posting strong financial results after adjusting to the new sanctions reality. Second, high inflation left Iranians scrambling to invest in a safe asset while sanctions made capital flight difficult and costly. For middle class families, the safe havens were hard currency or gold. For upper class families they were domestic real estate or stocks. Third, as wealthy Iranians increased their exposure to capital markets, a policy shift took place. Suddenly, developing the capital markets became a priority for the government and for the nascent financial services industry, particularly with the aim of increasing the number of retail investors. More money poured into the market, even from middle class households, driving prices higher. The returns outpaced inflation, drawing in more investment, and giving rise to what many considered to be a dangerous bubble. But in the meantime, a new feature of Iranian political economy emerged. The newfound importance of the country’s capital markets, an outcome of the financial war, was exemplified in the decision of the government to liberalise a “justice shares” programme that had granted shares in state-owned enterprises listed on the stock exchange to disadvantaged families. Overnight, Iran had 50 million new retail investors with an interest in the political and economy stability that favours stock price appreciation.

By comparison, Russia has around 13 million retail investors. There is significant potential for domestic wealth to pour into the stock exchange, whether spurred by the inflationary environment or encouraged as a matter of new government policy. The implication is that capital markets are useful tools for preserving capital—the desperation of middle and working classes in Russia may help shore the wealth of oligarchs, already in stocks and real estate. Many of the enterprises that oligarchs control may successfully adjust to the new reality and remain profitable. A new class of “light” oligarchs may emerge as certain light manufacturing enterprises benefit from reduced competition and better export prospects. The financial war could also provide a pretext for state capture, with private capital facilitating rentierism, corruption, or smuggling deemed expedient in the face of sanctions.

Take all of this together and it becomes clear that the most problematic aspects of Russian political economy—the obscene concentration of wealth among a politically-connected ruling class—will remain unchanged in the financial war. Meanwhile, the immiseration of the middle and working classes will further disempower civil society, creating a dynamic where dangerous protests are the only means through which to air grievances and in which deprivation focuses those protests on wages and bread. As Bourse & Bazaar Foundation board member Djavad Salehi-Isfahani has shown, just as poverty has increased since sanctions were imposed on Iran, so too has inequality risen. The rich are not getting poorer, but the poor certainly are.

Confounding Aspects

Iran’s economic resilience in the face of sanctions owes little to the state and a lot to its people, who have simply tried to prevent their own financial ruin. Economies are made up of individuals—some wealthy, most poor—who marshal the resources they have. How those resources are distributed determines the effects of sanctions on the wider economy. When comparing the fundamentals of the Russian and Iranian economies—the depth of the comparison here is limited by my lack of detailed knowledge about the Russian economy—it seems reasonable to assume that Russia will endure its financial war. The composition of its industry, the size of its domestic and regional markets, and the resources available to the state are all comparable to what Iran had at its disposal in 2012 on the eve of the financial war that has now lasted a decade. Given the fundamental comparability of the Russian and Iranian economies, it stands to reason that the Russian structural adjustment to the newly imposed sanctions may not even require astute political leadership. This may be a good thing. The Iranian leadership was more inclined to pursue diplomacy when it believed that it had achieved a stalemate in the economic war.

As Nicholas Mulder has observed, “Perhaps the most confounding aspect of sanctions is that regardless of technical sophistication, their outcome is never a matter of economic factors alone.” Western governments will no doubt be able to cause massive damage to the Russian economy, but the individuals who comprise that economy will attempt to adjust. The Russian public, like the Iranian public, is at best ambivalent about the policies of their leaders in response to which sanctions have been imposed. In Iran, a decade later, there is a widespread sense that the price endured by ordinary people is no longer proportional to the wrongs committed by their government. If the sanctions persist in the aftermath of a cessation of the conflict in Ukraine—which is likely—a similar reality may come to pass for the Russia. In this context, the resilience of ordinary people in the face of financial war will not be an act of political resistance, but of basic survival. They will toil for low wages in factories and fields, struggling to put food on the table and at times they will protest, facing down the violence of the state. Meanwhile, the economy will stagnate. So too will a dismal political reality.

Photo: Getty Images

As Putin Invades Ukraine, Uzbekistan Feels Vindication and Fear

Vladimir Putin has begun his invasion of Ukraine, sending troops across the border to “defend” the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, which Russia has now recognized as independent states. The unfolding crisis in Ukraine offers the latest evidence of Putin’s irredentist obsessions and the ways in which those obsessions threaten the political and economic integrity of Russia’s neighbours.

Last week, Uzbekistan marked Ukraine’s “Day of Unity,” a Ukrainian national holiday. The façade of the historic Hotel Uzbekistan, overlooking Tashkent’s main square, was lit in the colors of the Ukrainian flag. Beyond shared affinities, Uzbekistan and Ukraine are both confronted by the challenge that is Putin. For Uzbekistan, the events unfolding in Ukraine validate a decades-long effort to hedge relations with Russia. But they also raise the spectre that Putin will no longer tolerate divided loyalties among the former Soviet republics.

As Maximillian Hess has written, Uzbek president Shavkat Mirziyoyev has sought to rebuild relations with Russia since coming to power in 2016. Mirziyoyev‘s predecessor, Islam Karimov, who led Uzbekistan from 1989 until his death in 2016, believed that “Moscow’s vision for Central Asia was to keep it as a colonial backwater.” In both security and economic spheres, Karimov challenged Russia’s regional dominance. Uzbekistan was an on-again, off-again member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a military alliance of post-Soviet countries. Uzbekistan served as a staging ground for NATO operations in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2005. Karimov also delayed joining the customs union that preceded the founding of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEAU), Putin’s grand vision for an economic bloc.

Mirziyoyev’s ascendence to the presidency required horse-trading. Developing more constructive ties with Putin was an important aspect of his attempts to consolidate his authority after a power struggle with Rustam Inoyatov, the chief of Uzbekistan’s intelligence services. Inoyatov was eventually sacked in January 2018. In October of that year, Putin visited Uzbekistan bringing with him a large delegation of Russian companies. The visit saw the signing of contracts totalling $9 billion, including provisional agreements for the construction of a nuclear plant that would help Uzbekistan free its natural gas production for export.

But Mirziyoyev has also sought to limit Russian political and economic influence in Uzbekistan by pursuing a multilateral foreign policy and economic liberalisation. While Uzbekistan is expected to join the EEAU, Mirziyoyev has slow-rolled accession, meanwhile pursuing formalised ties with the European Union, including preferential trade terms under the EU’s  Generalized Scheme of Preferences. Uzbek officials have continued to engage with counterparts in the United States, building on a state visit by Mirziyoyev to Washington in May 2018. Since the outset of his term, Mirziyoyev has also sought to develop better relations with neighbours. At the heart of this strategy is a series of “consultative meetings” among Central Asian leaders that exclude the presence of either Russia or China, the two states that typically wield convening power.

In this way, Uzbekistan has hedged in its relations with Russia. While developing more constructive bilateral relations, it has also ensured that parallel developments in its foreign policy and economic agenda serve to circumscribe Russian influence. Recent events have shown the prudence of such an approach.  

In January, as protests accelerated into a full-blown political crisis in Kazakhstan, the Uzbek government reacted cautiously. But Putin’s deployment to Kazakhstan of a “peacekeeping” mission comprised of CSTO forces raised concerns over Russia’s respect for the sovereignty of its neighbours. Likely commenting on the circumspection of Uzbek leaders, Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko issued a veiled threat to Uzbekistan, suggesting that the country’s failure to join CSTO would leave it vulnerable to “terrorists.”

For many Uzbek political commentators, the threat underscored the risks of posed by the increasingly irredentist Russia. Xushnudbek Xudoyberdiyev, deputy director of state news agency UzA and a prominent blogger, criticized Lukashenko, calling the CSTO a “trojan horse.” In a lengthy interview published two days after the threat, political analysts Farhod Tolipov and Kamoliddin Rabbimov questioned the wisdom of joining the EEAU.

Similar dynamics can be seen in the response to the Russian aggression against Ukraine. While Uzbek officials have yet to issue statements on the crisis, Uzbek editors and bloggers have been quick to label Putin a “savage,” a “criminal,” and a “bandit,” who has “lost his mind” and “spit on international law.” Political commentators have questioned the slow response to the new crisis from the Uzbek Ministry of Foreign Affairs and have also wondered about the risk posed by deepening economic ties with Russia.

Uzbekistan does not share a border with Russia—perhaps a silver lining of being one of just two double landlocked countries in the world. But the Ukraine crisis does have a bearing on Uzbekistan’s place in the political and economic order in West Asia. As Putin takes a more confrontational approach with the West, he may begin to see Mirziyoyev’s hedging of its relations with Russia as an afront, putting Uzbek elites with strong ties to Russia in a difficult position.  

Moreover, if Western countries place Russia under significant sanctions as is expected, the consequences for the Uzbek economy could be profound. Russia hosts 3 million migrant workers from Uzbekistan, whose remittances shore Uzbek household consumption. As the rouble comes under pressure and as the economy falters, these workers, already struggling due to Russia’s general economic malaise, will see their employment prospects diminish and the value of their earnings erode. The devaluation of the rouble would also hit Uzbekistan’s economic elite who maintain assets in Russian banks. Moreover, financial sanctions placed on those banks could see a significant portion of Uzbek wealth effectively frozen.   

Over the last five years, Uzbekistan has been one of the few former Soviet republics to enjoy political stability and economic prosperity. That alone sets Uzbekistan apart. But the country’s political and economic agenda is also unique given the ways in which it has sought to modulate Russian influence. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine vindicates that agenda, but it will also stoke fear. Among Putin’s complaints about Ukraine is that its leadership “preferred to act in such a way that in relations with Russia they had all the rights and advantages, but did not bear any obligations.” One can imagine a similar charge being made against Uzbekistan.

Photo: Kremlin.ru

The Middle East’s Next Conflicts Won’t Be Between Arab States and Iran

By Vali Nasr

For more than two decades, the United States has seen the politics of the Middle East as a tug of war between moderation and radicalism—Arabs against Iran. But for the four years of Donald Trump’s presidency, it was blind to different, more profound fissures growing among the region’s three non-Arab powers: Iran, Israel, and Turkey.

For the quarter century after the Suez crisis of 1956, Iran, Israel, and Turkey joined forces to strike a balance against the Arab world with U.S. help. But Arab states have been sliding deeper into paralysis and chaos since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, followed by the failed Arab Spring, leading to new fault lines. Indeed, the competition most likely to shape the Middle East is no longer between Arab states and Israel or Sunnis and Shiites—but among the three non-Arab rivals.

The emerging competitions for power and influence have become severe enough to disrupt the post-World War I order, when the Ottoman Empire was split into shards that European powers picked up as they sought to control the region. Although fractured and under Europe’s thumb, the Arab world was the political heart of the Middle East. European rule deepened cleavages of ethnicity and sects and shaped rivalries and battle lines that have survived to this day. The colonial experience also animated Arab nationalism, which swept across the region after World War II and placed the Arab world at the heart of U.S. strategy in the Middle East.

All of that is now changing. The Arab moment has passed. It is now the non-Arab powers that are ascendant, and it is the Arabs who are feeling threatened as Iran expands its reach into the region and the United States reduces its commitment. Last year, after Iran was identified as responsible for attacks on tankers and oil installations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi cited the Iranian threat as a reason to forge a historic peace deal with Israel.

But that peace deal is as much a bulwark against Turkey as it is against Iran. Rather than set the region on a new course toward peace, as the Trump administration claimed, the deal signals an intensification of rivalry among Arabs, Iranians, Israelis, and Turks that the previous administration failed to take into consideration. In fact, it could lead to larger and more dangerous regional arms races and wars that the United States neither wants nor can afford to get entangled in. So, it behooves U.S. foreign policy to try to contain rather than stoke this new regional power rivalry.

Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear capability and its use of clients and proxies to influence the Arab world and attack U.S. interests and Israel are now familiar. What is new is Turkey’s emergence as an unpredictable disrupter of stability across a much larger region. No longer envisioning a future in the West, Turkey is now more decidedly embracing its Islamic past, looking past lines and borders drawn a century ago. Its claim to the influence it had in the onetime domains of the Ottoman Empire can no longer be dismissed as rhetoric. Turkish ambition is now a force to be reckoned with.

For example, Turkey now occupies parts of Syria, has influence in Iraq, and is pushing back against Iran’s influence in both Damascus and Baghdad. Turkey has increased military operations against Kurds in Iraq and accused Iran of giving refuge to Turkey’s Kurdish nemesis, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

Turkey has inserted itself in Libya’s civil war and most recently intervened decisively in the dispute in the Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. Officials in Ankara are also eyeing expanded roles in the Horn of Africa, and in Lebanon, while Arab rulers worry about Turkish support for the Muslim Brotherhood and its claim to have a say in Arab politics.

Each of the three non-Arab states has justified such encroachments as necessary for security, but there are also economic motivations—for example, access to the Iraqi market for Iran or pole positions for Israel and Turkey in harnessing the rich gas fields in the Mediterranean seabed.

Predictably, Turkish expansionism runs up against Iranian regional interests in the Levant and the Caucasus in ways that evoke Turkey’s imperial past. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent recitation of a poem lamenting the division of historic Azerbaijan—the southern part of which now lies inside Iran—during a triumphant visit to Baku invited a sharp rebuke from Iran’s leaders. This was not an isolated misstep.

Erdogan has been for some time suggesting that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was wrong to give up Ottoman Arab territories as far south as Mosul. In reviving Turkish interest in those territories, Erdogan is claiming greater patriotism than that of the founder of modern Turkey and making clear that he is breaking with the Kemalist legacy in asserting Turkish prerogatives in the Middle East.

In the Caucasus, as in Syria, Turkish and Iranian interests are interwoven with those of Russia. The Kremlin’s interest in the Middle East is expanding, not only in conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Nagorno-Karabakh but also on the diplomatic scene from OPEC to Afghanistan. Moscow maintains close ties with all of the region’s key actors, sometimes tilting in favor of one and then the other. It has used this balancing act to expand its advantage. What it wants from the Middle East remains unclear, but with U.S. attention on the wane, Moscow’s complex web of ties is poised to play an outsized role in shaping the region’s future.

Israel, too, has expanded its footprint in the Arab world. In 2019, Trump recognized Israel’s half-century-old claim to the Golan Heights, which it seized from Syria in 1967, and now Israeli leaders are planning out loud to expand their borders by formally annexing parts of the West Bank. But the Abraham Accords suggest that the Arabs are looking past all of that to shore up their own position. They want to compensate for America’s dwindling interest in the Middle East with an alliance with Israel against Iran and Turkey. They see in Israel a crutch to keep them in the great game for regional influence.

The tensions between Iran and Israel have escalated markedly in recent years as Iran has reached farther into the Arab world. The two are now engaged in a war of attrition, in Syria and in cyberspace. Israel has also targeted Iran’s nuclear and missile programs directly and has been blamed most recently for the assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist.

But the scramble for the Middle East is not just about Iran. Turkey’s relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt have been deteriorating for a decade. Just as Iran supports Hamas against Israel, Turkey has followed suit but has also angered Arab rulers by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey’s current regional posture—extending into Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and the Horn of Africa while staunchly defending Qatar and the Tripoli government in Libya’s civil war—is in direct conflict with policies pursued by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt.

This all suggests that the driving force in the Middle East is no longer ideology or religion but old-fashioned realpolitik. If Israel boosts the Saudi-Emirati position, those who feel threatened by it, like Qatar or Oman, can be expected to rely on Iran and Turkey for protection. But if the Israeli-Arab alignment will give Iran and Turkey reason to make common cause, Turkey’s aggressive posture in the Caucasus and Iraq could become a worry for Iran. Turkey’s military support for Azerbaijan now aligns with Israel’s support for Baku, and Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have found themselves in agreement worrying about the implications of Turkey’s successful maneuver in that conflict.

As these overlapping rivalries crisscross the region, competitions are likely to become more unpredictable, as will the pattern of tactical alliances. In turn, that might invite meddling by Russia, which has already proved adept at exploiting the region’s fissures to its advantage. China, too, may follow suit; its talk of strategic partnership with Iran and nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia may well be just the opening act. The United States thinks of China in terms of the Pacific, but the Middle East abuts China’s western frontier, and it is through that gateway that Beijing’s will pursue its vision for a Eurasian zone of influence.

The Biden administration could play a key role in reducing tensions by encouraging regional dialogue and—when possible—use its influence to end conflicts and repair relations. In response to change in Washington, feuding adversaries are signaling a truce, and that provides the new administration with an opportunity.

Although relations with Turkey have frayed, it remains a NATO ally. Washington should focus on improving ties between not just Israel and Turkey but also among Turkey and Saudi Arabia and UAE—and that means pushing Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to truly mend ties with Qatar. The Gulf rivals have declared a truce, but fundamental issues that divided them persist, and unless those are fully resolved, their differences could cause another breach.

Iran is a harder problem. U.S. officials will have to first contend with the future of the nuclear deal, but sooner rather than later Tehran and Washington will have to talk about Iran’s expansionist push in the broader region and its ballistic missiles. Washington should encourage its Arab allies, too, to embrace this approach and also engage Iran. Ultimately reining in Iran’s proxies and limiting its missiles can be achieved through regional arms control and building a regional security architecture. The United States should facilitate and support that process, but regional actors have to embrace it.

The Middle East is at the edge of a precipice, and whether the future is peaceful hinges on what course the United States follows. If the Biden administration wants to avoid endless U.S. engagements in the Middle East, it must counterintuitively invest more time and diplomatic resources in the region now. If Washington wants to do less in the Middle East in the future, it has to first do more to achieve a modicum of stability. It has to start by taking a broader view of regional dynamics and making the lessening of new regional power rivalries its priority.

Vali Nasr is the Majid Khadduri professor of Middle East studies and international affairs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. He served in the U.S. State Department from 2009 to 2011.

Photo: IRNA

Iran Trade Deal with Russia-Led Bloc Warrants Cautious Optimism

On September 30, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani arrived in Yerevan, Armenia to attend the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) Summit. A free trade agreement (FTA) between Iran and the EAEU will come into force on October 27, creating conditions for preferential trade between Iran and the current EEAU members: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. The FTA will give Iran access to a single market comprised of 183 million people and with an aggregate GDP of USD 4 trillion.

Iranian policymakers have welcomed the FTA with cautious optimism. With parliamentary elections fast approaching, the Rouhani administration and parliamentarians alike are eager to implement policies that may help bolster Iran’s economy as sanctions cause a sharp recession. Reza Rahmani, Iran’s industry minister has stated that the FTA could help counteract Iran’s isolation in the face of U.S. sanctions. Mohammadreza Jahanbiglari, an economist and member Iran’s Chamber of Commerce, has predicted that if properly implemented, the FTA could see Iran’s trade turnover with EAEU member states quadruple to reach USD 10 billion within one year—a view echoed by Mehdi Mirashrafi, the head of Iran’s customs administration. The Iran Chamber of Commerce has been invited to establish a specific body to support exchanges with EAEU counterparts.

However, the highly regarded Islamic Parliament Research Center, the research arm of the country’s legislative assembly, has issued a more conservative assessment, outlining in a June 2019 report that the “low level of Iran’s commercial complimentary” with EAEU member states will result in a “minor impact from the FTA on the country's economy.”

The Parliament Research Center nonetheless concluded that the FTA could help Iran develop its non-oil exports, a central aim of the doctrine behind the “Economy of Resistance” called for by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. Under the FTA, a list of 502 goods will enjoy preferential tariffs when exported to the EAEU. 

Utilization of the so-called “soft infrastructure” represented by the FTA may also spur the development of Iran’s geo-economic position in the Middle East through the creation of new “hard infrastructure.” Russian leadership of the EAEU is complimentary with its “Pivot to the East” strategy. In this context, Iran can provide the shortest, safest, and cheapest route for Russian goods to the Indian Ocean as envisioned in the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC). During the Yerevan summit, Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif highlighted the pivotal role Iran can play in these plans, tweeting, “With parallel work on North-South & South-West Transit Corridors, ground paved for expansion in regional trade & cementing of our role as vital transit hub.”

Despite practical concerns about the facilitation of trade in the face of US secondary sanctions, Iran will also likely find a sympathetic group of countries among the EAEU, which has an anti-sanctions outlook. The EAEU Treaty was signed on May 29, 2014, after the first round of sanctions were imposed against Russia. Like Iran, Russia has seen the expansion of trade among the countries of the former Soviet Union as a possible bulwark against sanctions.

Before leaving Iran for the Yerevan summit, President Rouhani highlighted the potential for the FTA with the EAEU to help Iran mitigate the effects of U.S. sanctions. One of the key issues barriers for Iran’s cross-border trade is the absence of reliable banking channels. Iran and Russia have been exploring the use of local currencies in bilateral trade as well as the use of a new Russian bank messaging system called SPFS, which is intended as an alternative to SWIFT. Abdolnasser Hemmati, the governor of Iran’s central bank, has stated that Russia has agreed to Iran’s proposal to expand SPFS to the countries of the EEAU. 

Beyond banking, Iranian business leaders are concerned about the harmonization of the trading regimes. For example, while EEAU countries use the more detailed 10-digit “Harmonized System” (HS), Iran uses the 8-digit version. Proper harmonization will require input from a wide range of Iranian regulatory bodies, including the customs administration, the National Standard Organization, the Veterinary Organization, and the Food and Drugs Administration. Aside from the administrative challenges on the Iranian side, there are also concerns around the internal dynamics of the EAEU, in which economic ambitious have not been matched with the kind of political frameworks that have made the European Union customs union so successful. The FTA between Iran and the EAEU is an interim agreement that will remain in force for three years—a short period to overcome a wide range of bureaucratic hurdles.

While Iran might not find drastic gains by joining the EAEU, it certainly has nothing to lose. Over time, if enabled by the creation of more robust banking channels and investment in new transport infrastructure, Iran’s non-oil trade with the EAEU could prove a real boon for the economy.

Photo: Kremlin.ru

Negotiations On Legal Status of Caspian Sea Approach Finish Line

Negotiations on the international legal status of the Caspian Sea, which started in 1996, appear to have at last reached the finish line. After 22 years, the five countries around the sea have come close to signing a convention on its legal status. If they do, it seems that the agreement will allow to pave the way for the construction of the underwater the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline and other projects and will also close the access to the sea for the armed force of third countries.  

Russia has completed its part of the work on the preparation of the convention. According to its official legal information website, the government in the end of July approved in the draft submitted by the Foreign Ministry after coordination with Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. It is expected that the document will be signed at the summit of their heads of state on 12 August in Aktau, Kazakhstan.

Over the long negotiating process, the Caspian Five have held 51 meetings of a special working group at the level of deputy foreign ministers (the main negotiating platform established in 1996), about 10 meetings of foreign ministers and four presidential summits (in 2002 in Ashgabat, in 2007 in Tehran, in 2010 in Baku and in Astrakhan in 2014). In the last years the negotiators agreed on 90 percent of the draft convention. The delay in the agreement on the last 10 percent was because the most controversial issues remained to be solved. Two of the most acute have been the principle used for the division of the Caspian Sea and the mechanisms of approval of underwater pipeline and cable projects.

Iran has had a special position on the first issue. Insisting on Soviet-era agreements, it has not recognized the agreements between Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan on the division of the northern part of the Caspian Sea signed in 2003. These three countries used for delimitation the middle modified line (equidistant from the coast line and taking into account the length of the coastline). The Iranian position was instead to divide the sea into equal sectors of 20 per cent, since using the middle modified line would leave it with the smallest sector of about 11 per cent.

In response to such a difficult challenge, the draft of the convention does not include precise wording with geographical coordinates of the boundaries of sectors, but rather only the principles for the division of the sea. This allows for the transfer of responsibility for the division from the five-sided discussion to the two - and three-way level, as was the case when the northern part of the sea was divided.

Judging by the dynamics of recent contacts between Iran and Azerbaijan, bilateral negotiations on the division of the southern part of the sea are in full swing. This positive trend in relations between the two may have been one of the reasons for progress in the five-sided Caspian dialogue.

The second cornerstone for the negotiation process was the possibility of building trans-Caspian projects. Originally Russia and Iran emphasized the environmental danger of such projects and stressed the need for coordination by all five countries. Turkmenistan defended its right to build the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline without any consultations with its neighbours. In response to this challenge, the draft of the convention indicates that all submarine cables or pipelines must meet the necessary environmental requirements and standards approved under inter-state agreements. However, all the countries around the Caspian Sea would have the right to lay any pipelines and cables without the consent of their neighbours, but with the necessary notification about the routes taken. This means that, theoretically, after signing and ratifying the convention, Turkmenistan will be able to start looking for partners for the construction of the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline.

There is still a possibility that one of the parties refuses to endorse the draft document in its current form at the last moment. But the approval of the draft by Russia’s government and the announcement of a date for the summit indicate that the meeting will take place and, most likely, will bring about the long-awaited convention. 

Photo Credit: Russian Press Service