Putin's Visit To Saudi Arabia - Hey, what's Going On Here?

What does this have to do with the US arming a radical Islamist insurgency - with tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military equipment ?

You can't seem to make a post without moving the goalpost out of the ballpark.

 

What do you think it says? It says to me the economy will be operating at a new, lower level.

Sure, and a change in the types and level of sanctions could make a huge difference.

 

While the Iranian economy operates mainly under-the-table and off-the-books, making most statistical measures and predictions rather suspect in my eyes, if we take the graph as showing the reality in terms of the performance of the Iranian economy, then it shows that the Iranian economy suffered a severe downturn in 2018 (ironically, its worst even before most US sanctions had even kicked in and while it continued to experience a downturn in output as America's "maximum pressure campaign" continued, the situation began to stabilizing and the economy (as you put it) will now be operating from a lower base. But not going to be experiencing a decline.

 

That is true unless you reach a balance of power where each becomes content with some sort of a status quo, until that balance of power shifts again.

To be sure, ultimately, the fact that Iran has plenty of enemies and no foreign patrons to rely on, means that it will either learn to pull up by its own boot straps, and become a rather major power, or it will indeed lose out. Not to the Saudis, who are simply agents of those Iran is resisting, but to the Americans. Or, maybe, tomorrow the Russians. But becoming a major power doesn't require or necessarily involve Iran having sway over Saudi Arabia. Rather, our focus is elsewhere as the Arabian peninsula simply doesn't hold much interest to Iran.

 

What is this underground economy? What are they producing?

Zero growth in a country adding 1,000,000 people a year is still stepping back.

 

Iran is unlikely to become a major power for a very long time, if ever. Eighteen countries have a larger population.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/​

True.

Your focus appears to be flexing muscle in the Middle East over Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon.

 

Putin figures maybe Saudi Arabia might like to buy some less expensive Russian tanks.

 

Pretty much everything.

The average income in Iran is something like 10 times what is reported. On an individual level, the combination of widespread corruption combined with pervasive tax evasion, and at the level of industries, the latter factors combined with the necessity of evading sanctions and its consequences, make this the reality in Iran. I know this from personal experience as I must have been the only one in Iran who didn't live like that since I didn't need to: I worked in Iran in a very high paying position working on huge projects and cases, earning around $15,000 a month as my fixed salary, earning my salary in foreign currency (in Euros) as during this time I worked for either international law firms or for firms that were involved in international trade with either foreign subsidiaries or themselves subsidiaries of foreign companies. On paper, my salary was much more than practically anyone else around me, including the CEO of the companies I worked with. In reality, over the 15 years I lived and worked in Iran, I noticed how I couldn't keep up (at all) with practically anyone around me. And I am not talking about 'rich' or even 'upper middle class' people. Simple, middle class, Iranians, whether my in-laws or a host of people who my wife's friends and classmates had married and who were technically way below in their positions in society and their salaries, or people I regarded as "kids" who were coming up the ladder in the industries and companies I worked with. None earned my salary; all ended up with a net worth represented in assets and savings, which dwarfed mine!

Initially, bewildered by what I was seeing, I would often ask friends and colleagues as well as even ordinary folks who I didn't even know but would run into (cab drivers, dentists, shopkeepers etc), how can this be? I would ask because there is one simple, undeniable, tip of the iceberg in this system of corruption: real estate prices in Iran are extremely high (in Tehran, were reported incomes are a small fraction of incomes in New York or LA, the real estate prices are roughly equivalent). And real estate in Iran is purchased predominately in cash! You could never get more than 20% financing for any property and many didn't even use any financing.

I couldn't understand how a simple cab driver, earning on paper less than $1,000 a month, could afford buying even a small lower middle class apartment that would still cost him at least $100,000 in cash. Or how a middle-level employee of some company could afford to purchase a middle or upper middle class apartment (again in cash) that would cost him/her at least $300,000. While people just above them, lived in apartments and owned villas and other property and assets which would require their net worth in cash to be at least $1 million and many times that figure normally.

Some would explain it to me in realistic terms, but one recounted a fictionalized story/joke which I will paraphrase as best as I still recall:

The story/joke was about a foreign official sent to Iran to report about the country. He reports that everywhere he goes, he sees corruption, mismanagement, and human vice -- he sees qualified people unemployed or underemployed and unqualified people running things. He notices that many of the vices (alcoholism, drug abuse, marital infidelity, sexual promiscuity, etc) which are supposed to be un-Islamic are in fact widespread. He sees the country is facing enemies all around it, with sanctions and measures that are surely going to cripple it. When he returns home, he confidently predicts the regime will not last. Several years later, the regime having lasted, he is sent back to report why what he had predicted didn't turn out to be true. He notices everything he had seen to be still true. Totally bewildered and left confused, he finally declares: this regime must indeed be ordained by God

As someone who had a personal stake understanding why all of this is true, it took me a while, but I think I figured it out. It is a long story but the basic contours of it relates to how you cannot criminalize the laws of supply and demand (whether as it relates to Iran's own system of subsidies, price controls or whether it relates to foreign sanctions, it doesn't matter). You can only drive them under the table, thereby create a circumstance where the most qualified (who are too proud of their skills to want to partake in this system of corruption) and honest people in Iran suffer but otherwise the rest of society learns to cope and make money from this thriving underground economy. Every business has several set of books to show its transactions, including both to evade taxes as well as to hide the corruption. The larger companies have 'hidden partners' affiliated with regime mafia figures and they have even greater incentives to conduct their businesses under the table. In the process, if a company says I am producing 1,000 widgets to tax purposes, and 5,000 widgets to his hidden partners (with whom he divides some of the profits from the underground economy), is often producing 10,000 widgets. And this corruption truly trickles down to even the janitor and the person serving tea in this company! There was even a sit-com in Iran about how the most important employee in a company in Iran is the person who serves tea!

This city from a video in 2014, already dated because even in the era of 'maximum pressure', Iran is busy unveiling the latest biggest mall in the world, longest bridge, biggest tunnel etc. This city wasn't built on any much that is shown in official statistics on Iran.

 

Although I am not convinced Iran will be able to navigate things to enable it to become such a power in the foreseeable future, history in fact is on our side despite these odds. For most of recorded history during the past 2,500 years, in fact, Iran has been a major power. Most Americans, whose rise in power coincided with Iran's decline, and many westerners who were shielded from knowing much about Iran because our rival to our west (the Ottoman empire) was the "Muslim empire" they knew and were busy coping with, don't know nearly enough about Iran. At most, many know about the first Persian empire under the Achaemenids and the Greco-Persian wars. Those who know the history of the Roman empire, might know about the the Roman-Persian wars and the Rome (and Byzantine empires) 800 year old struggle with two Iranian dynasties, namely the Parthian Arcasid empire (247 BC – 224 AD) and the Persian Sassanid dynasty (224 to 651 AD) who ruled Iran in the name of IRAN (not "Persia" -- a name given to Iran by westerners, not Iranians). But they don't know much else, especially when it comes to Iran and its place and role in Islamic civilization and the various empires that ruled the region, including various empires until rather recent times such as the Safavid empire (1501–1736), the Afsharid empire (1736–1796) and the Qatar empire (during whose time Iran's decline began) (1796-1925).

The reason, incidentally, that I am particularly worried about the Russians gaining momentum in the Middle East is that Iran's own decline as a major power was itself occasioned by a couple of disastrous wars Iran fought against the Russians in the early 19th century. The Russo-Persian war of 1804-1813 was a significant defeat for Iran because we lost most of our territories in the Caucasus. The Russo-Persian war of 1826-28 (which started with Persian victories in trying to regain those territories) ended in an unmitigated disaster with a treaty still infamous in Iran (the Treaty of Tukemenchai). I would go into the details of how that war, particularly when combined with the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-57 occasioned by Iran's attempt to regain its territories in Afghanistan, basically ended Iran's military as an effective fighting force and turned the country into a battleground for Russian-British influence peddling. But the idea about Iran not ever becoming a major power again is likely overstating what I admit is a very difficult geopolitical situation Iran faces.

 

There is much in what you say that I don't agree with, but I will have to return to it some other time as I don't have much energy now to respond in any length to issues that cannot be dealt with in a cursory fashion. In the meantime, and leaving aside a lot else that one day I would like to expand on, this brief account on a somewhat different subject (namely the civil war in Syria) also states my view of the correct approach to Iran by the US, Israel et al.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190

 

I am not saying that exactly, but rather if there is balance of power, and if that balance of power is based on authentic or more lasting elements, the competitiveness that will exist will also take much greater time to produce a sufficient shift in the balance of power to allow one or another side to dominate the other.

The longevity of Iranian power is mostly because a distinct culture, civilization and sense of 'nationhood' arose in Iran very early in our history (long before the advent of 'nationalism' in Europe and, later, westernized pseudo nationalist ideologies in the ME), which then basically rejected the legitimacy of any overtly non-Iranian claim to rule over its realm. And provided a cohesive ideological and unifying element for various rulers to seek to reclaim Iran's traditional sphere.

When the balance of power is disrupted, there will always be a reason which will ultimately lead the more powerful group to seek to dominate the less powerful one.

The split between Iran and the West has ancient antecedents, but when Iran was very weak and Irano-Islamic civilization had fallen behind the West in a very noticeable terms, from the late 19th to the 20th century, 'westernization' became the norm among those (a minority) who had enough knowledge about the West (but not enough knowledge for a genuine appreciation of the elements for this Western ascendancy) to seek to copy it, particularly in some of its more superficial or transient aspects. This itself created a cultural reaction, popularized within intellectual circles in Iran by the works and influence of two prominent Iranian writers before the revolution. Namely, Jalal Al Ahmad, whose book "Westoxication" was well received by Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini even though Al Ahmad was a very secular person who drank alcohol and had even written a short account of his travel to Israel! Another author, Dr. Ali Shariati, also took the same theme but with a more overtly Islamist twist in his book "Return to our Roots". Both Al Ahmad and Dr. Shariati are well remembered in post revolutionary Iran, with a major highway in the name of one of them and one of Iran's longest boulevards in the name of the other.

The cultural reaction on the one hand, and then the fact that the Shah's regime became tainted after the 1953 coup as being installed by the CIA, combined with the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideology among Iran's intellectual classes (both right and left) and Soviet propaganda, all combined to rob the Shah's regime of legitimacy. In fact, the more he succeeded, the more Iranians became convinced that it was the Shah who had robbed Iranians and Iran of its 'rightful place' in the world -- the Shah, viewed as an instrument of foreign domination, basically became a simplified and false symbol of what actually stood between Iran and the "Great Civilization" that the Shah's propaganda was ironically promising. This was particularly true after the rise in oil prices in 1973, where now it seemed everything was possible if only we didn't have a "foreign agent" ruling over Iran.

I think this is basically correct, although "never" is probably taking it too far. (Never in a long term, stable, basis would be more accurate).

I will give you my answer to this, but it will require that I first develop and basically sketch several issues that to me aren't told accurately in any of the competing narratives regarding Iran. My basic idea is that Iran is ultimately a minority ethnic and religious group in the ME, with quite a profound (and rather tolerant) culture. Letting Iran become sufficiently powerful to resist foreign domination, even if it is US domination, and implicitly also contain potentially much more dangerous forces in the region, would be wiser than trying to "defeat" Iran. Wiser for the US and even Israel.

 

Saudi is part of the ME coalition to fight radical Islam and so is the US and Russia.

 

If you said that "Saudi is part of the ME coalition to fight Iranian influence in the ME and so is the US and Russia", you wouldn't be far from what certain circles close to Trump and the Israelis have in mind. Otherwise, what you said is nonsense, belied by how the US and Saudi Arabia have actually often befriended the most virulent strand of "radical Islam" to fight Iran all over the region. In Afghanistan, where the anti-Soviet forces fighting the Russian occupation were basically divided between a) Wahhabi inspired, anti-Shia Jihadists funded by the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan, with the "Taleban" the group they had supported, and b) the other forces supported by Iran against the Russian invasion which fell under the umbrella of the "Northern Alliance" (the very group that when Iran and the US cooperated to dislodge the Taleban from power after 9/11, served as the foot soldiers in that endeavor). In Iraq, the US and Saudi Arabia actively worked with Al Queda elements and other Jihadist forces, directing their attention towards the Shia groups and militia allied to Iran, creating even a military organization (Sons of Iraq) which became the foundation for the military organization for ISIS. And it was the same type of story in Syria, were a secular regime (Assad's regime) was under assault by these same type of groups supported by the US (until supporting them was no longer tenable politically).

 

But are they allowed citizenship?

 

Wouldn't it be worth Iran's while to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and to leave Syria - or at least to leave the part of Syria close to Israel?

As for Putin's friendship with Netanyahu, you forget that 2 million Israelis are Russian citizenship. One third of the people there speak Russian - and they are not all Jews. Many went in with their in laws.

 

The problem with the Alawites is not the Alawites, but the Sunnis who feel they always have to lord it over others. The Alawites were considered inferior much like the Christians in Egypt, and since being a member of the armed forces was looked down on by the Sunnis, it was relegated to the Alawites.

It's through the army that the Assad's gained prominence and an Alawite becoming the head of Syria was a supreme insult to the Sunnis and the major factor of the war in Syria. The Sunnis are the majority in Syria, but the combined minorities come to more than the Sunnis, and they of course support Assad's secular and all inclusive society.

The Sunnis in Syria were enticed at the beginning by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to overthrow Assad and gain power and establish themselves as the overlords, but when they realized that it meant sharia law, they suddenly realized how desirable Assad's government was, and rejoined his army. Am I wrong Margot?

 

It would be worth Iran's while for Iran and Israel to one-day find common ground. And once they do, and as part of that 'common ground', it would be even in Iran's interest for there to be a Jewish state in the region. Just not one that invites foreign powers to do its bidding.

None of that makes me feel any better

 

Perhaps I will do that when there is a headline news item that will also dove tail with these matters.

But to expand on one of the issues, namely the ideological view of Israel, let me better introduce people here to one of the prominent intellectual writers in pre-revolutionary Iran. Someone who has a major expressway (Jalal Al Ahmad Expressway) in his name in post revolutionary Iran; the figure whose birthday is celebrated in post revolutionary Iran by awarding Iran's best literary writer with Iran's highest literary award (The Jalal Al Ahmad Literary Award) and who has been referred to as the "intellectual guru" of Iran's Ayatollahs. Among the admirers of Jalal Al Ahmad were both Ayatollah Khomeini (the leader and founder of the Islamic Republic) and Ayatollah Khamenei (the current Supreme Leader in Iran).

While the story of the ideological view of Israel in Iran is a lot more complicated than this, and has many more layers to tell, understanding the true attitude of Jalal Al Ahmad towards the "Land of Israel" is a good place to start. But the journey of Al-Ahmad, from an admirer of Israel as a potential vehicle for a rebirth of "Eastern Civilization" to one who condemns Israel vociferously as a "Western colonial outpost" working as agents of the West to suppress the "East" (a concept that itself ultimately refers to the "ME", and more particularly Iran, within the framework of the West v East divide from the days of the Greco-Persian wars and the Roman-Persian wars), is in part a reflection of changing alliances and attitudes in Israel towards the West. The more Israel allied itself with the US, and the more the US (seen as the new Rome or Western empire seeking to dominate Iran), the more it became the 'Western colonial outpost' that followers of Al-Ahmad felt needed to be either reformed or vanquished.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/234656/iranian-intellectual-admired-israel
The Iranian Intellectual Who Inspired the Islamic Revolution and Admired Israel
Iran Week: Jalal Al-e Ahmad’s astonishing and paradoxical account of his 1963 travels in the Holyland, newly translated and reissued as ‘The Israeli Republic’

The article in the Tablet on Al Ahmad becomes largely worthless and polemical when it treats the last chapter of Al Ahmad's book, written after the 1967 war, as the pro Israel partisanship fails to properly appreciate that once Israel was no longer living the role Al-Ahmad wanted from it as a vehicle for an "Eastern renaissance" but rather had become a "Western colonial outpost", then it would follow that his admiration would indeed turn into condemnation.

 

While I totally agree that the people in the West have a totally biased (in fact false) image and view of Iran, and receive much that is in the nature of propaganda to formulate these false views, I wouldn't ascribe an 'economic' motive (or a Marxist-Leninist type formulation for 'imperialism) to many actions which affect or influence international relations. Economic motives are there, as part of a larger set of issues, but while no simplification of any complex set of factors will ever properly explain that complexity, the most important ingredient affecting international relations (and the ideological frameworks which develop to justify various positions) ultimately relates to 'power politics'. Economic considerations are a subpart of that, but that involves a lot more.

 

Reported by whom? Iran reports a median family income of $12,046. LINK A family income ten times as high would make Iranians richer than the rest of the world. I realize comparing family incomes is difficult, so I'm just looking for insight.

Savings in Euros or Dollars? How much would be typical? What in Euros or Dollars would a typical family have in assets?

Countries like Iran have an outsized underground economy as it is and sanctions make it even larger.