Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

No regime change in Iran (analysis of the current protest wave)

Reports suggest small leaderless protests unlikely to threaten government

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

14,599 Views

Information about the protests in Iran is very difficult to assess because for the moment it is very sparse.

It appears the protests began in the city of Mashhad on 28th December 2017.  They have however continued and have spread elsewhere though they appear so far to be on a small scale.

Most reports say that the trigger for the protests was economic grievances, with particular stress being given to the 40% shock increase in egg and poultry prices, which was announced last week.

Undoubtedly there is some truth to this but it must be heavily qualified.

The reality is that contrary to some reports Iran’s economy is currently doing very well and after several years of recession which did cause living standards to fall is now actually in the throws of a boom, with double digit growth rates being recorded during the last two years.

Whilst it is said that the benefits of this boom have yet to reach the wider population, the boom has now been underway for almost two years, making it most unlikely that however unevenly its benefits are distributed the wider population has experienced no benefit from it at all.

As for price growth, the trend in Iran over the last four years is for price growth to fall.

The history of inflation in Iran is that Iran has experienced double digit inflation continuously since 1973, when the quadrupling of oil prices that year taken together with the former Shah’s runaway industrialisation programme pushed annual inflation up from its previous trend rate of 3% to an average annual rate over the next four years of more than 15%.

Inflation remained at an annual rate of around 15% in every remaining year of the Shah’s rule except for 1978.

The Iranian Revolution and the war with Iraq in the 1980s then caused inflation to go higher, so that it rose to an average annual rate between 1980 and 1988 of 18%.

In the succeeding period of economic liberalisation under President Rafsanjani from 1989 to 1997 inflation went higher still, hitting an average annual rate of 25%, and peaking in 1996 at 50% (still an inflation record in Iran).

In the succeeding reformist period of President Khatami from 1997 to 2005 average annual inflation fell to 16%, only to rise again during the succeeding more conservative period under President Ahmadinejad from 2005 to 2013 when it went up to an annual average of 17.7%, peaking at 35% in 2013, the year Ahmadinejad left office.

Compared to this record, the situation under President Rouhani is better on the inflation front than it has been at any time since the early 1970s, with average annual inflation in the four years since he became President falling to 12% and falling to just 9% in the Iranian year ending in March 2017.

Whilst this is still a high rate of inflation by international standards, the combination of a rapidly growing economy and a falling inflation rate makes it extremely doubtful that the population as a whole is currently coming under more severe economic pressure than it has been before.  On the contrary it is more likely that after years of contracting living standards caused by the recession more Iranians are now starting to feel better off.

That does not of course mean that some sections of the population may not be finding conditions difficult, and as many correctly point out the still sharp rise in Iran’s working age population means that the fast economic growth of the last two years has still left Iran with an unemployment rate at 12%.

That unemployment rate, though high by the standards of the developed economies, is not however high for Iran’s region (in Turkey the unemployment rate is 11%, in Egypt it is 12% and in Saudi Arabia it is 12.7%).

Though it is understandable therefore that the sharp increase in egg and poultry prices – supposedly caused by a cull triggered by an epidemic of bird flu – may have annoyed many people, it looks like a temporary price blip in an otherwise improving inflation and economic picture.

Exactly this point has been made by Iran’s Vice-President Eshaq Jahangiri, who Fars is reported as saying

the prices of several commodities may have seen a rise due to some incidents, and each case has its own reason

If economic grievances were indeed what originally lay behind the protests, then these improving conditions suggest that the protests will not go on for very long, especially as the growing economy and the recent rise in oil prices have given the government the means to improve the economic conditions of the protesters.

Vice-President Jahangiri in the same interview which I have just quoted is already reported as saying that the government is prepared to take steps to mitigate the effect of the recent rise in egg and poultry prices, presumably by importing more of these products from abroad.

If economic dissatisfaction does not fully explain the protests, what are the other reasons for them?

There have been some suggestions that the original protests in Mashhad – a politically conservative city – were originally orchestrated by conservative opponents of President Rouhani from within the clerical establishment.

Some reports say that this is Rouhani’s view and that it is also the view of some other senior Iranian officials, with fingers supposedly being pointed at the conservatives who supposedly instigated the protests, with complaints being made that the counter revolutionary slogans chanted by some of the protesters during the protests show that the conservative instigators of the protests have lost control over the protests.

Whilst there may be some truth to this, the single factor which almost certainly set the scene for the protests is that this is a time of the year when large numbers of Iranians are likely to be on the streets anyway.

The day which in the Western calendar is 30th December is the day when conservative supporters of the Iranian government annually mobilise in their millions to commemorate a large demonstration staged on 30th December 2009 in response to the so-called ‘Green Revolution’ protests which took place in Iran in 2009.

It looks as if celebration of the anniversary of this demonstration this year has triggered counter protests by opponents of the government, which have been given an extra twist this year by the anger many people feel at the sharp rise in egg and poultry prices.

However another factor behind the protests almost certainly is the international situation.

The US, Israel and Saudi Arabia supposedly reached a secret agreement last month to combine forces in an attempt to reverse the growth of Iranian influence in the Middle East.

Reports of this agreement may have given encouragement to pro-Western opponents of the government within Iran – of whom there are known to be some – encouraging them to come out to protest.

Besides it is a certainty that the US and its allies have their own covert networks of supporters within Iran who were doubtless activated to support and take over the protests as soon as they began.

Many of course go further still and believe that the anti-government part of protests has been entirely orchestrated by the US and its allies as part of a classic US regime change/’colour revolution’ operation.

That is certainly possible, there being after all ample precedent for it.  However it is always important to remember when making this claim that the US can only do this sort of thing in another country when there are already people there ready to work with it.

Outlining the various likely reasons for the protests however shows why – if the intention really is to topple the government – they are most unlikely to succeed.

The very fact that the US – and Donald Trump in particular – are backing the protests, and the widespread and probably justified suspicion within Iran and around the world that the US has a hand in them is certain to alarm many Iranians, deterring them from supporting the protests and causing them to rally behind the government.

Ultimately, with the protests small and scattered, with the government retaining the support of a critical mass of the Iranian population, with the economy strong and growing rapidly, and with the security forces completely loyal to the government, the Iranian government should have no trouble riding these protests out.

The key is to avoid overreaction, which is all but guaranteed to provoke more protests, whilst at the same time remaining firm and making no unnecessary concessions, which would be taken as a sign of weakness, and which would therefore also encourage more protests.

The Iranian government showed in 2009 that it has the knowledge and the skill to handle these sort of protests, and I have little doubt it will successfully do so again, especially with the protests this time being on a much smaller scale and without visible leadership.

If so then before long the protests will subside, with this probably becoming increasingly apparent over the next few days.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending