Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1927484000-scaled

Will Iran’s new president turn the economy around?

Ebrahim Raisi promised to create jobs, but it may take more than simply rejoining the JCPOA to do it.

Analysis | Middle East

There is no familiar equivalent in Persian for the cautionary maxim, “be careful what you wish for,” but it is an apt description for the predicament that Iran’s conservatives face as they assume full control of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The accession of Ebrahim Raisi on August 5 to Iran’s presidency is, according to hardliners, the first time a revolutionary administration is running the country.

This narrative conveniently ignores the administration of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the anti-Western leader who was in charge with the full support of the parliament and other centers of power in Iran from 2005 to 2013. Perhaps that is because the experience did not turn out too well, despite much better circumstances. The country was not under severe sanctions, state coffers were flush with cash thanks to the high price of oil, inflation was moderate, and electricity and water services had not deteriorated to the point of provoking street protests. And, of course, there was no pandemic and Iran’s neighbor to the east, Afghanistan, was not imploding.

The conservatives are aware that the conditions are much worse this time around. The COVID-19 pandemic is in its fifth and most deadly surge, prices are rising at an annual rate of 40 percent while a gaping budget deficit makes it hard for the new government to harness inflation, let alone lead the economy out of its ten-year slump. All the while, Trump’s maximum pressure campaign continues to take its toll on the living standards of ordinary Iranians.

Their professed optimism in dealing with the economic crisis stems from a belief that it is in part caused by misguided western-oriented policies of the previous Iranian administrations led by reformist and moderate politicians. Reverse those, they say, and the economy will begin to grow. However, it is difficult to pin down a coherent model or set of ideas that explains how this would happen.

Many hardliners have blamed the 2015 nuclear deal (known as the JCPOA) for Iran’s economic ills, but most economists believe its revival should be the point of departure for Raisi’s economic program.

Consistent with the position of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,, Raisi has emphasized the removal of sanctions as a top priority. The list of nominees for cabinet posts that he recently submitted to the parliament, included Hossein Amirabdolahian for foreign minister, which is seen in Tehran as a good sign for reaching an agreement with the Western powers. Initially, JCPOA proponents had feared the post might go to Saeed Jalili, the former chief nuclear negotiator under Ahmadinejad and a staunch opponent of the JCPOA. While Amirabdollahian lacks Zarif’s familiarity with the negotiating teams and his language skills are wanting, he will almost certainly enjoy more support from the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC.

The gains from reviving the nuclear deal will be immediate and significant. To start with, it will unfreeze some $50-$100 billion of Iranian assets around the world and allow Iran to export more oil. This will go a long way toward plugging the giant gap in the budget for this fiscal year (2021-2022), projected to be 38 percent of total expenditures (5,233 trillion rials equal to about $45 billion based on the 115,000 rials per USD exchange rate used in the budget). This is particularly critical because the government cannot borrow abroad, and domestic borrowing is very costly due to high inflation. Any interest rate that would persuade the banks or the public to lend to the government while prices are increasing at more than 40 percent would destabilize the financial system.

Beyond this year, the economy would greatly benefit from access to the global financial system, which U.S. sanctions currently block. The depreciation of the rial under the pressure of sanctions has lowered real wages and boosted local production, especially in manufacturing. According to the Central Bank, manufacturing grew by 8.1 percent last year while the GDP grew by 3.6 percent.

Last year’s growth was led by increased oil exports amid optimistic expectations in the second half of the year that Biden’s election might end or ease the sanctions. It may not last if the current negotiations reach a dead end.

Currently, local demand powered by import substitution is maintaining growth in manufacturing. For its growth to continue, Iranian producers must have access to the global economy, which will be achieved if a deal is reached in Vienna. A deal will also boost manufacturing production that depends on the import of intermediate goods; it will ease trade as well as increase foreign exchange with which to buy intermediate inputs.

Although reaching a deal in Vienna will significantly benefit Iran’s economy and get Raisi closer to fulfilling his extravagant campaign promise of one million new jobs and one million new homes each year, he may be satisfied with a repeat of last year, when the economy added about 700,000 jobs and attained moderate growth. This is the fallback position that Raisi’s economic team is considering rather than a collapsing economy imagined by Iran’s opponents.

However, repeating last year’s performance will depend on the soundness of the government’s economic policies. Raisi’s proposed appointments signal a sharp departure from the market-based policies of his predecessor. Quite a few of them served under Ahmadinejad, including Farhad Rahbar, Raisi’s chief economic advisor, who headed the Management and Plan Organization in the first Ahmadinejad administration and who is expected to get the job of vice president for economic affairs. The proposed appointee for MPO, Masoud Mirkazemi, also served under Ahmadinejad. He is not an economist, so economic policy is likely to be determined by Rahbar and the proposed minister of economy and finance, Ehsan Khandouzi. Both are critics of capitalism, believe in looking inwards, and are skeptical of free markets, but understand the importance of global connections and private-sector led growth. They also favor greater redistribution that would reverse the trend under former President Hassan Rouhani’s administration of rising inequality and poverty.

Significantly, conservatives and hardliners have in the past opposed enacting laws necessary to take Iran out of the blacklist of the FATF, the international anti-money-laundering watchdog. Raisi’s economic team has argued that increasing transparency of the Iranian banking system is important but must await the removal of sanctions, when Iranian traders are not busy evading them. Without satisfying the FATF standards, even absent sanctions, foreign banks will be reluctant to accept transfers from Iranian banks not knowing their origin.

The economic team of the “first revolutionary government” of the Islamic Republic faces formidable challenges. In such circumstances, reaching the lofty goals of creating one million jobs and building one million new homes each year and reducing poverty requires more than revolutionary zeal. President Raisi would do well to listen to the more pragmatic voices in his team and steer the economy to calmer waters before taking actions recommended by his more revolutionary supporters.


Image: Dmitri Kalvan via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.