Iran will continue to enrich uranium regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat is US president. At the same time, the US will oppose any Iranian nuclear program -- even a civilian program -- because this will contribute to the stability of the regime in Tehran. As a result, nuclear tensions are likely to bedevil US-Iranian relations for years to come.
Iran, it is often claimed, has no need for nuclear power, given its abundant oil and natural gas reserves. But the Iranian government is under economic and political pressure to supply increasing amounts of electricity to its growing population and fragile economy.
Using oil or natural gas for domestic electricity threatens oil and gas exports, which are the principle source of government revenues. Indeed, with domestic oil consumption growing at a higher rate than production, government revenues from oil exports are already in decline.
Thus, nuclear power will halt the decline in government revenues by freeing more oil and natural gas for export. Iran's natural gas resources, if developed, would not be a substitute for cheap nuclear power, because gas is more profitable in other uses than in power generation.
The Iranian government fears that electricity shortages, slow economic growth and high unemployment will turn the populace against it. As social tensions increase, political turmoil follows.
Nuclear power offers the possibility of cheap, plentiful electricity, which will contribute to social and political stability. Iranian experts argue that, in considering the trade-off between internal unrest and external sanctions, the Iranian government must choose between domestic security and international security.
Domestic pressure could very well bring down the regime, but international pressure will not. History is on the side of the Iranian government. The Islamic Revolution has survived a brutal war with Iraq, economic sanctions and decades of international pressure and isolation from the US. Moreover, Iran's leaders remember that the Shah was forced to flee the country in 1979, despite having strong international support.
While there may be security reasons for any future US administration to oppose even a civilian nuclear program, American policymakers also recognize the strategic impact that nuclear energy will have in stabilizing the Iranian regime.
TOOTHLESS
The US and Iran have been fighting proxy wars since 1979, and their ongoing conflict means that proxy wars will continue in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Caspian Sea region, as will trade and investment wars. Indeed, as long as China and Russia have money to invest and arms to sell, most UN sanctions will be toothless.
Iran will continue to threaten the world community that it will use its oil weapon, but this is highly unlikely. It is not in Iran's interest, under any scenario, to decrease oil exports, let alone halt them.
However, domestic pressure, a sense of nationalism and the need to improve its bargaining position with Western countries might force the Iranian government to respond to harsh UN sanctions or an air attack on its nuclear facilities. But even under these extreme circumstances, Iran will still need its oil revenue. A symbolic cut or embargo, while possible, would have little impact on world oil markets.
Iran's government has more effective options to respond to attacks from the US and its allies.
Its supporters in Iraq might cripple Iraqi oil exports from Basra, which would damage US plans in Iraq while boosting Iran's oil revenues, or limit the availability of fuel to the US Army by attacking roads and bridges, especially the Kuwait City-Baghdad highway.
The world community will continue to pay a high price for the nuclear standoff, which will cast a shadow over world oil markets for years to come. Some experts argue that it has already raised oil prices by about US$15 per barrel.
Ironically, an Iranian civilian nuclear program would enhance US and world energy security by making more oil and gas available in the global market.
But America's determination to destabilize Iran and the Iranian government's determination to retain power reduce the likelihood of this scenario.
A.F. Alhajji is an energy economist and professor at Ohio Northern University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS