The Policy that the US will have to implement following the violent questioning of the Iranian Regime
The Iranian regime has recently used fierce brutality to suppress the
uprisings of its indignant citizens. Anecdotal evidence published in the international
press reported dead numbers ranging from 100 to 200, thousands wounded and
arrested respectively. Indeed, the theocratic regime in Iran was not confined
to the application of wild pogroms but blamed the revolutionary citizens as
As is always the case the authoritarian regimes for any protests occurring
in their countries attribute (blame) them to a foreign finger and generally to
the external enemies of their country.
The decision taken by the Iranian government to impose restrictions on the
use of the oil market (60 liters a month per driver) with the simultaneous
increase in fuel prices by 50% was the fuse that broke and led to citizens ‘
We will briefly mention that the protests began in a small town in Iran
(Shiraz) where protesters attempted to fire a fuel depot while the police then
intercepted them. From that point on, the demonstrations took on a massive
nature and spread throughout the territory of Iran and mainly in the capital of
After ten days of brutal violence, the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (Sepah)
and military elite of the theocratic regime issued a statement that they
arrested the leaders of the counterinsurgency.
The harsh everyday life for the citizens of Iran
Iran’s economic data indicate the grim everyday lives of Iranian citizens.
The official inflation rate for the whole of 2019 was moved close to 40%, the
national currency has lost its value, the prices of meat and poultry have risen
by 60%, dairy products by 40% and vegetables by 50% respectively.
The Iranian government’s decision to limit fuel and increase their price
was not accidental but forced and aimed at increasing state revenues as the
unfavourable economic elements of Iran’s economy are purely a consequence of
the US sanctions that caused the collapse of Iranian oil exports, affecting the
heart of Iran’s economy and soaring the prices of basic essentials.
The US policy to date
All these developments justify the policy of incumbent US President Donald
Trump against Iran. In fact, Iran has failed to circumvent the imposed US
sanctions trader with the other countries that supported and continue to
support the theocratic regime, such as China.
At the same time, these developments are a geopolitical defeat for China
because it turns out that its economic and political influence is not so strong
that it can support Iran’s economy by substituting Iran’s trade with all the
countries before 2015.
Moreover, the example of Iran that has come to this difficult economic and
social situation, respectively, could be used as a paradigm by the US President
and Congress respectively towards Turkey and the Turkish regime of President
Erdogan, which Turkey is continually questioning the NATO Alliance and being
autonomous in the Alliance’s political lines, closely cooperating with Iran and
These developments are, therefore, a justification for the US policies on
The future US policy against Iran and the Gulf Region in general
From history we know that authoritarian regimes are commonplace when they
are at risk of losing their power to react in a convulsant attempt to
decompress the social pressure that exists within the country either dissing
public opinion with false/fake news and exerting violent repression or
triggering a war conflict with an “available” external enemy to rally
the people around them.
Since Iran is politically and militarily controlling Iraq, part of Syria, the Lebanese government, it is supporting the Yemeni rebels, etc. trying in this way to increase its influence and cancelling at the same time US policy in the Middle East (more details on this topic please read the analysis «The Risk Widespread Conflict in the Middle East to cancel US Policy in the Region»), there are chances that Iran’s regime will make the strategic mistake of provoking and implementing a small – scale and controlled military action against an external enemy, with aim to rally the people around him.
If Iran makes such a strategic mistake both the US and their allies should
be determined to provoke the opposite effects that Iran would expect from such
a strategy. In other words, if Iran causes a small-scale war episode then the
reaction should be such that a partial loss of its territorial integrity could
be caused in Iran.
If the Iranian regime in such a conflict appears to have lost Iranian
territory the loss of Iranian territory would cause the country’s unconditional
surrender, the regime would collapse from the inside and be forced to get out
of the country by changing the political fate and history of Iran.
Since Iran does not carry out such a controlled conflict, the US sanctions
policy should continue, but at the same time the United States should also
pursue a policy of ‘charm’ towards the Iranian regime.
In other words, the US should promise the Iranian regime that if it fully
implements the liberalisation of society measures (i.e. free and full access to
the Internet, open information, open rallies without measures of suppression etc.) and to organize of free elections in
Iran which will take part in international observers, will then be allowed to
trade oil with the other countries gradually and according to the
implementation of the measures. In other words, a priority should not be the
exchange of commercial transactions with a quantity of enriched uranium, but
the implementation of liberalisation measures by Iranian society.
The aim of the US sanctions on the Iranian oil market may be to halt Iran’s
trend to increase the use of enriched uranium, but the pressure to implement
the full liberalisation of Iranian society should be priority because only
these measures will cause a rise in the movement of disgruntled citizens who
will be demanding a change in the political situation in the country. In such a
case, the theocratic regime of Iran will be forced to negotiate its escape from
the country by releasing it.
In such a scenario it will collapse from within as a paper tower and the
strong influence that Iran has achieved in the broader Middle East region.
If this is not the case, the Iranian regime will continue to control its
citizens in power and each time will negotiate how much enriched uranium it
will use in exchange for reducing its imposed sanctions on oil market while
retaining its presence in power.
Thanos S. Chonthrogiannis is an economist-researcher in the fields of economic research/business planning and strategic planning. His work experience moves in a wide professional field between managerial and advisory roles. He holds a degree in BSc (Econ) in Financial Economics, Birkbeck College, University of London and a postgraduate degree in MSc in Economics & Finance, University of Warwick (UK)