In Iran, You Get What You Pay For

By Rick Moran Posted in | Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

In June of 2005, the more radical conservative elements on Iran's Guardian Council helped to engineer the election of President Ahmadinejad, hoping that his fervor would ignite a religious revival and take the country out of the hands of the "original" radicals who used their positions to personally enrich themselves at the expense of the Iranian people.

What Ahmadinejad referred to as the "petro-political mafia" dominated the permanent bureaucracy in Iran for a quarter of a century, lining their pockets with proceeds from oil revenues while using some of that money to grease the skids for their political masters. And the number one recipient of this bounty was former President Ayatollah Rafsanjani who is reported to be the richest man in Iran. Through a network of family and cronies, Rafsanjani concentrated economic power into his own hands during his two terms as President. He waged a war against the left wing Islamists who sought to oppose him by placing economic decisions into the hands of special committees and government bureaucracies.

Read on . . .

What Rafsanjani did more than anything was fill the ministries with allies. But this cronyism had one redeeming benefit; they were relatively competent technocrats. In this way, they assisted him in his efforts to dip his beak into a variety of economic pies.

One of his biggest corruption efforts involved a convoluted kick back scheme with Norway's state run oil company. It is said that Rafsanjani personally oversaw many of the foreign contracts signed by the Iranian oil ministry just to make sure he got his cut.

Enter President Ahmadinejad and his radical brethren who believed that religious fervor was a good enough substitute for competence in running a ministry. By November of last year, Ahmadinejad had sacked hundreds of competent officials in every ministry of government in an unprecedented "anti-corruption" purge:

The rise to power of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former Revolutionary Guards commander, as Iran’s new president last year entailed a sweeping purge of hundreds of senior and mid-level officials in the country’s burgeoning bureaucracy. Supporters of Ahmadinejad’s two predecessors, Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, have been fired from key positions in all the ministries, embassies, state banks, and other governmental institutions.

The purged officials include dozens of ambassadors and diplomats, all but one of the ministers, and more than three quarters of deputy ministers, department directors, and provincial governors, according to a confidential government report obtained by Iran Focus. Many of them have been replaced by several hundred officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) seconded to government positions.

Rafsanjani has publicly rebuked the massive purges, but sources inside the Iranian government say he and Khatami have no clout to withstand the onslaught by hard-liners under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s leadership.

Hard-liners justified the first waves of the purges as the “need for fresh blood after 16 years of misgovernment” by Rafsanjani and Khatami. In many cases, rampant corruption among officials close to the two former presidents was given as the reason for the reshuffle.

The results of the purge were entirely predictable; the Iranian oil ministry, for example, is being so badly run, that the country is losing enormous amounts of money and may reach a zero revenue stream by 2015:

Iran is experiencing a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports and, if the trend continues, income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis released yesterday by the National Academy of Sciences.

Iran's economic woes could make the country unstable and vulnerable with its oil industry crippled, Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University, said in the report and in an interview.

Iran earns about $50 billion a year in oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10 percent to 12 percent annually. In less than five years, exports could be halved and then disappear by 2015, Mr. Stern predicted...

The shortfall represents a loss of about $5.5 billion a year, Mr. Stern said. In 2004, Iran's oil profits were 65 percent of the government's revenues.

"If we look at that shortfall, and failure to rectify leaks in their refineries, that adds up to a loss of about $10 billion to $11 billion a year," he said. "That is a picture of an industry in collapse."

The analyst is quoted in the article as saying, "What they are doing to themselves is much worse than anything we could do."

Be that as it may, this information also gives rise to the idea that if this is true, then the Iranian nuclear program should be seen as an actual necessity and not as a choice of the mullahs to become a regional superpower. In fact, the analyst makes that very case in the article:

The analysis supports U.S. and European suspicions that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of international understandings. But, Mr. Stern said, there could be merit to Iran's assertion that it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes "as badly as it claims."

He said oil production is declining, and both gas and oil are being sold domestically at highly subsidized rates. At the same time, Iran is neglecting to reinvest in its oil production.

"With an explosive demand at home and poor management, the appeal of nuclear power, financed by Russia, could fill a real need for production of more electricity."

The only problem with that analysis is that it's bull cookies. Iran has been trying to develop a nuclear weapon since at least the early 1990's according to the CIA and possibly longer. There wasn't a problem with oil revenues back then nor was any contemplated - as long as they had competent bureaucrats to run the oil industry.

But in Iran, you get what you pay for. And the hardliners bought into Ahmadinejad's glorious vision of a corruption free, pious Iranian government. What they got is a nightmare of incompetence and stupidity. Ahmadinejad's first choice for oil minister was a joke; a close friend, tea and carpet trader and former acting mayor of Tehran, Ali Saeedlou who received a geology degree in 2003 from "Hartford University," a place no one ever heard of or can confirm the existence of. The Parliament refused to be the punchline to the laugher and nixed his confirmation. This is but one example of Ahmadinejad's mismanagement of government. Throughout the ministries, not only has there been mismanagement, but the same kind of corruption that occurred under previous administrations, seems to continue unabated. So much for "reform."

It isn't Ahmadinejad's loose lips about destroying Israel or his taunting of America that has him in trouble with the elites in Iran. It is his rank incompetence as an administrator that is driving much of the opposition against him. This is important to keep in mind if the so called "moderate" radicals get back into power because the fact is, all segments of the Iranian government agree with Ahmadinejad with regards to Israel and the United States. Changing faces in the leadership will not lead the Iranians to halt or slow down their nuclear program nor will it deter them from meddling in the affairs of Lebanon or in sponsoring terrorism.

I guess Ahmadinejad was too busy looking for the messiah to see to the competent administration of his government.

A very good diary.

I would like to hear your take on what the most effective going forward strategy is here.

I am personally at a loss for what our best move is. Direct military action will likely be counterproductive. Sanctions are likely to be ineffective. What can we realistically do?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

And I don't think we could ever trust the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions.

In that context, war would seem inevitable with its attendant massive economic dislocations worldwide - the globe being so interdependent now that a big downturn in the west would have reprecussions for all - including China.

Given how the world has reacted to the Iranians - the namby pamby sanctions and all - my guess is that we and everyone else will eventually acquiesce to their regional ambitions as well as their nuclear program. There doesn't seem to tbe the will to do anything else about them.

War with Iran is simply not a tenable option. Politically this administration can't do it and without a wildly changing opinion on the war in Iraq it is difficult to envision a situation where war with Iran would be supported publicly.

And of course there is the reality that war would have grave economic consequences and would be a very difficult war for the US to engage in.

So barring a really revolutionary use of our military I fail to see how we can go to war with Iran and have a reasonable expectation of a positive result.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Your point about Norway perked up my ears. I should do more research on this but I think that Iranian law (I mean the laws of the revolutionary govt) is constructed so as to disallow direct foreign investment in productive assets (practically, that means the oil and gas industry). Foreign investors are required to participate only in "buyback" arrangements. They are free to bring in capital but may not take a direct equity position in their projects. Instead, they get a "promise" that they will get a cut of future revenues. (Not sure what that means in terms of practical contract enforceability.) You can easily see how unattractive this is for Western companies that have to answer to shareholders.

The Chinese of course are taking this deal, with that recent natural gas project they got into. I hadn't heard about the Norwegians, but I can see how this kind of deal-structure is well-suited to corruption of the kind that Rafsanjani was reputedly a master of.

You GOTTA love the fact that the Iranian hardliners see the US as the Great Satan, but they're more than happy to get into bed with the Chinese. What do the Chinese have that we don't have?

Is it the great tolerance they show for people of all religions? Maybe it's their track record on human rights? Or maybe their great respect for foreign cultures?

Maybe it's the fact Worker's Paradise in China is one of the few societies that's even MORE repressive than the Islamic paradise the Mullahs long to impose on the world. You certainly don't have to worry about the kids in Tehran rejecting Islamic tradition and demanding to live like the Chinese.

Re: This is important to keep in mind if the so called "moderate" radicals get back into power because the fact is, all segments of the Iranian government agree with Ahmadinejad with regards to Israel and the United States.

This is probably true enough, but if a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats mostly interested in lining their own pockets are in power they are quite likely to follow a "Don't rock the boat" policy in international politics and as such will be less of a danger.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service