logo
Iran's ‘License Raj' resembles 1960s India — those close to the regime get permits and oil revenues, the educated get no jobs: Jeremy S. Friedman

Iran's ‘License Raj' resembles 1960s India — those close to the regime get permits and oil revenues, the educated get no jobs: Jeremy S. Friedman

Economic Times19-06-2025
Jeremy S. Friedman, author of 'Ripe For Revolution: Building Socialism in the Third World', teaches at Harvard Business School. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das, he discusses the Iran war — and Tehran's economy:
Q. What keeps Iran going, despite decades of sanctions?A. Well, the short answer is, it's not going very well — Iranians aren't starving but the country is also not growing economically. They have an 'over-education' crisis with the most educated population in the region outside Iran but no jobs. The biggest reason for economic stagnation is sanctions. There was hope with 2015's original Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that Western companies would start investing in Iran.However, even before Donald Trump came along, the United States didn't do that, largely due to the fear of sanctions being reimposed. Investment was thus mostly limited to the energy sphere, even though Iran is not really a petrostate. It has a large, educated population, a diverse economy, a big agricultural sphere and, ironically perhaps, it is a major destination for medical tourism and plastic surgery. I've been to Tehran and it seems like half the people in the airport got nose jobs just before flying out. It is no accident that Iran has its own nuclear program and isn't dependent on foreign expertise — it has the scientific capability many petrostates don't. Essentially, Iran's potential has remained unfulfilled.
Q. Can you describe Iran's socialist trajectory? A. Being a theocracy, many people assume Iran must be conservative. That's not what 1979's Islamic Revolution was though — many of Iran's Islamists were socialist. There was a major socialist movement in the 1940s-50s which fought the Shah who also fought back — the Marxist left was eventually decimated by the secret police. By the 1960s, the Islamists began to step into the vacuum the socialists had left. The latter claimed they'd build an anti-imperialist, egalitarian, developed economy — the Islamists said they'd follow faith and do the same. Eventually, those people made the Revolution — later establishment personalities, like Akbar Rafsanjani, Mir Hossein Mousavi, etc., were socialist-leaning. They imagined Islamism would make Iran developed and equal. Land reform, nationalisation and national plan development began — but in 1980, just a year after the Revolution, Iraq invaded. For the next eight years, Iran was on war footing — rationing meant state control of goods. A huge state sector developed.
In the 1990s, as some groups started dissenting from this arrangement, there was some privatisation but it never fully took effect because being isolated from the world economy, it was hard for Iran to privatise on that scale. Then, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rebuilt the nuclear program. Sanctions followed, really benefitting those who controlled the ability to produce and smuggle — the Revolutionary Guard. The economy stayed in state hands — and stagnated.
There is some self-sufficiency as, owing to sanctions, they've had to manufacture many things countries would typically import. Iran's export revenue is largely dependent on energy and oil — those with access to government, the Revolutionary Guard and military get foreign items and licenses to manufacture. Similar to the License Raj that India had in the 1960s-70s, Iran has a smaller-scale License Raj now, with oil revenue going into the pockets of those who have the licenses. It's a two-tiered economy — those connected to the state get bits of oil money, monopolies, smuggling, etc. Those with no access to the state — which includes the aspiring middle class who thought they'd progress through education — have no jobs and nowhere to go. Iran is thus a bifurcated economy which depends on connections, not merit.
Q. What role do China and Russia play?
A. Well, a fully candid Iranian regime would say, a very disappointing role. After all the talk about a 'new axis' with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, Russia and China are clearly not going to be there for Tehran. Iran gave Russia drones to use in Ukraine. Yet, Russia has done very little for it because it doesn't want to jeopardise its ties to Israel and Saudi Arabia.China only really cares about Iran's oil — if Iran disrupted those exports, Beijing would suffer the most and Iran can't afford to alienate it. So, it's a one-sided relationship between Iran, Russia and China, characteristic of the entire axis. China gets what it wants from Moscow but Russia doesn't get what it wants from Beijing. This is more a hierarchy than an axis, with China on top.
Q. What does this Iran-Israel conflict mean for the global energy market?A. With China being the largest consumer of its oil, I'd be surprised if Iran significantly disrupted exports through the Strait of Hormuz. That would change China's attitude towards Tehran. There could be short-term disturbances, especially with Israel attacking Iran's energy infrastructure, sparking retaliation. Yet, it seems Iran doesn't really want a major war — the Iranian regime is afraid if that happens, they'll be overthrown as they are very vulnerable at home. A revolution in Iran, with chaos and potential disruption of energy exports, could be the bigger risk to global markets.
Views expressed are personal
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei reappears in public at mourning ceremony after staying off radar amid war with Israel
Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei reappears in public at mourning ceremony after staying off radar amid war with Israel

Mint

time5 hours ago

  • Mint

Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei reappears in public at mourning ceremony after staying off radar amid war with Israel

Iran's Supreme Leader, 86-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suddenly disappeared for nearly two weeks during recent fighting with Israel. According to reports, he hadn't been seen since June 11, just before Israel started bombing Iran on June 13. Khamenei finally stepped back into view on July 5 at a mourning ceremony in Tehran. Looking thin but calm, he sat quietly while crowds marked Ashura, a holy day for Muslims. His surprise return came as Iran faces huge challenges: Nuclear sites lie in ruins, with the U.S. saying Iran's atomic program is 'obliterated'. Iran has now stopped working with UN nuclear inspectors. More trouble brews inside Iran's government too. Powerful army groups are fighting for control once Khamenei dies, with some wanting less religious rule. While missiles hit Tehran and other cities, Khamenei vanished completely. State TV showed no videos of him, and officials gave confusing answers when asked where he was. One aide just told worried Iranians: 'We should all be praying'. Security experts believed Khamenei hid in a secret underground bunker to avoid assassination attempts by Israel, who had threatened to target him directly. During his disappearance, Khamenei sent only one message, a shaky video released after the ceasefire. He claimed Iran "won" against Israel and called U.S. attacks on nuclear sites 'unimportant'. But his words didn't match reality: Israel killed over 30 top Iranian commanders and scientists, while U.S. bombs wrecked key nuclear facilities.

The nuclear policeman
The nuclear policeman

The Hindu

time5 hours ago

  • The Hindu

The nuclear policeman

On July 2, Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered his country to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog. He explained this decision as 'a natural response to the unjustified, unconstructive, and destructive conduct' of the IAEA's Director General Rafael Grossi. Tehran believes Mr. Grossi cleared the ground for Israel's unprovoked strikes on its nuclear facilities by preparing a 'misleading' report on Iran's compliance with non-proliferation obligations. On the basis of this report, the IAEA's Board of Governors on June 12, one day before Israel's attack, adopted a resolution stating that Iran had 'failed to cooperate fully' with the Agency and accused it of 'repeatedly failing to provide the Agency with technically credible explanations' to its various queries. Israel and the U.S. used this resolution to push forward the narrative that Iran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb and the only way to stop it was to destroy its nuclear installations through 'pre-emptive' military strikes. Subsequently, after Israel struck Iran's nuclear sites, Mr. Grossi made a clarification that seemed to walk back the impression created by the June 12 resolution. In an interview with CNN, he said, 'We did not have any proof of a systematic effort by Iran to make a nuclear weapon.' A spokesperson of Iran's Ministry of External Affairs shared the video clip of Mr. Grossi's interview on social media with the comment, 'This is too late, Mr. Grossi: you obscured this truth in your absolutely biased report…Do you know how many innocent Iranians have been killed/maimed as a result of this criminal war? You've made IAEA a partner to this unjust war of aggression.' It cannot be denied that Mr. Grossi and the IAEA have played a major role in shaping the discourse around Iran's nuclear programme. But is there merit in the Iranian claim that under Mr. Grossi, the IAEA has been acting in alignment with Western, and in particular, Israeli political interests? Mr. Grossi, 64, is a diplomat from the Argentine Foreign Service. In a career spanning 40 years, he carved a niche for himself in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, serving as president of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (2014-2016) before assuming office as Director General of the IAEA on December 3, 2019. He said in a 2020 interview, 'I feel like I prepared for this my whole life.' As the IAEA chief, Mr. Grossi made headlines in 2022 for his energetic efforts to secure Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which was caught in the cross-fire of the Ukraine-Russia war. An accidental strike on it could unleash a nuclear disaster that would impact much of Europe. Mr. Grossi, at some risk to his own life, personally visited the nuclear plant near the frontline even as shells rained down not far away. With the consent of the Ukrainian leadership, he shut down all but one reactor, and as an additional safety measure, left behind a team of UN inspectors — an arrangement that continues to this day. But his efforts did not stop there. A month later, he went to St. Petersburg and met Russian President Vladimir Putin. His mission: to extract an assurance that Russian forces would not target the Zaporizhzhia plant. Mr. Grossi's trip had the intended effect, with the Russians steering clear of attacking the facility. IAEA's mandate Mr. Grossi's actions were fully in keeping with the mandate of the IAEA, which is to promote and safeguard peaceful nuclear programmes all over the world. Today, however, the IAEA is known more as an agency tasked with verifying that nuclear materials meant for civilian use are not diverted for weaponisation. In fact, IAEA inspectors cannot, and are not mandated to, search for weapons. They merely monitor nuclear facilities to ensure that the signatory country is fulfilling its obligations under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA). Critically, IAEA inspections, by design, are incapable of generating verifiable evidence of the absence of a military nuclear programme. Nor can its reports — with their catalogue of 'failures' in compliance or cooperation — serve as a proxy for the existence of a weaponisation programme, in the absence of independent intel proving as much. Since IAEA inspections cannot possibly cover every square inch of a vast country, the problem of 'unknowns' at 'undeclared' locations are a given. While these might warrant further investigation, it is questionable whether they can be used to fuel speculation about a country's intentions at a time of escalating tensions. And yet, the ambiguous wording in the IAEA resolution and Mr. Grossi's public statements did precisely that, lending credence to the narrative of Iran building a nuclear bomb. Ironically, American intel leaked to the media, as well as a statement in March 2025 by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, confirmed that Iran was not building a bomb. Another major element of this narrative was that Iran had 400 kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is not needed for civilian use. Mr. Grossi dwelled on this aspect often in his public pronouncements. Yet, it is not illegal under the NPT for a signatory country to hold uranium enriched to 60%. For Iran, however, it was prohibited, but only under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 agreement which limited its enrichment rights to 3.67% and capped its stockpiling of enriched uranium at 300kg. But the JCPOA became defunct — at least from the Iranian perspective — the moment the U.S. withdrew from it in 2018 and the sanctions relief guaranteed under it for Iran failed to materialise. But Mr. Grossi went along with the position of holding Iran to a JCPOA the West had already scuttled, while disregarding the IAEA's own resolutions that prohibit military attacks on civilian nuclear installations. Attacks prohibited The IAEA's General Conference resolution (407) adopted in November 1983 states that 'all armed attacks against nuclear installations devoted to peaceful purposes should be explicitly prohibited'. A draft resolution of September 26, 1985, submitted jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden not only forbade Israel from targeting Iraq's civilian nuclear facilities, it further called 'upon Israel urgently to place all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards' – something difficult to envisage at a time when exemption for Israel from international law is getting increasingly normalised. Incidentally, both these resolutions were from a time when the IAEA was led by Mr. Grossi's illustrious predecessor, Hans Blix. Under the IAEA statutes and the UN charter, Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear programme. It is also entitled to protection of its nuclear installations from military attacks. And yet, Mr. Grossi never condemned the Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. On the contrary, his words and deeds amplified suspicions about Iran's intentions, which were used by Israel and the U.S. to justify their attack. Today, in the aftermath of a fragile and difficult ceasefire, Mr. Grossi is back to stoking fears about Iran's nuclear programme by claiming it could start enriching uranium again in a matter of months. Not surprisingly, Iran has refused to allow IAEA inspection of its bombed-out nuclear facilities, with the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, stating, 'Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent.' Had Mr. Grossi displayed a little of the same urgency for protecting Iran's civilian nuclear facilities that he did for Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, it may have gone some way toward protecting the IAEA's credibility among nuclear threshold states.

IAEA team exits Iran after country halts cooperation with nuclear watchdog
IAEA team exits Iran after country halts cooperation with nuclear watchdog

Business Standard

timea day ago

  • Business Standard

IAEA team exits Iran after country halts cooperation with nuclear watchdog

Days after the conflict between Iran and Israel, the United Nations (UN)' nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on Friday said that it has withdrawn a team of its inspectors from Iran who stayed there throughout the conflict. "An IAEA team of inspectors today safely departed from Iran to return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict," the IAEA said in a post on X. "IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi reiterated the crucial importance of the IAEA discussing with Iran modalities for resuming its indispensable monitoring and verification activities in Iran as soon as possible," the agency added. Background The move comes almost 10 days after United States President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire deal between Iran and Israel, labeling it 'THE 12 DAY WAR'. The conflict, which began after Israel targeted Iran's nuclear sites on June 13, claimed the lives of 974 Iranians, including 387 civilians. In Israel, 24 people have died and over 1,000 have been injured, according to the Associated Press. It concluded soon after the US launched a large-scale and coordinated airstrike targeting three of Iran's key nuclear facilities, including those at Fordo. According to Reuters, IAEA inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran's facilities since the beginning of the conflict. Meanwhile, Iran on Wednesday suspended cooperation with the agency until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed, the report added. Despite the pause in cooperation, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi on Thursday said that it is committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its safeguards agreement, Reuters reported. Talks with US Moreover, amid reports of US-Iran talks, Iran's Ambassador to India, Iraj Elahi, told ANI that any negotiation process with the US is meaningless until Washington provides a "credible guarantee" to prevent future acts of aggression by Israel and the US. "As for negotiations with the United States, considering their betrayal of diplomacy and complicity with the Zionist regime in launching illegal attacks on Iran -- while a diplomatic process was still ongoing -- there will be no meaning or value in any talks unless a credible guarantee is provided to prevent the recurrence of such acts of aggression by the US and Israel in future negotiations," he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store