What’s the history between US and Iran that has led to the escalated US- Iran conflict and allegations of economic terrorism?

[Dr.Masih Rezvani + 27]

A lot of people have asked about doing a breakdown on Iran and how the USA is draw them out to be.

So today we are going to look at the US Iran conflict and see why we are in the position we are today.

Things we will be looking at in this breakdown are, the current state of economy, what countries play a part in the conflict, we’ll look at a timeline, how the American presidents got along with the different presidents or leaders in Iran, and to wrap things up I will share some of my thoughts on the conflict.

First let’s look at the current date of the Iranian economy where young Iranians are experiencing a 27% unemployment rate and university graduates are experiencing a 40% unemployment rate. Inflation is reported to being 40% but people are suspecting it being way higher. Professor Steve Hanke with the Johns Hopkins university, one of the worlds leading economists on inflation suspects the real inflation rate is 250% So what does this mean for the average consumer? In the last 12 months red meat prices are up 57% milk and eggs are up 37% and vegetables are up 47% The Iranian currency called the Rial has lost 60% of it’s value against the USD. In the last 12 months Iran has lost over 10 Billion USD in oil revenue.

Both the USA and the UK have played a very large part in recent Iranian history, so have Israel and Saudi Arabia. Russia, Venezuela and Lebanon have also played a big role.

 

Here is the timeline of important events:

1908 -Anglo Persian oil company starts

1914 – British government buys 51% share in the company (the APOC later changed name to BP in 1954)

1925 – 1941 Reza Pahlavi becomes shah

1941 – 1979 Mohammad Reza Pahlavi takes over as shah

1951- Mosaddegh becomes prime minister

• Parliament votes to nationalize oil
• Britain imposes embargo, halts exports

1953 – CIA & MI6 orchestrated a coup

• CIA documents released 60 years later confirming they were behind it

1963 – The shah launches the White Revolution

1.      Between 1963 and 1978 the number of students increased from 1.5 million to 10 million

2.      Total number of schools multiplied by 3.24 times

3.      Education spending increased from 45 billion rials in 1963 – 1967 to 551 billion rials between 1973 – 1977

4.      Women gained the right to vote

5.      Women were able to run for office, serve as judges and work as lawyers for the first time

6.      The marriage age for women was increased to 15 years

7.      The personal income of Iranians skyrocketed

8.      Oil revenue increased from $555 to over $20 billion by 1976

1978 – The shah kept discounting Ayatollah Khomeini’s influence

1979 – Shah & family forced to leave January 16^th

1979 – Ayatollah Khomeini returns after 14 years in exile on February 1^st

1979 – Revolutionary forces take  the American Embassy on November 4^th

1980 – The shah dies from cancer in Egypt on July 27^th

1980 to 1988 – Iran/Iraq war – 1.5 million deaths (USA supported Iraq)

1981 – The American hostages are released just as Reagan is sworn into office on January 20^th

1988 – Iran air bus shot down by USA killing 290 people including 66 children

1995 – Clinton places oil and trade sanctions on Iran

2003 – Iran suspends uranium enrichment program

• Allows tougher UN inspections of its nuclear facilities

2006 to 2010 – USA succeeds 4 rounds of sanctions against Iran

1.      Stop enriching uranium

2.      Stop exporting weapons

3.      Banking restrictions

4.      Trade and travel restrictions

2012 – Iran currency loses 80% of its value since 2011

2015 – Obama nuclear deal $150 billion or $1.8 billion in cash

2018 – May 8^th Trump withdrew from Obama deal

2018 – August 7^th Trump enforces new round of sanctions on oil and banking

 

Traditionally the American presidents that are on the republican side have gotten along with the Iranian leaders if they have been more on the pro west side, but as soon as they have been on opposite sides of the specter there has been conflict. If there has been a Democratic president and the leaders in Iran have been pro west there have been some issues, but if the leaders of Iran have been anti west, then there has been little to no conflict.  The shah got along with Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, but not with Kennedy, LBJ, or Carter.

 

A lot of people ask, “So Masih, do you think this is ever going to stop?” My answer is always “I don’t think so” because if you think about it, the more conflict there is in the middle east the more the US/UK and other countries have to get involved in the region in order to try to “fix it” giving them more power in the region. If there is no conflict in the middle east, then there is no reason for these countries to get involved leaving them no influence in the area.

 

Here are some of the formulas the superpowers have used to keep their influence in the region:

1.      Creating sanctions with strong requests that cripple the economy they are targeting

2.      They befriend and support the number 1 enemy of the country they are targeting

3.      They infiltrate the nation with opposition creating chaos

4.      They create internal division weakening the country allowing them to step in and take control easier.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Interesting timeline, Dr. Masih.

[Dr.Masih Rezvani + 27]

Yrwlcm

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

For your consideration, gif showing No Name meeting with Soleimani.

[Dr.Masih Rezvani + 27]

Are you sure ?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, Dr.Masih Rezvani said:

Are you sure ?

Nope, but looks pretty likely.  Both No Name and Soleimani were bad actors, and their interests were aligned.

[Dr.Masih Rezvani + 27]

In my opinion, it is better to leave the judgment of whether they were good or bad

But America has always given a good gift to the Middle East
The best bombers

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Let's remember that, historically, all Iran's government of the day ever had to do was to give up its nuclear weapons program and the West (and specifically the USA) would be satisfied and leave Iran alone, to its own devices.  The US really is not particularly interested in the internal politics or even the social structure of various other countries; they put up will all kinds of oppression and abuse of women in places like Burma, and all through Africa, and do nothing about it.  What gets the US going is the thought that nuclear weapons are going t spread, and especially to unstable regimes with loony dictators or mullahs at the helm.  It is only a matter of time before some mullah or ayatollah or Guard General decides to go launch one of those bombs.  You know it is coming.

So the US response is self-interested, sure, but also a direct reaction to the continued efforts of the ayatollahs to go build working nuke weapons and the delivery systems to go blast Israel off the map, if they cannot reach the USA mainland.  And thus the US is faced with a classic existential dilemma: do we stop them now, by whatever means necessary, or do we do nothing al let it happen, and then try to deal with the nukes and rockets later on?  

And the US govt has made the decision to stop it now.  If that means the assassination of various Iranian military or political leaders, then that is just seen as collateral damage.  As long as the ayatollahs continue to try to build nuke bombs, you can expect the US to respond with a lot more than a hit on some radical general.  You can expect a nuke strike on the facilities that manufacture those bombs.  Now the Iranian mullahs perfectly understand this and, in concert with their chums inside North Korea, have built those facilities deep inside mountains;.  That is not going to work.  I predict the US will whack at those mountain tunnel openings with nuke warheads and turn them into molten glass and radioactive dust, specifically to entomb the hidden manufacturing sites.  Don't kid yourself: the US government, and with the support I might add of the US people and probably the support albeit silent of the European people, are perfectly prepared to see that happen, and if one of the results is the mass death of say 500,000 Iranians, that will be considered an acceptable collateral damage.  

The mullahs are leading Iran into a disaster.  Iran cannot survive a direct confrontation with  US military might, and it is inexorably headed that way.  The best bet for Iran is to overthrow the mullahs and establish a secular society, and I see that coming soon enough.  The US could trigger that by simply announcing that, once the mullahs are overthrown, the US will issue 50,000 special student visas for Iranian students to come to the USA to study.  With that incentive, the ayatollahs would be history within a week.  And airdrop some guns and ammo in the countryside at random, just to spur things along.  

Nobody likes the ayatollahs and the mullahs.  Including all the younger Iranians, now over half the population. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 minutes ago, Dr.Masih Rezvani said:

In my opinion, it is better to leave the judgment of whether they were good or bad

 

 

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, Dr.Masih Rezvani said:

In my opinion, it is better to leave the judgment of whether they were good or bad

But America has always given a good gift to the Middle East
The best bombers

No, I think the Jihadis from the Middle East have given the world the ‘best’ bombers. Just take a look at the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of poor, misguided souls given suicide vests, targets and a promise of martyrdom.

Obviously the guys providing the vests do not seek to martyr themselves...odd.

[Papillon + 485]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Obviously the guys providing the vests do not seek to martyr themselves...odd.

Well someone needs to man the recruiting office sir ...  /sarc

[John Foote + 1,135]

One of history's unknowns, what if we hadn't half-ass protected the Shah in his end days. The Shah in his prime probably would have handled the situation, a man dying and riddled of cancer couldn't. Had we allowed the Iranian people to have the Shah, doubtful he would have lived long enough to die of cancer, and the embassy situation never happens. Joe Q. WIth oil supply issue stable, Iran, not KSA provides more, low oil prices continue, Carter's economic situation is better enough to get him re-elected. Remember Volker was doing the right thing on the Fed level and Reagan stayed the course, if anything Carter was far more conservative fiscally. Not a sci-fi movie anyone would pay to see, but an easy to construct alternative time-line. Carter had a gift making folks feel pessimistic, Reagan, all sunny side up, so that change probably has to happen even in an alternative universe.

McCain is an interesting, conflicted person. He had a soldier's bias to not seeing any soldier as the enemy. He lost my vote sucking up for voters in South Carolina when running for president. His savings and loan mess is ugly, but on that he is so peanuts compared to the 2008 collapse where the architects get off, hell, most didn't get, that got even richer for it. That the US semi-aligned with Iran during the darker ISIS/ISIL days, well only an ignorant fool didn't know that. And of course ISIS is also our inadvertent, but completely predictable creation too.

[specinho + 440]

7 hours ago, Dr.Masih Rezvani said:

 1951- Mosaddegh becomes prime minister

• Parliament votes to nationalize oil
• Britain imposes embargo, halts exports

 

Try pay them their shares, for peace??

With 20B and high inflation, your government might be not doing its job?? What do you do?? Can you produce a Greta Thunberg of Iran??

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

So the US response is self-interested, sure, but also a direct reaction to the continued efforts of the ayatollahs to go build working nuke weapons and the delivery systems to go blast Israel off the map, if they cannot reach the USA mainland.  And thus the US is faced with a classic existential dilemma: do we stop them now, by whatever means necessary, or do we do nothing al let it happen, and then try to deal with the nukes and rockets later on?  

 

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by specinho

[fozzir + 68]

10 hours ago, Dr.Masih Rezvani said:

Good summary.  I would also include:

1988- Operation Praying Mantis - The US destroys half of the Iranian Navy.

 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

3 hours ago, John Foote said:

Remember Volker was doing the right thing on the Fed level and Reagan stayed the course,

I think Volcker did not do what he claims and all believe he did. The insane Fed policy did not contain inflation because it was not coming from the US monetary source. The big inflators of the day were Japan, S. Korea, Spain, Italy and many smaller nations. They worked through the Eurodollar system to decrease their exchange rates and promote exports. The actual driver of inflation in the US was those Eurodollars funding massive oil drilling activity when oil production in the US peaked. Then Aramco was handed over to the Saudis so those reserves were lost to US control as well. That is what caused the US inflation. The high rates Volcker imposed were not a solution to the inflation. They delayed completion of oil projects in the US, Mexico, and even N. Sea etc. thus prolonging inflation. It was the coming online of the new oil fields that conquered inflation. 

What Volcker's high rates did accomplish was the destruction of small and medium businesses throughout the midwest that relied on bank lending and could not tap the bond market. Volcker created the rust belt. Volcker created the superdollar that destroyed exports and domestic production. Volcker created the dominance of foreign capital in funding US investment by starting a long term condition where the US had the highest rates of all major currencies for decades. Anyone could undercut the Fed and indeed the high rates attracted foreign capital constantly. You can't control rates from above, you can only control them from below. Thus since Volcer and till Yellen, US rates and monetary base were the least expansionary of any major economy and were no contributors to any economic boom but were an added drag on every bust. 

The Volcker inflation narrative is simply a mistake in analysis as it presumes the US is a closed system and the Eurodollar system at the center of global trade and finance does not exist. Just patently false and stupid. What Volcker and his successors managed to do was to prevent the US from competing with other importers of resources so that the foreign economies could obtain them at lower cost. Two generations of this going on crippled the middle and lower classes and stymied growth. The economics profession needs a clean out of Volcker Dogma and removal of any of his suggestions from any regulatory structure. He basically didn't understand any of what he was doing. 

 

This chart shows foreign capital funding as % of US GDP and compares to US domestic bank funding as % of GDP. It shows that the Fed was persistently TIGHT for all of the post 1979 era.

You can clearly see the US funding switching from domestic banking to foreign sources during Volcker's term at the Fed. It continued ever after and grew grotesquely disproportional once Japan started ZIRP in 1995 and China lowered deposit rates to 0.35% in 2000. You can clearly see the funding of the US mortgage bubble coming in from abroad at 8 to 15% of GDP. Remember that these MBS were spread across Europe and even Japanese portfolios. 

Edited January 5, 2020 by 0R0
Added info

[Dr.Masih Rezvani + 27]

20 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

No, I think the Jihadis from the Middle East have given the world the ‘best’ bombers. Just take a look at the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of poor, misguided souls given suicide vests, targets and a promise of martyrdom.

Obviously the guys providing the vests do not seek to martyr themselves...odd.

 

20 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

No, I think the Jihadis from the Middle East have given the world the ‘best’ bombers. Just take a look at the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of poor, misguided souls given suicide vests, targets and a promise of martyrdom.

Obviously the guys providing the vests do not seek to martyr themselves...odd.

Who finances them ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟

[James Regan + 1,776]

51 minutes ago, Dr.Masih Rezvani said:

 

Who finances them ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟

This comes down to the local labour content perecentages required when working in any or most oil industries , the local labour must be trained and then left to thier own devices , in the military arena it’s not much different. 
The locals are equipped and trained with non national equipment and know how then it’s very often used to get rid of the trainers, ie thanks for the training and now we know how to use it “we have this” but the training and now how did have an original price which had to be honored.

I think Iran and perhaps Iraq will be getting newer equipment deliveries now but with zero training and no contract.

Iraq should make some smart decisions in the next few days, if the trainers clear out the region will not recover for decades.

Edited January 6, 2020 by James Regan

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Dr.Masih Rezvani said:

 

Who finances them ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟

If you can’t answer that for yourself, I don’t think I can assist you.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Moderator note, I just hid a comment that was a bit too unhinged for this forum.  I don't often hide comments by others here (not a fan of censorship) but as a professional forum with a focus on oil & gas + its interwined geopolitics, there is at least a modicum of decorum expected here. 

Better to argue one's points with some facts rather than raging outbursts of emotion.

 

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

3 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Moderator note, I just hid a comment that was a bit too unhinged for this forum.  I don't often hide comments by others here (not a fan of censorship) but as a professional forum with a focus on oil & gas + its interwined geopolitics, there is at least a modicum of decorum expected here. 

Better to argue one's points with some facts rather than raging outbursts of emotion.

 

Yep that guy had major issues!

[John Foote + 1,135]

"You can clearly see the US funding switching from domestic banking to foreign sources during Volcker's term at the Fed"

I credit that more to what Bush41 called VooDoo economics. Reagan was ahead of his time in disregarding the spending, and implementing tax cuts (which were needed, but so was adjustments in spending). Bush43 embraced that increase spending, cut taxes approach, and currently we are on deficit steroids as Trump really takes that to heart, but it keeps stocks up and as long as we have free money I suppose it is working. Goes against what I was raised to. At least I have enough to where currently I come out ahead.

Fed policy from Carter thru the great depression was essentially the same, independent of the party. Carter/Voelker was a overdue departure from Nixonian attempts to manage everything, and that was always going to have a hell of a hangover.

The percentage of money out there from non-Fed effected control now is also much higher. If I think about it, I don't sleep much. On a personal lever there is nothing I can do about it, other than I don't leverage myself much, and with very low interest rates, high debt is a smart move.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

there is at least a modicum of decorum expected here. 

5 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Yep that guy had major issues!

Hahaha I wanna know what it was now. 

 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

On 1/5/2020 at 1:39 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

 

 

 

Theres no way your #2 is Baghdadi, he's too young, beard is all wrong, and Baghdadi had vehement hatred for the U.S. ever since we in-prisoned him in Iraq before ISIS was a thing. Just putting a number and name next to a photo means nothing.  Your neat Hollywood rendering trick doesn't mean anything either, that's obviously not Soleimani in the original photo, the hair and beard and face are all wrong. Why don't you just post photos of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Bill Clinton, Osama & Jesus having tea, it'd be just as valid as this propaganda. Do you have any proof that any of those are who you say other than Idris?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Theres no way your #2 is Baghdadi, he's too young, beard is all wrong, and Baghdadi had vehement hatred for the U.S. ever since we in-prisoned him in Iraq before ISIS was a thing. Just putting a number and name next to a photo means nothing.  

Not my photo.  But this might help.  And you might want to question CNN about their graphic in the lower left.

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Not my photo.  But this might help.  And you might want to question CNN about their graphic in the lower left.

I think there is a reasonable probability that is Baghdadi but that isn't Soleimani. I can't see him sitting in a room with a US politician and Sunni extremists. Soleimani is the poster boy for the Shia revival and his boots on the ground probably did most of the damage to ISIS and AQ. 

Edited January 6, 2020 by NickW