The Coronavirus Crisis Is a Diplomatic Opportunity for the United States and Iran

By Robert Malley and Ali Vaez

If Iran’s leaders thought things couldn’t get worse, they were wrong. The country faces three simultaneous crises: a public health emergency that is worsening by the hour, tensions with the United States that have once again grown in the past few days, and an economic picture that could go from troubled to dire in a matter of months.

The confluence of a coronavirus pandemic, security threats, and financial troubles has deepened the political system’s legitimacy crisis in the wake of last month’s parliamentary elections that saw the lowest turnout in the Islamic Republic’s history. Washington might view this as a validation of its so-called maximum pressure strategy against Tehran, but if it fails to capitalize on this moment to de-escalate tensions and lay the groundwork for a mutually beneficial diplomatic settlement, the leadership in Tehran is likely to become more aggressive in the region, increasing the risk of a conflict that neither side appears to want.

Since the dramatic escalations of late 2019 and early 2020, which culminated in the killing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qassem Suleimani and Iranian missile strikes on Iraqi bases hosting U.S. forces, both Iran and the United States appeared content to return to their respective corners.

But there has been a steady stream of incidents in Iraq, with at least seven attacks near U.S. diplomatic facilities inside Baghdad’s Green Zone and U.S. military installations in Iraq throughout January and February. These attacks spiked on March 11 following a barrage of rockets that killed three members of the U.S.-led coalition, including two Americans, and injured more than a dozen others at an Iraqi army base, Camp Taji, north of Baghdad.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper subsequently assessed that “Iranian-backed Shiite militia groups” were responsible. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned ­that “those responsible must be held accountable.” A day later, the United States retaliated against an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia in Iraq, which in turn fired more rockets into Camp Taji on March 14 and again on March 17.

This latest moment of peril is playing out against the backdrop of a dramatic COVID-19 outbreak in Iran, which has the third-highest number of confirmed cases and fatalities anywhere in the world. The Iranian government was slow in responding to the outbreak; and when it finally realized its scale and scope, Tehran was hampered by shortages caused by sanctions. Moreover, the government has kept a worryingly tight grip on the information flow to save face, prompting fears that the death toll—currently listed as 988—is probably much higher than the official figures suggest.

With Tehran’s initial response being dismissive of the risks of the virus’s spread and slow to mobilize against it, the government is now pleading for international assistance. Having already scored several calamitous own goals in recent months—raising fuel prices with little warning in November 2019, then violently suppressing subsequent protests, and in January downing a Ukrainian civilian airliner in the apparent belief it was an incoming U.S. missile—the government’s response to the coronavirus crisis could increase the population’s sense that its leadership is incompetent.

Meanwhile, the impact of the rapidly spreading disease and collapse in oil prices will likely present almost unprecedented challenges to an economy that is already beset by government mismanagement and under siege from U.S. sanctions.

One Iranian official calculated a drop of 18 percent in trade as a result of the pandemic—and that was before Iraq, a key regional trade partner, announced a full closure of the two countries’ common land borders and the price of crude tumbled below $30 per barrel. (While Iran’s exports have been blocked by the United States since April 2019, it has continued to make sales to China, albeit at sharply reduced levels.) The combination of reduced regional trade, evaporation of remaining oil revenue, and COVID-19’s impact on domestic business could prove catastrophic.

But that doesn’t mean that Tehran will bow to U.S. pressure and back down. Indeed, since May 2019, when the Iranian government chose to counter U.S. maximum pressure with a blend of nuclear and regional provocations, the system’s hard-liners have contended that high-risk brinkmanship yields greater dividends than restraint.

The coronavirus outbreak has now put more pressure on the leadership’s calculus. Feeling besieged and with no obvious diplomatic exit ramp, Iran might conclude that only a confrontation with the United States might change a trajectory that’s heading in a very dangerous direction. 

This is also the view of Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the head of U.S. Central Command, who told Congress on March 10 that the outbreak “probably makes them, in terms of decision-making, more dangerous rather than less dangerous.”

With U.S. President Donald Trump focused on the domestic economic and electoral effects of the coronavirus and the Iranian leadership highly reluctant to display any weakness to the United States, neither side is likely in the mood to engage the other.

That would be a missed opportunity. Indeed, both Washington and Tehran have floated ideas that, if acted upon, could break the current vicious cycle. Pompeo has urged the Iranian government—which furloughed tens of thousands of convicts due to fears of an epidemic in prisons—to free U.S. prisoners and other dual and foreign nationals on humanitarian grounds. The death of any of those inmates from COVID-19 would be a stain Iran might find hard to erase.

Conversely, Iran has asked the International Monetary Fund for emergency funding and a substantial list of essential equipment ranging from gloves and masks to portable respiration and X-ray machines. If the Trump administration stands in the way of such basic needs—by voting against an IMF loan to Iran—the United States would find it hard to overcome the impression that it had acted inhumanely.

The most logical and mutually beneficial outcome would be a two-phased humanitarian de-escalation. Iran would need to first agree to furlough all detained foreigners as the U.S. facilitates the transfer of medicine and medical equipment Iran needs to contain the outbreak and save lives without any sanctions-related delays.

In the second phase, the U.S. government could agree not to block the IMF loan to Iran while Tehran freezes its nuclear escalation and reins in its allied groups in Iraq, preventing any further attacks on U.S. forces and assets. This phase could also comprise another prisoner swap, either on par with the one-for-one exchange that happened back in December or, even better, a broader exchange of prisoners. This would be a win-win: putting tensions with Iran on ice, providing Trump with another success in his efforts to free Americans detained abroad, and providing Tehran with some economic reprieve and the means to save lives at home.

Since 2018, when the Trump administration pulled out of the nuclear deal with Iran, Washington and Tehran have been on a collision course pitting unrealistic U.S. demands against Iranian inflexibility. For either side to let a possible diplomatic off-ramp pass by would mean that a dangerous and deadly situation might again take a turn for the worse.

Robert Malley is president and CEO of the International Crisis Group. He served as a special assistant for the Middle East under President Barack Obama. Follow him at @Rob_Malley.

Ali Vaez is the director of Iran Project at the International Crisis Group and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. Follow him at  @AliVaez

Photo: IRNA

Iran's Urgent IMF Loan Request Challenges Trump Policy

This article was originally published by Responsible Statecraft.

For the first time in 60 years, Iran has requested a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), seeking emergency financing to support its efforts to combat COVID-19. On March 4, the IMF announced that it would make available up to $50 billion in financial assistance through its Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI), a facility targeting “low-income and emerging markets.”

Iran’s request for financial assistance reflects the acute challenges the country faces in its efforts to control the country’s COVID-19 outbreak—over 14,000 Iranians have been infected according to official statistics. The government has mobilized extensive resources to try to respond to the public health crisis, but the Iranian economy is being pushed to a breaking point. Iran is seeking $5 billion in emergency assistance from the IMF, funding that could dramatically improve the prognosis not only for the Iranian economy, but also the health and wellbeing of the Iranian public.

As medical professor Abbas Kebriaeezadeh and recently explained, Iran is struggling to replenish inventories of medicine and medical equipment both because of supply chain disruptions related to border closures and other related restrictions as well as underlying weakness in Iran’s access to the international financial system that make payments cumbersome to complete. Short term aid from the World Health Organization and European governments, as well as countries such as China, Japan, and Qatar, has helped Iran meet immediate needs for supplies. But as the outbreak continues, and as other countries begin to confront their own public health crises, Iran will need to rely on commercial sources of medicine and medical equipment.

However, even if Iran is able to find suppliers that are able to speedily and reliably dispatch these much-needed goods, the country would still face a balance of payments problem—precisely the problem that the IMF’s RFI facility is supposed to solve. Trade data for February, before the outbreak arrived in Iran, point to significant vulnerability as Iran’s non-oil trade deficit reached $1.68 billion on the back of $4.33 billion in imports and just $2.65 billion in exports.

Since the Trump administration eliminated waivers permitting the purchase of Iranian oil in May 2018, Iran has struggled to earn the dollars and euros that are needed to keep its economy supplied with advanced goods. Consequently, over the 18 months, Iran has seen inflation reach as high as 40 percent, straining the finances of ordinary households and pushing as many as 1.6 million Iranians below the poverty line.

Iran’s economy will be hit hard by the various efforts to contain the country’s COVID-19 outbreak. Of particular concern for Iranian economists, among them Masoud Nili, a long-time advisor to the Rouhani administration, is how the skyrocketing cost of healthcare will force the central bank to pump liquidity into the economy, causing a situation Nili calls “inflationary coronavirus.” A shortage of foreign currency will make inflation worse, as the rial continues to lose value relative to other currencies. A loan from the IMF would help Iran’s central banks keep importers of foreign medicine and medical goods supplied with foreign currency, thereby easing inflationary pressures.

Importantly, Iran would not necessarily receive the IMF loan in Iran. More practically, the funds would be deposited into dollar and euro-denominated accounts controlled by the Central Bank of Iran, but maintained in Europe. So few Iranian banks maintain correspondent accounts in Europe that bringing the IMF assistance back to Iran, only to allocate it to commercial banks to be transferred on behalf of clients to suppliers in Europe, would add significant time and expense to the urgent transactions. Depositing the funds in Europe would also eliminate the risk of their misuse—financial regulators will be able to track Iran’s use of the loan within the European financial system. The loan isn’t being paid in cash, after all.

Moreover, given that the funds would likely remain in Europe, the U.S. Treasury Department could insist on oversight of the IMF loan, including the review of due diligence documentation that would be required in each instance where funds originating from the IMF are being paid into the account of a European pharmaceutical or medical equipment supplier—the suppliers have a clear interest in ensuring their sale of goods is fully compliant with U.S. secondary sanctions.

This type of oversight would not be dissimilar to the compliance framework behind the Swiss Humanitarian Trade Arrangement (SHTA), a payments channel created after the Swiss government sought clearer authorizations from the Trump administration to maintain the sale of medicine and medical equipment to Iran by Swiss firms, which include some of the world’s largest suppliers of these goods.

In light of the balance of payments problem and more fundamental issues in cross-border payments, 11 European governments have backed a trade mechanism called INSTEX. But this mechanism was created after requests made to the Trump administration for clarifications around humanitarian trade with Iran were rebuffed. Given the significant role played by the United States in the IMF, the Trump administration would need to effectively approve any financial assistance given to Iran by the IMF—the political and legal issues around an IMF loan to Iran therefore have more in common with the Swiss arrangement.

In this way, by calling upon the IMF to provide it access to a facility that the fund has offered to all similar countries confronting COVID-19, Iran is effectively asking the fund’s leadership to seek such an approval from the Trump administration in order to open the kind of financial channel that Iran’s central bank has found increasingly difficult to maintain. In the two years since the Trump administration launch its “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign, Iran has struggled to freely access the ample foreign currency reserves—valued at around $70 billion—that it maintains in accounts around the world. This is in large part due to the hesitance of central banks, including European central banks, the Bank of Japan, and the Reserve Bank of India, to invite scrutiny from U.S. sanctions enforcement authorities and possibly compromise their ties with the U.S. financial system. If, because of these longstanding impediments, the IMF fails to provide Iran financial assistance that it makes available to countries in similar situations, the fund’s reputation will take a hit, as the fact of effective American control over its operations is laid bare.

It is unlikely that Iran will receive an IMF loan, but interestingly the official request comes just days after the Treasury Department clarified authorizations that permit financial dealings with the Central Bank of Iran in order to facilitate humanitarian trade — further evidence that administration officials do not see systemic issues related to terrorist financing or money laundering stemming from Iran’s humanitarian trade. The latest clarifications became necessary after an unprecedented move to sanction Iran’s central bank under new authorities in September had been widely perceived to eliminate the longstanding humanitarian exemption.

Clearly, there is a discussion-taking place within the Trump administration about the acceptable level of isolation for Iran’s central bank, especially if that isolation harms the Iranian people. While Iran is unable to directly engage with the Trump administration over these issues given the lack of diplomatic ties and ongoing political tensions, the outreach to the IMF can be seen as an effort to help shape the internal debate over these policies at the State Department and Treasury Department. Iran’s request is legitimate, its economic needs are acute, and the stakes could not be higher. Iran should get this loan.

Photo: IRNA

Rising Employment Casts Doubt on IMF’s Grim Forecast for Iran’s Economy

This article is republished from the author’s economics blog.

In October, the IMF downgraded its forecast of Iran’s economic growth for 2019 from -6 to -9.5 percent. The adjustment brought the IMF’s assessment of Iran’s economic performance closer to that of the World Bank (-8.7 percent) and is revising opinion regarding the ineffectiveness of sanctions in forcing Iran to renegotiate the 2015 nuclear deal. It has strengthened the hand of Iran foes who argue that sanctions are about to bear fruit and urge the Trump administration to stay the course and ignore appeals from Europeans to ease pressure on Iran.

The Financial Times, quoting an unnamed Iranian economist, added alarm to the downgrading by suggesting that Iran’s situation may be worse than it was during the Iran-Iraq war or the Anglo-Soviet occupation of Iran during World War 2. The idea that life in Iran is anything like the 1940s or the 1980s is nonsense, and the FT reporter who files her reports from Tehran can (but did not) attest to that. It is easy to dismiss this comparison as silly, but the dire predictions of sharp contraction by IMF and the World Bank for the year should be taken seriously. And by seriously I mean to ask why they are at odds with new employment data from Iran.

Surprising Growth in Employment

Earlier this month, the Statistical Center of Iran (SCI) release the latest results of its labor force (LFS) survey, for summer 2019. The summer quarter of 2019 (third quarter of the Gregorian year 2019) recorded the highest number of people employed ever, 24.75 million people, up by 3.3 percent relative to summer 2018, when sanctions first hit, and 1.5 percent relative to spring 2019. More than 795,000 jobs had been created since summer 2018, reducing the number unemployed by 430,000 and the unemployment rate to 10.5 percent.

Significantly, this was not due to lower participation in the labor force, which had actually increased by 1.1 percent, so this was not the case of discouraged workers leaving the labor force.  Also significant to note is the fact that employment grew in all sectors, especially in manufacturing, where employment expanded by 4.6 percent compared to the same quarter in 2018, even though is was the hardest hit by sanctions (except for oil).

A similar pattern existed after the first wave of sanctions in 2012, when the currency crashed and the economy entered negative growth, but employment seemed steady for a while before the effect of Rouhani’s austerity program to bring down inflation in 2013 began to show itself in employment (manufacturing employment, in particular,  was on the upswing till late 2013).

Divergent Narratives

What explains the strong discord between the international forecasts and employment figures in 2019?

Before answering this question I should first discuss an often-heard concern that Iranian data are somehow doctored and therefore unreliable, more so than data from other developing countries which form the basis of our understanding of the rest of the world. Many analysts (including me) have worked with the raw data for the labor force survey of Iran (LFS), which are all available on the SCI’s data portal. The LFS was designed by ILO experts to bring Iran’s employment data into line with the rest of the world. The old employment survey, which stopped more than ten years ago did not conform to international standards. For example, it classified a person as employed if he or she had worked at least two days in the week prior to interview. The new survey follows the ILO guidelines and defines the employed as those who have worked at least one hour in the past week. It is therefore disappointing that some so-called experts, inside and outside Iran, reject the SCI data for this very reason. On a recent BBC Persian panel, an expert questioned the criterion of a minimum of one hour in defining employment.  Responding to this type of criticism, a while back SCI published a report showing that defining employment more strictly increases the unemployment rate by one or two points only. Lack of trust in official data runs deep in Iran, and is at times quite healthy. However, in the case of SCI this is unwarranted because its surveys are publicly available in unit record and have become the workhorse for most economic research on Iran.

Now, to answer the question, there are two explanations for the difference in outlook offered by the employment data and the revised IMF forecast that seem plausible. First, the main reason for the lower revised estimate may be Iran’s falling oil exports. Since most United States waivers for buying Iranian oil have expired oil exports have dropped below half a million barrels per day—how far below I do not know. Arithmetics dictate to lower the growth projection for the year if the original projection assumed higher oil exports. However, the link between oil and the rest of Iran’s economy involves more than arithmetics and does not extend to employment. The oil sector employs less than half a percent of Iran’s workforce, so its contraction does not automatically bring down the rest of the economy. Had the IMF chosen to report growth of the non-oil GDP, as they should since it measures the level of economic activity in Iran much better than GDP including oil, they would have made a more moderate downward adjustment. On 2018/2019, as I noted last month, non-oil GDP fell by less than half the rate of the total GDP.

The second plausible explanation is that the IMF’s forecasting model, about which I know next to nothing, may fail to capture the possibilities for substitution in the Iranian economy.  The rise of the dollar brings a large change to the price structure in Iran, opening substantial opportunities for profitable production in the non-oil sectors that employ the 99 percent of the workforce. These are the sectors which are overwhelmed by cheap imports when oil income lowers their prices.

So, in reverse order, and as economic textbooks read, when oil income drop and prices of imports increase, demand shifts from foreign to home goods, encouraging firms to hire workers and expand production. For example, in the past visits to Iran I might have bought a box of Kellogg’s cereal because it tasted better than the Iranian brand and was only twice as expensive. But this past summer, with devaluation having increased the price ratio to four or five, I decided to buy the Iranian brand. Surprisingly, it tasted better, either because the quality had improved or because prices determine taste for Isfahanis!

The engine of this shift in demand and employment is shown in the chart below, which depicts the dramatic change in the real effective exchange rate (EER) in the past two decades. (EER here is the exchange rate deflated by the difference between the inflation rates of Iran and the OECD). The EER fell by more than half during the oil boom of the 2000s, which saw the oil price rise 8 times. This explains why during this period imports flooded Iran’s markets and employment stagnated. Tellingly, during the five years between the censuses of population 2006 and 2011, the economy produced only 14,000 jobs each year, compared to nearly 800,000 jobs since the return of sanctions over a year ago.

The tightening of sanctions in 2011-2012 lowered oil exports and forced a similar realignment of the rial against foreign currencies in early 2012, which was followed by a modest increase in employment and output, as the graph in this post shows.

Dark Clouds on the Horizon

The World Bank has noted that rial’s depreciation can help with economic recovery, and the Iranian economic press have published stories of how responsive is Iran’s private sector to improved incentives for production. But, I would advise caution in becoming too optimistic.  The biggest improvement in incentives in production has come in producing for export markets (saffron and pistachios prices are pegged to the US dollar), but sanctions limit how far (beyond its neighbors) and how much Iran can export. Even meeting local demand faces limitations as most goods produced in Iran use some foreign-produced inputs. About 45 percent of Iran’s imports are of this type.

Other dark clouds on the horizon that no doubt have influenced the lower forecasts of international organizations include the possibility of the return of UN sanctions and resumption of high inflation in Iran. The return of the UN sanctions would make it harder for Iran’s remaining trade partners to work with it, or at least they would exact a higher price for working with Iran. The current impasse with Europeans over INSTEX does not bode well in this regard.

Even without the return of the UN sanctions, Iran’s narrow window of trade can close if organizations such as FATF downgrade the credibility and security of Iran’s banking system, thus discouraging existing partners from handling money flow in and out of Iran for fear of being penalized elsewhere. Regulations to assure the rest of the world that Iran’s bank are being watched and regulated with respect to money laundering have passed Iran’s parliament but face stiff opposition on their way to become law.

As for inflation, it has been falling in Iran for the past six months, which indicates that, as in the 2012 episode, the economy may be on its way to return to normalcy (meaning below 20 percent!). What threatens this trend is the budget deficit, that the government is running out of ways to pay its workers and for the services it provides (it has given up building anything new). The government appears to have managed well so far, delicately balancing the need to keep its services going and to assure the private sector that inflation is under control. How long it can do this with parliamentary elections approaching and Iran’s polity divided as ever, is anyone’s guess. But, any attempt to increase incomes without producing more goods—i.e., populist money printing—will derail the path to recovery that new employment data seem to promise.

High inflation will destabilize the economy by making the exchange rate volatile and less predictable, which is bad for producers. Equally bad is if the government decided to keep the exchange rate constant in nominal terms, which it to let it depreciate at the rate of inflation, as was done after the currency collapse in 2012 when the EER gradually fell and lost nearly all the gain as a result of the devaluation.

Photo: IRNA

Iran’s Economic Resiliency Makes Talks More Likely

The International Monetary Fund has revised downward its projections for Iran’s economy this year, predicting a 9.5% contraction, as against its previous projection of a 6% shrinkage. It will be the economy’s worst performance since 1984, when Iran was mired in a war with Iraq.

At first glance, this seems to support the Trump administration’s claims that its “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign is bringing the Iranian economy to the brink of collapse. But this view is challenged by the IMF’s projection that the decline will halt in 2020, when Iran’s economy will rebound to zero growth—despite the sanctions.

A closer examination reveals an economic recovery is already underway, as stability returns to consumer prices, manufacturing, trade, and the Iranian currency. Somewhat counterintuitively, this could improve the prospects of talks between Iran and the U.S. A stable economy may reassure the Islamic Republic that it can negotiate from a position of some strength.

The most obvious sign of the recovery is the rebounding rial. Since May, the Iranian currency has appreciated 40% against the dollar. The Central Bank of Iran introduced new technologies to connect exchange bureaus with banks, creating a unified foreign-exchange market that is digitally supervised, making it harder for speculators to abuse the market. The new systems appear to be working—even as geopolitical tensions reached new highs this summer, the currency market remained unfazed.

A stronger rial has helped ease inflation. The consumer price index rose just 6.1% in September—the slowest pace since the reimposition of sanctions 18 months ago. Abdolnasser Hemmati, the central bank governor, is predicting “further easing of inflation in the coming months.”

Stability in the foreign-exchange market has also helped support a recovery in manufacturing. After several months of contraction at the beginning of the year, manufacturing activity gradually expanding, as reflected in the purchasing manager’s index (PMI) complied by the Iran Chamber of Commerce. Iran’s PMI score has exceed 50 in five of the past seven months as firms report improved inventories of intermediate goods.

The rebound in manufacturing has helped the Tehran Stock Exchange acquire the unlikely mantleas the world’s best-performing exchange over the past year. More importantly, the fact that most of Iran’s factories are finding ways to sustain output means they can keep their workers employed and foreign customers supplied.

Iran’s non-oil exports are projected to reach a record level of over $40 billion this year. The result of an effort by the government and private sector to boost regional trade, this may be the first year in Iran’s modern history that non-oil exports will exceed oil exports, which will be constrained to around $10 billion following the Trump administration’s revocation of key sanctions waivers in May.

While the fall in oil exports has certainly constrained Iran’s foreign-currency earnings and government revenues, a structural adjustment towards non-oil exports is taking place. It is often overlooked that the oil industry has rarely accounted for more than 20% of GDP. Iran is not in fact an oil economy.

Ordinary Iranians remain generally gloomy about the economy, but there are signs the mood is shifting. In a recent nationally-respresentative survey 54% of respondents felt the economy was continuing to get worse, compared with 64% in April last year. In the same period, the proportion of respondents who believe the economy is getting better has risen 3.5 points to 30.5%. This may reflect the belief of 63% of respondents that Trump’s sanctions campaign is maxed out.

That a recovery is underway does not diminish the harm has been done by U.S. sanctions. Iranian households are feeling a great deal of pain. As detailed in the IMF report, consumer prices increased 35% over the past year, and unemployment rose from 14.5% to 16.8%. The “maximum pressure” campaign has immiserated millions even as it has failed to collapse the Iranian economy. 

Still, economic resiliency is an enabling factor for diplomacy. Recent Iranian overtures for talks with the U.S. and other world powers may reflect, not a fear of pressure, but a confidence that Tehran can survive it.

It is often assumed Iran was forced into nuclear negotiations in 2013 by the debilitating impact of U.S., United Nations and European Union sanctions. What is missed in this analysis is that although the sanctions resulted in a sharp 7.4% contraction of the Iranian economy 2012, this was followed by an immediate recovery: GDP shrank a mere 0.2% in 2013. Iran agreed to the negotiations precisely because the economy had demonstrated resiliency—the government was confident it would not need to grovel for economic relief. The likelihood of a rebound in 2020 may allow history to repeat itself. 

Photo: IRNA

Iran's Economy is Bruised, But Not Broken

This article was originally published in Lobelog.

Last April, in a column for this blog I predicted that sanctions are very unlikely to force Iran to renegotiate the multilateral nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In particular, I argued that the belief held by Iran hawks in Washington foreign policy circles, that economic pressure will eventually force Iran to the negotiating table, exaggerated the importance of oil exports for Iran’s economy.

New data indicate that, while Donald Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” has reduced Iranian oil exports to near zero and seriously hurt Iran’s economy, it has not caused anything resembling economic collapse. Furthermore, these data suggest that the economy is not in a steep decline, one that would anytime soon force Iran to capitulate.

The national accounts data, published by the Statistical Center of Iran (SCI), indicate that, in the Iranian year 2018/19 (21 March 2018 to 20 March 2019), GDP declined by 4.9 percent, which is far from a collapse of output. Coming after two years of robust growth following the July 2015 nuclear deal, it puts the economy still above its 2015 level.

This decline was, not surprisingly, led by the oil sector, which fell by 14 percent, followed by manufacturing (6.5 percent), which depends on imports of parts, and construction (4.5 percent).  However, non-oil GDP, which measures the level of domestic economic activity, fell by only 2.4 percent. This is because output in services, which accounts for 55 percent of Iran’s non-oil GDP, remained unchanged, and agriculture, accounting for another 10 percent, fell by 1.5 percent.

Iran’s economy has taken a beating, but it is not a disaster, as President Trump likes to describe it. To most Iranians, his remarks last September—which he repeated in June—that Iranians “can’t buy bread,” showed how out of touch he is with the consequences of his own policy.  Travelers to Iran have noticed, as I did this summer, that supermarkets shelves were full (though mostly with home produced goods at high prices), and there were no lines in government distribution centers, which are the hallmark of real disaster economies, like Venezuela.

High prices, triggered by the tripling in the value of the U.S. dollar since early 2018, have taken their toll on household incomes. The most recent SCI survey of income and expenditures shows that in 2018/19 average real incomes per capita fell by 6.7 percent in urban areas and 9.1 percent in rural areas, more than the decline in GDP per capita. These are sharp drops, but obviously not enough to ignite urban protests, as the Trump administration had hoped.

Going forward, the question is whether the Iranian economy is on a steep decline, is stabilizing at a lower level, or is on the road to recovery. This will influence Iran’s willingness, or lack thereof, to negotiate with the U.S., and should matter for Washington as it evaluates its Iran policy in light of its failure so far to yield the desired results. As always, Iran hawks recommend staying the course with “maximum pressure,” believing that Iran will “ultimately do a 180 if they perceive that there’s no way out.”

But what if there is a way out? What if Iran can restructure its economy to become less dependent on imports and truck along with reduced oil exports? Iranian leaders may be pinning their hopes on this scenario and thinking that the worst is over when they flatly reject negotiations.

In this belief they can draw support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In its April 2019 World Economic Outlook, the IMF predicted that negative economic growth in Iran will end in 2020 and positive growth of around 1 percent per year will prevail till 2024. Not a rosy scenario by any means, as it implies loss of economic growth and declining per capita incomes for the foreseeable future, but it may be enough to convince Iranian leaders not to capitulate.

IMF forecasts beyond a year do not always materialize, and we do not know their assumptions about when U.S. sanctions will end. But the latest evidence from Iran’s labor force survey suggests that an end to the recession may be in sight. They show that in spring 2019, compared to spring 2018 before sanctions came back in full force, employment increased by 324,000 and the number unemployed fell by 365,000. As a result, the unemployment rate fell to a five-year low of 10.8 percent.

Significantly, half of this increase in employment was in industry, the sector that is most exposed to sanctions because its production depends on imports of intermediate inputs. Nearly half of all Iranian imports are intermediate goods.

Cynics have reason to doubt official Iranian surveys, but the rise in employment reported by the SCI makes good economic sense. For over a year, Iran’s currency has been at a historic low and its labor costs the cheapest in memory (about $5 per day for unskilled labor, half that in China). With rising profitability, it makes perfect sense for businesses to increase hiring to fill in for lost imports.

But the switch to local production faces two obstacles. First, the U.S. sanctions themselves. To sustain the structural adjustment needed to reconfigure industrial production requires access to global markets, which trade sanctions inhibit. Second, it requires a banking system to finance businesses to restructure. Iran’s banking system is too weak to do so at present.

While the prospects of economic recovery remain uncertain, it is safe to reject the assumption that Iran’s economy is on a “death spiral,” to use a favorite phrase of Iran hawks. While economic conditions are desperate for many Iranians in need of jobs and medicine, they are not desperate enough for Iran’s leaders to risk getting into a costly war with their southern neighbors and the U.S. just to end the current stalemate. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has ruled out negotiations with Trump, is for one interested in finding out if the economy will rise to the challenge of sanctions and thus become the “resistance economy” that he has advocated for years.

Photo: IRNA

New IMF Report Calls for Iran to Access International Bond Markets

A new report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) examining “selected issues” in Iran’s economy, including the expansion of non-oil exports and the role of women in the labor force, places special emphasis on the importance for Iran to develop the government securities market, which is a priority under the Sixth National Development Plan (NDP).

The report, authored by an IMF team in cooperation with the Iran Parliament Research Center, establishes that the “deficit and gross funding needs of the [central government] are set to rise as securitization of arrears and financial sector reform advance.” Iran’s gross financing requirements will rise from the current level of 4.5 percent of GDP to 15 percent of GDP by the end of the decade.

Countries at a similar stage of development as Iran are able to fund public investment via bond offerings in international markets. However, Iran remains largely isolated from international financial channels. Acknowledging this, the authors of the IMF report suggest that “fast development of the government securities market would help overcome Iran’s limited access to international capital markets and lower its recourse to monetary financing of the budget.”

This suggestion echoes the analysis of a 2015 Bourse & Bazaar piece by Seyed Ahmad Araghchi, now vice governor of the Central Bank of Iran. In the piece, Araghchi argues that “securitization offers the best and most efficient methods of financing the country’s projects in the post-sanctions era in the shortest period of time.”

The IMF team praises Iran for establishing a Debt Management Office (DMO) within the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance to coordinate the issuance of government debt, including Sukuk bonds and Islamic Treasury Bills.

However, Iran has yet to develop a clear Debt Management Strategy (DMS) to give greater clarity and confidence to creditors. The authors note that “although the annual budget laws provide a ceiling for types of securities to be issued, there is no pre-announced issuance calendar, debt statistics are not published, and the objectives of debt management are not clearly defined nor publicly disclosed.” Moreover, the DMO is currently developing much of its policy in isolation, whereas it ought to craft strategy in discussion with CBI and the Planning and Budget Office (PBO) “to ensure greater coordination between monetary and fiscal policies.”

These reforms will also be important for expanding the diversity of creditors. Data from the Iran Fara Bourse shows that 80 percent of bonds are held by asset management companies, most of which are owned by banks. Just 10 percent of bonds are held by foreign owners, and the remaining 10 percent is held by individuals and corporates.

Tellingly, the IMF authors consider it a “long-term” prospect for Iranian bonds to be included in international bond indices. Certainly, the political uncertainty surrounding the Iran nuclear deal and the remaining barriers to reintegration to international financial markets will make this difficult if not impossible in the near term. These factors are not however discussed directly in the report. 

Nonetheless, the authors suggest that Iranian bonds should be “traded on an international clearing house” and that the DMS should devise conditions where bond issuance is of a significant enough size and has enough primary dealers to ensure “liquidity and consistent bid/ask spreads” as well as transaction volume.

Overall, the IMF report offers a compelling example of the kind of technical dialogue Iran needs to ensure that its process of domestic financial reform meets internationals standards.

Photocredit: Wikicommons

A Swedish Training Program May Hold the Answer to Iran’s Banking Challenges

For nearly a year, “banking challenges” have vexed business leaders and investors seeking to work in Iran. While some corresponding banking relationships have been re-established between Iranian and smaller European banks, the scope and type of transactions remain limited. The largest European banks are unwilling to work with Iran. The reasons for these blockages are numerous, but the blame most often falls to the obstinance of the US Department of the Treasury, and in particular, to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, for not providing adequate guidance or licensing provisions to lend confidence to major European banks that transactions with Iran are acceptable.

However, there are additional reasons unrelated to sanctions enforcement, that have reduced the appetite for conducting business in Iran. Across Europe and the United States, new and more stringent rules for banking risk management practices, which include the introduction of personal liability for compliance officers in the event of failures, have changed the risk appetite of financial institutions. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that three of the world’s largest financial institutions—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—“have expanded their corporate governance teams significantly in response to growing pressure from policymakers and clients.” The “stewardship” team at BlackRock now includes 31 specially-trained individuals. Similar expansions are taking place in compliance and risk management departments. In short, international best-practice now requires more people and more specialized training than ever before. For Iran’s banking sector, these changes raise the prospect of being left behind even in the aftermath of sanctions relief.

But history teaches us that banking sectors can catch up quickly, if provided the right support. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the former Eastern Bloc countries were struggling not merely to establish connections to Western banks, but also to adopt the fundamental structures of market economies. At the same time, financial institutions in the West were rapidly adopting new technologies, as the financial industry met with the digitalization of the economy. Just as countries like Russia, Ukraine, and Poland were reformulating their basic economic priorities, the pace of change was increasing in the world’s dominant economies.

In response to these challenges, Western governments made significant efforts to institute “capacity-building” programs across a wide range of areas including democratic governance, economic liberalization, formation of commercial law, management of industrial sectors, and reform of education systems. Naturally, banking was a crucial area of focus. The provision of financial assistance by organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank was tied to participation in “training and technical assistance” programs that sought to ensure institutions in post-Communist states were able to make responsible use of the financial support. These programs were largely successful, with banking standards rising within a decade to levels that encouraged global banks to take ownership positions in regional banks—examples include both HSBC Bank Poland and Ukraine’s Raiffeisen Bank Aval.

If capacity-building programs were able to support the establishment of extensive banking relations in countries where an independent financial sector did not even exist prior to 1990, their application in Iran should be able to generate results even faster. Iran boasts a highly sophisticated banking sector which maintained significant relations with major European banks prior to the imposition of financial sanctions in 2011. Many of Iran’s top bankers were educated in the United States and Europe. Majid Ghassemi, Chairman of Pasargad Bank, and former governor of the Central Bank of Iran, holds a PhD from the University of Southampton. Vali Zarrabieh, Chairman of Saman Bank, holds masters degrees from both CASS Business School in London and from Manchester Business School. The CEO of Middle East Bank, Parviz Aghili, holds a PhD from the University of Wisconsin. Yet, while a strong knowledge base exists in the boardrooms of many of Iran’s largest banks, there is a gap in knowledge and technical ability in middle management, particularly as many of Iran’s best and brightest young bankers seek their fortunes abroad.  

Despite this fact, there has been little effort to rekindle education as a basis for the advancement of Iran’s financial sector in the post-sanctions era. In order to gain the confidence of the world's major banks, Iran's first prerogative will be to meet the standards of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in the areas of anti-money laundering and counter terrorist finance. While FATF officials have had an ongoing dialogue with senior Iranian bankers and financial regulators, there is little evidence of a comprehensive effort to provide training that would reflect capacity-building within the sector at large. Similarly, while senior IMF officials have visited Iran and assessed economic reform efforts, no major commitments have been made to provide training or assistance. The Governor of the Central Bank of Iran, Valiollah Seif, suggested the creation of an IMF training center in Iran during a meeting with IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde in April, 2015. Lagarde, herself, raised the prospect of training in a meeting with Iran’s Minister of Finance Ali Tayebnia in October, 2016.

In the absence of training and technical assistance, European banks will remain skeptical that Iranian banks are applying exacting compliance and governance standards. In order to build trust in the Iranian banking sector, a more wide-ranging effort is needed to educate and train the next generation of bankers in Iran, with a specific focus on the new regulatory and governance requirements that are currently coming into force. Encouragingly, such programs already exist. These protocols have long been offered to bankers in developing sectors worldwide. It is simply a matter of getting Iranian bankers involved.

One possible model is the Risk Management in Banking International Training Program (ITP) designed by KPMG Sweden. For over a decade, the program has worked to transfer Swedish and international standard risk management practices to countries with developing financial sectors. ITP was created as part of KPMG Sweden’s commitment to corporate social responsibility, and also as a means to build deeper connections in growth markets worldwide. The program is delivered with the stewardship and funding of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).

The program seeks to improve capacity across five key areas: financial markets, lending processes, regulation and supervision, risk management, and project management. Participants hail from a wide range of countries, including African nations such as Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda, post-Communist states such as Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, and countries further afield including Thailand, Indonesia, and even North Korea. Indicatively, there have been no participants from Iran. Of the participants, 82% were between 21-40 years old, reflecting an important focus on junior and mid-career training that can help establish improved practices for the routine function of the bank, while also empowering the next generation of banking leadership. A total of 216 financial institutions, of which 131 were commercial banks, were included in the program. The remaining institutions included central banks, finance ministries, pension authorities, and insurance companies.

An extensive evaluation of the KPMG program, published by SIDA in 2014, looked at the efficacy of the initiative over the previous decade, and made three key observations: the transfer of skills was broadly achieved, new technical skills were adopted in financial institutions, and finally, elements of the training were largely sustained in subsequent years. The SIDA evaluation also found that the effort, though delivered in partnership with a private company, was broadly consistent with the international development commitments of the Swedish government. While the KPMG example is among the largest and most successful in Europe, similar development programs exist in other European countries and could be extended to Iran.

With the big four advisory firms hovering and with European governments keen to support Iran’s re-entry into international markets, it would be relatively easy to coordinate the key stakeholders to make a training program similar to KPMG Sweden’s ITP available to Iranian participants. Moreover, by funding such initiatives, major European corporations and banks could address thorny reputational concerns. These companies could demonstrate their strong commitment to establishing relations with their Iranian counterparts, while simultaneously indicating that it is of the utmost importance for the Iranian financial sector to upgrade its standards. In an ideal world, even American banks and regulatory bodies could play a role in supporting capacity-building, particularly as US sanctions provide clear provisions for education and training initiatives. However, due to President Trump's brash and ill-advised executive order, the prospects of any such training remain limited.

It is clear that full banking relations between Iranian and European banks will take time to re-institute. Rather than simply wishing for change, capacity-building programs are the vital next step. There is plenty that Iran's banking sector can learn while it awaits the rightful opportunity to fully participate in the global financial marketplace. 

Photo Credit: President.ir