Iran's currency hits all-time low as western sanctions take their toll

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Iranians are suffering their worst financial crisis since the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, with the national currency hitting an all-time low and the prices of staple goods soaring.

With the Iranian economy crumbling under escalating western sanctions, the rial was sent into a tailspin on Monday, dropping by more than 15% to its lowest-ever level against the dollar. At midday, 34,500 rials bought $1 on the open market, compared to 29,600 rials on Sunday's close, according to Iranian currency-monitoring websites.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had previously rejected predictions that the rial would drop as low as 30,000 rials against the dollar, saying that such suggestions amounted to little more than "psychological war". The latest news will come as a further blow to a president already widely seen as a lame duck. Ahmadinejad will stand down in June 2013, and cannot run for a third term under Iranian law.

"What an embarrassment for Ahmadinejad," said Farshad, a student at Tehran University. "The economy is in crisis and he is either blind to it or simply doesn't want to see it."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/01/iran-currency-rial-all-time-low

[MADem]

1. I don't even recognize that exchange rate anymore.....! nt

[cpwm17]

2. Our almost 60 year campaign of greed and hate against the Iranian people continues.

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

I can only imagine how much better off the Iranians would be without the US's constant meddling.

This is a disgusting hate crime.

[leftynyc]

37. Take it up with the UN

If they didn't want to be part of the NPT, they shouldn't have signed and then thumbed their nose at it.

[ronnie624]

41. Ridiculous.

Iran is not thumbing its nose at the NPT. Just Last month they were declared to be in compliance.

[bananas]

3. The Iranian government could resolve this quickly at any time

All they have to do is stop enriching uranium in underground military bunkers way beyond any "peaceful" needs.

Instead, they keep escalating the situation.

[Boabab]

5. There is no way for the Iranian gov't to "resolve" this "crisis"

because "the west" will demand more and more concessions, no matter what is surrendered, until Iran literally would have to give away its sovereignty. Nothing will satisfy the predators but this, and Iranian lawmakers know it.

If Iran is enriching uranium for military purposes, who could blame them? You have two nuclear armed aggressors (one "undeclared&quot constantly threatening, and you're not even allowed to defend yourself? Ridiculous.

The only one's "escalating" the situation is "the west". If you don't understand this, then it would be a good idea to get informed.

[Piazza Riforma]

6. Iran and other ME nations

have repeatedly offered reasonable solutions to this and the "West" always rejects them out of hand. This is nothing more than a cover for regime change and defending Israel's hegemony in the region.

[hack89]

12. None of their "solutions" involve obeying UN treaties on nuclear weapons

The "reasonanble" solution is to allow I.A.E.A. inspectors full access.

[ronnie624]

15. Iran has allowed all of the access that is required by the NPT,

which is why they have not been referred to the UN Security Council on this issue. Forcing anything beyond that on Iran through economic and political coercion or the threat of attack is a violation of the NPT.

[hack89]

16. The UN security council has passed seven resolutions on Iran's nuclear program since 2006

I think the UN sees things differently than you do.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#UN_Security_Council

[ronnie624]

20. So?

The evidence and facts show that Iran is in compliance with the NPT. Arbitrary resolutions promoted through U.S. economic bribery and political arm-twisting cannot be rationalized by international law.

Since the discovery of oil in the ME, Western political leaders have regarded the region as the most strategically important area in the world, and this is what motivates U.S. and UK involvement in the region. Iran is a potential impediment to a free hand there.

[hack89]

24. What evidence and facts?

how can we know what the facts are if UN inspectors are bared from inspecting?

[ronnie624]

26. The IAEA report that says Iran is in compliance. n/t

[hack89]

28. The same IAEA that has stated it has evidence to suggest an Iranian nuclear weapons program

and has publicly condemned Iran for non-cooperation? That IAEA?

I think you are only reading what you want to believe.

[ronnie624]

30. The IAEA has said no such thing.

You're making things up.

[hack89]

32. I did not make this up

In November 2011 the IAEA released a report[186] stating inspectors had found credible evidence that Iran had been conducting experiments aimed at designing a nuclear bomb until 2003, and research may have continued on a lower rate since that time.[187] IAEA Director Yukiya Amano said evidence gathered by the agency "indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."[188]

or this

In November 2011, IAEA officials identified a "large explosive containment vessel" inside Parchin.[191] The IAEA later assessed that Iran has been conducting experiments to develop nuclear weapons capability.[192]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#UN_Security_Council

[ronnie624]

35. Weasel words.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWeasel_word&ei=OHNsUMudBoGe2AWWl4H4Cg&usg=AFQjCNHlqm2Hr6qxS0dhzZTWUJfK3tNirA

The report does not say anything about evidence specific to developing nuclear weapons. It mentions repeatedly the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program (Duh. Isn't that the point of monitoring and inspections?), and it says that it cannot verify that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons, but it continues to certify non-diversion of nuclear fuel. The report basically demands that Iran cease all of its nuclear related activities, which is ridiculous, because as a sovereign nation and signatory to the NPT, Iran is guaranteed the right to produce nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_8Nov2011.pdf

[cpwm17]

31. Wikileaks cables indicate IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano may not be fully objective

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/230076

IAEA Director General-designate Yukiya Amano thanked the U.S. for having supported his candidacy and took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency. Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

Though the IAEA has not found that Iran is non-compliant with their agreements in any way. The US certainly wouldn't go through what Iran is going through, since we have a massive nuclear arsenal. Iran is way ahead of us in supporting peace.

[hack89]

33. You need to look at what the IAEA really thinks about Iran's compliance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#UN_Security_Council

[OldDem2012]

36. Isn't that the same tactic used by the Neocons...

...in regards to claiming Iraq had WMDs? How'd that work out ten years later? How many US troops died as a result of that pretense?

Iran is three times larger than Iraq with three times the population. Are you advocating for a financially-strapped and war-fatigued US to go to war against Iran to halt their alleged WMD program? How many US troops will die this time, and how long will it take for the US to hit an economic rock bottom?

Just my opinion, but I believe Pakistan is a greater threat to the US than Iran because they already have nukes with the missiles to deliver them. They are also guilty of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda. Why aren't we pressuring Pakistan to get rid of their REAL nuclear weapons?

[cpwm17]

7. What do you expect?

So you think the Iranians should put a target on their nuclear sites? They are being threatened by the world's two worst war-mongering nations. Of course they will protect their nuclear program.

There is no evidence that they are enriching uranium beyond peaceful needs. But the US has, and in a big way.

Iraq isn't ancient history. Inspectors also had access to Iraq's alleged WMD sites and found nothing. WMD claims were BS there also. In revisionist history, the war-mongers now claim that Saddam kicked the inspectors out. It's a flat out lie. The US kicked them out to start the unprovoked war.

When the war started, the US showed no interest in protecting the alleged WMD sites. The war mongers knew it was BS all along.

Iraq and Iran have been on the war-mongers' target list from the beginning.

[MattSh]

9. Look and learn

Tell me again. Who's threatening whom?



Just so it's clear, the blue country in the middle is Iran, all the stars in the surrounding red countries are US military bases.

[ronnie624]

10. Iran’s Nuclear Program: Tehran’s Compliance with International Obligations

The IAEA board has neither formally found that any of the Iranian actions described above are in
noncompliance with Tehran’s safeguards agreement, nor referred these issues to the U.N. Security
Council. The IAEA board adopted a resolution November 27, 2009, that described Iran’s failure
to notify the agency of the Fordow facility as “inconsistent with” the subsidiary arrangements
under Iran’s safeguards agreement, but this statement did not constitute a formal finding of
noncompliance. A September 13, 2012, IAEA board resolution expressed “serious concern” that
Tehran has not complied with the obligations described in IAEA Board of Governors and U.N.
Security Council resolutions, but the September resolution did not contain a formal finding of
noncompliance.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf

This passage is from the preamble of the Treaty On The Non-proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons:

Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in
their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security
are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic
resources,

So guess who is technically in violation of the NPT and the UN Charter, as well

[hack89]

13. You leave out an important part

but then-IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei told the agency’s board in June 2008 that the
agency still has questions regarding “possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.”
The IAEA has reported for some time that it has not been able to make progress on these matters.

[ronnie624]

14. Of course they have questions about possible military dimensions to nuclear programs.

The whole point of ongoing inspections is to address and answer questions about this. The IAEA has certified that Iran has diverted no uranium to a weapons program. The last official NIE on Iran judged "with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”, which consisted of nothing more than theoretical models, anyway; no hardware or highly enriched uranium. The part I 'left out' is without meaning. This is the bottom line:

The IAEA board has neither formally found that any of the Iranian actions described above are in
noncompliance with Tehran’s safeguards agreement, nor referred these issues to the U.N. Security
Council.

[hack89]

17. And Iran refuses to allow the IAEA the necessary access to resolve those questions.

From August 2012

In response to this report, the IAEA Board of Governors on 13 September passed a resolution that rebuked Iran for defying UN Security Council resolutions to suspend uranium enrichment and called on Iran to allow inspections of evidence that it is pursuing weapons technology.[212] The resolution, which passed by a vote of 31-1 with 3 abstentions, also expressed "serious concerns" about Iran's nuclear program while desiring a peaceful resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#UN_Security_Council

[ronnie624]

18. Arbitrary demands are not legally enforceable.

What matters, is what is contained within the safeguard agreement, which says Iran does not have to declare the existence of a facility or allow inspections before 180 days of its completion. Unfounded fears and suspicions are not a part of the framework for international law.

[hack89]

19. The UN disagrees with you

read the reports. Iran has hidden operational facilities that they are required to declare.

[ronnie624]

21. There is no provision for arbitrary demands contained by the safeguard agreement with Iran.

Forcing Iran to accept them is a violation of international law.

[hack89]

23. There is no provision for deliberately hiding a nuclear weapons program either. nt

[ronnie624]

25. An accusation that cannot be supported by evidence. n/t

[hack89]

27. Yes - because Iran refuses inspections

but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence - certainly enough to justify the UN wanting to get into Iranian facilities.

[OldDem2012]

38. It's the same crap we drummed up against Iraq. All circumstantial. nt.

[marble falls]

4. Crapping on the Iranian economy kills their middle class who are the most likely to support the ...

west and increases the determination to build nuclear weapons. How stupid are we in statecraft, any ways? Doesn't North Korea ring any freaking bells?

[bloomington-lib]

8. Seems to me that this could promote war not regime change

What do you do when the population is desperate and hungry? Start a war to take the pressure off you and onto your enemies.

[pampango]

11. BBC: Iran's income from oil exports had fallen by 45% this year, causing the shortage in dollars ...

Iran's rial falls to a new low, reports say

Iran's beleaguered currency, the rial, has fallen to fresh record lows against the US dollar, according to media reports coming out of the country. The rial fell a further 9% on Tuesday, following Monday's 18% decline, news agencies have reported. The currency has reportedly lost more than 80% of its value since 2011 because of US-led trade sanctions.

Amir Paivar, a business reporter at BBC Persian, said that as a result of the tightened trade sanctions, Iran's income from oil exports had fallen by 45% this year, causing the shortage in dollars and other hard currencies. He added that Iranian authorities had for many years used the country's abundant oil earnings to keep the rial artificially high.

With oil revenues now sharply reduced, our reporter said that both the government and the central bank now seemed unsure how to react.

He added: "Iran's years of state intervention in the artificial appreciation of the rial, thanks to abundant petro-dollars, has turned the currency into a barrel of gunpowder now detonated by sanctions. "At a time of crisis, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government is plagued by inefficiency, mismanagement and a domestic power struggle."


The value of the rial continues to fall sharply

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19798655

[sofa king]

22. This is how dependency on toilet paper begins....

[slackmaster]

29. That's a terrible burden on Iranian workers and consumers

I hope they vote out the theocratic asswipes who are responsible for Iran's status as a rogue nation.

[AndyTiedye]

34. You Don't Get to Vote Out a Theocracy

The theocracy picks the candidates so you never get to vote out the theocracy itself.

They seem to be immune to popular uprisings as well. I cannot find a single example of a theocracy falling to a popular revolt, anywhere in the world at any time in history.

However unpopular a theocracy might be at home, the people will still fight to the death to defend it against foreign invaders, so imposing "regime change" from outside would be an extremely difficult, expensive and bloody process at best, that would involve killing many of the people we would be trying to "liberate". We cannot afford it either. It would totally bankrupt the country.

The people of Iran can thank their parents for the theocracy they live under, and so will their children and grandchildren.

We must make sure theocracy does not happen here. Here it would be "Christian", of course.

[slackmaster]

40. Sadly I have to agree with you, AndyTiedye. Unfortunately the Iranian peoples' own revolution...

...in 1979 gave the theocracy legitimacy.

I was an undergraduate at UC San Diego at the time. I knew several of the Iranian students who were there at the time. I remember seeing them standing together in a group, obviously frightened about their prospects for returning home and hoping their families were safe. It was a very difficult moment.

[madokie]

39. In other words the sanctions are working

Trouble is sanctions are only for the little people, the rich has plenty of rials to see them through.

All I know is if I was an Iranian I'd want the bomb too. We've been fucking with those poor people since shortly after ww2. its time we stopped being corporate bullies and start playing nice.
I know. Rich people playing nice isn't going to happen but I can hope can't I