Why iran is bad

The Iranian currency has dropped steadily since early , but Matthew Bey, a senior global analyst at Stratfor, said the rial has "somewhat stabilized.

Still, its value on the unofficial market stands at more than , rials per dollar — that's far from the central bank's official rate of 42, rials per dollar that's used for most imported goods.

A weaker currency makes imports more expensive for locals, and high inflation means the cost of living is rising at a time when the people are already struggling with a weak economy and job market. An estimated Iran's government is spending beyond its means, and has seen a widening fiscal deficit. While this is not always a bad thing, it could restrict the country's ability to improve economic activity and recover from the coronavirus pandemic. However, he pointed out that the usual concerns of a civil government — such as national income, average family income, rate of inflation, or jobless rate — may not be important to the religious leaders.

An agreement between the U. On the other hand, Iran has to recognize that if it doesn't take "substantial steps," the Biden administration cannot fully suspend sanctions. Abrams, on the other hand, said there's a "very significant problem" in the Biden administration's Iran policy, which is to revive the nuclear deal before negotiating a broader agreement that includes Iran's missile program and its support for militias in the region.

According to Bloomberg News , the US military watched the general get on a plane in Beirut, Lebanon, and monitored his flight to Baghdad with drones — including one outfitted with air-to-surface missiles. Once Soleimani landed, the Reaper drone watched him for about 10 minutes before firing its weapons on the two-car convoy leaving Baghdad International Airport.

Trump also authorized an attack on a top Iranian military official in Yemen but failed to kill him. We did not take action to start a war. The question was whether killing Soleimani now was a good idea. Experts differ wildly on the wisdom of killing the powerful Iranian leader, and each side has genuine merit.

Vox conducted two interviews with experts, asking one to lay out the strongest case against killing Soleimani and one to lay out the strongest case for killing him. Instead, the US should find ways to compromise with Iran, since it has already shown it is willing to make deals to improve its situation when faced with a souring economy.

Bilal Saab, a Middle East security expert at the Middle East Institute and former Pentagon official in the Trump administration, disagrees with that reasoning. First, he said the US and Iran have been locked in a cycle of violence for decades, and especially since Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. So there was no guarantee Iran would refrain from an escalation even if the president chose not to kill Soleimani.

The Pentagon gave Trump the option to strike Iranian missile sites and ships, which would have meant bombing inside Iran or sinking vessels in the Iranian navy.

Leaders in Tehran could see that as an even more direct attack on the Iranian military than simply targeting one general, and perhaps would be compelled to respond in a much more aggressive fashion. Third, Saab argued there was never anything the US could do to stop Iran from smaller-scale attacks on Americans.

However, killing the military leader could make the regime think twice about taking larger-scale actions, such as closing the vital Strait of Hormuz or launching a rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad.

Iran may not have killed US troops in its retaliatory strikes in Iraq on Tuesday night, but it did say it accidentally killed civilians: the passengers of Ukraine International Airlines Flight Just a few hours after Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two US military targets in Iraq Tuesday night , Flight , which was flying from Tehran to Kyiv, crashed minutes after taking off from Imam Khomeini International Airport, killing all people on board — half of whom were Iranian.

On January 11, after initially claiming the plane crashed due to mechanical problems, the Iranian government finally admitted it shot down the airliner. A junior officer made the error, said Brig. Amir Ali Hajizadeh. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, speaking during a Thursday afternoon press conference in Ottawa, said his nation — which had at least 63 citizens on board the flight — had intelligence pointing to Iran as the culprit.

Moments after Trudeau finished speaking, the New York Times published a video purportedly showing a surface-to-air missile hitting the jetliner in midair. While the video is grainy and the camera is far from the scene, it shows an explosion at the point of impact. The video shows an object exploding in the air, near a location where PS 's stopped transmitting its signal. The plane didn't explode, managed to turn back towards the airport, but crashed quickly, the nytimes has determined.

The mounting evidence likely compelled Tehran to admit culpability. It now means the death toll in the current US-Iran conflict has risen significantly, and horrifically.

While the US Congress never formally declared war on Iran, the killing of Soleimani was by any reasonable definition an act of war — direct and open hostilities between the armed forces of the two nations. It was a clear escalation from the shadow war of December to direct conflict. None of that. As of right now, this looks like the end of the latest round of hostilities.

However, the risk that a larger war could break out remains. Several experts told Vox that Iran will almost certainly attack the US and its allies again at some point. In fact, it would commit the US to hitting Iran repeatedly if or, more likely, when it engages in anti-American military activities. So long as both sides are committed to using force in this fashion, the conditions that led to this latest flare-up in violence are still there. While the immediate cause for panic may have passed, the situation remains unstable.

The simple answer is that it would be hell on earth. The US strategy would almost certainly involve using overwhelming air and naval power to beat Iran into submission early on.

That plan makes sense as an opening salvo, experts say, but it would come nowhere close to winning the war. And the options facing the president at that point would be extremely problematic, experts say.

The riskiest one — by far — would be to invade Iran. The logistics alone boggle the mind, and any attempt to try it would be seen from miles away. Iran has nearly three times the number of people Iraq did in , when the war began, and is about three and a half times as big. By contrast, America never had more than , service members in Iraq. Iran has small mountain ranges along some of its borders.

Entering from the Afghanistan side in the east would mean traversing two deserts. Trying to get in from the west could also prove difficult even with Turkey — a NATO ally — as a bordering nation. But the hawkish aides at his side, like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , could try to convince him not to look weak and to go all-in and grasp victory.

A US invasion of Iran would likely lead to thousands or hundreds of thousands of dead. But it could spread chaos in the Middle East and around the world, hoping that a war-weary US public, an intervention-skeptical president, and an angered international community would cause America to stand down.

That may seem like a huge task — and it is — but experts believe the Islamic Republic has the capability, knowhow, and will to pull off such an ambitious campaign. US allies would also be prime targets. Sanctions have resulted in exhaustion within the population. Most people want changes to finally ease their hardships in livelihoods, incomes, and prices. Under these difficult living conditions, government programs have not delivered the help people need.

I heard constantly that relief programs simply do not work to achieve a stable functioning lifestyle. The Islamic Republic promised a redistributed wealth amongst all class citizens, yet that is not what the result has been. The economic relief has been inadequate and unsuccessful.

To truly benefit its citizens, the government must focus on growth and work with the international community to invest and provide jobs for youth. The sentiment imparted by my interlocutors on the ground was simply this: Iran should merely focus on the people within it. But this does not mean more welfare. In fact, cultural and educational diplomacy can help establish stronger relations with foreign countries and ultimately help stabilize the economy and diversify the skills and expertise in Iran.

The views expressed in these articles are those of the author and do not reflect an official position of the Wilson Center. Read more. Close Search Search.

Blog post. By Gabriella Farrell on November 12, Part of the Viewpoints Series Article. By Tara Rahmani on June 9, Divide Under these circumstances, the divide between the government and the people is becoming wider. About the Author.