Possible external reasons for the Iranian crisis

The Iranian protests, this time, do not seem to originate from political reasons but from the negative economic situation, which led to the rise in inflation and the consequent increase in prices, among them, of basic necessities. The population is disappointed by the long-awaited and failed effects of the nuclear agreement, which was to be the driving force to restart the Iranian economy. One of the main factors that helped determine this situation was the election of Trump as president of the United States: Obama's successor did not follow his predecessor's policy and took a very critical position with Tehran and against the agreement also signed by the USA, effectively maintaining sanctions against Iran. The move is instrumental to the ever closer ties that Washington is entertaining with Saudi Arabia and Israel, historical enemies of Iran, albeit for different reasons. The concurrent interests of these three powers could have determined the Iranian economic crisis, which has resulted in street demonstrations in recent days. For the current US and its allies, a situation of destabilization of the Iranian country, capable of harming the reforming government in office, can be a factor in contrasting the expansionist line that Iran has decided to hold in Syria and Lebanon. A weakening of the reformers with a possible return of the conservatives, could allow to represent Iran in an even more illiberal way and this could also provoke a different attitude of the European countries, for now firmly decided to keep the commitments signed in the nuclear agreement. Indirectly, Iranian conservatives and religious could benefit from these protests precisely for a possible return to power; it does not seem random that the city from which the protests started is just a stronghold of the most conservative movements in the country. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the fault of the government is effective: the financial drainage in favor of military investment and intervention in Syria and to stop Sunni fundamentalism has caused a lack of resources that the executive has decided to compensate with 'increase in costs on commodity sectors, such as food, which have a direct impact on the population. Another aspect to challenge the government is the increasing corruption in the country, which does not allow an economic life free from constraints and another factor of subtraction to the finances of the country, as well as a reason for impeding foreign investments, necessary for the revival of the country's economy. However, if this reading of the current crisis had any basis, the move would be a gamble of no small consideration by the United States and its allies: a return of conservatives and ultra religious in power could only sharpen the current crisis with a potentially very dangerous drift, not only for the region, but for the equilibrium of the entire world. If you want to exacerbate the internal situation of a country, even through the reckless use of social networks and you are the president of the greatest world power, there is something wrong with it; the perception is that once again Trump's dilettantism prevails over the necessary prudence that would be needed in foreign policy. The consequences of an Iranian crisis could also have repercussions on the already difficult relationship between Washington and Moscow, especially after the Kremlin has announced that it considers inadmissible an interference in what it considers to be Tehran's exclusive internal affairs. The relationship between Iran and Russia has particularly strengthened with the alliance that served to manage the Syrian crisis, where both countries had common goals. Raising the tension with Russia, also through the Iranian internal crisis, could create a state of tension very harmful to the international scenario, it would be preferable to have a low-profile attitude that does not favor the regional interests of some allies; however, the White House's policy seems increasingly to move to the east, ignoring the natural relationship with Europe, which, up until now, has remained very cautious on Iranian events. In the world an Iran that returns to be an exclusive bastion of the Shiites does not serve much, on the contrary it would be desirable to involve Tehran in international politics: a program that Obama has not been able to complete and which needs an economic situation in the country Iranian very different from the current one. For Europe, it could be the double occasion to play a role of primary importance both in the diplomatic field and in the economic field.