BNC#8: Dr Iraj Abedian explains Iran’s crisis, the fall of a regime and what comes next

In a powerful and deeply personal keynote at BizNews Conference #8, economist Iraj Abedian unpacks the historical roots of the crisis unfolding in Iran, arguing that the conflict is not merely geopolitical but the culmination of decades of repression by the Islamic regime. Drawing on his own experience of Iran and decades of economic insight, Abedian explores the forces driving the war, the humanitarian consequences for the Iranian people and the potential ripple effects on global energy markets, geopolitics and South Africa’s own foreign policy choices..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox every morning on weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..Watch here:.Listen here:.Full transcript of the address.[00:13]Alec Hogg:We are going to witness some history right now because we’re going to be given an insight into the reason why we will be paying somewhere between four and eight rand more a litre for our petrol next month. It’s 20 rand now; it could be 24 at least, could be 28. And that’s because of what’s going on in Iran.Now you sit back, you have a look at our government, who have decided that we are on the side of history that aligns with a regime where it had two people running it, and they are theologians, for a lengthy period of time, where women are half people, and the population, when they did raise their voices, between 30,000 and 40,000 of the youth were slaughtered.[01:17]Now, it happened in Bangladesh, and in Bangladesh, eventually, the president and the cabinet ran away. And so Bangladesh is going through a new process of renewal. What happened in Bangladesh — it’s far away, so we don’t follow these things — was that the youngsters for four days went into the streets and revolted, if you like, against the government, very peacefully, as they do in that part of the world, and they were shot. And when they were shot, where they fell, someone came from behind and stood in front.And I’m not making this up. Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Peace Prize winner and the founder of Grameen Bank, told the story at the World Economic Forum last year, which I listened to very carefully, because there is stuff happening in our world. There’s big stuff happening in our world. And sometimes all we need to do is think a little differently.[02:16]The other big thing that we need to do is we need to understand, we need to know. And today, Dr Iraj Abedian — his first 20 years were spent in Iran. He came to South Africa — read all about this in your booklet and elsewhere — but he came to South Africa and has been one of those who’s made a massive contribution to our society, first as Professor of Economics at UCT, then as chief economist at Standard Bank, then as an entrepreneur.But in his heart, as I was saying to Anthony Ginsberg the other day, there’s no such thing as an ex-South African. We are all South Africans who have been relocated. I’m sure in his heart, although Iraj is South African, he remains Iranian, and he can give us a perception and a perspective on what’s happening in that country right now that nobody else in our country is capable of doing.Please can we welcome Iraj Abedian.[03:31]Dr Iraj Abedian:Thank you, Alec. Thank you indeed. Thank you, Alec, for that warm, hopefully deserving, introduction.[04:01]I’ve titled my input today: Iran War, its context, possible outcomes and consequences.Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for this opportunity to share what I believe to be important background on the situation in Iran and reflect on its consequences for Iran, for the Middle East, and globally.To begin with, it’s only appropriate for us to take a moment of paying homage in the form of a silent prayer for tens of millions of Iranian sisters and brothers, those brave souls who have raised up their arms with human integrity, determination to overcome evil, to protect their human rights, and their zeal for life. Their bravery, their human dignity, and their peaceful march towards regaining their future and their humanity are unprecedented, honourable and praiseworthy.[05:29]Let’s take a moment of silence in their honour.Thank you.I must also confess upfront that this is one of the most emotional, deeply personal, and complex issues that I’ve ever addressed at the public podium — that is after having lectured 20 years at the university. I therefore beg your indulgence if, during my address, I’m overwhelmed by emotions, if my voice quivers, or if I need a moment of recomposing.[06:13]I’m particularly mindful that the subject of our discussion today has, in South Africa, become critically misunderstood and, in many respects, poorly analysed, primarily because facts are ignored.Over the past three months, as this war has been unfolding, there has not been sufficient public discourse based on facts and not assumptions or ideology about the underlying causes of what is nothing but a devastating, wholly destructive conflict. Furthermore, and sadly, the full implications of this situation for South Africa’s national interests and social welfare are altogether ignored.Broadly, two polar views have been presented, propagated in limited public discussions since the war began. And, by the way, the same two polar positions, you can find them on the web across the globe, in the United States, Europe, and everywhere else. Notably, prior to the outbreak of the war, there was no discourse at all in South Africa.[07:45]The first of these two polar views is essentially external, driven in large part by the Iranian regime itself and its sympathisers — namely, that the attack on Iran is unprovoked, illegal, and a pure violation of international norms by the United States and Israel. That’s one view.The other view, the other end of the spectrum, is primarily internal, put forward by 80 to 90% of the Iranian population: that the destruction taking place is entirely caused by the ruling regime in Iran and is not a short-term provocation, but a project in progress since 1979, accelerated since 2014–2015. I will come back to this landmark as we go along.What I intend to do today is to share some components of the evolution of this deadly confrontation. At first, these pieces that I share with you may appear disjointed. And yet I firmly believe that, as we watch the event and as I attempt to pull them together, each of these components will have relevance for my conclusion.[09:08]As we speak, what is panning out in Iran is a blend of pain and horror, trauma and fear, and hope and anticipation. We are at the crossroads of some old and some recent drivers clashing at a single point in history in Iran, which sits geographically at the crossroads of Eastern and Western civilisations.So let me deal with each factor in turn, and then I’ll pull them together. Let’s begin with what I call the three elephants in the room.[09:47]The first elephant in the room: President Trump. Unconventional, disruptive, fitting perfectly with the adage that someone’s hero may be another’s villain. The question of Iran’s social-political malaise is becoming intertwined with his personality. But that should not distract us from the humanitarian crisis facing 90-plus million people, a crisis that coincided with Trump’s second administration.It’s a fact of history that all presidents before Trump, at least ever since George [W.] Bush — that is George [H.W.] Bush’s son — had full knowledge of the nature of the Iranian regime, and in some cases collaborated with it during their Iraqi-Syrian interventions. President [George W.] Bush coined the term “axis of evil”, placing the Iranian regime at the focal point of this axis. Whilst both Republican and Democrat presidents expressed many concerns about the nature of the Iranian regime, yet none showed any determination to deal with the inherent and inevitable risks involved. More specifically, they failed to stand by the people of Iran, despite the atrocities that they knew were being carried out, tortures and imprisonments that the Iranian nation was subjected to. Ironically, the EU governments were even worse, notwithstanding their so-called commitments to human rights and social liberties.[11:41]President Obama opted to appease the regime by providing it with a plane-load of cash, literally US dollars, delivered in Cyprus, and relaxing international sanctions against it. All the cash and proceeds of sanctioned relaxations were used to finance the regional proxies, fast-track the missile development technologies and production. To his credit, President Obama finally, in 2022, admitted that he made a mistake in not supporting the Iranian nation during their Green Movement uprising. Whatever reference I make, or whatever statistics I provide, I’ve got reference here for those who want to have a copy of it.President Biden maintained sanctions imposed by Trump’s first presidency, but turned a blind eye to the rest of the regime’s activities. In short, all the US presidents, ever since President Carter, stood by the regime against the people of Iran. They did so knowingly. President Trump has turned out to be different, aligning himself with the people against the tyranny of a fully armed and murderous state. I’m also under no illusion that, in aligning himself with the people of Iran, he may well have his own self-interest at heart. That’s his duty: to take care of his nation’s interests.[13:12]The second elephant in the room: Prime Minister Netanyahu. His 30-year personal mission is to confront the Islamic Republic, which he sees as the head of a hostile and determined octopus with tentacles in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen, and elsewhere. Israel’s actions under his leadership are problematic for many, even for Israelis, or some Israelis, understandably. It may be helpful to remember that Israel provided military assistance to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. When the war ended, the Iranian regime resumed its open and systematic hostility against the State of Israel. I therefore submit that the Israelis’ confrontation with the Islamic Republic should not distract from the Iranian population’s quest for freedom and social liberties. Confusing the two, I argue, is an intellectual failure leading to misguided discourses and wrong conclusions.The third elephant in the room is the legacy of contemporary American attempts at regime change — namely Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. None turned out as planned. Such evidence is raised whenever the Iran conundrum is discussed, quite justifiably. It is tragic how often and how many analysts intermingle the two and conclude quickly that the best thing is to side with the regime, and in effect stand against the people and their wishes, no matter how destructive and despite the terrorist activities of the regime. This kind of shallow analysis is trading with people’s lives and misguided at best. This kind of reasoning and the final conclusions make them a party, in my view, to the crimes by omission.[15:14]With these three elephants in the room, discussing the ongoing oppression in Iran becomes highly problematic, emotional, and unnecessarily complex. But these substantive matters, important as they are, must be ring-fenced. The geopolitical crisis in Iran must be seen not as a geopolitical risk, but as a humanitarian crisis facing the entire population of the globe: the crisis of a nation oppressed and mutilated by its own governing regime for 47 years, a regime that pursues its ideology with fanatical determination, with no regard for its collateral damage to the nation, to its neighbours, or to human life in general.Now I want to share with you some of the ideological roots because often I see that people think that this is a new thing and, if we beat the hell out of it, it will disappear. No. The ideological roots of the Islamic Republic of Iran trace back to late 19th-century movements in Sudan, Egypt, and Lebanon, propagating a global political Islam, pan-Islamic global civilisation — not as a personal belief, but as a global political paradigm to mobilise the believers that they call the ummah, you would have heard that, in the form of a global Muslim community transcending borders.Over decades, this culminated in the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood, primarily in Egypt, with satellite groupings in Turkey, Qatar, and the rest of the region, still active today. The Muslim Brotherhood was mainly made of the Sunni groupings, but the Shia strand broke off, finding fertile ground in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran. Again, the references are here for those who want to go to the historic academic research.[16:58]In Iran, the Shia dominance dates back 500 years to Shah Abbas of the Safavid dynasty, who strategically imported a group of Shia clerics from Lebanon. So, if you’re wondering why Iran is spending so much in Lebanon, it goes back 500 years — from Lebanon to counter the Sunni Arab-Turkish threat against their kingdom. Over 500 years, this clerical network established a parallel governance, obstructing progress, suppressing secular schools, developing a doctrine that every Shia believer must have a self-selected spiritual guide or imam.In practice, that requires each believer to follow one ayatollah of choice, to obey unquestionably. Imam means a leader or a guide. Over five centuries, these mullahs built a system of control over minds, lives, and preferences of the Iranian nation, and indeed that of any Shia believer across the globe.But this was planted in a civilisation with extraordinary depths. Cyrus the Great, over 2,500 years ago, issued the first charter of human rights in the Persian Empire, freed the Israelites and many other groups and communities from the oppression and tyranny of their rulers, introduced money in the form of coin for the first time, established a complex postal service network within its vast empire, and built an empire on the platform of unity and diversity.This was nearly 2,000 years before the emergence of the Shia clerical network in the country and had helped shape a culture well entrenched by the fusion of diverse people who had come to form the Persian nation. Each of these diverse groups could find their place and influence on the culture. The Shia clerical ideology and their worldview had sharp clashes with the nation’s way of life. Soon, challenges and confrontations emerged.[19:20]The Iranian poets and philosophers and scientists — you might know some of them: Hafez, Rumi, Saadi, Omar Khayyam, and hundreds of others — resisted clerical control of the country for centuries. Saadi’s poem, which is one of the works of the prominent Persian poets and philosophers engraved at the United Nations building in New York, captures the essence of this confrontation. He writes — and next time in New York, you can take a picture of it:Human beings are members of a whole,In creation of one essence and soul.If one member is afflicted with pain,Other members uneasy will remain.If you’ve got no sympathy for human pain,The name of human you cannot retain.The tension between that ancient, life-affirming, diversity-promoting Persian culture and the narrow, apocalyptic, and oppressive clerical worldview has defined Iran for half a millennium. Since 1979, with the ascendancy of the Islamic regime, the nation has been subjected to a simple verdict: conform or be condemned.[20:52]Now let’s go back to 1979. That’s the ancient background. 1979 is more recent: American interventions and President Carter’s contradictions.It is now declassified information that four Western governments — President Jimmy Carter of the United States, Helmut Schmidt of Germany, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing of France, James Callaghan of the UK — conspired to topple the Shah and install Khomeini in 1979.This was America’s third intervention in Iran, after backing the Pahlavi dynasty in the 1920s and the 1953 CIA coup d’état against the progressive prime minister, Mossadegh, who was a popular and respected nationalist. President Carter ran his campaign, as some of you will remember, on a human rights platform. He was an avid campaigner for social liberties and democratic human choice. Whilst poorly informed of the global geopolitical matters, his global political weapon against the US’s then arch-enemy, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR, was his mission to encircle the USSR with fanatical Islamic states, forming a dam of Islamic fanatics preventing the spread of USSR influence within the all-important region of the Middle East.Iran at that time was secular, rapidly industrialising, democratising, with per capita income 1.5% higher than South Korea in 1979. The Shah’s regime was squarely rooted in nationalism and sovereign interests, based on balancing the global powers to achieve the country’s developmental goal. Whilst he was successful in secularising and promoting economic growth and modernisation, he paid little attention to the promotion of social liberties. His neglect of social liberation earned him the ire of the nationalists, socialists, and the Communist Tudeh Party on the one hand, and on the other hand he was challenged by the orchestrated campaign of the Shia clerical network, who detested his secularisation, modernisation, and his alliance with Western civilisation, which they regarded as unadulterated imperialists.[23:10]In this context, President Carter sided with the fanatic and fundamental clerical network, headed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who was then exiled for many years and had moved from Iraq to France. Under Carter’s leadership, the four Western leaders sought to bring the Shah down via a complex set of interventions, most significantly by deactivating the Iranian Royal Army under the direct intervention of General Robert E. Huyser. At that time, I was in Iran as a student, very active in socio-political events. By so doing, they launched a frontal attack on Iran’s social progress and its ancient culture.What was dismantled was not a monarchy alone, but it also derailed the developmental path of a nation, which has entailed incalculable human costs ever since within Iran and in the region. The French flew Khomeini to Tehran in February 1979. What followed was a classic Frankenstein monster phenomenon. The West engineered the regime’s ascendancy to power and, within months, the Islamic regime turned on its engineers, raiding the US embassy, taking hostages. Domestically, thousands of nationalists, socialists, and communists were executed and dumped in mass graves, still undocumented today, 47 years later.Interestingly, the South African Communist Party Central Committee, on 7 May 1983, issued a statement condemning, in the strongest possible terms, the banning of the Tudeh Communist Party and the arrest of its leaders, including its first secretary, on trumped-up charges of spying for the Soviet Union.[25:19]As early as 1979, the first social protests emerged. Tens of thousands of Iranian women came out to object to the regime’s clampdown on women. Women’s protests were crushed violently in 1979. Ever since 1979, periodic social protests, uprisings and demonstrations have been the order of the day and matters of historic record. Each time, the regime has crushed them with growing violence and brutality.The latest, and possibly the most brutal, was on the 8th and 9th of January 2026, where a reported 30,000 to 40,000 Iranians were murdered in cold blood. And another group of an estimated 220,000 people are detained without trace as we gather here. These are the figures presented at the UN Human Rights Council extraordinary sitting during January 2026. You can watch it on YouTube.Soon after 1979, the regime established the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, not to protect the country, but to safeguard and promote the Islamic regime and to export the revolution to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Algeria, Kenya, and beyond. The true cost of President Carter’s choice has gone way beyond the boundaries of Iran. The entire region of the Middle East, and even Europe, has incurred its own share of costs.[27:12]Today, America intervenes for a fourth time, this time with one crucial difference: the majority of Iranians welcome it. A nation that has spent the 20th century lamenting and despising American interventions now celebrates every strike on the regime’s security infrastructure. That is the most important empirical indicator of 47 years of oppression, murder, imprisonment, and misgovernance.Whilst back in 1979, in a national referendum, the nation was reported to have voted in support of the Islamic State, with 80% in favour, nowadays this support has dwindled to around 20%, as per the regime’s own statistics. It is important to note that the Iranian regime does not allow foreign observers for any of its elections, has never allowed a referendum since 1979, and within its own ranks there are widespread accusations of vote-rigging and manipulation.The so-called Green Movement uprising of 2009 was the climax of this vote-rigging, when millions of Iranians flooded the streets shouting, “Where is my vote?” They knew that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been handpicked like a rabbit out of a bag — or a hat — as the winner.Even though the winner was Mr Hussein Mousavi, who had won the popular vote, since then Mr Mousavi has been put under house arrest, sick and dying as we gather here.[28:38]In this context, the regime launched a three-pronged attack on the country.The first prong was seizure of economic resources. Sixty to 80% of the economy is controlled by the Revolutionary Guards. The currency has lost not merely 90%, but over 100% of its value. Inflation has remained between 40 and 60%. Food and medicine, over 100%, if you can find them. Tens of billions are spent on nuclear and missile developments. The nation is treated as a defeated and conquered population. In effect, the regime has treated the country’s resources as war bounty, as a reward for its commitment to establish an Islamic regime first and finally an Islamic government. Their ultimate goal is to establish a global Shia civilisation to bring the entire Muslim ummah under its control, irrespective of the existing boundaries. Such a civilisation, in their view, would be a divine alternative to the existing failing secular civilisation. Equally, it would be superior to the civilisation of the East.The second prong of the attack was a pan-Islamic anti-imperialist strategy. The regime declared Israel as its primary enemy, its elimination pursued at all costs. For 47 years, Israel was seen as the regional agent of the Great Satan, the United States. “Death to America” has remained the constant since 1979. Over 2,000 US soldiers have been killed by the Revolutionary Guards in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. I do not see any need to elaborate on this subject, as nowadays all details are matters of public record. What I feel needs clear emphasis is that this strategic policy choice, and its dogged pursuit, have dragged the Iranian nation and the country’s resources into 47 years of implicit and explicit confrontation and war with the State of Israel and the Middle East region. Both nations have paid heavily for this strategic policy pursuit. Other nations involved, such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, too, have paid heavy social costs. To be specific, the primary cause of all these ruinous and tragic wars has been the ideological policy choices of the Islamic regime of Iran.[31:12]The now-assassinated Ali Khamenei, the so-called Supreme Leader, was the head player in this 47-year tragic, destructive, and apocalyptic odyssey. As we gather here, this odyssey is at play. Khamenei is dead, but his odyssey lives on with devastating consequences for the nation, the region, and the global community.The third-pronged attack was on Iranian culture. The regime’s third and substantial attack was on the Persian way of life and its traditions. Cultural, artistic, social events and celebrations were actively suppressed and despised by the regime. All symbols of Persian culture were intentionally disregarded and disrespected. Some were even defaced. Not only were music and arts constrained, but most prominently women were banned from singing, performing, attending sports, and dressing as they wish. Women were reduced to half the legal status of a man by the constitution. And yet, a nation with 2,500 years of cultural depth refused to submit. Women in particular maintained their uncompromising struggle for their rights.Iran has a population of 92 million, 60 to 70% of them under the age of 30, connected with the global community thanks to technology, watching and being fully aware of global developments, and witnessing neighbouring countries and nations advance, transform and progress for the better. Yet, when they look around the nation, the country is going backwards, unstoppably. The nation is endowed with the second-largest reserves of oil and gas, yet there’s a shortage of electricity and power in the country. Water resources are in short supply. Jobs are scarce, and income disparities are widening year after year. The clerical groups and their network of IRGC are amassing wealth, treating the nation’s natural resources as their divine right, and the nation must accept and remain quiet. Otherwise...[33:31]Otherwise, bullets and imprisonment, rape and torture await them. The younger generation have been born and lived only within a religious mafia-state environment. In effect, the regime has kept them alive while denying them the right to live. The current generation can no longer bear it. They do not want merely to survive. They want to live, with freedom to choose. They want to regain their agency and human dignity.Since 2022, and following the Mahsa Amini uprising, the young Iranians have confronted the armed security forces with bare hands. Scores have been killed, and yet they are returning to the streets.It is noteworthy that since 1979, despite the fact that the constitution provides for it, the regime has not issued a single permit for peaceful demonstrations. As a result, all uprisings and marches are declared illegal, inspired by foreigners, and crushed as such.[34:51]In late December 2025, the collapse of the currency precipitated a mass uprising, initially by the conservative Bazaari — these are the wholesale traders — community protesting against loss of income, business collapse, and economic hardship. This protest rapidly transmuted into a nationwide revolution, spreading over 230 locations in big cities, small cities, and villages right across the country. Millions were in the streets right across tribal and regional sections of the country.The regime’s response: in under 48 hours, an estimated 32,000 killed, shot in the head, hospitals raided, the wounded executed, doctors and nurses threatened with imprisonment. Even a few doctors and nurses were killed for treating the wounded. When families find their loved ones’ bodies in the morgue and in makeshift warehouses, they must pay for the bullet used to kill their children in order to release the body. And then they are denied the right to bury their loved ones as they wish.This blatant and brutal incident has transformed the dislike of the regime into grief, fury, and absolute determination to protest against all odds, to highlight the imperative of regime change. The nation became convinced that, for as long as the Islamic regime is in place, they have no chance of a democratic and humane life. The upshot is that the regime has lost its legitimacy, its credibility, and has failed spectacularly in governance of society by each and every measure.[36:47]It has weaponised religion and, by so doing, it has made the nation despise religion.This is to be expected because, if religion becomes a source of enmity, social division and human atrocities, clearly not having religion is superior to having one. Needless to say that around 10% of the population still remains loyal to the regime, ready to die for its objective, some on religious grounds and others for the sheer protection of their ill-gotten wealth.The three enemies converge. Today, three enemies stand against the Islamic Republic’s regime. Number one: the majority of its own 92 million population. An estimated 80 to 90% of the nation is determined to end the regime. Two: the State of Israel. And three: the United States under President Trump.[37:53]They have different objectives — some congruent, some divergent. The Iranian nation wants a peaceful, secular, progressive and democratic society. The values of Cyrus the Great, as captured in their life philosophies and daily cultural practices. They have no reason whatsoever for war or any urge to dominate neighbours, never mind aiming to wipe out Israel from the face of the earth, or conquer Iraq or Algeria, Saudi Arabia or any other. They do not propagate war. They are a nation with a culture of human values. Far from seeing the US as the Great Satan, they aspire to celebrate and benefit from American successes. But they demand to be respected as a fellow sovereign nation and not to be treated as a nation-state created by any imperial power.Time will tell if President Trump will be able to strike the right balance in the unfolding equation of power and complex choices to be made in the weeks ahead.[38:54]In the light of the above, my deepest concern is the humanitarian dimension. Those analysing the Iranian war and those making political and policy choices do not largely distinguish between the regime and the people of Iran, which has been oppressed for 47 years.So my serious concern, coming home here — my second home — is South Africa. South Africa has one of the most progressive constitutions on the planet, incorporating explicit commitments to human rights and ethical governance. In terms of the Bill of Rights in our constitution, everyone has the right to life, equality, and human dignity. All persons have a right to citizenship and security. Persons and groups are entitled to freedom of assembly, association, belief, opinion, and expression.And yet, almost none of our social stakeholders in South Africa have chosen to engage seriously with the blatant abuses of the Iranian regime and its documented transgressions. Not government, not social activists, not any of the think tanks, and not even the media.[40:18]South Africa, of all countries, should understand this situation. South Africa lived in a similar configuration, and the ANC and others fought against it, and many sacrificed their very lives fighting it. For nearly 40 years, an illegitimate ruling apartheid regime terrorised the majority of the nation’s people. The people of South Africa did not accept it. They rejected it, many deeply hated it, and the world eventually stood with them.More troubling, our government has not merely remained silent. It has, in some cases, actively and, in other cases, passively aligned itself with the very regime I have described. In effect, instead of standing behind the people, the government has chosen to align itself with the policies and practices of the regime in Iran. The South African government is repeating President Obama’s error of judgement.I sincerely hope that, unlike President Obama, the South African government will not wait eight years, as Obama did, to discover its error of judgement and to confess to this mistake, and so cause considerable harm to the country’s stature and remain a party to the humanitarian consequences.[41:41]Let me finish with some reflections on the economic consequences.Iran, in its own right, is a potential powerhouse of energy. It could be. That is oil and gas, petrochemicals, and all other derivative industries. It is the largest country in the Middle East, with a geography about 10% larger than South Africa. Its global ranking stands as second in terms of known gas reserves, third in terms of oil reserves.So the impact of the current war arises from three critical sources. Access to, or sanctions against, its daily supply to the spot market. A stable situation after the prevailing war, if well managed, will have a considerable positive impact on the global energy markets. It’s stating the obvious that, if you stabilise the country, it would offer opportunities for investment in sectors along the value chain for the next decade and beyond. Not only the energy sector, but the mining sector, industrial, water and power sectors will offer enormous investment opportunities alongside infrastructure.The second is its geographic geopolitical location, which further impacts the energy market in so far as it has critical control over the Strait of Hormuz, where between 20 and 25% of daily oil supply is exported.[42:57]Apart from the energy sector, the operations of the Iranian regime have a considerable direct and complex impact on the global risk profile way beyond the Middle East. If the United States fails to remove the regime, going forward, the emboldened hardliners will understandably claim victory against the military superpower, raising the level of geopolitical risk sky-high. They would demand that neighbouring states sever ties with the United States and close their military bases in the region. This will be the next frontier of geopolitical risk.The global economy — and that’s my second-last point — is now pushed into a new era of geopolitical risk paradigm, with two broad possible outcomes.A: the 2026 war ends up in military success but political failure for the United States. The regime survives, badly weakened, but nonetheless victorious in the eyes of the hardliners and the pan-Islamist global support base. In their view, it vindicates their divine mission. The human atrocities against the nation will assume insane levels. I shudder at the thought of it.The second option: the war uproots the Islamic regime, whatever it takes, however long it takes, perhaps costly and devastating, but risk-adjusted, still cheaper than the alternative.[44:48]My last point: whatever option President Trump chooses, there won’t be quick outcomes. The contours of the future pathways will nonetheless become clear.I thank you.

BNC#8: Dr Iraj Abedian explains Iran’s crisis, the fall of a regime and what comes next

Related Stories

Gas delays force SA to keep coal power stations running after their sell-by date

Afrimat’s 20-year milestone: Digging into the good, the bad, and the resilient for Ricardo Portfolio investors

SA Iranians: GNU keeps tragically misreading Iranian regime

Iran’s deadly record: 1,639 executions in 2025, an absurd increase in its history