Rafail Kalyviotis on “Iranian victory” and unfreezing of assets
Rafail Kalyiviotis criticizes simplistic analyses claiming Iran won by unfreezing assets, arguing the amounts are minimal compared to import costs and war damages while highlighting U.S. strategic interests.
Rafail Kalyiviotis, with his own “delightful” writing style, unfolds his thoughts on the (incredible) things being heard and written left and right regarding developments in the Iranian conflict. Read exactly what he wrote on his personal page:
“Someone comes out and does an ayatollah-style analysis and says that commitments to unfreeze Iranian assets could give the Iranian government access to billions of dollars in hard currency. ‘Iran won!'”
“What currency will this be in, folks? In dollars. Ah! I see! Because before the war everyone was ready for Yuan in all transactions. This changed by chance. How many billions approximately immediately and not those that WILL receive IN THE FUTURE, if it receives them, from investments by the monarchies?”
“It’s not yet certain, someone claims four, another says 10, in the final analysis no one knows the exact amount. There’s a small calculation problem here.”
“The 30 billion dollars, not the 4, not the 10, is less than 6 months of Iran’s normal IMPORT bill. The economic losses from the bombings are estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars. Ah, I see!”
“In exchange for what will they unfreeze them? Through imports of American agricultural products. What are you saying, my friend? Seriously? Let’s now see what Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury Bessent says?”
“Linking national power to household prosperity: The ultimate purpose of economic diplomacy is social.”
“Success is no longer measured solely by stock market indices, but by the participation of working families in production…attempts to weaponize supply chains receive immediate and coordinated responses.”
“The view of the Trump era makes it clear that the global economy is no longer a neutral field of free transactions, but a space where power, production and national strategy determine who will survive and who will dominate in the coming years.”
Conclusion: “easy analyses with exclusive winners and exclusive losers are not analyses. They are propaganda. Knowledge requires clarity and not childish feelings of anti-Westernism drawn from our youth as imaginary anti-colonial rebels.”
