Iran and Cuba

Hassan Rouhani's visit to Cuba, which concluded on September 30, demonstrated that the Tehran-Havana axis continues to play a significant role in the diplomacy of the Islamic Republic, independent of who is at the helm of Iran's executive apparatus. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran attributed the close relations between the two countries to the commonalities of the 'revolutionary nations of Iran and Cuba' and described his host country as a 'symbol of resistance and struggle against colonialism in Latin America.' His hosts praised the 'resistance of the Iranian people against pressures and sanctions.' However, beyond these formalities, the reality is quite different. The decline of the appeal of the ruling systems in Iran and Cuba and their significant failure to provide alternatives to developing countries is their most important commonality. The Castroism, once considered the most romantic champion of the 'Third World' in the battle to create a new world, today is bent under the weight of age and has little to offer beyond the worn-out faces of its leaders. The Islamic Republic, approaching its fortieth anniversary, has long lost its halo of sanctity and is left with empty hands. In short, both 'resistant and revolutionary' systems have drifted light-years away from the charm and allure of the revolutions that gave rise to them. Nevertheless, the meeting between the leaders of Iran and Cuba remains astonishing, at least because it raises the question of how a theocratic regime considers a Marxist-Leninist-inspired atheistic regime, alongside Venezuela, its closest ally in Latin America. To resolve this 'paradox,' we return to a major commonality that places Tehran and Havana on the same front. Both countries have made enmity with the United States the most significant feature of their foreign policy and, as much as possible, attribute their economic difficulties to the sanctions and pressures from Washington. The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) emphasizes this point in the first paragraph of a report published at the conclusion of Hassan Rouhani's visit to Cuba: 'The Islamic Republic of Iran and Cuba have experienced friendly and relatively stable relations over the past four decades. The most important basis for this friendly relationship has been the two countries' shared resistance against external pressures.' The regimes in Tehran and Havana consider 'resistance against external pressures' as their most significant achievement and the common axis around which the long-standing friendship of the two countries has formed. The issue is that many other countries in the world define 'resistance' differently. In the same Latin America, Chile can be mentioned, which, without oil and gas, has a per capita GDP three times that of Iran, shines in democracy, and holds a prominent position in global economic governance. Even Western European countries draw on Chile's experience to improve their pension systems. For Iranians, who are grappling with a mountain of economic difficulties, learning from Chile's achievements is far more instructive than listening to the tedious speeches of the Castro brothers. Iran and Cuba boast of their 'resistance' to compensate for their significant failures in organizing the lives of their people. Do all the successful countries in the world have to put their heads down the path of 'surrender' to achieve economic progress? Did China and South Korea turn their backs on independence to reach their current status? The reality is that in the decades following World War II, many leaders of countries known as the 'Third World' blamed the failure of their economic policies on the 'enemy' and its conspiracies. This tactic, which seemed effective for a relatively long time both within these countries and in international public opinion, has today lost its edge. Who believes that the current economic disaster in Venezuela, as its leaders claim, is the fault of 'American imperialism,' rather than the product of 'populism' and the incompetence of politicians like Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, who turned a country with the highest oil reserves in the world into a beggar in Latin America under the name of 'Bolivarian Revolution' and '21st Century Socialism'? In Iran, on the same Tuesday that Hassan Rouhani concluded his visit to Cuba, Ayatollah Khamenei, at the Eid al-Ghadir ceremony, identified the main goal of the 'enemy' as disrupting the country's economy to create dissatisfaction among the people with the Islamic system. In other words, the leader of the revolution wants to blame the very poor economic conditions in Iran, which is grappling with the harshest recession since the war with Iraq, on the United States. How can a country like Iran avoid its current situation when it entrusted its executive apparatus to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for eight years? The End of Myths Contrary to a very common theory, Western capitalism benefits more from economic prosperity in developing countries than from their misery due to its profit-driven incentives. South Korea is a thousand times more profitable for America than North Korea. Europeans repeatedly prefer today's China over the impoverished China of Mao's era. It is the current economic dynamism in India that excites Western multinational companies, not the famine-stricken India. The experience after the 'JCPOA' also showed that Western countries, primarily for their own interests, wish for Iran to become one of the most important investment and trade hubs in West Asia through integration into the international economic community. The entry of dozens of large European economic delegations into the country over the past two years occurred with this hope. Who blocked this vision? Factions within the Islamic Republic that benefit from Iran's isolation, and the real 'enemy' is these factions. They are doing everything they can to block the implementation of new oil contracts, obstruct the coordination of Iran's banking system with the international banking system, and exploit the worst aspects of the Islamic Republic's regional and global foreign policy to disrupt the 'JCPOA.' The Castro regime in Cuba has also justified all the hardships inflicted on its people with the cry of 'enemy, enemy' for the past fifty-seven years. Do you know who was at the head of the Central Bank of Cuba after the victory of the Castroist revolution in 1959? The most famous revolutionary in the world, Ernesto Che Guevara. Yes, Che's signature was stamped on the banknotes of the revolutionary regime, while his expertise in money and banking was probably as much as the author's capability in brain surgery. Ernesto Che Guevara later played a leading role in the collectivization of Cuban agriculture and then headed the Ministry of Industries. He was the one who, inspired by the Soviet model, erased the private sector in the industrial sphere and entrusted everything to centralized state planning. Leather and shoes in Cuba, before the establishment of the revolutionary regime, had a suitable quality and reputation. Thanks to Ernesto Che Guevara, no trace of shoemakers remained in Cuba, nor of domestic shoes. Could a country have a better fate than today with such people at the head of its most sensitive economic institutions? Crossing 'taboos' is the most effective lever that allows Iranians to overcome their current deadlocks. Once, the revolutionary youth of Iran, influenced by liars like the French Jean-Paul Sartre, were enamored with Castro and his revolution. And when Ernesto Che Guevara was killed in Bolivia, dozens of poems in his praise were published in Tehran's literary journals. Iranians, in this praise, were in line with millions of admirers of the myths of the Cuban revolution around the world, including in the most prestigious metropolises of the West, where young people even today wear t-shirts with Che Guevara's image or tattoo this legendary revolutionary on their bodies. This is the trait of a person who clings to myths and preserves them for years, sometimes centuries. But the reality of the Cuban revolution and its myths is something else. As long as the Soviet Union existed, this power kept the Castro regime afloat by granting heavy credits and especially free oil, to have a foothold near the shores of America. At the height of the Cold War and simultaneously with the Soviet advance across the globe, revolutionary Cuba sent its soldiers to serve Moscow's hegemony in Africa, including Mozambique and Angola, in exchange for receiving oil and food. Following the collapse of the Red Empire, the Cuban regime fell into a severe crisis and sought new ways to obtain currency, including opening the country's doors to tourism. Finally, in 1998, with the rise of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Fidel and Raúl Castro once again found a 'generous' ally. Of course, Hugo Chávez's 'generosity' towards the Castro brothers came at the expense of the Venezuelan people. The explanation is that the leader of the 'Bolivarian Revolution' decided to provide Cuba with the oil it needed at a price much lower than the international price. Opponents of Hugo Chávez and his successor (Nicolás Maduro) claim that a large portion of the oil granted by Venezuela to Cuba was sold by the leaders of this country at normal prices in international markets, and the proceeds went to the 'Havana mafia,' including the Castro family and military leaders at the head of the country's large economic enterprises. Today, however, Venezuela, which is bankrupt, can no longer do anything to help Cuba. Despite the drop in oil prices, Cuba is not in a position to secure its oil needs from the global market and has therefore been forced to turn to Russia and Iran. It seems unlikely that Vladimir Putin, with all the economic difficulties weighing on him, will be able to respond positively to the Castro brothers' oil demands. Regarding Iran, many sources, including within the Islamic Republic, have referred to Cuba's request for oil under preferential conditions. Was the 'oil prayer' of Cuba discussed during Hassan Rouhani's recent visit to Havana?