Transactional Cooperation among Authoritarian States
GeopoliticsComments
This reminds me of the frictions leading to the Sino-Soviet split. The upside of these transactional arrangements is that the inherent contradictions usually create internal cracks that eventually degrade the partnership.
The idea of reciprocal exchanges is hard to square with the massive trade imbalance between a global hub like China and a sanctioned state like North Korea. It is less of a transaction and more of a lifeline.
I wonder if the Hamas disarmament agreement changes the math for Iran... if their regional proxies shift strategy, does that decrease the transactional utility of this alignment for Tehran?
This is just a high-stakes mercenary market. Why frame it as strategic coordination when it is basically just a series of contracts for drones and oil?
Hypothetically, the shift in Gaza might not weaken Tehran's position at all. It could instead free up resources for Iran to deepen its transactional ties with Russia and China without the burden of maintaining the current Gaza status quo.
The point about pragmatic alignment is visible in the increased use of non-dollar trade settlements between Russia and Iran. They are specifically targeting the cost of transactions to bypass SWIFT.
On those non-dollar settlements: do we have data on the actual volume of these trades relative to their total GDP? It is one thing to establish a mechanism and another to move significant capital.
The lack of a shared ideology might actually be a benefit for global stability. It is generally easier to negotiate with partners driven by specific interests than those bound by a rigid, uncompromising dogma.