That's true in a global context, and I think warrants a discussion. I expect, however, in this article that the discussion would be accompanied with the obviou

That's true in a global context, and I think warrants a discussion. I expect, however, in this article that the discussion would be accompanied with the obvious related fact: this statistic is mostly caused by US geopolitical policy by decreasing the number of barrels which can be exported. A US writer supports the header "Prepare for more fragile, or even failed, states and the risks that can accompany them.", with these facts. I find it quite disingenuous, I'd be happy to discuss that if we disagree. The language makes people (Some of them even in this thread) think that there is something intrinsic to Iran as a state, rather than just US geopolitical policy causing chaos for banana republics and oil adversaries of the US. Overall, the fact isn't linked at all to oil's current collapse (Which is the article's context), as Iran is still in a horrible spot even if the price doesn't collapse.