Latest Jobs Posts

Foreign Policy Brief #209 | Damian DeSola | July 11, 2025

Those who have a casual understanding of history or geopolitics may react agreeably to the concept: the greater abundance of natural resources a country has the more well-off the people of that country will be. Unfortunately, for Nigerians, the opposite is their reality. The abundance of oil in Nigeria, along with their colonial history, has resulted in a “resource curse,” a theory posited by contemporary international relations scholars. Nigeria now finds its economy reliant on the export of oil and renting their oil fields to multinational corporations (MNCs), leading to a commodity industry based on corruption and wealth centralization.

Nigeria’s Resource Curse

The resource curse, a theory and term coined by economics Professor Richard Auty, says that certain circumstances of international trade, history, and industrial cultural development related to a particular abundant resource, cause a country to face an economic situation dependent on the export of this resource; conflicts, corruption, international exploitation, and an underdeveloped economy occur as a result. The benefits of the extracted resource are transferred away from those whose land it is mined from, and into the hands of the hosting government and the MNCs that handle its extraction, transportation, and refinement. The case of the resource curse is found across the continent of Africa that was once entirely an economic playground for European colonists. In short, it is a form of corporate neo-colonialism.

In the early 1800s, Britain began projecting power into Nigeria, but it was not until nearly a century later in 1914 that the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria formed by the British. The colony was run by Nigerian chiefs that were given instructions by the British government. In 1956, commercial quantities of crude oil were discovered by European engineers. Soon after the discovery, Shell, Mobile, Texaco, and many of other Western oil companies began extraction operations in Nigeria.

As the industry developed, the Nigerian National Oil Corporation (NNOC) was established in 1971 (later reorganized into the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation) as a state-owned oil company; simultaneously, it joined the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries(OPEC). The NNOC and subsequent NNPC enabled the Nigerian government to participate in the oil market with oil  Multi-National Corporations (MNCs). The government has historically “mismanaged” the revenues gained by the NNOC/NNPC, meanwhile receiving royalties from oil MNCs. This money has shown no signs of trickling down and remains in the hands of the Nigerian government leaders.

According to a World Bank Poverty and Equity Brief, approximately 40.1% of Nigerians livedbelow the National Poverty Line, with around 30.9% living below the International Poverty Line ($2.15/day). Further, 90.8% of Nigerians were living below the Upper Middle Income Poverty Line ($6.85/day) as of the most recent World Bank data (2018). This massive poverty rate displays the magnitude of wealth disparity when considering that Nigeria’s 2018 GDP was $421.74B.

As a result of this wealth disparity and resource disenfranchisement, local populations, primarily in the Niger River Delta where most of the oil resides, have shown high rates of militancy. Starting in 2003, regional militant groups organized in reaction to increasing anger over the paradoxical nature of their economic status. A UN Development Program report from 2006 briefly maps the rise in conflicts, highlighting attacks on oil companies’ infrastructure (e.g. Shell, Agip Oil). Violence subsided after 2009, resurged in 2015, calmed again, and has recently escalated due to the Nigerian president’s announcement of a state of emergency over oil pipeline vandalism.

The singular focus on oil production and export caused other industries to wither. While having major deposits of gold, commercially viable timber, and a once massive agriculture industry, all these potentially diversifying economic advantages find little room to compete. The Nigerian economy has found itself in an endless spiral due to its oil resource curse.

A Path Towards Reform

Due to external and internal factors on the oil market including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russo-Ukrainian War, and oil theft, the production of crude oil in Nigeria has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. In response, administration of President Bola Tinubu, elected in 2023, seeks aggressive reform to Nigeria’s economy.

Tinubu’s  first act was to remove the oil subsidy that cost the government nearly $40M daily to keep the price of oil artificially low. The sudden removal caused a spike in transportation costs and subsequent scrambles for fuel. This reform also caused inflation to skyrocket, pushing the cost-of-living crisis to new levels.

 Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund points out the that the removal of the subsidy, alongside the government’s liberalization of foreign exchange, prevention of fiscal debt financing, and strengthened revenue collection as positive policies that show promise for future economic strength. Nigeria has also been upgraded by financial rating agencies, a sign of potential recovery.

President Tinubu justifies the subsidy removal by angling the act as short-term pain that would lead to a positive future. The president defended the reforms by saying, “Our economy has been in desperate need of reform for decades. It has been unbalanced because it was built on the flawed foundation of over-reliance on revenues from the exploitation of oil.” Meanwhile, a local taxi driver is quoted saying, “The situation is unbearable. As a family man, the already unfriendly economy has been worsened by this removal of fuel subsidy. I have had to suspend my taxi operations and rely on divine intervention.”

Due to these reforms, the Nigerian economy has struggled to cope, signified by the nearly 61% drop in GDP from 2022 to 2024 (approx. $289.6B). The World Bank responded to these attempts at reform and their subsequent economic impacts with the approval of multiple loansto support Nigeria’s economy. These loans, each amounting in the low billions and accumulate to over 15 billion in total, go towards education, nutrition, energy infrastructure, shoring up oil revenue losses, tax reforms, and overall poverty reduction.

Whether or not these reforms are successful at breaking the oil resource curse remains to be seen. However, attempts at reform are a step in the right direction away from the overtly corrupt system of wealth extraction.

Engagement Resources

• UNICEF Donation Page for Nigeria
• Nigerian Red Cross Donation Page
• UN Crisis Relief Donation Page

Foreign Policy Brief #208 | Nicholas Gordon | July 7, 2025

With a U.S.-brokered ceasefire currently holding between Israel and Iran, let’s take a moment to consider what role the Trump administration has played in bringing the conflict to its current precarious state. In his first term, President Trump—eschewing the advice of allies including France, Germany, and the U.K.—withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an accord reached between Iran and several world powers, including the United States, in 2015. Under the JCPOA’s terms, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear program and open its weapons-making facilities to international inspections in exchange for sanctions relief worth billions of dollars.

Since the United States’ withdrawal from JCPOA in 2018 under President Trump, Iran has expanded its nuclear program, breaching its commitments to the agreement, including resuming uranium enrichment and violating limits on nuclear materials. While the JCPOA remains legally valid, Iran’s violations of the agreement’s terms have thus far thwarted negotiations to revive it or to forge a new deal with the Trump administration. Foreign diplomacy analysts and Israeli officials have identified Trump’s backing out of the deal as a costly blunder that has fueled both Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and rising instability in the middle east. 

Analysis

The negotiations of JCPOA with Iran were conducted by five permanent members of the UN Security Council —China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and Germany, collectively known as the P5+1, as well as the European Union (EU). Without the Iran nuclear deal in place, the negotiating nations’ feared that Iran would take action to become a nuclear weapons state, which would in turn spur Israel to take preemptive military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, as it had in Iraq and Syria, plunging the region into a new crisis.

Those fears were realized in June when Israel and Iran traded deadly attacks over a 12-day air war. Israel first unleashed a blistering barrage of ballistic missiles and drones at Iran’s nuclear facilities in an attempt to derail their adversary from building atomic weapons; and Iran retaliated. The Israeli strikes killed over 935 people in Iran, including several top Iranian security officials, and injured nearly 5,000 people, according to Iran’s health ministry. Iran’s retaliatory strikes killed over 20 people in Israel, and injured nearly 600 people, according to a statement released by Israeli officials.

In light of the Israeli strikes, President Trump claimed he gave Iran “chance after chance to make a deal,” ignoring the fact that he abandoned the landmark deal that was already in place with Iran. With his typical mix of self-congratulatoryself-absolvement, Trump then wrote on social media, “We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue!”

Said ‘diplomatic resolution’ then included the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, an act which Trump declared—with fallacious bluster and childish impetuousness—  “totally destroyed” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, though the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, contradicted Trump’s assertion, saying that Iran’s nuclear program was set back mere months.

Numerous national security and regional experts have assessed the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal as a reckless strategic mistake that undermined U.S. credibility, alienated the U.S. from its European allies, and increased the risks of war. Suzanne Maloney, the director of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution who has been researching and writing about Iran for decades, stated bluntly that “the American involvement in the strikes on Iran was the culmination of the decision Trump made in 2018 (to pull out of the deal) that left us in this dangerous escalatory moment with very few good options at the negotiating table.”

Iran has not agreed to a new deal with the Trump administration. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s friend and fellow real estate mogul, has been serving as the U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, leading negotiations with Iran. Witkoff’s lack of expertise, knowledge, and skill in this role has led to inconsistencies in the negotiations. Iranian officials state concerns about U.S. accountability on a new deal after Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA deal. Additional sticking points obstructing a new deal include: Iran asserting its right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes; Iran demanding sanctions relief; and Iran refusing to make any further concessions on its missile program, which it says is integral to its system of defense.

Israeli military leaders lament the disastrous consequences of Trump exiting the Iran deal, notwithstanding Trump’s claims of the U.S. being Israel’s “number one ally by far.” With tensions between Israel and Iran still inflamed, a full-blown regional war is within the realm of possibility. Further Israeli attacks on Iran could trigger retaliation from several regional terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iranian-backed Houthis, all of whom have conducted attacks on Israeli targets in the past. Moreover, Trump’s erasing of the stalwart, decade-long diplomatic effort by the Obama and Bush Administrations to hinder Iran’s nuclear ambitions could fuel a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. For example, Saudi Arabian leader Mohammed bin Salman has stated his country’s intentions to obtain a nuclear weapon if Iran, their longstanding foe, builds one.

Meanwhile, like some deranged carnival barker weighing in on a geopolitical conflict that his actions very well could have ignited, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “…we will have PEACE, soon, between Israel and Iran! I do a lot, and never get credit for anything, but that’s OK, the PEOPLE understand. MAKE THE MIDDLE EAST GREAT AGAIN!”

What the people understand is that a viable Iran nuclear deal was firmly in place before Trump ruined it without any foreseeable new deal in place. Trump then further undermined Americans’ safety and dignity by blabbing his way through the U.S. attacks on Iran with social media posts in real time.

Diplomatic solutions will indeed be imperative to quell the tensions between Israel and Iran in the days ahead and to avoid getting the U.S. embroiled in another catastrophic conflict in the Middle East. The pressure is on Trump to find a way to enact a new deal curtailing Iran’s nuclear program, because it was his withdrawal from the former deal that has precipitated the current crisis.

Engagement Resources: 

• The Council on Foreign Relations
  • An nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 1921 focused on U.S. foreign policy and international relations.
• Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
  • A research institution that analyzes “the dangerous consequences of an overly militarized American foreign policy and presents an alternative approach that

promotes local ownership and resolution of local issues”

• Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
  • Harvard Kennedy School’s hub of research, teaching, and training in international security and diplomacy, environmental and resource issues, and science and technology policy
• International Crisis Group
  • Independent organization working “to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world”