The President of the United States, Donald Trump, announced a 25% tariff for countries that maintain trade relations with Iran, a measure that could affect Brazil’s trade, but also in a second moment the political-diplomatic field, according to an analysis by Fernanda Magnotta in CNN 360°.
Magnotta explained that the new measure represents what experts call “”, functioning as a punishment for nations that do business with countries already sanctioned by the US. In the Brazilian case, although there is direct commercial exposure, the most significant impact must occur in diplomatic relations.
Economic versus diplomatic impact
In the economic field, Brazil exports products such as corn, soybeans, sugar and bran to Iran, while it imports urea, among other items. Despite this, Magnotta highlights that the volume of trade with the US is approximately 13 times greater than that with Iran, which puts the country in a delicate position to choose sides.
“When it comes to buying this fight, who are we going to displease economically, perhaps Brazil will have to make the choice of harming some more specific sectors to the detriment of once again exposing the Brazilian economy to the problem of tariffs that we have known very well since last year”, explained the analyst.
The challenge of the “diplomatic tightrope walker”
The situation becomes even more complicated in the political-diplomatic field, where Brazil has adopted a cautious stance. On the one hand, the country seeks to maintain good relations with the United States, a fundamental trading partner. On the other hand, Iran is a member of Brics Plus, a bloc of which Brazil is also a member.
“Brazil has to remain, in a certain way, as a kind of double agent in this situation. It is almost a tightrope walker”, observed Magnotta. “You have to condemn Iran’s excesses and, therefore, take the place of the West and, of course, the United States in this sense. So, you cannot pick a fight with the Americans, but at the same time you cannot be too emphatic in condemning the regime because the regime in theory is part of an allied geopolitical bloc.”
The Brazilian, this Tuesday (13), about the situation reflects this ambiguous stance. According to the analyst, the document was late and sought to balance criticism of violence against protesters in Iran, without directly attacking the Iranian government, while also defending external non-interference in the sovereign affairs of other countries – an indirect message to the United States.
Magnotta concludes that, although in the short term the losses may be occasional for Brazilian foreign trade, the real challenge is in the long term: “How will Brazil be interpreted by these two sides, since inevitably in situations like this there comes a time when tension comes to the surface in a more abrupt way and we are called upon to have to take a clearer position.”
