Follow us on social

Shutterstock_512559421-scaled

Bush and Obama eased sanctions on Iran during humanitarian crises, why isn't Trump?

Crippling U.S. sanctions are severely impeding Iranian efforts to combat the coronavirus, compelling Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to ask the United Nations for help.

Analysis | Middle East

The coronavirus is fast spreading around the world and Iran is now one of the main epicenters of this pandemic. The virus first started to spread in the holy city of Qom, Iran’s main religious town that is located just 90 miles from Tehran. After neglecting and dismissing the danger of the outbreak at the beginning, Iranian officials have finally started to take the situation seriously. Schools and colleges have been closed for the next month, Friday prayers have been canceled, and people are encouraged to avoid public places and stay at home. But the virus still seems to be quickly spreading.

With over 11,000 cases confirmed across Iran and at least 514 dead, the outbreak is increasingly growing by the day and sources inside the country suggest that the actual numbers are much higher.

In many cities and provinces, hospitals are overcrowded with special-care units at full capacity. Iranian health workers, doctors, and nurses are working around the clock at the frontlines of the fight against the virus, risking their own lives in dealing with a shortage of essential supplies, medical equipment, and test kits. And U.S. economic sanctions imposed on Iran are one of the key reasons for the shortage of supplies.

The dire situation has now compelled Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to send a letter to United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, asking for the immediate lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran, saying they have made it virtually impossible for Iran to import medicine and medical equipment necessary to identify and treat coronavirus patients.

Although sanctions technically do not ban food, medicine, and humanitarian trade, many companies and banks are reluctant to engage in any business with Iran, particularly when hawkish groups in the U.S. engage in name-and-shame operations that are even directed at healthcare related industries.

Doctors and health officials in Iran, as well as international aid organizations have raised the alarm on how sanctions have limited Iran’s access to much-needed medical supplies to deal with the outbreak.

“The situation here is hard and we do what we can, but clearly sanctions have destroyed the ability of the domestic suppliers to procure internationally,” one international aid worker in Tehran told me, adding, “We need to be able to re-establish normal business links for the private sector at least for the medical items, as this is about the life and death of patients.”

In August 2012, after deadly earthquakes hit several villages in northwestern Iran, a bipartisan group of lawmakers urged then-President Barack Obama to ease sanctions on Iran to make sure humanitarian aid got to the Iranian people in their time of need. The Treasury Department issued a temporary license that allowed NGOs to transfer funds up to $300,000 to Iran to be used for humanitarian relief and reconstruction related to the earthquake.

In December 2003 a devastating earthquake in the ancient city of Bam in southern Iran killed thousands and injured many more. Then-President George W. Bush temporarily eased sanctions on Iran to allow humanitarian aid to get in, including supplies from the United States. Multiple U.S. military planes landed in Iran for the first time since the 1979 revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis that ended diplomatic ties between the two countries. The cargo planes transferred over 150,000 pounds of medical supplies and more than 200 civilian personnel from Boston, Los Angeles, and Fairfax County in Virginia, to assist Iran in search and rescue, emergency surgery, and disaster response coordination.

Since Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and imposed sanctions, Washington and Tehran have been on a collision course and the Trump administration has offered no such help to the Iranian people.

Pouya Alimagham, a historian at MIT, told me that if the goal was to sanction Iran until it accepts a better nuclear deal that includes its missile program and regional issues, then the Trump administration has achieved the opposite — increased Iranian uranium enrichment, missile launches against U.S. bases in Iraq by Iranian-linked militias after the U.S. assassination of General Qassem Soleimani earlier this year, and no change in Iranian foreign policy. Mr. Alimagham added that in fact, the two countries nearly started an all-out war over Soleimani's killing. In sum, the sanctions have been a total failure, and have exacted an immeasurable toll on regular Iranians — a toll that has now been compounded with the new coronavirus outbreak.

The current pandemic could provide an opportunity for President Trump to make a humanitarian gesture towards Iran. He should ease sanctions to allow aid and medical supplies to get into Iran in order to help contain the epicenter of the disease in the Middle East and slow one of the largest outbreaks of this deadly virus. This may open the door for future dialogue that could finally get Tehran and Washington out of this impasse.


Photo credit: Gabriel Petrescu / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.