Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1665456310-scaled

Iran needs sanctions relief

Not only are U.S. sanctions preventing Iran access to needed medical goods amid the coronavirus pandemic, but they're also restricting the Iran from offering economic and social relief.

Analysis | Washington Politics

For those countries in the midst of the catastrophic coronavirus epidemic, the loss of lives will be measured not just by those afflicted by the disease but also those whose lives were (or became) entirely reliant on some form of social or governmental support that proved absent when needed most, particularly as the epidemic caused economic stress and eventual recession. For all the apparent failures of the U.S.’s own federal response to the coronavirus epidemic, the U.S. federal government has still taken drastic action, including passage of legislation providing a social safety net for those affected by the epidemic, a $1.5 trillion injection of liquidity into financial markets, and a probable military deployment in the homeland.

However, some of those countries most afflicted by this epidemic will be unable to take similarly necessary action — and the United States bears chief responsibility. Nowhere will that be more apparent than with Iran, where the pace of infection and death accelerates by the day.

Since May 2018, Iran has been the subject of “maximum pressure,” a strategy whose design is intended to cause deep social unrest, economic collapse, and a change in government. U.S. sanctions have caused Iran’s oil exports — its chief source of export revenue — to fall to close to zero, and have targeted those remaining productive sectors of Iran’s economy that bring in revenue. The result has been that Iran’s banks and its industries are cut off from the world, and Iran’s government is starved of the export revenue needed to fund social programs at home.

Already, prior to the coronavirus epidemic, U.S. sanctions had caused a deep and lasting economic depression in Iran, as Iran’s GDP fell by close to 10 percent in 2019 and was set for little recovery in the year ahead. This collapse has led to the hollowing of Iran’s export revenue, which is — like other oil-exporting countries — the primary means by which Iran funds economic and social programs designed to provide assistance to those most in need at home. By imposing a unilateral blockade of the Iranian economy, the Trump administration undermines the ability of Iran’s government to provide for its own people — an intended effect whose hoped-for consequence is an explosion in social unrest.

In normal times, this has tragic consequences for the average Iranian. It is not hyperbole to state that U.S. sanctions since the end of the Bush administration have caused a “lost generation” in Iran, as an entire group of young people, as talented and cosmopolitan as any in the Middle East, have been cut off from the outside world, have had their economic prospects undermined at every turn, and remain stymied from fulfilling their full human and economic potential. As much as those responsible for instituting U.S. sanctions wish to blame Iran for these consequences, the fact is that Iran’s “lost generation” is a consequence of the U.S.’s policy choices, not Iran’s.

But in times like these, where an epidemic has caused Iran to be lit afire with suffering, U.S. sanctions will be a significant added stress for the average Iranian in the days ahead. There is no doubt that Iran’s government failed in its response to the epidemic, but — contrary to what we may have thought not long ago — its response was not so unlike those in the West, including the U.S., which itself appears mere days or weeks from the same tragic circumstances as those that face Iran today. But even if Iran’s government wanted to make the right choices in the days ahead, it is unable to do so, as U.S. sanctions prevent Iran from providing the kind of economic and social safety nets that will become a routinized action for governments around the world. Even if it were a bastion of beneficence, Iran’s government would still remain barred from ensuring the average Iranian — who will face enormous deprivation as the country shutters what remains of its economy — has the economic and social support necessary to sustain day-to-day life.

Most critics of U.S. sanctions miss this fundamental point: U.S. sanctions are doing much more than preventing Iran from importing the medicine and medical goods that it may need to tackle the virus. U.S. sanctions are proving a prohibitive bar to Iran providing the basic goods and services necessary for their people to survive this catastrophic epidemic.

There is no way to make Iran ‘whole’ and ensure that Iran’s government can provide the economic support needed to sustain its population of 80 million people. But there remains a humane path, one that involves the Trump administration providing immediate (if temporary) relief from U.S. sanctions, including sanctions on Iran’s financial sector, its oil sector, and all other productive sectors of Iran’s economy. Even as we all face global recession, permitting Iran some export revenue and allowing those productive sectors of Iran’s economy to sustain work for Iran’s people will have a significant, if measured, effect on Iranian lives.

In the absence of such relief, U.S. sanctions will continue to be cruelly and coldly calculated to cause as much human pain for the Iranian people as possible. The choice is clear.


Billboard in Tehran offers advice on preventing disease spread. Photo credit: Farzad Frames / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Washington Politics
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

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.