Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1671646360-scaled

The immoral cruelty of the Trump administration’s refusal to grant Iran sanctions relief amid its COVID-19 crisis

Not only is the Trump administration refusing to help, it has also increased sanctions on Iran.

Analysis | Washington Politics

There is a growing consensus that — to prevent Iran from spiraling out of control from the coronavirus epidemic and causing untold harm to the Iranian people — the Trump administration must immediately relent in its use of sanctions and allow Iran the ability to combat the epidemic through the purchase of necessary medical supplies overseas and the provision of a robust social safety net for the average Iranian facing economic catastrophe.

On Tuesday, the Trump administration responded to these calls by increasing sanctions on Iran with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accusing “[t]he Iranian leadership [of] trying to avoid responsibility for their grossly incompetent and deadly governance” and by alleging that “[t]he Wuhan virus is a killer and the Iranian regime is an accomplice.” Perhaps Secretary Pompeo would have some fair ground to stand on if not for the fact that the Trump administration’s own response to the epidemic will prove the most consequential failure of the modern American presidency, leading to the unnecessary deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Americans. But Secretary Pompeo — acting consistent with protocol — lacked the shame to recognize his own failings and instead used the Iranian people’s suffering from an unrelenting medical crisis to further propagandize against Iran.

Secretary Pompeo offered a few throwaway lines on the U.S.’s willingness to assist the Iranian people in their time of immense and unmitigated suffering, stating that the Trump administration “continue[s] to offer assistance to Iran in numerous ways” and citing “an open humanitarian channel to facilitate legitimate transactions even while ensuring [the U.S.’s] maximum pressure campaign denies terrorists money.” But these offers of assistance, if real at all, amount to little more than a cruel joke so long as the Trump administration targets all productive sectors of Iran’s economy with sanctions, denies Iran the ability to accrue and repatriate any export revenue, and severs Iran’s access to global markets for sanctionable and non-sanctionable goods alike, including medicine and medical supplies.

Untold numbers of Iranians will succumb to the disease, and some because Iran lacks the medical capacity, including the medical equipment, necessary to provide care for all who acquire the virus. Iran’s medical sector has long been in turmoil, and U.S. sanctions are a chief reason for this. But, as tragic as this will be — and some analysts suggest that the death toll in Iran from coronavirus could reach the millions before all is said and done — the fate of those who survive the disease will be hardly better, as Iran faces absolute economic ruin in the months ahead. While other countries, including the United States, provide for far broader social safety nets and adopt macroeconomic policies to buffer key industries from collapse, Iran will be prevented from doing so due entirely to U.S. sanctions. Iran, which was already in the midst of a massive economic recession, will be presumptively barred from providing a safety net for their people through these catastrophic times.

Some in Washington rejoice at this prospect. For them, what matters is that Iran is kept weak. Watching Iranian society spiral out of control and the country start to tear at the seams is a blessing in their estimation — a sign that “maximum pressure” worked to achieve at least some of its objectives. For this reason, hawks are urging the Trump administration to avoid “bailing out the mullahs,” in their racist-speak, by lifting sanctions or permitting the International Monetary Fund to extend a loan so that Iran can purchase the medical supplies it needs to combat the virus. Iranian suffering, after all, is the necessary byproduct of keeping Iran weak, isolated, and alien to itself and the world.

Such depravity has no limits. Not only is the Trump administration’s policy to Iran wrongheaded and ignorant, it is also fundamentally immoral — and nowhere has this been more clear than in the present crisis. Holding an entire people hostage in the moment of their deepest crisis is what the most thuggish of regimes do the world over. Yet that is the policy Secretary Pompeo advances towards Iran today.


Ambulance drivers in Tehran (Photo credit: Amir Mardani/Shutterstock.com)
Analysis | Washington Politics
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.