Follow us on social

48122940472_ab6304656a_o-scaled

US sanctions make it harder to fight COVID-19

Suspending all sanctions now will not only help combat the coronavirus, but it will also create the conditions to resolve our differences diplomatically.

Analysis | Washington Politics

As the United States works to contain the catastrophic COVID-19 pandemic, resorting to extraordinary measures to limit health and economic damage to its own population, it should also suspend economic sanctions that are making it harder for some countries to fight COVID-19 and keep their citizens safe.

The mostly unilateral economic sanctions and export controls imposed by the United States affect 48 countries, home to a third of the world’s population. Eight of those countries, with the great majority of the affected population, say that the sanctions are undermining their response to COVID-19.

Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba are under the most severe economic sanctions and face extreme risk of health, economic, and security failure, especially now. Expanding these sanctions on Iran during a pandemic, as the U.S. is threatening, is cruel.

Of these countries, Iran has been hit hardest by the pandemic – with over 114,000 confirmed infections and 6,800 deaths – and the numbers are rising rapidly. Other countries, including Syria, are reporting unrealistically low numbers of infections and deaths because they do not have the ability to test or are wary of unfavorable public reaction. A devastating eight-year war, that forced displacement of half of its population and severe sanctions combine to make Syria terribly vulnerable to a catastrophic spread of the epidemic.

Though reported cases in the occupied Palestinian territories are still less than 400, Palestinian authorities are also severely hampered in their effort to control COVID-19 because of the Israeli siege of Gaza and cuts in U.S. financial contributions, which are in essence another form of sanctions.

Most sanctions regimes provide for “humanitarian exceptions” to accommodate the provision of goods and services to the civilian population of countries affected by sanctions. However, the exception rarely works because the web of sanctions is often too complex for humanitarian organizations to navigate without violating one provision or another.

For humanitarian reasons, it’s time for the U.S. to suspend sanctions that affect the target nation’s health sector broadly. This would be a gesture of compassion in an extraordinary worldwide crisis, permitting the leaders of countries and international organizations to assist civilian populations under extreme threat. These measures should remain in effect for the duration of the health crisis – and extend beyond the crisis where possible.

An uncontrolled spread of COVID-19 in countries under sanction will have a ripple effect. In an April 5 statement, a bipartisan group of American and European national security leaders urged the U.S. government to ease sanctions on Iran, arguing, “We must remember that an outbreak anywhere impacts people everywhere. … reaching across borders to save lives is imperative for our own security and must override political differences among governments.”

Such measures are not unprecedented. In 2003, during a period of high tensions between the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. military sent planeloads of relief supplies to the government of Iran after an earthquake struck the city of Bam. In 1988, the U.S. sent aid to the Soviet Union for the first time since the 1940s when an earthquake hit Soviet Armenia.

In addition to the obvious health benefits, lifting sanctions could help thaw the icy relations between the U.S. and adversaries, opening doors for peace with some. On March 23, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres called for waiving international sanctions around the world, stating “this is the time for solidarity not exclusion.” He added, “The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war,” calling for a global ceasefire “in all corners of the world” to make it easier to fight the pandemic. Some warring parties have responded positively to the call.

The goodwill generated by suspending or easing sanctions would only save lives, it could also be the catalyst for peace talks. Chances for peace would increase if countries benefiting from sanctions relief reciprocated by at least temporarily ceasing war activities, releasing prisoners and hostages, initiating dialogue, or taking other meaningful steps toward resolving disputes.

The time to act is now; sanctions are impeding the effort to fight COVID-19. Suspending sanctions is both the compassionate and the smart thing to do.


President Donald J. Trump displays his signature on an Executive Order to place further sanctions on Iran Monday, June 24, 2019, in the Oval Office of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)
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.