Follow us on social

Secretary_of_the_treasury_steven_mnuchin_and_secretary_of_state_mike_pompeo_participate_in_a_press_conference_49379915306

Why Biden shouldn’t fall for the ‘sanctions wall’ trap on Iran

As the Trump administration wanes, regime change fanatics are throwing everything they can at Iran trying to prevent Biden from returning to the nuclear deal.

Analysis | Middle East

Faced with a countdown on its tenure in office, the Trump administration is accelerating efforts to bar President-elect Biden from returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the nuclear accord between the United States, other major world powers, and Iran — and to cement the U.S.-Iran relationship into one of perpetual conflict.

Soon after news agencies called the presidential election for Joe Biden, Axios reported that the Trump administration was preparing a so-called “flood” of sanctions on Iran in the coming weeks. Consistent this move, the Special Envoy for Iran and Venezuela Elliott Abrams traveled to Israel to help strategize with the Netanyahu government on the proposed sanctions on Iran. According to an Israeli source, “The goal is to slap as many sanctions as possible on Iran until January 20.”

None of this surprising. Ever since the U.S.’s cessation of its participation in the JCPOA, the Trump administration has sought to render permanent the state of alienation between the U.S. and Iran, precluding any successor administration from either returning to the JCPOA or entering a new diplomatic agreement in its place. Figuring prominently in this strategy is the so-called “sanctions wall,” the term coined by Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which has, as its express purpose, to politically frustrate any successor administration that dares consider lifting sanctions imposed on Iran.

To effectuate this “sanctions wall,” the Trump administration has imposed sanctions on broad sectors of Iran’s economy, as well as its largest banks and companies, under non-nuclear-related authorities, including the U.S.’s counterterrorism sanctions authority. This includes, as an example, sanctions on Iran’s financial sector and its aluminum, construction, copper, iron, mining, manufacturing, steel, and textile sectors, as well as on Iran’s central bank, Bank Melli, Bank Mellat, Bank Tejarat, and Bank Parsian. If, the theory goes, the Biden administration is scared off politically from lifting these sanctions, then the United States will be unable to return to the nuclear accord; that accord will collapse absent its necessary party; and escalating conflict between the United States and Iran will prove the name of the game moving forward.

The so-called “flood” of sanctions being prepared in the coming weeks is more of the same. These sanctions are not designed to change Iran’s behavior or to deter it from conduct anathema to U.S. interests. Instead, the whole point of the sanctions is to set a trap for the Biden administration.

The Biden administration would do well not to fall into this trap. Absent immediate steps to undo the damage wrought by Trump and reinvigorate the JCPOA through a compliance-for-compliance agreement with Iran, President Biden will face the same crisis that prevailed in the lead-up to the JCPOA where Iran’s nuclear program built in step with U.S. sanctions. Only this time, the one exit from this escalatory cycle — a political agreement to deescalate and calm tensions between the two countries — will be foreclosed.

In a matter of weeks, President Biden will take office facing a historic pandemic and a ravaged economy, as hundreds of thousands of Americans have died and millions have been left jobless because of the indifference of the Trump administration. In tackling this, the Biden administration will be dealing with arguably the gravest national security threat facing this country since President Lincoln’s inauguration in 1861.

It would thus behoove President Biden not to add to the stress that his administration will be under in its opening months by delaying a compliance-for-compliance agreement with Iran and lifting all those sanctions imposed in bad faith by the Trump administration. To do otherwise risks a most unnecessary choice — that between acceding to a growing Iranian nuclear program or launching the opening salvo of a devasting military conflict in the Middle East. 


Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo participate in a press conference to announce an Executive Order authorizing the imposition of new sanctions against Iran, Friday, Jan. 10, 2020, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks)
Analysis | Middle East
Bernie Sanders Chris Van Hollen
Top image credit: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a press conference regarding legislation that would block offensive U.S. weapons sales to Israel, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., November 19, 2024. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
Will Senate vote signal a wider shift away from Israel?

Can Bernie stop billions in new US weapons going to Israel?

Middle East

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz have been roundly criticized for the security lapse that put journalist Jeffrey Goldberg into a Signal chat where administration officials discussed bombing Houthi forces in Yemen, to the point where some, like Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) have called for their resignations.

But the focus on the process ignores the content of the conversation, and the far greater crime of continuing to provide weapons that are inflaming conflicts in the Middle East and enabling Israel’s war on Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians.

keep readingShow less
Friedrich Merz
Top photo credit: German Prime Minister-in-waiting Friedrich Merz (Shutterstock.Penofoto)

German leaders miscalculated popular will for war spending

Europe

Recent polls show the center right Christian Democrats (CDU-CSU) headed by prospective chancellor Friedrich Merz losing ground against the populist right Alternative for Germany (AfD), even before the new government has been formed.

The obvious explanation is widespread popular dissatisfaction with last month’s vote pressed through the outgoing parliament by the CDU-CSU and presumptive coalition partner the SPD (with the Greens) to allow unlimited increases in defense spending. This entailed disabling the constitutional “debt brake” introduced in 2009 to curb deficits and public debt.

keep readingShow less
Is US bombing Somalia just because it can?
Top Image Credit: The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), foreground, leads a formation of Carrier Strike Group Five ships as Air Force B-52 Stratofortress aircraft and Navy F/A-18 Hornet aircraft pass overhead for a photo exercise during Valiant Shield 2018 in the Philippine Sea Sept. 17, 2018. The biennial, U.S. only, field-training exercise focuses on integration of joint training among the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. This is the seventh exercise in the Valiant Shield series that began in 2006. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Erwin Miciano)

Is US bombing Somalia just because it can?

QiOSK

U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) conducted an airstrike in Somalia against ISIS targets on Saturday, killing “multiple ISIS-Somalia operatives.” It was the eighth such strike in the short time that Trump has been in office, reflecting a quiet, but deadly American campaign in a part, of the world that remains far below the public radar.

“AFRICOM, alongside the Federal Government of Somalia and Somali Armed Forces, continues to take action to degrade ISIS-Somalia's ability to plan and conduct attacks that threaten the U.S. homeland, our forces, and our civilians abroad,” a Sunday AFRICOM press release stated.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.