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
Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaking wit… | Flickr

Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten

Media


Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

keep readingShow less
Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

Peter Thiel attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 6, 2022. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

QiOSK

The trouble with doing business with Israel — or any foreign government — is you can't really say anything when they do terrible things with technology that you may or may not have sold to them, or hope to sell to them, or hope to sell in your own country.

Such was the case with Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies, in this recently surfaced video, talking to the Cambridge Union back in May. See him stumble and stutter and buy time when asked what he thought about the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Israeli military in a targeting program called "Lavender" — which we now know has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of innocent Palestinians since Oct 7. (See investigation here).

keep readingShow less
Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Committee chairman Jack Reed (D-RI), left, looks on as co-chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President Biden's proposed budget request for the Department of Defense on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Military Industrial Complex

Now that both political parties have seemingly settled upon their respective candidates for the 2024 presidential election, we have an opportune moment to ask a rather fundamental question about our nation’s defense spending: how much is enough?

Back in May, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, penned an op-ed in the New York Times insisting the answer was not enough at all. Wicker claimed that the nation wasn’t prepared for war — or peace, for that matter — that our ships and fighter-jet fleets were “dangerously small” and our military infrastructure “outdated.” So weak our defense establishment and so dangerous the world right now, Wicker pressed, the nation ought to “spend an additional $55 billion on the military in the 2025 fiscal year.”

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

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.