Are Iran Sanctions an Ethical Alternative to War?

Since the rise of recent Iran protests after the killing of Mahsa Amini and subsequent violent crackdowns at the hands of Iranian officials, the international community has employed a range of responses. The United States stalled highly-anticipated nuclear negotiations, the United Nations Human Rights Council held a special session on the situation in Iran and new economic sanctions, travel bans, and asset freezes were applied to many individuals and companies with ties to the Iranian government.

These actions are not new developments — since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the international community has applied various economic, trade and military sanctions against Iran with efforts spearheaded mainly by the United States. Reasons cited for sanctions include Iran’s nuclear program, the backing of the Houthis in the Yemeni Civil War and support for designated terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.  

As a result of sanctions, Iran has experienced a drastic reduction in oil revenue, billions of dollars of frozen foreign assets and almost complete exclusion from the global financial system due to sanctions on banks. Economic sanctions against Iran from the United States can be divided into two categories: primary sanctions, which prevent U.S. citizens and entities from engaging in economic activity with Iran, and secondary sanctions, which bar non-American entities from engaging in business with Iran if they want a presence in the United States. Due to secondary sanctions, multinational corporations do not operate in Iran due to the risk of being banned from the American market.

The European Union and International Atomic Energy Agency have imposed their own sanctions on the Iranian regime due to unauthorized nuclear activity. In 2007, the European Union froze all assets of individuals with ties to Iran’s nuclear program, and in 2010, they joined the U.S. policy of banning all transactions with Iranian financial institutions. However, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action lifted some sanctions against Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. Initially a party to the deal, the United States withdrew in 2018, citing national security concerns.

These sanctions have resulted in broad economic and humanitarian consequences. Since 2018, the Iranian currency has lost 50 percent of its value against the U.S. dollar, prompting inflation and higher living costs for citizens. And while American sanctions theoretically exempt humanitarian imports, many medical companies over-comply with these sanctions out of fear of retaliation and penalties from the U.S. government, resulting in severe shortages of medications and raw materials for medical production. 

According to Idriss Jazairy, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Effects of Sanctions on Human Rights, under economic sanctions, “people die but from lack of food and medicine, rather than from explosive devices.” Unfortunately, this has been true in practice. After the United Nations Security Council imposed economic sanctions and a complete trade embargo on Iraq in 1990 due to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, an estimated 1.2 million Iraqis were killed due to malnutrition and disease — 500,000 of whom were children. Jazairy also argued that sanctions deserve the same recognition and concern in the international community as any act of war.

These negative humanitarian effects are not an unprecedented consequence. After new U.S. sanctions were imposed in 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted that “things are much worse for the Iranian people, and we are convinced that will lead the Iranian people to rise up and change the behavior of the regime.” This lends credence to the idea that economic sanctions are a form of collective punishment — punishments imposed on a group for the actions of individuals. This practice is regarded as a violation of international human rights law and illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. 

Secondary sanctions imposed by the United States have been exceptionally controversial in international law due to their extraterritorial jurisdiction, and other major global powers have tried to mitigate their economic effects. After the 2018 JCPOA withdrawal, the European Commission issued a Blocking Statute, declaring U.S. Iran sanctions illegal. Businesses based in Europe became explicitly prohibited from complying with the U.S. sanctions and could recover damages from U.S. restrictions on legitimate business with Iran. 

Finally, sanctions as a foreign policy tool evoke broader questions regarding the morality of international intervention. Since the end of World War II and the advent of a new, post-Westphalian world order, the international community has taken on the responsibility of monitoring and upholding human rights through military intervention, sanctions and prosecution in international courts. But to what degree should this responsibility be applied — and are sanctions that worsen civilian conditions in the name of human rights hypocritical?

Despite their prominent role in modern foreign policy, there are few examples of sanctions eliciting their desired political response. Sanctions failed to make Saddam Hussein withdraw from Kuwait, unseat Fidel Castro, convince Haiti’s junta to honor democratic election results or prevent India and Pakistan from testing nuclear weapons. Despite mounting sanctions against Iran, the violent suppression of protests has not abated — Iranian courts have begun to issue death sentences for those with links to the protests. 

As history has demonstrated, economic sanctions are an ineffective political measure that comes at an extreme civilian cost. While carefully calculated sanctions against specific industries or government officials may be a useful foreign policy tool, utilizing sanctions in the fashion of the United States — as an economic blockade spanning decades and forcing civilians to bear the effects — is an undeniable human rights infringement. Sanctions are not a flippant, inconsequential measure to respond to issues seen as not important enough to justify military operations — in some cases, they are more impactful than any act of war.