Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• mohamad sajjad esperi ¹
• Hamidreza Shirzad ²

¹ Ph.D Student, Public Policy, Islamic Azad University of Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor, International Relations, Faculty of Political Science, Islamic Azad University of Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
In general, limited access to resources and operating within a sanctioned environment can directly and indirectly produce numerous negative effects on the ability of a government to define its goals, requirements, and needs. Economic sanctions impact the target country in two primary ways: through the direct damage inflicted on its economy and through the explicit or implicit threats that accompany these sanctions. Even when not directly expressed, the element of threat plays a crucial role in influencing the target country’s behavior. The moral or reputational costs of complying with sanctions may be even greater than the material damages. This is why escalating sanctions to the point of political disruption or collapse can be considered justifiable. This raises key questions: What are the mechanisms and instruments of U.S. sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and how do they operate? In this respect, a hypothesis is that the U.S. government seeks to leverage its economic, technological, informational, and media power, along with the legal authority granted by Congress and the Treasury Department, to establish an international framework that both identifies and restricts Iran’s access to foreign resources. Simultaneously, this framework provides the necessary tools to enforce multilateral and unilateral sanctions against Iran.
Literature Review
U.S. sanctions against Iran has been a subject of several studies. For example, in the article “The Role of Congress and the US Treasury Department in Imposing Economic Sanctions Against the Islamic Republic of Iran (2010–2014),” Alavi and Amiri (2016) analyzed relevant legal documents and clauses. It concluded that, especially after 2010, the U.S. expanded the scope of its sanctions from unilateral to multilateral measures. They also argue that sanctions are considered a legal right of every country, particularly in economic relations. In another study titled “The Strategic Role of Congress in Determining US Policies Towards Iran During the Obama Era,” Dehshyar and Moradi (2017) examined the U.S. foreign policy process and highlighted the significant role of Congress. They analyzed Congress in two periods: before and after Barack Obama’s presidency. Overall, they found that there was a general consensus between Congress and the presidency regarding the purpose of sanctions against Iran. However, Congress and its internal divisions aimed to limit the president’s diplomatic authority on Iran and favored direct pressure on the country. Additionally, in “Legislative Diplomacy of the US Congress Towards the Islamic Republic of Iran: The Case Study of Sanctions,” Delavarpour-Aghdam and Dehghani-Firouzabadi (2017) based their theoretical framework on the neoconservative approach within Congress, which emphasizes the creation of adversarial strategies to protect public and national integrity. In this approach, preemptive diplomacy becomes active when the opposing actor’s power grows, and the emphasis on the Iranophobia project can be analyzed within this framework. They argued that Congress employed multiple levers in its foreign policy confrontation with Iran, including: legislative diplomacy through bills and resolutions; supervisory diplomacy through monitoring the implementation of laws; public parliamentary diplomacy via lobbying; issuing statements; communicating with intellectual and research centers; think tanks; and diplomatic consultations.
Materials and Methods
The present research employed a descriptive–analytical method. It used a documentary approach to collect the data, drawing on authentic texts, scientific and research articles, as well as resolutions, laws, and approvals related to the sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Results and Discussion
The idea of sanctions was first introduced by Johan Galton in “On the Effects of International Economic Sanctions, With Examples from the Case of Rhodesia” (1967). It was presented as a means to express dissatisfaction and deter certain behaviors of states. Economic sanctions can be categorized in terms of their objectives, the number of participating countries, and the scope of their economic coverage. In terms of objectives, sanctions are generally employed for three purposes: to control a government, to change a government’s behavior, or to change the type of government. Regarding the number of participating countries, sanctions may be unilateral, multilateral, or comprehensive. Unilateral sanctions are imposed by a single country, while comprehensive sanctions require a resolution from the U.N. Security Council and the activation of Article 41 of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. With respect to coverage, sanctions can be comprehensive or targeted. Comprehensive sanctions have broad, often uncontrollable effects, impacting all economic sectors and socio-demographic groups. Targeted sanctions, on the other hand, focus on specific economic activities and limit the scope of damage to particular social groups.
  Conclusion
The results indicated that America, while maintaining the primary function of sanctions (i.e., restraining and changing the behavior of the Iranian government), also seeks to use them as a means to undermine and potentially overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran. The impact of the U.S. sanctions mechanism is particularly evident in its two powerful institutions: Congress and the Treasury Department. On one hand, the influence of neoconservatives in Congress, especially after the September 11, has been increasingly exercised through preemptive diplomacy, using tools such as bills and resolutions, legal supervision of their implementation, and public and media diplomacy—all aimed at regulating and enforcing international sanctions against Iran. On the other hand, the U.S. Treasury Department, particularly through the Office of Foreign Assets Control, employs intelligence and legal mechanisms to identify, block, and neutralize Iran’s trade routes. Despite the undeniable and severe impacts of sanctions on Iranian society and the economy over the decades, several factors suggest that the effectiveness of this approach is now limited. The factors include the gradual intensification of sanctions due to the failure to achieve primary objectives, the continued resilience and unchanged behavior of the target, the challenges faced by the U.S. in securing the cooperation of other countries, and the lack of access to Iran’s markets in the global economic competitive environment. Moreover, efforts by other states - particularly emerging economic powers - to engage with Iran’s economy and increase their market share, coupled with Iran’s growing ability to develop alternative tools and pathways to circumvent sanctions, further reduce their overall effectiveness. Consequently, while sanctions continue to influence Iran, their efficiency and impact are likely to change fundamentally compared to previous years, and their future application may undergo significant changes.

Keywords

• Sanction
• Media
• American Conservatives
• Congress
• Department of Treasury

Main Subjects

• International Relations