Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Parviz Delirpoor ¹
• Mohsen Nasresfahani ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Islamic Studies Department, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
In recent decades, international sanctions have become one of the most important instruments of foreign policy used by major powers and international institutions. Sanctions not only put pressure on the target country’s economy, but also affect social structures, national cohesion, political legitimacy, and even geopolitical orientation. Therefore, examining the responses and coping strategies of states under sanctions is both a scholarly and a practical necessity. In this respect, the present study aimed to examine the factors shaping states’ resilience to sanctions, with a particular focus on economic structure, governance quality, and geopolitical context. It relied on a combination of frameworks drawn from international political economy and international law to examine the key variables of governance, diversification, social cohesion, legitimacy, and geopolitical position. The study pursued two hypotheses: (1) states with diversified economies, strong institutions, and support from allies are better able to mitigate the effects of sanctions; and (2) unilateral sanctions imposed without broad international consensus primarily inflict social harm, while governments’ ability to mobilize domestic resources largely determines resilience.
Literature Review
Most research on sanctions has focused on single-country case studies, with relatively little comparative analysis. However, there are a few studies in the Persian-language scholarship. For example, in “Comparing Effects of US Sanctions Against Iran and Venezuela During Donald Trump’s Presidency and Analyzing Economic Impacts,” Avarideh et al. (2023) argued that Venezuela was more vulnerable because of its dependence on oil and its weak institutions. In “A Study of Venezuelan Oil Trade Sanctions Strategies and Policies and Its Comparison With Iranian Strategies,” Razavi and Pirani (2021) emphasized counter-sanctions tools in the oil trade, such as swaps and small refineries, while Aghaei et al. (2018) highlighted the importance of market diversification and regional capacities in their article titled “Investigating the Impact of Economic and Trade Sanctions on the Trade Relations Between Iran and Its Major Trading Partner Countries”.
Several English-language studies also dealt with the issue. For instance, in Busted Sanctions: Explaining Why Economic Sanctions Fail, Early (2015) argued that sanctions often fail because states develop alternative trade networks and alliances. The Art of Sanctions: A View From the Field (Nephew, 2017) analyzed sanctions as negotiation tools that require precise design. In another study titled Russia’s Response to Sanctions: How Western Economic Statecraft Is Reshaping Political Economy in Russia, Connolly (2018) showed that Russia reduced the impact of sanctions through import substitution and trade diversification. In Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, Hufbauer et al. (2007) found that the success of sanctions is limited and highly context-specific. In addition, the report titled Iran Sanction (Katzman, 2020) compared Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, emphasizing the role of political structures and support from allies.
The current study’s novelty lies in three main contributions: a systematic comparison of four countries, a focus on coping strategies rather than only economic outcomes, and an interdisciplinary approach that combines political science, international economics, and security studies to provide a more comprehensive understanding of sanctions dynamics.
Materials and Methods
As a comparative inquiry, this study employed most different systems design (MDSD) to examine Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba under sanctions during the period 1995–2025. The theoretical framework was drawn from international political economy and international law. While the former emphasizes diversification, institutions, and access to alternative markets, the latter highlights legitimacy and international consensus. Relying on official documents and existing literature, the study analyzed institutional capacity, geopolitical context, coping strategies, and sociopolitical impacts, with particular attention to economic diversification, governance quality, and social cohesion.
Results and Discussion
Despite their different contexts, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba show notable similarities in their strategies of resistance. Iran has faced oil and financial sanctions; Russia has relied on import substitution; Venezuela has struggled with a severe economic crisis; and Cuba has endured decades of sanctions. Yet each has followed a distinct path. In all four cases, however, there is clear evidence of efforts to delegitimize unilateral sanctions and to build alternative external relationships. Although the circumstances of confrontation vary, the strategies of resilience and their outcomes reveal important common patterns.
Since the 2000s, Iran has developed a degree of resilience through barter trade, the use of local currencies, and greater reliance on domestic industries. Russia has managed inflation and employment by promoting import substitution, expanding exports to Asia, and strengthening domestic financial networks. Since 2017, Venezuela has adopted measures such as discounted oil sales and the use of digital currency, though with limited success. Cuba, despite declining production and low economic growth, has preserved key human development indicators through social cohesion, tourism, and ties with China and Russia. All four states reject the legitimacy of unilateral sanctions, and Cuba, in particular, submits an annual resolution to the United Nations on the issue. Overall, the evidence suggests that governance quality, economic diversification, and social cohesion are the principal determinants of resilience.
Table 1. A Comparative View of Positions of Four Countries in Facing International Sanctions




Criterion


Iran


Russia


Venezuela


Cuba




Start of severe sanctions


2000s and 2010s; Iran’s nuclear file


2014 (Crimea) and 2022 (Ukraine)


2017 (political crisis)


Ideological disputes with the U.S. since 1960




Type and scope of sanctions


UN Security Council, U.S., EU; oil, finance, technology


U.S., EU; finance, technology, energy


U.S., EU; oil, financial, individual sanctions


U.S.; trade, finance, investment




 
 
Table 1. …




Criterion


Iran


Russia


Venezuela


Cuba




Main economic dependence


Oil and gas


Oil, gas, metals, agriculture


Oil


Tourism, medical services, and agriculture




Coping strategies


Barter trade, use of local/digital currencies, development of domestic industries, Asian diplomacy


Import substitution, redirecting exports to Asia


Use of intermediaries, discounted oil sales, digital currencies, alliances with partners


Tourism, medical services, expansion of relations with China and Russia




Economic–social consequences


Inflation, currency depreciation, recession, growth of substitute industries


Short-term recession, inflation control, employment preservation


Hyperinflation, shortages of goods, mass migration of citizens


Low growth, chronic shortages, preservation of human development indicators




International legal position


Opposition to unilateral sanctions


Opposition to unilateral sanctions


Opposition to unilateral sanctions


Opposition to unilateral sanctions; annual resolutions proposed at the UN General Assembly




Conclusion
Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba have each faced sanctions in different contexts, yet they have displayed similar coping patterns. Iran, heavily dependent on oil, experienced inflation and recession but achieved partial resilience through barter trade, the use of local currencies, and domestic industries. Russia, sanctioned after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and again following the war in Ukraine in 2022, stabilized inflation and employment through import substitution, expanded exports to Asia, and strengthened domestic financial networks. Venezuela, under sanctions since 2017, has suffered hyperinflation, shortages, and mass migration, while its coping strategies have yielded only limited results. Cuba, under sanctions since 1960, has faced chronic shortages and low growth but has maintained key human development indicators through social cohesion, tourism, medical services, and ties with China and Russia. All four states reject the legitimacy of unilateral sanctions.
The study concludes that resilience to sanctions depends less on material resources than on governance quality, domestic legitimacy, and the capacity to redefine international relationships. Social support policies, investment in technology, and active economic diplomacy can reduce short-term damage while strengthening long-term prospects for reconstruction and growth. Accordingly, the policy recommendation emphasizes the need for economic diversification, stronger institutional capacity, and the design of multilayered strategies for sustainable coping with external pressures.

Keywords

• Sanctions
• Resilience
• Governance Quality
• Institutional Capacity
• Legitimacy
• Geopolitics
• International Political Economy

Main Subjects

• Political economy