fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

The Futility and Stupidity of Iran Sanctions

Hooman Majd reminds us that sanctions on Iran are needlessly hurting the civilian population: Western sanctions, once “targeted” and now blanket, are turning into a form of collective punishment. They are designed, we are told, to force the Islamic government to return to the nuclear negotiating table. Western politicians also seem to believe that punishing […]

Hooman Majd reminds us that sanctions on Iran are needlessly hurting the civilian population:

Western sanctions, once “targeted” and now blanket, are turning into a form of collective punishment. They are designed, we are told, to force the Islamic government to return to the nuclear negotiating table. Western politicians also seem to believe that punishing the Iranian people might lead them to blame their own government for their misery and take it upon themselves to force a change in the regime’s behavior, or even a change in the regime itself. But as the old British maxim recognized, deprivation in Iran is a recipe for the status quo [bold mine-DL].

Iran’s government and its people have never been isolationists. But as sanctions take their toll on the livelihoods of Iranians who want to continue to do business and communicate with the outside world, their energy to question their government’s policies and to agitate for change is waning. That means far fewer opportunities to promote American values and win minds, if not hearts (which we’ve had but are now in danger of losing).

Obviously, I agree that sanctions are both futile and wrong in that they are inflicting economic pain on the population for no reason. Sanctions typically weaken opposition to authoritarian regimes and make it easier for those regimes to remain in control. Last month, a review of the scholarship on the effect of sanctions on political change showed that sanctions do not promote democratization. Bahrami and Parsi wrote:

While there is little evidence to suggest that broad sanctions support democratic transition, we know that they often obstruct human rights efforts and can strengthen a repressive regime.

A range of sanctions scholarship focuses on ways in which authoritarian states use external sanctions to cement their hold on power, regardless of how severe the overall economic costs are.

Political scientist Daniel Drezner observes that broad economic sanctions not only tend to intensify pressure on politically weak groups, but that target governments are increasingly able to manipulate the effects of sanctions to benefit their supporters and constituencies. And David Lektzian and Mark Souva, experts in economic sanctions and international disputes, advise against the imposition of broad economic sanctions in non-democratic countries as the economic cost is often felt hardest by the population. They argue that broad economic sanctions increase a regime’s ability to extract rents and secure the loyalty of its support base.

It would be refreshing if advocates of immiserating other nations would acknowledge up front that their preferred policy has nothing to do with promoting democratization or political change. The truth is that advocates of imposing “crippling sanctions” on Iran are not on the side of the Iranian people, and they aren’t particularly concerned about what happens to them. This sort of policy is intended to punish the targeted regimes for existing and for refusing to cooperate on certain issues, and advocates of this policy will see it as being “worth it” despite the suffering the policy causes and will continue to cause in the years to come.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here