Sanctions are weapons of war if they are comprehensive and prolonged

By: Kourosh Ziabari

More than a year after the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, President Donald Trump’s contentious decision is still being debated by the media, think tanks and academic circles worldwide. In implementing a “maximum pressure” policy combining hard-hitting economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, the Trump administration is pulling out all the stops to squeeze Iran into capitulation and bring the Islamic Republic back to the negotiating table to sign a new deal.

JCPOA is a detailed, 159-page agreement reached by Iran and six world powers as well as the European Union in July 2015. Its implementation signaled the normalization of relations between Iran and the international community, and served to diffuse tensions between Tehran and Washington, the two traditional adversaries. The landmark historical agreement between extreme opponents was not simply a political achievement but represented a major leap forward in nuclear non-proliferation.

The US pullout from the deal in May 2018 weakened it significantly and the remaining parties have been working hard to save it ever since. Some observers note although the JCPOA is not dead, it’s in serious trouble without the United States. As the Trump administration has reinstated broad-ranging economic sanctions against Iran that were removed following the signing of the Iran deal, and while it has threatened Iran’s trade partners and oil clients with tough secondary sanctions, the survival of the JCPOA appears to stand on shaky ground. In response to the tightening US sanctions, Iran has scaled back some of its commitments under the JCPOA, including taking its low-enriched uranium limit over the threshold agreed in the deal. This is while the UN’s atomic watchdog, the IAEA, had confirmed in 15 consecutive reports that Iran had met its side of the bargain and fulfilled its technical commitments in the pact.

Prof. Nader Entessar is Professor Emeritus and former Chair of the Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice at the University of South Alabama. In an interview with Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Prof. Nader Entessar shared his views about the fate of the Iran deal, the US campaign of economic sanctions against Iran and the role of international organizations in alleviating the negative impact of US sanctions on the Iranian populace. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: Tensions are running high between Iran and the United States and the proponents of war are hopeful that a military confrontation takes place between the two rivals. Do you blame the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 for the emergence of the current crisis?

A: The unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA, and the re-imposition of secondary sanctions on other countries trading with Iran were certainly significant contributing factors to the current crisis between Washington and Tehran. However, the root of the current crisis dates to the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran after the 1978-79 revolution and the challenges it represented to the US policy in the Persian Gulf and the broader Middle East.

Various US administrations have sought to undermine the stability of the Iranian system by different means. Even the Obama administration was never fully committed to change the US approach towards the Islamic Republic in a meaningful way. For example, the Obama administration never fully implemented Washington’s commitments under the JCPOA and evaded the implementation of its obligations by using every loophole it could find in the nuclear deal. In short, the thrust of the US foreign policy towards the post-revolutionary Iran has been to find ways to weaken the Iranian system and replace it with a Western-friendly one. The different US administrations have used different tactics but their strategic goal towards the Islamic Republic has been consistent in the past forty years.

Q: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was an international agreement supported by the UN Security Council. Have the other signatories of the accord been able to work to save it from collapsing after the US withdrawal? Did they do their best to make sure the outcome of two years of active diplomacy will be preserved?

A: I am afraid the answer to your questions is no. The other signatories to the nuclear agreement, especially the E3 – France, UK and Germany – have been guilty of reneging in implementing their own obligations. They have been either unwilling or unable to stand up to Washington and thus damaging the nuclear deal and, more broadly, the integrity of the international political and legal order. The only signatory of the JCPOA that kept its side of the bargain was Iran. No agreement can work or even be considered legal if only one side implements its obligations while the rest of the signatories ignore their commitments. Issuing statements in support of the JCPOA is meaningless if the Europeans do not have the courage or desire to tell Washington that they intend to honor their legal obligations.

Q: From the point of view of international law, are the sanctions slapped on Iran by the United States since last May justifiable? Are the different world countries obliged to follow suit in cutting off their trade ties and business with Iran while the UN Security Council doesn’t back the new sanctions?

A: Under international law, any country can impose sanctions on another country, and the United States can invoke both international law and its own domestic statutes and legislation to impose sanctions on Iran. The problem emerges when one country tries to impose its own jurisdiction on other countries and uses extraterritoriality to extend its own domestic jurisdiction in the form of secondary sanctions. Broadly speaking, secondary sanctions are not legal under international law unless such sanctions are mandated by the UN Security Council. Washington’s current secondary sanctions against Iran do not meet the standards of legality under international law. They are simply economic, political and military tools by the United States to impose its own laws on the rest of the international community.

Q: What’s your opinion on the human impact of the US sanctions against Iran and the suffering of ordinary citizens as a result of these punitive measures? Do the international organizations have a responsibility to alleviate the pressure the ordinary citizens undergo because of the sanctions?

A: Economic sanctions, especially if they are comprehensive and sustained over a long period, are weapons of war. Irrespective of the stated goals of economic sanctions, the principal victims of comprehensive economic sanctions are and will always be ordinary citizens of the target country. Of course, appropriate international organizations do get involved in alleviating the impact of such sanctions on ordinary people, but such organizations neither have the resources nor the political muscle to confront enormous challenges that economic and war managers of the world present. After all, international organizations are only as powerful as their constituent member states allowed them to be. The international order is a hierarchical one, and those at the top have the means to dictate how these organizations ought to behave.

Q: How do you think the unilateral coercive measures and economic sanctions influence the ability of Iran to fight drug trafficking, considering that it is located next to the biggest producer of opium in the world?

A: As many international entities, including the United Nations and the European Union, have acknowledged time and again, Iran has been a crucial country in combating drug trafficking in the past decades. In fact, Iran has fought the battle against drug trafficking by sacrificing a lot of its own human and economic resources without adequate compensation from international organizations. As sanctions continue to squeeze Iran economically, Iran will certainly have to prioritize where its declining resources must go. Fighting drug trafficking to prevent illicit substances to reach Europe may not be the best allocation of resources under economic and budgetary pressure. As a participant in the current economic war against Iran, Europe should not expect to have its cake and eat it too.

Q: JCPOA was not the only multilateral accord that President Donald Trump exited. In your view, what are the reasons for the US President’s disregard for multilateralism and his frequent application of unilateral coercive measures including the threat of force, economic sanctions and leaving international arrangements and treaties? Doesn’t this style of governance undermine global order?

A: There has long been an undercurrent of contempt for multinational international agreements and norms among a segment of the American electorate. The sentiment among this segment of the population is that the United States should never sacrifice its own laws for international law and agreements. Also, there has also been a misperception among some Americans that the United States is doing the rest of the world a favor anytime it signs an international agreement. Donald Trump more than any other presidential candidate in the 2010 elections recognized this sentiment and captured the heart and soul of this segment of the electorate.

When Trump said he wants to make America great again by attacking many of America’s international agreements, he knew exactly what he was doing to catapult himself to presidency. As president, Trump delivered on what he promised his so-called base. I believe, this type of behavior will be a winning strategy again for Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign. Of course, leaving international arrangements and treaties has undermined international order, but this is not something that Trump, his close associates, and his base are concerned about. We also must remember that some high-level officials in the Trump administration, John Bolton chief among them, have a long history of opposing multilateralism and contempt for international law and norms if they conflict with their view of the world.

Q: At the moment, the Department of State, Department of Commerce and Department of Treasury oversee economic sanctions against nearly 30 countries. Has the United States government been able to achieve its goals through these wide-ranging sanctions or has it merely contributed to the plight and suffering of average citizens in those countries?

A: What I call “sanctionomics” has become an integral part of American foreign policy. As you have noted, Washington has imposed economic sanctions on a wide range of countries with varying degrees of success. The current sanctions against Iran are the most extreme case. Some proponents of US sanctions have argued that economic sanctions are a better alternative to military confrontation and are a cost-effective way of pursuing Washington’s foreign policy goals. This contention is debatable. The success of US economic sanctions has varied based on their method of implementation. Bilateral or multilateral sanctions have been more effective than unilateral sanctions, but the success rate, in general, has been low. The Iran case is unique in many ways because the United States has been able to convince, force, or bludgeon many countries to follow its diktat on Iran for a long period. In many circumstances, sanctions have caused economic harm without changing the target country's policies, and so far, this has been the case with Iran too where the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy has not borne fruit for Washington. Also, since economic sanctions are ultimately blunt tools of foreign policy, their deployment is rarely precise enough to affect only the target economy. Therefore, they impact a large segment of the targeted country, especially the most vulnerable part of the society. Because economic sanctions presuppose that economic harm will lead to the sort of political pressure that will benefit the instigating country, they have become popular with the American establishment.

Q: What is the most prudent and smart way through which Iran can resist the US campaign of extensive economic sanctions to protect the rights of its citizens?

A: There is no magic wand Iran can use to overcome its current predicament. The process of overcoming US economic warfare against Iran may take some time and will require adopting policies to convince a critical number of countries to challenge US threats. This requires, inter alia, adroit diplomacy and a realistic perception of how the world works. Issuing meaningless slogans will not do the job and may even be counterproductive. As I alluded to in my previous answer, US sanctions cannot work against Iran if they become unilateral in nature. Also, the Iranian economy needs a wholesale restructuring and complete transparency. The productive capacity of Iran’s population must be unleashed, again not by issuing vacuous statements and slogans, but by implementing policies that will allow the country’s productive forces to blossom. Iran’s is blessed to have the manpower and resources to thrive if the correct policies are implemented immediately.

Some important points about recent unrest in Iran

* By Mohammad Ghaderi

It is not possible to trace recent events without considering the key factors influencing them.

Following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and re-imposition of economic sanctions on Iran in May 2018, Trump and his security team, who have adopted extremist approaches, expected that the Islamic Republic would surrender and would collapse within a few months.  

Since May 2018 that Iran has let its guard down and adopted “active resistance” policy against U.S. “maximum pressure” campaign, the scene of confrontation between Iran, the United States and its regional and extra-regional allies completely changed in favor of Iran.

The course of events in favor of Iran was so pervasive that even the most radical U.S. think tanks were forced to admit the failure of the maximum pressure strategy against Tehran.

 When Trump failed to make Iran give up, contrary to his regional allies’ opinion, tried to reach Iran to gain reputation, but his plan did not work out due to Iran’s rejection. 

Trump’s unstable political situation on the eve of the 2020 election along with his unpredictable behavior, caused joint Israeli-Western-Arab think tanks put a plan against Iran on its agenda. The costly plan, with its complicated design, aims to create insecurity inside Iran. It uses the fourth generation, warfare model. 

Recently, there have been reports that some countries have launched a joint plan to make Iran insecure and unstable. By studying the information provided by a neighboring country’s intelligence agencies and also through investigating Ruohollah Zam, such an event was expected to happen. 

Reforming gasoline prices seemed inevitable and predictable. The reform prepared the ground for the enemies to launch a war against the Iranian nation under the pretext of “the right to protest”.

Gasoline price hike and concerns over rising costs of goods and services, which are unbearable for the majority of people, led to a natural, acceptable and peaceful reaction by the people of different classes of society. But, Iran’s foes exploited people’s legitimate demands and completely derailed them. 

According to initial intelligence calculations and assumptions, the plan of creating “insecurity from inside” was expected to be launched in late 2019 or early 2020. Due to the intelligence blows dealt to some opposition groups over the past few months coupled with increased public dissatisfaction over gasoline price, the enemy decided to carry out the plan earlier.

The economic, security, military and media aspects of the recent war against the Iranian nation strongly confirm the idea that the recent violent incidents in various cities were preplanned. 

The U.S. has imposed economic sanctions on Iran to frustrate and infuriate people and then has accused the government of being incompetent to deal with the sanctions’ consequences. 

The next step in conducting the plan was to train and organize riot groups and spread them to some parts of the country, where protests were likely to be formed against the government.

The media outlets that fueled the recent riots had the mission to lead and magnify the unrest and portray it as a public move to create human rights sensitivities in the world. 

The rioters were focused on cities around the capital rather than Tehran because these places are more vulnerable to unrest. The rioters were also trying to create insecurity in important energy and economic centers such as Bandar Mahshahr, Imam Khomeini Port, Bushehr, Asaluyeh along with refineries and power plants. The move shows that the rioters intended to create a complete deflation in the country. They also sought to overthrow the government by undermining critical infrastructure and disrupting the export and import process. 

In this context, the plan to attack military and police stations was carried out with the aim of increasing the number of victims and finding access to weapons. 

Although many riot groups were already equipped with illicit weapons, efforts to obtain weapons owned by the armed forces would increase fatalities. 

On the other hand, arresting Rouhollah Zam, the admin of Amadnews Telegram Channel also affected the failure of the recent riot. During the unrest, the channel was not able to launch psychological warfare and lead the rioters. 

One of the important issues that need to be considered in dealing with the recent crisis is the role and function of the Internet.

Since the daily life of most Iranian people is dependent on the internet, the foes assumed that Iran would either not block the internet to prevent further discontent or it would face widespread protests and enormous economic damages. 

However, with the internet shutdown, the National Information Network (NIN) was able to meet people’s minimum needs in various aspects. 

Of course, some alternative communication ways were also provided for the agitators, which effectively led to the identification of many elements of the unrest by the intelligence agencies.

On the other hand, the remarks by Leader of the Islamic Revolution who prompted the real protesters to separate their way from the rioters, public protests against the rioters, arrest of some ringleaders as well as the internet shutdown helped end the crisis within 48 hours. 

The quiet and hasty return of Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf is also one of the interesting events that indicates foes’ hope for the success of the hostile plan. 

* Author: Mohammad Ghaderi , Tehran Times editor in chief 

Iran’s Resistance Economy Defeats US Sanctions

American bullying put Islamic Iran on the road to self-sufficiency

Waseem Shehzad

Early last month, the Financial Times reported that “the stock market of Iran, for a long time dogged by US sanctions, has notched up a notable achievement: ranking among the world’s best performing over the past 12 months, as domestic investors seek refuge from rampant inflation.” This is not the kind of news one expects from a leading Western newspaper about a country considered an enemy and under severe Western sanctions for 40 years.

Since day one of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been under Western sanctions. From developing its medical sector to the level of rivaling global medical leaders and becoming a regional destination for medical tourism, to significantly reducing its dependency on oil income, Iran’s economic performance is extremely impressive.

From 2013 onward, Iran embarked on an economic program geared toward significantly reducing its budgetary reliance on oil. Even according to the US dominated World Bank, in 2014 while under severe sanctions, the Iranian economy expanded by 3%. By 2016, Iran had managed to reduce its dependency on oil revenues from over 50% to about 33%.

One of the leading economic websites covering Iran from a secular capitalist perspective noted that “in early-2014, Iran’s Ministry of Energy unveiled its plans for adding some 5 GW of renewable power capacity, mostly wind, to the country’s power fleet by 2018. Since the beginning of 2014, construction for around 400 MW of renewable capacity has started, and contracts for more than 500 MW have been awarded. The Iranian government increased its budget for renewable energy by more than 400% last year to around $60 million; although still small, the growth is going in the right direction.”

Since the US unilaterally withdrew from the multilateral nuclear agreement referred to as JCPOA, Donald Trump’s regime turned to economic sabotage in an effort to undermine Iran’s economy. Perhaps Trump does not realize that Iran has been under Western sanctions for decades and has mastered the art of bypassing sanctions.

In the field of economics trust and belief in a system are crucial factors in overcoming economic obstacles. People buy Coca-Cola in preference to other soft-drink brands because they trust and believe in the Coke brand. It is not because Coca-Cola is healthier or significantly different from other brands of soft drinks.

Iran’s ability to withstand decades of sanctions clearly created trust in the domestic market as the stock market data shows. Confidence of the domestic market and domestic consumption are crucial economic factors making Iran resistant to external economic terrorism.

Iran’s resistance economy policies outlined by Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei insulated Iran from the severe effects of Western sanctions. One of the key aspects of its resistance economy is “consumption management based on the promotion of consumption of local products parallel to the qualitative improvement of domestic production.”

As recently pointed out by Amin Saikal, Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University, “US President Donald Trump’s approach to bringing Iran’s Islamic regime to heel clearly is not working.”

Soon after the JCPOA was signed in 2015, Crescent International pointed out that “sooner or later sanctions will be re-imposed. The Islamic leadership in Iran understands this as well. Therefore, they will make the maximum effort to use this new phase to prepare for future possible sanctions. At the economic level, Islamic Iran will continue to boost its non-oil and manufacturing sector as this is part of the resistance economic plan outlined by Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei years ago. Iran will most probably continue enhancing its regional trade.”

Iran’s near-miraculous economic performance under very tough externally imposed obstacles is a strategic step in highlighting the fact that a non-Western economic framework can work. To understand Iran’s economic achievement, one needs to do a simple comparison of its performance with Egypt, Morocco, Azerbaijan, Tunisia, or many other countries that regularly receive handouts from Western financial institutions. They function with no obstacles within the Western designed economic system. NATO-imposed or tolerated regimes in the Muslim world are not known for any indigenous economic achievements. Their survival is due to their ties to capitalist economic institutions and following the Western paradigm.

Iran’s economic successes are deliberately downplayed, and its economic challenges exaggerated. If Iran’s stock market had underperformed, this news would dominate headlines of the corporate media for weeks. However, since its stock market outstripped others in performance, this news was barely reported. Those Western corporate media outlets that reported it did not give it much prominence.

A good example of how Iran’s economic performance is constantly misrepresented would be to recall the financial crisis of 2009. At the time, the Western media was constantly beaming absurd messages of how the financial crisis negatively affected Iran even though the Islamic Republic was under sanctions and was not exposed to the US sub-prime mortgage crisis in any way. Such false reports were deliberately spread simply to undermine the Iranian people’s confidence in the Islamic economic paradigm.

For the foreseeable future, Iran’s economic sector will be under intense pressure. It is primarily due to the fact that Western economies are not doing well. In these circumstances if an economic system outside of the capitalist framework manages to perform well, it will put the entire Western economic paradigm into question.

The economic performance of any state is dependent on several factors, not all of them related to economics. Self-confidence of leaders of any state is a crucial starting point. This cannot come about if one suffers from mental colonization as most rulers in the Muslim world do. They cannot think outside the Western framework and have little understanding or respect for Islamic principles. Most of these rulers also do not enjoy mass support. Hence, they are dependent on Western military, political, and economic support. In short, they are slaves of the West.

In Islamic Iran’s case, it has made a conscious choice to detach itself from the dependency syndrome and while it has been subjected to severe sanctions— economic terrorism, in the words of its Foreign Minister Dr. Javad Zarif — the leadership in Iran has stood firm on Islamic principles. Its success in many diverse fields is nothing short of miraculous.

Its path to success is paved by the resistance economy. This is an important lesson for other countries — Muslim as well as non-Muslim — that are subjected to Western bullying and economic terrorism.

The US Sanctions are Affecting All Aspects of Human Life in Iran

SASAN FAYAZMANESH – KOUROSH ZIABARI

Photograph Source: Morten Knutsen – CC BY 2.0

When signed in July 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was lauded as a historic diplomatic achievement for the signatories of the accord: Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union. The JCPOA stipulated limits on Iran’s nuclear activities in return for the removal of nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, and notable international think tanks, senior diplomats, academics and media personalities talked of it as a technically sound agreement with robust verification procedures involving the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In May 2018, US President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the JCPOA and reinstated all the nuclear-related sanctions the US had committed to lift as part of the deal. The Middle East has been in turmoil in the interim and concerned observers have warned against the possibility of a military showdown between Iran and the United States. A lot has been said in the media about the unilateral de-certification of the Iran deal by President Trump and its implications for multilateral diplomacy, international norms and global non-proliferation. Since exiting the nuclear deal, the US officials have sporadically offered fresh talks with Iran to conclude a new deal; however, Iranian authorities have firmly rejected new negotiations while hard-hitting sanctions are in place.

The US sanctions target Iran’s oil and petrochemical products’ exports, banking and insurance sectors, aviation industry, maritime navigation, Iran’s purchase of US currency, Iran’s trade in gold and other precious metals and tens of individuals in Iran’s armed forces, as well as people connected to Iran’s nuclear program. These sanctions, as confirmed by the UN special rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures, have had a detrimental impact on the livelihoods of ordinary Iranian citizens and violated their basic human rights. However, as long as the two governments don’t come to agreement over an exit strategy, the situation is unlikely to change for better.

Sasan Fayazmanesh is Professor Emeritus of Economics and Director of the Middle East Studies Program at California State University, Fresno. He has written extensively on Iran’s foreign policy and sociopolitical developments. His latest book is “Containing Iran: Obama’s Policy of ‘Tough Diplomacy’”. Organization for Defending Victims of Violence has arranged an interview with Prof. Sasan Fayazmanesh to discuss the withdrawal of the United States from the Iran deal and the human toll of the US sanctions against Tehran. The following is the text of the interview.

Q: Tensions are running high between Iran and the United States and the proponents of war are hopeful that a military confrontation takes place between the two rivals. Do you blame the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 for the emergence of the current crisis?

A: The immediate cause of the recent crisis is the current US administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This agreement, which was reached between Iran and the P5+1 – five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany – in 2015, curtailed Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for lifting all nuclear-related sanctions. Once the Trump administration decided not to abide by the JCPOA, the agreement fell apart and we reached the current crisis.

But, a more interesting question is how did the withdrawal, the imposition of all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, and the current predicament happen so fast and so easily? The answer to that question requires a more in-depth analysis, which is beyond the scope of this interview. But such an analysis must address some of the following questions. How is it possible that in an advanced capitalist economy in the 21st century, an individual such as Donald Trump can become president? How is it conceivable that such an individual can, acting on a whim and with impunity, overturn international agreements and treaties? How is it possible that powerful individuals in this country, and other countries, who do realize the gravity of the situation, not stand up to Trump? And as far as the JCPOA is concerned, what was wrong with this agreement that allowed it to crumble with the stroke of a pen? Why was the agreement crafted in such a way that made it possible for the US to leave the agreement without any cost to it? Why did Iran not insist that such an agreement be ratified by the US Congress? Why did Iran allow all non-nuclear-related sanctions, imposed on it for its “support for terrorism,” “violation of human rights,” and developing missile technology, remain intact?

Q: The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was an international agreement supported by the UN Security Council. Have the other signatories of the accord been able to work to save it from collapsing after the US withdrawal? Did they do their best to make sure the outcome of two years of active diplomacy will be preserved?

A: The other signatories of the JCPOA, the so-called the P4+1, namely France, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Germany, have neither had the will nor the power to stand up to the US. This, of course, is an old story. In pursuing foreign policy, the US every so often behaves like a gangster. In order to get what it wants, it resorts to force, threats, arm-twisting, cajoling, bribery, etc. I have documented this behavior in my books and articles on sanctioning Iran. I have shown, in particular, how the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barak Obama managed to get the approval of members of the United Nations Security Council to impose multilateral sanctions on Iran. This included, among others, intimidating non-permanent members of the Security Council, as well as bribing Russia and China. For example, in summer 2009, the Obama administration was working hard to pass a UN Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran. In order to get the Russian vote, Obama offered the Russians a quid pro quo: in exchange for a deal on the expiring 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and postponing the US deployment of anti-missile systems in Europe, Russia would agree to impose harsher sanctions against Iran. Later, the Obama administration sweetened the deal by promising to drop the deployment of anti-missile systems in Europe altogether. Also, the Obama administration twisted China’s arms over its alleged currency manipulation, cajoled it and even threatened it financially to go along with sanctioning Iran. Both Russia and China fell in line and agreed to a new set of UN sanctions in 2010.

Of course, the previous US administrations did not need to do much to get their European allies to go along with sanctions. Imperial powers almost always stick together and follow the lead of their hegemon when it comes to punishing disobedient countries in the periphery.

What is different today is that while people like Bush and Obama made alliances to pursue their nefarious policies, Trump is lashing out against the old US allies, making pursuing a unified policy against Iran difficult. Furthermore, while the reprehensible policies of previous administrations were not translucent and needed to be deciphered, the aggressive policies of current administration are out in the open, easy for anyone to see.

Trump’s hostility towards European leaders, as well as the cost of US secondary sanctions to the Europeans, have caused some of them to come out in opposition to his Iran policies. However, this opposition has so far not gone beyond words. When it came to action, the Europeans failed to save the JCPOA. It took them many months to come up with some tools that were supposed to get around US secondary sanctions, such as the “special purpose vehicle” for trade with Iran or “instrument in support of trade exchanges”, INSTEX. Such tools have so far been ineffectual and have done nothing to stop the economic bleeding of Iran. Indeed, INSTEX, which was supposed to facilitate export of food and medicine to Iran, could not work because of US financial sanctions. The same can be said for Russia and China. They, too, have been all talk and no action. As a result, the JCPOA is for all practical purposes dead or, at best, on life support.

Q: From the point of view of international law, are the sanctions slapped on Iran by the United States since last May justifiable? Are the different world countries obliged to follow suit in cutting off their trade ties and business with Iran while the UN Security Council doesn’t back the new sanctions?

A: As I alluded to earlier, the previous US administrations pursued their policies of “maximum pressure” on Iran by passing, in addition to unilateral sanctions, multilateral sanctions, mainly through the United Nations. But, as I also suggested, the current administration does not feel the need to work with the European countries, or Russia and China, to pass new UN sanctions resolutions. Therefore, there is currently no set of multilateral sanctions against Iran and members of the United Nations are not obligated to abide by Trump’s sanctions and cut their business ties with Iran. But going back to the concept of a gangster, it is not necessary for the US to have international backing to pursue mobster-like policies. All that is needed is force, threats, intimidation, bribery, etc. to get what it wants. Long before the US exited the JCPOA and brought back all previous sanctions, foreign businesses had started to leave Iran, fearing what the US could do to them. Europe’s INSTEX, which was too little and too late, did nothing to alleviate the fears of foreign businesses.

Q: What’s your opinion on the human impact of the US sanctions against Iran and the suffering of ordinary citizens as a result of these punitive measures? Do the international organizations have a responsibility to alleviate the pressure the ordinary citizens undergo because of the sanctions?

A: Before the JCPOA became effective, Iran’s economy, despite all its potential, had a negative rate of growth and suffered from double digit unemployment and inflation rate, a severe case of what might be called “stagflation.” Stagflation deeply hurts ordinary people of a country, and it was so in the case of Iran. The JCPOA threw a lifeline to the people of Iran. Iran’s economy started to grow, and inflation subsided. Now, after the demise of the JCPOA, Iran’s economy is basically back to what it was before the agreement. According to the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook of April 2019, Iran’s economy grew at the rate of –3.9% in 2018 and is projected to grow at the rate of –6.0% in 2019. According to the same source, consumer prices in Iran rose by 31.2% in 2018 and are projected to rise by 37.2% in 2019. The unemployment rate in Iran, the same source points out, was 13.9% in 2018 and is projected to be 15.4% in 2019. When you look at the same source and its data, you see no other oil producing country in the region that faces such a dreadful situation. Moreover, no oil producing country in the region has faced the currency volatility that Iran has experienced since the demise of the JCPOA. One can only conclude that the massive pain that the people of Iran are feeling is the result of sanctions that the world’s biggest gangster has imposed upon them.

But the US imposed sanctions on Iran are not just causing economic pain. They are affecting all aspects of human life in Iran, including health. There are, of course, many studies on the effect of these sanctions on the Iranian health situation. One such study appeared in 2018 in the International Journal of Health Policy and Management and on the website of the National Institutes of Health. It states the following result:

“The sanctions on Iran caused a fall of country’s revenues, devaluation of national currency, and increase of inflation and unemployment. These all resulted in deterioration of people’s overall welfare and lowering their ability to access the necessities of a standard life such as nutritious food, healthcare and medicine. Also, the sanctions on banking, financial system and shipment led to scarcity of quality lifesaving medicines. The impacts of sanctions were more immense on the lives of the poor, patients, women and children. Humanitarian exemptions did not protect Iranians from the adverse effects of sanctions.”

It concludes by saying: “Countries which imposed economic sanctions against Iran have violated Iranians’ right to health. International community should have predicted any probable humanitarian effects of sanctions and used any necessary means to prevent it.” Needless to say that the international community not only has not made any such predictions, it has done nothing to stop US aggressions towards Iran and to alleviate the pain and suffering of the Iranian people.

Q: How do you think the unilateral coercive measures and economic sanctions influence the ability of Iran to fight drug trafficking, considering that it is located next to the biggest producer of opium in the world?

A: I am not an expert in this area. But I have seen reports and complaints by Iranian government officials about the effect of sanctions on Iran’s attempts to combat drug trafficking that originates in Afghanistan. Following the JCPOA, Iran and European countries agreed to fight jointly drug trafficking. But, according to Iranian government officials, the Europeans not only failed to carry out their part of the bargain but allowed the US sanctions to make Iran’s own work very difficult. In December 2018, Iran’s President Rouhani issued a warning about the consequences of US sanctions and European inaction in fighting drug trafficking. In particular, he pointed out that the final destinations of these drugs are mostly Europe and America. Similar warnings were issued by Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in June 2019. And lately, the head of the Iranian organization that is in charge of combating drug trafficking gave details concerning the rapid rate of growth of drugs in Afghanistan since the year 2000, the Europeans’ inaction, and the US sanctions that hinder Iran’s own action. Some examples that he gave include Iran’s inability to obtain equipment needed to fight drug traffickers, such as night goggles, X-ray machines and other electronic gadgets.

Q: JCPOA was not the only multilateral accord that President Donald Trump exited. In your view, what are the reasons for the US President’s disregard for multilateralism and his frequent use of unilateral coercive measures including the threat of force, economic sanctions and leaving international arrangements and treaties? Doesn’t this style of governance undermine global order?

A: The governing style of the current administration, its disregard for international laws and treaties, and its aggressive and reckless policies, are symptomatic of the kind of people that currently run the executive branch of this country. Some of Donald Trump former aids have reportedly described him as an “idiot,” “dope,” “moron,” “unhinged” or as an individual who has the understanding of “a fifth- or sixth-grader.” Unfortunately, I am neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist and am unable to render a professional opinion about the mental state of the current US president. But given the behavior of Donald Trump, many of the above adjectives seem to be justified.

Trump repeats the same lie even though he knows that what he is saying is false. For example, on July 11, 2019, he tweeted the following: “Iran has long been secretly ‘enriching,’ in total violation of the terrible 150 Billion Dollar deal made by John Kerry and the Obama Administration. Remember, that deal was to expire in a short number of years. Sanctions will soon be increased, substantially!” As some reporters pointed out, all three allegations of Trump were false. But Trump already knew that these claims are untrue; he had repeated them before and had been told that they are wrong.

Only an irrational and unhinged individual would consciously repeat the same lies, especially when such lies can lead to a disaster. And if you combine this irrationality with such traits as impulsiveness, racism, prejudice, xenophobia, and jingoism, then you get a combustible mixture that can threaten the whole world. The most terrifying aspect of the current situation is that Trump is surrounded by some individuals who share many of his own traits. One such individual is, of course, the National Security Advisor John Bolton, who according to Trump himself if left unleashed would “take on the whole world at one time.” Bolton, who played a substantial role in the invasion of Iraq, has been trying to wage a war on Iran for decades. And given the prevailing madness in the White House, he might succeed this time. Even more terrifying is that the main advisors to people such as Bolton, and Secretary of State Pompeo, are rabid, scary groups such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, an Israeli lobby group whose sole purpose is to start a war with Iran.

Q: At the moment, the Department of State, Department of Commerce and Department of Treasury oversee economic sanctions against nearly 30 countries. Has the United States government been able to achieve its goals through these wide-ranging sanctions or has it merely contributed to the plight and suffering of average citizens in the target countries?

A: I am afraid I cannot fully answer this question. I do not know the exact case of each country that you have in mind. I also do not believe that generalizing the concept of sanctions, and trying to assess their overall effects, are very useful, as I have explained in some of my books and articles on sanctions. The case that falls within the purview of my expertise is, of course, Iran. The US has sanctioned Iran for forty years, using what I have referred to as a “menu option,” an array of allegations. The allegations have included Iran’s support for international terrorism, developing weapons of mass destruction, developing intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads, opposing the Israeli peace process, destabilizing Afghanistan, harboring Al-Qaeda, lacking democracy, being ruled by unelected individuals, violating human rights, not protecting the rights of women, not being forward-looking and modern, etc. But the entire purpose of this menu option has been to replace the existing, disobedient government in Iran with one that is friendly to the US and Israel. The economic war that has been waged against Iran for four decades has tortured the people of Iran but has so far not brought about the result that the US and Israel have been hoping for.

Q: What is the most prudent and smart way through which Iran can resist the US campaign of extensive economic sanctions to protect the rights of its citizens?

A: It would be presumptuous of someone like me, who lives outside of Iran and is not suffering from the effects of the US economic war, to propose ways of resisting this war. All I can say is that so far the people of Iran have acted sensibly in the face of foreign threats. Every time that these threats have intensified, they have unified and warded them off. When the threats have lessened, they have turned their attention to home, towards putting their own house in order
.

The Seizure of an Iranian Tanker and the Lethal Toll of Sanctions

by PATRICK COCKBURN

Photograph Source: US Navy – Public Domain

The seizure of an Iranian oil tanker allegedly bound for Syria by British Royal Marine commandos off Gibraltar is the latest episode in the long and disastrous history of economic sanctions in the Middle East. The UK claims that it is implementing EU sanctions on Syria, but the act will be seen by Tehran – and most other states – as the British enforcing US sanctions on Iran that the EU said it opposes. An Iranian official said a British tanker should be seized in retaliation.

Jeremy Hunt, foreign secretary and aspirant prime minister, eager to show himself walking tall on the international stage, tweeted: “Swift action has denied valuable resources to Assad’s murderous regime.”

But that is exactly what has not happened. Economic sanctions in the Middle East and elsewhere have invariably been a collective punishment of an entire people while leaders and their security forces come through unscathed. UN sanctions on Iraq between 1990 and 2003 did not stop Saddam Hussein building luxurious palaces and giant mosques while ordinary Iraqis were reduced to selling their furniture and crockery in the streets.

I visited a village called Penjwin in mountainous northeast Iraq in 1996 which was in the Kurdish-controlled area, but still subject to UN sanctions. I wondered why so many people in the main streets had lost an arm or a foot. The explanation given to me by the villagers lives in my mind as a grisly example of the straits to which people can be reduced by the impact of sanctions on top of their many other burdens.

People in Penjwin said they were very poor and lived in the middle of vast minefields laid during the Iran-Iraq war. The one way they could make money was by defusing one particular mine, the Italian Valmara, and selling the aluminium wrapped around the explosives.

The Valmara is a lethal device with five khaki-coloured prongs at the top that looked like dried grass. If any prong is disturbed a small charge was detonated making the mine jump into the air to waist height and the main charge explodes, spraying 1,200 metal balls over a range of 100 yards.

“I defuse the mine with a piece of wire,” Sabir Majid, a middle-aged man who had formerly been a farmer, told me. “Then I unscrew the top of it and take out the aluminium around the explosives. When I have taken apart six mines, I have enough aluminium to sell for 30 dinars (about 75 pence) to a shop in Penjwin.”

He said this was just enough to feed but not to clothe his family. Few of those who made a mistake in defusing a Valmara survived, but it was surrounded by small, difficult-to-spot anti-personnel mines which looked like large mushrooms and could easily take off a foot or a hand.

At that time, the UN estimated that between six and seven thousand Iraqi children were dying every month because of sanctions. The education and health services had collapsed: visiting foreign doctors “witnessed a surgeon trying to operate with scissors that were too blunt to cut the patient’s skin”.

I wrote many articles about the devastating effect of sanctions on millions of Iraqis, but nobody appeared to pay much attention. Foreign governments, such as the US and UK, blamed the continuation of sanctions, whose ill effects on the mass of the population they downplayed, on Saddam Hussein for not coming clean about his Weapons of Mass Destruction (that turned out not to exist) and not giving up power.

Two UN Humanitarian Coordinators for Iraq resigned in succession in protest against sanctions, but it did no good. It is worth recalling the prophetic words of one of them, Dennis Halliday, as he left his post in 1998, keeping in mind that this was five years before al-Qaeda took root in Iraq. “What should be of concern is the possibility of more fundamentalist Islamic thinking developing,” he said. “It is not well understood as a spin-off of the sanctions regime. We are pushing people to take extreme positions.”

Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent Minds

Fast forward 20 years and compare Syria now to Iraq then. Three million people are trapped in Idlib province under Russian and Syrian government bombardment. There is a festering guerrilla war in the Kurdish-controlled but half-Arab area east of the Euphrates river.

All of Syria is subjected to economic sanctions by the EU and US, which a leaked UN internal report in 2016 said were causing extreme suffering among ordinary Syrians. Basic medicines and medical equipment could not be purchased and imported into Syria by foreign aid agencies. The report, entitled “Humanitarian Impact of Syria-Related Unilateral Restrictive Measures” – in other words sanctions –and leaked to the investigative publication The Intercept, quotes a European doctor working in Syria as saying: “the indirect effect of sanctions … makes the import of medical instruments and other medical supplies immensely difficult, nearly impossible”.

The UN sanctions against Iraq used to target “dual use” items, such as pencils and tyres for ambulance because they could have a military as well as civilian application. Much the same thing happens with sanctions in Syria today with bans on drilling equipment and pipes for water supply and sanitation according to the report.

A more recent survey by a UN body coordinating humanitarian affairs in Syria published this May is ominously similar to the ones I used to read about Iraq 20 years ago. It says that at least 83 per cent of Syrians were living below the poverty line: “a monthly food ration with staple items costs at least 80 per cent of an unskilled labourer’s monthly salary and 50-80 per cent of a public service employee’s monthly salary”. It describes people trying to cope by eating less, avoiding medical treatment because there is no money to pay for it, child labour and child marriage, and being recruited as fighters to pay off debts.

In other words, a whole society is in meltdown. Part of this is the result of eight years of civil war, but sanctions exacerbate the suffering and prevent recovery. Least affected are those, both government and opposition, who command the armed forces to make sure they never lack for anything. The economic blockade of Iraq did not get rid of Saddam Hussein and the same is true of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

The political equivalents of Jeremy Hunt in the 1990s claimed that the aid agencies’ accounts of the misery inflicted on the civilian population by sanctions were phoney or exaggerated. Well-informed officials like Dennis Halliday, who protested about what was happening, could always be smeared as being soft on Saddam. Critics of sanctions in Syria can be similarly ignored or discredited as sympathisers with Assad, though rigorous sanctions have demonstrably failed to stop him tightening his grip on power.

Why are those who impose sanctions able to get their way despite past failures? To governments they are a soft option that avoids the risks of war. To many they may seem more humane because, unlike bombing and shooting, the process of destruction is slow. The casualties – the young, the old, the sick – die invisibly in their homes and there is seldom proof that sanctions had anything to do with their passing.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of  The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution.

The US Empire Sanctions: Comparison of Zimbabwe and Venezuela

Dr Mustafa Bothwell Mheta 

Sanctions are viewed as representing the middle ground in international politics. Considered more severe than verbal condemnation, they are less severe than the use of force.

According to Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, authority to impose sanctions lies exclusively with the Security Council.

Regional organisations are authorised under Article 52 to “achieve pacific settlement of local disputes” without express permission of the Security Council, “provided that…their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations”.

In practice, sanctions have comprised a wide range of actions, from economic embargoes to restrictions on participation in the Olympic games.

Here is a brief classification of sanctions: economic, travel, military, diplomatic and cultural. Trade sanctions restrict imports and exports to and from the target country.

Comprehensive trade sanctions are the target of the current criticism of sanctions regimes, because of the humanitarian crises that have erupted in countries against which such sanctions have been imposed.

Financial sanctions address monetary issues. They can include blocking governmental assets held abroad, limiting access to financial markets and restricting loans and credits, restricting international transfer payments and restricting the sale and trade of property abroad. Governments will be unable to pay for imports, and trade will suffer.

Travel sanctions can include both sanctions against the travel of certain individuals or groups and sanctions against certain kinds of air transport. Bans on certain types of air travel include the current ban on taking off or landing of any aircraft owned, leased or operated by or on behalf of the Taliban, established by the Security Council in its resolution 1267 (1999).

Military sanctions may include arms embargoes or the termination of military assistance or training. This may also include refusal to sell military equipment to a country.

Diplomatic sanctions directly target the rulers of a sanctioned State. Other steps towards diplomatic isolation include the withdrawal of diplomatic personnel and international organizations from the target country.

Finally, cultural sanctions, while having less of a negative impact than other forms of sanctions, can still have undesired results.

Having highlighted the different categories of sanctions, I will now turn to challenge the notion of sanctions as applied by the US Empire.

First, there are many instances in our contemporary history when sanctions have been applied unilaterally as a tool for regime change by the US Empire and the Zionist entity.

There are many examples to draw from. From Iraq, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Iran to North Korea and now to the drama that is currently unfolding in Venezuela.

Second, according to international law sanctions are a prerogative of the collective called the UN Security Council. An individual country cannot go about imposing sanctions for its own selfish ends.

Let us take the case of Zimbabwe. The negotiations that led to a settlement of the protracted Rhodesian war that pitted the freedom fighters from ZANU-PF (ZANLA) and PF-ZAPU (ZIPRA), that later united and merged into ZANU-PF, was a bilateral dispute between Zimbabwe and Britain.

When an independent Zimbabwe sought to address this historical imbalance, which was skewed in favour of 4000 white commercial farmers who owned about 70% of arable farmland, the US Empire joined in support of the British stance and unilaterally imposed sanctions on the Southern African country.

The economic sanctions that have been imposed on Zimbabwe amount to “terrorism”. They were designed to foment an uprising like the kind that is currently unfolding in Venezuela that have seen the country’s economy crumbling and has inflicted much suffering on ordinary people.

What the US Empire had in mind was clearly regime change. It tried to prop up the MDC party and many civic organisations by funding them to the tune of billions of dollars, but it failed.

The liberation party, ZANU-PF prevailed, thanks to the resilience of the people of Zimbabwe. Just last week, President Trump again renewed these terrible sanctions even though the country held an election that was considered fair and credible by many international observers.

The US Empire and its Zionist allies are reenacting the same scenario in Venezuela as happened in Zimbabwe. Washington’s imposition of sanctions on Venezuela is not new.

When Hugo Chavez rose to power in Venezuela, he chose a path of total political and economic independence for his country, a development that did not go down well with the US Empire.

The Empire and its Zionist allies have their eyes on the vast oil resources of Venezuela and have been seeking to control for their own benefit.

What many people do not know is that when Trump came to power he imposed sanctions on Venezuela as a prelude to regime change. It is important to note that these sanctions are not UN sanctions, but are unilateral in nature, thus illegal.

Surely, the people of Venezuela will resist this latest plot by the US Empire. The economic terrorism imposed by the Washington warlords will be defeated.

Lastly, in light of the above, one must challenge the notion and definition of democracy as is being peddled.

Instead of “goverment of the people, by the people, for the people”, it should be “government for the people, by the elite, for the elite”.

Africa must wake up!

Dr Mustafa Bothwell Mheta has a PhD in Semitic Languages and Cultures from the University of Johannesburg, Department of Religion Studies. He is also a Researcher at the Media Review Network.