To access the full summary, download the PDF on the left-hand sidebar.
The United States and the international community have used sanctions for nearly three decades to pressure Iran to adopt different foreign and domestic policies.
The sanctions regime now in place, including sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, demonstrates the ability of the United States to work effectively with allies and other concerned nations to build a common strategy on Iran. At its core, the sanctions regime reflects the commitment of many key nations to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state.
Sanctions against Iran have been perceived in diverse ways, by U.S. policymakers and legislators: As a means for getting Iran to the negotiating table; as bargaining chips in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program; as a tactic for slowing the development of Iran’s nuclear program; as a counterterrorism measure designed to constrain Iran’s support of organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas; as a way of forcing Iran to change domestic policies that violate the human rights of its citizens; even (in the minds of some) as a tool for bringing about regime change in Iran.
Whatever the purpose or combination of purposes associated with a particular set of sanctions, the benefits of the sanctions have often been taken as given, since the imposition of sanctions is widely considered to be the most powerful alternative to military action. Precisely because sanctions offer the possibility of achieving important objectives without the human and financial costs of armed conflict, the costs of sanctions themselves are not routinely addressed in the public or policymaking debate.
Published by The Iran Project.
