Sanctions are complex middle-ground responses that are often intertwined with party politics. Sanctions are employed when diplomatic talks are not enough to reach a consensus between two states, especially in critical situations that require immediate solutions to prevent armed conflict. At the same time, sanctions are also used because deployment of military strength is not appropriate to the situation or use of arms is likely to hasten rather than prevent conflict. Effectiveness of sanctions hinges on the determination of the appropriate sanctions and obtaining sufficient support for the sanctions from within the ranks of government. Partisan politics often determine the adoption of sanctions as a policy response. Outcomes of sanctions, in terms of assessment of the achievement of the objectives of the sanctions, are also subject to scrutiny along party positions. Sanctions imposed by the U.S. and several European countries on Iran exemplify the complexity of sanctions and their interconnectedness with party politics.
U.S. sanctions on Iran have been in place since 1979 and expansion of the sanctions have been implemented over the years to address emerging issues, which most recently is the containment of the nuclear weapons program of Iran (Fayazmanesh 12). U.N. eventually imposed sanctions on Iran, which bolstered the impact of the sanctions already implemented by the U.S. (205). Party politics become more intertwined with the sanctions on Iran in 2013, when agreement was reached on the nuclear disarmament deal with Iran with the effect of setting the schedule for Iran’s compliance with several key measures.
In 2013, the achievement of the nuclear disarmament plan rekindled political debate over the policy of the American government towards Iran. On the part of some government officials and private sector experts, the sanctions imposed by the U.S. government on Iran since 1979 has not been successful in securing Iran’s commitment and action towards concessions over the security concerns of the U.S. and the international community. Reliance on sanctions for the neutralization of Iran’s nuclear capability has been questioned. In addition, cyber-attacks on the nuclear facilities of Iran has been recognized as a strategy to delay the nuclear development efforts of Iran, but it is not a long-term solution to nuclear threats. On the part of the U.S. Congress and Israel, stronger sanctions or more stringent implementation of the sanctions is needed in order to exert enough pressure on Iran to comply with the demands of the American government and international community. Continuing negotiations with the Iranian envoys together with sanctions were expected to coerce the Iranian government to give up its nuclear weapons development. (Sanger, “Report Urges”)
Uncertainties over the practicality of relying on sanctions to achieve Iran’s compliance with the terms of the nuclear disarmament agreement was settled nearly three years later. In January 2016, official reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency indicated that Iran has complied with the nuclear disarmament plan by dismantling 12,000 centrifuges that are needed to enrich uranium for creating nuclear weapons and cementing a reactor used for making plutonium. In response to these positive reports, the U.S. and European countries that implemented sanctions on Iran removed the financial sanctions, with the result of giving Iran access to $100 billion of its assets abroad. Parallel to the negotiations on the nuclear deal, Iran expressed interest in exchanging American citizens in its custody with Iranian citizens held in American prisons. Initial resistance by the American officials occurred. Eventually, the Obama government agreed to the exchange. Five American citizens held by Iran were exchanged for seven Iranians imprisoned in the United States together with the removal of seven other people from the wanted list. The U.S. also removed from the list the names of 400 Iranians with whom business dealings with American citizens were prohibited. (Parker)
Iran’s compliance with the nuclear disarmament deal has been attributed to the sanctions. Decrease by half of Iran’s oil exports, with the U.S. and European countries refusing to buy Iran’s oil, is a direct impact of the sanctions. A factor that appear to have escalated the pressure on Iran to concede is the decline in oil prices to $30 per barrel. With the slowdown in oil exports, reduction in oil prices further constrained government revenue. Based on the achievement of the intended outcome, the sanctions were hailed by the Obama administration as a success. (Parker)
Impact of Iran’s compliance with the nuclear disarmament plan is expected to setback its nuclear weapons development by 10 to 15 years. Opinions are divided over the implications of this outcome. For critics of the nuclear disarmament plan, this setback on Iran’s nuclear capabilities is not enough to alleviate the security threat to other countries. Other opinions recognized that the sanctions served their intended purpose. (Parker)
A consequence of Iran’s access to $100 billion of its assets abroad is the likely revitalization of trade. A prudent move of Iran is to retain these assets abroad for the purpose of funding imports from foreign countries. (Parker) Reliance of Iran on imports meant that retaining the other types of sanctions is necessary as a form of security for future or other issues with Iran.
Trade sanctions were not fully removed and diplomatic sanctions have not been cancelled. The nuclear disarmament agreement with Iran involved the commitment of the U.S. to refrain from prohibiting entities from purchasing oil and gas from Iran. In lieu of the complete removal of the trade embargo, limited trade was allowed. U.S. trade with Iran is limited to food, carpets, and commercial aircraft and parts. (Parker) While withdrawal of financial sanctions facilitated Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, retention of some form of trade sanctions and diplomatic sanctions ensured leverage. At the same time, the limited withdrawal of sanctions involved negotiations within the U.S. government as well as with the Iranian government. Withdrawal of all sanctions on Iran was not likely to receive support from both supporters and critics of the Obama administration.
An issue that emerged during the assessment of Iran’s compliance with the nuclear disarmament plan, but was shelved to prevent complications during the negotiation of the prisoner exchange, is the testing of ballistic missiles by Iran. Some U.S. government advisers are recommending the imposition of new sanctions on Iran to address the threat of ballistic missiles. Another issue that is likely to be considered is the potential of removing the diplomatic sanctions, with the effect of restoring diplomatic relations with Iran, in the future. (Parker) These issues are likely to become the next topics for debate.
Apart from uncertainties and questions on whether it is prudent to implement and rely on sanctions in seeking Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, interpretation or consideration of the impact of the outcomes of imposing sanctions was also politicized. While it cannot be denied that the imposition of sanctions and agreement over the exchange of American citizens for Iranian citizens can be considered successes, the response of the Obama administration to the nuclear threat from Iran has primarily become a political issue. Since the removal of the financial sanctions occurred during a national election year, it has become an area for establishing and distinguishing the campaign positions of presidential candidates. Republican candidates denounced the agreement of the Obama government to release Iranian citizens currently being held in American prisons as an indication of weakness. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas described the exchange as a ‘dangerous precedent’ and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida similarly considered the exchange as a ‘bad precedent’. Concerns were raised over the security of American citizens since the exchange signals the willingness of the American government to negotiate for the release of their citizens. Release of duly-convicted prisoners may also cause other countries and even American citizens to expect pardon from the President. Donald Trump also commented that the negotiations that occurred between the Obama administration and the Iranian representatives were not up to his standard. Meanwhile, democratic candidates focused on the release of American citizens and its reinforcing role in Iran’s compliance with the nuclear disarmament plan, as opposed to the focus on the release of Iranian inmates. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont commended the achievement of the nuclear agreement and release of American citizens. Hillary Clinton explained that the exchange reinforced the decision of Iran to adhere to nuclear disarmament. (Sanger, “Iran Complies”) An implication of politicization is the departure from the consideration of the effectiveness of policy and implications of outcomes to the consolidation of political support and power, especially during an election year.
Consideration of the imposition of sanctions on Iran and the subsequent withdrawal of financial sanctions, when Iran complied with the terms of the nuclear deal, together with the agreement on prisoner exchange indicated that sanctions are complex as middle-ground policy that is compounded further by their interconnectedness with party politics. Appropriateness of negotiating the nuclear deal using the mechanism of sanctions was debated before it was implemented by the Obama government. Uncertainties were expressed by critics prior to the compliance of Iran with the terms. Even when Iran was reported to have complied, interpretation and implications of the outcomes were also debated. Containment of Iran’s ballistic missiles will also likely to become intertwined with party politics.
Works Cited
Fayazmanesh, Sasan. The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.
Parker, Ashley. “Republican Candidates Assail Iran Agreements.” The New York Times. 17 Jan. 2016. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
Sanger, David. “Report Urges White House to Rethink Iran Penalties.” The New York Times. 17 Apr. 2013. Web. 25. Feb. 2016.
---. “Iran Complies with Nuclear Deal; Sanctions are Lifted.’ The New York Times. 16 Jan. 2016. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.
