How to Stop Sanctions: Slow or Fast, Which is Better?

With less than two weeks remaining until the deadline for signing a comprehensive nuclear agreement between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 group, analyses and speculations about the timing and manner of lifting sanctions are increasingly becoming part of foreign media reports. Although Iranian officials have repeatedly emphasized that Western sanctions have not brought them to the negotiating table, they have also acknowledged in several instances that these sanctions have been impactful, crippling Iran's economy, and have always been their main demand as a result of nuclear negotiations. In addition to the sanctions imposed by the United States since the severance of relations with Iran after the 1979 revolution, which have been renewed every year, in recent years, as concerns about Iran's nuclear activities have increased, the UN Security Council, the US, and the European Union have also imposed political and economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic. These sanctions have dealt a heavy blow to Iran's economy in the last three to four years, pushing inflation above 40% two years ago and significantly reducing the value of Iran's national currency. It is no surprise that the issue of how and when to lift or suspend sanctions in exchange for concessions that Iran will make regarding its nuclear program has drawn everyone's attention. One of the media outlets that has addressed this issue is the reputable website Politico, which on Monday, June 15, stated that whether sanctions are lifted slowly or quickly, each has its own drawbacks and advantages. Politico noted that if sanctions are lifted quickly, the Islamic Republic would immediately gain access to vast financial resources, which some fear could be used for its 'terrorist activities.' The article also mentions that there are those who warn of another threat. According to this group, if sanctions are not lifted quickly and Tehran does not feel at least somewhat relieved from them, it may lose its motivation to implement the comprehensive agreement. However, Elizabeth Rosenberg, a former advisor to the US Treasury on sanctions, stated: 'The truth is that for several reasons, [lifting sanctions] will be neither quick nor easy.' Politico points out that the potential opening that the lifting of sanctions is supposed to create is also shrouded in uncertainty in the long term. For instance, if a Republican wins the US presidential election in 2016, then the commitment of the United States to implement the comprehensive nuclear agreement cannot be trusted. For these reasons, analysts quoted in this report indicate that American companies will still be cautious regarding Iran and trade in the country, and other foreign companies will also prefer to act cautiously to avoid incurring the wrath of the United States. According to Ms. Rosenberg, this could 'create despair and frustration in Tehran and reduce the motivation of Islamic Republic officials to implement the comprehensive agreement.' Politico reports that at the annual 'Jerusalem Post' conference held earlier this month in New York, Jack Lew, the US Treasury Secretary, emphasized that 'the immediate improvement of Iran's economy' after the lifting of sanctions 'is nothing more than a myth.' This raises the possibility that a slow and gradual economic improvement after the lifting of sanctions could strengthen hardliners in Tehran who have opposed nuclear negotiations and concessions to the West in exchange for the lifting of sanctions from the beginning.