The Sanctions Law and Continued Tensions Between Iran and the United States

Turning the bill into law - Twenty-four hours after Ali Larijani announced that Iran had filed a complaint with the Security Council regarding the violation of the nuclear agreement by the United States, the President of the United States signed a bill that includes tripartite sanctions against Russia, North Korea, and Iran, turning it into law. If, as Larijani stated, Iran's complaint was related to the sanctions, it is surprising why this complaint was made before the sanctions became law. Does Iran intend to escalate the existing tensions or is it merely a preemptive action coinciding with the signing of the sanctions law? Regardless of the reason, the question remains unanswered as to why the spokesperson for the legislative branch announces the government's complaint to the United Nations and not the government itself or the spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry? In any case, what became law with the President's signature imposes sanctions on Russia for its military aggression in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. The law also targets North Korea for its intercontinental ballistic missile tests and direct threats to the United States. However, aside from Russia and North Korea, the section concerning Iran is of greater significance. It was previously stated that this set of sanctions is nothing but a repetition of past sanctions, but this assessment seems to be incorrect. The appearance of the situation indicates that if relations between Iran and the United States do not evolve positively, this law will become increasingly stringent, and as some senators have stated, Iran will face crippling sanctions for 'non-nuclear violations.' The broad range of these sanctions regarding Iran includes issues such as missile program development, human rights, and actions that undermine regional stability. The implementation of this law requires the U.S. government to update information about individuals, institutions, supporters, and actors in the three aforementioned areas within the first three months and impose crippling sanctions on them. These sanctions include freezing assets, halting economic transactions, and imposing travel restrictions to the U.S. and U.S.-friendly countries. More importantly, this updating will continue and will be conducted regularly every year after the first three months. Three months later, it will almost coincide with the issuance of the Trump administration's third quarterly report on Iran's compliance with the JCPOA commitments. The Trump administration is determined to provide evidence of Iran's non-compliance. Will 'non-nuclear violations' negatively impact the JCPOA report? And if so, will it lead to Iran or the U.S. withdrawing from the nuclear agreement? Answering such questions is complicated when the U.S. Secretary of State states that he has disagreements with the President regarding the JCPOA. On the other hand, Iranian officials also claim that they will not be the first country to withdraw from the JCPOA. Europe and the U.S. - When the tripartite sanctions bill was being reviewed in Congress and its text was published, some European countries expressed concerns about its extraterritorial nature, and even France believed that its implementation would harm its citizens, which is an unforeseen consequence of the bill. According to France, parts of the bill are inconsistent with international law. Apparently, what has been signed by the President differs significantly from the initial proposal. However, Europeans did not provide a clear opinion on whether this bill contradicts the nuclear agreement, and their concerns were primarily related to their economic relations with Russia. On Wednesday, August 2, coinciding with the President's signature and the bill becoming law, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on behalf of the four major global powers (the U.S., the U.K., France, and Germany), announced that Iran's missile testing in launching a satellite into space violates Security Council Resolution 2231, which is considered an annex to the JCPOA. These countries have requested the Security Council and the UN Secretary-General to examine the matter closely. It is still unclear what action the Security Council will take and what role China and Russia will play in such action; however, the alignment of European countries with the U.S. in raising this objection indicates that the West is acting in unison regarding the implementation of sanctions against Iran. The Revolutionary Guard as the primary target - The new sanctions specifically target the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and with the actions that will be taken to update it, this section of the sanctions could target domestic and foreign companies and even IRGC commanders. In the past, the IRGC's Quds Force and its commander, Qassem Soleimani, were typically the targets of sanctions, but now a list of IRGC commanders and subordinate units may be designated as agents and supporters subject to sanctions. The aim of these sanctions, with their broad range, is to cripple the IRGC's ability to carry out extraterritorial missions. The West has consistently objected to Iran's regional behavior and has regarded its actions in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen as destabilizing, repeatedly calling on Iran to change its approach. On the other hand, Israel, America's strategic ally in the region, is also dissatisfied with Iran's military activities in Syria and its support for Hezbollah. Human rights - The new sanctions law also extends beyond the scope previously considered in human rights issues. This aspect focuses on the Iranian government's treatment of intellectuals and political opponents, domestic human rights activists, and journalists. This section of the sanctions not only considers the government's policy regarding these issues but also includes individuals and decision-makers who, in any way, contribute to the violation of human rights and citizenship rights or individuals who collaborate with or support human rights violators, and as a result, all their assets, interests, and properties will be subject to sanctions, and they will be denied entry to the U.S. and some countries allied with the U.S. The U.S. State Department will be responsible for preparing and updating this list. Concurrently with the process of drafting the sanctions bill and its signing, two reports were published by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that reflected extensive violations of human rights in Iran. The report published by Amnesty International highlighted the intensification of repression against opponents and dissenters during the first term of President Hassan Rouhani and attributed the increasing trend of repression in Iran over the past four years to the President's inability to prevent and halt the repression of religious minorities and civil activists. This report criticizes the Iranian government's performance in preventing numerous violations of a human rights nature. The report lists 45 individuals who have been tortured or mistreated due to peaceful activities, and in 21 cases, detailed accounts of this mistreatment are provided. Long prison sentences, torture to obtain confessions, trials behind closed doors, and the absence of defense attorneys or even the pressure on defense attorneys, in cases where they existed, are among the issues raised in this report. In another report, Human Rights Watch drew attention to Iran's neglect in meeting the medical needs of opposition leaders who have been under house arrest and deprived of social rights for nearly seven years without legal proceedings. Mehdi Karroubi, Seyyed Hossein Mousavi, and his wife Zahra Rahnavard are leaders of the Green Movement that emerged during the peak of public dissatisfaction with the results of the 2009 elections. In recent weeks, the neglect of the urgent medical needs of opposition leaders has been severely criticized. Mousavi and Karroubi suffer from heart conditions, and Karroubi, contrary to medical recommendations, was returned home by security officials without completing his full treatment in the hospital, putting his life at risk. The illegal house arrest of these three since February 14, 2011, is considered one of the gross violations of human rights in Iran. These points have been taken into account in drafting the new sanctions law, and the mission of the State Department in preparing the list of human rights violators indicates that the issue has gone beyond previous rhetorical aspects and could potentially lead to official support for dissenters within Iran. If progress is made in implementing the sanctions law and if Iran cannot establish a mechanism to control the extent of damages or change the nature of its relationship with the U.S., economic pressures will automatically increase, and alongside that, dissatisfaction within will rise, paving the way for the implementation of Secretary of State Tillerson's theory regarding power transition or regime change. Overall, it seems that the sanctions law will be strictly enforced and increase the existing tensions between Iran and the United States. The Trump administration may want to use sanctions for two purposes: - First, to influence Iran's regional behavior, which has benefited from the JCPOA but has not adjusted its behavior to the international system. Success in this regard will lead Iran to change course and engage more cooperatively with the U.S. Currently, at the threshold of the second term of the presidency, such a scenario is a major concern for hardliners. - Second, to create conditions that allow for renegotiation of the JCPOA and incorporate U.S. demands into it. From Trump's perspective, the nuclear deal during President Obama's administration was concluded without considering U.S. interests and needs to be changed. In the meantime, Iran must decide whether to view the U.S. as one of the signatories, a friend, and a powerful partner in the nuclear deal and welcome and leverage a friendly relationship; or to entangle itself for an indefinite period in a space of tension and confrontation with a powerful enemy, costing its national interests.