U.S. Sanctions Against Iran: Yes or No?

Some opponents of the government argue that sanctions are the best way to fight against a regime that does not listen to the people. They have even sent a letter to the U.S. President requesting an intensification of sanctions against "the IRGC and the financial empire of Ayatollah Khamenei and human rights violators in Iran." Amir Hossein Etemadi, one of the signatories of this letter, belongs to this group. In contrast, Alireza Namvar Haghighi, a political analyst and history professor at the University of Toronto, argues that as a result of sanctions, it is the people who become poorer and lose their ability to create change. This week in Taboo, we ask about U.S. sanctions against Iran: yes or no? We start the program with Mr. Etemadi. Proponents of international sanctions, especially U.S. sanctions against Iran, claim that these sanctions, described as crippling, will eventually overthrow the Islamic Republic. To what extent is this conclusion correct, and is this assertion accurate and truthful, and why? Amir Hossein Etemadi: Look, I do not exactly know which pro-sanction advocate has used this assertion that sanctions will automatically lead to the overthrow of the Islamic Republic or will overthrow the Islamic Republic. Rather, we say that these sanctions weaken dictatorial and totalitarian regimes like the Islamic Republic, and this helps the people and opposition forces to overthrow such regimes, of which the Islamic Republic is one. In fact, the goal of using external pressure and sanctions is to weaken these governments. This method has been used in many countries and has yielded results. I turn to Mr. Namvar Haghighi with this question: Do sanctions do this? Do they weaken dictatorial regimes or do they weaken the people and civil society? This is a dispute that exists in the middle. Alireza Namvar Haghighi: You see, several issues must be separated. It is not important what intentions those in the opposition have. Sanctions proceed based on the intentions and goals of those who impose the sanctions, not based on those who are marginalized and have no role in stopping, intensifying, or changing the direction of the sanctions. Some of these friends analyze without clarity on whether their basis is Iran's national interests or America's national interests; especially those who have American passports must pay attention that if conflicts lead to war between Iran and America, they must defend the U.S. This is a paradox that will arise for them. Sanctions come in three models. Specific topic-oriented sanctions, such as those against North Korea, Brazil, Pakistan, India, and Iran, which are aimed at, for example, abandoning the nuclear program. Some sanctions are aimed at weakening a regime economically and completely stripping it of its regional power and maneuverability. You also have this in U.S. history. The third is sanctions aimed at overall weakening and, in fact, economic warfare so that at the moment when the system is structurally weakened, that event occurs. Something that an American senator said, that we must pull the morsels from the people's mouths to incite a rebellion, or that we should directly enter into war. Cases like Libya and Iraq fall under this third type of sanctions. In your remarks, there were two points; one was the American passport issue, which our listeners may not find particularly relevant to this situation, this moral position you may place the proponents of sanctions in with your reference to the American passport. Then the interests of the sanctioning countries; certainly, the sanctioning countries pursue their own interests. The question is how much do the proponents of sanctions pay attention to Iran's national interests? Mr. Etemadi, perhaps you want to respond to this. Etemadi: Look, I do not think Mr. Haghighi is more Iranian than I am or that he can better identify Iran's national interests than I and my friends. Vaclav Havel, the well-known Nobel Peace Prize winner, who is a symbol of peaceful and civil struggle in the world, says that a totalitarian system, in order to weaken its opponents, precisely uses these titles that they are mercenaries, they are traitors, they do not have the passport of that country, they are Americans, they work for the CIA... and this propaganda is repeated not only by that system through its media but also through those figures and individuals sent abroad who sometimes have the mask of opposition. No, Mr. Haghighi, I do not have an American passport. I have an Iranian passport. I am against war. My entire effort is to prevent war in Iran... Namvar Haghighi: Of course, I did not mean you. I meant... Etemadi: I am here as a representative of those who defend sanctions... Mr. Namvar Haghighi, please allow him to finish his explanation, and we will return to you to hear your explanations. Etemadi: Ms. Khodrahidari, this program is Taboo, and I thank you very much. You have chosen a topic that, although it is resolved in other parts of the world, is still a taboo in Iran. This taboo must be broken. The issue of defending sanctions has been resolved in other places. Against dictatorial regimes, using external support and pressure and sanctions has been resolved. Figures who have used this method are not infamous in the world. Namvar Haghighi: Look, first of all, I did not mean Mr. Etemadi regarding the passport. I said in general that those who are American citizens should pay attention that encouraging confrontations and sanctions, which has a precedent in Iraq, if it is that third model and leads to war, puts them in a difficult position. At that time, they must support the U.S. military attack on Iran. The second point he mentioned about Vaclav Havel. Our brother also agrees. First, show us your Vaclav Havel. Are you Vaclav Havel of Iran? If you are Vaclav Havel of Iran... which of those who signed the sanctions has the position of Vaclav Havel in Iran? Vaclav Havel, Mr. Mandela, these had the capability to mobilize and organize protests; they were imprisoned in that country and could mobilize. This sanctions regime was not intended to change democracy and human rights. What Mr. Havel said and the sanctions against Czechoslovakia were such that the Czechoslovak government would change towards Western and democratic values, and there was also a leadership, which was Mr. Havel. Mr. Trump, the new U.S. President, has spent his political capital on three countries: Russia, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. All three of these countries, based on indicators that you agree with, are certainly worse off than Iran; with any human rights index we want to look at. Therefore, those who impose these sanctions have neither concerns for democracy nor human rights. Mr. Etemadi, if you have a response to Mr. Namvar Haghighi, please keep it very brief, but the point you raised and the response Mr. Namvar Haghighi gave both lead us to the question of whether these sanctions are precisely sanctions against the government or whether they are sanctions for the economic austerity of the people? Opponents of sanctions, including, ask that, well, what role does an ordinary citizen play in this? Why should the people of Iran be collectively punished and endure hunger and poverty because of a proposal you emphasize; sanctions? How is this standing with the people in this struggle? Etemadi: Look, I want to say two points first. When we say Vaclav Havel, you must also consider the Otpor movement in Serbia. The leaders of the Otpor movement, like Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa and Mandela, were not famous. These were people whose names many might not know even today. Your assumption that civil protests must have symbolic leaders and these leaders must be inside that country is completely wrong. Fortunately, we have both symbolic leaders and intermediate leaders in Iran who can organize these protests... Namvar Haghighi: Who is the symbolic leader? Please let’s return to my question, Mr. Etemadi... Etemadi: Regarding your question about whether these sanctions put pressure on the leadership of the Islamic Republic and the entire Islamic Republic government, there is no doubt. This is something that Mr. Khamenei himself has said. If you go to the speeches of Mr. Khamenei, Mr. Velayati, and Mr. Salehi, which are public speeches, they all emphasize that the primary and ultimate goal of the Islamic Republic for ending negotiations has been to lift sanctions. No matter how much you say that the pressure is on the people, yes, it puts pressure on the people, but its main target is the government, especially for a country like Iran where over sixty to seventy percent of its economy is under the control of Mr. Khamenei's institutions. But whether the people are harmed and how humanitarian this is, the responsibility lies not with me, who says sanctions are in favor of those people, but with those who cause sanctions to be imposed on the people. Two months ago, the second round of sanctions just started, but when did the economic problems of the people begin? Why did people come to the streets in December? Was there a sanction at that time? Hadn't three years passed since the nuclear agreement? Shouldn't that nuclear agreement have had an effect on people's lives? Why did people take to the streets because of inflation and unemployment and recession? When people in all these protests we have seen since December have never once shouted against the U.S. or those who defend sanctions, but instead shout that "our enemy is right here / they lie that it's America," this means they have understood where the problem lies. Very well, with the points you raised, I return to Mr. Namvar Haghighi. The economic stranglehold that the general public in Iran is currently facing is often linked to the issue of sanctions. On the one hand, Mr. Etemadi and his like-minded colleagues also say that the economic problems in Iran are much broader and deeper than the sanctions that have just begun. Are all these really related? Namvar Haghighi: Issues of mismanagement, power block conflicts, political limitations, lack of participation... I have said these dozens of times. All of these have caused Iran's economy to miss its golden opportunities. Part of it is also related to the continuation of the enrichment project. I myself was the first person to write in 2002 that enrichment is a project that puts Iran's national interests at risk, but the fundamental issue is that Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo, who called for bombing Iran - and these friends have never criticized that Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo's policy on bombing is wrong - this group seeks to change the Islamic Republic's relations at any cost. They also lie that we have not sanctioned medicine. No bank can open an LC for medicine. Even cancer and chemotherapy drugs that the U.S. has the radiotherapy materials for are also banned. If you are strong, you must mobilize and organize, and yes, at that time you can demand that foreigners also impose sanctions. These friends should write an economic program for the development of Iran. How many people have you been able to mobilize behind you in the free environment abroad? These economic sanctions do not lead to regime change - what he says - it leads to a more closed space, more economic corruption, and more poverty for the people. He himself said that the protests in December were not when economic pressure was present. When, in fact, economic pressure increases and external threats increase, national considerations and people's fear of worsening conditions cause them to become quieter. He is right that economic sanctions put pressure on the system's resources, but this does not lead to them giving freedom or kissing power goodbye and leaving. This causes the atmosphere to become more militarized, and more radical groups come to power to unify the power block. Mr. Etemadi, one analysis is that as society becomes weaker and more impoverished with each passing day of sanctions, how can this society, as you say, move away from dictatorship and experience a transition to democracy? Etemadi: We are currently witnessing two days of major protests by educators and teachers in Iran. Before that, nearly 20 days of truck drivers conducted a nationwide strike. Did you see these that you say the people of Iran protest in hunger and impoverishment or not? For example, you do not consider one of the successful cases of sanctions. No matter how much you dislike Ms. Suu Kyi and say her subsequent behavior was wrong, sanctions caused the military regime of generals to back down.