02 ISSUE V
MAY 2025
MAY 2025
Weaponizing Sanctions
There are how-not-to lessons for future nuclear non-proliferation strategies in the US’s “Maximum Pressure Campaign”
against Iran.
against Iran.
By Atash Nowroozian
The U.S. withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in 2018, followed by the implementation of the “Maximum Pressure Campaign” (2018-2024), aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions through sanctions and diplomatic isolation. While framed as a national security measure, it failed to achieve diplomatic progress. Instead, it exacerbated humanitarian crises, worsened economic hardship for ordinary Iranians, and heightened regional instability in West Asia.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, was signed in 2015 between Iran and the countries negotiating about Iran’s nuclear program. These countries are collectively known as P5+1: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China along with the European Union. P5+1 aims to curb Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by imposing strict limitations on its nuclear program in exchange for economic relief. Iran agreed to significantly reduce its uranium enrichment capacity, limit its stockpile of enriched uranium, and allow extensive monitoring and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify compliance. In return, international sanctions were lifted, granting Iran access to global financial systems and revitalizing its economy.
In May 2018, the United States, under the first Trump administration, unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, citing the deal’s failure to address Iran's ballistic missile program, regional influence, and the sunset clauses on key nuclear restrictions. This marked the beginning of the “Maximum Pressure Campaign,” a strategy aimed at crippling Iran’s economy through economic warfare, diplomatic isolation, and military deterrence. The campaign reimposed all pre-JCPOA sanctions and added new ones targeting vital sectors of Iran's economy, including oil exports and financial transactions. While the stated objective was to force Iran to negotiate a more comprehensive agreement, the result was a deterioration in regional security and humanitarian conditions. In a 2023 report for the Arms Control Association, Kelly Davenport, its director of Non-Proliferation Policy, wrote that the result was that Iran began rolling back its nuclear commitments, regional tensions escalated, and civilians bore the brunt of economic collapse. Rather than constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions, the Campaign exacerbated insecurity, deepened economic suffering, and failed to achieve sustainable diplomatic progress.
Sanctions have been the primary tool used by the international community to deter Iran's nuclear ambitions. Their central objective has been to create enough economic pressure to coerce Iranian leadership into halting uranium enrichment and accepting international oversight. While sanctions have succeeded in exerting severe economic pressure, their effectiveness in achieving long-term non-proliferation goals remains deeply contested. On the one hand, economic sanctions played a crucial role in bringing Iran to the negotiating table in the early 2010s. However, the reimposition of sanctions following the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 significantly altered this dynamic. The Maximum Pressure Campaign failed to produce the desired outcome of renegotiation and triggered Iran's gradual withdrawal from the JCPOA's terms. In this context, sanctions not only lost their leverage but also contributed to the erosion of diplomatic trust, making future negotiations more difficult.
Moreover, the blunt nature of broad-based sanctions undermined their legitimacy. By targeting core sectors of Iran's economy, including oil, banking, and medicine imports, the sanctions inflicted widespread harm on civilians without fundamentally changing the strategic calculus of Iran's ruling elite. The Iranian government adapted by building sanctions-resistant networks, increasing ties with non-Western powers, and turning inward economically—diminishing the intended pressure on decision-makers. Thus, while sanctions initially played a role in shaping diplomatic outcomes, their long-term effectiveness is limited without sustained engagement, multilateral enforcement, and attention to humanitarian impacts. A strategy that relies solely on coercive tools risks backfiring, undermining both non-proliferation goals and regional stability.
While sanctions are often justified as a non-military means of applying pressure, their unintended consequences have been severe. The broad and sweeping nature of the U.S.-led sanctions regime has led to significant humanitarian costs. Although humanitarian goods like food and medicine are technically exempt, in practice, financial restrictions and banking barriers have made it nearly impossible to import critical supplies. This has resulted in shortages of life-saving medications, disrupted access to healthcare, and increased food insecurity for millions of Iranians. Sanctions have contributed to the regional insecurities that they were intended to reduce. As Iran's economy deteriorated, the state adopted more assertive regional policies as a form of strategic defiance. Increased proxy activity in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen followed the reimposition of sanctions, contributing to instability and fueling sectarian tensions. The sanctions regime has not only failed to achieve its intended political objectives but has produced significant collateral damage—both within Iran and across the broader Middle East.
Designed to cripple Iran’s economy in an effort to undermine the regime, the policy instead exacerbated humanitarian crises, disproportionately affecting ordinary citizens. Instead of acknowledging Iran’s unique socio-political and economic conditions, the policy applied broad sanctions that ignored Iran’s reliance on imported medicine and essential goods. The campaign was reactive and punitive, aiming to pressure Iran into compliance rather than preventing insecurity and instability. The sweeping economic sanctions imposed on Iran not only intensified existing financial insecurities but also created new vulnerabilities, affecting millions across nearly every aspect of daily life. The economic devastation has pushed millions into poverty and financial distress while leaving government elites mostly unaffected. Those in power are largely shielded from the impact of sanctions, leveraging informal networks, state-controlled industries, and illicit trade to bypass restrictions, while the economic burden falls disproportionately on ordinary citizens who lack such privileges. The Iranian currency lost nearly 80% of its value, rendering imports unaffordable and drastically reducing household purchasing power. The elimination of banking and oil revenue, Iran’s primary revenue source, further crippled domestic industries and exacerbated unemployment. The private sector has been virtually wiped out, as businesses reliant on foreign trade and investment collapsed, leaving thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises bankrupt. With wages stagnating and job opportunities vanishing, Iran’s working and lower-class populations bore the brunt of the economic downturn, struggling to afford even the most basic necessities.
Medical sanctions severely restrict the import of life-saving drugs and medical equipment, worsening health outcomes across the country. Chemotherapy drugs, insulin, and treatments for rare diseases became inaccessible, forcing patients to seek alternatives on the black market at exorbitant prices or go without treatment entirely. Reports documented cancer patients unable to access medication, leading to preventable deaths. Iran’s domestic pharmaceutical industry, unable to meet demand, struggled to provide reliable alternatives, leaving hospitals and clinics under-equipped to handle even routine medical cases. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated this crisis, as Iran faced severe shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and essential medicines while sanctions blocked international aid and medical imports. The pandemic disproportionately affected Iran’s lower-income population, as many were unable to afford private healthcare or access treatment in an already overwhelmed system. With crippled medical infrastructure and soaring infection rates, the combination of sanctions and the pandemic proved devastating, worsening an already dire humanitarian situation.
The case of Iran underscores the limitations of sanctions as a standalone tool for nuclear non-proliferation. The overuse of sanctions—particularly under the Maximum Pressure Campaign—has resulted in deep humanitarian costs, political backlash, and a breakdown in diplomatic trust. What was intended as a strategy to force compliance instead pushed the region closer to crisis, increasing the very security risks it sought to prevent. Ultimately, rather than enhancing security, the Campaign deepened vulnerabilities for millions, making life more precarious for those already struggling to live. Sustainable non-proliferation cannot be achieved through coercion alone—it requires dialogue, mutual incentives, and attention to the well-being of ordinary citizens. The case of the Maximum Pressure Campaign serves as a critical example of how state-centered security policies can ultimately generate insecurity for the people who are subject to it.
atash nowroozian is an ma candidate at the new school, specializing in international affairs with a concentration in security and conflict, focusing on the mena region.