Sanctions have been the policy tool of choice used by six presidents to deal with Iran. Since the 1979 revolution, the White House has issued at least 16 executive orders, and Congress has passed ten statutes imposing punitive sanctions on Iran in four waves, according to Ali Vaez, of the International Crisis Group, in The Iran Primer.
- The first wave of U.S. sanctions, from 1979 to 1995, was a response to the U.S. embassy hostage crisis and Tehran’s support for extremist groups in the region.
- The second wave of sanctions, from 1995 to 2006, sought to weaken the Islamic Republic by targeting its oil and gas industry and denying it access to nuclear and missile technology. U.S. sanctions also targeted any company in a third country that invested in Iran’s energy sector, a move to compel allies to adopt a unified stance against Iran.
- The third wave, from 2006 to 2010, was imposed chiefly due to concerns over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but also included punitive measures for Iran’s human rights violations.
- The latest wave of sanctions, since 2010 includes, some of the toughest restrictions the United States has ever imposed on any country. They target Iran’s Central Bank and its ability to repatriate oil revenues as well as many transportation, insurance, manufacturing and financial sectors.
- U.S. and E.U. sanctions have cost Iran over $100 billion in lost sales since 2011. Treasury Undersecretary David S. Cohen April 2014
- Iran’s economy contracted by about six percent in 2013 and is expected to perform badly in 2014 as well. Treasury Undersecretary David S. Cohen April 2014
- Sanctions have cut oil export earnings by more than 60 percent since 2011. State Department Undersecretary Wendy Sherman February 2014
- Oil revenues plummeted from $100 billion in 2011 to $35 billion in 2013. Kenneth Katzman, Congressional Research Service May 2014
- Iran’s currency, the rial, has lost about 60 percent of its value since 2011. State Department briefing November 2013
- The Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992: Sanctions foreign countries that transfer goods or technology that knowingly contribute to Iran acquiring chemical, biological, nuclear or advanced conventional weapons.
- Iran Sanctions Act of 1996: Sanctions investment in Iran’s energy sector. (Amended and expanded since then.)
- Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000: Sanctions foreign individuals and entities helping Iran with developing weapons of mass of destruction.
- Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006: Sanctions entities that contribute to Iran’s ability to acquire chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
- Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010: Sanctions sale of gasoline and gasoline production equipment to Iran, sanctions banks that transact with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, and blacklists individuals involved with human rights abuses related to the crackdown on protestors following the June 2009 presidential election.
- Iran-Syria-North Korea Nonproliferation Act of 2011: Sanctions entities and individuals supporting weapons of mass destruction or cruise or ballistic missile programs.
- Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act: Identifies Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern and prohibits the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts by any domestic financial institution or agency for or on behalf of a foreign banking institution, if the account involves Iran.
- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012: Sanctions foreign banks that transact with Iran’s Central Bank. Exemptions can be issued to banks whose parent countries have substantially curtailed purchases of Iranian oil.
- Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012: Expands sanctions on foreign banks dealing in Iran’s energy sector and on entities involved with human rights abuses in Syria
- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013: Expands sanctions on energy, shipping and shipbuilding sectors for ties to proliferation activities.
- Imposing asset freezes on individuals and companies for involvement in ballistic missile programs and nuclear programs.
- Imposing asset freezes on individuals, companies and banks affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards.
- Requires states to prohibit procurement of arms and related material from Iran and require states to restrict supply of specified arms and combat equipment to Iran.
- Calls on states to exercise vigilance in entering new public financial support commitments with Iran.
- Calls on states to exercise vigilance over Iranian bank transactions in their territories.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry have published rival op-eds in the run-up to another round of nuclear talks scheduled for July 2 to 20. Zarif highlighted the “unique opportunity” to strike a deal with the world’s six major powers. But he also warned against maximalist demands by the opposite side that could jeopardize the talks. “I appeal for these illusions not to derail a process that could put an end to a pointless crisis,” Zarif wrote in French daily Le Monde. In a YouTube video message, Zarif also warned against “pursuing a game of chicken in an attempt to extract last minute concessions.” The two sides must reach an agreement before July 20 or agree to extend the negotiating period for six months.
Secretary Kerry framed the talks in terms of two choices for Iran’s leaders. “They can agree to the steps necessary to assure the world that their country's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and not be used to build a weapon," he wrote in The Washington Post. Or “they can squander a historic opportunity to end Iran's economic and diplomatic isolation and improve the lives of their people.”
On July 2, British Foreign Secretary William Hague also warned that the world’s six major powers “will not accept a deal at any price” in a statement. The following are excerpts from Zarif and Kerry’s op-eds with a transcript of Zarif’s video message and transcript Hague’s statement.
British Foreign Secretary Hague's July 2 statement
But Supreme National Security Council Chief Ali Shamkhani has dismissed speculative reports about U.S.-Iran coordination. And Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned against U.S. intervention. He has blamed the United States, along with Sunni Gulf states, for allowing extremist groups to flourish in the region. “The real fight is between those who want to bring back a U.S. presence and those who want Iraqi independence,” Khamenei said on June 22. The following are excerpted remarks by Iranian leaders on the Iraq crisis.
“Unfortunately, we face two festering tumors in this region and across the Muslim world. One tumor has always caused distress to the Palestinians and Muslims and these days it is secreting and wreaking havoc on the land of olive [trees]. The other festering tumor which is agonizing the Muslims these days is a campaign launched under the name of Islam, religion, caliphate and caliphacy and has undertaken the murder and killing of Muslims in the region. All studies indicate that both tumors have roots at the same point.”
Where did #ISIS come from? Who's funding them? We warned everyone, esp the West, about dangers of supporting such violent& reckless groups.— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) June 14, 2014
Terrorists are committing atrocities in Iraq. Unfort'ly they call themselves Muslim& claim their way is that of Quran pic.twitter.com/KK7UzgXepR— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) June 12, 2014
June 22, 2014 at a meeting with judiciary officials
ZARIF: I think this problem of extremism and sectarianism is a danger not only to Iraq and Syria
but to the entire region. We've been saying that --
AMANPOUR: But to Iran?
ZARIF: -- to Iran, too. Iran is a part of this region. We don't like instability in our neighborhood. Inside Iran, we are probably best protected from such waves of extremism than any of our neighbors. All our neighbors are more vulnerable to this threat than Iran is internally.
But for us, our domestic security is inseparable from security of the region. So for us a secure Iraq, a secure Persian Gulf, a secure Afghanistan is as important as our own security.
So from that perspective, it becomes important. But we said it from the very beginning that this problem of extremism, violence and use of sectarian divisions in order to advance a political agenda was dangerous for all countries in the region and that is why we insisted from the very beginning that we need to have a strong unified stance against it.
AMANPOUR: And I presume you want a unified Iraq as well, because right now, it looks like it's fragmenting and it could possibly fragment.
I want to ask you specifically, Nouri al-Maliki is a product of Iran, according to everybody. In other words, Iran backed him in 2010 when he was reelected. Iran backed a lot of the people who he brought into his cabinet. And they are calling him extremely divisive, extremely sectarian and practically the opposite --They're calling him extremely divisive and extremely sectarian.
Is al-Maliki the man that Iran wants to see as prime minister, no matter what?
ZARIF: Well, I think you made some assumptions that are not correct. Iran, first of all, wants Iraq territorial integrity and I have spoken to almost every regional foreign minister and all of them want to ensure that Iraq remains a secure with its own boundaries, national unity of Iraq. Disintegration of Iraq is going to be a disaster for the entire region. So that's given.
Iraq has a very lively democratic process. It's very young but very lively. People go and vote and people elect certain people. Our advice to the Iraqis, all of them, who’ve never supported any individual or party, our advice has been that you need to work, based on the democratic model, but at the same time to ensure that the government is inclusive, that the government represents various views.
Now you have a system in Iraq with an overwhelming majority of one group, but you have a system where the president is from one ethnicity; the speaker of the parliament is from another religious sectarian group. The prime minister is from another.
If you find this combination within the constitutional framework that Iraq has established and then allow various political parties to form a workable government that also represents all segments of Iraqi society, this is our desire. We're not in the business of supporting any individual.
We support the Iraqi people. We support the choices of the Iraqi people, whoever Iraq can choose as its prime minister will have the full backing of Iran, whoever Iraq choose as its prime minister.
And as its president and as its speaker of parliament, will have the full backing of Iran, because for us the number one issue is that we need to respect the choices of the Iraqi people. And my advice to countries in the West as well as countries in the region is to have respect for people, allow them to make their own choices. And once you allow them to make their own choices, they'll make the best choice.
AMANPOUR: Obviously Iraq has had a very painful history under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Obviously Iran suffered from that as well. But Prime Minister Maliki has at best treated the Sunnis as worse than junior partners, has basically frozen them out.
Do you think that the Shiite prime minister, because that’s what the constitution says it should be, should treat Sunnis as equals or as junior partners?
ZARIF: No, you see, it's a government based on democratic principles people have -- it doesn't matter whether you're Sunni --
AMANPOUR: It should be, but it hasn't happened.
ZARIF: -- no, no. You see, you have a government where political parties -- unfortunately some of them are along sectarian lines -- but political parties go to the polls, receive votes, some have more votes, some have less votes. They're different voting blocs in the Iraqi parliament.
Why do we need to send it into a sectarian issue? These are, in the United Kingdom, for instance, the prime minister is from one party; it has a coalition which works with another party. It's just a fact of life.
Why people need to make -- to insert divisive sectarian issues into this? We need to establish a government in Iraq that represents the views of the people but at the same time maybe if you have something exactly on that line, you will get only one group taking over all segments of Iraqi power structure and that is why you have these divisions and these attempts to bring everybody inside.
It doesn’t mean that people who got the largest number of votes should be equally represented as people who got two votes in the parliament, that is not the meaning of democracy. Meaning of democracy is you get more votes; you get more seats in the parliament. You get more seats in the government. That's the reality.
But keeping that reality in mind, we insist that all segments of Iraqi society should be included in governing Iraq. That's the only way to ensure stability in Iraq and I'm sure all political parties, be Shia, Kurd, Sunni, all of them and non-sectarian, all of them have that objective in mind.
Now the way to achieve that objective may be different from -- based on one platform to another. But I think that's what we need to achieve. We should not start inserting sectarian divisions into Iraq.
Sectarian considerations are really dangerous for our region and really dangerous for the world. We live in a globalized world and it's very dangerous to fan these flames of sectarian hatred, one where it won't be contained in that area.
AMANPOUR: Is ISIS sufficient a threat for Iran and the United States to combat? Or does Iran not want to see any U.S. involvement in Iraq right now?
ZARIF: I think the international community needs to come together in order to deal with this threat of extremism and violence.
AMANPOUR: Specifically in Iraq.
ZARIF: In Iraq, in Syria, elsewhere. It requires a unified approach, not shortsighted policies, not infringing yourself in positions but really seeing the problem as it is. It is a problem of extremism. It is a problem of demagogues using inherent resentment that have arisen out of decades of injustice in our region.
But these are demagogues using these resentments in order to advance a very dangerous political agenda. And this dangerous political agenda may fit in the designs of some external powers. I don't know. I do not want to espouse conspiracy theories.
But what is important is everybody should come to realize that whatever their short-term interests are, in long term, this is a threat against everybody and everybody needs to have a unified international and regional stance against such acts of extremism and allowing it to take root in Iraq.
Any political, any shortsighted political gain that some people believe they can derive from this unfortunate situation in Iraq is exactly shortsighted and will come to haunt them in the future.
June 21, 2014 according to Parliament’s website
“There is no particular problem along our common border with Iraq; however, the necessary measures have been taken by the Interior Ministry and border police.”
June 23, 2014, according to press
Basij Militia Commander Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi
“The terrorist and anti-Islamic ISIL group is the US’s instrument for sowing discord among Muslims in the region.
“The US and the Israeli regime seek to use fanatics and anti-Islamic groups to damage the Islamic community.”
June 23, 2014, according to press
Tehran’s Provisional Friday Prayer Leader Seyed Ahmad Khatami
“The US and Israel are supporting the ISIS with the purpose of disintegrating Iraq and create differences among Muslims.”
June 27, 2014
Parliament's Director General for International Affairs Hossein Sheikholeslam
“Supporters of these terrorist groups want to portray Iraq's parliamentary democracy as a failure because they consider this democracy as a factor for their destruction.”
July 1, 2014 according to the press
Ambassador to Tehran Mohammad Majid al Sheikh
“These are just the rumors of biased and despiteful media which are seeking to sow discord among the regional states, especially Iran and Iraq.
“Iraq doesn’t need any country neither for weapons nor for the military forces at all; hence, I emphasize that neither General [Qassem] Soleimani nor any other (Iranian) figure is in Iraq.”
June 24, 2014, according to press
Photo credits: President.ir, Khamenei.ir, Iran's Ministry of Defense, Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ali Larijani by Harald Dettenborn [CC-BY-3.0-de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons,
President Hassan Rouhani’s Twitter account saw the most impressive growth in followers last year among accounts of other world leaders, according to the 2014 Twiplomacy Study by Burso-Martsteller. @HassanRouhani’s number of followers has multiplied by 19 since the last study was published in July 2013. The latest report surveyed 643 Twitter accounts of heads of state and government, foreign ministers and their institutions in 161 countries.
The most difficult issues in the Iran nuclear talks “will not likely be settled until the 11th hour, but the two sides have a number of realistic, effective, and verifiable options available that would address the core concerns of both sides,” according to Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball. The organization’s new report outlines options for limiting the most sensitive parts of Iran’s nuclear program that would prevent it from making a quick dash to build a weapon. The authors also warn that without a comprehensive diplomatic solution Iran would likely deploy more advanced centrifuges and that its stockpile of enriched uranium would likely grow -- which would shorten the time needed to produce fuel for a bomb.
The following are excerpts from the executive summary followed by a link to the full report.