• 2018-05-21

    The Trump administration’s new strategy on Iran essentially amounts to economic war. In a speech on Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed “unprecedented financial pressure in the form of the strongest sanctions in history” unless the Islamic Republic renounced all its nuclear activities, its ballistic-missile program, and its support of regional proxies. “The [Iranian] regime has been fighting all over the Middle East for years,” Pompeo said at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “After our sanctions come in force, it will be battling to keep its economy alive. Iran will be forced to make a choice: Either fight to keep its economy off life support at home or squander precious wealth on fights abroad. It will not have the resources to do both.”

  • 2018-05-08

    US President Donald J. Trump is expected to announce his decision on May 8 on whether to continue to waive sanctions on Iran or pull the United States out of a multilateral nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic. Here’s a quick look at the history of sanctions on Iran. 

  • 2018-05-08

    On May 8, 2018, the President announced his decision to cease the United States’ participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and to begin reimposing, following a wind-down period, the U.S. nuclear-related sanctions that were lifted to effectuate the JCPOA sanctions relief. In conjunction with this announcement, the President issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) directing the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare immediately for the reimposition of all of the U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA, to be accomplished as expeditiously as possible and in no case later than 180 days from the date of the NSPM. ...

  • 2018-01-20

    The sanctions on Iran caused a fall of country’s revenues, devaluation of national currency, and increase of inflation and unemployment. These all resulted in deterioration of people’s overall welfare and lowering their ability to access the necessities of a standard life such as nutritious food, healthcare and medicine. Also, the sanctions on banking, financial system and shipment led to scarcity of quality lifesaving medicines. The impacts of sanctions were more immense on the lives of the poor, patients, women and children. Humanitarian exemptions did not protect Iranians from the adverse effects of sanctions. [...] Countries which imposed economic sanctions against Iran have violated Iranians’ right to health. International community should have predicted any probable humanitarian effects of sanctions and used any necessary means to prevent it. Furthermore, Iran should have used any essential means to protect people from the adverse effects of sanctions. Now, they should work on alleviation of the negative effects of sanctions. Even though, some of the effects such as disability and death cannot be compensated. In future, before imposition of sanctions, decisions makers should advice an international order to prevent such impacts on targeted countries’ populations

  • 2018-01-11

    ... There also are many good reasons why parts of the Iranian population see Iran’s government as failed and repressive regime, but it is important for those outside Iran to understand that there are no reliable indicators as to how many people actually oppose the regime, why they oppose it, or how serious their opposition is. It is equally hard to know how many Iranians support the regime, what aspects of it they support, and how many simply “go along to get along.” ...

  • 2017-02-02

    The list comprises the List of Medical Devices Requiring Specific Authorization as identified in 31 C.F.R. 560.530(a)(3)(ii)

  • 2016-07-01

    On July 14, 2015, the international economic boycott levied against Iran was scheduled to conclude. In concert with the European Union and the P5+1, the Islamic Republic agreed to a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) whereby its capacity for nuclear development would be dramatically curtailed. Among other requirements, Iran is mandated, for a period of 15 years, to cap its uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent – a level far below the weapons-grade enrichment rate of 90 percent. In exchange for these assurances, the international community has pledged to terminate the lion’s share of sanctions imposed on Iran. This entails normalizing trade relations, lifting artificial investment and financial barriers, and unfreezing $100 billion in frozen assets. Although not immediately discernable, the nexus of this agreement and climate change is distinctive. At the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP21), Iran was among the 150 nations that drafted and published its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). The government outlined that it would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 4 percent under the condition that “unjust sanctions” are lifted and never again re-imposed.  This stipulation indicates not a threat from the Islamic Republic, in which it wields sanctions as a tool for political leverage, but rather the impracticality of emissions mitigation without the transfer of financial investment, physical capital, or technological know-how from developed nations. Regrettably, the persistent skepticism of some European banks to issue loans may inhibit this vital process. The central goal is thus to evaluate the extent to which the JCPOA will enable Iran to fulfill, if not surpass, its mitigation targets. Now that it has reintegrated into the landscape of international relations, Iran is tasked to balance urgent economic development pressures with the principles of environmental sustainability outlined in its INDC. It is therefore apt to highlight the implications, both constructive and destructive, that renewed international engagement holds for issues related to climate change.

  • 2016-06-08

    The U.S Congress initiated sanctions against Iran after the 1979 U.S. Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran, and since then the scope of multilateral sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations Security Council have progressively expanded throughout the intervening years. Though primarily targeted at Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities, sanctions have nevertheless resulted in negative public health outcomes for ordinary Iranian citizens. This includes creating vital domestic shortages to life-saving medicines, leaving an estimated 6 million Iranian patients with limited treatment access for a host of diseases. Sanctions have also crippled Iran’s domestic pharmaceutical industry, leading to the disruption of generic medicines production and forcing the country to import medicines and raw materials that are of lower or questionable quality. ...

  • 2016-05-13

    HSBC has criticised the US secretary of state, John Kerry, for asking European banks to do more business with Iran while Washington continues to restrict American financial firms from doing the same. The bank’s chief legal officer, Stuart Levey, said HSBC had no intention of doing any new business with Iran after a meeting in London on Thursday in which Kerry urged a gathering of European bankers to make a push into the country. The US and European Union lifted sanctions against in Iran in January after the country dismantled 14,000 centrifuges – two-thirds of its total nuclear capacity – as part of its obligations under the international deal agreed in Vienna last July. Despite this, the banking industry remains fearful of large financial fines, - the threat of losing crucial licences to operate in the US, for falling foul of regulations.

  • 2016-01-01

    ... Since sanctions have had the unintended effect of restricting civil society mobilization in Iran, this comment recommends that the U.S. government further target sanctions, create more authorizations, ease financial restrictions, and increase information transparency. This would have the effect of incentivizing companies to export technology to Iran and provide these mobilization tools to Iranians. The United States should seize this opportunity to improve the sanctions regime by incentivizing companies in a way that promotes Iranians’ freedoms and U.S. foreign policy goals. ...

Pages