On the surface, the U.S. sanctions Iran to halt its nuclear program and protect Israel. But in reality, these sanctions target countries that do not align with American interests.

Iran has not invaded another country in the past two centuries. Its official stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict—which has been submitted to the UN—calls for a resolution through a comprehensive democratic election. While Iran has never expressed an intention to launch an unprovoked military attack against Israel, Israel has repeatedly used its military to expand illegal settlements and occupy disputed land, despite warnings from numerous countries around the world, including its closest ally, the United States.

As a member of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), Iran has the right to enrich uranium up to 20%. Despite this, Iran set aside its national pride and agreed to be held to a different standard than other member states by voluntarily limiting its enrichment to 3.67% under the JCPOA. What more could it have done?

Nevertheless, the U.S. under President Donald Trump continued to impose sanctions on Iran—even after multiple international bodies confirmed that Iran was complying with the agreement.

The U.S., influenced by Israel, is treating Iran with undue harshness.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) strictly prohibits any form of collective punishment. Therefore, the United States is legally prohibited from implementing policies that diminish the well-being of millions of ordinary citizens, even if the underlying objectives are legitimate. Although the U.S. claims that its sanctions do not affect ordinary citizens, this claim does not align with the actual situation on the ground. It is impossible to drastically reduce a country's income (by some estimates, to a third of its original value) and comfortably assert that its ordinary citizens will not be affected.

Sanctions often lead to economic hardship for the people living within a country. Such conditions are especially fertile ground for fostering resentment toward the West. They reinforce the narrative promoted by those who claim the West is cruel and untrustworthy. These groups frequently accuse others of having a shallow understanding of Western motives. As the painful effects of crippling sanctions are felt in daily life, more people are likely to adopt such views.

A common counterargument is that “those who detest the West will continue to do so anyway.” But this misses the point. The issue is not about the original critics of the West themselves, but about the new waves of people who may be drawn to their ideology.

Countries that are subject to sanctions often perceive their policies as being moral and virtuous, and they tend to view the United States as a bully attempting to dominate the world. As a result, they are unlikely to yield to the pressure of sanctions. Instead, sanctions frequently fuel resentment and can even strengthen national resolve, driving harder work and innovation.

For example, Iran significantly expanded its uranium enrichment efforts after the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA.

Sanctions have a far-reaching impact on society compared to military operations, affecting the lives of countless innocent people. These measures make it challenging for almost everyone in society to carry on with their daily routines, leading to a decline in their standard of living. The negative impact resulting from a shortage of crucial resources like food and medicine can persist for several decades.

Sanctions have a more prolonged impact compared to wars. While wars are undoubtedly horrendous, their effects often cease when the conflict ends. But the consequences of sanctions are often longer-lasting. Some consequences of sanctions, such as malnutrition among children or untreated (or under-treated) medical conditions due to a lack of necessary medications, may manifest themselves over several decades.