MAXIMUM PRESSURE: A recurring theme in US-Iran relations

Shafaq News/ It was the 8th of May, 2018, when President Donald Trump stood at the White House podium, staring into the cameras, convinced he was undoing one of the US's greatest mistakes. "This is a horrible deal, one-sided, and a disaster for the United States," he declared. "We are pulling out."

Just like that, Trump decided to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 nuclear agreement designed to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanction relief. It was a move that stunned allies, infuriated Tehran, and set in motion one of the most aggressive economic campaigns in US history, the "maximum pressure" strategy.

Maximum Pressure: The Far-Reaching Impact of Sanctions

The maximum pressure strategy, introduced in 2015, was a key US initiative aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence through severe economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Under Trump, this approach was intensified, especially after the US withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018. Trump justified his decision by arguing that the deal imposed insufficient restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, failed to address its missile development, and ignored its support for armed groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.

He criticized the agreement, stating, “This was a bad deal for the US. It allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and gave them billions of dollars. It also ignored their growing missile threats and their destabilizing activities in the Middle East.” His goal was to renegotiate a new deal with stricter limitations on Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities.

A key aspect of the maximum pressure strategy was crippling Iran’s economy, particularly by cutting its oil exports to zero, as oil revenue is Tehran’s primary financial resource for both domestic programs and military operations.

The US aimed to weaken Iran’s banking system, drive up inflation, and restrict imports. Trump emphasized, “We are going to bring Iranian oil exports to zero. This is the only way to deal with them. We have to squeeze their economy to force them to negotiate.”

While his administration successfully reduced Iran’s oil exports to near zero, these numbers began rising under Former President Joe Biden, as Iran found ways to bypass sanctions. Trump criticized Biden’s approach, warning, “Under Biden, Iran’s oil exports have risen again. This is a mistake, as it allows Iran to fund its nuclear ambitions and terror activities.”

Beyond economic pressure, the strategy sought to force Iran into new negotiations under more stringent terms. Historically, economic hardship had pushed Iran to the negotiating table, as seen in the 2015 nuclear deal, and Trump believed that sanctions would again compel Tehran to accept a better agreement.

He asserted, “The sanctions will bring Iran to the table. They know they need a deal, but this time, it’s going to be a better deal for the US.” Additionally, the strategy aimed to curb Iran’s regional influence by cutting its financial resources, limiting its ability to support groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and factions in Iraq and Syria. Trump stressed the necessity of this approach, stating, “Iran’s influence in the Middle East is dangerous. We cannot allow them to continue funding terror groups. The sanctions are meant to stop that.”

Impacts on Iran

The reimposition of sanctions led to a significant contraction in Iran's economy. In 2018, Iran's gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by an estimated 4.8%, with forecasts predicting a further decline of 9.5% in 2019. The sanctions particularly targeted Iran's oil exports. By September 2012, Iranian oil exports had fallen to a record low of 860,000 barrels per day, down from 2.2 million barrels per day at the end of 2011. The devaluation of Iran's currency, the Riyal, exacerbated economic challenges. By February 2025, the Riyal had plunged to a new all-time low, trading at around 892,500 to the US dollar on the unofficial market.

Sanctions have directly targeted various sectors of Iran’s economy, including its financial institutions and industries. The US Treasury Department designated multiple Iranian banks and companies, effectively isolating them from the global financial system. This isolation hindered Iran’s ability to conduct international trade and attract foreign investment.

Iranian politicians have also been affected, with sanctions imposed on key figures within the government and military. Notable individuals include Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has faced sanctions due to his role in guiding the country's policies; former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, sanctioned for his involvement in shaping Iran's foreign relations, particularly regarding nuclear talks; the late Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, who was killed in a US airstrike in January 2020 after being sanctioned for his leadership in Iran's military operations across the Middle East; as well as Esmail Qaani, Soleimani’s successor and current commander of the Quds Force.

These measures aimed to pressure Iran’s leadership by restricting their international travel and freezing assets held abroad. However, the political impact of these sanctions has been mixed, with some analyses suggesting limited effectiveness in changing government behavior.

The Iranian populace has also borne the brunt of the sanctions’ adverse effects. The economic downturn led to increased unemployment and inflation, diminishing the purchasing power of ordinary citizens. A study found that sanctions caused a fall in the country's revenues, devaluation of the national currency, and increased inflation and unemployment, resulting in a deterioration of people's overall welfare and lowering their ability to access necessities such as nutritious food, healthcare, and medicine.

Access to essential medicines has been particularly challenging. Despite exemptions for humanitarian goods, sanctions have disrupted the supply of critical drugs for conditions like cancer, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis.

Human Rights Watch reported that the consequences of intensified US sanctions pose a serious threat to Iranians' right to health and access to essential medicines, contributing to documented shortages.

The sanctions have also led to a phenomenon known as the "rally-around-the-flag" effect, where public sentiment shifts in support of the government in response to external pressure. Research indicates that comprehensive sanctions generally improved sentiments toward the Iranian government, even among its moderate opposition, rendering them more aligned with the state's stance.

Russia-China Factor: Breaking the US Grip

Despite the sanctions, Iran has developed several ways to evade US restrictions and continue exporting oil. Tehran has employed covert tactics, including using front companies and secretive shipping routes, making enforcement difficult. Iranian political analyst and former IRGC officer, Mohammad Sadeq Al-Hosseini Afqahi, acknowledged these tactics, stating, "Iran has learned to navigate the sanctions. They are not as effective as Washington hopes. Iran has been able to sell its oil secretly through fake companies and clandestine routes."

Iran has also strengthened its ties with countries like Russia and China, both of which have been less inclined to follow US sanctions.

Russia, for example, has consistently opposed the sanctions, viewing them as an infringement on national sovereignty. Russia has benefited from Iran’s struggles, particularly by increasing its own energy exports, while offering Tehran diplomatic support at the UN.

A Russian official stated, "We view US sanctions on Iran as a violation of international law and a challenge to the sovereignty of other nations."

China, Iran’s largest oil buyer, has also continued its trade with Iran despite the sanctions. Beijing’s ongoing support is part of its broader strategic goals, particularly within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative, where Iran plays a key role. This defiance of US sanctions aligns with China’s broader efforts to challenge American economic dominance. A Chinese official commented, "We have our economic interests, and we will continue to buy Iranian oil. Our relationship with Iran is strategic and important."

Collateral Damage: Iraq Caught in the Middle

The maximum pressure campaign has had significant repercussions for neighboring Iraq, which shares a 1,599 km border with Iran and maintains deep economic ties with Tehran.

One of the most critical impacts has been disruptions to Iraq's energy supply. Iraq relies heavily on Iranian electricity and natural gas to meet its domestic needs. Around 40% of Iraq's electricity comes from Iran, with Tehran supplying about 1,200 megawatts of electricity to Iraq every day. Although the US had previously granted exemptions to allow these imports, the revocation of these waivers has placed Iraq in a precarious position.

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani acknowledged, "The sanctions on Iran put us in a very difficult position. Our energy supplies depend on Iran, and these new restrictions will have a serious impact on our economy."

The sanctions also affect Iraq’s trade with Iran, which has been a vital economic partner. Annual trade between the two countries exceeds $13 billion, encompassing critical sectors such as agriculture, construction, and industrial products. For example, Iran supplies Iraq with essential goods like food, medicine, and raw materials for building projects, and sanctions on these goods are expected to disrupt local markets. If trade restrictions remain in place, they could destabilize Iraq's economy, given that more than 30% of Iraq's imports come from Iran. These disruptions could ripple across Iraq’s key industries, potentially leading to supply shortages, inflation, and slower economic growth.

In addition to the economic impact, Iraq's political landscape is deeply divided, with factions loyal to both the US and Iran. This division complicates Baghdad's ability to navigate the pressures exerted by both sides.

Political analyst Abbas Al-Jubouri observed, "Iraq is stuck between two powers, one a neighbor and the other a global superpower. The political factions in Iraq are deeply divided, and the sanctions exacerbate this tension." This political fragmentation makes it even harder for Iraq to maintain stability, as it struggles to balance competing interests while trying to safeguard its economic and energy needs.

Afghanistan has also been affected, as Iranian fuel and food imports are crucial to its economy.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only side feeling the effects of US sanctions on Iran. Lebanon’s Hezbollah and several Iraqi Resistance groups, for instance, receive direct funding from Iran. The sanctions could disrupt this flow, as all Hezbollah members, for example, receive their salaries in fresh dollars from the IRGC.

Other regional players are closely monitoring the situation. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both strong supporters of US sanctions on Iran, see them as a tool to weaken Tehran’s influence. In response, they have ramped up oil production to stabilize global energy prices while also curbing their role as trade hubs for Iranian goods under increased US pressure.

Meanwhile, Qatar and Oman have maintained their economic ties with Iran. Qatar relies on shared natural gas reserves with Tehran, while Oman has traditionally acted as a mediator between the US and Iran, seeking to ease tensions and facilitate dialogue.

Domestic Dissent: Iranian Public Opinion

The economic and political consequences of sanctions on Iran have been profound, but these sanctions have also been strategically utilized to pressure Iran into negotiations.

Jordanian political analyst Hazem Ayad highlighted that the US aimed to exacerbate Iran’s domestic economic difficulties by cutting off crucial trade links, particularly with countries like Iraq and other nations across Asia. Ayad stated, "The sanctions are not just about inflicting economic damage, they are designed to bring Iran to the negotiating table. The US hopes that this economic pressure will compel Iran to reconsider its policies."

Despite the significant economic hardship caused by sanctions, Iranian leadership remains highly distrustful of US intentions. For decades, the Iranian leadership, spanning from Ayatollah Khomeini to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has viewed engagement with the US as a betrayal of national sovereignty. Although there have been indirect talks regarding Iran’s nuclear program, direct negotiations with Washington remain a red line for Tehran. Mohammad Ali Afqahi, an Iranian political analyst, dismissed former President Trump’s proposal to meet with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian as a "mockery." Afqahi explained that while certain reformist factions within Iran might be open to such talks, they would likely focus exclusively on Iran's nuclear program, with Tehran setting strict terms.

For Iran, the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, particularly in fields like science and medicine, is a non-negotiable principle. Afqahi emphasized, "For Iran, nuclear technology is a right, not a bargaining chip. There will be no talks unless the US respects this fundamental principle." This sentiment underscores Iran's firm stance in any negotiations, highlighting that their nuclear ambitions are framed as legitimate, rather than as a subject for trade or compromise.

However, in December 2024, Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), confirmed that Iran had significantly accelerated its uranium enrichment, reaching 60% purity. This brought Iran closer to the threshold necessary for developing nuclear weapons, though the Iranian government continues to deny any intention of pursuing nuclear weapons. Grossi expressed concern, stating, "Iran is advancing its nuclear program at an alarming rate, and we are closely monitoring the situation."

The expiration of the United Nations resolution tied to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is set for October 2025. This resolution lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program. Once the resolution expires, Iran will no longer be subject to the same international limitations, and Western signatories, including the US, will lose their ability to act against Iran under the agreement.