The Sanctions Paradox: When Punishing Regimes Punishes People

Reza Pahlavi’s warning about UN sanctions exposes the cruel irony of international diplomacy: measures designed to pressure authoritarian regimes often crush the very citizens they claim to help.

A Voice from Exile

Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last Shah who has lived in exile since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, occupies a unique position in the discourse about Iran’s future. As the would-be heir to the Peacock Throne, he represents both a connection to Iran’s pre-revolutionary past and, for some opposition groups, a potential alternative to the Islamic Republic. His latest statement on the potential reimposition of UN sanctions through the snapback mechanism reflects a growing concern among Iranian opposition figures about the unintended consequences of international pressure.

The snapback mechanism, built into the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), allows any participant to unilaterally reimpose all pre-deal UN sanctions if Iran is found in significant non-compliance. This diplomatic tool was designed as a safeguard, but its activation would mark a dramatic escalation in the already tense relationship between Iran and the international community.

The Human Cost of Diplomatic Chess

Pahlavi’s direct attribution of responsibility to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei highlights a critical distinction often lost in sanctions debates. While Western policymakers frame sanctions as targeted measures against specific individuals and entities, the reality on the ground tells a different story. Iran’s economy, already battered by years of sanctions and mismanagement, has seen inflation soar, currency collapse, and basic goods become increasingly scarce. The middle class has been decimated, while regime elites have found ways to circumvent restrictions through complex networks of shell companies and regional allies.

The phrase “brink” carries particular weight in the Iranian context. A nation of 85 million people finds itself caught between an intransigent regime that prioritizes ideological objectives over economic welfare and an international community that sees economic pressure as its primary leverage. This leaves ordinary Iranians—from Tehran’s tech workers to Isfahan’s shopkeepers—bearing the burden of a confrontation they neither started nor control.

The Opposition’s Dilemma

Pahlavi’s stance reveals a fundamental tension within Iran’s opposition movement. While most opposition figures agree on the need for regime change, they diverge sharply on the role of international sanctions. Some argue that economic pressure weakens the regime and could catalyze popular uprising. Others, like Pahlavi, warn that sanctions primarily harm civilians while allowing the regime to consolidate power by blaming external enemies for domestic hardships.

This debate extends beyond tactical considerations to fundamental questions about solidarity and strategy. How can the international community support Iranian civil society without strengthening the regime’s narrative of foreign interference? Can economic pressure ever be surgical enough to target decision-makers without devastating the population?

Beyond Sanctions: Rethinking Pressure and Support

The limitations of sanctions as a policy tool have become increasingly apparent across multiple contexts, from Iraq in the 1990s to Russia today. Yet they remain a go-to option for policymakers seeking to “do something” without military intervention. Pahlavi’s warning suggests the need for more creative approaches that distinguish between regimes and their people.

Alternative strategies might include enhanced support for civil society organizations, expanded cultural and educational exchanges, and targeted assistance to help Iranians circumvent internet restrictions. The goal would be to empower citizens while isolating their rulers, rather than the current approach that often achieves the opposite.

As the international community considers its next moves regarding Iran, Pahlavi’s intervention raises an uncomfortable question: Are we so focused on punishing the Islamic Republic that we’ve forgotten our moral obligation to the Iranian people caught in the crossfire?