 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
research institution devoted to the study of international economic policy. More › ›
sign up
Sign up to receive e-mails from the Institute announcing new publications and updates to our Web site.
Case Studies in Sanctions and Terrorism
Case 84-1
US v. Iran (1984-: Terrorism, Proliferation)
| Chronology of Key Events | Goals of Sender Country | Response to Target Country |
Attitude of Other Countries | Legal Notes | Economic Impact | Assessment |
Author's Summary | Bibliography |
President Ronald Reagan
Following imposition of import embargo: “These measures will remain in effect so long as Iran persists in its aggressive disregard for the most fundamental norms of international conduct. The United States hopes that more normal relations with Iran will evolve as Iran belligerence and tensions in the area diminish.” (International Trade Reporter, 28 October 1987, 1312)
US Department of Commerce
“The [export] controls toward Iran allow the United States to prevent shipments of U.S. origin equipment for uses in the gulf that could pose a direct threat to U.S. interests. . . . Iran also is the country with major influence over those holding the American hostages in Lebanon. Iranian-backed terrorists have conducted terrorism against other countries, including Arab states and their officials. Finally, by restricting militarily useful items, the controls will demonstrate the resolve of the United States not to provide any direct or indirect military support for Iranian warmaking or terrorism supporting capability.” (US Department of Commerce, 13)
President Bill Clinton
"I am convinced that instituting a trade embargo is the most effective way our nation can help curb Iran's drive to acquire devastating weapons and support terrorist activities." (International Trade Reporter, 3 May 1995, 781)
"You cannot do business with countries that practice commerce with you by day while funding or protecting the terrorists who kill you and your innocent civilians by night. That is wrong." (New York Times, 6 August 1996, A1)
In reaffirming national emergency with regard to Iran: “The actions and policies of the Government of Iran, including support for international terrorism, its efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process, and its acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” (USIS, 11 March 1999)
Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY)
"We are subsidizing Iranian terrorism by purchasing their oil and it has to stop. Simply put, a foreign corporation. . .will have to choose between trade with the United States or trade with Iran." (Washington Post, 18 February 1995, A6; AIPAC, 20 November 1995)
President George W. Bush
“The Iranian government must listen to the voices of those who long for freedom, must turn over Al Qaeda that are in their custody and must abandon their nuclear weapons program.” (New York Times, 2 January 2004, A10)
President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
Shortly after his election in October 1989, Rafsanjani says he has no information on hostages in Lebanon, denies that Hezbollah (radical Lebanese Moslem group closely linked to Iran) has control over them. However, he offers to assist in obtaining hostages’ release “in exchange for the unfreezing of Iran’s assets and Western help in tracing four Iranian diplomats who had disappeared in Lebanon in 1982. . . .” (Facts on File, 833)
"The president of the International Atomic Energy Agency has announced several times that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Nuclear energy has many useful purposes that can be used for development, in the health sector and hundreds of other fields. Before the Islamic revolution the United States offered to help Iran build up to ten nuclear plants. We do not understand the logic of why a great country like ours should be deprived of such an asset. Why are you providing North Korea with nuclear facilities? The American treatment of Iran is bullying." (Viorst 1995, 75)
Ahmad Rahgozar, Deputy Oil Minister
"These new policies will not do much. They don't have practical applications, because during the past 17 years after the Islamic revolution we have learned how to live with this American problem. There are many other technical and science centers in the world, especially in petrochemicals. Among the seven major industrialized countries, we have problems with only one." (Financial Times, 6 December 1995, 7)
President Mohammad Khatami
"There will be no progress [with the US] until it is willing to stop bringing harm to our country. Any change in these relations depends on them changing their policies. Unfortunately we do not see any sign of that." (Financial Times, 18 May 1997, 6)
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
“They confront us and deal with us in a very harsh and illegal language, but ultimately they need us more than we need them.” (Washington Post, 15 January 2006, A20)
H. Shariatmadari, a leading Iranian conservative theorist
“Sanctions are not useful nowadays, because we have many options in secondary markets, like China.” (www.inthenationalinterest.com)
Soviet Union/Russia
As of July 1987, “Moscow continued to be Iraq’s major arms supplier, but also placated Iran by condemning the U.S. regional military buildup and advocating a withdrawal of all outside naval forces from the Gulf.” (Facts on File, 531)
Russian President Boris Yeltsin (reacting to US threats to sanction Russian and French energy firms investing in Iran)
“Russia, France, and Iran are all independent freedom-loving states and it is impermissible for others to interfere and dictate which documents we can sign and which we cannot.” (Financial Times, 2 October 1997, 5)
President Vladimir Putin
“Economically, Russia is interested in cooperation [with Iran]…and politically, Iran should be a self-sufficient, independent state that is ready to protect its national interests.” (New York Times, 13 March 2001, 7)
"Russia will continue to cooperate with European and U.S. colleagues in promoting a solution to the issue. Russia, Germany, our European partners and the United States—we all have very similar approaches to the Iranian problem." (Washington Post, 17 January 2006, A1)
China
Chinese Ambassador to UN Huang Jiahua says that “the ‘primary objective’ of the [Security Council] resolution from the start was to ‘encourage’ Iran and Iraq to agree to a cease-fire.” he gives no indication whether China would be prepared to impose sanctions for noncompliance. “China had reportedly become Iran’s major arms suppliers.” (Washington Post, 21 July 1987, A1; Facts on File, 531)
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman: “The US act on intensifying sanctions against Iran and Libya is not consistent with. . . international relations and will do no good to the settlement of the problem. Nobody should frequently resort to sanctions or pressures to resolve such problems.” (Agence France-Presse, 7 August 1996)
Sinopec official: “Sinopec is paying no attention to the U.S. request and will do its utmost to carry on its bidding for an exploitation project in an Iranian oilfield.” (www.inthenationalinterest.com)
Chen Fengying, an expert at the China Contemporary International Relations Institute, which is based in Beijing and affiliated with the state security system: “Chinese companies must go places for oil where American [and] European companies are not present.” (Washington Post, 23 December 2004, A1)
Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan: “We oppose the habitual use of sanctions, or threats of sanctions, to solve problems. This only complicates problems.” (The Jamestown Foundation 2006)
France
Tensions between Paris, Tehran escalate following refusal of Iranian embassy to surrender official wanted for questioning in French investigation of series of bombings that killed a dozen persons in fall 1986. France breaks diplomatic relations in July 1987, bans imports of Iranian crude oil in August. France lifts oil embargo in December 1988. (Washington Post, 7 August 1987, A25; Facts on File 1988, 988)
French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jacques Rummelhardt:
"The activities of French companies in Iran are entirely legal. There is no international restriction or embargo on Iran." (Journal of Commerce, 22 May 1997, 3A)
Germany
Klaus Kinkel, German Foreign Minister: “It is in our view better to continue the dialogue with Iran rather than break off all contacts, introduce sanctions and further radicalize Iran by isolating the country." (Reuters, 9 May 1996)
European Community
“Member states represented in Iran registered their protest [in Rushdie affair] by withdrawing their heads of mission, although most were returned quietly within a month.” In May 1990, senior EC officials agree to meet with Iranian representatives in Dublin, the first high-level meeting in a year. (Financial Times, 11 May 1990, 26)
Hugo Paemen, EU ambassador to the United States: "We have basic interests with a country like Iran, which are different than the United States. . . . It's more a question of, is it wise to isolate a country of the importance of Iran. . . . I don't think we can give many examples of where economic sanctions have led to results." (International Trade Reporter, 31 January 1996, 181)
Tehran-based European diplomat: "The feeling in the diplomatic community was that America's calculations had nothing to do with foreign policy. They all had to do with domestic politics, a field in which we had no interest in getting involved." (Viorst 1995, 75)
Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief
With regards to the EU negotiations with Iran: “Is this approach free of risks? No. Does it have a guarantee of success? No. But at this point in time it is the only game in town, no doubt about that. The other options are worse.” (New York Times, 29 January 2005, 3)
Chris Patten, EU commissioner for external relations
The European Commission regrets the Congressional decision on 27 July to extend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) for another five years. As a matter both of principle and policy, the European Union has long opposed unilateral sanctions laws with extraterritorial effects. Such laws, designed to impose US requirements on economic operators of foreign countries, threaten the open international trading system. The European Union has adopted a Blocking Statute, which makes it illegal for any European Union company to comply with ILSA. But the US measure still creates uncertainty and expense for European companies. The Understanding reached at the EU-US Summit in London on 18 May 1998 was designed to avoid such consequences. . . . In April 1997 the European Council decided that the EU would request the re-establishment of a WTO panel against the US should any action be taken against EU companies or individuals under the Helms-Burton Act or ILSA. That decision still stands. (http://europa.eu.int)
Japan
Japanese Foreign Minister Michio Watanabe: announces that Japan will not abide by US sanctions against Iran. The foreign ministry signals, however, that it will take US objections into consideration in its decision to extend development assistance to Tehran. (Journal of Commerce, 16 November 1992, 16A)
Japanese Foreign Ministry Official: "By having reasonable relations with Iran, we have some influence. . . . Iranian politics is complicated and it is far from clear what would happen if [President Rafsanjani] was ousted. But it could lead to an extreme form of government, and that would not be in the international community's interest." (Financial Times, 3 May 1994, 4)
Official at Ministry of International Trade and Industry: Japan is unlikely to give up Azadegan for an Iraqi deal when Iraq's future is so unpredictable. (Financial Times, 8 August 2003, 14)
Yoriko Kawaguchi, Japanese foreign minister: "We pursue the (nuclear) concerns and also we pursue the goal of having the supply of oil taken care of. These are two separate policy issues and each one is important." (Financial Times, 28 August 2003, 7)
Shoichi Nakagawa, Japanese minister of economy, trade and industry: "As the only country that has experienced the attack of an atomic bomb, Japan is more sensitive than any other country to nuclear proliferation. . . . This matter will have to be dealt with in its totality, taking into consideration all these aspects." (Financial Times, 26 September 2003, 11)
Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996
Under Section 4 (c) the President may waive the imposition of sanctions against nationals of a country if “that country agreed to undertake substantial measures, including economic sanctions, that will inhibit Iran’s efforts” to promote international terrorism and acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Section 9 (c) gives the President the authority to waive imposition of sanctions “if it is important to the national interest of the United States to exercise such waiver authority.” (Public-Law 104–172)
Private Litigation under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
“Amendments that started in 1996 to the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) now essentially allow a new category of suits against a foreign state by: (1) U.S. nationals, (2) who are seeking money damages for personal injury or death, (3) ‘that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources . . . for such an act if such act or provision of material support is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency . . . .’ These suits are an exception to foreign sovereign immunity under new subsection (a)(7) of Section 1605.
“This exception is limited to suits against states that are designated by the Executive Branch as a state sponsor of terrorism. Seven states are now so designated: . . . Iran . . . .” (Carter 2002, 933–34)
<< top of page