JERUSALEM—Ongoing debate over the efficacy of Western sanctions on Iran highlights a persistent dilemma: can economic relief truly moderate the behavior of a regime with a longstanding history of regional aggression? While US and European officials periodically return to the negotiation table, proposing the easing of economic sanctions in exchange for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program, a careful review of both history and policy reveals that this strategy fails to address the foundational problem. Iran’s malign activities—including the sponsorship of terrorism, regional destabilization, and defiance of international norms—long predate the most significant sanctions, undermining the premise that sanctions relief could transform the regime into a peaceful actor.
Origins of Iranian Aggression
Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran’s leadership has prioritized exporting revolutionary ideology and projecting power far beyond its borders. The regime’s use of violence and subversion as tools of statecraft was evident well before Western nations implemented punitive economic measures. Iran’s support for militant groups—most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza—has facilitated decades of terror, with evidence of direct Iranian involvement in attacks against Israeli, US, and Western targets throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
By the early 2000s, the Iranian state was deeply entrenched as a sponsor of terrorism in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and beyond, further solidifying its reputation as a source of instability in the Middle East. The nuclear program, meanwhile, steadily advanced, leading to increased international alarm and the eventual imposition of wide-reaching sanctions aimed at curbing both Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its export of terror.
Sanctions as a Response, Not a Provocation
The rationale underlying Western sanctions is straightforward: deter malicious activity, restrict resources available for terror and military buildup, and incentivize compliance with international agreements. Contrary to claims that sanctions provoke Iranian aggression, the record demonstrates that the regime’s sponsorship of terrorism was the catalyst that prompted international isolation. Major attacks attributed to Iranian-backed entities—including embassy bombings, hostage-takings, and support for violent insurgencies—began well before the imposition of the most severe sanctions, indicating that economic restrictions are a consequence of hostile policy, not its cause.
Nuclear Negotiations and Their Limits
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), brokered in 2015, epitomized the West’s willingness to exchange sanctions relief for temporary nuclear constraints. The hope was that financial rewards might moderate the regime’s international behavior and allow for greater stability. Instead, intelligence and open-source reporting indicated increased funding for Iranian proxies, including shipments of advanced weaponry to Hezbollah and support for terror organizations in Gaza, following the unfreezing of Iranian assets and revitalization of its oil exports. Subsequent violations of the JCPOA and renewed, open threats against Israel confirmed the limitations of the deal.
Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have consistently argued that the only sustainable deterrent against both Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional terrorism is a combination of robust economic pressure and clear red lines, enforced by credible military deterrence. This position has broad support across the Israeli political spectrum and remains central to Israel’s strategic doctrine.
Regional Impact of Iranian Proxies
The repercussions of Iranian support for regional terror are tangible and ongoing. Hezbollah’s vast arsenal, built with Iranian backing, threatens both Israel’s northern communities and regional stability. In Gaza, the October 7th, 2023 massacre—the deadliest act of antisemitic violence since the Holocaust—was executed by Hamas terrorists whose capabilities were significantly enhanced by Iranian funds, training, and logistics. Beyond Israel’s immediate borders, Iranian-backed groups such as the Houthis in Yemen and Shi’a militias in Iraq have destabilized entire countries and maritime routes, further complicating efforts to de-escalate regional conflict.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States, orchestrates much of this campaign, operating both openly and through clandestine networks across the Middle East. Their involvement includes direct combat, arms smuggling, cyber operations, and the coordination of terror attacks on three continents.
Flaws in the Sanctions Relief Strategy
The current diplomatic approach—offering sanctions relief in exchange for nuclear restraint—overlooks the historical record. The inflow of funds to Tehran in periods of diplomatic thaw has not led to meaningful domestic reforms or a reduction in hostile international activities. By contrast, revenues from sanctions relief have repeatedly been redirected to expand the regime’s support for its proxies, strengthen its security apparatus, and suppress internal dissent.
Western policymakers continue to debate whether economic incentives might one day temper Iranian behavior. Yet the persistence of terror sponsorship, despite cycles of engagement and isolation, underscores the structural nature of the threat. For Israeli officials, and for many in the international security community, the failure to confront this reality means perpetuating cycles of violence and missed opportunities for genuine peace.
Conclusion
Peace and stability in the Middle East require clear-sighted recognition of Iran’s track record and the fundamental nature of its regime. Sanctions, while not a magic bullet, remain a vital tool for constraining Tehran’s ability to fund and orchestrate violence against Israel and the broader region. Lasting change will not come from economic rewards alone, but from sustained pressure—backed by moral clarity and strategic resolve—to end both the nuclear threat and the apparatus of terror it sustains.
