Iran, protests, and sanctions

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode examines how U.S. sanctions shaped Iran’s economy and politics across three eras: revolutionary isolation after 1979, a period of pragmatic opening and growth in the 1990s, and the 2010s sanctions regime that severely damaged Iran’s financial system. It argues sanctions can pressure regimes, but they also deepen suffering, empower hardliners, and often resemble economic warfare rather than clean, nonviolent policy.

Main Topics: Iran’s protest wave and economic hardship: The episode opens with recent protests in Iran, showing how inflation, collapsing purchasing power, and everyday price shocks helped fuel public anger alongside demands for freedom, women’s rights, and anti-corruption. Sanctions as a tool of U.S. foreign policy: The hosts explain sanctions as a way to influence another country without military force, but note that experts say they work only under narrow conditions and have been used against Iran for decades. Revolutionary Iran and rejection of Western influence: The first major historical moment is the 1979 انقلاب, the hostage crisis, and the first U.S. sanctions, which helped push Iran toward an anti-Western economic identity and greater protectionism. Opening, growth, and limited sanctions in the 1990s: After the Iran-Iraq war, Iran partially liberalized its economy, expanded trade with non-U.S. partners, and grew despite weaker sanctions, showing that Iran was not fully isolated. The 2010s sanctions regime and financial isolation: The most effective sanctions targeted Iran’s banking system and oil exports, causing inflation, devaluation, and economic contraction while also contributing to negotiations that produced the nuclear deal. Why sanctions are controversial and imperfect: The episode highlights unintended effects: over-compliance by banks, sanctions being reversed imperfectly, regime insiders benefiting, and civilian suffering through shortages of medicine and basic goods.

Key Arguments: Sanctions can pressure governments, but their effects often come through civilian suffering rather than clean political leverage. Iran’s early post-revolution economic identity was formed in direct opposition to U.S. influence, in part because of the hostage crisis and U.S. sanctions. During the 1990s, Iran’s economy improved when it opened to non-U.S. trade partners, showing sanctions alone do not determine outcomes. The 2010s sanctions were more sophisticated and effective because they targeted finance and relied on international coordination. Sanctions helped bring Iran to the negotiating table and contributed to the 2015 nuclear deal, but the benefits were limited by bank over-compliance and later U.S. withdrawal. Sanctions can strengthen regime-linked entities like the IRGC by reducing international competition and concentrating economic power. Even when sanctions are described as nonviolent, they can function like warfare because they damage access to food, money, and medicine. Iran’s recent protests were driven by a mix of rights-based demands and economic distress, making sanctions both a grievance and a potential pressure point.

Data Points: Years of U.S. sanctions on Iran: 47 years - The episode says the U.S. has sanctioned Iran in one form or another since the late 1970s. People killed in crackdown (Iranian government figure): 3,000 - Official Iranian government estimate for protest deaths after the crackdown. People killed in crackdown (independent observers): many times higher, in the tens of thousands - Independent estimates of the protest death toll. Egg price increase during Ali’s visit: 30-something percent - A dozen eggs reportedly rose sharply over the span of a week in Tehran. Oil shares owned by U.S. companies under the Shah: 40% - American companies reportedly held a large share of Iran’s oil sector before 1979. Oil shares owned by UK companies under the Shah: 40% - British companies also held a large share of Iran’s oil sector before the revolution. Hostages held during 1979 embassy seizure: 52 Americans - The U.S. embassy hostage crisis helped radicalize Iran’s economic and political stance. Duration of Iran-Iraq War: 8 years - The war compounded the damage of early isolation and closed-economy policies. Countries/financial institutions engaged by U.S. Treasury in sanctions enforcement: over 120 financial institutions and bank regulators; leaders in over 60 countries - The U.S. used diplomatic pressure to isolate Iran’s banking system in the 2010s. Deaths attributed to U.S. and EU sanctions worldwide: more than half a million deaths per year - A Lancet Global Health study is cited to argue sanctions are not bloodless. IRGC share of Iran’s economy (estimate): up to 50% - The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is described as benefiting economically from sanctions.

Pivotal Quotes: "“Sanctions are supposed to avert war, but how different from war are they really?”" — Narrator/hosts: Framing question of the episode, contrasting sanctions with military conflict. "“Their lives, their future, their hope, everything's changed, right? Like, they don't have much to look forward to.”" — Ali: Describing the despair felt by young Iranians under worsening economic and political conditions. "“That is then a way in which we can see that sanctions are not non-violent. They are a form of warfare.”" — Iva Leila Pesaran: Expert critique of sanctions as a supposedly bloodless policy tool.

Implications: The episode suggests sanctions can weaken states but also inflict broad civilian harm, empower hardliners, and be hard to unwind. For policymakers, it raises doubts about whether economic coercion can achieve change without escalating suffering or conflict.