Republicans’ Ambush for Maximum Pressure on Iran
With the increase in global threats facing the United States, the foreign policy decisions that the next president will make will be the most important since the 9/11 attacks, especially concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran. Will we continue with a weak and indecisive policy towards Iran, or will we return to a decisive and effective policy that has previously yielded specific results?
Although Vice President Kamala Harris recently acknowledged that Iran is a dangerous and destabilizing force in the Middle East, the Biden-Harris administration’s dealings with the Tehran regime have been characterized by insufficient military actions, ineffective diplomacy, and inconsistent sanctions enforcement, allowing Iran to continue attacking American interests and threatening Israel’s survival.
In contrast, the Trump administration’s maximum pressure policy demonstrated that stringent sanctions could severely weaken Iran’s economy without harming American consumers or causing a spike in global oil prices, significantly reducing its malevolent activities.
The next president should reinstate this policy.
Maximum pressure began with the United States’ withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, a flawed international agreement designed to prevent Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.
This move was swiftly followed by the imposition of severe sanctions, including restricting Iran’s oil exports by penalizing countries and companies that continued to buy it, as well as measures against Iranian banks. Oil waivers that initially allowed some countries to continue purchasing Iranian oil ended in mid-2019, reducing Tehran’s oil exports and cutting off its main source of revenue.
Our organization, United Against Nuclear Iran, has tracked the impact of the sanctions, particularly in exposing the illegal transfer of Iranian oil via ship-to-ship transfers that Iran uses to evade sanctions enforcement.
The numbers tell the story. According to our tracking data, between May 2019 and January 2021, Iran’s oil exports averaged 710,447 barrels per day (BPD). Over the 20 months following January 2021 until August 2022, this average rose to 1,182,114 barrels per day.
By March 2024, Iran’s oil exports had reached their highest level in five years, at 1,942,668 barrels per day.
This recent improvement is mainly due to the Biden administration’s lax enforcement of sanctions and the release of Iranian funds, including through hostage deals and the unwarranted release of assets, amounting to billions of dollars.
It appears that concerns about oil price spikes and market volatility, especially in an election year, are the reasons for this administration’s hesitation in enforcing sanctions. However, these concerns are exaggerated. During the 2020 election and afterward, gasoline prices did not rise sharply.
In fact, in October 2020, gasoline prices remained stable, alleviating concerns about election-induced volatility. Strategic partnerships with major energy producers like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have stabilized global oil markets, and this trend can continue under the next administration.
Moreover, the strength of domestic oil production in the United States has shielded American consumers from price increases.
Today, with record domestic production and a more diversified global energy market, we are even less vulnerable to oil shocks than before.
The bottom line is that sanctions, if seriously enforced, yield effective results. Research by United Against Nuclear Iran shows that while Iranian oil reaches markets covertly, sanctions, especially against Iran’s ‘ghost fleet’—a hidden network of tankers that use stealth tactics to transport Iranian oil in violation of sanctions—can significantly disrupt these operations without impacting global markets.
Iran’s impact on these markets is often overstated. Its 4% market share is less significant than perceived.
With diverse global energy resources and strong alliances, Washington can enforce sanctions without jeopardizing its energy security or economic stability, the primary reason for the success of the maximum pressure policy, which can still be effective.
Although Harris acknowledges the threat from Iran, her lack of support for a stronger stance is questionable.
If Iran is indeed the greatest enemy of the United States, avoiding a comprehensive strategy to neutralize this threat is illogical, especially when Iran’s proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas are weakened, and Israel, our main ally, is fighting for survival.
Returning to the policy of stringent sanctions and maximum pressure will once again affirm the United States’ commitment to countering Iran’s destabilizing activities.
This comprehensive approach targeted entities including the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) as well as captains and ships involved in illegal transfers.
By rigorously enforcing sanctions across various sectors, this policy significantly reduced Iran’s oil exports.
In contrast, the Biden administration initially prioritized diplomacy, leading to weak sanctions enforcement, which allowed Iran to gain significant revenue through oil exports, particularly to China.
At times, Biden has taken decisive action, as seen in response to Iran’s missile attacks on Israel this year. In this move, a wide range of targets, including ships and even captains involved in illegal trade, were sanctioned, successfully disrupting these networks.
More actions like these are needed. Now is the time to remind Iran that the United States does not yield to threats.
With strong leadership, we can reactivate the maximum pressure policy and protect our national interests without sacrificing economic prosperity.
