Iran’s Election Meddling: Real Threat or Political Illusion?

August 1 2024, a Grand Jury indicted three Iranian Conspirators for acting to vitiate the U.S. presidential electoral process at the behest of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Allegedly, these conspirators intended to derail one candidate in favor of another, reminiscent of 2016. (See ,,) In response to this infringement, the United States meted out sanctions. The first time Iran was sanctioned by the U.S. was after the 1979 hostage crisis in Tehran, numerous other sanctions have since followed.

The history of U.S. and Iranian relations have fluctuated over time, details of which though remain relevant, albeit beyond the immediate scope of this narrative. For a more robust account of historical events see “Oil Agreements in Iran.”

However potentially debatable, the U.S. Treasury asserts that the purpose of a sanction “ … is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behavior” and by implication, to uphold the objectives of International Law which are: the maintenance of peace and security, promotion of human rights, facilitation of international cooperation, ensuring justice and accountability, and the regulation of sovereign conduct. Considering the number of U.S. sanctions against Iran and in light of recent events, i.e., Iran’s alleged meddling in the 2024 elections, the question of whether these sanctions have achieved their desired objectives becomes cogent.

Executive Order (EO)13848, which give the current sanctions force, prohibits all activities and relations with the sanctioned entities, even barring the receipt or making of donations to or from the same. Hemmed-in restrictions such as these may be apropos if the purpose of a sanction is to lay siege to the sanctioned entity, cripple it and incapacitate its potential ability to launch an envisaged attack.

These sanctions, all in response to particular purported incidents, appear to have caused widespread political and economic strife with far-reaching global consequences. They have rendered millions unable to meet their basic needs, severed access to natural resources that could improve global economy, (See also ,) and have facilitated and perpetuated wars that result in carnage.

However, as explicitly stated, the goal of sanctions is not to punish but to induce positive behavior. Inasmuch as the Department of Treasury has a how to come off the SDN list on its webpage, a demonstration of good faith, this approach of sanctioning has frequently not been effective at delivering the desired objectives without ensuring disproportionate costs. The question now is; are there alternatives?

A robust solution to any problem involves a root cause analysis, addressing foundational issues while minimizing the temptation to go after symptomatic concerns. Hence, a root cause approach to the problems in Iranian – American relations may yet yield better alternatives.

The idea is not to disregard national sovereignty or to shy away from the display of appropriate force, including aggression if necessary, but rather to propose and adapt legal precedents that have yielded sustained and preferred outcomes. If inducing positive behavior is the raison d'être for sanctions, then alternatives that could deliver on those objectives ought to be explored. Here are some suggestions:

1. Ressourcement to the D’Arcy Concession. In the North Sea Continental Shelf and East Timor (Portugal vs Australia) cases1969 and 1995 respectively, it is evident how a return to original agreements, the clarification of customary laws, and recognition of national sovereignty led to a sustained resolution. (see also )
2. A revisit of the 1979 Tehran hostage crisis. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1941 presided over the Trail Smelter Case, in which Canada was held liable is significant for two reasons. First, it establishes the principles of states must not cause harm and to prevent harm, ensuring that their activities and those under their jurisdiction do not cause harm to other states. Second, the potential of arbitration as a means of redress for grievances and the creation of new treaties, that could resolve long standing disputes.
3. A creation of new treaties between Iran and Western states on oil and nuclear power- with the weaponization of fissile material recognized as an inherent negation of any potential treaty.(see also ,,)

In sum, “we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.” The onus is now on us. If two score and four years of effort doing the same thing has not yielded the desired effect, maybe, just maybe, it is time for a different approach.