US Sanctions on Iran: The Calculus of Coercion and Collapse
Trending Global
The US Treasury Secretary's assertion that sanctions will 'squash' Iran's economy and 'collapse' its regime forces a re-evaluation of coercive diplomacy.
What just happened
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently articulated the explicit objective of Washington's intensified sanctions regime against Iran: to 'squash' the nation's economy and precipitate the 'collapse' of its government. This declaration moves beyond the stated goal of compelling policy changes, openly framing the economic pressure as a mechanism for regime change. Crucially, Secretary Bessent accompanied this pronouncement with a direct challenge to international partners, stating allies would need to decide whether they 'are with us or against us'. This ultimatum signals a significant hardening of the US position, demanding unequivocal support for its maximum pressure campaign and leaving little room for diplomatic manoeuvre or independent economic engagement with Tehran.
Why it is contested
The effectiveness and wisdom of employing economic sanctions with the explicit aim of regime collapse remain deeply contested among foreign policy practitioners and economic strategists. Historically, such maximalist approaches have yielded mixed results, often failing to achieve their stated goals while imposing significant humanitarian costs and fostering resentment. The 'us or against us' ultimatum, in particular, risks alienating key allies who may share concerns about Iran's regional activities but disagree with the strategy or the implied abandonment of diplomatic engagement. It forces a zero-sum choice that complicates multilateral cooperation and could inadvertently push some partners towards greater autonomy in their foreign policy.
The competing narratives
One prevailing narrative posits that the US strategy, while aggressive, is a necessary and perhaps overdue escalation. Proponents argue that sustained economic pressure, coupled with a clear intent for regime change, is the only leverage capable of compelling a fundamental shift in Iran's behaviour or governance structure. They contend that previous, more incremental approaches have merely emboldened Tehran, allowing it to continue its nuclear programme and regional proxy activities. From this perspective, the 'us or against us' framing is intended to eliminate loopholes and prevent third-party circumvention of sanctions, thereby maximising their impact. The strongest objection to this reading is that it overestimates the capacity of external pressure to dictate internal political change in a sovereign state, potentially underestimating the regime's resilience and its capacity to mobilise nationalist sentiment against perceived foreign interference. It also risks creating a humanitarian crisis that could further destabilise an already volatile region, without guaranteeing the desired political outcome.
A counter-narrative asserts that the US approach is not only unlikely to succeed but is actively counterproductive. Critics argue that an explicit policy of regime collapse through economic strangulation will likely entrench hardliners within the Iranian leadership, who can then rally public support by portraying themselves as defenders against foreign aggression. This could suppress internal reform movements and lead to a more repressive state, rather than a more compliant or democratic one. Furthermore, the 'us or against us' demand risks fracturing alliances, as major trading partners with significant economic interests in Iran may resist a policy that directly harms their own commercial relationships and regional stability objectives. The strongest objection to this view is that it offers no credible alternative to addressing Iran's perceived threats, effectively suggesting that any pressure short of regime collapse is insufficient, and therefore, inaction or appeasement would be the only remaining options.
What to watch next
The immediate focus will be on the responses from key US allies. Will they align fully with Washington's maximalist stance, or will they seek to carve out exceptions or maintain independent diplomatic channels with Tehran? The degree of international compliance, particularly from major energy consumers and trading nations, will be a critical determinant of the sanctions' economic impact. Domestically, observers will monitor the Iranian regime's internal response: whether it attempts to diversify its economic partnerships, cracks down harder on dissent, or makes any conciliatory gestures to de-escalate tensions. The evolution of regional proxy conflicts, which could be either exacerbated or tempered by the increased pressure, also remains a key indicator. Finally, the humanitarian consequences of heightened economic pressure will bear close watching, as they could generate international condemnation and potentially shift the political calculus.
The bottom line
The US administration has laid bare its ultimate objective in its Iran policy, moving beyond containment or behavioural modification to an explicit pursuit of regime collapse. This strategy, however, faces significant hurdles, not least the challenge of securing complete international buy-in and navigating the unpredictable internal dynamics of a resilient Iranian state. The core question remains whether such an aggressive posture can genuinely force a fundamental political transformation, or if it risks consolidating opposition, alienating allies, and inadvertently deepening regional instability without achieving its stated aims.
Source material: BBC News