Human Rights Sanctions on Iran Are Not Only Symbolic

More than a year after the start of the bloody and unprecedented suppression of peaceful protests by the Islamic Republic government, human rights sanctions against the officials and the institutions of the regime have risen to an unprecedented level.

The escalation of human rights sanctions started a year ago and continues today. Now it is time to answer this question: Are these sanctions merely symbolic? Below, we show why this is not the case and these sanctions are not symbolic.

When Iran, whose ruling regime faces the world’s record number of sanctions, hears the news about new restrictions, they ask this question: What is the use of these sanctions?

The short answer is that the sanctioned individuals lose the privilege of receiving visas from other countries that have issued sanctions and, along with immediate members of their families, cannot conduct commercial or financial transactions or have assets and properties in those countries. And, if they buy or sell properties or have bank accounts in those countries, their assets are frozen and their properties are foreclosed.

Since people who violate human rights in Iran are in the service of the repressive regime of the Islamic Republic, the government awards them privileges, including by allowing them to conduct commercial transactions by bypassing customs and tax regulations, and even by allowing them to buy and sell oil.

For example, the son of Admiral Ali Shamkhani, now an influential politician and an advisor to the supreme leader, owns an oil transportation company thanks to a proxy permit granted by his father who for years was the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and, reportedly, is engaged in selling oil in violation of Iran’s Oil Nationalization Act.

The senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), National Police and other branches of the security forces, who are involved in suppressing and killing Iranians, are engaged in business activities and register fake companies through intermediaries. The sanctions imposed by the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries deprive these people from easy access to the financial and monetary markets in Europe and the United States. But this is not the only damage dealt by sanctions to the repression network of the Islamic Republic.

As the human rights and humanitarian concepts expand and spread, companies in democratic countries have adopted a business model in which they integrate social and environmental concerns in their operations and interactions with their stakeholders instead of only considering economic profits.

“Corporate social responsibility” is a relatively new concept in business and financial contracts that large and small corporations voluntarily adhere to as a “humanitarian protocol” by refusing to cooperate with institutions and individuals found to be violating human rights.

This is an important protocol because, for instance, compliance with some US sanctions against the Islamic Republic may not be mandatory under certain conditions. For example, a branch of a company that has been registered outside the United States and whose shareholders are mainly non-Americans can work with Iranian nationals and organizations provided it is not subject to secondary sanctions by the United States. It can be a Swiss company or even a Kuwaiti, Emirati, Japanese or Australian company. However, the implementation of the "corporate social responsibility" clause, which is voluntary, would prevent this company from cooperating with sanctioned individuals and institutions.

In some countries, governments have also passed laws to further human rights goals. The 2017 French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law requires large companies in France to identify and prevent risks to human rights and the environment that could occur as a result of their business activities. These activities can include those of the company itself, their suppliers or subcontractors, and companies they control. The legislation, in brief, requires companies to create and implement publicly-available vigilance plans for which they can be held accountable. The law is designed to improve the corporate social responsibility programs of the companies in scope, as well as help the victims of crimes in achieving justice.

If a company covered by the law fails to publish or implement its Vigilance Plan, any concerned party such as victims of corporate abuses can file a complaint with the relevant jurisdiction. With the ever-increasing spread and acceptance of "corporate social responsibility" as a humanitarian value, now more countries follow this principle, including Mauritius, an island-nation in the Indian Ocean, India and Nepal.

According to the "corporate social responsibility" principle, corporations are required to publish extensive information about their social and environmental programs and activities. Even without the risk of sanctions, no reputable company is willing to do business with, for example, Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, the former chief prosecutor and the current head of the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Court, or Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Radan, the commander-in-chief of National Police, or their immediate family members, and sacrifice its reputation for the limited profit of working with human rights violators who are accused of killing peaceful people.

Sanctions might not “paralyze” those in Iran who are accused of involvement in the bloody crackdown of protesters and civil society , but there can be no doubt that they do deny these individuals and groups the ability to conduct business in an easy and normal way and impose on them numerous costs.

Coming back to the main question of this article — Are human rights sanctions merely symbolic? — the answer is: No. These sanctions have distinct effects that those targeted never tell the people about them about. They deny the consequences or effects of the sanctions through propaganda campaigns, a hallmark of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

So, let us warn those individuals who are on the verge of committing human rights violations in Iran or who are considering joining the Islamic Republic’s organs of oppression that they should think about the possible consequences of their acts.

Read More about New Sanctions by the European Union, the US and Britain:

The European Union has approved 10 sets of sanctions against human rights violators in Iran. Switzerland and other European countries that are not EU members have supported most of these sanctions and promised to implement them. Britain has also intensified sanctions against individuals and institutions that violate the human rights of Iranian citizens. The number of individuals and institutions sanctioned by Britain now stands at 168.

The United States has taken similar actions, targeting 131 individuals and institutions of the Islamic Republic in the past year. Canada has also independently imposed extensive human rights sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

US, EU, UK Announce More Iran Sanctions, September 15, 2023

Canada Targets Senior Iranian Officials with New Sanctions, August 9, 2023

Judiciary Officials among Iranians Hit by New EU Sanctions. June 26, 2023

EU Imposes Further Sanctions on Iranian Officials, Entities, May 22, 2023

Iran Protest Crackdown: EU, UK Impose Further Sanctions, March 20, 2023

UK Imposes More Iran Sanctions Over “Brutal Repression”, January 23, 2023