The Lawfare of the United States Against Iran and Russia: A Comparative Study of Sanctions

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Faculty member of the Institute for Security and Progress Studies, Abrar Moaser Research Institute, Tehran

2 School of International Relations (SIR)

3 Negin Mokran Petrochemical Development Company

10.22059/jices.2025.390758.1087

Abstract

International law, as a framework that regulates relations between countries, has the mission of peacefully resolving disputes between nations. So far, many nations have successfully addressed their problems and conflicts using this principle. However, the situation has not always followed this course. In some cases, countries have abused international law, utilizing it as a tool to achieve their own goals and interests. Lawfare serves as a tool employed by powerful and resource-rich countries against weaker nations. One notable example of lawfare is the imposition of sanctions, which can damage the economy of a country and cause suffering for its people. The United States since the end of World War II has utilized this instrument in various instances against different countries, including Iran, Russia, Syria, Cuba, Iraq, and others. Beyond the economic and human rights repercussions of these sanctions, the expansion of lawfare can have significant impacts and consequences for nations. The primary question of this paper is what strategic lessons the U.S. lawfare against Iran and Russia, with a focus on sanctions, offers to both countries. Additionally, this paper examines some commonalities and differences among these sanctions. The hypothesis of this research is that while the sanctions imposed on Iran and Russia share some similarities, their effects and consequences are not the same. Additionally, given the economic capacities of the two countries, it is not possible to directly compare the sanctions imposed on them.

Keywords

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics