United States and European Union's Sanctions on Iran and Iraq, 2015-2024

Sanctions have long been used as a non-military means of shaping international behavior, with
the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) among the most active proponents. This
study examines how sanctions have functioned as instruments of diplomacy in the cases of Iran
and Iraq, two countries that have faced some of the most extensive sanction regimes in modern
history. While sanctions are often promoted as peaceful alternatives to armed conflict, their real
world effects reveal a complex balance between strategic pressure and humanitarian
consequences.
The research adopts a qualitative, comparative case study approach, relying exclusively on
secondary data from academic publications, official documents, policy briefs, and reports from
reputable international organizations. Thematic content analysis was applied to identify recurring
patterns and narratives relating to the scope, effectiveness, legitimacy, and humanitarian impacts
of US and EU sanctions.
Findings indicate that sanctions can exert significant economic and political pressure, sometimes
prompting negotiation, as in the case of Iran and the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA). However, in both Iran and Iraq, sanctions also triggered severe humanitarian
consequences, including shortages of medicine, inflation, and deterioration of public services. In
Iraq, comprehensive UN-backed sanctions contributed to a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented
scale, while in Iran, targeted sanctions although more focused still hindered access to essential
goods and reinforced authoritarian structures. The study concludes that sanctions are most
effective when multilateral, clearly goal-oriented, and paired with credible diplomatic incentives,
but their design must include safeguards to minimize civilian suffering.
This study recommends that every sanction should have specific, realistic objectives and a clear
roadmap for lifting or easing restrictions once progress is achieved. Open-ended sanctions often
fail to create change and instead prolong civilian hardship