Why we should return to ‘maximum pressure’ against Iran (archive)
The Trump administration policy showed that well-enforced sanctions could cripple Iran’s economy.
By: Jeb Bush and Claire Jungman; The Washington Post
Published: October 31, 2024 at 6:30 AM EDT
An Iranian-flagged tanker lies off the Greek port of Karystos in May 2022 after its crude oil cargo was seized
and transferred to another vessel at the request of the United States. (Thanassis Stavrakis/AP)
Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, is chairman of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). Claire Jungman is chief of staff of UANI and director of its Tanker Tracking Program.
As the United States faces mounting threats worldwide, the foreign policy choices the next president makes will be the most significant since 9/11 — particularly with regard to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Will we continue with a weak and indecisive approach to Iran’s terrorism-sponsoring regime or reinstate a muscular policy that manifested pronounced success in the past?
Although Vice President Kamala Harris recently acknowledged that Iran is a “destabilizing, dangerous force in the Middle East,” the Biden-Harris administration’s dealings with the regime in Tehran have been marked by inadequate military action, ineffective diplomacy and inconsistent sanctions enforcement, enabling Iran to continue funding terrorism, attack U.S. interests and threaten Israel’s survival.
In contrast, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy showed that well-enforced sanctions could cripple Iran’s economy and significantly weaken its malign activities — without harming American consumers or triggering a spike in global oil prices. The next president should restore that policy.
Maximum pressure began with the United States’ 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — a flawed international agreement intended to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This move was swiftly followed by the imposition of severe sanctions, including restricting exports of Iranian oil by imposing penalties on countries and companies that continued to purchase it, as well as measures against Iranian banks. Oil waivers that initially allowed some countries to continue buying Iranian oil expired in mid-2019, slashing Tehran’s oil exports and cutting off its primary revenue stream.
Our organization, UANI (United Against Nuclear Iran), has tracked the impact of sanctions, particularly in exposing Iran’s illegal ship-to-ship transfers of oil, which it uses to evade enforcement. The numbers tell a story: According to our tracking data, between May 2019 and January 2021, Iran’s oil exports averaged 710,447 barrels per day (BPD). Over the next 20 months, from January 2021 to August 2022, the average rose to 1,182,114 BPD. By March 2024, Iran’s oil exports had hit a five-year high of 1,942,668 BPD. This recent recovery largely stems from the Biden administration’s failure to rigorously enforce sanctions and its release of funds to Iran — including through a hostage deal and the inexplicable unfreezing of assets — running to billions of dollars.
Fears about oil price spikes and market volatility — particularly in an election year — seem to be driving this administration’s enforcement reluctance. But these concerns are overblown. During the 2020 election and after, gas prices did not skyrocket. In fact, in October 2020, gas prices remained stable, allaying concerns over election-related volatility. Strategic partnerships with key energy producers such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ensured that global oil markets remained stable, and they could do so again under the next president. Moreover, the resilience of U.S. domestic oil production has insulated American consumers from price hikes. Today, because of record-high domestic production and a more diversified global energy market, we are even less vulnerable to oil shocks.
The bottom line is that sanctions, strictly imposed, deliver results. UANI’s research shows that although Iranian oil continues to reach markets covertly, sanctions — especially on its “ghost fleet,” a clandestine network of tankers that use evasive tactics to transport Iranian oil in violation of sanctions — could significantly disrupt these operations without affecting global markets.
Iran’s influence over those markets is often overstated. Its 4 percent market share is smaller than often assumed. With diversified global energy supplies and strong alliances, Washington can enforce sanctions without jeopardizing our energy security or economic stability — a key reason the maximum pressure strategy worked, and can work again.
Although Harris acknowledges the Iranian threat, her reluctance to back a stronger stance is puzzling. If Iran is truly the United States’ greatest adversary, avoiding a comprehensive strategy that could neutralize the threat is illogical — particularly when Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, are weakened, and Israel, our key ally, is fighting for survival.
A return to aggressive sanctions-led “maximum pressure” would reaffirm the U.S. commitment to countering Iran’s destabilizing activities. This broad approach targeted entities that included the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) as well as captains and vessels involved in illegal transfers. By rigorously enforcing sanctions across multiple sectors, the policy reduced Iran’s oil exports dramatically.
In contrast, the Biden administration initially prioritized diplomacy, leading to lax sanctions enforcement, which has allowed Iran to regain substantial revenue from oil exports, especially through sales to China. Occasionally, Biden has acted assertively, as in his response to Iran’s missile attacks on Israel this year. A wider range of targets were sanctioned, including ships and even captains involved in the illicit trade, successfully disrupting these networks. More action like this is needed.
Now is the time to remind Iran that the United States does not bow to threats. With strong leadership, we can reignite maximum pressure and protect our national interest — without sacrificing economic prosperity.
The Trump administration policy showed that well-enforced sanctions could cripple Iran’s economy.
By: Jeb Bush and Claire Jungman; The Washington Post
Published: October 31, 2024 at 6:30 AM EDT
An Iranian-flagged tanker lies off the Greek port of Karystos in May 2022 after its crude oil cargo was seized
and transferred to another vessel at the request of the United States. (Thanassis Stavrakis/AP)
Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, is chairman of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). Claire Jungman is chief of staff of UANI and director of its Tanker Tracking Program.
As the United States faces mounting threats worldwide, the foreign policy choices the next president makes will be the most significant since 9/11 — particularly with regard to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Will we continue with a weak and indecisive approach to Iran’s terrorism-sponsoring regime or reinstate a muscular policy that manifested pronounced success in the past?
Although Vice President Kamala Harris recently acknowledged that Iran is a “destabilizing, dangerous force in the Middle East,” the Biden-Harris administration’s dealings with the regime in Tehran have been marked by inadequate military action, ineffective diplomacy and inconsistent sanctions enforcement, enabling Iran to continue funding terrorism, attack U.S. interests and threaten Israel’s survival.
In contrast, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy showed that well-enforced sanctions could cripple Iran’s economy and significantly weaken its malign activities — without harming American consumers or triggering a spike in global oil prices. The next president should restore that policy.
Maximum pressure began with the United States’ 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — a flawed international agreement intended to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This move was swiftly followed by the imposition of severe sanctions, including restricting exports of Iranian oil by imposing penalties on countries and companies that continued to purchase it, as well as measures against Iranian banks. Oil waivers that initially allowed some countries to continue buying Iranian oil expired in mid-2019, slashing Tehran’s oil exports and cutting off its primary revenue stream.
Our organization, UANI (United Against Nuclear Iran), has tracked the impact of sanctions, particularly in exposing Iran’s illegal ship-to-ship transfers of oil, which it uses to evade enforcement. The numbers tell a story: According to our tracking data, between May 2019 and January 2021, Iran’s oil exports averaged 710,447 barrels per day (BPD). Over the next 20 months, from January 2021 to August 2022, the average rose to 1,182,114 BPD. By March 2024, Iran’s oil exports had hit a five-year high of 1,942,668 BPD. This recent recovery largely stems from the Biden administration’s failure to rigorously enforce sanctions and its release of funds to Iran — including through a hostage deal and the inexplicable unfreezing of assets — running to billions of dollars.
Fears about oil price spikes and market volatility — particularly in an election year — seem to be driving this administration’s enforcement reluctance. But these concerns are overblown. During the 2020 election and after, gas prices did not skyrocket. In fact, in October 2020, gas prices remained stable, allaying concerns over election-related volatility. Strategic partnerships with key energy producers such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ensured that global oil markets remained stable, and they could do so again under the next president. Moreover, the resilience of U.S. domestic oil production has insulated American consumers from price hikes. Today, because of record-high domestic production and a more diversified global energy market, we are even less vulnerable to oil shocks.
The bottom line is that sanctions, strictly imposed, deliver results. UANI’s research shows that although Iranian oil continues to reach markets covertly, sanctions — especially on its “ghost fleet,” a clandestine network of tankers that use evasive tactics to transport Iranian oil in violation of sanctions — could significantly disrupt these operations without affecting global markets.
Iran’s influence over those markets is often overstated. Its 4 percent market share is smaller than often assumed. With diversified global energy supplies and strong alliances, Washington can enforce sanctions without jeopardizing our energy security or economic stability — a key reason the maximum pressure strategy worked, and can work again.
Although Harris acknowledges the Iranian threat, her reluctance to back a stronger stance is puzzling. If Iran is truly the United States’ greatest adversary, avoiding a comprehensive strategy that could neutralize the threat is illogical — particularly when Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, are weakened, and Israel, our key ally, is fighting for survival.
A return to aggressive sanctions-led “maximum pressure” would reaffirm the U.S. commitment to countering Iran’s destabilizing activities. This broad approach targeted entities that included the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) as well as captains and vessels involved in illegal transfers. By rigorously enforcing sanctions across multiple sectors, the policy reduced Iran’s oil exports dramatically.
In contrast, the Biden administration initially prioritized diplomacy, leading to lax sanctions enforcement, which has allowed Iran to regain substantial revenue from oil exports, especially through sales to China. Occasionally, Biden has acted assertively, as in his response to Iran’s missile attacks on Israel this year. A wider range of targets were sanctioned, including ships and even captains involved in the illicit trade, successfully disrupting these networks. More action like this is needed.
Now is the time to remind Iran that the United States does not bow to threats. With strong leadership, we can reignite maximum pressure and protect our national interest — without sacrificing economic prosperity.
