Britain, France and Germany triggered the return of
sanctions on Iran at the UN Security Council over accusations the country has
violated a 2015 deal that aimed to stop it developing a nuclear bomb.
The most disappointing fact is that Iran has been persistently
denying it seeks nuclear weapons.
The latest “snapback” sanctions on Iran are being propagated
as a principled stand for global security. In reality, these are a textbook
case of discriminatory politics masquerading as international law.
When European countries and the United Nations reimposed
sweeping restrictions on Iran, they claimed it was about enforcing the nuclear
deal. But anyone watching global affairs knows the truth - rules are not applied
equally.
Some states, Israel being on the top, are allowed to violate
treaties, wage wars, and commit human rights abuses without facing meaningful
penalties. As against this, Iran is being punished relentlessly and
disproportionately for nearly half a century.
This double standard makes the sanctions discriminatory.
International law is supposed to be blind, yet it routinely blinks when
powerful countries or their allies are in the dock. If a rule is enforced
against one country but ignored for another, then it is not law at all—it is
selective punishment.
The impact of these sanctions is another form of injustice.
These do not primarily weaken Iran’s ruling regime. Instead, these strangle
ordinary Iranians—families struggling to buy food, patients unable to access
medicines, students cut off from opportunities abroad.
These sanctions drive inflation, hollow out the middle
class, and breed resentment. Yet policymakers continue to inflict this
suffering while pretending it advances diplomacy.
The
legality of the move itself is shaky. Critics, including Russia and China,
argue that the so-called snapback mechanism was triggered improperly. If great
powers can bend procedures to suit their interests, then the credibility of
international agreements collapses. Why would any state trust deals if
enforcement depends on politics rather than principle?
Supporters of sanctions insist these are a peaceful
alternative to war. But sanctions do not bring peace—these are economic warfare
and are designed to coerce, to cripple, and to remind weaker nations of their
place in a hierarchy where might makes right.
Scrutiny should come through fair, consistent, and
negotiated mechanisms—not through discriminatory punishment imposed by those
who selectively police the world. Otherwise, sanctions cease to be instruments
of justice and become tools of domination.
Unless international sanctions are applied evenly,
transparently, and with safeguards against humanitarian harm, these will
continue to deepen global mistrust.
The sanctions will not be accepted as a neutral enforcement
of law, but as another weapon of geopolitics. And the more the world tolerates
selective justice, the more fragile the entire international order becomes.
If global powers truly want compliance and stability, they
must abandon the hypocrisy of discriminatory sanctions. Anything less will only
harden grievances, destabilize regions, and erode what little legitimacy
international institutions still command.
While the sanctions should be about justice, at present
these are about power. It will not be wrong to say that in case of Iran, the
power is not being used to usher peace, but to punish the strongest opponent of
Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment