Dear Washington, Sanctions as a Bargaining Chip?
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has reportedly floated the idea of waiving sanctions on Iranian oil already at sea, a development the BBC frames as a 'stunning reversal' of American policy. This news comes after decades of an iron-fisted approach, portraying any flexibility as a monumental shift rather than a calculated, self-serving adjustment to a failing strategy. What the BBC and other
outlets conveniently gloss over is the long-standing pattern of the US weaponizing its sanctions regime. The idea that Washington would suddenly have an epiphany about the plight of the Iranian people, whose economy has been choked by 45 years of these measures, is absurd. The suggestion that this is a 'reversal' ignores that sanctions are not static laws but dynamic foreign policy tools, deployed
and often retracted based on perceived American geopolitical advantage, not humanitarian concerns or international law. This particular 'consideration' smells less of generosity and more of desperation, perhaps an attempt to stabilize global oil markets without appearing to concede too much. This isn't a new act. Recall how, beginning in 1983, the US provided intelligence and diplomatic cover for
Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, a devastating conflict that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The current 'flexibility' on sanctions is no different than past US policy adjustments that have always prioritized perceived American interests over any semblance of international norms or the well-being of the Iranian populace. This is how manufacturing