The term “sanction”—legally referred to as ‘sanction’ in English—is defined as a type of punitive measure or enforcement mechanism. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Law, a sanction is “a penalty for a breach of law or an act of pressure imposed on a state or individuals to compel compliance with international law.” Since the term was introduced in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, many legal scholars and international relations experts have equated the word “sanction” with the Persian term tahrim (تحریم), meaning boycott or embargo. Though this translation is not entirely accurate, it is the prevailing usage, particularly since the Iranian legislature also adopted this term in the 2017 Act “Countering Violations of Human Rights and Adventurist and Terrorist Actions of the United States in the Region.”
In essence, sanctions are suppressive measures imposed on a country or its nationals to influence or protest against certain policies. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the United States has enacted numerous laws targeting Iran and its citizens through a variety of sanctions. The first unilateral U.S. sanction followed the hostage crisis involving American diplomats, leading to Executive Order 12170 issued by President Carter on November 14, 1979, which froze Iran’s assets in the United States (Farahi, 2017: 74). Since then, sanctions have expanded through congressional legislation and presidential executive orders.
The legal bases for these sanctions typically cite the following offenses:
Support for terrorism
Human rights violations
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological)
Development or acquisition of nuclear weapons and related technology (see Section 5 of the Iran Sanctions Act and Section 105 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act).
Severe criminal penalties—up to 20 years imprisonment and $1 million in fines—are imposed for violations, in addition to civil penalties up to $250,000 or twice the value of the transaction.
The JCPOA (Iran Nuclear Deal) only addresses sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program and associated technology. It does not apply to sanctions linked to terrorism, human rights abuses, or the proliferation of ballistic missiles and WMDs. Notably, many sanctions that were supposedly lifted under the JCPOA were never retroactively nullified. Iranian individuals continued to be imprisoned or have their assets frozen long after the agreement took effect.
Secondary Sanctions:
Secondary sanctions are extraterritorial in nature. They target non-U.S. individuals and entities conducting business with the sanctioned country. These sanctions extend U.S. domestic laws to foreign jurisdictions and impose criminal liability on violators, effectively deterring third-country actors from engaging with Iran (Razavi & Zeinoddini, 2018: 2).
Key U.S. Sanctions Legislation on Iran:
-National Emergencies Act (NEA), 1976
-International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 1977
-Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), 1996
-Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), 2017
-Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), 2010
-Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, 2012
Asset Seizure and Confiscation for Sanctions Violations:
The U.S. Department of State’s archives reveal that bilateral treaties with dozens of countries provide frameworks for judicial cooperation, including evidence sharing and asset freezing for crimes such as terrorism financing and money laundering. These treaties create a global enforcement network facilitating both preventive and punitive actions against violators (https://2009-2017.state.gov/).
Iranian overseas assets, estimated at approximately $85 billion, may be subject to seizure—even outside U.S. jurisdiction—under U.S. law from investigation through to enforcement (Congressional Research Service, 2021).
According to Section 316(a) of the USA PATRIOT Act, funds suspected of belonging to terrorists that are held in foreign bank accounts may be deemed to exist within U.S. jurisdiction if the foreign bank holds a corresponding account in the U.S. Such funds can thus be legally frozen.
Designation and listing:
The first step in imposing sanctions is designation on the U.S. terrorist list. Under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Secretary of State may designate an entity as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury. Congress must be notified and may object within seven days. Absent congressional opposition, the designation is published in the Federal Register.
Designated entities have 30 days from publication to file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Designations must be reviewed every two years, or they automatically lapse. A name can also be removed by act of Congress, a court order, or unilateral action by the Secretary of State (state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/).
Despite tensions, Iran has maintained limited trade with the U.S. even during peak sanctions. For example, in 2020 U.S. exports to Iran totaled $36 million, while imports stood at approximately $4 million. Furthermore, Iran retains access to 10% of its foreign currency reserves.
These facts, combined with numerous legal exemptions under U.S. law, suggest that legal defenses remain available for Iranian nationals and third-party entities. However, due to a lack of scholarly and legal expertise in this area, very few Iranian attorneys are qualified to provide strategic guidance in sanctions cases.
Mr. Khademi, who authored his phd dissertation on sanctions law and holds over 20 years of experience in legal practice, is among the few Iranian lawyers qualified to advise on lawful exemptions and strategic defenses under U.S. and international sanctions law (as opposed to sanctions evasion). In addition to his Class A legal license in Iran, Mr. Khademi is a registered member of the International Bar Association (IBA). He is fluent in English and specializes in international commercial litigation.
Through his law firm in Iran and his Netherlands-based legal entity, AdvoLinK, he collaborates with experienced Dutch and international attorneys to support Iranian and foreign businesses in navigating complex sanctions-related legal matters.