As the strategy to lift sanctions is a complicated legal, political, and economic procedure, and rather time-consuming and difficult contrary to popular belief, it cannot be a suitable option for attaining foreign policy goals in the short term. Nevertheless, the legal and political pursuit of lifting unilateral sanctions is an unavoidable obligation. That said, the strategy of neutralizing unilateral sanctions can be an ideal solution in the short term to diversify economic resources and reduce the pressures of sanctions. Of key importance in implementing this strategy is the pursuit of the neighborhood policy and focus on the economic capacities of neighboring countries. The best way to deal with unilateral US sanctions is to expand relations, and trade and economic ties with them as these are countries with which we share a common religion, history, objectives, and regional policies, in addition to common borders and proximity. As a result, strengthening trade ties between Iran and its neighbors must be a top priority in this country’s economic policies. Neighbors provide good political, security, and economic capacities for Iran and this country can use these advantages to limit and regulate systemic pressures. Capacities such as geographical proximity, transit, population, large consumer market, diverse cultural commonalities, and common economic requirements have given Iran the great potential to diversify trade, financial, and economic exchanges. To use this potential, it needs to reach a consensus in decision-making, looking on its neighborhood environment, and defining it in the context of strategic interests.

States can secure their political, economic, cultural, and social rights within the framework of regional cooperation and challenge the American cultural unification and integration discourse by adhering to their own cultural identity. Promoting the level of interaction and economic and political cooperation means that the fate of countries will be intertwined. Under such circumstances, a common fate and interests will lead to taking joint measures against unilateral US policies which are in conflict with the goals and interests of other countries. Other impacts would be an increased number of people cooperating in various political, economic, cultural, social, and communications sectors and diverse ties between states, leading to diminished pressures and limitations stemming from the structure of the international system.

Considering the above, expanding regional ties must be the top strategy of the IR of Iran to counter US unilateralism. This will defeat the desired outcome for decision-makers in Washington when pursuing unilateral policies and empower Tehran to counter such US unilateralism. Trust-building regional policies will cut the level of cooperation by regional countries, dissuade them from following divisive US approaches, and provide the backdrop to understanding the mutual interests between the member states of a same region.

Since the early days of the Islamic Revolution, the United States has continuously targeted Iran with its full-scale sanctions. But not only has it failed to achieve its objectives, it has also created increasing pessimism in the international community. It is noteworthy that far from forcing Iran to change its behavior, it has led to growing Iranian resistance within the policies of self-reliance and resistive economy. This, however, is only part of the story. Given the interconnected nature of environmental issues, US sanctions also have negative consequences for the regional and global ecosystems. Without due concern for its unilateral policies, this country has totally disregarded the implications for medium and long-term environmental security at regional and global levels. As environmental protection is now increasingly seen to be a shared responsibility at the international level, the international community can no longer continue to ignore the environmental implications of US unilateral foreign policy and remain incapable of moving towards a just and environmentally sound system of governance. Environmental disaster can be forecast not only in the countries targeted by sanctions, but also at the regional and global levels.

Trump’s policy of maximum economic pressure on Iran was coupled with the pressures of asymmetric diplomacy. Due to the incredibility of incentives, such as lifting sanctions, and a lack of deterrence in the military option, this finally led to resistance by the Iranian people. Iranian resistance, in turn, meant that the policy of maximum economic pressure created unity around the flag. Of course, the effects of the pressures were indirect. In point of fact, the interaction between asymmetric diplomacy, maximum economic pressure, and resistance by the Iranian people culminated in the failure of sanctions. The focal point and main reason for the methodological failure of US economic sanctions was the resistance of the Iranian people during this entire time. Although Trump tried to use incentive and punitive measures to empower the fifth column in the country, he was unable to reach his main objective. Certain observers believe that if Trump had been elected to the White House for another term, he would have spent the next four years pursuing an even more aggressive behavior towards Iran. But four years of comprehensive unilateral sanctions against Iran had seemingly lost their purpose with the passage of time. Trump’s sanctions policy mostly relied on talk and the media, trying to portray the Iranian situation as being grim and painting a dark future. Hence, it seems that even if the Trump administration had remained in office and further maximized its political and economic pressures, a change in the political discourse of the Iranian government would have sealed the faith of his destructive and subversive efforts.

US and EU sanctions against Russia have not had a remarkably negative impact on this country, because:

1. The scope and vigor of the sanctions are not comparable with those imposed on Iran and North Korea. Hence, Russia has mostly suffered from the drop in oil prices since 2014 rather than Western sanctions.
2. After taking office, Putin quickened the pace of less reliance on the West since the middle of the last decade and increased ties with countries such as China and Turkey.
3. In contrast to the US, the EU is not interested in keeping up and intensifying conflict with Russia due to its economic and geopolitical links to this neighboring country and dependence on its gas imports.
4. Contrary to the sanctions imposed on Iran, Russian sanctions lack the same inclusiveness and complexity, never covering an entire economic section or trade. For instance, sanctions on the sale of rocket fuel to Russia have never included vital chemicals to produce the fuel and, therefore, never created serious problems for this country. Also, sanctions have not been updated over the past six years since the industrial sector and businesses in the 28 EU member countries lack interest in doing so; thus, they pressurize their governments not to pursue the policy, making it difficult to even keep existing levels of sanctions. As a result, Russia’s domestic GDP has grown appropriately since 2018, after the initial shock of sanctions in the first three years, increasing from 0.3% in 2016 to 2.3% in 2018.

Given the above, policymakers in the IR of Iran can increase economic and security ties with powerful, allied countries, in particular Russia, China, India, and Indonesia, to reduce the impact of unilateral US sanctions and take a leaf out of the Russian initiative to put pressure on the Western side by sanctioning their exports, relying less on the dollar and euro in foreign trade by concluding bilateral monetary agreements, diminishing dependence on the international banking infrastructure, forming coalitions, making new allies, and resorting to force and threats if necessary.