WANA (Feb 16) – Over more than four decades, the United States has deployed a wide array of political, economic, and security tools to compel Iran to change its behavior or retreat from its positions — a strategy that, despite imposing significant costs, has not achieved its stated objectives and has instead become one of the longest-running economic pressure campaigns in modern international relations.
Recent remarks by former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have once again brought this strategy into focus. Many analysts view her comments as both an implicit acknowledgment of the shortcomings of past policies and a clearer illustration of the underlying logic of Washington’s sanctions approach.
Pelosi explicitly argued that political goals in Iran could be achieved without resorting to military force, but rather through “paralyzing the economy,” even stressing that economic pressure should be felt by rural populations and traditional social groups as well.
An Unintended Admission About Iran’s Social Depth
These remarks carry an important implicit message: Iran’s social structure and support base are not confined to major urban centers but extend deep into rural and remote areas. Observers argue that this broad social reach has been a key factor in the country’s political resilience in the face of external pressure.
Villages that rarely receive international media attention have historically played meaningful roles during critical national moments — a reality that may explain why some Western strategic analyses identify these communities as targets of economic pressure.
People walk in Tehran Grand Bazaar in Tehran, Iran, January 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
The Economy as a Battleground
The comments also underscore a broader reality: sanctions are not merely tools of diplomatic bargaining but part of a larger strategy that turns the economy into a field of geopolitical contestation. Within this framework, pressure on the livelihoods of ordinary citizens is viewed as leverage for political influence.
Notably, renewed calls to “increase pressure” can themselves be interpreted as evidence of the limited success of previous measures. Over the years, sweeping oil, banking, and financial sanctions have been imposed on Iran, alongside unprecedented restrictions on its access to the global financial system, yet the need to intensify pressure continues to be emphasized — a point many analysts see as indicative of unmet objectives.
The Contradiction of “Targeted Sanctions”
For years, U.S. officials have maintained that sanctions are “smart” and not aimed at ordinary people. However, emphasizing that pressure should reach rural areas, critics argue, challenges this narrative and highlights the gap between official rhetoric and on-the-ground realities.
In this context, the concept of “economic terrorism” has gained prominence in Iranian political discourse — the idea that deliberately targeting civilian livelihoods to achieve political ends goes beyond legitimate diplomatic tools and constitutes the imposition of social suffering.
Tehran’s Official Response
Reacting to the remarks, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei stated that calls to “paralyze the economy” so that ordinary people — even in rural areas — “feel pain and suffering” reflect an approach that, under classical definitions, could be considered terrorism.
Baghaei emphasized that deliberately inflicting suffering on civilians for political purposes reflects a mindset that considers itself entitled to recommend policies built on harming the people of another country. From a legal perspective, he described the comments as further evidence of a systematic policy of pressure and cruel treatment against the Iranian people, characterizing such actions as a “crime against humanity.”
A Bipartisan Consensus
Another notable dimension is the bipartisan nature of this approach in U.S. politics. Despite intense competition between the two major parties, there is a meaningful degree of strategic convergence regarding Iran; differences tend to lie more in tone and tactics than in the fundamental reliance on economic pressure tools.
Experience Challenging the Official Narrative
Experience over recent years suggests that despite severe pressure, repeated predictions of economic collapse or rapid political change in Iran have not materialized. The continued emphasis on intensifying pressure is therefore seen by many experts as further evidence of the strategy’s limited effectiveness.
Ultimately, the debate raises core questions about the legitimacy and effectiveness of such policies: Can governments claim to support a population while targeting its livelihood? Can pressure on low-income and rural communities be reconciled with stated commitments to human rights? And can such a strategy produce sustainable political change, or does it merely deepen mistrust and divisions?
What is clear is that the dispute over sanctions is no longer merely a political disagreement; it has evolved into a broader debate about ethics in international policy and the limits of using economic tools in geopolitical conflicts.
LATEST UPDATES ON IRAN-U.S. NUCLEAR TALKS / FEB 16
WANA – Our team is closely monitoring the latest developments regarding the new round of Iran–U.S. nuclear talks here. Rising Uncertainty Around Iran–US Talks WANA (Feb 16) – As diplomatic efforts between Iran and the United States continue, recent political and media developments have introduced new uncertainties into the atmosphere surrounding the negotiations. […]