In a recent article titled “Four Keys for Iran Snapback Implementation,” the Washington Institute once again prescribes an outdated formula for pressuring Iran: reimposing sanctions, intensifying intelligence coordination against Tehran, and restricting Iran’s access to advanced technology. 

It is the same worn-out script that has been on Washington’s table for over forty years, yielding nothing but the strengthening of Iran’s self-reliance and the erosion of America’s credibility on the world stage. The author, ignoring decades of historical experience, presents “snapback” as a tool of deterrence, yet forgets that Iran is no longer a country that can be restrained by economic threats or diplomatic isolation.

For more than four decades, U.S. policy toward Iran has never deviated from a pattern of pressure, sanctions, and threats. From the 1953 coup to Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, from the oil embargoes of the 1990s to today’s secondary banking sanctions, the objective has always been the same: to halt Iran’s rise. Yet the reality today shows that all these policies have produced the opposite effect. Iran has transformed itself into a nation that, instead of depending on the West, relies on its own domestic strength and indigenous capacity. Each time Washington tightened its grip, Tehran found a new path forward.

A nation under sanctions but moving toward progress

Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, sanctions have been the twin of U.S. policy against Iran. Every American president, from Carter to Biden, from Obama to Trump, entered the scene with a different face but the same outdated mindset — restraining an independent Iran and preventing it from becoming a regional power. Yet the outcome of this policy has been nothing short of remarkable growth in Iran’s domestic capabilities.

In the years when even the import of medicine for critically ill patients was obstructed by Washington, Iran achieved self-sufficiency in pharmaceuticals. At a time when even airplane parts were banned, Iranian scientists built advanced drones that are now central to regional security equations. From missile technology to nanoscience, from nuclear engineering to medical innovation, all of these were accomplished not under comfort or cooperation with the West but through adversity and pressure.

Sanctions were meant to isolate Iran, but the opposite occurred. As Washington sought to cut Tehran off from the world, those very pressures pushed Iran to open new paths of cooperation with the East, neighboring nations, and the Global South. Today, Iran is not only at the heart of the Middle East’s energy network but also a pivotal player in the political dynamics of Asia, the Caucasus, and the Persian Gulf.

The West still refuses to acknowledge that when sanctions become chronic, they cease to be instruments of coercion and evolve into mechanisms of adaptation and resilience. Over the years, Iran learned how to align its economic structure with the realities of sanctions — creating non-Western financial channels, expanding regional trade using local currencies, developing a “resistance economy,” and launching indigenous industries. Tehran today is no longer an isolated capital; it is a dynamic economy helping reshape the patterns of global trade.

The recent 12-day war waged by Israel against Iran marked a turning point in the regional balance. With the green light from certain Western powers, Tel Aviv attempted to deliver a military blow, but Iran’s precise missile and drone response not only neutralized the attack but also made one fact clear: the military option against Iran no longer exists. Iran’s defensive and deterrent capabilities — the result of years of sanctions and threats — have ensured that its security can never be outsourced but must be built from within.

When adversaries realized they could not defeat Iran militarily, they quickly reverted to their old playbook: economic warfare. Yet once again, they miscalculated. Iranian society has learned to innovate under pressure. The experience of past sanctions has shaped a collective culture of endurance — a national habit of transforming every economic shock into an opportunity for renewal.

Why ‘snapback’ no longer works

The “snapback” mechanism in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 was designed for a situation in which all JCPOA parties remained committed. The U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018 automatically stripped Washington of any legal right to invoke that mechanism. In 2020, the Security Council formally rejected America’s attempt to reactivate it. Therefore, no legal or political foundation remains for its implementation.

Now, in 2025, Washington once again attempts to trigger it — but in practice, it exerts little economic pressure on Iran beyond symbolic political posturing. When the Washington Institute calls for “more sanctions” against Tehran, it is effectively admitting that snapback is nothing but a political charade.

Moreover, years of experience prove that sanctions cannot stifle Iran’s economic growth. By deepening its economic ties with the East, joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, entering the BRICS bloc, and strengthening trade with neighbors, Tehran has discovered new routes for commerce and investment. Ironically, the very sanctions meant to isolate Iran have detached its economy from the Western orbit and aligned it more closely with the East.

If, as the Washington Institute suggests, the West launches a full-scale economic war against Iran once again, Tehran’s response will not come from the financial realm but from the geography of power: the Strait of Hormuz.

Roughly one-third of the world’s oil and over one-quarter of its liquefied natural gas pass through this narrow chokepoint — the vital artery of global energy trade. Should Iran decide to restrict the passage of European and American vessels or impose stricter security inspections, the consequences would ripple instantly across the globe.

In the first few days of such a move, oil prices could surge beyond $150 a barrel. The world economy would face an energy shock; fuel costs in Europe and the United States would soar, supply chains would stall, and global inflation would spiral. National budgets in Western capitals would be shaken, and governments would confront waves of social unrest.

Under these conditions, international insurance firms in London and New York would declare the Strait of Hormuz a “war-risk zone.” The cost of insuring a single oil tanker would multiply many times over. Many shipping companies would reroute vessels along longer, costlier paths or abandon Persian Gulf ports altogether, dramatically increasing transportation costs worldwide and placing new burdens on Western economies.

Closing or even limiting Hormuz would not only strike at America and Europe but disrupt the entire global economic order. China, India, Japan, and South Korea — all heavily reliant on Gulf energy — would face crises of their own. Yet these nations would also understand the root of the turmoil: Western obstinacy in perpetuating sanctions, not unilateral Iranian aggression. In that context, a global wave of criticism would target Washington’s failed policy, and Iran would emerge not as a culprit but as a sovereign actor challenging an unjust order.

As fuel prices skyrocket in the U.S. and inflation grips Europe, public discontent would grow. No politician in Washington or Brussels would willingly bear the cost of an anti-Iran campaign paid from voters’ pockets. Thus, the same sanctions designed to pressure Tehran would become political liabilities for Western leaders themselves.

Iran as a decisive actor

The West prefers to portray Iran as merely a regional player, but the reality is that Iran occupies a position capable of altering the balance of the global economy. In today’s multipolar world, power no longer lies solely in arsenals or banks but in control over energy routes and trade corridors. From the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, from the Caucasus to the Sea of Oman, Iran is a central link in the chain of regional stability. Every Iranian decision — diplomatic or military — echoes far beyond its borders.

Iran today wields not only hard power but also soft influence through active diplomacy, fostering balance between East and West. While Western powers remain entangled in internal crises and proxy wars, Tehran has pursued dialogue and cooperation with emerging nations. This is the reality Washington’s strategists fail to grasp: the unipolar world has ended, and the era of sovereign, diverse nations has begun.

The Washington Institute’s article is an attempt to resurrect a dead policy — one that has not only failed to stop Iran but has made it stronger, more independent, and more experienced. After the 12-day war in which Israel and its backers failed to break Iran’s resolve, returning to the option of sanctions amounts to nothing less than an admission of military and diplomatic defeat.

If the West still imagines that “reimposed sanctions” can block Iran’s path, it must understand that Iran can just as easily block theirs — at sea, in trade, and in energy routes. And when the Strait of Hormuz ceases to be calm, no market on earth will remain stable.

Sanctions are no longer the language of power; they are the language of failure. Iran, having emerged from decades of war, pressure, and isolation, now stands as a true architect of the new world order — a world beyond American dominance. Whoever fails to recognize this reality understands neither Iran nor the post-American era.