Dr. Muhammad Abbas Naji‏‏

The United States continues to impose sanctions on Iran in parallel with the ongoing negotiations between the two sides over the nuclear program. These negotiations follow two main tracks. The technical track focuses on enrichment processes, quantities, and centrifuges, while the political track addresses broader issues and potential terms of agreement.Notably, continuing to impose new sanctions against Tehran runs counter to expectations that Washington would have suspended sanctions during the negotiations to increase the chances of a potential agreement. This would also would have settled enduring major disputes between the two countries. However, the Trump administration’s deliberate use of sanctions during negotiations reflects a broader strategic approach—shaped not only by its stance on Iran, but also by its alignment with Israel, commitments to regional allies, and a polarized domestic political landscape skeptical of diplomacy with Tehran.New SanctionsSignificantly, the U.S. Treasury Department deliberately imposed new sanctions on Iran in parallel with each round of negotiations. On April 10, 2025, just two days before the first round of talks in Muscat, the Treasury announced new sanctions on what it called Iran’s "shadow fleet"—companies owning vessels accused of contributing to transporting and smuggling Iranian oil. The sanctions targeted a single individual: Indian national Jugwinder Singh Brar, who the Treasury claimed was based in the UAE and owned shipping companies with a fleet of around 30 vessels, as well as two entities in the UAE and India.Then, on April 22, 2025, just one day before the technical experts' negotiations in Muscat, the U.S. Treasury imposed further sanctions on what it described as Iran’s "Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) hub," referring to Asadollah Emam Jomea and his trade network, whom the Treasury accused of smuggling LPG abroad. Although Iran strongly criticized these punitive measures, it has simultaneously worked to neutralize their impact on the progress of the talks and their potential outcome.Multiple ObjectivesThe U.S. administration's deliberate adoption of sanctions can be understood in light of several key considerations, most notably:1- Applying greater pressure on Iran: Through these sanctions, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump seeks to increase pressure on Iran to force it to make substantive concessions on disputed issues, such as transferring enriched uranium stocks abroad or halting new enrichment activities. This American demand was recently disclosed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on April 23, 2025, when he stated that Iran must abandon all uranium enrichment if it wants to reach a new agreement, adding that Iran will have to stop enriching uranium under any deal with the United States and could only import what is needed for a civilian nuclear program. This "surprising" American demand is likely to be rejected by Iran, which still insists on continuing uranium enrichment even at low levels (3.67%) in case of an agreement with the U.S. In this context, the impact of the U.S. punitive measures could be explained as a tool to pressure Iran for aligning with the U.S. demands. 2- Highlighting differences from Biden's policies: This goal aligns with Trump’s political strategy, as he consistently emphasizes that the policies of former President Joe Biden had severe negative consequences for the U.S. interests, including his approach to managing disputes with Iran. In Trump's view, the Biden administration turned a blind eye to Iran's insistence on smuggling oil abroad—to the extent that Iranian oil exports, at times, reached approximately 1.5 million barrels per day, representing 60% of Iran's total exports before the U.S. sanctions, specifically following the withdrawal from the nuclear deal.Through these new sanctions, President Trump seeks to underline that his administration will not turn a blind eye to Iranian oil smuggling again. Iran should expect strict measures in this regard, such as the seizure and confiscation of ships and tankers carrying Iranian oil in territorial and international waters, particularly if the current negotiations fail to reach a new nuclear agreement.3- Sending reassuring messages to Israel: Israel is expressing a clear concern about the policy pursued by President Trump's administration towards Iran. Israeli officials appeared surprised by this sudden shift in the American position towards engaging in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. This was underscored in the April 6, 2025 meeting between Trump and Netanyahu, during which Trump announced negotiations with Iran in Muscat.&nbsp;It was notable that Israel began sending messages expressing its growing concern about the potential implications of a possible agreement between Iran and the United States on its interests. For instance, Netanyahu reiterated Israel's insistence on taking measures to prevent Iran from reaching the stage of possessing a nuclear bomb. This prompted Iran to intensify security measures, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stating on April 23, 2025, that security forces were fully prepared for any act that might target Iranian nuclear facilities.&nbsp;With tensions between Iran and Israel reaching this level, the Trump administration, in turn, sought to reassure Israel by emphasizing that its policy toward Iran remains unchanged, even as new negotiations over Iran's nuclear program take place. This was evident in President Trump's statements on April 22, 2025, coinciding with the announcement of the latest sanctions. Trump said he spoke by phone with the Israeli prime minister and stands with him on all fronts, adding: "The call went well, and we agree on all issues."4- Containing ongoing domestic divisions: The policy currently pursued by the Trump administration toward Iran appears to have sparked intense internal divisions in the U.S. It has become evident that there are two opposing viewpoints, each advocating for a different approach in managing disputes with Iran. While President Trump follows a negotiation track, another faction rejects this and believes there is a ripe opportunity to settle differences with Iran through military means, not limited to the nuclear program but extending to its missile program and regional influence.&nbsp;This may explain inconsistencies in U.S. officials’ statements regarding unresolved issues with Iran. This was evident in the hardline stance taken by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who insisted that Iran must halt uranium enrichment—a position that contradicts reports suggesting Washington might accept Tehran enriching uranium at low levels.&nbsp;Thus, the Trump administration's insistence on imposing new sanctions on Iran’s oil sector as well as companies and individuals accused of contributing to the smuggling of its oil, also signals an attempt to contain these domestic divisions and neutralize their impact on its existing policy toward Iran. By doing so, it aims to send a message domestically that it will not relent in its efforts to eliminate the "threats" posed by Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, as well as its regional influence.Numerous ObstaclesIn conclusion, the U.S. administration is currently seeking to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran. However, this does not negate the fact that even in this case, its differences with Iran will not end or diminish, especially since there is a faction within Iran that aligns with the hardline stance in the United States, which rejects the idea of negotiations. Should an agreement be reached, this faction may seek to place numerous obstacles to prevent its implementation.

Why Is Washington Maintaining Sanctions on Tehran Amid Ongoing Talks?