Sanctioning as a goal unto itself: retribution and emotions behind the Iranian sanctions

Abstract

Much scholarship has focused on the effectiveness, impacts, and conditions under which sanctions succeed. However, this study explores the role of emotions (along with memory and cognition) and retributive intent in the decision-making processes behind sanctions, challenging the assumption that sanctions are purely the result of rational calculus—decisions that are believed to be the best means to a given end, based on forward-looking objectives and devoid of emotional influence. The case of Iran provides a compelling example: despite the failure of sanctions to achieve their primary goal of behavioural change, they have persisted, driven by emotional and retributive motives. Although diplomatic avenues proved to be more effective, sanctions were still pursued. Their continuity suggests that sanctions may often serve as tools for emotional expression and retribution, rooted in emotions and historical background. By institutionalizing emotions and memory, sanctions become a goal unto themselves, independent of their effectiveness or success. This study employs qualitative discourse analysis of primary and secondary sources, including US government statements, congressional reports, and major media coverage to identify emotional markers such as the languages of retribution, fear, hostility and historical grievance, and to trace their recurrence across elite and public discourses over time.