The Case for Expanding Canada’s Sanctions Against Iran

In a desperate attempt to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran, the Obama administration has forfeited many of its core demands. The framework announced last month in Lausanne, Switzerland, abandons UN Security Council resolutions calling for Iran to halt its enrichment activities and is ambiguous on both compliance verification and penalties for violation.

If a deal is concluded in line with the Lausanne parameters, there is broad agreement that Iran will be within arm’s reach of a nuclear weapon shortly after its 10-year probation period has expired. Barring any other interdiction of Iran’s weapons program, the only question remaining for the West will be the nature and assertiveness of the regime in possession of nuclear weapons capability. 

Iran’s recent bellicosity toward the United States – at such a critical point in the negotiations – suggests that its pursuit of regional hegemony and its support for global terror and subversion will only accelerate over the next decade. Tehran’s belligerence at this sensitive time should not be viewed as mere political posturing. It’s a shot across the bow signalling the regime’s unwavering commitment to its Islamist ideology and its apparently correct surmise that it can behave with impunity under the protective umbrella of the emerging nuclear deal.  

Put another way, Iran’s nuclear ambitions cannot be viewed in isolation. France’s atomic weapons do not keep security experts and neighbouring states awake at night with worry. But a regime that is committed to promoting its revolutionary and violent global agenda around the world, to sponsoring terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, to crushing “mercilessly and monumentally” pro-democracy uprisings, to torturing new inmates as a rite of passage into its prison system, to enjoying the world’s highest per capita rate of executions, and to calling for the destruction of a UN member state should not be in possession of nuclear weapons.

An effective western response to Iranian aggression must, therefore, confront the regime as the multi-faceted threat it is. Indeed, human rights advocates have long urged that P5+1 negotiators with Iran adopt the approach of the United States in reaching an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union in 1975, which linked security, economic and human rights issues. 

To expand that concept, nuclear sanctions relief for Iran should be tied to a requirement that the regime also cease its terrorist activity, regional aggression and subversion, explicit commitment to Israel’s destruction, and vast system of domestic repression. 

As a champion of Iranian human rights at the United Nations and beyond, an outspoken critic of Iran’s terrorist sponsorship, and – unlike the P5+1 members – a state not deeply invested in reaching a nuclear deal no matter how poor, Canada is well positioned to take a leading role in penalizing Iran for its misconduct.   

Through legislation, Ottawa could mandate that its current sanctions – imposed primarily in response to Tehran’s illicit nuclear program – may not be eased unless Iran also changes its behaviour in these other critical areas of concern within a set time framework. 

By targeting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in particular, through listing the entity as a designated person under the Special Economic Measures (Iran) Regulations and a terrorist group under the Criminal Code, Canada would go a long way to undercutting a main actor in Iranian terrorist activity, domestic repression and nuclear misbehaviour. 

The legislation could also provide for ongoing reporting of Iranian wrongdoing, loosely modelling the Helsinki Monitoring Groups, which exposed human rights abuses and violations of the Helsinki Final Act. 

The nuclear sanctions architecture against Iran is set to crumble, and an emboldened Tehran is emerging in its wake. Canada should step up and take the lead in containing the regime’s reinvigorated appetite for aggression, and in embracing the liberal democratic forces within that country. There seems to be no shortage of those leading from far behind on this issue. Canada is well placed to fill the vacancy in front.

Sheryl Saperia is director of policy for Canada at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow her on Twitter @sherylsap