Tehran – Author, human rights advocate and outspoken critic of Western foreign policy, Robert Fanna believes economic sanctions have become one of the most destructive tools of modern warfare, disproportionately harming ordinary civilians, not government.
In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Fantina shed light on the often justified sanctions under the guise of human rights, in fact, the form of coercion and “human rights colonialism” used by the West to impose political agendas.
In a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape after the June 2025 attack on Israel, particularly after the Israeli attack, Fantina argues that the humanitarian consequences of sanctions will be systematically silent and the devastating effects will continue to cripple society.
He also questioned Europe’s ability to pursue independent foreign policy in the shadow of Washington’s domination, noting that Iran’s resilience fundamentally changed the security balance in West Asia.
Regarding the legality of “snapback” sanctions, Fantina highlighted that such measures were not only politically motivated, but also lacked a sound basis for international law, raising broader concerns about their impact on regional peace and stability.
Fantina’s insights provide an important perspective on how the West politicizes human rights and undermines them and why dealing with these realities is key to local fair and sustainable solutions.
Do you think Western sanctions against Iran are a form of modern warfare targeting civilians?
yes. This cannot be denied. Many Western countries simply mimic what the US is doing, despite the fact that records that the US is forcing its will on other countries through sanctions are at best miserable. For decades, the US has approved Cuba and appears to be hoping that people there will rise up and overthrow the government and install oppressive American dolls. Of course, this destroyed the Cuban economy, but the Cuban people are unwavering reman.
In 1996, the UN ambassador and future Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when asked whether the deaths of more than half a million Iraqi children were worth the measure due to US sanctions, she said yes. Sanctions were to bring about a “change of government” that took place simply by the US invasion, contrary to the hopes of the Iraqi people. President Donald Trump, who reinstated the sanctions after the United States unilaterally and illegally withdraws from the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan with Iran (JCPOA), said the Iranian government is seeking a new contract. Of course, it never happened, and Trump ultimately and illegally bombed Iran multiple times.
Sanctions imposed by the West are another form of illegal violence against innocent people in the target country.
Why do you think Western public opinion is largely silent about the humanitarian impact of these sanctions?
There seem to be two reasons for this silence. First, Western news media rarely report on the humanitarian sacrifices these sanctions cause. They like to parrot government talk about the need for a “change of government” in the target country. Corporate-owned media, a collection of profit-motivated companies, does whatever it takes to increase those profits.
The second reason is two prongs: propaganda and racism. People in the target countries are portrayed by the Western government as not being rearward at best and at worst violent. Many Westerners don’t travel, and only see people who seem to look like them, speaking the same language, having the same tradition, attending the same church, etc.
Although some of these opinions have been broken due to social media, learning and accepting preconceived notions about people formulated by not questioning the government narrative is a long and slow process for people to learn and accept.
Can Western use of human rights rhetoric on Iran be described as a form of “human rights colonialism”?
That’s a great term. In the past, Western countries have colonized many countries, took over their lands, destroyed their customs and traditions, and killed people. Today, they define human rights on their own terms, ignoring the beliefs and traditions of the Iranian people. They try to force a distorted definition of democracy for countries that voted for their preferences in government. But for many Western countries, especially the US, if the elected government is not what the US wants, it will try to destabilize it and willingly set up a puppet government.
All countries commit several human rights violations, but before any country, especially the United States, attempts to identify such abuse in any other country, it needs to look at its own borders and rectify the horrific human rights violations that occur there.
In your view, has the recent war between Iran and Israel revealed more weaknesses than the strengths of Israel’s military and political positions?
The 12-day conflict has been woven by many Western countries and media outlets as a major victory for Israel. This is the most inexplicable conclusion. The Zionist regime was undoubtedly hoping for a simple victory over Iran, but the Israeli defense system failed as the Iranian bomb reigned over Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel had to call for the United States to save it. The Israeli government and the “nation” itself exist only for the constant support of the United States. As demonstrated during recent conflicts, it could not stand on its own.
Politically, the Zionist government relies on the United States for protection on the international stage, from the consequences of continuing, continuing, horrifying war crimes and crimes against humanity.
What were the broader geopolitical impacts of this 12-day war for Israel, Iran, and the broader Western Asia region?
Iran has shown to the world that there is a serious risk not only in people across the Middle East, but also people around the world, but also in underestimating their power and solutions. Its success during the war proved its strength and resilience, and the fact that it has the support of the overwhelming numbers of its population. This exposes the American myth that Iranian people feel oppressed and want a new form of government. Iran is a powerful country, it quickly retains its support and takes pride in the revolution. Countries, including the most powerful countries in the world, cannot overcome those facts.
Did Iran’s resistance during this period change the security balance in West Asia?
The leaders of the racist Israeli government are well aware of the fact that Iran is a major force to consider. This may have been a rude awakening for Israel, but it is true and something that the Zionist regime ignores in its own danger. There is still much more to be done in the coming weeks and months, but as Iran has proven to the world that Israel is not standing alone, Western countries may decide that it is in their interest to maintain friendly language with such a big, powerful nation, except for the United States. This could potentially cause some of them to break US policies and reestablish more sincere diplomatic relations with Iran.
Do you think Europe can act independently in its policy against Iran, or is it effectively constrained by US pressure?
There is a difference between whether European countries can do it, and if so, whether it violates our demands regarding their policies towards Iran. When Trump violated the JCPOA during his first chaotic term of office, he threatened other signatories against an agreement with sanctions if they didn’t do the same. They quickly acquiesced to his request. However, when he alienates many of the US’s closest allies during Trump’s current term, those allies may see little of what they get from making his bids. They may view Iran’s population as a large and excellent market for their products, recognize it as a beautiful travel destination, and seek a military alliance along with it. The next few months will show the direction European countries will choose.
From your perspective, does the snapback mechanism for sanctions violate the principles of international law?
The snapback mechanism was part of the JCPOA. The agreement was void after the US breached. When a contract is concluded between two or more parties, there are certain terms and conditions each agrees to. If one party violates the contract, the other party is no longer required to comply with it. The agreement no longer exists.
It is completely unreasonable to expect Iran to cut its nuclear programmes just for the benefits it receives from Western countries. When these countries no longer provided these benefits, Iran effectively violated the contract announced from its obligations under the contract.
It is also important to remember that the Iranian government maintained a portion of the agreement for the whole year after the US and other signatories violated it. At the time, it was expected that more reasonable efforts would be made by European partners at least, but when the hope proved useless, the Iranian government saw no reason to properly continue to comply. However, as soon as the US violates the agreement, Iran has to say it is no longer under obligation to maintain it. The Iranian government made it a sign of sincerity.