Search

Menu

Close

Close

On This Page

In this edition of Sanctions Watch, covering June 2025:

  • US and Israeli strikes derail nuclear negotiations with Iran, but talks may continue;
  • Bipartisan group introduces bill to repeal Caesar Act, lift sanctions on Syria;
  • Trump faces pressure to sanction Russia as the EU unveils a new sanctions package;
  • Israel-backed aid distribution mechanism in Gaza proves deadly;
  • Cuba warns of migration surge as Trump targets medical missions;
  • UN General Assembly adopts Venezuela-led resolution against unilateral coercive measures; 
  • Lawmakers approve bill to discourage third countries from providing aid to Afghanistan;
  • New multilateral monitoring group releases first report on North Korea;
  • The US imposes fresh sanctions on the International Criminal Court, and more.

Iran (background)

Hopes that the US and Iran were nearing an agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief appear to have been at least temporarily dashed this month after Israel launched a series of attacks on Iran, prompting retaliatory Iranian missile fire. The US Treasury Department responded by issuing sanctions against one individual and eight entities for their alleged involvement in supplying parts used in Iranian weapons. The following day, President Trump launched an attack on Iranian soil. While the situation has de-escalated for the time being, with Iran and Israel agreeing to a ceasefire, some commentators — such as the Center for International Policy’s Sina Toossi — have pointed out that the strikes are likely to deepen Iran’s strategic commitment to developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Indeed, Iran’s parliament subsequently voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Trump has since said, however, that US-Iranian talks will continue next week.

Just a week prior to the start of the crisis, Johns Hopkins professor Vali Nasr urged the Trump administration to overcome the negotiating impasse, writing presciently that, without movement toward an agreement:

Washington and Tehran could lose control of the escalating crisis. Suddenly, Trump would be forced to face the costs and consequences of war with Iran — which neither he, nor his voters nor America’s Gulf allies want. The path back to diplomacy will become narrower as the march to war gains momentum. Trump has said that conflict would be bad for Iran. But it would also be bad for America and the Middle East.

Following the ceasefire, Trump posted on social media: “China can now continue to purchase oil from Iran.” While the shock announcement led to speculation regarding a change in sanctions policy, the White House later clarified that the post was simply about Iran not closing the Strait of Hormuz. 

Read more:

Syria (background)

Following last month’s announcement that he intended to end the Syria sanctions regime, President Trump issued a general license covering a wide range of sanctions not congressionally mandated, and a waiver for sanctions required by the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019. In the days following the lifting of US and EU sanctions, Syria saw its first major trade delivery — a shipment of nearly 29,000 tons of wheat — and later completed its first international bank transfer, via the SWIFT system, since 2011. 

A few weeks later, a bipartisan group of Congress members introduced a bill to permanently repeal the Caesar Act, as the president can only waive its sanctions temporarily. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) argued: “The repeal of these broad sanctions will give foreign partners the certainty they need to invest in the Syrian economy and give their new government a chance to succeed.” Similarly, Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) said that, by lifting sanctions, the US can “better support the Syrian people and their economy,” as when even a temporary waiver is in place, maintaining a sanctions regime on the books discourages businesses from investing or building long-term relations with partners in sanctioned countries.

But the Caesar Act is not the only remaining legal hurdle to lifting Syria sanctions. Syria is still on the so-called State Sponsors of Terrorism list, as it has been since 1979; Hayat Tahrir al-Sham — the group that led the toppling of the Assad government — is still a designated foreign terrorist organization; export controls remain; and more. Calling for Trump to stay the course, Delaney Simon of the International Crisis Group writes in Foreign Policy: “Sanctions have prevented Syria from rebuilding and crippled the ability of the authorities to meet the basic needs of a population suffering from a 90 percent poverty rate and a deepening hunger crisis—such as by paying public sector salaries and securing fuel and electricity.”

Read more:

Russia (background)

The Trump administration is under growing pressure domestically and internationally to escalate sanctions on Russia. According to POLITICO, both the EU and the UK “push[ed] for more coordinated sanctions” against Russia during this month’s G7 summit in Canada. In the lead-up to the meeting, the EU unveiled its 18th sanctions package to date. The measures include additional export restrictions and a ban on transactions involving the Nord Stream pipelines, which deliver natural gas from Russia to Europe, and sanctions targeting dozens of Russian banks, two Chinese banks, Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, and its “shadow fleet” of oil tankers used to circumvent sanctions. In addition, the European Commission proposed a separate plan to ban EU imports of Russian gas and liquified natural gas by the end of 2027. In protest of this gas ban proposal, Hungary and Slovakia opposed the broader sanctions package, derailing its approval at a June 26 EU leaders’ summit due to concerns over the impact on their Russia-dependent energy sectors. On the last day of the G7 summit, the UK announced its own Russia sanctions targeting 2 individuals, 6 entities, and 20 vessels. Australia followed suit, imposing its first-ever sanctions on Russia’s shadow fleet.

At home, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have pushed for a July vote on a bill that would impose 500 percent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil. Graham has called the measure “one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written.” It has reportedly attracted 82 signers so far.

Nevertheless, Trump still appears reluctant to impose additional sanctions. At the G7 summit, he said, “Don’t forget, you know, sanctions cost us a lot of money. When I sanction a country, that costs the US a lot of money, a tremendous amount of money. It’s not just, let’s sign a document. You’re talking about billions and billions of dollars. Sanctions are not that easy. It’s not just a one-way street.” President Trump is also reportedly pressuring Senator Graham to soften the proposed tariff sanctions bill. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has also voiced opposition to the bill, calling it a form of “self-defeating economic warfare” that would derail peace negotiations and inflict economic harm on the US. 

The EU is reportedly considering a new plan to boost revenue from Russia’s frozen assets. Currently, about 200 billion euros are held in a Belgian clearinghouse, which is required to invest the funds at low risk with the Belgian central bank. The income from these investments — along with those from frozen Russian assets in other G7 countries — is used to back a $50 billion G7 loan to Ukraine. According to POLITICO, under the proposed plan, the 200 billion euros would be transferred to a “special purpose vehicle” established by the EU, which would pursue higher-risk investments in hopes of generating greater returns. “Critics of the new funding vehicle, however, warn that EU taxpayers will ultimately have to pay compensation for any unproductive investments that are made,” POLITICO stated. 

Read more:

Gaza

“In the Gaza Strip, the risk of Famine is becoming increasingly likely due to the protracted and large-scale military operations and the fact that humanitarian agencies are unable to provide 

adequate assistance,” stated a joint report by UN agencies on June 16. Gaza remains under an Israeli blockade, with only a trickle of aid reaching the territory, mainly through four distribution points managed by the US-funded and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Aid distribution at these sites has been described as a “death race” and “frenzied free for all,” with no organized system in place to receive, manage, or distribute the supplies, much of which are left scattered on the ground for those who are physically able to trek miles to get there and fight through crowds for aid. Analysts from the International Crisis Group further note that the rations provided at these points are inadequate — consisting only of dry goods — and that they are “distributed to people who lack the clean water and fuel needed for cooking.” GHF itself has acknowledged that “the people of Gaza desperately need more aid” and that meeting such demand is not possible “while large parts of Gaza remain closed.” Nevertheless, Israel reportedly suspended aid deliveries on June 26, citing the government’s development of a plan to prevent Hamas from diverting the aid.

Compounding the crisis, Israeli forces have opened fire on civilians attempting to access aid near these distribution points on a near-daily basis, reportedly killing over 400 people and injuring 3,000 in just three weeks. Additionally, the Israeli government has acknowledged arming anti-Hamas groups in Gaza, which UN and aid officials allege are being permitted by the Israeli military to loot humanitarian supplies.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk condemned Israel’s killings near aid points, stating: “Palestinians have been presented the grimmest of choices: die from starvation or risk being killed while trying to access the meagre food that is being made available through Israel’s militarized humanitarian assistance mechanism.” The head of the UN humanitarian coordination office in Gaza described the situation as “weaponized hunger.” Meanwhile, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, criticized the framing of the situation, declaring: “Calling it ‘aid distribution’ is HUMANITARIAN CAMOUFLAGE. Essential tactic of this genocide.”

On June 10, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Norway jointly sanctioned two Israeli ministers for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, with a statement saying, “Today’s measures focus on the West Bank, but of course this cannot be seen in isolation from the catastrophe in Gaza. We continue to be appalled by the immense suffering of civilians, including the denial of essential aid.” The US condemned the sanctions in a statement the same day. Two days later, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution strongly condemning the use of starvation as a weapon of war, demanding a full lifting of the Israeli blockade on humanitarian aid, and insisting on the protection of civilians under international law. Ireland is also reportedly moving to ban Israeli imports, while the Hague Group — a coalition of eight countries that coordinates legal and diplomatic measures in defense of Palestine — convened an emergency ministerial meeting in Bogotá, Colombia, in mid-July.

Read more: 

Cuba (background)

In late February, the Trump administration announced a policy of imposing visa restrictions on government officials of countries that accept Cuba’s lifesaving medical missions. This month, it began following through on that threat, announcing measures against “several” unspecified “Central American government officials.” The government of Honduras later confirmed that theirs were among the officials targeted, and decried the infringement on Honduran sovereignty. Meanwhile, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), presumably at the United States’ behest, sent a letter to members asking for details about their involvement with the missions. As CEPR’s Francesca Emanuele told the Associated Press, the move is “unprecedented,” “deeply troubling,” and suggests that the IACHR may be acting at the behest of the US State Department.

The Trump administration’s moves have sparked rebukes from countries that rely on the medical missions, particularly in the Caribbean. Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum also defended the missions this month, arguing that accusations of “forced labor” are false, and that Mexico has the right to a sovereign foreign policy. According to recent statements by the Cuban foreign ministry, Cuba “has sent more than 100,000 doctors to more than 70 countries to provide much needed medical care. More than 22,000 doctors are now working in more than 50 countries.” US pressure, however, has caused some to relent; the Bahamas announced this month that it would cancel its involvement with the missions.

The medical missions are seen by both Cuban officials and embargo advocates as a key source of income for the resource-starved island nation. Cuban officials warned this month that the targeting of the missions and other Trump administration measures are “deliberately directed to provoke starvation,” and risk triggering a “historic massive migration.” Indeed, newly released data points to a 13 percent decline in Cuba’s population since 2020.

Read more:

Venezuela (background)

Following the Trump administration’s May decision to allow the expiration of Chevron’s license to operate in Venezuela (excepting minimal transactions required to maintain equipment), Venezuela has taken steps to find alternate sources of income. The state oil company PDVSA reportedly signed at least nine deals with other companies — two of which are Chinese — to operate Venezuelan oil wells, with PDVSA maintaining a majority stake in each. According to Bloomberg, “generally, the companies can try to get around US sanctions by using cryptocurrency accounts and other forms of payment that are beyond the controls of US regulators.” Oil exports reportedly held steady in May, with Chinese imports filling the vacuum, though it remains to be seen whether this will hold.

Read more:

Afghanistan (background)

The House of Representatives passed a Republican-sponsored bill called the “No Tax Dollars for Terrorists Act,” which requires the Department of State to “develop and implement a strategy to discourage foreign countries and nongovernmental organizations from providing financial or material support to the Taliban, including by using U.S.-provided foreign assistance” to do so. The bill was introduced largely in response to reports released last year by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, which revealed that some funds from UN cash shipments to Afghanistan ended up in the country’s central bank, and that NGOs in Afghanistan receiving US funds had paid taxes and other duties to the Taliban. UN officials told ProPublica last year that avoiding this is effectively impossible, given the Taliban’s control over the country. Moreover, despite concerns about misuse, these funds remain critical for humanitarian aid, and the Afghan central bank urgently requires access to foreign currency to sustain the country’s financial system. With the Trump administration having drastically cut aid to Afghanistan, this legislation — if passed by the Senate and signed into law — would likely deter other countries from providing desperately needed assistance, regardless of the safeguards they implement. 

In a recent op-ed in Foreign Policy, Adam Weinstein, deputy director of the Quincy Institute’s Middle East Program, contrasted the West’s renewed engagement with Syria with its continued isolation of Afghanistan. He wrote:

The world’s embrace of the new Syrian government, in contrast to its cold shoulder toward Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, reveals a blunt truth that recognition hinges less on legal norms or territorial control than on history, optics, strategic choices, and how much you matter to the West.

A World Food Programme report published this month highlights significant challenges to economic growth in Afghanistan: 

Afghanistan’s economy saw modest growth of 2.5% in 2024, driven by improvements in agriculture and industry. However, growth is expected to slow to 2.2% in 2025 due to ongoing structural challenges, including limited investment, restricted access to finance, declining foreign aid, high unemployment and continued international isolation. These factors continue to hinder sustained economic progress.

Read more: 

North Korea (background)

On May 29, the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team released its inaugural report. Launched by Western countries and their allies, the initiative aims to replace the UN panel of experts whose mandate was vetoed by Russia at the UN Security Council last year. The report — which North Korea rejected — focused mainly on growing ties between Moscow and Pyongyang and resulting violations of international sanctions.

This month, New Zealand imposed sanctions on unspecified North Korean “supporters” of Russia’s war in Ukraine, likely targeting North Korean military or government officials and entities. NK News reports that the measures “align with broader efforts by partners to disrupt supply lines and revenue streams fueling Russia’s war machine, whether through weapons shipments or illicit oil exports.” 

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that President Trump is “receptive” to dialogue with North Korea and hopes to build on the “progress” made during 2018 summits between the two countries’ leaders. Leavitt’s remarks came in response to a question about a report from NK News that North Korean diplomats at the country’s UN mission in New York had refused to accept a letter from Trump to Kim Jong Un intended to reopen communication.

South Korea’s new president, Lee Jae-myung, appears more open to restoring dialogue and easing tensions on the Korean Peninsula than his hard-line predecessor. The Stimson Center’s Frank Aum notes that he “is adopting a cautious engagement approach toward North Korea that avoids specific grand proposals. Instead, he has spoken generally during his presidential campaign and in his election night and inaugural speeches about pursuing peace, dialogue, and cooperation with North Korea.” It is unclear what this will mean for sanctions relief. 

Read more:

North Korea Slams Monitoring Group’s Report on Its Military Cooperation with Russia, Anadolu Agency

Other

The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution establishing December 4 as the International Day Against Unilateral Coercive Measures, in an overwhelming vote of 116 in favor to 51 against. The resolution, introduced by Venezuela on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, condemns unilateral coercive measures as “contrary to international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States” and urges states not to impose “unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law.” During the debate, according to a UN press release, the representative of the 54-nation Africa Group said, “at a time when Africa is emerging as a hub for development and technological advances, these measures curb access to tools, partnerships and finances. They have also hampered post-conflict development, reconstruction and peacebuilding.” Further, the representative of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) “said the imposition of such measures is often done without consulting the multilateral process — it is an ‘exclusionary approach,’ isolating entire populations from the global economy.”

On June 5, the US State Department imposed sanctions on four International Criminal Court (ICC) judges in response to the court’s November issuance of an arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the judges’ role in authorizing a long-abandoned investigation into alleged US crimes committed in Afghanistan. This follows earlier US sanctions against ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan in February. According to the Associated Press, those measures have already hindered the court’s operations. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk condemned the new sanctions, while Slovenia and Belgium have asked the EU to activate blocking statutes that would make complying with the measures illegal. 

Read more:

About Sanctions Watch

Economic sanctions have become one of the main tools of US foreign policy despite widespread evidence that they can cause severe harm to civilian populations (which may, in fact, be the point). Though now a defining feature of the global economic order, sanctions and their human costs receive relatively little attention in most US media outlets.

CEPR’s Sanctions Watch news bulletin aims to generate more awareness on the use and impact of sanctions through monthly round-ups of news and analysis on US sanctions policy.

Previous editions of the Sanctions Watch can be found here. CEPR’s US Sanctions Policy FAQ can be found here.

Subscribe to Sanctions Watch here

Read the Sanctions Fact Sheet

 

Explore More From

More From ‘Sanctions Watch’

See all ‘Sanctions Watch’

Related Publications

See all Publications

Close