TEHRAN – Robert Fantina, author, human rights advocate, and an outspoken critic of Western foreign policies, believes that economic sanctions have become one of the most destructive tools of modern warfare, disproportionately harming ordinary civilians rather than governments.

In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Fantina shed light on how sanctions, often justified under the guise of human rights, are in fact a form of coercion and “human rights colonialism” used by the West to impose political agendas.

Amid a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape—particularly after the Israeli attack on Iran in June 2025—Fantina argues that the humanitarian consequences of sanctions are systematically silenced, while their devastating impact continues to cripple societies.

He also questioned Europe’s ability to pursue an independent foreign policy in the shadow of Washington’s dominance, noting that Iran’s resilience has fundamentally altered the security balance in West Asia.

On the legality of “snapback” sanctions, Fantina emphasized that such measures are not only politically motivated but also lack a sound basis in international law, raising broader concerns about their implications for regional peace and stability.
Fantina’s insights provide a critical perspective on how the West politicizes human rights while simultaneously undermining them, and why addressing these realities is key to any just and sustainable solution in the region.

Do you consider Western sanctions on Iran to be a form of modern warfare targeting civilians?

Yes. This is undeniable. Many Western nations simply mimic what the United States does, despite the fact that the U.S. record of forcing its will on other nations through sanctions is dismal, at best. For decades, the U.S. has sanctioned Cuba, apparently expecting the people there to rise up and overthrow the government and install some repressive U.S. puppet. This has, of course, damaged the Cuban economy, but the Cuban people reman steadfast. 

In 1996 United Nations ambassador and future Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked if the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children, due to U.S. sanctions, was worth it, and she said yes. The sanctions were to bring about ‘regime change’ which only happened, against the wishes of the Iraqi people, through the U.S. invasion. After the U.S. unilaterally and illegally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, and reinstated sanctions, President Donald Trump said that the Iranian government would beg for a new deal; that, of course, never happened, and Trump finally, and again, illegally, bombed Iran. 

Sanctions imposed by the west are another form of illegal violence against the innocent people of the targeted country.

Why do you think Western public opinion remains largely silent on the humanitarian impact of these sanctions?

There appear to be two reasons for this silence. First, Western news media seldom reports on the humanitarian toll these sanctions cause, preferring to parrot government talking points about the need for ‘regime change’ in the targeted nations. The corporate-owned media, which is a collection of profit-motivated businesses, will do whatever is necessary to increase those profits.

The second reason is two pronged: propaganda and racism. The people in the targeted countries are portrayed by Western governments as backward and uncivilized at best, and violent at worst. People in many Western nations do not often travel, only see people who look and sound like them – speaking the same language, having the same traditions, attending the same churches, etc. – and so they readily accept these false narratives. 

There is some breaking down of these opinions due to social media, but it is a long and slow process for people to learn and accept that their preconceived notions about people, formulated by not questioning government narratives, are untrue.

Can the use of human rights rhetoric by the West against Iran be described as a form of “human rights colonialism”?

That is an excellent term. In the past Western nations colonized many nations, taking over their lands, destroying their customs and traditions, and killing their people; today they define human rights on their own terms, ignoring the belief and traditions of the Iranian people. They try to force their skewed definition of democracy on a nation that has voted in a government to their liking; yet for many Western nations, especially the United States, if the elected government is not what the U.S. wants, it will attempt to destabilize it so it can install a willing puppet government. 

All nations commit some human rights abuses, but before any nation, especially the United States, attempts to identify such abuses in any other country, it needs to look within its own borders and rectify the appalling and increasing human rights abuses occurring there. 

In your view, did the recent Iran-Israel war reveal more weaknesses than strengths in Israel’s military and political position?

The 12-day conflict has been spun by many Western nations and media outlets as a great victory for Israel. This is a most puzzling conclusion. The Zionist regime undoubtedly expected an easy victory over Iran, but as Iranian bombs reigned down on Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel, and as Israel’s defense systems failed, it had to call in the United States to rescue it. The Israeli government, and the ‘nation’ itself, only exists because of constant U.S. support; it could not stand on its own, as was demonstrated during the recent conflict. 

Politically, the Zionist government also relies on the United States for protection on the international stage from the consequences of its continued, ongoing and horrific war crimes and crimes against humanity.

What were the broader geopolitical repercussions of this 12-day war for Israel, Iran, and the wider West Asia region?

Iran demonstrated to not only its own people, and people throughout the Middle East, but also to the rest of the world that there is grave danger in underestimating its power and resolve. Its success during that war proved its strength and resilience, and the fact that it has the support of the overwhelming number of its population. This exposes the U.S. myth that the people of Iran feel oppressed and want a new form of government. Iran is a powerful nation, holding fast the support of its people and pride in its revolution. No country, including the most powerful one in the world, has been or will be able to overcome those facts. 

Has Iran’s resistance during this period altered the security balance in West Asia?

The racist Israeli government leaders are now well aware of the fact that Iran is a major force to be reckoned with. This may have been a rude awakening for Israel, but it is a fact, and one that that Zionist regime will ignore at its own peril. How this will play out in the coming weeks and months remains to be seen, but with Iran having proven to the world that Israel, standing alone, is no match for it, Western nations, with the exception of the United States, may take notice and decide that it is in their interest to remain on friendly terms with such a large, powerful country. This may cause some of them to break with U.S. policy, and re-establish more cordial diplomatic relations with Iran. 

Do you believe Europe can act independently in its policy toward Iran, or is it effectively constrained by pressure from the United States?

There is a difference between whether European nations can, and if they will, defy U.S. demands regarding their policies towards Iran. When Trump violated the JCPOA during his first chaotic term in office, he threatened the other signatories to the agreement with sanctions if they didn’t do the same. They quickly acquiesced to his demands. Yet during Trump’s current term, when he has alienated many of the U.S.’s closest allies, those allies may see little to be gained by doing his bidding. They may see the Iranian population as a large and excellent market for their products, recognize it as a beautiful travel destination, and even seek military alliances with it. The next several months will indicate the direction that European nations choose to take. 

From your perspective, does the snapback mechanism for sanctions violate principles of international law?

The snapback mechanism was part of the JCPOA. Once the U.S. violated it, that agreement was null and void. When a contract is made between two or more parties, there are certain conditions that each agrees to. If one party violates the agreement, the other parties are no longer required to abide by it; the agreement simply no longer exists. 

It is completely unreasonable to expect Iran to curtail its nuclear program when it only did so for the benefits it was to receive from Western countries. When those nations ceased to provide those benefits, effectively violating the agreement Iran was released from its obligations under the agreement. 

It must also be remembered that the Iranian government maintained its part of the agreement for a full year after the U.S. and the other signatory countries violated it. At that time, it was hoped that a more reasonable effort would be made by at least the European partners, but when that hope proved futile, the Iranian government, rightly, saw no reason to continue its adherence. But it must also be stated that as soon as the U.S. violated the agreement, Iran was no longer under obligation to maintain it. The Iranian government did it as a sign of good faith, one that was not reciprocated.