US Sanctions on Iran Analyzed Through a Realist Lens

What makes this paper effective

• The paper grounds a contemporary policy debate — US sanctions on Iran — in a specific theoretical framework (political realism), giving the analysis a clear and testable analytical lens.
• It engages critically with its sources rather than simply reporting them, using Maloney, O'Sullivan, and van Kemenade to build competing interpretations of the same policy.
• The hypothesis is clearly stated and nuanced: sanctions are consistent with realism but insufficient on their own, which avoids a simplistic yes/no framing.

Key academic technique demonstrated

This paper demonstrates theory-application analysis — the technique of evaluating a real-world policy or event through the explicit lens of an established theoretical framework. Rather than describing sanctions descriptively, the author asks whether the policy fulfills the logic and goals that realist IR theory would predict or prescribe. This technique requires the writer to first define the theory, then systematically test observed behavior against its criteria.

Structure breakdown

The paper opens by establishing the historical context of Iran sanctions and identifying political realism as its analytical frame. It then interrogates multiple scholarly interpretations — coercive versus diplomatic approaches, symbolic versus strategic use of sanctions — before articulating a central hypothesis. The conclusion projects the argument forward, framing the study's relevance to ongoing policy decisions. The structure moves from context → theory → critique → hypothesis → significance, a classic social-science research paper arc.