Essay on Doniya-e-Eqtesad Newspaper August 19, 2025 -
The original text is in Persian and the following translation was done by Ai.
For years, the status of Iran's case in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has been complicated by various interpretations, accusations, and analyses, and more than just controversy. Interpretations such as "their approach will be completely political and independent of our performance" to "as long as there are sanctions, our relationship with the Financial Action Task Force is not important" or considering this group colonial, all of which, if not out of political competition, are based on a mass of unscientific pessimism towards approaches based on international institutionalism. International institutions, including international organizations, international law, etc., if they are the subject of single actions and unrealistic and short-term expectations as domestic laws and institutions, will certainly cause early disappointment. This disappointment is not due to the shortcomings of the aforementioned institutions, but rather the product of a short-term, case-by-case, and unrealistic view.
In fact, it should be said that what is being discussed in the Financial Action Task Force has nothing to do with the unilateral US sanctions that are currently in force on the country. In a general analogy, any sanctions, restrictions, and lack of cooperation of the country in the international sphere are an obstacle to the country's foreign affairs. Of course, removing one obstacle does not directly help another. But not removing one obstacle can lead to multiple problems. The Financial Action Task Force, in the meantime, is in the circle of international restrictions that confronts friendly countries with restrictions on cooperation with the country and equips non-friendly and adversaries with numerous excuses. The restrictions resulting from the lack of cooperation between the two countries with the Financial Action Task Force put Iran on the list of opaque countries, and this has placed many restrictions on any foreign financial and banking work. Reason dictates that a country in the global environment should open as many locks as it can from its hands and feet and take every possible excuse from its enemies; especially since it must be admitted that the restrictions set forth in international institutions certainly make the task more difficult for the country on a broader level.
According to the principle of national sovereignty, governments are not typically required to cooperate internationally, but these cooperations are typically designed to coordinate and facilitate affairs between them, and therefore, although non-participation in any of them is easily possible, the country must be forced to accept isolation and withdrawal from international environments. The meaninglessness of these self-imposed and self-inflicted restrictions becomes apparent when we consider that almost all countries in the world, regardless of their political orientation and type of government, are engaged in this type of cooperation with each other.
Although all institutions, including international cooperation, are imbued with the policies and agendas of global actors, excessive pessimism about the aforementioned mechanisms will lead to inaction and isolation. If this game is inherently imbued with politics, a capable actor must be proactive in this environment with these requirements, otherwise withdrawal, isolation, and at most verbal condemnation of the aforementioned mechanisms will come from any level of capability, and this is not commendable. In fact, institutions such as the Financial Action Task Force adopt a technical reliance approach in their transactions, and technical answers to the questions of that institution can gradually be effective in improving relations between them.
Donyay-e- Eqtesad Link
