On Sept. 16, Mahsa Amini was murdered by Iranian police for refusing to wear a hijab in accordance with the country’s hardline Islam-inspired laws concerning a women’s appearance in public. Public outrage followed, leading to mass demonstrations consisting notably of young women, who refused to wear their hijabs. As many as 400 people have been arrested — many of them teenagers — and there are documented instances of protestors being killed. Demonstrations and civil disobedience have continued even weeks after they started. The movement has also inspired counter-protests, indicating its scale and seriousness.

Whatever the outcome will be, it is clear that this represents a turning point in Iran’s contemporary history. Iranian women are beginning to stand up for themselves against the patriarchal brutality to which they have been subject for nearly 50 years under the rule of the Islamic Republic.

The Western world has been made increasingly aware of these changes as Iranian people have taken to the internet to protest against their treatment. In response, the Iranian government has implemented an internet shutdown similar to the one imposed in 2019. The response from the West has been one largely of solidarity, as a hashtag of Mahsa Amini’s name accumulated 52 million tweets. And many governments, including those of the United States and Germany, have decided to impose increased sanctions on the country as a negative response to Iran’s suppressive response to the protests.

It’s true that the international response to the protests and some demonstration of solidarity show an admirable concern for the Iranian feminist cause. But speaking from a strategic standpoint, sanctions are unlikely to curtail violence against protestors. Historically, sanctions have been primarily motivated by American strategic and economic interests as opposed to genuine concern for the civilians of affected countries, calling into question the extent to which they will prove helpful to the Iranian people.

If sanctions were truly an effective means of targeting repressive governments, executed based on genuine concern for civilians, they would have been leveled against a country like Saudi Arabia a long time ago. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to publicly practice any religion other than Islam. Gay and transgender people are subject to severe repression by virtue of their existence alone. The Saudi government also oversaw 120 executions in the first six months of 2022, despite promising to reduce capital punishment. However, likely because of its close economic relationship with the United States, the only sanctions America has ever leveled against Saudi Arabia were against two specific governmental officials in 2021 for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 — three years prior.

In juxtaposition to this, America has maintained sanctions against Venezuela since 2018, which has not resulted in regime change even after four years. America has also maintained sanctions against Cuba since 1962, and both the sanctions themselves and the government established by Fidel Castro in 1962 are still in effect 60 years later. The sanctions imposed against North Korea have arguably resulted in a worsening of the situation. Saddam Hussein was not removed from power by sanctions, but by a bloody and unjustified conflict that cost hundreds of thousands of human lives. Historically, rather than bringing about resolution to conflicts, sanctions have exacerbated the tensions that eventually lead to wars. Iran specifically has been sanctioned heavily, but historically has not been motivated by said sanctions to change its positions.

As Americans who are sympathetic to the oppression faced by women under the Iranian government but who also understand the realities of interventionism and its effectiveness, it becomes easy to feel helpless. It is important to understand, however, that this fight is one that will best be led by Iranian feminists. As more and more Iranians take to the street, it becomes apparent that the country’s internal contradictions do not need to be heightened by outside interference. The people who know what is best for Iran will always be Iranians themselves. In this vein, the best thing the rest of the world can do to help is to work to heighten the voices of this movement. Western media outlets should work to amplify the voices of the people who are actually protesting. The best thing American civilians can do at the moment is listen to and follow the news as closely as they can.

These demonstrations may represent the beginning of a serious shift in Iranian politics. Even as the protests begin to subside, smaller protests and civil disobedience remain prominent. For Iran to continue in this vein — for Iran to do away with the misogynistic repression that has sparked this wave of civil disobedience — this movement must maintain its legitimacy as a grassroots, democratic expression of dissatisfaction. And for this to happen, all acts of solidarity must be centered on the people who are most affected and who are participating on the most fundamental level. And those people will never be shortsighted American policymakers, but Iranian civilians and activists.

Desmond Keuper is a junior majoring in philosophy and is Assistant Opinions Editor.