Should ethical consumers boycott Iran?

The Iranian, US and Israeli governments have committed human rights abuses against the people of Iran in different forms. Can boycotts of the different countries make a difference in the face of state violence - and what meaningful steps can we take to show solidarity with the people in Iran?

As waves of protest against government repression continue to resurface in Iran, and US and Israeli missile strikes escalate, it is ordinary people who are bearing the cost. With all three governments implicated, this article explores the limits of consumer boycotts, the harms of international sanctions, and how to support Iranian voices during media blackouts.

Can boycotting Israel and the US help people in Iran?

Unlike boycotting Iranian goods - which risks harming ordinary Iranians already living under the weight of sanctions (see more below) - targeted boycotts of companies and institutions linked to US and Israeli state violence offers a different approach. The logic mirrors the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement: when consumer pressure is directed at entities enabling military action or repression, it can create reputational and economic pressure that contributes to wider calls for accountability.

Rather than applying broad pressure that can spill over onto ordinary populations, targeted boycotts focus on the corporate infrastructure that supports state violence, such as Amazon providing cloud services and data systems embedded in military supply chains and Elon Musk’s ventures (Tesla, X, Grok) for their massive financial support of authoritarian policies. By withdrawing consumer support from these actors, the aim is to challenge the systems that enable military escalation, without deepening hardship for those already most affected.

In practice, this means moving away from blanket “country boycotts” and towards more targeted action. Our guide to following BDS outlines how to identify companies and institutions linked to the Israeli state, while our research on US-linked corporations highlights brands connected to government infrastructure, surveillance, and enforcement.

These approaches are not a complete solution, but they do offer a more considered way to express solidarity while minimising harm to those already most affected.

The current war on Iran

In early March 2026, the decades-long tension between the United States, Israel and Iran escalated into open military conflict, marking one of the most significant confrontations in the SWANA region (Southwest Asia and North Africa, a decolonial term often used in place of ‘Middle East’) in recent history.

The US and Israel have launched a coordinated campaign across Tehran and other major Iranian cities, striking political targets - including killing Iran’s Supreme Leader - as well as civilian infrastructure including schools, residential neighbourhoods and fuel stations. This escalation came in the midst of US-Iran nuclear negotiations that had reportedly shown signs of progress toward an agreement.

Yet this is not the first time military action has disrupted diplomatic efforts. This escalation comes less than a year after the 12-day war of June 2025, where similar strikes from Israel and the US hit Iran. The current conflict unfolds against a backdrop of contested claims about Iran’s nuclear programme, with the US claiming that the programme has been a security concern for over 40 years.

The regional impact has also been significant: strikes intercepted by neighbouring Gulf countries on behalf of the US have caused disruption in the surrounding area, while Israel has continued bombing campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza.

Meanwhile, the people inside Iran face compounding hardships, from the immediate dangers of bombs, to the long-term strain of external sanctions and the internal oppression of the regime.

Western-imposed sanctions against Iran

The US, UK and Europe have long placed economic sanctions upon Iran, first imposed in 1979, and long claiming that Iran is seeking nuclear arms. Despite periods of cooperation, sanctions have persisted and evolved in severity.

They were initially expanded under the Obama administration, largely lifted following the JCPOA (widely referred to as ‘the nuclear deal’) in 2015, then dramatically reimposed under Trump’s first term in 2018. 

These measures block Iranian banks from global financial systems, restrict oil sales and limit most other trade operations across international markets.

Critics have argued that this sanctions framework breaks international law and has deepened the country’s economic crisis - with the Iranian Rial losing 80% of its value across a 12-month span in 2012 largely due to international sanctions - exacerbating public anger, limiting Iranians’ purchasing power and making everyday necessities harder to obtain.

As research in The Atlantic suggests, international sanctions often make regimes more authoritarian and repressive, redirecting wealth toward loyalists. It cites a 2009 University of Memphis study which found that, between 1981 and 2000, sanctions contributed to a significant erosion of human rights in the countries on which they were imposed. An additional study from 2010 from the University of Missouri found that sanctioned countries grew less democratic, too, shifting the internal balance of power to those they aim to weaken.

Ethical Consumer recognises that country-wide boycotts and sanctions are forms of non-violent direct action. When designed carefully and supported by affected communities, they can contribute to accountability for oppressive regimes. However, the effectiveness and humanitarian impact vary significantly depending on context, existing economic isolation, and who is leading the call for action. We believe economic measures should target those responsible for abuses and aim to avoid imposing broad hardship on civilians - which in this case, could amount to a form of collective punishment. This distinction matters both ethically and under international law. 

Other ways to show solidarity with the people of Iran

A key way to show solidarity with the people of Iran is to amplify Iranian voices.

Amplify and sustain Iranian voices

When seeking to understand the situation in Iran, readers will quickly encounter a fragmented landscape of competing narratives. Like all societies, Iran is not monolithic, voices range from government aligned state media to opposition groups, diaspora communities and those inside Iran. This can make it difficult to discern which perspectives reflect mainstream sentiment.

Internet blackouts also demonstrate how quickly real‑time information can be erased. As connectivity is frequently cut, social media platforms restricted and independent journalism faces obstruction, sustained international advocacy can have real impact. This ensures that voices are amplified while they can still be heard, as well as ensuring human rights violations are documented and not erased or forgotten.

Solidarity can take many forms. The most important step is to center the voices of Iranians themselves rather than relying solely on external commentary. This means: 

• Consider targeted boycotts of the US and BDS targets of Israel. 
• Use your purchasing power to buy from Iranians inside the country who have set up ways for international supporters to purchase products or services directly.
• Read interviews and testimonies from Iranians inside the country. This Shado article interviews Iranians inside Iran after the January protests and before the current conflict.
• Follow pages or social media accounts like Iran Revolution Info who is among the few social media pages providing real-time updates about the conflict and the regime from Iranians inside Iran who have managed to connect to the internet. 
• Follow Amnesty International Iran which is regularly updating on offences by the regime.
• Support digital resilience and help those in censored countries, such as Iran, by downloading the Conduit app to help people in censored countries bypass the internet blackout and get online.