What sanctions cost Iranians
Twice in 15 years Iran's oil has been cut off, and each time households paid. Now it has stopped altogether. The record suggests what 2027 will bring
In September 2026 not one barrel of Iranian crude was loaded onto a tanker. That had not happened since the war began in February. An American naval blockade has turned back every cargo since mid-July. On August 24th the Treasury piled on with Operation Economic Outcast, which the administration has billed as "Economic D-Day": sanctions on nearly 60 people, firms and ships, and a threat to anyone still dealing with Iran in digital assets, technology, gold, aviation or shipping.
Iran has lived under sanctions since 1979, so there is a record to consult. Twice in the past 15 years its oil has been cut off, though never completely. What happened to households then is the best available guide to what happens now.
Follow the oil
The first cut came in 2012, when the European Union stopped buying Iranian oil and Iran's banks were thrown off SWIFT, the network through which banks send payments. Exports halved. The second came in 2018, when America left the nuclear deal and promised "maximum pressure". Exports fell by more than 70%.
How much poorer did that make Iranians? One way to tell is to build a twin. We blended 29 oil-producing countries that were neither at war nor under heavy sanctions, weighting them so that the blend's income per person tracked Iran's from 1995 to 2011. Three years into the first squeeze Iran was 13% poorer than its twin. Two years into the second it was 14% poorer. Both times the gap narrowed when the oil flowed again: under the nuclear deal in 2016-17, and after 2020 as Chinese refiners bought Iranian crude at a discount.
Households fared worse than the economy as a whole. Consumption per person fell by 8% between 2011 and 2015 and by 16% between 2017 and 2020. In 2025 it was still 11% below its level of 14 years earlier. Inflation, which was already 11 percentage points above that of comparable oil producers, has run 36 points above it since 2019. Nor was the state spared. Official military spending fell by 26% in 2017-19, a steeper drop than households suffered.
The pattern reduces to a rule of thumb. When Iran's oil revenue halves, household consumption grows three to five percentage points more slowly that year. We estimated the relationship 60 different ways on data since 1981 and it held in all of them. Whether sanctions were formally in force made no reliable difference on top. Laws on paper do not impoverish Iranians. Lost oil money does.
A war as well
This time there are bombs too. The war began on February 28th with American and Israeli strikes, and the rial has kept the diary. A dollar cost 1.35m rials at the end of 2025, 1.66m on the eve of the war and 1.95m on the eve of Economic Outcast. By September 30th it cost 2.6m: the currency has lost 48% of its value this year. Prices in September were 89.8% higher than a year earlier, by the Statistical Centre's count; the central bank puts the figure at 84%. Iran's own statisticians say that GDP in the spring was 10.1% lower than a year before.
Oddly, little of this is yet the work of the blockade. The oil price leapt when the fighting started, so we estimate that Iran's oil revenue in 2026 will be only about a fifth lower than in 2025. By our rule of thumb that should have left household consumption roughly flat. We reckon it has fallen by about 5%. The difference is the war itself: wrecked factories, blocked imports, lost jobs.
The oil shock is still on its way. Crude that was already at sea when the blockade resumed has kept some money coming in. But that floating stock shrank from about 90m barrels in July to 15m by late September, according to Kpler, a data firm, and the Wall Street Journal reports that payments may largely dry up by mid-December.
Three ways from here
Whether the blockade holds is a question for admirals and diplomats, not for models. So we offer three scenarios for 2027 in place of one forecast. Each rests on the only relationship that beat a naive guess when we tested it against every year since 2008: household consumption follows oil revenue. To that we add a penalty for time spent at war, drawn from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
| Oil exports and war in 2027 | Consumption in 2027 vs 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
| Blockade holds | About 0.15m barrels a day; war all year | -13% (-21% to -5%) |
| Leaky blockade | About 0.65m barrels a day; war all year | -9% (-17% to -1%) |
| Deal by spring | About 1.2m barrels a day; war ends in spring | -5% (-13% to +5%) |
Sources: World Bank; IMF; Statistical Centre of Iran; Signum Average calculations
If the blockade holds and the fighting continues, our central projection is that the average Iranian consumes 13% less in 2027 than in 2025. That would be the lowest level since 2003, and more than a fifth below the peak of 2011. If the blockade leaks, as sanctions did after 2019, the fall is 9%. A deal by spring would stop the decline but not reverse it within the year. The ranges are wide and they overlap. The gap between blockade and deal, about eight points, is better established than the level of either.
If anything these numbers flatter the blockade. Iran's oil revenue has never fallen by more than 66% in a year. A total stop would be worse, but a model can be shown only what has happened before. And bombs destroy things that take years to replace. An early estimate by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish American think-tank, puts the physical damage at $91bn by April, about half of it military. The civilian half is roughly 2% of everything Iran has built, enough to cut what the economy can produce by about 1% until it is repaired; even counting the weapons, the loss is under 2.5%.
Prices are harder to predict, and we do not try. Simple arithmetic is alarming enough. At September's monthly pace prices rise by 64% in a year; at May's, by 175%. A government that has lost its oil income tends to print money, which points to the upper end.
What would a deal take? History offers one precedent. In 2015 Iran accepted verified limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for relief. Within a year its oil exports had risen from 1.2m barrels a day to 1.8m, and within two its income per person was up by 9%. The same bargain is harder to strike now. Inspectors have been unable to verify Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium since June 2025, and limits are hard to trade when nobody can count what is being limited.
Sanctions were meant to change how Iran's rulers behave. What they have reliably changed is what Iranians can afford. We will return to these projections when the figures for 2026 and 2027 are published, and report how they fared.
This article was revised and shortened on October 2nd 2026, and corrected on October 5th after a check of its figures against their sources. The full report, with the record of sanctions since 1979 and the methods in detail, is available on request.
Data and methods
Synthetic control
Outcome: log real GDP per person (World Bank, constant 2015 dollars), 1995-2025. Donor pool: 29 oil producers, excluding countries at war (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen) or under heavy sanctions or collapse (Venezuela, Russia); the United Arab Emirates drops out for lack of 2025 data. Weights are non-negative, sum to one and minimise pre-2012 fit error; the largest are Algeria (0.45), Nigeria (0.20) and Malaysia (0.14). Inference uses placebos: the method is rerun on each donor as if it had been sanctioned. Results: Iran 13% below its twin by 2015 (14 log points; placebo p=0.07); 14% below in 2019; level in 2024. For the 2018 episode fitted separately, p=0.23 over 2018-25. Checks on the 2015 gap: leaving out each of the five largest donors, 13-15%; net oil exporters only (20 donors), 13%, p=0.05; Maddison Project data, 12%, p=0.10. A backdated test that pretends sanctions began in 2006 finds gaps of at most 4 points, which is the method's noise level.
Household consumption model
Annual growth of real household consumption per person (World Bank), 1981-2025, regressed on the change in real oil revenue, a date-based index of heavy multilateral sanctions, the US-only embargo era and the Iran-Iraq war, with HAC standard errors. Oil revenue is crude exports (IMF, from 2000; extended back with the growth of production minus domestic consumption) times the Brent price, deflated by US consumer prices. The specification curve re-estimates the model in 60 distinct ways, varying how sanctions are dated, the first year of the sample, and whether 2020, the war years and a lagged term are included. The oil-revenue effect is significant at the 5% level in all 60; the sanctions-in-force effect in none.
Military spending
SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, 1949-2025: spending in constant 2024 dollars, as a share of GDP and as a share of government spending.
Projections
For 2026, household consumption is estimated from GDP (consumption growth = 0.43 + 0.64 x growth in GDP per person, fitted on 1981-2025), with GDP growth drawn between the IMF's July 2026 forecast (-5.4%) and the Statistical Centre of Iran's spring reading (-10.1%). For 2027, consumption growth is a constant, plus an elasticity (0.054-0.070) times the change in log real oil revenue, plus a war term times the share of the year at war, in eight versions. Each scenario fixes crude exports, the Brent price and the share of 2027 at war: 0.15m barrels a day at $90 and war all year; 0.65m at $85 and war all year; or 1.2m at $75 and war for a quarter of the year. Exports in 2026 are put at 0.93m barrels a day, from tanker-tracking figures reported in the press. The war term is the average shortfall of consumption growth in the Iran-Iraq war years of the sample: -3.3 points a year, with a standard error of 2.9. Ranges combine model choice, coefficient error and the model's leave-one-out errors; when oil revenue falls by more than 20%, errors are drawn only from past years in which it did. The fall in oil revenue is capped at the largest in the sample (66%, in 2019).
In a rolling test for 2008-25 the oil-revenue model's one-year error was 3.2 points, against 4.3 for a naive forecast. The full model's was 5.7, and no model beat the naive forecast for GDP or for inflation, including one using the rial's annual fall (12.5 points against 10.9). The war term cannot be tested this way, because no year since 2008 was a war year.
Destroyed capital. With output = A x Ka x L1-a, losing a share d of the capital stock K lowers potential output by about a x d. We take a = 0.61 and a capital-output ratio of 6.3 (Penn World Table, 2023) and GDP of $363bn (World Bank, 2025), giving a capital stock of about $2.3trn. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies puts physical damage at $91bn (April 2026), about half of it military; the civilian half, about $45bn, is 2.0% of the stock and 1.2% of potential GDP. All $91bn would give 2.4%, an upper bound because weapons produce no output; Rystad's upper estimate of $19bn for energy plant alone gives 0.5%. This is arithmetic for scale and is not added to the projection, because the GDP readings for 2026 already contain it.
Exchange rate
Open-market rials per US dollar, daily from 2008 to September 30th 2026, from the archive published by Alanchand, a price-tracking website. We chart it and use it to date events; we do not republish the series.
Inflation comparison
Iran's consumer-price inflation (World Bank) minus the median of the 26 donor countries with inflation data: 11 points in 2005-11, 28 in 2012-13, 11 in 2014-15, 5 in 2016-17 and 36 in 2019-25.
Related research
Gharehgozli (2017, Economics Letters) applies the synthetic control method to the sanctions of 2011-14 and finds that they cut Iran's real GDP by more than 17%. Ghomi (2022, Economics & Politics), with the same method, puts the peak cost at 19% of GDP four years after the sanctions began, and uses household surveys to show that young, rural and less educated households lost most. Laudati and Pesaran (2023, Journal of Applied Econometrics) measure sanctions intensity from newspaper coverage and estimate that sanctions cost Iran one to two percentage points of growth a year. Our estimate of 13% is at the low end of this range. Federle, Meier, Müller, Mutschler and Schularick (2026, American Economic Review) study 150 years of wars and find that in the country where a war is fought GDP is on average 30% lower after five years. Salehi-Isfahani's analysis of the 2024-25 household survey is at djavadsalehi.com.
Main sources
World Bank World Development Indicators; SIPRI Military Expenditure Database; Maddison Project and Energy Institute Statistical Review via Our World in Data; IMF World Economic Outlook Update, July 2026, and Regional Economic Outlook (crude exports, via FRED); US Energy Information Administration; Statistical Centre of Iran; Alanchand (exchange rate); Penn World Table; damage estimates from Rystad Energy and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; tanker-tracking figures from Kpler, Vortexa, TankerTrackers and United Against Nuclear Iran as reported in the press; US Treasury (OFAC) and White House statements on Operation Economic Outcast.
The data behind every chart can be downloaded from the data on GitHub, free to reuse with credit.
Cite this work
Our articles and data visualisations rely on work from many sources. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources, listed in Data and methods.
Signum Average (2026) - "What sanctions cost Iranians" Published online at signumaverage.com. Retrieved from: https://signumaverage.com/articles/what-sanctions-cost-iranians/ [Online resource]
@article{signumaverage-2026-09-29-what-sanctions-cost-iranians,
author = {{Signum Average}},
title = {What sanctions cost Iranians},
journal = {Signum Average},
year = {2026},
month = {sep},
url = {https://signumaverage.com/articles/what-sanctions-cost-iranians/},
note = {Online resource}
}
Reuse this work freely
Text, charts and data on this page are published under the CC BY 4.0 licence: you may copy, adapt and republish them for any purpose, as long as you credit Signum Average. Third-party data keeps its original licence.