5 ms·

One significant point I feel you missed is that it proved that the sanctions worked, albeit taking a very long time. Iran's economy has suffered badly (eg a che

One significant point I feel you missed is that it proved that the sanctions worked, albeit taking a very long time. Iran's economy has suffered badly (eg a cheap car there such as a Hyundai is 4 times the price it is elsewhere). And that has been a clear reason for them to accept the terms of this deal. Next stop Cuba?

hackuser 11y ago
Based on reading a lot of foreign policy literature, experts see sanctions as a specific tool for specific situations, but very over-used. The following is what a well-read amateur has absorbed (in the absence of anyone with actual expertise - that would be very welcome!): Governments and publics tend to see sanctions as a solution to every problem, especially where they don't want to have to actually pay or sacrifice anything. They think it's a freebie, a way to get something done witout putting any skin in the game: 'We don't want to risk any lives or have to give anything up to get what we want - let's use sanctions!' Note that you won't see sanctions where it will have a serious economic impact on the sanctioning country; for example, the U.S. isn't going to enact significant trade sanctions on China. Also, sanctions tend to have the harshest effects on the most vulnerable. In the kinds of countries that are sanctioned, the poor starve and their unelected oppressors continue to live affluent lives. That's why in the the last decade or two, the U.S. and others have used the tactic of targeted sanctions, aimed specifically at the people in power. Sanctions freeze their personal assets in overseas banks (where they often stash their money), deny access to western markets and financial services for the businesses run by them and their leading supporters, etc. Apparently, denying the leaders travel visas to the west has a real impact (perhaps they lose status when then can't take their families on vacation to Paris and New York?). It seems to have accomplished something in Iran (but at what cost to the poor and oppressed there?). It hasn't worked yet in North Korea, and their population already is starving. Cuban sanctions are, I think, the old-fashioned non-targeted sanctions and have been ineffective or at least clearly insufficient. Also, as I said, it's not the right tool for every job.
- baudehlo 11y ago
  I agree completely. It has made the people suffer, not those higher up. However I think Iran could see another uprising on the horizon, which I guess is the point of making the people suffer. Sad it had to be that way.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > I agree completely. It has made the people suffer, not those higher up. My point was the opposite: Sanctions in Iran worked because they were targeted at the higher ups and made them suffer. (Edit: I'm not trying to go back and forth with you, just clarifying what I meant because it seemed misunderstood.) > I think Iran could see another uprising on the horizon, which I guess is the point of making the people suffer. I believe that research shows that this never works. I don't want to say never, but I can't think of a situation when it has worked.
    - stormbrew 11y ago
      South African apartheid? Sanctions were not the only factor, but I believe they are at least partly credited.
      - hackuser 11y ago
        I've heard little about it but what I heard was the same as what you say.
4714 11y ago
I would be skeptical to say if the sanctions worked. Did it stop Iran from creating a nuclear program? No. Did it allow for a change in government? No. Mainly the people who suffered most were the common people of Iran. The government in Iran took advantage of this situation to radicalize people against the US even more.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Did it stop Iran from creating a nuclear program? No. It has stopped their nuclear program - see the news. More specifically, it didn't make it impossible for them to build nukes, but it motivated them to stop in order to get the sanctions relieved. (Of course we all are talking speculativly, unless a someone very high in the Iranian government, who knows their motives, is posting on HN.)
- amalag 11y ago
  I think it worked because it put pressure on the government. The government is not hugely supported everywhere, it would have had increasing pressure on its higher powers if sanctions continued. Do you remember the green movement? This is very US centric but still interesting. http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/green-movement http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/green-movement >The Green Movement reached its height when up to 3 million peaceful demonstrators turned out on Tehran streets to protest official claims that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the 2009 presidential election in a landslide. Their simple slogan was: “Where is my vote?”
lawnchair_larry 11y ago
The problem with sanctions is not whether or not they "work".

hackuser 11y ago

Based on reading a lot of foreign policy literature, experts see sanctions as a specific tool for specific situations, but very over-used. The following is what a well-read amateur has absorbed (in the absence of anyone with actual expertise - that would be very welcome!): Governments and publics tend to see sanctions as a solution to every problem, especially where they don't want to have to actually pay or sacrifice anything. They think it's a freebie, a way to get something done witout putting any skin in the game: 'We don't want to risk any lives or have to give anything up to get what we want - let's use sanctions!' Note that you won't see sanctions where it will have a serious economic impact on the sanctioning country; for example, the U.S. isn't going to enact significant trade sanctions on China. Also, sanctions tend to have the harshest effects on the most vulnerable. In the kinds of countries that are sanctioned, the poor starve and their unelected oppressors continue to live affluent lives. That's why in the the last decade or two, the U.S. and others have used the tactic of targeted sanctions, aimed specifically at the people in power. Sanctions freeze their personal assets in overseas banks (where they often stash their money), deny access to western markets and financial services for the businesses run by them and their leading supporters, etc. Apparently, denying the leaders travel visas to the west has a real impact (perhaps they lose status when then can't take their families on vacation to Paris and New York?). It seems to have accomplished something in Iran (but at what cost to the poor and oppressed there?). It hasn't worked yet in North Korea, and their population already is starving. Cuban sanctions are, I think, the old-fashioned non-targeted sanctions and have been ineffective or at least clearly insufficient. Also, as I said, it's not the right tool for every job.

baudehlo 11y ago
I agree completely. It has made the people suffer, not those higher up. However I think Iran could see another uprising on the horizon, which I guess is the point of making the people suffer. Sad it had to be that way.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > I agree completely. It has made the people suffer, not those higher up. My point was the opposite: Sanctions in Iran worked because they were targeted at the higher ups and made them suffer. (Edit: I'm not trying to go back and forth with you, just clarifying what I meant because it seemed misunderstood.) > I think Iran could see another uprising on the horizon, which I guess is the point of making the people suffer. I believe that research shows that this never works. I don't want to say never, but I can't think of a situation when it has worked.
  - stormbrew 11y ago
    South African apartheid? Sanctions were not the only factor, but I believe they are at least partly credited.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      I've heard little about it but what I heard was the same as what you say.

4714 11y ago

I would be skeptical to say if the sanctions worked. Did it stop Iran from creating a nuclear program? No. Did it allow for a change in government? No. Mainly the people who suffered most were the common people of Iran. The government in Iran took advantage of this situation to radicalize people against the US even more.

hackuser 11y ago
> Did it stop Iran from creating a nuclear program? No. It has stopped their nuclear program - see the news. More specifically, it didn't make it impossible for them to build nukes, but it motivated them to stop in order to get the sanctions relieved. (Of course we all are talking speculativly, unless a someone very high in the Iranian government, who knows their motives, is posting on HN.)
amalag 11y ago
I think it worked because it put pressure on the government. The government is not hugely supported everywhere, it would have had increasing pressure on its higher powers if sanctions continued. Do you remember the green movement? This is very US centric but still interesting. http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/green-movement http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/green-movement >The Green Movement reached its height when up to 3 million peaceful demonstrators turned out on Tehran streets to protest official claims that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the 2009 presidential election in a landslide. Their simple slogan was: “Where is my vote?”

lawnchair_larry 11y ago

The problem with sanctions is not whether or not they "work".