4 ms·

The goal of most sanctions, from a diplomatic perspective, is to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the gover

The goal of most sanctions, from a diplomatic perspective, is to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question. It's believed that when the "price of onions" becomes too high for a society to tolerate, revolution occurs. I'm not saying the world is/isn't a better place, just explaining the common beltway logic re: Iran sanctions.

duaoebg 8y ago
Sanctions often have the reverse effect by entrenching state power and creating a outside force upon which to blame the problems. I.e. these onions cost a fortune because of the evil Americans. Also the US does not have a great track record with inciting revolutions in Iran.
- mythrwy 8y ago
  Actually the US has a stellar track record of inciting revolutions in Iran. (just not intentionally)
- austinheap 8y ago
  Foreign advisories have all kinds of failed/stupid strategies for inducing revolution! Hasn't stopped America from a never-ending sanction game with Iran or Russia from a never-ending election game with America or China from... the list goes on and on.
Udik 8y ago
> to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question terrorism /ˈtɛrərɪzəm/ noun the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
rgbrenner 8y ago
The goal of the sanctions is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The sanctions cause economic harm, forcing Iran to the negotiating table. It's not anyone's goal to overthrow Iran. No one want to clean up the mess. There are already enough messes in that region already (afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen).
- austinheap 8y ago
  America has been diligently trying to overthrow the Iranian government for nearly 70 years, _long_ before Iran started their nuclear program in 1970: In 1953, the CIA baited the Iranian coup d'état by covertly supporting pro-shaw groups. The shaw was then overthrown in 1979, bringing Khomeini to power as the Supreme Leader. Our role in the later Iranian revolution isn't as clear, yet. After that the 2009 Persian Awakening was additionally supported by the states.
  - dboreham 8y ago
    Fighting Persia goes back quite a way before 70 years ago...
  - xster 8y ago
    s/their nuclear program/our nuclear program. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf The US puppet planning to start building 23 nuclear power plants in the 70s were based on US support to create a US friendly power-base in the middle east.
- lawnchair_larry 8y ago
  I wouldn’t say it isn’t anyone’s goal. For one, John Bolton, NatSec Advisor, openly advocates it. And it’s not like the US hasn’t done it before.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  But we already had a deal with Iran on weapons. A deal that they were honoring, which we reneged on.
  - briandear 8y ago
    Any proof they were honoring it? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/opinion/tehran-nuclear-sanctions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/opinion/tehran-nuclear-sa...
    - 8y ago
curiousgal 8y ago
Wait, so the U.S. is hoping for Iranians to revolt against a system it helped put in place? Hmmm
- hevi_jos 8y ago
  Yeah, exactly. They supported the Iranian revolution expecting they will be able to control the outcome. That was ending the British relationship and starting an only American one with their oil. This worked out pretty well in Saudi Arabia, which was very primitive and had very small population. In the end,though,in Iran they are Muslims first and Iranians second, with a long History. They could have accepted all the money from infidels that they could get, and promised whatever to them, but their own religion says they could(and should) lie to infidels. So they did it.
jessaustin 8y ago
(This scenario of popular revolt has never actually transpired.)
solatic 8y ago
The point of sanctions is not necessarily to incite revolution; as duaoebg pointed out, regimes like their scapegoats, and anyways modern historical anecdotes show that popular unrest is insufficient to incite revolution if the military remains loyal to the regime e.g. Tehran summer 2009. Rather, sanctions attempt to align financial incentives of those in power with the country issuing sanctions. It may seem (thankfully) foreign to those in the West, but in autocratic places like Russia, Iran, and China, the people who control the policy of the state are generally also the people who have large stakes in the major economic engines of the state. Given that autocrats tend to be motivated by wealth at least as much as they are motivated by power, sanctions can force autocrats to try to negotiate with sanctioning countries, wherein the autocrat tries to adopt his policy as little as possible to the sanctioning country (so as to keep a grip on power) in order to get wealth flowing again.

duaoebg 8y ago

Sanctions often have the reverse effect by entrenching state power and creating a outside force upon which to blame the problems. I.e. these onions cost a fortune because of the evil Americans. Also the US does not have a great track record with inciting revolutions in Iran.

mythrwy 8y ago
Actually the US has a stellar track record of inciting revolutions in Iran. (just not intentionally)
austinheap 8y ago
Foreign advisories have all kinds of failed/stupid strategies for inducing revolution! Hasn't stopped America from a never-ending sanction game with Iran or Russia from a never-ending election game with America or China from... the list goes on and on.

Udik 8y ago

> to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question terrorism /ˈtɛrərɪzəm/ noun the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

rgbrenner 8y ago

The goal of the sanctions is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The sanctions cause economic harm, forcing Iran to the negotiating table. It's not anyone's goal to overthrow Iran. No one want to clean up the mess. There are already enough messes in that region already (afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen).

austinheap 8y ago
America has been diligently trying to overthrow the Iranian government for nearly 70 years, _long_ before Iran started their nuclear program in 1970: In 1953, the CIA baited the Iranian coup d'état by covertly supporting pro-shaw groups. The shaw was then overthrown in 1979, bringing Khomeini to power as the Supreme Leader. Our role in the later Iranian revolution isn't as clear, yet. After that the 2009 Persian Awakening was additionally supported by the states.
- dboreham 8y ago
  Fighting Persia goes back quite a way before 70 years ago...
- xster 8y ago
  s/their nuclear program/our nuclear program. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf The US puppet planning to start building 23 nuclear power plants in the 70s were based on US support to create a US friendly power-base in the middle east.
lawnchair_larry 8y ago
I wouldn’t say it isn’t anyone’s goal. For one, John Bolton, NatSec Advisor, openly advocates it. And it’s not like the US hasn’t done it before.
yourbandsucks 8y ago
But we already had a deal with Iran on weapons. A deal that they were honoring, which we reneged on.
- briandear 8y ago
  Any proof they were honoring it? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/opinion/tehran-nuclear-sanctions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/opinion/tehran-nuclear-sa...
  - 8y ago

curiousgal 8y ago

Wait, so the U.S. is hoping for Iranians to revolt against a system it helped put in place? Hmmm

hevi_jos 8y ago
Yeah, exactly. They supported the Iranian revolution expecting they will be able to control the outcome. That was ending the British relationship and starting an only American one with their oil. This worked out pretty well in Saudi Arabia, which was very primitive and had very small population. In the end,though,in Iran they are Muslims first and Iranians second, with a long History. They could have accepted all the money from infidels that they could get, and promised whatever to them, but their own religion says they could(and should) lie to infidels. So they did it.

jessaustin 8y ago

(This scenario of popular revolt has never actually transpired.)

solatic 8y ago

The point of sanctions is not necessarily to incite revolution; as duaoebg pointed out, regimes like their scapegoats, and anyways modern historical anecdotes show that popular unrest is insufficient to incite revolution if the military remains loyal to the regime e.g. Tehran summer 2009. Rather, sanctions attempt to align financial incentives of those in power with the country issuing sanctions. It may seem (thankfully) foreign to those in the West, but in autocratic places like Russia, Iran, and China, the people who control the policy of the state are generally also the people who have large stakes in the major economic engines of the state. Given that autocrats tend to be motivated by wealth at least as much as they are motivated by power, sanctions can force autocrats to try to negotiate with sanctioning countries, wherein the autocrat tries to adopt his policy as little as possible to the sanctioning country (so as to keep a grip on power) in order to get wealth flowing again.