8 ms·
The silent victims of the US embargo against Iran
- Udik 8y agoIt is so frustrating that the EU doesn't have the capacity or the courage to stand up against these unjustified and illegal sanctions. We really are powerless in the face of the whims of a capricious fool and his warmongering friends.
- l24ztj 8y agoIran sanctions didn't start with Trump. But you already knew that. The US has been choking Cuba for decades, for example. Also, immoral/unjustified != illegal.
- Udik 8y agoAt least in part ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice of the UN: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/03/international-court-of-justice-orders-us-to-lift-new-iran-sanctions https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/03/international-... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/us-rejects-international-court-of-justice-ruling-on-iran-continuing-its-isolationist-charge.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/us-rejects-international-cou...
- l24ztj 8y agoThe UN is completely toothless. Whatever they say is as relevant as if it had been said by a local court in Kazakhstan.
- jstanley 8y agoSo are you saying it's not illegal, or are you saying there won't be any consequences for this crime?
- l24ztj 8y agoI am saying it's not illegal because the UN doesn't make law, and I know there will be no consequences for this "crime" because the UN can't enforce anything and no country which is in good terms with the UN will want to piss off the US. Having said that, I do NOT condone sanctions in any form.
- Udik 8y agoThis is of course true, as law enforcement depends on what is called "the monopoly of violence". And this is of course impossible when dealing with major powers in the current world.
- wallace_f 8y agoIn that sense, it is the US with currently the largest military presence in Europe
- Jedi72 8y agoDoesn't mean it's legal. Plus the UN is not toothless, it has been very effective at achieving what is was founded for, preventing another world war.
- simonh 8y agoThe US government action was deemed illegal under the terms of a treaty (in that case the Treaty of Amity of 1955), which the US freely negotiated and entered into and ratified. What is the point of any nation entering into treaties with the US, if it's going to just ignore and violate them at the whim of whoever happens to be president at the time? As a condition of easing sanctions, Iran filled the rector core of it's active nuclear reactor with concrete and was found to be in compliance with all the terms of the agreement. Good luck getting any other nation to enter into negotiations like that with the US in good faith again. The Iranian regime is awful. They're appalling extremists and oppressive tyrants. No argument there, but that's on them. It doesn't justify recklessly violating treaties and unilaterally breaking agreements, and establishing a track record of doing so. If anything, demonstrating a track record of honesty and respect for straight dealing is even more important when dealing with such people.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- matt4077 8y agoThe specific sanctions mentioned in the article did either begin with Trump, or were revived after previously being dropped as part of the JCPOA. And while the treatment of Cuba is indeed appalling, or at least incongruous in relation to, say, Saudi Arabia, there are rather meaningful differences between the parties. Thawing relations with Cuba was among Obama's signature achievements. This included the reopening of Embassies, allowing travel, and vastly increasing legal avenues for trade and investment. Some (but not all) of this has been delayed or cut back under the current administration. At the same time, Saudi Arabia enjoys unprecedented support and access at a time where they are more hostile in Yemen, Qatar, and The Streisand Lobby at the Istanbul Consulate.
- matt4077 8y agoThat's also... largely not true? Europe was the only party that ever had /any/ power. The US did not have much of an economic relationship with Iran to begin with. Therefore, their sanctions were mostly symbolic. It was EU sanctions that eventually forced Iran to the negotiating table and made the nuclear deal possible. As the article shows, the US has the power to be cruel. But the price being paid is humanitarian, not economic. Accordingly, in succeeds only in killing children, not creating pressure. This is best shown by Iran's decision to stay in the JCPOA. The US is being ignored, because it is comparably irrelevant in purely economic terms. The EU has also passed legislation prohibiting EU companies from implement US sanctions and indemnifying them against US fines: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45085205 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45085205. And there's an EU venture to replace US institutions in Iran-bound financial transactions: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/04/iran-council-adopts-conclusions/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019...
- cm2187 8y agoI understand US sanctions ban any company doing business with the US to also do business with Iran. Companies doing business with the US is pretty much 100% of large companies in the world. So US sanctions did affect all commerce with Iran, not just US commerce with Iran.
- matt4077 8y agoYes. Read my comment again. Following that US attempt to change longstanding international law is, in turn, illegal in the EU. Companies are indemnified against damages, and the EU will presumably try to claw these back if it ever comes so far. Does something in all this need to give? Yes, definitely. Presumably, the US will shy away from trying to enforce. If not, US courts are actually somewhat likely to uphold long-standing precedents in international law, because the only other possible outcome is a completely unworkable quagmire going forward where no company could simultaneously operate in the EU and the US.
- Udik 8y ago
- humanrebar 8y agoThe article seems to be lacking some context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
- nunodonato 8y agoI think you are missing a big point here: US is the biggest terrorist state, world wide.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoSorry, but how the hell does that justify allowing children with cancer to suffer and die?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- parshua 8y agoIf you compare Iran's victims to US's, Iran will come out as an untarnished Angel. Just in the last 20 years in the middle-east, we have Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and by proxy Syria and Yemen. Put together, even if one is generous, that's more than a million people, minimum, died in wars of conquest, claimed to be `Freedom Operations` or at worst `Police Actions`. Spare us with the propaganda. The world has caught up and can see through it.
- AsyncAwait 8y agoRegarding you first link, it does not justify the civilian suffering. There are many instances of the U.S. sponsoring unsaviory groups, but I don't think anyone would argue the citizens should suffer as a result. The second link is not relevant, the international community is confident Iran is sticking to the agreement, so pointing to a non-existent issue as some kind of a gotcha, especially as the biggest complainer about this in the region themselves have undeclared stockpiles, is not really relevant.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoIt's important to remember that US actions have consequences like this. No matter how poorly you think the Iranian government is behaving, our actions toward their country have led to hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians over the years. There is good reason for countries to doubt "US assistance," and further intrusion will likely cause tremendous suffering for their citizens.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago"our actions toward their country have led to hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians over the years." This false and inflammatory, moreover, 'sanctions' are totally unrelated to 'assistance'. Today, Iran can de-facto trade with most of the world either directly or through intermediaries. The purpose of any embargo is to weaken a state economically, not withhold specific medicines, obviously.
- AriaMinaei 8y ago> Today, Iran can de-facto trade with most of the world either directly or through intermediaries. The purpose of any embargo is to weaken a state economically, not withhold specific medicines, obviously This is not true. Even opening a foreign bank account (necessary for trade) is impossible for Iranians companies, making trade extremely difficult for all companies. European banks are legally permitted to trade with Iranian companies, but the threat of fines from the U.S bars all of them from doing so. > The purpose of any embargo is to weaken a state economically, not withhold specific medicines, obviously. In reality, one of the immediate effects of sanctions is scarcity of medicine. Source: I lived there through the Obama-era sanctions.
- acct1771 8y agoThis perspective would make an excellent NYT piece.
- lustysocietyorg 8y agoThe NYT is part of the Western propaganda machine. Why do you think that US citzens and EU citizens do not know about deadly sanctions as economic warfare? Why do you think this post is downvoted despite linking verifiable facts? Hedges: Journalism Should Be About Truth, Not Career - Chris Hedges on Reality Asserts Itself (2/7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR0oGJ2yrmc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR0oGJ2yrmc No volunteers: EU countries bow to US pressure over alternative payment channel for Iran https://www.rt.com/business/444051-eu-fears-us-sanctions-iran/ https://www.rt.com/business/444051-eu-fears-us-sanctions-ira... Who’s the boss? SWIFT defies EU, caving in to US pressure to cut off Iranian banks https://www.rt.com/business/443315-swift-iran-us-sanctions/ https://www.rt.com/business/443315-swift-iran-us-sanctions/ Madeleine Albright says 500,000 dead Iraqi Children was "worth it" wins Medal of Freedom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE
- Synaesthesia 8y agoIt’s really inexcusable to have sanctions on essential lifesaving drugs.
- LifeLiverTransp 8y agoWell, its actually exuseable, due to chemistry. Given enough energy, almost everything can be made dualuse. Add to that the effect of government bureaucracy trying to make there decisions future proof and voila.
- programmertote 8y agoI was born in Myanmar and grew up there for more than two decades. The impact of economic sanctions are felt not by the ruling class (the military generals), but by the average citizen. Looking back, I firmly believe that sanctions simply deteriorates the human capital and resource (and thus the potential to spur any progressive change) rather than creating any sort of difficulty for the military. Because of the sanctions, there's always constant emigration and drained my country of a lot of intelligent and hard working people. We are still suffering from that and the current democratically elected government can't easily find competent people to help rebuild the country...
- astronautjones 8y agothey are myopic if not nefarious
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoGutting the lower classes is how you punish the ruling class. Ruling class A wants to make ruling class B hurt so they hurt the people from whom ruling class B derives its wealth. Sucks but it's how things work.
- athenot 8y agoThat only works if ruling class B actually cares. The traditional line of thinking is to spur revolt but the power imbalance is now a lot stronger than, e.g. 1789 France.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoThe upper classes don't need to be deposed via revolt. Diminishing their wealth and influence to the point where they can no longer do whatever it was that pissed you off in the first place is good enough. For example, if nobody was buying Saudi oil they wouldn't have the money to spend fighting a war in Yemen.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago> Gutting the lower classes is how you punish the ruling class. Nah, that rarely works and is usually a very slow and painful process, often causing more suffering for the lower class than the crimes the sanctions are supposedly being imposed for.
- emiliobumachar 8y agoSuppose Iran passed a law invalidating all patents of drugs it cannot buy on the market at market prices. Possibly appointing an agency to sort out which ones they are exactly and publish lists. Any drug featured in such lists would be thereby clear for anyone to manufacture in Iran. What would the consequences be?
- smnrchrds 8y agoThat is essentially the status quo. The issue is not patents, it is that Iran does not have the technology to manufacture these drugs. Unlike copyright, patents are country-specific. If you register a patent in the US, it is not valid in Argentina. If you register a patent in Russia, you cannot sue people for infringement in the US. There are of course trade agreements and other treaties that make it possible to register a patent in one country and have it recognized in multiple others. But for the most part, you have to register a patent in every country you wish to enforce it. Since in general, US does not allow US companies to do business with Iran, none of these patents are registered or recognized in Iran. Iran is not even a signatory of international copyright treaties, let alone bilateral patent recognition treaties. In general, any IP produced outside of Iran is fair game in Iran and vice versa. The issue is not the laws, it is that the technology to make them is not available in Iran, and any attempt to purchase the technology is thwarted with the same sanctions regime.
- A2017U1 8y agoIndia blatantly does this already. They've cancelled valid patents when it suits them. To add insult to injury they also sell huge amounts back to America, it's their biggest pharma export market. Ive seen estimates around tens of billions of lost revenue from US biotech companies every year.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago> They've cancelled valid patents when it suits them. You mean when it has the potential to save millions of lives vs pay less in pharma CEO bonuses? > Ive seen estimates around tens of billions of lost revenue from US biotech companies every year. Cry me a river.
- xhdix 8y agoIn the same circumstances, Iran sent 200 tons of medicine to Iraq. The Islamic Republic lied. Medicine and food are not under US sanctions. This is the oppression of the Islamic Republic's mafia to the Iranian people. https://www.isna.ir/news/97071810369/%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%DA%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1%DB%8C-%DB%B2%DB%B0%DB%B0-%D8%AA%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88-%D9%88-%D8%AA%D8%AC%D9%87%DB%8C%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%81%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%B2%D8%B4%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82 https://www.isna.ir/news/97071810369/%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%DA%A...
- forkerenok 8y agoThere is difference between trading medicine and just "sending" it. I think this comment explains the issue well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19481707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19481707
- xhdix 8y agoThe Iranian government can communicate anywhere ... sell something or buy something. I live in Iran, and I see that the Islamic Republic's mafia instead of buying medicines and food supplies its capital to suppress people in Iran and promote violence and assassination elsewhere in the world. They kill the Syrian people, and tell the people of Iran that I am defending you. They can buy medicines for their people instead of buying weapons. Surely buying medicine is more convenient. But the Islamic Republic's mafia is just thinking of itself.
- chriscappuccio 8y agoThis reeks of bullshit. These are mostly very common medicines they can buy from friendly countries and then there's countries which will gladly sell embargoed items all day long to Iran.
- gumby 8y agoThe idea of these constraints on trade is to push ordinary people to the point where they rise up and overthrow the regime. This is the same reason for so-called strategic bombing where you bomb civilians in the hope of the same aim. Neither has ever been demonstrated to be effective. (as a side point the use of the term "sanction" in this way became annoyingly weird in the 1990s -- it's actually sanctioning a restriction on trade).
- devoply 8y agoThe only reason you can get away with this sort of thing is because Americans have never had to experience these sorts of policies or any of the other things that they do to other people. If they had they would change their minds. At the end all these policies are to steal resources, and have nothing to do with human rights. That being said Iran's government needs to be pushed into the sea.
- LifeLiverTransp 8y agoWell you could see the hipocrisiy it in the cuba-missile crisis. All of europe was expected live under direct missile thread- and the same was to be expected for the russians (missiles in turkey) - but as soon as the very same standards apply to gods chosen country, it was considered worth starting world war 3 to stop that. So much for equality, so much for freedom.
- Mirioron 8y agoI've wondered for a long time whether the US (and Europe) would get into so many conflicts if their own civilians were put at risk as well. The US was fighting a war in the Middle East, but back home it was business as usual.
- gumby 8y agoWhile I am a fan of this line of argument I don't think it applies in this case. European countries and Japan, which were smashed to bits in WWII, still participate, sometimes eagerly, in trade restriction sanctions.