5 ms·

The 80 million Iranians are currently held hostage by two entities. First, it is their own government (which is by far not the worse in the world, being in Iran

by espeed 7y ago

The 80 million Iranians are currently held hostage by two entities. First, it is their own government (which is by far not the worse in the world, being in Iran feels more free than one would expect). The Iranian people are not the target -- Persia is a rich ancient civilization that's being repressed -- the West knows this and wants to see the Iranian people's massive creative potential unleashed. Sanctions are designed as a non-kinetic force applied to pressure the Iranian government into a weakened position. The Iranian people play a significant role in amplifying the pressure. The louder and more vocal their voice becomes, the more pressure their government will feel. If the Iranian people want a change, the change has to come from within. At some point, when the people amplify the pressure beyond the point the government can withstand, the situation tips and the people force their government to release. This is the effect the sanctions are designed to create.

luckylion 7y ago
> The Iranian people are not the target -- Persia is a rich ancient civilization that's being repressed -- the West knows this and wants to see the Iranian people's massive creative potential unleashed. Given that "the West" is largely responsible for installing/supporting repressive Regimes in Iran, that sounds a bit too naive. "Wants to replace the oppressive Regime with an oppressive Regime that will do their bidding" sounds closer to the truth to my ears. Given the recent examples US led "Regime Change" in the area (Egypt, Libya, Iraq, to a lesser degree Syria), as an Iranian, I'd have some reservations about lofty speeches.
- espeed 7y ago
  The US people fought several wars to free itself and establish its nation. And then it went back to Europe and fought WWI and WWII to ensure it's free. Iran is one the few places on Earth remaining to be free. But freedom is a choice, and the Iranian people have to choose it.
  - eoic 7y ago
    This is ironic, right?
  - cr1895 7y ago
    What about the indigenous peoples of the present US? Did they choose freedom?
    - espeed 7y ago
      They're still free. I live in Texas, and most people are part-Native American here (including me).
    - espeed 7y ago
      Yes. Here's what a group of Navajos chose to do the day after Pearl Harbor [1]... "In this moment of national trial, Stephen and his son Hugh published an op-ed piece in The Times-Picayune. Recalling an episode from the Day after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, the piece started this way: “On Dec. 8, 1941, a large group of Navajo Indians saddled their horses, loaded their rifles and rode off their reservation to the nearest Army recruiting center. They told the surprised recruiting officer that they were ready not just to enlist, but to start fighting that very day. Their country had been attacked. They would go to war.” Stephen and Hugh used this incident to offer a telling illustration of the American Spirit—how it manifests itself, what it means. These Native Americans had not been treated well by their government, by American society at large. Their culture and their language had been under attack, marginalized, discriminated against, for many years. Their opportunities in education and work were few. But even these Navajo in their hardscrabble existence had a sense of the American ideal, the promise of individual rights, of opportunity for a good life as pursued first by our Puritan forebears, then by this country’s Founding Fathers—and as spelled out in the Bill of Rights. In 1941 these Native Americans knew this promise, this ideal—and their country too now—was under attack. So they joined millions of other Americans to fight Japan and Germany in faraway places. In fact, the Navajo Code Talkers [2] became a legendary weapon in our WWII military arsenal, for they were able to speak openly over the radio in the field—confident that the enemy would never crack their language. The Navajo reflected the common sentiment of the day: “We’re all in this together.” And their selfless acts spoke to the enduring American Spirit, the bright connecting thread in the fabric of our Democracy. This spirit is sometimes difficult to define or to quantify, but it holds great power—and you know it when you see it. Our country would never have survived and prospered without this spirit. In fact, it wouldn’t have survived its earliest days. But where did this spirit come from? ..." [1] The American Spirit: What Does It Mean? https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-spirit-what-does-it-mean https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-spir... [2] Navajo Code Talkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker#Navajo_code_talkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker#Navajo_code_talker...
  - RobertoG 7y ago
    Ah, but Iran already chose freedom. Unfortunately, they decided to use their freedom to take control of the oil in their country. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... "The 1953 Iranian coup d'état,[..], was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United States [..] and the United Kingdom [..]" "Mosaddegh had sought to audit the documents of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now part of BP) and to limit the company's control over Iranian oil reserves"
    - senorjazz 7y ago
      They made the wrong democratic choice, they needed some freedom wars and liberty bombs to be shown who the right choice was
  - senorjazz 7y ago
    The US (same as all countries ever) fought their wars to push forward their interests, no more no less. Of course the narrative the country tells itself is different (same as all other countries who fight wars), but the narrative is false. If what you said was true, that people being "free" was so important to the US and the reasoning behind all foreign policy, then please explain away slavery? Segregation? Discrimination? Explain the wars of aggression, which despite their operational Orwellian names, have had nothing to do with freedom, or freeing oppressed peoples. Explain policies of supporting brutal right wing dictators throughout Latin America, the training of death squads, the military school of the Americas, the CIA coups / assinations of democratically elected leaders, the torture prisons, the giving of asylum to those not only reported of being involved in the above, but charged (in their home countries). If what you said was true, that the US really was the first, noble country doing everything to "free" oppressed peoples the above wouldn't happen, but it does. Unless you mean freedom is for some, oppression for others, that could be argued perhaps somewhat true, but if so, then it negates what you are saying. This isn't to single out the US, as I said the same is true for all global power countries since the beginning of time, but the narrative that the US only starts wars in a selfless manner is quite frankly ridiculous and naive beyond belief to anyone who has even an elementary understanding of world history as opposed to home state propaganda
    - espeed 7y ago
      The US (same as all countries ever) fought their wars to push forward their interests, no more no less. Of course the narrative the country tells itself is different (same as all other countries who fight wars), but the narrative is false. The American War of Independence [1] is how the country was founded. If you think that narrative is false, how did the US come to be? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
js8 7y ago
> Sanctions are designed as [..] when the people amplify the pressure beyond the point the government can withstand Do you have any historic evidence that it ever worked like this? I don't, and therefore, I think the sanctions are a predatory policy designed to break the country so it could be attacked by the U.S., where the military-industrial complex is getting too horny. I mean, I could understand sanctions in the style of European sanctions against Russia, which are targeted at oligarchs and very specific in avoiding damage to ordinary Russians. That at least would be understandable. But Iran sanctions.. no, I think we know the history all too well. > The Iranian people are not the target This is just empty words. Action speaks louder. And even if the sanctions work as you describe in practice: Vaclav Havel said that it's not a moral obligation of oppressed people to revolt (and risk their life), and therefore, it is immoral to pressure them to do that. (What is the point of fighting for freedom if you don't get to choose whether you want to be fighting or not?) I think I agree with that, and I am certainly glad that my country (Czech Republic) was never a target of severe U.S. sanctions.
- mehdix 7y ago
  Thanks for quoting Vaclav Havel. That was exactly what I was looking for. My father was a revolutionist. The amount of harm and distress it caused to him and his children is beyond imagination. It damaged us beyond repair. That's something that I'll avoid at all costs.
  - geff82 7y ago
    And that quote really says it. Revolting against an oppressive regime on your own is usually your death sentence. Why bother with endless prison and/or death when you can just pack your stuff and move somewhere else and be happy? On a macro level, revolting might be the correct thing to do. But on the micro level, simply leaving is the rational decision.
- bjourne 7y ago
  > > Sanctions are designed as [..] when the people amplify the pressure beyond the point the government can withstand > Do you have any historic evidence that it ever worked like this? It worked on South Africa. My hope is similar sanctions could be put on Israel to force it to end the occupation of Palestine. But in these cases the sanctions are for specific wrongdoings that the State can address. The US sanctions against Venezuela, Iran and previously on Cuba are much broader in scope. The US is essentially saying "we will sanction you until you roll over and die" which is of course completely counter-productive. The mullahs in Iran aren't going to surrender just because the US tells them to.
jonathanstrange 7y ago
This sounds like a parody.
mehdix 7y ago
Crushing a nation under brutal sanctions isn't a legitimate tool to move one's agenda forward.
dang 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20302906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20302906.

by espeed 7y ago

luckylion 7y ago

> The Iranian people are not the target -- Persia is a rich ancient civilization that's being repressed -- the West knows this and wants to see the Iranian people's massive creative potential unleashed. Given that "the West" is largely responsible for installing/supporting repressive Regimes in Iran, that sounds a bit too naive. "Wants to replace the oppressive Regime with an oppressive Regime that will do their bidding" sounds closer to the truth to my ears. Given the recent examples US led "Regime Change" in the area (Egypt, Libya, Iraq, to a lesser degree Syria), as an Iranian, I'd have some reservations about lofty speeches.

espeed 7y ago
The US people fought several wars to free itself and establish its nation. And then it went back to Europe and fought WWI and WWII to ensure it's free. Iran is one the few places on Earth remaining to be free. But freedom is a choice, and the Iranian people have to choose it.
- eoic 7y ago
  This is ironic, right?
- cr1895 7y ago
  What about the indigenous peoples of the present US? Did they choose freedom?
  - espeed 7y ago
    They're still free. I live in Texas, and most people are part-Native American here (including me).
  - espeed 7y ago
    Yes. Here's what a group of Navajos chose to do the day after Pearl Harbor [1]... "In this moment of national trial, Stephen and his son Hugh published an op-ed piece in The Times-Picayune. Recalling an episode from the Day after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, the piece started this way: “On Dec. 8, 1941, a large group of Navajo Indians saddled their horses, loaded their rifles and rode off their reservation to the nearest Army recruiting center. They told the surprised recruiting officer that they were ready not just to enlist, but to start fighting that very day. Their country had been attacked. They would go to war.” Stephen and Hugh used this incident to offer a telling illustration of the American Spirit—how it manifests itself, what it means. These Native Americans had not been treated well by their government, by American society at large. Their culture and their language had been under attack, marginalized, discriminated against, for many years. Their opportunities in education and work were few. But even these Navajo in their hardscrabble existence had a sense of the American ideal, the promise of individual rights, of opportunity for a good life as pursued first by our Puritan forebears, then by this country’s Founding Fathers—and as spelled out in the Bill of Rights. In 1941 these Native Americans knew this promise, this ideal—and their country too now—was under attack. So they joined millions of other Americans to fight Japan and Germany in faraway places. In fact, the Navajo Code Talkers [2] became a legendary weapon in our WWII military arsenal, for they were able to speak openly over the radio in the field—confident that the enemy would never crack their language. The Navajo reflected the common sentiment of the day: “We’re all in this together.” And their selfless acts spoke to the enduring American Spirit, the bright connecting thread in the fabric of our Democracy. This spirit is sometimes difficult to define or to quantify, but it holds great power—and you know it when you see it. Our country would never have survived and prospered without this spirit. In fact, it wouldn’t have survived its earliest days. But where did this spirit come from? ..." [1] The American Spirit: What Does It Mean? https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-spirit-what-does-it-mean https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-spir... [2] Navajo Code Talkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker#Navajo_code_talkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker#Navajo_code_talker...
- RobertoG 7y ago
  Ah, but Iran already chose freedom. Unfortunately, they decided to use their freedom to take control of the oil in their country. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... "The 1953 Iranian coup d'état,[..], was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United States [..] and the United Kingdom [..]" "Mosaddegh had sought to audit the documents of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now part of BP) and to limit the company's control over Iranian oil reserves"
  - senorjazz 7y ago
    They made the wrong democratic choice, they needed some freedom wars and liberty bombs to be shown who the right choice was
- senorjazz 7y ago
  The US (same as all countries ever) fought their wars to push forward their interests, no more no less. Of course the narrative the country tells itself is different (same as all other countries who fight wars), but the narrative is false. If what you said was true, that people being "free" was so important to the US and the reasoning behind all foreign policy, then please explain away slavery? Segregation? Discrimination? Explain the wars of aggression, which despite their operational Orwellian names, have had nothing to do with freedom, or freeing oppressed peoples. Explain policies of supporting brutal right wing dictators throughout Latin America, the training of death squads, the military school of the Americas, the CIA coups / assinations of democratically elected leaders, the torture prisons, the giving of asylum to those not only reported of being involved in the above, but charged (in their home countries). If what you said was true, that the US really was the first, noble country doing everything to "free" oppressed peoples the above wouldn't happen, but it does. Unless you mean freedom is for some, oppression for others, that could be argued perhaps somewhat true, but if so, then it negates what you are saying. This isn't to single out the US, as I said the same is true for all global power countries since the beginning of time, but the narrative that the US only starts wars in a selfless manner is quite frankly ridiculous and naive beyond belief to anyone who has even an elementary understanding of world history as opposed to home state propaganda
  - espeed 7y ago
    The US (same as all countries ever) fought their wars to push forward their interests, no more no less. Of course the narrative the country tells itself is different (same as all other countries who fight wars), but the narrative is false. The American War of Independence [1] is how the country was founded. If you think that narrative is false, how did the US come to be? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

js8 7y ago

> Sanctions are designed as [..] when the people amplify the pressure beyond the point the government can withstand Do you have any historic evidence that it ever worked like this? I don't, and therefore, I think the sanctions are a predatory policy designed to break the country so it could be attacked by the U.S., where the military-industrial complex is getting too horny. I mean, I could understand sanctions in the style of European sanctions against Russia, which are targeted at oligarchs and very specific in avoiding damage to ordinary Russians. That at least would be understandable. But Iran sanctions.. no, I think we know the history all too well. > The Iranian people are not the target This is just empty words. Action speaks louder. And even if the sanctions work as you describe in practice: Vaclav Havel said that it's not a moral obligation of oppressed people to revolt (and risk their life), and therefore, it is immoral to pressure them to do that. (What is the point of fighting for freedom if you don't get to choose whether you want to be fighting or not?) I think I agree with that, and I am certainly glad that my country (Czech Republic) was never a target of severe U.S. sanctions.

mehdix 7y ago
Thanks for quoting Vaclav Havel. That was exactly what I was looking for. My father was a revolutionist. The amount of harm and distress it caused to him and his children is beyond imagination. It damaged us beyond repair. That's something that I'll avoid at all costs.
- geff82 7y ago
  And that quote really says it. Revolting against an oppressive regime on your own is usually your death sentence. Why bother with endless prison and/or death when you can just pack your stuff and move somewhere else and be happy? On a macro level, revolting might be the correct thing to do. But on the micro level, simply leaving is the rational decision.
bjourne 7y ago
> > Sanctions are designed as [..] when the people amplify the pressure beyond the point the government can withstand > Do you have any historic evidence that it ever worked like this? It worked on South Africa. My hope is similar sanctions could be put on Israel to force it to end the occupation of Palestine. But in these cases the sanctions are for specific wrongdoings that the State can address. The US sanctions against Venezuela, Iran and previously on Cuba are much broader in scope. The US is essentially saying "we will sanction you until you roll over and die" which is of course completely counter-productive. The mullahs in Iran aren't going to surrender just because the US tells them to.

jonathanstrange 7y ago

This sounds like a parody.

mehdix 7y ago

Crushing a nation under brutal sanctions isn't a legitimate tool to move one's agenda forward.

dang 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20302906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20302906.