4 ms·

> 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 e

by 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.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  It worked because apartheid SA didn't have an oppressive government (for whites), it had a democratic opppressive populace. Blacks in SA were wholly disenfranchised who had near 0 participation in the national economy and wealth, so sanctions had no affect on them, but did affect the middle class who colluded in their oppression.
- yyyk 7y ago
  "It worked on South Africa... in these cases the sanctions are for specific wrongdoings that the State can address." Apartheid South Africa was justifiably asked to change their entire government system, and to hand over power from the ruling racial minority to the majority. Iran - even according to Pompeo's maximalist "12 demands"[0] - is being asked for far less: none of the demands relate to internal affairs, much less asking the mullahs to lose influence on the government. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/mike-pompeo-speech-12-demands-iran-180521151737787.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/mike-pompeo-speech-12...
  - bjourne 7y ago
    Fair point. I read somewhere that complying with the US demands would be equivalent to "roll over and die" and that the US didn't expect compliance at all. Maybe not then.
  - js8 7y ago
    There is also a question (even if we take the demands at the face value, for the sake of argument), how can public in Iran reasonably check that government is following these demands? Really, how is that going to work operationally. Let's say I am demonstrating at the street in Tehran. I can readily tell that there is undemocratic oppression, OK. But how can I check that the government is not developing nuclear weapons or supporting terrorism, when this is hard to tell for normal citizen even in democratic countries? IMHO, for the objectives to make sense, it would require these to be verifiable by the people pressuring the government (which you have so kindly decided to pull into the conflict). The fact that these demands are not verifiable is casting a shadow over the motives.
espeed 7y ago
> Action speaks louder. You're right. For economic sanctions to work, the Iranian people must choose to act. They are in a unique historical position with an opportunity to choose and prove kinetic wars obsolete.
- barrkel 7y ago
  They are in a deal to prevent development of nuclear weapons. The US violated the deal, and now insists that they don't develop nuclear weapons. The US just wants a war, it seems.
  - espeed 7y ago
    Some people want a war. This is true in every government in every nation. Most people don't. Most people have grown war weary and are ready to move to the era beyond. Economic sanctions are an experiment toward that, an alternative to war that keeps the warhawks at bay and proves kinetic wars are obsolete.

by js8 7y ago

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.

lonelappde 7y ago
It worked because apartheid SA didn't have an oppressive government (for whites), it had a democratic opppressive populace. Blacks in SA were wholly disenfranchised who had near 0 participation in the national economy and wealth, so sanctions had no affect on them, but did affect the middle class who colluded in their oppression.
yyyk 7y ago
"It worked on South Africa... in these cases the sanctions are for specific wrongdoings that the State can address." Apartheid South Africa was justifiably asked to change their entire government system, and to hand over power from the ruling racial minority to the majority. Iran - even according to Pompeo's maximalist "12 demands"[0] - is being asked for far less: none of the demands relate to internal affairs, much less asking the mullahs to lose influence on the government. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/mike-pompeo-speech-12-demands-iran-180521151737787.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/mike-pompeo-speech-12...
- bjourne 7y ago
  Fair point. I read somewhere that complying with the US demands would be equivalent to "roll over and die" and that the US didn't expect compliance at all. Maybe not then.
- js8 7y ago
  There is also a question (even if we take the demands at the face value, for the sake of argument), how can public in Iran reasonably check that government is following these demands? Really, how is that going to work operationally. Let's say I am demonstrating at the street in Tehran. I can readily tell that there is undemocratic oppression, OK. But how can I check that the government is not developing nuclear weapons or supporting terrorism, when this is hard to tell for normal citizen even in democratic countries? IMHO, for the objectives to make sense, it would require these to be verifiable by the people pressuring the government (which you have so kindly decided to pull into the conflict). The fact that these demands are not verifiable is casting a shadow over the motives.

espeed 7y ago

> Action speaks louder. You're right. For economic sanctions to work, the Iranian people must choose to act. They are in a unique historical position with an opportunity to choose and prove kinetic wars obsolete.

barrkel 7y ago
They are in a deal to prevent development of nuclear weapons. The US violated the deal, and now insists that they don't develop nuclear weapons. The US just wants a war, it seems.
- espeed 7y ago
  Some people want a war. This is true in every government in every nation. Most people don't. Most people have grown war weary and are ready to move to the era beyond. Economic sanctions are an experiment toward that, an alternative to war that keeps the warhawks at bay and proves kinetic wars are obsolete.