9 ms·
What's your alternative to sanctions that's more effective? War?
by dsabanin 6y ago
What's your alternative to sanctions that's more effective? War?
- ahelwer 6y agoThe only thing Iran is guilty of is insufficient deference to US hegemony. Any other charge you levy can have its equal found in our so-called allies in the region, or even the US itself.
- christophilus 6y agoYou’re not wrong, so far as I can tell. Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Iran has some serious issues, but they don’t appear to be worse than the Saudis or any number of other countries we (the US) consider allies.
- TheGuyWhoCodes 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoOne of the things Iran's unambiguously guilty of is these same kinds of access restrictions. If you've ever wondered why Google's sanctions-related controversy was focused on Google Cloud, it's because that was the biggest Google service allowed at the time - search, Gmail, and Youtube had already been banned by the Iranian government. So while I share the skepticism expressed upthread that blocking websites is effective diplomacy, it's hard for me to look at the situation and see a one-sided problem.
- miracle2k 6y agoA couple things to note here. Youtube is blocked, but Google Search or Gmail or not. Secondly, this is not a question of they block our services, so we block their services. In both cases, it is Iranians who lose access to services. If anything, it highlights the hypocrisy of pretending to care about Iranian freedom.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoInteresting, you seem to be right. I don't know how I managed to read the news about Gmail being blocked but miss that it was unblocked like a week later.
- monkeybutton 6y agoSince you know that Google search isn't blocked in Iran, can you tell me if there are any ads displayed in the results? It's something I've been curious about for a while.
- dsabanin 6y agoWell, I think the sanctions exists because of the nuclear program. NATO is not going to trade and help technologically a country that's trying to develop nuclear weapons in order to threaten to NATO and their main officially stated enemy – United States. Why would you buy oil from a country or give access to your tech to them when they are using these resources to ramp up their military against you?
- toomuchtodo 6y ago> Why would you buy oil from a country or give access to your tech to them when they are using these resources to ramp up their military against you? Does the US sanction China like it does Iran? The only difference is that China is a larger market than Iran and is close to power parity with the US. These sanctions are ineffective and disproportionately punish your average Iranian citizen, while we ignore the elephant that is China, which is far more dangerous as an adversary [1] [2]. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Year-Marathon-Strategy-Replace-Superpower/dp/1250081343 https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Year-Marathon-Strategy-Replac... [2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/09/04/what-the-pentagons-new-report-on-china-means-for-u-s-strategy-including-on-taiwan/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/09/04/w...
- dsabanin 6y agoDifferent levels of adversaries require different approaches? The attempted migration of manufacturing of US business from China to other countries I believe is ongoing?
- godelzilla 6y agoMaybe Iran wouldn't need to defend itself if they weren't being attacked.
- Causality1 6y agoI'm in complete agreement that most of our "allies" in the region are fairweather friends and as morally bankrupt as anyone else. However, I'm also in favor of blanket sanctions against any nation whose parliament takes up a literal "Marg bar Āmrikā" collective chant.
- ahelwer 6y agoEven a cursory Wikipedia-level glance at the US's actions in Iran over the past century should bring understanding of why people might feel that way toward us. The solution is not to punish such sentiments but address our historical misbehavior and demonstrate it won't continue in the future. We are doing neither.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- boomboomsubban 6y agoSo because they chanted "Death to America," you are in favor of imposing sanctions that will cause the death of Iranians?
- Causality1 6y agoIf someone communicates that they want to kill you, I think refusing to do business with them is an incredibly subdued response.
- boomboomsubban 6y agoEven though refusing to do business with them will cause some of their family to die of starvation or lack of medicine?
- Causality1 6y agoYes. It's the same reason I don't shop at Hobby Lobby despite a boycott potentially causing innocent workers to lose their livelihood.
- Siira 6y agoAs an Iranian, I have to say that while your last sentence might be true (Saudi Arabia sucks after all), I'd still rather live in a world where the opposing superpower would pressure my country to respect human rights and stop funding terrorism, fundamentalism, and misinformation. (See what North Korea's effective foreign immunity has brought its people.) This, of course, is hypocritical on the US part, but hypocrisy is better than complacency.
- names_are_hard 6y ago> hypocrisy is better than complacency This is a great phrase, I'm going to borrow that and use it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jlgaddis 6y agoThanks for sharing your perspective as an Iranian, I find it quite interesting. I'm curious if: 1) you still live in Iran and/or have immediate family who do? 2) is your opinion common amongst Iranians (and/or Persians)? 3) do/would you still feel the same way if the sanctions brought extreme economic hardship on the people of Iran? (Considering your remark about North Korea, I'm assuming the answer to the latter is "yes".)
- Siira 6y ago1) I and almost all my (even distant) family live in Iran. 2) I don’t know. I know there is a minority (again no idea how big) that really likes Trump because they really hate the Islamic regime, but these people tend to be poor (? Again not that sure) and have little grasp of economics or international politics. 3) The current sanctions have brought extreme hardships on us Iranians. From my own selfish viewpoint, I am hoping for much lighter sanctions from the potential Biden presidency. I would, however, prefer the harsh sanctions to the IR ever having nuclear bombs. (Not that I can see them being effective at preventing the bombs.) I am also not poor; I think a high-pressure strategy that results in a mass revolution by the poor can be to their medium term advantage (such a revolution would, of course, hurt the middle/upper classes a lot). But such a revolution might very well be impossible by the modern technology and the centralization of power. So to summarize, I think effective sanctions will be worth the hardships they cause, but ineffective sanctions not. The current hard sanctions seem ineffective to me unless they are made much more stringent (which might not be possible) or are paired with military interventions.
- colinmhayes 6y agoIran funds terrorism and is developing nuclear weapons and has a history of imperialism. Should Saudi Arabia be sanctioned too? I'd say so. Should we stop sanctioning Iran until then? no.
- opnitro 6y agoSo does the US? Should everyone be sanctioning us?
- colinmhayes 6y agoAfaik the U.S. no longer sponsors terrorists. I'd love a link if I'm misguided. Further, elimination of zionists is still a stated goal of the Iranian government. I'm not saying Israel is guilt free of course, but afaik they've never threatened nuking anyone. Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
- ahelwer 6y ago"No longer" is doing a lot of work here, because by its nature none of this stuff comes out for a number of years after it occurs. We might also ask whether the "rebel" groups the US arms in e.g. Syria are terrorist organizations from another perspective, where four years ago DoD-funded groups were fighting CIA-funded groups: https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-...
- sudosysgen 6y agoThe US has sponsored terrorists covertly for decades now. Just because they stopped publically sponsoring terrorists doesn't mean much when most of the last century was spent covertly sponsoring them too.
- colinmhayes 6y agoOk but if Iran stopped publicly sponsoring terrorists and trying to nuke Israel they wouldn't be sanctioned. The public support is an integral part of why they're sanctioned.
- vikramkr 6y agono sanctions may[0] be equally effective as sanctions. [0] https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201803_e.pdf https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201803_e.pdf The literature isn't conclusive either way, there's evidence in both directions. But sanctions definitely tend to hurt everyday citizens more than they hurt the targeted governments. Dictators and cronies aren't going to have to worry about increased prices of goods - they get whatever they want - that's sort of the point of being dictator
- Conan_Kudo 6y agoThe point of doing this is to make the citizenry unhappy with the government causing the mess for them. The ideal case is that they force change so that the sanctions go away. But depending on local propaganda, that may or may not work.
- sudosysgen 6y agoAlmost universally, the citizenry will actually be even more angered towards the Americans too. From what my friends tell me, this is largely the case in Iran. It doesn't help that the US is sanctioning alone.
- marcosdumay 6y agoMore effective in what goal? Antagonizing and radicalizing people? Yes, war is more effective in that.
- dsabanin 6y agoEffective in a goal of disincentivising aggressive or hostile behaviour.
- marcosdumay 6y agoHum... Anything that is neutral towards that goal will be more effective.
- bb611 6y agoThe collaborative process begun by the Obama administration appeared to be much more successful than sanctions or war.
- dsabanin 6y agoCan you tell that to citizens of Ukraine and Crimea?
- sweeneyrod 6y agoIran is not Russia.
- dsabanin 6y agoTrue, they do however have a very hostile stance towards US and NATO for a good quite a long time now. Them consistently looking to acquire nuclear weapons is not a good sign. Regardless, I was talking about sanctions in general. Dismissing them as a valid instrument of politics is, in my opinion, misguided.
- gdy 6y agoTo the citizens of Crimea who are suffering from the American sanctions? Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis#Sanctions_against_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during...
- gdy 6y agoThe only reason for the Russian actions in the Ukraine is the American-sponsored coup in the Ukraine [0] and the intention of expanding NATO into the Ukraine. If the US had chosen to respect Russian security interests, nothing would've happened. Finland understands that and lives just fine despite being outside of NATO and bordering Russia. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
- SuoDuanDao 6y agoLet people live their lives?
- dsabanin 6y agoSo, Russia under sanctions, for annexation of Crimea, should just be left alone to leave their lives? Next time, if they decide to annex some other part of Ukraine, or maybe Poland this time, they should also be left to live their lives? Sanctions are not punishments. They are just a way to say – you're an asshole, and neither us nor our allies are going to play with you anymore.
- fiblye 6y agoI mean, taking steps to deter a country from annexing or triggering a war makes sense. But the sanctions against Iran are mainly based on old grudges. Pretty much nobody even knows why they exist beyond “they’re bad.”
- dsabanin 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
- boomboomsubban 6y ago>On 1 May 2018 the IAEA reiterated its 2015 report, saying it had found no credible evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran after 2009
- umvi 6y agoI always thought it was because Iran hates Israel and has openly stated their goal to destroy and dissolve it. That paired with efforts to develop nuclear weapons = sanctions. It's probably more nuanced than that, but that was my basic understanding.
- sleepyhead 6y ago
- DoingIsLearning 6y agoI hate to see these politics discussions leaking into HN but I'll bite... Respect the deal that was reached between Iran, US, and EU members. The US unilaterally broke that, my guess is probably because the deal was reached in a pre-Trump era. Now they are deciding to further sabre rattle with sanctions. All other parties in the deal have pretty much politely decided to ignore Trump's administration and carry on the terms of the deal. This is more about the US administration desperately trying to look strong for their internal voters more so than actually having a plan or a coherent external policy.
- amadeuspagel 6y agoThe implicit premise here is that we must somehow screw with Iran, and if you don't have some idea other then sanctions to do that, you should shut up. Well, I don't accept that premise. We should leave them alone.