17 ms·

Github situation aside, as an Iranian (living in the US) I would like to use the opportunity to raise some awareness regarding Iranian sanctions by the US gover

Github situation aside, as an Iranian (living in the US) I would like to use the opportunity to raise some awareness regarding Iranian sanctions by the US government. The US sanctions are part of a "maximum pressure" campaign on the Iranian government. The US government has banned the rest of the world from dealing with Iran. Therefore, Iran has no exports anymore. As a result, Iran's currency lost it's value ~10 times in the past decade (When the original sanctions where started by the Obama administration). The goal of the sanctions are to make people of Iran so miserable that they would go in streets and start a revolution. Now, Iranian people hate the Islamic Republic and would get rid of them if they could. But the Islamic Republic has no limits. They would shoot and kill and many as it takes. Another challenge for Iranian people and a revolution, except for Islamic regime's cruelty is an unknown future. Iran shares a lot of border with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran also has many terrorist groups activated inside it already. That means there are real fears of Isis/Taliban/Other groups rushing to Iran if the central government is weakened. So people are scared of Islamic Republic, and also scare of what can come next. Therefore, basically, Maximum Pressure campaign's goal is to make people so miserable, they'd rather face bullets/wars. This has lead to some really devastating results. Middle class doesn't exist anymore. Some rural cities are reporting that people cannot pay for bread anymore. Most people cannot pay for chicken/meat anymore. Add Covid 19 to this, and a very incompetent and cruel government which has been rendered completely useless by the sanctions, and you get a complete disaster on your hand. The government is also quite scared, and to make sure there wont be uprisings, is spreading fear. They execute people and hand cruel sentences to everyone. Last weeks they gave a 10 years sentence to an 18 years makeup artist who had a famous Instagram account. Journalists are executed, etc. People's morale are completely shattered. So the bottom line is, the maximum pressure campaign has rendered Iranian people completely miserable. Even if it were to succeed wit topping Islamic Republic, there is no guarantee that it wont make Iran another Syria situation. Please, as a U.S. voter, I urge you to consider your support for stopping the sanctions.

EarthIsHome 6y ago
> Please, as a U.S. voter, I urge you to consider your support for stopping the sanctions. How can a US voter actually affect change? What options are available for us to vote for?
- q3k 6y ago
  Maybe give your government a taste of their own medicine: go to the streets and overthrow your evil, corrupt politicians.
  - spoonjim 6y ago
    Overthrow them and replace them with who? Who should be the leaders of the United States? I am open to ideas for who to vote for, and I think a lot of people are. That's why someone as obviously ill-suited for the job as Trump did win -- people are so desperate for something different but don't really know what they're looking for.
    - q3k 6y ago
      > replace them with who Someone who aligns with your views - like yourself.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        There's 300 million plus people in the United States. Sure, we could overthrow the government, but you can't just go "my way or the highway" with policies; you'll never get support doing that. As spoonjim said, Trump wasn't elected for no reason; He was elected because 62 million plus people voted for him. And with this past election, that number went up to 74 million. And the opposition (Biden/Harris) got 81 million. For comparison, George Washington's support was almost unanimous. Sure, it's not exactly the same, but Washington had the support he did because everyone believed in a common "enemy", the British Empire. Today, depending on who you ask, the enemy is either "the Demonrats" or "the Trumpanzees".[a] Not to mention that the United States itself wasn't formed overnight; it was the product of many compromises. There's even a whole Broadway play about it: Hamilton[b]. [a]: Yes, these are actual "names" I've read online. [b]: Sure, it's exaggerated, but it's pretty accurate
        Daho0n 6y ago
        >the enemy is either "the Demonrats" or "the Trumpanzees". You forgot Muslims, Mexicans, poor people and the non-white people of the US. They are just as much an enemy as the opposing political party (and the Russians and the Chinese....)
thenewwazoo 6y ago
Your comment breaks my heart, and I hate what my country is doing to Iran. Reactionaries started the problems in 1953, and they're perpetuating and multiplying it today. Unfortunately for those of us who wish to appeal to the better natures of the right wing in the USA that support these sanctions, the cruelty is the point: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...
- Daho0n 6y ago
  >wish to appeal to the better natures of the right wing You voted for the right wing last time you voted (I know because there are no one else to vote for). The Democrats are also right-wing, anti-Iran, pro-Israel, etc.
- EB-Barrington 6y ago
  Note: the US has placed economic sanctions against Iran every single day for the last four decades - regardless of who was US president, or which party was in power.
spoonjim 6y ago
> Please, as a U.S. voter, I urge you to consider your support for stopping the sanctions. What does this mean? Who should I vote for?
- jackson1442 6y ago
  A good start might be to contact your representatives, see what their thoughts on Iran are, and make your case. If they aren't interested, check out the opposition. Other than that, I'm not sure.
- nanna 6y ago
  OP is referring to voting in general, not in particular, as you're asking. And unless you're in Georgia this obviously has no bearing on current candidates. In general, the GOP, especially under Trump, have pursued the policy of sanctions against Iran at all costs. The Democrats have not. So the answer to your question is pretty obvious, don't you think?
  - EB-Barrington 6y ago
    The Democrats have placed economic sanctions against Iran every day the party has been in power for the last forty years. (so have the Republicans)
umvi 6y ago
> Now, Iranian people hate the Islamic Republic and would get rid of them if they could. But the Islamic Republic has no limits. They would shoot and kill and many as it takes. That's the problem with dictatorships. The only way to purchase a democracy again is with a lot of blood. Hopefully you had some sort of 2A rights (probably not since they are first to go under dictatorship) or else you'll be relying a lot on foreign provided weapons to break free in the future. Good luck, bad governments almost never "natually" become better over time. Power will continue to be consolidated. Basically your whole comment amounts to "yes our government is evil, but we can't do anything to change it without people dying, and we aren't willing to do that so... just remove all the sanctions because people are suffering and it's better to have an evil government prosper than to prevent it from prospering by making its citizens suffer" That said, I don't think Iranians should be barred from GitHub. Free exchange of ideas and code should be available universally.
bgorman 6y ago
This is misleading at best. Every country that has the ability to enrich uranium is 99% of the way there towards developing nuclear weapons. Iran feels threatened. Countries that have felt threatened (North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel) have developed nuclear weapons. The sanctions are there as a deterrent to Iran having a Nuclear weapons program. Anyone who thinks it is possible for a country to have Nuclear power but not nuclear weapons is a fool.
- golergka 6y ago
  Developing a nuclear bomb isn't the same as developing an actually useful nuclear weapon: you still have to develop a rocket to deliver it somewhere else than your test site.
  - lemonspat 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48 and in today's news: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13657927/iran-warns-us-trigger-test-kamikaze-bomb-drones/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13657927/iran-warns-us-trigger...
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not use rockets or missiles. I think a bomber aircraft would work just fine.
- dvdhnt 6y ago
  Honest question, if the sanctions are causing misery and the people basically have to choose between death and poverty, will it not just cause more resentment? Wouldn't the people eventually become so angry at the Western World that they support Nuclear proliferation for, at best, defense/power and, at worst, revenge?
- emilsedgh 6y ago
  I personally full supported Obama's sanctions on Iran. They had a purpose (Stop Iran's nuclear program) that made sense and was achievable. And they achieved it. All European countries and united nations and Obama administration confirmed that Iran was committed to the nuclear deal.Even current and former Israel generals wrote letters to show support for Obama's deal with Iran which stopped Iranian nuclear program. What the current administration wants is much much more than that [0]. They are basically telling the Islamic Republic to shoot itself in the head. Or face sanctions. Of course they pick sanctions. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/5/21/mike-pompeo-speech-what-are-the-12-demands-given-to-iran https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/5/21/mike-pompeo-speech-...
golergka 6y ago
> The goal of the sanctions are to make people of Iran so miserable that they would go in streets and start a revolution. It's not the only or even the main goal. The main goal of such sanctions is to Iranian government to not have resources for war and terrorism. And it seems that in this regard, these sanctions work just fine. I don't know what else could be reasonably expected from US by all the other ME countries.
- pelasaco 6y ago
  > I don't know what else could be reasonably expected from US by all the other ME countries. Beside leaving them alone and let them live in peace without American influence? Hm hard to say.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    > leaving them alone That is not possible when Iran threatens our allies and provides material support to organizations with the stated goal of causing mayhem to Americans and their allies. Let’s be realistic: Iran and America are enemies. Keep that in mind when offering solutions.
    - pelasaco 6y ago
      Iran and America aren't enemies. Actually if you read the History from the relationship between both countries, you will see that Iran was always a strategic geopolitics partner from USA. Our "allies" aka Israel is totally capable to deal with the issue diplomatically, without any American interference. At the same time, without American interference in Europe, it would force Germany to diplomatically solve any pending issue with Russia too..
      - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
        > read the History Today we are enemies. It was different when the Shah was in power. I’m not talking about History. I’m talking about now.
    - 6y ago
manfredo 6y ago
The sanctions are meant to put pressure on Iran to stop development of nuclear weapons. A regime change is not a likely consequence of sanctions, it's much more likely that the Iranian government looks at the economic toll of it's choice to pursue nuclear weapons development and decides to change course. Without a doubt these sanctions cause much misery - the bulk of it inflicted on everyday people who are not decision makers in the country. But allowing a country that regularly threatens to wipe other countries off the map to develop nuclear weapons stands to create orders of magnitude more misery than economic sanctions.
- dvdhnt 6y ago
  When has that worked? The same countries have been sanctioned over and over without successfully alleviating tense relations. Why would a government who doesn't care about its population look at the suffering of those people and change course? Are we naive enough to believe that the Iranian elite aren't circumventing these sanctions personally? Finally, why? Like, after hundreds of years of imperialism and political interference, I've yet to hear a compelling case to continue doing these things given they've done nothing but push us further away from each other and closer to a climate-crisis, dystopian nightmare. We need cooperation not blackmail.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    South Africa, among others, have had large changes in direction prompted through sanctions. Cuba has also gradually allowed more economic freedom over the past decade. I agree, cooperation is what is needed not blackmail. That's what the sanctions are doing: if Iran wants to cooperate economically with other countries, it needs to stop trying to blackmail other countries with threats of nuclear strikes. As far as why, Iran regularly threatens to wipe other Middle Eastern countries off the map - including the nuclear armed Israel, which would easily trigger a nuclear war in the middle east. The simple reality is that there is not an equivalency between the possession of nuclear weapons by China, Russia, NATO, versus North Korea and Iran. The former don't go around threatening to wipe other countries off the map on a regular basis. Nor does Israel, they don't even officially acknowledge nuclear capacities. The latter do, and in North Korea's case it has created one of the most infamous geopolitical catastrophes of the 20th century. And Iran stands to become a much larger North Korea in a much more volatile part of the world.
AndyMcConachie 6y ago
I see no reason to believe that US sanctions on Iran are intended to cause a revolt by the Iranian people. AFAIK, the US has imposed sanctions on numerous countries since WWII and not in a single instance has it lead to a revolution in America's favour. Another possibility is that the US simply wants to isolate its geopolitical enemies and impoverish them. As it has been doing with Cuba since Batista was overthrown. I'm not convinced US foreign policy were rational, but a possible rational explanation for US sanctions is to make an example of countries that refuse US dominance. Similar to how a gang running a protection racket punishes those who refuse to pay protection money. Regardless of why US foreign policy has deemed it necessary to starve the Iranian people, it will not lead to a revolution in America's favour. The Shah is not coming back. It will just lead to more death of Iranians.
- millzlane 6y ago
  I know I'm out of my league here, but it seems to me like a good thing that we sanction countries would would hand out a 10+ year jail sentence to a instagrammer for showcasing their hobby?
  - emilsedgh 6y ago
    1. The regime wouldn't be this inclined to go after it's own people have they not been under this much pressure. 2. The people "really" punished are the same normal people. They are punished once by US economically and once punished by the regime morally/politically.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    You should get off your high horse and do some light reading about things like "Three strikes and you're out" and "The new Jim crow". The US is absolutely not any better. 2+ million people in jail for profit.
    - drstewart 6y ago
      Let Iran sanction the US then.
ProAm 6y ago
> Please, as a U.S. voter, I urge you to consider your support for stopping the sanctions. The US currently has a largely non-functioning government. Voting enacts little, if any, change. The two-party system currently in place has such ingrained lockstep change won't happen because everyone is worried about not getting re-elected or seeing diversity of opinion.
- tikwidd 6y ago
  You're replying to a post describing the terrible effects of US sanctions on Iran. Imagine if you were living under those conditions, and person from the country enforcing the sanctions responded that there's nothing they can do because their two party democracy makes it too hard to change anything? This is not the right place to complain about political gridlock in the US.
  - ProAm 6y ago
    Of course it's horrendous and completely disheartening but it does not make it not true, and I think it's important to inform that the answer is not 'voting'. Voting does nothing with a non-functioning government.
  - nickik 6y ago
    Why? If a person from Iran comments and says, I don't actually want to destroy the US but I can't really change it because XYZ. Granted the post is a bit thin and doesn't go beyond the surface level of the issue, but its is relevant information for an outsider. Given this is the US we are talking about most people probably know about the two party system and so on, but foreign relations is a special case even within that. My responds provides some more context to the problem pointed out.
- nickik 6y ago
  Unfortunately both parties on this are horribly bad. The Democrats just as bad as the Republicans. In their seal to not seem weak against the Republicans they have accepted the basic premises this foreign policy was developed. Unlike Saudi, Qatar, Israel, UAE and others Iran has no lobby in the US. Because there is are no commercial ties, US buissness don't have existing relationships with Iran anymore. While US companies like Boeing certainty would like to establish such commercial relation with Iran. Their far bigger intensive is to continue to support the Saudi/Israel vs Iran conflict and to sell massive amounts of weapons both to the US government and the governments of Saudi/Israel and allies. Since there are no large factor to push the US a different direction the status quo has basically been established in the post 1979 world and things only changed minimally. There is not genuine democratic support for these changes, mostly because most people simply have no idea of middle east politics and don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq or anything like that. There is a broad based anti-war movement from both the left and the right, but it has very little politician influence outside of the presidential elections. In the presidential elections generally the more anti-war presidents wins, but usually once in office, everybody around is not of that opinion. In congress election foreign policy is usually not important enough of a factor. Just considering that it was most Saudi bombers at the WW2 and the waste majority of issues and terror bombings have been by Sunnis has not changed the US political output in the least. Despite Iran actually reaching out to the US post-911 (threw the Swiss Embassy) putting a lot of issues up for debate but Bush categorically refused to even consider any engagement. Its really hard to see what strategically could change so this policy direction could change anytime soon.
dvdhnt 6y ago
I feel badly for you, however, there's little evidence to suggest that we can change anything by voting. Mounting evidence suggest our "democracy" is a dog and pony show run by wealthy super villains, morally bankrupt politicians, and single-minded super-corporations. Our best bet is coalesce around each other, the working class, and build a better system of world governance. This will get downvoted but the truth is the US doesn't treat us any better. Plenty of people are given harsh sentences for victimless-crimes. Property is protected at all costs. The system is pay-to-play. You either get in line or are ostracized.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  This decision is proof of that. Microsoft can work to lobby the government to get access in Iran, but there's no way 50 person shop in Mississippi could even hope to without a few tens of millions to throw away on lobbyists or special interests groups.
- nickik 6y ago
  An overall negative view of democracy. If you actually pool people on most issues, the outcome of politics is not so far off from what people want. The reality is that people simply don't care about Iran or know where it even is. Foreign policy issue outside of direct wars almost never dominate the political cycle. And even if they do on a presidential level, since only the president is relevant vote for a national level it impact is minimal. Congress elections usually don't turn on foreign policy.
- exclusiv 6y ago
  > the truth is the US doesn't treat us any better The parent stated "But the Islamic Republic has no limits. They would shoot and kill and many as it takes." Parent also stated "The government is also quite scared, and to make sure there wont be uprisings, is spreading fear. They execute people and hand cruel sentences to everyone. Last weeks they gave a 10 years sentence to an 18 years makeup artist who had a famous Instagram account. Journalists are executed, etc. People's morale are completely shattered." You, and others, don't have it better in the US? Really? I think you are trying to show empathy and I agree with most of your comment, but to me, you can't empathize unless you've experienced it. And I don't wish to demean experiences of some oppressed people in the US and their experiences (certainly the wrongfully convicted come to mind as a huge injustice), but your comment is not objectively accurate.
iAmir 6y ago
As an Iranian living in Iran, I think you must educate yourself and do actual researches to find causes of things that happened between Iran and the U.S. Sanctions to produce "maximum pressure" as you said is still against human rights but oh well guess how UN thinks about that. Putting citizens in misery is not how you treat a government, specially an Iranian one. You are just going against basic human rights, like not being able to import medicines or basic needs of people. The only miserable person here is you, someone who claims to be Iranian and yet thinks giving access to private repositories on a platform is against his beliefs, let alone the way you talk about Iranian people also makes you disrespectful human being. Your hatred against the government has nothing to do with Iranian people, so please, think twice before you post anything on the internet again, if you can't handle a simple thing like this, aka human rights, then you must have issues on giving opinions on other topics as well. Off-topic: seems like you're one of those iranis who escaped the country for whatever the situation you were in and now you've got the tongue to speak out, so you start attacking on normal citizens because YOU think that YOU are better than them, there's just too many of you, you're not the only one.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  Nice to hear from a Real Iranian instead of an American pretending.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    Do you think that every Iranian has the same political position? Emigrées tend to be self-selected towards being critical of the(ir) circumstances in the home-country, and even if they were not critical originally, experiencing a different way of life has a way of questioning if your previous experiences were the best approach. Even Americans who have lived abroad exhibit this.
macspoofing 6y ago
Iran does not need to develop nuclear weapons, nor fund regional militant and terrorist groups .. but they do. I wish the Iranian government would choose to be a good citizen of the region and the world, for the sake of their people. Ever since the revolution they took a purposefully antagonistic stance towards the US for their own ideological reasons. The sad reality (for Iran) is that the present global order has been created and maintained by US - so if you can't get along with US, you are going to be a pariah. Many non-democratic nations can get along with US just fine - why can't Iran?
- jhpriestley 6y ago
  Yes, why won't Iran simply disarm under US pressure, like Gaddafi and Saddam did?
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    How well is Iran's current strategy of being a regional and global pariah working out? Without excusing the actions of US, could you honestly say that the present circumstances Iran finds themselves in is not a result of their decisions and choices since the revolution? And like I said, it isn't even about regime change. US is friendly with plenty of non-democratic regimes, even ones they were at war with (like Vietnam). On the other side, nations that set an explicit policy of antagonism, like Cuba, North Korea and Iran, tend to not fare well. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
    - jhpriestley 6y ago
      Iran's, and North Korea's, strategies are working out pretty well for the people making those decisions. Khamenei, like Kim Jong-Il, looks set to die of natural causes at an advanced age. The people of Iran and North Korea are not doing so well. But if you were an Iranian citizen hoping for a better future, would you really pin your hopes on a US-backed regime change, after seeing the aftermath of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria?
      - 6y ago
jariel 6y ago
"Maximum Pressure campaign's goal is to make people so miserable, they'd rather face bullets/wars." No, Iran, including the 'Regime' would actually be doing just fine if they dropped nuclear ambitions and stopped supporting the overthrow of Saudi Arabia. It's an odd paradox, because even the Islamic Revolutionaries could be a quasi-ally of the US if they really wanted to. The US cares about security, predictability, trade and cooperation between state actors first, internal issues second. " the maximum pressure campaign has rendered Iranian people completely miserable" - the Iranian government has rendered people miserable. Stop blaming the US for the bad behaviour of the regime. Maybe we can have 'GitHub Diplomacy' ...

EarthIsHome 6y ago

> Please, as a U.S. voter, I urge you to consider your support for stopping the sanctions. How can a US voter actually affect change? What options are available for us to vote for?

q3k 6y ago
Maybe give your government a taste of their own medicine: go to the streets and overthrow your evil, corrupt politicians.
- spoonjim 6y ago
  Overthrow them and replace them with who? Who should be the leaders of the United States? I am open to ideas for who to vote for, and I think a lot of people are. That's why someone as obviously ill-suited for the job as Trump did win -- people are so desperate for something different but don't really know what they're looking for.
  - q3k 6y ago
    > replace them with who Someone who aligns with your views - like yourself.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      There's 300 million plus people in the United States. Sure, we could overthrow the government, but you can't just go "my way or the highway" with policies; you'll never get support doing that. As spoonjim said, Trump wasn't elected for no reason; He was elected because 62 million plus people voted for him. And with this past election, that number went up to 74 million. And the opposition (Biden/Harris) got 81 million. For comparison, George Washington's support was almost unanimous. Sure, it's not exactly the same, but Washington had the support he did because everyone believed in a common "enemy", the British Empire. Today, depending on who you ask, the enemy is either "the Demonrats" or "the Trumpanzees".[a] Not to mention that the United States itself wasn't formed overnight; it was the product of many compromises. There's even a whole Broadway play about it: Hamilton[b]. [a]: Yes, these are actual "names" I've read online. [b]: Sure, it's exaggerated, but it's pretty accurate
      - Daho0n 6y ago
        >the enemy is either "the Demonrats" or "the Trumpanzees". You forgot Muslims, Mexicans, poor people and the non-white people of the US. They are just as much an enemy as the opposing political party (and the Russians and the Chinese....)

thenewwazoo 6y ago

Your comment breaks my heart, and I hate what my country is doing to Iran. Reactionaries started the problems in 1953, and they're perpetuating and multiplying it today. Unfortunately for those of us who wish to appeal to the better natures of the right wing in the USA that support these sanctions, the cruelty is the point: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...

Daho0n 6y ago
>wish to appeal to the better natures of the right wing You voted for the right wing last time you voted (I know because there are no one else to vote for). The Democrats are also right-wing, anti-Iran, pro-Israel, etc.
EB-Barrington 6y ago
Note: the US has placed economic sanctions against Iran every single day for the last four decades - regardless of who was US president, or which party was in power.

spoonjim 6y ago

> Please, as a U.S. voter, I urge you to consider your support for stopping the sanctions. What does this mean? Who should I vote for?

jackson1442 6y ago
A good start might be to contact your representatives, see what their thoughts on Iran are, and make your case. If they aren't interested, check out the opposition. Other than that, I'm not sure.
nanna 6y ago
OP is referring to voting in general, not in particular, as you're asking. And unless you're in Georgia this obviously has no bearing on current candidates. In general, the GOP, especially under Trump, have pursued the policy of sanctions against Iran at all costs. The Democrats have not. So the answer to your question is pretty obvious, don't you think?
- EB-Barrington 6y ago
  The Democrats have placed economic sanctions against Iran every day the party has been in power for the last forty years. (so have the Republicans)

umvi 6y ago

> Now, Iranian people hate the Islamic Republic and would get rid of them if they could. But the Islamic Republic has no limits. They would shoot and kill and many as it takes. That's the problem with dictatorships. The only way to purchase a democracy again is with a lot of blood. Hopefully you had some sort of 2A rights (probably not since they are first to go under dictatorship) or else you'll be relying a lot on foreign provided weapons to break free in the future. Good luck, bad governments almost never "natually" become better over time. Power will continue to be consolidated. Basically your whole comment amounts to "yes our government is evil, but we can't do anything to change it without people dying, and we aren't willing to do that so... just remove all the sanctions because people are suffering and it's better to have an evil government prosper than to prevent it from prospering by making its citizens suffer" That said, I don't think Iranians should be barred from GitHub. Free exchange of ideas and code should be available universally.

bgorman 6y ago

This is misleading at best. Every country that has the ability to enrich uranium is 99% of the way there towards developing nuclear weapons. Iran feels threatened. Countries that have felt threatened (North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel) have developed nuclear weapons. The sanctions are there as a deterrent to Iran having a Nuclear weapons program. Anyone who thinks it is possible for a country to have Nuclear power but not nuclear weapons is a fool.

golergka 6y ago
Developing a nuclear bomb isn't the same as developing an actually useful nuclear weapon: you still have to develop a rocket to deliver it somewhere else than your test site.
- lemonspat 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48 and in today's news: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13657927/iran-warns-us-trigger-test-kamikaze-bomb-drones/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13657927/iran-warns-us-trigger...
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not use rockets or missiles. I think a bomber aircraft would work just fine.
dvdhnt 6y ago
Honest question, if the sanctions are causing misery and the people basically have to choose between death and poverty, will it not just cause more resentment? Wouldn't the people eventually become so angry at the Western World that they support Nuclear proliferation for, at best, defense/power and, at worst, revenge?
emilsedgh 6y ago
I personally full supported Obama's sanctions on Iran. They had a purpose (Stop Iran's nuclear program) that made sense and was achievable. And they achieved it. All European countries and united nations and Obama administration confirmed that Iran was committed to the nuclear deal.Even current and former Israel generals wrote letters to show support for Obama's deal with Iran which stopped Iranian nuclear program. What the current administration wants is much much more than that [0]. They are basically telling the Islamic Republic to shoot itself in the head. Or face sanctions. Of course they pick sanctions. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/5/21/mike-pompeo-speech-what-are-the-12-demands-given-to-iran https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/5/21/mike-pompeo-speech-...

golergka 6y ago

> The goal of the sanctions are to make people of Iran so miserable that they would go in streets and start a revolution. It's not the only or even the main goal. The main goal of such sanctions is to Iranian government to not have resources for war and terrorism. And it seems that in this regard, these sanctions work just fine. I don't know what else could be reasonably expected from US by all the other ME countries.

pelasaco 6y ago
> I don't know what else could be reasonably expected from US by all the other ME countries. Beside leaving them alone and let them live in peace without American influence? Hm hard to say.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > leaving them alone That is not possible when Iran threatens our allies and provides material support to organizations with the stated goal of causing mayhem to Americans and their allies. Let’s be realistic: Iran and America are enemies. Keep that in mind when offering solutions.
  - pelasaco 6y ago
    Iran and America aren't enemies. Actually if you read the History from the relationship between both countries, you will see that Iran was always a strategic geopolitics partner from USA. Our "allies" aka Israel is totally capable to deal with the issue diplomatically, without any American interference. At the same time, without American interference in Europe, it would force Germany to diplomatically solve any pending issue with Russia too..
    - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
      > read the History Today we are enemies. It was different when the Shah was in power. I’m not talking about History. I’m talking about now.
  - 6y ago

manfredo 6y ago

The sanctions are meant to put pressure on Iran to stop development of nuclear weapons. A regime change is not a likely consequence of sanctions, it's much more likely that the Iranian government looks at the economic toll of it's choice to pursue nuclear weapons development and decides to change course. Without a doubt these sanctions cause much misery - the bulk of it inflicted on everyday people who are not decision makers in the country. But allowing a country that regularly threatens to wipe other countries off the map to develop nuclear weapons stands to create orders of magnitude more misery than economic sanctions.

dvdhnt 6y ago
When has that worked? The same countries have been sanctioned over and over without successfully alleviating tense relations. Why would a government who doesn't care about its population look at the suffering of those people and change course? Are we naive enough to believe that the Iranian elite aren't circumventing these sanctions personally? Finally, why? Like, after hundreds of years of imperialism and political interference, I've yet to hear a compelling case to continue doing these things given they've done nothing but push us further away from each other and closer to a climate-crisis, dystopian nightmare. We need cooperation not blackmail.
- manfredo 6y ago
  South Africa, among others, have had large changes in direction prompted through sanctions. Cuba has also gradually allowed more economic freedom over the past decade. I agree, cooperation is what is needed not blackmail. That's what the sanctions are doing: if Iran wants to cooperate economically with other countries, it needs to stop trying to blackmail other countries with threats of nuclear strikes. As far as why, Iran regularly threatens to wipe other Middle Eastern countries off the map - including the nuclear armed Israel, which would easily trigger a nuclear war in the middle east. The simple reality is that there is not an equivalency between the possession of nuclear weapons by China, Russia, NATO, versus North Korea and Iran. The former don't go around threatening to wipe other countries off the map on a regular basis. Nor does Israel, they don't even officially acknowledge nuclear capacities. The latter do, and in North Korea's case it has created one of the most infamous geopolitical catastrophes of the 20th century. And Iran stands to become a much larger North Korea in a much more volatile part of the world.

AndyMcConachie 6y ago

I see no reason to believe that US sanctions on Iran are intended to cause a revolt by the Iranian people. AFAIK, the US has imposed sanctions on numerous countries since WWII and not in a single instance has it lead to a revolution in America's favour. Another possibility is that the US simply wants to isolate its geopolitical enemies and impoverish them. As it has been doing with Cuba since Batista was overthrown. I'm not convinced US foreign policy were rational, but a possible rational explanation for US sanctions is to make an example of countries that refuse US dominance. Similar to how a gang running a protection racket punishes those who refuse to pay protection money. Regardless of why US foreign policy has deemed it necessary to starve the Iranian people, it will not lead to a revolution in America's favour. The Shah is not coming back. It will just lead to more death of Iranians.

millzlane 6y ago
I know I'm out of my league here, but it seems to me like a good thing that we sanction countries would would hand out a 10+ year jail sentence to a instagrammer for showcasing their hobby?
- emilsedgh 6y ago
  1. The regime wouldn't be this inclined to go after it's own people have they not been under this much pressure. 2. The people "really" punished are the same normal people. They are punished once by US economically and once punished by the regime morally/politically.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  You should get off your high horse and do some light reading about things like "Three strikes and you're out" and "The new Jim crow". The US is absolutely not any better. 2+ million people in jail for profit.
  - drstewart 6y ago
    Let Iran sanction the US then.

ProAm 6y ago

> Please, as a U.S. voter, I urge you to consider your support for stopping the sanctions. The US currently has a largely non-functioning government. Voting enacts little, if any, change. The two-party system currently in place has such ingrained lockstep change won't happen because everyone is worried about not getting re-elected or seeing diversity of opinion.

tikwidd 6y ago
You're replying to a post describing the terrible effects of US sanctions on Iran. Imagine if you were living under those conditions, and person from the country enforcing the sanctions responded that there's nothing they can do because their two party democracy makes it too hard to change anything? This is not the right place to complain about political gridlock in the US.
- ProAm 6y ago
  Of course it's horrendous and completely disheartening but it does not make it not true, and I think it's important to inform that the answer is not 'voting'. Voting does nothing with a non-functioning government.
- nickik 6y ago
  Why? If a person from Iran comments and says, I don't actually want to destroy the US but I can't really change it because XYZ. Granted the post is a bit thin and doesn't go beyond the surface level of the issue, but its is relevant information for an outsider. Given this is the US we are talking about most people probably know about the two party system and so on, but foreign relations is a special case even within that. My responds provides some more context to the problem pointed out.
nickik 6y ago
Unfortunately both parties on this are horribly bad. The Democrats just as bad as the Republicans. In their seal to not seem weak against the Republicans they have accepted the basic premises this foreign policy was developed. Unlike Saudi, Qatar, Israel, UAE and others Iran has no lobby in the US. Because there is are no commercial ties, US buissness don't have existing relationships with Iran anymore. While US companies like Boeing certainty would like to establish such commercial relation with Iran. Their far bigger intensive is to continue to support the Saudi/Israel vs Iran conflict and to sell massive amounts of weapons both to the US government and the governments of Saudi/Israel and allies. Since there are no large factor to push the US a different direction the status quo has basically been established in the post 1979 world and things only changed minimally. There is not genuine democratic support for these changes, mostly because most people simply have no idea of middle east politics and don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq or anything like that. There is a broad based anti-war movement from both the left and the right, but it has very little politician influence outside of the presidential elections. In the presidential elections generally the more anti-war presidents wins, but usually once in office, everybody around is not of that opinion. In congress election foreign policy is usually not important enough of a factor. Just considering that it was most Saudi bombers at the WW2 and the waste majority of issues and terror bombings have been by Sunnis has not changed the US political output in the least. Despite Iran actually reaching out to the US post-911 (threw the Swiss Embassy) putting a lot of issues up for debate but Bush categorically refused to even consider any engagement. Its really hard to see what strategically could change so this policy direction could change anytime soon.

dvdhnt 6y ago

I feel badly for you, however, there's little evidence to suggest that we can change anything by voting. Mounting evidence suggest our "democracy" is a dog and pony show run by wealthy super villains, morally bankrupt politicians, and single-minded super-corporations. Our best bet is coalesce around each other, the working class, and build a better system of world governance. This will get downvoted but the truth is the US doesn't treat us any better. Plenty of people are given harsh sentences for victimless-crimes. Property is protected at all costs. The system is pay-to-play. You either get in line or are ostracized.

djsumdog 6y ago
This decision is proof of that. Microsoft can work to lobby the government to get access in Iran, but there's no way 50 person shop in Mississippi could even hope to without a few tens of millions to throw away on lobbyists or special interests groups.
nickik 6y ago
An overall negative view of democracy. If you actually pool people on most issues, the outcome of politics is not so far off from what people want. The reality is that people simply don't care about Iran or know where it even is. Foreign policy issue outside of direct wars almost never dominate the political cycle. And even if they do on a presidential level, since only the president is relevant vote for a national level it impact is minimal. Congress elections usually don't turn on foreign policy.
exclusiv 6y ago
> the truth is the US doesn't treat us any better The parent stated "But the Islamic Republic has no limits. They would shoot and kill and many as it takes." Parent also stated "The government is also quite scared, and to make sure there wont be uprisings, is spreading fear. They execute people and hand cruel sentences to everyone. Last weeks they gave a 10 years sentence to an 18 years makeup artist who had a famous Instagram account. Journalists are executed, etc. People's morale are completely shattered." You, and others, don't have it better in the US? Really? I think you are trying to show empathy and I agree with most of your comment, but to me, you can't empathize unless you've experienced it. And I don't wish to demean experiences of some oppressed people in the US and their experiences (certainly the wrongfully convicted come to mind as a huge injustice), but your comment is not objectively accurate.

iAmir 6y ago

As an Iranian living in Iran, I think you must educate yourself and do actual researches to find causes of things that happened between Iran and the U.S. Sanctions to produce "maximum pressure" as you said is still against human rights but oh well guess how UN thinks about that. Putting citizens in misery is not how you treat a government, specially an Iranian one. You are just going against basic human rights, like not being able to import medicines or basic needs of people. The only miserable person here is you, someone who claims to be Iranian and yet thinks giving access to private repositories on a platform is against his beliefs, let alone the way you talk about Iranian people also makes you disrespectful human being. Your hatred against the government has nothing to do with Iranian people, so please, think twice before you post anything on the internet again, if you can't handle a simple thing like this, aka human rights, then you must have issues on giving opinions on other topics as well. Off-topic: seems like you're one of those iranis who escaped the country for whatever the situation you were in and now you've got the tongue to speak out, so you start attacking on normal citizens because YOU think that YOU are better than them, there's just too many of you, you're not the only one.

Daho0n 6y ago
Nice to hear from a Real Iranian instead of an American pretending.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  Do you think that every Iranian has the same political position? Emigrées tend to be self-selected towards being critical of the(ir) circumstances in the home-country, and even if they were not critical originally, experiencing a different way of life has a way of questioning if your previous experiences were the best approach. Even Americans who have lived abroad exhibit this.

macspoofing 6y ago

Iran does not need to develop nuclear weapons, nor fund regional militant and terrorist groups .. but they do. I wish the Iranian government would choose to be a good citizen of the region and the world, for the sake of their people. Ever since the revolution they took a purposefully antagonistic stance towards the US for their own ideological reasons. The sad reality (for Iran) is that the present global order has been created and maintained by US - so if you can't get along with US, you are going to be a pariah. Many non-democratic nations can get along with US just fine - why can't Iran?

jhpriestley 6y ago
Yes, why won't Iran simply disarm under US pressure, like Gaddafi and Saddam did?
- macspoofing 6y ago
  How well is Iran's current strategy of being a regional and global pariah working out? Without excusing the actions of US, could you honestly say that the present circumstances Iran finds themselves in is not a result of their decisions and choices since the revolution? And like I said, it isn't even about regime change. US is friendly with plenty of non-democratic regimes, even ones they were at war with (like Vietnam). On the other side, nations that set an explicit policy of antagonism, like Cuba, North Korea and Iran, tend to not fare well. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
  - jhpriestley 6y ago
    Iran's, and North Korea's, strategies are working out pretty well for the people making those decisions. Khamenei, like Kim Jong-Il, looks set to die of natural causes at an advanced age. The people of Iran and North Korea are not doing so well. But if you were an Iranian citizen hoping for a better future, would you really pin your hopes on a US-backed regime change, after seeing the aftermath of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria?
    - 6y ago

jariel 6y ago

"Maximum Pressure campaign's goal is to make people so miserable, they'd rather face bullets/wars." No, Iran, including the 'Regime' would actually be doing just fine if they dropped nuclear ambitions and stopped supporting the overthrow of Saudi Arabia. It's an odd paradox, because even the Islamic Revolutionaries could be a quasi-ally of the US if they really wanted to. The US cares about security, predictability, trade and cooperation between state actors first, internal issues second. " the maximum pressure campaign has rendered Iranian people completely miserable" - the Iranian government has rendered people miserable. Stop blaming the US for the bad behaviour of the regime. Maybe we can have 'GitHub Diplomacy' ...