8 ms·

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

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.
  - publicola1990 6y ago
    Israel does go around bombing things in other countries.
    - dotancohen 6y ago
      As do China, Russia, and NATO. Why single out Israel?
      - core-questions 6y ago
        America does not pay for China and Russia's bombs, at the very least; but something tells me you already knew that.
        joelbluminator 6y ago
        America bombed the crap out of many countries throughout history. I mean wtf was Vietnam all about? Iraq didn't look that good either.
        core-questions 6y ago
        Cool, yeah, more bad stuff. Doesn't cancel out what I was talking about at all - this is just a standard "whataboutism". I'd like to see an end to all bombing everywhere. It's easier as a Canadian to hold this perspective, of course; I don't have to condone or defend the past evils of America at all.
        joelbluminator 6y ago
        Whataboutism has its merit in this instance. If the U.S wants to show its moral superioriry it needs to actually try becoming morally superior. Which I am not sure it is. Otherwise it reeks of hypocrisy and people rightly suspects most Americans do not care about China's morals at all but about losing their hegemony to China. So its easy to become a cynic when seeing these debates.
wazoox 6y ago
There was a deal, it was working, and the US (well, Trump) unilaterally broke out of it (as usual). Your lame excuses really are disgusting.
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 nuclear concerns [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-...
- manfredo 6y ago
  Can you elaborate on how this amounts to telling Iran to "shoot itself in the head"? The 12 demands as per your article are: > Declare to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a full account of the prior military dimensions of its nuclear programme and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity. > Stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing, including closing its heavy water reactor. > Provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country. > End its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching or development of nuclear-capable missile systems. > Release all US citizens as well as citizens of US partners and allies. > End support to Middle East “terrorist” groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. > Respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi government and permit the disarming, demobilisation and reintegration of Shia militias. > End its military support for the Houthi rebels and work towards a peaceful, political settlement in Yemen. > Withdraw all forces under Iran’s command throughout the entirety of Syria. > End support for the Taliban and other “terrorists” in Afghanistan and the region and cease harbouring senior al-Qaeda leaders. > End the Islamic Revolutionary Guard corps-linked Quds Force’s support for “terrorists” and “militant” partners around the world. > End its threatening behaviour against its neighbours, many of whom are US allies, including its threats to destroy Israel and its firing of missiles at Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and threats to international shipping and destructive cyberattacks. This really amounts to 3 things: 1. Stop pursuing nuclear weapons development, and actually give inspectors the ability to verify that Iran is staying true to it's word. 2. Stop supporting terrorist organizations, and other proxy wars. 3. Stop threatening to destroy Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other countries. Sure, demanding the release of US citizens is superfluous and unnecessary. But how does this amount to telling Iran to "shoot itself in the head"? How would fulfilling these 12 points kill Iran? How does Iran somehow end up dying if it stops fighting proxy wars in Yemen and Iraq?
bloak 6y ago
The goal of US foreign policy is world domination. The sanctions on Iran may well contribute to that goal. However, from the point of view of what's good for mankind generally I'm not sure it wouldn't be a good thing for Iran to have nuclear weapons. It would discourage other countries from attacking Iran and it would also give other countries an incentive not to destabilise Iran. There would, of course, be some obvious disadvantages - so it's not an easy (hypothetical) decision - but Iran would probably be a safer and better custodian of nuclear weapons than at least one other country that already has them so I certainly don't think it would be a terribly bad thing for Iran to join the club.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >The goal of US foreign policy is world domination. US is a global superpower and they are the creators of the modern global order of free trade and democracy (it isn't a coincidence that there has been meteoric rise in the number of democracies since WW2, and end of Cold War). If that's 'world domination' then OK. But to be clear, if it wasn't them, another global superpower would fill the vacuum. In the 20th century, that would have been the Soviets. In the 21st, it may be China. Is that better?
- austincheney 6y ago
  The goal of US foreign policy is defense in depth via diplomacy and alliances, which hasn't significantly changed in the past 100 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth
- fit2rule 6y ago
  If Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons, I don't see any reason why Iran should be denied them. MAD works at all scales. Right now, it is Israel holding the nuclear threat over the ME, and we have seen time and again how little Israel cares for human life.

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.
- publicola1990 6y ago
  Israel does go around bombing things in other countries.
  - dotancohen 6y ago
    As do China, Russia, and NATO. Why single out Israel?
    - core-questions 6y ago
      America does not pay for China and Russia's bombs, at the very least; but something tells me you already knew that.
      - joelbluminator 6y ago
        America bombed the crap out of many countries throughout history. I mean wtf was Vietnam all about? Iraq didn't look that good either.
        core-questions 6y ago
        Cool, yeah, more bad stuff. Doesn't cancel out what I was talking about at all - this is just a standard "whataboutism". I'd like to see an end to all bombing everywhere. It's easier as a Canadian to hold this perspective, of course; I don't have to condone or defend the past evils of America at all.
        joelbluminator 6y ago
        Whataboutism has its merit in this instance. If the U.S wants to show its moral superioriry it needs to actually try becoming morally superior. Which I am not sure it is. Otherwise it reeks of hypocrisy and people rightly suspects most Americans do not care about China's morals at all but about losing their hegemony to China. So its easy to become a cynic when seeing these debates.

wazoox 6y ago

There was a deal, it was working, and the US (well, Trump) unilaterally broke out of it (as usual). Your lame excuses really are disgusting.

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 nuclear concerns [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-...

manfredo 6y ago
Can you elaborate on how this amounts to telling Iran to "shoot itself in the head"? The 12 demands as per your article are: > Declare to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a full account of the prior military dimensions of its nuclear programme and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity. > Stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing, including closing its heavy water reactor. > Provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country. > End its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching or development of nuclear-capable missile systems. > Release all US citizens as well as citizens of US partners and allies. > End support to Middle East “terrorist” groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. > Respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi government and permit the disarming, demobilisation and reintegration of Shia militias. > End its military support for the Houthi rebels and work towards a peaceful, political settlement in Yemen. > Withdraw all forces under Iran’s command throughout the entirety of Syria. > End support for the Taliban and other “terrorists” in Afghanistan and the region and cease harbouring senior al-Qaeda leaders. > End the Islamic Revolutionary Guard corps-linked Quds Force’s support for “terrorists” and “militant” partners around the world. > End its threatening behaviour against its neighbours, many of whom are US allies, including its threats to destroy Israel and its firing of missiles at Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and threats to international shipping and destructive cyberattacks. This really amounts to 3 things: 1. Stop pursuing nuclear weapons development, and actually give inspectors the ability to verify that Iran is staying true to it's word. 2. Stop supporting terrorist organizations, and other proxy wars. 3. Stop threatening to destroy Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other countries. Sure, demanding the release of US citizens is superfluous and unnecessary. But how does this amount to telling Iran to "shoot itself in the head"? How would fulfilling these 12 points kill Iran? How does Iran somehow end up dying if it stops fighting proxy wars in Yemen and Iraq?

bloak 6y ago

The goal of US foreign policy is world domination. The sanctions on Iran may well contribute to that goal. However, from the point of view of what's good for mankind generally I'm not sure it wouldn't be a good thing for Iran to have nuclear weapons. It would discourage other countries from attacking Iran and it would also give other countries an incentive not to destabilise Iran. There would, of course, be some obvious disadvantages - so it's not an easy (hypothetical) decision - but Iran would probably be a safer and better custodian of nuclear weapons than at least one other country that already has them so I certainly don't think it would be a terribly bad thing for Iran to join the club.

macspoofing 6y ago
>The goal of US foreign policy is world domination. US is a global superpower and they are the creators of the modern global order of free trade and democracy (it isn't a coincidence that there has been meteoric rise in the number of democracies since WW2, and end of Cold War). If that's 'world domination' then OK. But to be clear, if it wasn't them, another global superpower would fill the vacuum. In the 20th century, that would have been the Soviets. In the 21st, it may be China. Is that better?
austincheney 6y ago
The goal of US foreign policy is defense in depth via diplomacy and alliances, which hasn't significantly changed in the past 100 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth
fit2rule 6y ago
If Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons, I don't see any reason why Iran should be denied them. MAD works at all scales. Right now, it is Israel holding the nuclear threat over the ME, and we have seen time and again how little Israel cares for human life.