"And in most cases, those sanctioned governments are non-democratic, meaning the people who are hit hardest by the sanctions are people that have no say in the

"And in most cases, those sanctioned governments are non-democratic, meaning the people who are hit hardest by the sanctions are people that have no say in the matter at all." Well, on the other hand... There is an Enlightenment-era principal that the legitimacy of a government comes from the assent of the governed. I know it sounds twee and "rah-rah", but it's actually a difficult position. (But consider the effects of alternatives like the divine right of kings and force majeure.) The bottom line is that the Iranian people are responsible for the behavior of the Iranian government just like the American people are responsible for the behavior of the US government---even if they don't have any official input into the choices of that government. On the other side of that coin, it means that the Iranian people are the only ones who can legitimately force change on their government. (Yes, the US's tendency to jack around with other governments is the political philosophy equivalent of a mortal sin.) It's both their responsibility and their power to do so. Yes, the attempt would suck. It would be costly and painful. As my mother said, the world wasn't created to make us happy. And on the third side, the rest of the world has exactly three options if they do not care for the behavior of a government: do nothing, diplomatic and economic sanctions, and military force. They're all flawed in various ways. Most places are taking the first option with China in response to, say, the Uyghur situation; is anyone happy and satisfied with that? The second option is applied by the US here to Iran and Cuba. Sanctions suck, yes. The military option is taken far too often by the US and previous imperial countries, who also don't tend to follow through. It's a blunt instrument, no matter what the military says. In the best case, it causes as many problems as it addresses. But anyway, those are the choices; pick your option. What about those in Iran protesting their government's actions? They get punished by their government as well as by the sanctions. I have a lot of respect for those willing to protest what they consider unjust. I do not have a lot of respect for those don't agree with their government's actions but just want to go along with it for various reasons. "While I do think that sanctions can be an effective tool against authoritarianism, I do think that we should be forced to put a face on those who we are sanctioning. Since in the US our sanctions are applied at the Executive Branch level, I would propose a Legislative Branch check on the issue: If we sanction a country, for whatever reason, we automatically remove all Refugee visa and green card quotas for that country." That is a brilliant idea! "We've already effectively done this with Cuba, and it has turned out extremely well, IMO. Cuban refugees very quickly adapted to our country and have become an economic powerhouse of their own, while depriving undemocratic cuban leaders from the benefits of those people staying in their country." On the other hand, the Cuban refugee community in the US is one of if not the most important power blocs maintaining sanctions against Cuba, particularly after the death of Fidel Castro. So, yeah.