What's implied by your argument is that the US is good. I would urge you to look at the situation without that assumption, whether you agree with it or not. Th

What's implied by your argument is that the US is good. I would urge you to look at the situation without that assumption, whether you agree with it or not. Think about it: you can take the sanctions and argue the US is starving you. If someone was starving you whether or not that can be justified why wouldn't you be hostile? The US is, as far as you're concerned, the abuser in this relationship. I like to bring up the example of then UN ambassador and later Secretary of State Madeline Albright [1]: > On May 12, 1996, then-ambassador Albright defended UN sanctions against Iraq on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her, "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it. Now the "half a million" figure is probably exaggerated but even if it's "only" 50,000 the problem holds. Sanctions kill people, children included. Why would or should we expect to those suffering under sanctions we created to not be hostile? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright