3 ms·
No. I wouldn't. Because it makes it easier for the stronger power to dominate without hot wars. Sanctions cost the U.S. very little when used against Iran, but
by mirzap 1y ago
No. I wouldn't. Because it makes it easier for the stronger power to dominate without hot wars. Sanctions cost the U.S. very little when used against Iran, but for Iranians they are extremely hard and disproportionately expensive. A hot war would be far more costly for the U.S., and the higher the expected cost, the less likely policymakers are to choose it.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> A hot war would be far more costly for the U.S. …we just had a hot war with Iran. It probably cost us less than our sanctions. I’ll say this: you’re consistent in your position and I respect that. I just don’t think many people share the view that people getting physically torn apart by munitions is better than have a less-comfortable, possibly borderline, life.
- mirzap 1y agoMy point exactly. It lasted 12 days. How much did it cost? How much you think would cost 5 years of war with Iran? And how much did sanctions cost Iranians (economy + lives) past 40 years. Afghanistan war costed 2t for 20 years of war. That number would be reached withing months in a war with Iran.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> How much you think would cost 5 years of war with Iran? And how much did sanctions cost Iranians (economy + lives) past 40 years Idk, how much?