3 ms·

> Sanctions on Iran are justified For what?

by hammock 12d ago

ImHereToVote 12d ago
For retaliating against they president being assassinated and their country attacked. This is strictly against the rules based order.
- stickfigure 12d ago
  It's not "their" president, Iranians didn't elect him. Khomeini was a religious extremist who only months ago presided over the murder of ten thousand protesters and we should shed not one tear.
  - Mikhail_Edoshin 11d ago
    He was elected by a so-called council of experts. Those experts are elected by the people, although screened by the council of constitutional guards. The council consists of six lawyers assigned by the leader and six lawyers elected by the parliament. (There's a parliament and a civil president.) Iran is a republic. It became a republic in 1979 on a national referendum. Before that it was a monarchy. That monarchy used to be limited since 1941, but in 1953 it was restored as a result of an overthrow backed by US and Britain. The cause of that was that the civil government tried to nationalize oil companies. The last monarch is in exile but, apparently, hopes to return to power if the US wins. The West is a fantastic liar and a tremendous used car salesman. There's a short story by Mark Twain how he tried to run for a governor. Satirical, but truthful. Yet somehow the West managed to sell the idea that a regular shitshow of this kind is a pinnacle of state development, that states who do not run it are, of course, oppressors and oppressed, and that any means against them are thus justified.
pibaker 12d ago
For human rights violations at home and sponsorship of extremism aboard. I also believe many of our current "allies" in the region should face similar sanctions in case you are wondering.
- applfanboysbgon 12d ago
  The US itself should be sanctioned by your listed metric.
  - hammock 12d ago
    Isn’t that what they say the tariffs are?
    - edoceo 12d ago
      USA sanctioned themselves?
  - Danox 11d ago
    The US is starting to have more countries look to other avenues and several of our closest friends are leading the charge. I would like to believe that after the current nightmare is over, we can put several things right but that’s a big if.
- FactolSarin 12d ago
  I don't disagree, but that's not why they're being sanctioned
- swat535 12d ago
  > I also believe many of our current "allies" in the region should face similar sanctions in case you are wondering. Interesting take, coming from a nation that has caused: - 210,296 violent civilian deaths in IRAQ - 500,000 civilians killed om Japan - 70,000 civilians killed in Vietnam - 46,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan - 3,000 civilians killed in IRAN - Threatened to exterminate Persians civilization, blown up bridges, killed children and destroyed civilian infrastructure I think United States should be sanctioned.
  - deleted 12d ago
    [deleted]
  - oxcartctl 12d ago
misano 12d ago
Because the fascist mullahs’ regime wants the entire world to act according to its wishes. We’re lucky that North Korea doesn’t control any straits.
- krunck 12d ago
  s/mullah/American/
crabbone 12d ago
This is not a good question to ask. It's not for what. It's to prevent what. Even if you don't care about how Iran treats its own population, you should care about how it treats others because one day it might be you. Iran's ideology is expansionalist. They want to export their ideas far and wide. While also physically suppressing their opponents. Since the emergence of two global superpowers after WW2, most armed conflicts were, essentially, between those two. Directly or indirectly. If the two could find a peaceful solution, the world at large had a good day. And for a while it seemed like we might be left with just one superpower, and so no conflicts at all. Only policing. The whole "multipolar" spiel you might hear from powers that challenge this policing is what is going to result in a long and bloody struggle for world domination. It won't be like the world wars we remember, where most of the world had to choose one of the two sides. It will be a quagmire of more local conflicts with very volatile alliances and a lot more casualties overall. More like Italian city states. It's necessary to police Iran and similar bad countries because if their challenge of the power monopoly succeeds, the world will be hurled into anarchy equipped with very deadly weapons...
- iamnothere 12d ago
  Multipolarity is inevitable. You can’t forcefully hold most of the world’s population down, especially when you already shipped off your manufacturing capacity to earn a few bucks. As always, the question for the declining hegemon is whether a new order can arise peacefully or not. The UK managed to go peacefully in the end, but only after two brutal and deadly world wars sapped them of their remaining strength. Still, their acquiescence allowed them to retain an outsized seat at the table. China doesn’t seem interested in becoming a unipolar hegemon, at least based on public statements and openly published policy/position papers, so perhaps they have learned that it’s bad to be the hegemon from watching both the UK and the US take it on the chin. Rather than the Yuan becoming the default international currency, it’s possible that Keynes’s Bancor (or something like it) may finally replace the notion of a singular reserve currency, which always fails in predictable ways.
  - fragmede 11d ago
    How can something "always fail" if it's never been tried? Negativity much?
_djo_ 12d ago
Human rights violations, violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, violations of related UNSC Resolutions, sponsorship of terrorism, and many others. We can wholeheartedly disagree with the US's war on Iran without pretending Iran is a 'good' international actor. It's a rogue state and has been for decades.

> Sanctions on Iran are justified For what?

by hammock 12d ago

> Sanctions on Iran are justified For what?

For retaliating against they president being assassinated and their country attacked. This is strictly against the rules based order.

stickfigure 12d ago
It's not "their" president, Iranians didn't elect him. Khomeini was a religious extremist who only months ago presided over the murder of ten thousand protesters and we should shed not one tear.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 11d ago
  He was elected by a so-called council of experts. Those experts are elected by the people, although screened by the council of constitutional guards. The council consists of six lawyers assigned by the leader and six lawyers elected by the parliament. (There's a parliament and a civil president.) Iran is a republic. It became a republic in 1979 on a national referendum. Before that it was a monarchy. That monarchy used to be limited since 1941, but in 1953 it was restored as a result of an overthrow backed by US and Britain. The cause of that was that the civil government tried to nationalize oil companies. The last monarch is in exile but, apparently, hopes to return to power if the US wins. The West is a fantastic liar and a tremendous used car salesman. There's a short story by Mark Twain how he tried to run for a governor. Satirical, but truthful. Yet somehow the West managed to sell the idea that a regular shitshow of this kind is a pinnacle of state development, that states who do not run it are, of course, oppressors and oppressed, and that any means against them are thus justified.

pibaker 12d ago

For human rights violations at home and sponsorship of extremism aboard. I also believe many of our current "allies" in the region should face similar sanctions in case you are wondering.

applfanboysbgon 12d ago
The US itself should be sanctioned by your listed metric.
- hammock 12d ago
  Isn’t that what they say the tariffs are?
  - edoceo 12d ago
    USA sanctioned themselves?
- Danox 11d ago
  The US is starting to have more countries look to other avenues and several of our closest friends are leading the charge. I would like to believe that after the current nightmare is over, we can put several things right but that’s a big if.
FactolSarin 12d ago
I don't disagree, but that's not why they're being sanctioned
swat535 12d ago
> I also believe many of our current "allies" in the region should face similar sanctions in case you are wondering. Interesting take, coming from a nation that has caused: - 210,296 violent civilian deaths in IRAQ - 500,000 civilians killed om Japan - 70,000 civilians killed in Vietnam - 46,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan - 3,000 civilians killed in IRAN - Threatened to exterminate Persians civilization, blown up bridges, killed children and destroyed civilian infrastructure I think United States should be sanctioned.
- deleted 12d ago
  [deleted]
- oxcartctl 12d ago

misano 12d ago

Because the fascist mullahs’ regime wants the entire world to act according to its wishes. We’re lucky that North Korea doesn’t control any straits.

krunck 12d ago
s/mullah/American/

crabbone 12d ago

This is not a good question to ask. It's not for what. It's to prevent what. Even if you don't care about how Iran treats its own population, you should care about how it treats others because one day it might be you. Iran's ideology is expansionalist. They want to export their ideas far and wide. While also physically suppressing their opponents. Since the emergence of two global superpowers after WW2, most armed conflicts were, essentially, between those two. Directly or indirectly. If the two could find a peaceful solution, the world at large had a good day. And for a while it seemed like we might be left with just one superpower, and so no conflicts at all. Only policing. The whole "multipolar" spiel you might hear from powers that challenge this policing is what is going to result in a long and bloody struggle for world domination. It won't be like the world wars we remember, where most of the world had to choose one of the two sides. It will be a quagmire of more local conflicts with very volatile alliances and a lot more casualties overall. More like Italian city states. It's necessary to police Iran and similar bad countries because if their challenge of the power monopoly succeeds, the world will be hurled into anarchy equipped with very deadly weapons...

iamnothere 12d ago
Multipolarity is inevitable. You can’t forcefully hold most of the world’s population down, especially when you already shipped off your manufacturing capacity to earn a few bucks. As always, the question for the declining hegemon is whether a new order can arise peacefully or not. The UK managed to go peacefully in the end, but only after two brutal and deadly world wars sapped them of their remaining strength. Still, their acquiescence allowed them to retain an outsized seat at the table. China doesn’t seem interested in becoming a unipolar hegemon, at least based on public statements and openly published policy/position papers, so perhaps they have learned that it’s bad to be the hegemon from watching both the UK and the US take it on the chin. Rather than the Yuan becoming the default international currency, it’s possible that Keynes’s Bancor (or something like it) may finally replace the notion of a singular reserve currency, which always fails in predictable ways.
- fragmede 11d ago
  How can something "always fail" if it's never been tried? Negativity much?

_djo_ 12d ago

Human rights violations, violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, violations of related UNSC Resolutions, sponsorship of terrorism, and many others. We can wholeheartedly disagree with the US's war on Iran without pretending Iran is a 'good' international actor. It's a rogue state and has been for decades.