[espeed]

The 80 million Iranians are currently held hostage by two entities. First, it is their own government (which is by far not the worse in the world, being in Iran feels more free than one would expect).

The Iranian people are not the target -- Persia is a rich ancient civilization that's being repressed -- the West knows this and wants to see the Iranian people's massive creative potential unleashed.

Sanctions are designed as a non-kinetic force applied to pressure the Iranian government into a weakened position. The Iranian people play a significant role in amplifying the pressure. The louder and more vocal their voice becomes, the more pressure their government will feel. If the Iranian people want a change, the change has to come from within.

At some point, when the people amplify the pressure beyond the point the government can withstand, the situation tips and the people force their government to release. This is the effect the sanctions are designed to create.

[js8]

> Sanctions are designed as [..] when the people amplify the pressure beyond the point the government can withstand

Do you have any historic evidence that it ever worked like this?

I don't, and therefore, I think the sanctions are a predatory policy designed to break the country so it could be attacked by the U.S., where the military-industrial complex is getting too horny.

I mean, I could understand sanctions in the style of European sanctions against Russia, which are targeted at oligarchs and very specific in avoiding damage to ordinary Russians. That at least would be understandable.

But Iran sanctions.. no, I think we know the history all too well.

> The Iranian people are not the target

This is just empty words. Action speaks louder.

And even if the sanctions work as you describe in practice:

Vaclav Havel said that it's not a moral obligation of oppressed people to revolt (and risk their life), and therefore, it is immoral to pressure them to do that. (What is the point of fighting for freedom if you don't get to choose whether you want to be fighting or not?) I think I agree with that, and I am certainly glad that my country (Czech Republic) was never a target of severe U.S. sanctions.

[bjourne]

> > Sanctions are designed as [..] when the people amplify the pressure beyond the point the government can withstand

> Do you have any historic evidence that it ever worked like this?

It worked on South Africa. My hope is similar sanctions could be put on Israel to force it to end the occupation of Palestine. But in these cases the sanctions are for specific wrongdoings that the State can address. The US sanctions against Venezuela, Iran and previously on Cuba are much broader in scope. The US is essentially saying "we will sanction you until you roll over and die" which is of course completely counter-productive. The mullahs in Iran aren't going to surrender just because the US tells them to.

[yyyk]

"It worked on South Africa... in these cases the sanctions are for specific wrongdoings that the State can address."

Apartheid South Africa was justifiably asked to change their entire government system, and to hand over power from the ruling racial minority to the majority. Iran - even according to Pompeo's maximalist "12 demands"[0] - is being asked for far less: none of the demands relate to internal affairs, much less asking the mullahs to lose influence on the government.

[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/mike-pompeo-speech-12...

[js8]

There is also a question (even if we take the demands at the face value, for the sake of argument), how can public in Iran reasonably check that government is following these demands?

Really, how is that going to work operationally. Let's say I am demonstrating at the street in Tehran. I can readily tell that there is undemocratic oppression, OK. But how can I check that the government is not developing nuclear weapons or supporting terrorism, when this is hard to tell for normal citizen even in democratic countries?

IMHO, for the objectives to make sense, it would require these to be verifiable by the people pressuring the government (which you have so kindly decided to pull into the conflict). The fact that these demands are not verifiable is casting a shadow over the motives.

[yyyk]

You as an individual can check very little. That's true even in a full democracy. Even in a full democracy, you often have to rely on friends, media and civil society to know what's going on.

If there's is some space for an opposition (which your demonstration example implicitly assumes), there's some space for listening to non-regime media and organizations. Indeed, many people in Iran use Satellite TV despite it being officially banned. They may or may not trust American-owned TV, but there are plenty of alternatives.

If, for example, inspectors are not allowed to check for nuclear activity, the world would raise a ruckus and the average Iranian citizen will be able to hear it and evaluate the validity of these claims, even if the regime tried to hide it.

That said, I suspect the intention of the current American administration is to do a new deal with the regime, not to have the people rise up. They may wish for that scenario, but it's not something they are working towards or something they rely on in order to pressure the regime.

[js8]

> You as an individual can check very little

I think it depends on the issue. Things that affect lot of people (like can I criticize government official in public or police brutality against a minority) are easier to check than things that do not (development of nuclear weapons).

Also, democratic systems have sort of "defense in depth". I know that some free media exist, so I can reasonably trust their independence on government. We have freedom of information acts, which requires the government to at least tell the truth. And so on.

So it seems to me, to ask Iranians to rise up if they feel their government is lying about development of nuclear is effectively equivalent of developing a modern democratic society, at the very least.

> the world would raise a ruckus and the average Iranian citizen will be able to hear it and evaluate the validity of these claims

That is still very vague, how are they gonna do it. Based on my indirect experience with communist regime, majority will probably believe foreign media unconditionally (believe me, they will know state media lie constantly, I know many emigrants were surprised that there is unemployment in the West, they thought it was a state propaganda), and a decent minority (about 20-30%) will not believe these claims and support the ruling class.

But - only extremely small minority will consider "international ruckus" a large enough problem so they would risk a life for it. Especially from a community which decided to throw sanctions on the nation.

> intention of the current American administration is to do a new deal with the regime

Well, that's how this problem needs to be resolved - in a diplomatic way. That's the standard way to do it - mutual inspections to see if there are nuclear weapons, or mutual disarmament. You don't need to involve the citizens, especially since they cannot meaningfully keep tabs on their own government.

[espeed]

The big corporations of the world keep their governments in check. And the corporations within countries are kept in check by the market forces from their competing interests, government regulation, consumer perception and demand.

At the international level, the international corporations located in multiple countries don't want the different countries they're in going to war with each other, and so the massive leverage of international corporations in open markets provide an invisible hand of unseen forces that keep wars at bay.

[js8]

If this is supposed to answer my question, I don't understand how. (I do however agree that international trade helps to avoid war, but that is in itself an additional argument against sanctions.)

[bjourne]

Fair point. I read somewhere that complying with the US demands would be equivalent to "roll over and die" and that the US didn't expect compliance at all. Maybe not then.

[lonelappde]

It worked because apartheid SA didn't have an oppressive government (for whites), it had a democratic opppressive populace. Blacks in SA were wholly disenfranchised who had near 0 participation in the national economy and wealth, so sanctions had no affect on them, but did affect the middle class who colluded in their oppression.

[mehdix]

Thanks for quoting Vaclav Havel. That was exactly what I was looking for. My father was a revolutionist. The amount of harm and distress it caused to him and his children is beyond imagination. It damaged us beyond repair. That's something that I'll avoid at all costs.

[geff82]

And that quote really says it. Revolting against an oppressive regime on your own is usually your death sentence. Why bother with endless prison and/or death when you can just pack your stuff and move somewhere else and be happy? On a macro level, revolting might be the correct thing to do. But on the micro level, simply leaving is the rational decision.

[espeed]

> Action speaks louder.

You're right. For economic sanctions to work, the Iranian people must choose to act. They are in a unique historical position with an opportunity to choose and prove kinetic wars obsolete.

[barrkel]

They are in a deal to prevent development of nuclear weapons. The US violated the deal, and now insists that they don't develop nuclear weapons.

The US just wants a war, it seems.

[espeed]

Some people want a war. This is true in every government in every nation. Most people don't. Most people have grown war weary and are ready to move to the era beyond. Economic sanctions are an experiment toward that, an alternative to war that keeps the warhawks at bay and proves kinetic wars are obsolete.

[dang]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20302906.

[mehdix]

Crushing a nation under brutal sanctions isn't a legitimate tool to move one's agenda forward.

[jonathanstrange]

This sounds like a parody.

[luckylion]

> The Iranian people are not the target -- Persia is a rich ancient civilization that's being repressed -- the West knows this and wants to see the Iranian people's massive creative potential unleashed.

Given that "the West" is largely responsible for installing/supporting repressive Regimes in Iran, that sounds a bit too naive. "Wants to replace the oppressive Regime with an oppressive Regime that will do their bidding" sounds closer to the truth to my ears.

Given the recent examples US led "Regime Change" in the area (Egypt, Libya, Iraq, to a lesser degree Syria), as an Iranian, I'd have some reservations about lofty speeches.

[espeed]

The US people fought several wars to free itself and establish its nation. And then it went back to Europe and fought WWI and WWII to ensure it's free. Iran is one the few places on Earth remaining to be free. But freedom is a choice, and the Iranian people have to choose it.

[RobertoG]

Ah, but Iran already chose freedom.

Unfortunately, they decided to use their freedom to take control of the oil in their country.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état,[..], was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United States [..] and the United Kingdom [..]"

"Mosaddegh had sought to audit the documents of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now part of BP) and to limit the company's control over Iranian oil reserves"

[senorjazz]

They made the wrong democratic choice, they needed some freedom wars and liberty bombs to be shown who the right choice was

[senorjazz]

The US (same as all countries ever) fought their wars to push forward their interests, no more no less. Of course the narrative the country tells itself is different (same as all other countries who fight wars), but the narrative is false.

If what you said was true, that people being "free" was so important to the US and the reasoning behind all foreign policy, then please explain away slavery? Segregation? Discrimination? Explain the wars of aggression, which despite their operational Orwellian names, have had nothing to do with freedom, or freeing oppressed peoples. Explain policies of supporting brutal right wing dictators throughout Latin America, the training of death squads, the military school of the Americas, the CIA coups / assinations of democratically elected leaders, the torture prisons, the giving of asylum to those not only reported of being involved in the above, but charged (in their home countries).

If what you said was true, that the US really was the first, noble country doing everything to "free" oppressed peoples the above wouldn't happen, but it does. Unless you mean freedom is for some, oppression for others, that could be argued perhaps somewhat true, but if so, then it negates what you are saying.

This isn't to single out the US, as I said the same is true for all global power countries since the beginning of time, but the narrative that the US only starts wars in a selfless manner is quite frankly ridiculous and naive beyond belief to anyone who has even an elementary understanding of world history as opposed to home state propaganda

[espeed]

The US (same as all countries ever) fought their wars to push forward their interests, no more no less. Of course the narrative the country tells itself is different (same as all other countries who fight wars), but the narrative is false.

The American War of Independence [1] is how the country was founded. If you think that narrative is false, how did the US come to be?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

[cr1895]

What about the indigenous peoples of the present US? Did they choose freedom?

[espeed]

Yes. Here's what a group of Navajos chose to do the day after Pearl Harbor [1]...

"In this moment of national trial, Stephen and his son Hugh published an op-ed piece in The Times-Picayune. Recalling an episode from the Day after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, the piece started this way:

  “On Dec. 8, 1941, a large group of Navajo Indians saddled
   their horses, loaded their rifles and rode off their
   reservation to the nearest Army recruiting center. They 
   told the surprised recruiting officer that they were ready
   not just to enlist, but to start fighting that very day.
   Their country had been attacked. They would go to war.”

Stephen and Hugh used this incident to offer a telling illustration of the American Spirit—how it manifests itself, what it means.

These Native Americans had not been treated well by their government, by American society at large. Their culture and their language had been under attack, marginalized, discriminated against, for many years. Their opportunities in education and work were few.

But even these Navajo in their hardscrabble existence had a sense of the American ideal, the promise of individual rights, of opportunity for a good life as pursued first by our Puritan forebears, then by this country’s Founding Fathers—and as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

In 1941 these Native Americans knew this promise, this ideal—and their country too now—was under attack. So they joined millions of other Americans to fight Japan and Germany in faraway places.

In fact, the Navajo Code Talkers [2] became a legendary weapon in our WWII military arsenal, for they were able to speak openly over the radio in the field—confident that the enemy would never crack their language. The Navajo reflected the common sentiment of the day: “We’re all in this together.” And their selfless acts spoke to the enduring American Spirit, the bright connecting thread in the fabric of our Democracy. This spirit is sometimes difficult to define or to quantify, but it holds great power—and you know it when you see it.

Our country would never have survived and prospered without this spirit. In fact, it wouldn’t have survived its earliest days. But where did this spirit come from? ..."

[1] The American Spirit: What Does It Mean? https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-spir...

[2] Navajo Code Talkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker#Navajo_code_talker...

[espeed]

They're still free. I live in Texas, and most people are part-Native American here (including me).