[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.

[yyyk]

So you agree that in the case where the international community finds Iran has an active program to build nuclear weapons, most Iranians would believe them? So the information problem is practically solved.

As for motivation, well, there are already significant sanctions on Iran, and that's with merely the US alone. If Iran restarts a significant nuclear program, I think the response would be much more than my previous euphemism of 'ruckus'.

But I don't expect (or ask) the Iranian people to rise up, though this regime well deserves it. That would be really nice, but it seems to me the other outcomes are more likely. Most likely both sides will be able to reach some diplomatic conclusion (since neither wants a war).

[js8]

> o you agree that in the case where the international community finds Iran has an active program to build nuclear weapons, most Iranians would believe them?

I think it's a moot point. If Iranian government agrees to the inspections (which is a big question why it should), then there is no purpose for them to hide the program from their own public.

There is a distinction between sanctions and diplomacy. Sanctions are not diplomacy. Diplomacy is making an agreement (on the level of national leadership, sidestepping the question of its legitimacy), which might be easier to get without threats or undermining the economy of the nation.

It's my opinion that nuclear disarmament can only happen if we treat everyone the same. So the countries which have significant nuclear stockpiles cannot go around and tell other countries to suck it up.

> But I don't expect (or ask) the Iranian people to rise up

Why do you defend sanctions as a tool, then?

[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.