[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?

[yyyk]

"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."

Sure there is. It's to make them appear to be defending themselves from a nefarious foreign plot. 'We cheated because we can' is not a good PR point even in those regimes.

"If Iranian government agrees to the inspections (which is a big question why it should)"

The truth of the matter is that the world doesn't want a nuclear arms race in the ME, nor do we want crazies which threatened to destroy another state to have nukes. That is treating Iran uniquely, but it's a unique regime with unique behaviour.

"So the countries which have significant nuclear stockpiles cannot go around and tell other countries to suck it up."

In our reality they can. That may not be ideal, but it is stable and prevents new world wars.

"Why do you defend sanctions as a tool, then?"

To get an inspection deal without sunsetting clauses and other loopholes, to pressure the regime to stop its malign foreign behaviour. I'd have also liked a change in the human rights situation, but that's apparently not a goal of this US administration.

[js8]

> It's to make them appear to be defending themselves from a nefarious foreign plot.

That doesn't make any sense, once Iran has agreed to cooperate with the inspectors.

> The truth of the matter is that the world doesn't want a nuclear arms race in the ME

If you truly don't want that, support denuclearization of Israel.

> That may not be ideal, but it is stable and prevents new world wars.

No, it doesn't prevent new wars. How do you prove that, anyway?

> to pressure the regime to stop its malign foreign behaviour

This is pretty rich coming from the U.S., which has literally no business on the other side of the planet.

> I'd have also liked a change in the human rights situation, but that's apparently not a goal of this US administration.

If this was their concern, they would stop supporting Saudis.

[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.)