[mpoloton]

Definition of terrorism according to Wikipedia:

"Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim."

How economic sanctions and maximum pressure different from terrorism? Putting a lot of pressure and pain on ordinary people to achieve political goal, which in this case is surrender of Iran. This is economic terrorism, plain and simple.

[keiferski]

The answer to your question is in the text you quoted: intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror. Economic sanctions may be justified or unjustified, moral or immoral, but they are distinctly different from indiscriminate violence.

Muddying the definitions of words really doesn't help anyone and indeed makes the discussion harder to have, as communication is only possible if both/all participants can agree on their communicative medium - i.e., that they are both using words to mean the same things.

[mpoloton]

I didn't say it is "Terrorism" I said "Economic Terrorism". Economic sanctions by definition are indiscriminate. Now there is a shortage of some cancer and MS medication in Iran and people are dying because of it. Even though the medications are not sanctioned, the financial transactions are sanctioned and these medications cannot be purchased easily. How isn't this violence? According to the UN, sanctions on food and medication is a crime against humanity. We have seen this period of sever sanctions on Iraq in the disguise of oil for food program. We know how it ended.

I don't want to justify the actions of Iranian government, in my opinion most governments are evil and power hungry. I am just pointing out that the goal of sanctions, even according to the US officials is to cause suffering for people ultimately in the goal of regime change.

Sever economic sanctions are just another tool in the empire toolbox. Be it against Iran or Cuba for example.

[yyyk]

"I am just pointing out that the goal of sanctions, even according to the US officials is to cause suffering for people ultimately in the goal of regime change"

No, you're not in fact pointing that out, you're just stating it without providing any evidence at all.

If you're saying 'the goal is to cause suffer according to US officials' surely you'd have a quote for it? You won't because they did not say that and you just stated something not in evidence. Officially, the purpose of the sanctions is to get 'a better deal'.

[mpoloton]

Just refer to John Bolton, you can find many instances. He gave a talk for MEK which was in the US terrorist group list.

[yyyk]

Surely you can provide one.

It's true that Bolton argued war is best option several years before joining this administration, but that's not your claim. Your claim is that he (or some other official) said the purpose of the sanctions is to make the common people suffer, and I can't any statement to that effect.

[mpoloton]

Yes, you are right they didn't literally say that because in that case it would be legally troublesome. I think it is childish to think that this is not pure coercion either to the negotiation/surrender table or public unrest. By the way, Bolton didn't just advocate war/unrest years ago. It was last year [1].

I understand the importance of being exact, but by being pedantic in a political context without considering motivations and effects is trivialization.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cenpiO6LMpE

[SaltPork]

Some would say Taxation or Sanctions are a form of violence. If I do not adhere to your sanctions, what happens? If I do not pay your taxes, what happens?

Violence, condoned by a state or a group of states.

[yyyk]

Asking Iran to stop foreign adventures including support for terrorism == "capitulation"

Not trading with countries stating 'Death to [your country]' == "economic terrorism"

[ggggtez]

Pure nonsense. Terror is not the same thing as economic sanctions. To suggest it's the same is to make language meaningless.

[simonh]

It depends what you mean by surrender of Iran. Iran is the one with an explicitly stated foreign policy goal of annihilating another state. They are also persistently taking active steps intended to achieve it. That inevitably creates conflict, and in armed conflicts nobody ends up looking good.

[mpoloton]

What they mean by negotiation is sever limit on Iran missile program. They ask Iran to limit its missile range very considerably. At first you may say missile is not defensive but offensive.

But the fact is that Iran has no air force or any other serious military hardware to defend itself. Because simply they wouldn't sell them to Iran. Most Persian gulf countries have military budget per capita orders of magnitude larger than Iran. In addition they have the might of US military behind them. Missiles are the only reason that Iran is not like Iraq or Libya right now. Iran has been on the hit list of Neocons since long time (you can refer to General Wesley Clark)

Iran experienced a very bloody war with Iraq during 80s where everybody was supporting Saddam Hussein from Soviets to the US and persian gulf monarchies. I know personally people that where harmed by Saddam chemical weapons but international community remained silent for too long. I remember seeing Saddam's missile on the Tehran skies but we had no means of stopping them or retaliating because again nobody cared.

About annihilating another state: How can Iran annihilate a state which has 200 nuclear warheads? It might be other way around.

[yyyk]

Iran has troops in at least three countries thousands of km of its border, its on the offence. Besides, it's not like these missiles could do more than tickle the American army. Their only use is to menace the other countries of the region, except no country in the region is even capable of invading Iran. In short, their purpose is offensive.

Now, 'Moderate' President Rafsanjani argued that "the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam". It's best we do not allow such an apocalyptic scenario - such a war could hardly be contained to the Middle East.

[mpoloton]

I feel this is becoming a geopolitical conversation. I can go on and on, so do you. I don't want to hijack the main discussion of the thread any longer which was the human aspect of the sanctions to a geo-strategical game.

Thanks for a civilized conversation anyways.

[simonh]

If Iran stopped funding active offensive organisations like Hezbollah there would be no reason to restrict their weapons purchases or impose sanctions. The sanctions aren't the root cause, they are responses to specific stated goals and actions of Iran. Goals of destroying specific foreign states, which it insists on pursuing through violent means. No nation has a specific stated goal of destroying Iran, nor are they acting in order to achieve it.

>About annihilating another state: How can Iran annihilate a state which has 200 nuclear warheads? It might be other way around.

If the US or Israel really wanted to destroy Iran they could. The US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, in both cases in response to hideously brutal attacks on themselves or their allies. They could do it to Iran, so why haven't they? Because they don't want to, they have nothing to gain from it. They didn't want to invade Iraq or Afghanistan either, and have been trying to get their troop out as fast as possible ever since. The only reason they attacked Saddam or Afghanistan was because of the invasion of Kuwait and the 9/11 attacks. If Iran would just leave them and their allies alone, they'd be fine just buying their oil and selling them Coca-Cola.

[llamaz]

What did Saddam or Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? Saudi Arabia and (I think) Pakistan were connected to 9/11, both countries that are US allies.

Understanding why the US entered Iraq is not hard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOsWcEoKfp4

[auiya]

General Wesley Clark ran for POTUS on the Democratic ticket and was opposed to the war in Iraq. He also opposed those calling for war with Iran in 2007. His politics don't square with the neo-conservatives at all. Did you mean to refer to him as an opposition movement leader?