[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

[yyyk]

Ok, so you don't have a reference. If we take the admin at its word, they say they want a better deal.If you believe Bolton doesn't follow orders, than he seeks war. The one thing nobody of any disposition ever said they seek is 'regime change'. That's because a ground invasion is inconceivable and homegrown revolution unlikely when it's the regime with all the guns.