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.
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.
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.
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.