[eloff]

Why are sanctions on Iran immoral?

Sanctions seem like the least harmful way to deal with bad actors at the nation state level like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. This is the equivalent of not playing with the kid who can't play fair or follow the rules. Replace playing with trading.

You might say Iran is not a bad actor, but that's not a winnable position to take.

Would you prefer military intervention over sanctions? What else can you do in these kinds of situations?

[PoignardAzur]

Even if you grant that Iran is a bad actor (which is kind of rich considering how much western countries deal with Saudi Arabia)...

It's still very fucked up that the US signed a treaty with Iran saying "we'll lift sanctions if you do X", Iran did X... and the first thing the US did after the next administration change was to say "Fuck the treaty we signed, we're putting sanctions back".

What's the message being sent to Iran? "It doesn't matter if you try to play nice, we're going to destroy your economy unless you submit as a vassal state to the US"?

Also, I don't see how the US has any sort of moral legitimacy to unilaterally decide which country is a "good actor" and which country is a "bad actor", even against the wishes of its allies (including western democraties). In a fair process the US would only be one of several countries deciding together, and would only act with common backing.

If your answer is "moral legitimacy doesn't matter, because the US has the power to enforce its decisions", sure, that's true. Enjoy it while it lasts.

But don't act surprised when other countries start banding against US hegemony.

[eloff]

> It's still very fucked up that the US signed a treaty with Iran saying "we'll lift sanctions if you do X", Iran did X... and the first thing the US did after the next administration change was to say "Fuck the treaty we signed, we're putting sanctions back".

Yeah it is fucked up. What is the word of the US worth if it's going to flip flop every time the party in power switches. That's going to have ramifications.

> Also, I don't see how the US has any sort of moral legitimacy to unilaterally decide which country is a "good actor" and which country is a "bad actor", even against the wishes of its allies (including western democraties). In a fair process the US would only be one of several countries deciding together, and would only act with common backing.

Every country can decide for themselves who are good and bad countries, and they're free to take whatever action they feel is appropriate, including war. That's how nations work. Now some actions have consequences, and some nations have more or less power and influence. The US does have some moral authority in that it sometimes stands up for what's right rather than what's in their best interests. For example, bans on buying conflict minerals.

The UN is supposed to function like you're saying, but in reality it's quite dysfunctional. Because of the veto system the default action is no action so it's hard to agree on anything.

> But don't act surprised when other countries start banding against US hegemony.

They can and they will, but such is the nature of things. Nations rise and fall.

[vimacs2]

"The US does have some moral authority in that it sometimes stands up for what's right rather than what's in their best interests. For example, bans on buying conflict minerals."

Yes, it makes sense for them to ban buying conflict minerals since they want to hold a monopoly over that ability themselves. Bolivia is one of the top suppliers of lithium to the US and has suffered dictatorships, election interference, and ongoing far-right paramilitaries financed and trained by the US and it's allies.

The US has NEVER done something to "stand up for what's right", every action they do is calculated to help themselves. If they are condemning or condoning anything, it is for their own self interest. This is how they can simultaneously call out the ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs by the CCP while simultaneously not being able to even condemn the killing of Palestinian children on record when being asked repeatedly by journalists. That's because China is a rival but Israel is an Ally.

They'e only recently publicly recognised the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Empire because relationships between the US and Turkey have grown increasingly strained. If they had any moral authority, they wouldn't coddle their friend's war crimes and hold them to the same standards as their enemies.

[eloff]

You have a very extreme, no nuances opinion. Categorically, whenever you have an opinion like that you're almost surely wrong.

With something like the foreign policy history of the United States - that's a very rich area that doesn't permit a simple black and white position like yours. I want to downvote your comment twice. We could use less of that kind of thinking in the world.

[vimacs2]

Is the rather obvious (or I would think) observation that empires tend to make decisions for pragmatic reasons of self-interest as opposed to ideology a "very extreme, no nuances opinion". You cannot just dismiss all criticism by the intellectual hand wave that is things not being "black or white" - as if people who disagree with your smug sycophantry really view the world that way.

No, it's not that we don't lack naunce, it's just that we don't flinch away from ugly reality by labelling it as a "very rich area" just because it concerns an empire we are a part of as opposed to the enemy.

For all of your indignation on the fact that I refuse to play apologetics for your favourite hegemony, you have not made one real counterargument for why my view of the US and their role in the wider world is incorrect.

I'm very proud frankly to hold the "extreme, no nuances opinion" that imperialism is bad and for that matter ethnic cleansing and the intentional bombing of civilians. You apparently disagree, seeing as in an earlier comment you dismissed such charges against Israel and Saudi Arabia as if they are wild accusations as opposed to a matter of public record for the wider international community and the UN.

I'll let everybody else decide which of the two modes of thinking we could do less of in the world.

[eloff]

You're wrong. If your view point permitted some leeway I might spend time arguing with you.

But I think conversion with you is a waste of time, so let's drop it.

[Udik]

> This is the equivalent of not playing with the kid who can't play fair or follow the rules.

More like the equivalent of the school bully threatening to beat up any kid who plays with the kid he doesn't like.

[seoaeu]

"Doesn't like" due to the real and lasting harm they've caused to the entire region

[Udik]

Says the country which organised a coup in Iran to install a dictator, financed another local dictator to attack it, then waged war twice against him leaving a country in ruins, supports and arms a religious absolute monarchy and its wars, supports an apartheid regime, paid jihadists in Syria to keep a civil war running...

[nradov]

Sanctions aren't violence, or even the threat of violence. They're an attempt to prevent violence.

[CryptoPunk]

Sanctions threaten violence against any one who does business with any one targeted by the sanctions.

[8note]

I'd say Iran isn't a bad actor.

They're not an American client state, bit they're no worse than America, China, or Saudi Arabia

You can argue that they're a threat to american interests and an embarrassment to the American intelligence agencies, but that's not exactly the same as being a bad actor.

[eloff]

That's a logical fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right.

China and Saudi Arabia are pretty dirty, but I don't see the US in that camp lately.

[vimacs2]

Really? You don't think the US selling billions in arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel makes them complicit in those ally's crimes against humanity?

What about the fact that the US has been sponsoring military and paramilitary organisations in central and Southern America for decades to fight against attempts at unionisation or socialisation efforts to help ensure their control over the rare earth metals and oil there? There are death squads that have mowed down entire villages after being informed of talk about unionisation as well as driving away indigenous tribes who happen to live in areas that are inconvenient to the interest of US multinational companies.

Are you also somehow forgetting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq that was perpetuated for decades after the given reason for invasion were dealt with for the transparent motivation to plunder the resources there? More than 200,000 civilians dead (and that's on the optimistic side of projections) as a direct result of actions from the US army.

All of these examples I gave are crimes that the US are currently engaging in and even with that restriction, this is far from a complete list. If I expanded it out to what they have been up to in the last 5 decades, then it would be a lot longer still.

If you don't see the US as dirty, then I don't know what standards you are operating under.

[eloff]

> Really? You don't think the US selling billions in arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel makes them complicit in those ally's crimes against humanity?

Crimes against humanity? How am I supposed to take you seriously. I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, but they're a necessary evil. But Israel? I don't know what standards you're operating under...

[vimacs2]

So you don't see Saudi Arabia's actions against the Yemenese or Israel's actions against the Palestinians as crimes against humanity? I guess then you have no standards at all then since the ones I'm operating under are shared by the UN and the international community outside of the US and it's sycophants.

[stjohnswarts]

This is so full of false equivalency I don't really know where to start. I'll just say supporting a theocratic dictatorship that sponsors terrorists all over the world (no doubt partially through bitcoin). Also China who is currently committing genocide on a large scale as well as trying to take over commerce by building artificial islands in the strait. You can't "build" an island and expect to take over shipping lanes.

[CryptoPunk]

>>I'll just say supporting a theocratic dictatorship that sponsors terrorists all over the world

Which country are you talking about? The Western foreign policy elite and Gulf Arab states funded a massive influx of Islamic militants into Syria to try change that country's regime:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/foreign-fighters-flow-t...

The largest insurgent faction, and the one receiving the bulk of this material support, was effectively led by al-Qaeda's Syrian franchise, the al Nusra Front.

Unfortunately, every state has the blood of innocent people on their hands.

[eloff]

> Unfortunately, every state has the blood of innocent people on their hands.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they are equal either. Some are worse than others.

[vimacs2]

Pretty sure the US and friends are easily the worst when it comes to sponsoring international terrorism, especially if you don't just arbitrarily decide that state mandated actions are exempt from consideration as terrorism. Iran and other "bad actors" are not even remotely on the same level.

[eloff]

> Pretty sure the US and friends are easily the worst when it comes to sponsoring international terrorism.

That's nonsense, but I welcome you to make a case for it with facts.

> especially if you don't just arbitrarily decide that state mandated actions are exempt from consideration as terrorism

If it quacks like a duck, yes. State mandated actions are not exempt. But don't go equating drone strikes on military targets - actual terrorists - as terrorism. That's military action, not terrorism.

> Iran and other "bad actors" are not even remotely on the same level.

Don't even get me started on Russia and North Korea. If you think the US is a worse actor internationally, your moral compass is very poorly calibrated.

[CryptoPunk]

Sanctions on Iran are indiscriminate, and mostly harm civilians. It's collective punishment. To put into perspective the damage done to non-combatants: one study found the sanctions the Trump administration placed on Venezuela led to 40,000 deaths:

https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-...

[sfifs]

You probably should read up on the history of the Shah of Iran, Western oil companies, the CIA and the Islamic revolution.

[eloff]

That's not an argument. But I happen to be familiar enough with that history to also say your point isn't even a valid one.

That's the two wrongs make a right logical fallacy. That the US did shit to Iran does not excuse the shit Iran is currently up to.

[LegitShady]

"You should read up on" is not a persuasive logical argument - it's a dismissive throw away line given by someone who doesn't have one.

[aesh2Xa1]

As long as you also read up on the related history of Russia and Communism, too. This is a good suggestion.

The book, "Twilight War," has a lot of material background on the matter.