[machina_ex_deus]

Or they can just stop getting nuclear weapons. And spending all their money funding terror against Israel, in Yemen and in Syria. You know, the sane option that they could've done for years.

Truth is that Iran is a terrorist organization leaching of its people. They have plenty of options to fix their problem, but their priorities are holy wars and nuclear weapons. Sadly it will be incredibly difficult for the Iranian people to overthrow this regime, and many of the Iranians who could've fight back had been leaving the country for years. I can't blame them, but sadly, regimes like these usually spiral downward in this way.

[getmeinrn]

I don't think the allure of extremely desperate people selling their body parts will ever go away if an economy gets bad enough, and an economy being bad enough is not always dependent on some specific theoretically-easy-to-fix geopolitical situation.

[infamouscow]

What a brain dead argument.

In literally (yes, literally) every instance sanctions result in increasing the human suffering of the population at the expense of an already authoritative government regime.

What you're arguing is for sanctions to increase human suffering to a point where the public has nothing left to lose and they topple the government. It ignores the quagmire that human suffering increases, but not to the point where people have nothing left to lose. It also ignores the high likelihood the new government is even more hostile rather than less.

You should genuinely be embarrassed for even suggesting this.

[machina_ex_deus]

Sadly, the alternative with this regime isn't lack of sanctions, it's (potentially nuclear) war. They have said many times they intend to destroy Israel, and I believe they intend to do as they say. We're on the brink of a regional war, that would be much worse than those suffering from economic hardship in Iran.

The sanctions aren't meant to topple the regime, they are meant to restrict the magnitude of the external damage they inflict. If there were no sanctions, Iran would have had nuclear weapons years ago, and there would probably have been a regional war with tens of thousands of casualties. I'm not sure it's even avoidable at the moment.

We're already on the brink of war if Iran decides to rush nukes right now.

I don't have any hope Iranians topple the regime, it's just robust enough to survive. The sanctions are necessary to prevent war or at least delay it. Without sanctions today, we wouldn't have prosperous Iran, we would have war ravaged middle east.

Israel could've had peace with Lebanon by now if it wasn't for Iran's cancer of hizbullah. Instead we have this. The only obstacle to peace in the middle east right now is Iran. Every terrorist organization can trace it's funding to Iran.

The only thing we can do is suffocate Iran so they can't afford to spread. That's the least violent option on the table.

[mickelsen]

Nah, not OP but I support the idea assuming it follows your train of logic, not embarrassed in the slightest as I've always voiced the same POV in public. That drip feed is the worst, it's a cancer kept at bay, the one that keeps hostile governments like Venezuela or Cuba with a lifeline. If their population is too passive to topple the government, or if after repeated attempts they end up with people not worried about nation building, it's not our problem. Don't they want self-determination? Then if they aren't playing by the rules, sanctions should get deeper.