|
|
|
|
|
by infamouscow
1065 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.