[simianparrot]

Any warfare hurts civilians. And there's no kinetic warfare that is guaranteed to not hit civilians. In fact we can observe how impossible that is all throughout the world, today.

I'm fairly sure given the choice, civilians would rather their country be sanctioned than bombed. Obviously the best option is no conflict at all, but that's utopian.

[somenameforme]

The Lancet just released a study on this exact question. [1] From 1971 to 2021, "unilateral, economic, and US sanctions" were associated with some 564,258 deaths per year, disproportionately affecting children under 5, who are most sensitive to disruptions in healthcare or food. That's 1,544 deaths per day - for 30 years.

By contrast as of August 31st 2025, the UN has assessed a total of 14,116 civilian deaths in Ukraine [2], about 10 per day, in one of the largest land wars in quite some time, and one where military casualties are certainly in the millions. War will always be with us - it's simply the final stage of irreconcilable differences. But I think sanctions will go down as one of those things people look back at wondering how we could ever do that to each other. Again I think the parallel with random forms of torture before execution are apt. One can support the death penalty and be completely disgusted by drawing and quartering. It's just unnecessary sadism and cruelty that serves no purpose.

For some related comic relief I recommend this skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY

[1] - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...

[simianparrot]

I'll put the blame on the sanctioned countries' leadership.

If Iran wants to avoid sanctions, all they have to do is not flirt with nuclear weapons.

[somenameforme]

As of March 2025, the US intelligence had assessed that Iran was neither building nor pursuing a nuclear a weapon. [1] Claims to the contrary can from Netanyahu who is increasingly obviously an unstable individual. Notably the 'flip flop' when Trump decided to invade Iran was precipitated on very careful language that Iran could have a weapon if they chose to pursue it, under a likely exaggerated timeline. It's not really a flip flop as both statements can be, and probably were, true.

So why was Iran so close to a nuclear weapon in the first place? What happened is that after years of enriching at a normal level Iran suffered yet another attack from the US/Israel in 2021 that caused significant damage to their nuclear facilities. [2] Following this they increased enrichment to 60%, which is just below weapons grade, to make a point that they were entirely capable of making a nuclear weapon, but had made a conscious decision not to.

Following the latest US/Israel attacks on them, I think it's fairly certain that they will develop a nuke, if not only because it's increasingly obviously the only way they can stop the endless US/Israel attacks. Ultimately, you're not going to be able to stop a country full of brilliant individuals from building a nuke if they want it. It seems likely that Iran was negotiating in good faith, and then we literally launched an invasion on them mid-negotiation. What's the point of negotiating?

[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Natanz_incident

[simianparrot]

And then they got new intel. Iran is also the primary sponsor of international terrorism, and the entire EU is aligned on sanctioning Iran. I know history of western intervention in the Middle East is full of terrible mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should turn the other cheek. I'd argue we've been to lenient on that front, in many ways.

I don't want us directly interfering in the Middle East, but I also don't want us supporting regimes that are diametrically opposed to our own ways of life. And sanctions are the way to do this.

[somenameforme]

No, they did not get new intel.

The reason the US acts the way it does in the US is not based on any immediate logic. There's a great paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that describes US foreign policy in extremely straight forward language. It was written during Bush's era, but many of the people with their names on it are part of the effectively permanent political establishment.

Their goal was (and perhaps if they're delusional - still is) to maintain hegemonic control over the entire world. The main motivation for things like attacking Iran is 'projecting force.' It's supposed to work to intimidate other countries into deference and compliance without having to actually get involved in a battle with them. Basically mimicking how school bullies work.

So you're looking for a reasonable explanation based on superficial pretexts, but there is none. The same is true of Iraq. It's not like we really thought there were WMD. But it was simply an opportunity to project power and keep the military industrial complex churning.

[simianparrot]

I'm well aware of Iraq and the US military industrial complex. But two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm all for sanctioning Iran until they capitulate. The end.