In all fairness, the Iranian government is more popular in Iran than the US govenment in the US. The US sanctions wasn't enacted to help the Iranian people, but to weaken a country that the US perceives as an adversary.

This is important. This kind of actions have to be taken as what they are: unilateral actions of a country against another. It is just the US defending what it sees as they interests. But for the rest of the world it is just a maneuver.

For some people in the USA it is difficult to see it. Given their (expected) skew towards their country. But people outside that country can see it with a more objective perspective.

Similar thing is happening with the concentration camps in the south.

You’ve just described the foreign policy of every country in the world.

Are they? Or are the Iranian people too afraid of the Revolutionary Guard to say different? If you want to go that route, North Korea has the most popular government and leader on Earth. I don't think you can make claims about popularity of a government that can and does make people disappear who say otherwise.

Two very different cultures. there has been several protests in Tehran in the last decade with no execution.

NK has their own culture too where it's just wrong to critise their rules (or their parents). we need to stop looking at the world from a globalised western lens.

This comment seems borderline satire. But I guess you’re right. There’s the western way of approving of your government, where you’re free to make up your mind about whether you do or not, and the way that they do it in North Korea and Iran, where you have to constantly fear the consequences of not approving of your government in the appropriate government prescribed manner.

> the Iranian government is more popular in Iran than the US govenment in the US

It really would be sad if you controlled the media, religious doctrines as interpreted by the gov't (which you can't criticize), had censors, and couldn't pull that off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Iran

> If the regime in Iran falls. It won’t be because of US sanctions. It will be because that country has been operated by a brutal dictator for decades, and the Iranian people grew tired of being the enemy of their own government.

If so (that Iran falls not because of US sanctions), surely it follows that there is no point to the sanctions?

They would only serve to embitter the targeted population.

> surely it follows that there is no point to the sanctions?

Not at all. Either the sanctions pressure Iran into changing their policies, or the sanctions restrict their ability or enact those policies.

Of course the US is pressuring Iran to act according to the Interests of the US. But if you want to criticize that, you’d have to look at what they are in this situation.

* Protecting allies in the region (which Iran openly and repeatedly vows to wipe of the map)

* Preventing nuclear proliferation

* Doing so while avoiding war

You have to try quite hard to apply the USA-is-just-a-bully trope to this situation.

"These sanctions are entirely non-violent." Their effect on the rich in these countries mostly is. What about children dying because of a lack of medication?

One could avoid a lot of collateral damage by targeting sanctions at specific powerful individuals. Think of the way some Russian oligarchs from Putin's inner circle got restricted by western sanctions.