As an Iranian, I have to say that while your last sentence might be true (Saudi Arabia sucks after all), I'd still rather live in a world where the opposing superpower would pressure my country to respect human rights and stop funding terrorism, fundamentalism, and misinformation. (See what North Korea's effective foreign immunity has brought its people.) This, of course, is hypocritical on the US part, but hypocrisy is better than complacency.

I wonder when the US will get sanctioned for its support of terrorists, fundamentalism, misinformation, and human rights abuse. It has a long history of these things, and they are getting worse and more blatant at an alarming rate.

You can't be found guilty when you have veto power.

Come on, didn't you understand yet that the US doesn't give a damn about Iran's respect for human rights? Do you think Israel is respecting Palestinians' human rights? Or is Saudi Arabia respecting human rights? Of course not, and yet they are the US's best buddies. The US even had an agreement that put a stop to Iran's nuclear program and soothed the tensions with the West, allowing Iranians to improve their living conditions and hopefully at some point ditch radicalism. They threw it in the bin, because what the US fears is ultimately a non-aligned country with the strenghts to stand against external aggression.

What the US really wants is not respect of human rights or better living conditions for the people (see Libya, see Iraq, see Palestine, see the bloody civil war in Syria). What they want is to reduce every non-aligned country to either vassal or rubble.

> hypocrisy is better than complacency

This is a great phrase, I'm going to borrow that and use it.

Thanks for sharing your perspective as an Iranian, I find it quite interesting.

I'm curious if:

1) you still live in Iran and/or have immediate family who do?

2) is your opinion common amongst Iranians (and/or Persians)?

3) do/would you still feel the same way if the sanctions brought extreme economic hardship on the people of Iran?

(Considering your remark about North Korea, I'm assuming the answer to the latter is "yes".)

1) I and almost all my (even distant) family live in Iran.

2) I don’t know. I know there is a minority (again no idea how big) that really likes Trump because they really hate the Islamic regime, but these people tend to be poor (? Again not that sure) and have little grasp of economics or international politics.

3) The current sanctions have brought extreme hardships on us Iranians. From my own selfish viewpoint, I am hoping for much lighter sanctions from the potential Biden presidency. I would, however, prefer the harsh sanctions to the IR ever having nuclear bombs. (Not that I can see them being effective at preventing the bombs.) I am also not poor; I think a high-pressure strategy that results in a mass revolution by the poor can be to their medium term advantage (such a revolution would, of course, hurt the middle/upper classes a lot). But such a revolution might very well be impossible by the modern technology and the centralization of power. So to summarize, I think effective sanctions will be worth the hardships they cause, but ineffective sanctions not. The current hard sanctions seem ineffective to me unless they are made much more stringent (which might not be possible) or are paired with military interventions.

You’re not wrong, so far as I can tell. Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Iran has some serious issues, but they don’t appear to be worse than the Saudis or any number of other countries we (the US) consider allies.

Iran funds terrorism and is developing nuclear weapons and has a history of imperialism. Should Saudi Arabia be sanctioned too? I'd say so. Should we stop sanctioning Iran until then? no.

So does the US? Should everyone be sanctioning us?

Afaik the U.S. no longer sponsors terrorists. I'd love a link if I'm misguided. Further, elimination of zionists is still a stated goal of the Iranian government. I'm not saying Israel is guilt free of course, but afaik they've never threatened nuking anyone. Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Link on current US funding:https://theintercept.com/2019/10/26/syrian-rebels-turkey-kur... As other comments saying, this info always lags a few years. But there's never been any official reckoning when these details come out, so no reason to assume it has stopped. See also US promotion of Elliot Abrams, despite his connection to the EL Mozote massacres.

On your second point, I want to be clear that I'm not defending the Iranian gov't. I disagree with the use of sanctions that disproportionately effect the least powerful in there society, by design. This is compounded by the fact that the reasons for these sanctions are not moral violations, as the US and its allies behave in much the same way, but instead about international power.

Thank you for the link. I think there's an argument that the syrian rebels were fighting terrorism before they were themselves terrorists, but I agree that the US should not be involved in the conflict, and definitely shouldn't fund paramilitary groups with the potential to become terrorists. The U.S. now admitting it was a mistake is important though, because the point of sanctions is to force a government to change its policies.

Geopolitics is messy. In the end I don't see any other strategy besides war that could force Irans hand. If the choices are 1. Show the world that purposefully funding terrorism goes unpunished 2. war, or 3. sanctions I think sanctions are the choice that provides the greatest amount of utility, even if they do harm many.

Purposely funding terrorism does go unpunished, if you're a US ally. This is my point, that our sanctions against Iran have nothing to do with "morality". They are about power.

Yes, that's what being allies is. We do stuff for them they do stuff for us. I don't think that's immoral. Cooperation allows us to accomplish incredible things. Cooperation is built on relationships and trust.

As in the US trust's them to fund terrorists in way that advantages us? Then yes, we agree on the state of the world. I just think it's bad.

"No longer" is doing a lot of work here, because by its nature none of this stuff comes out for a number of years after it occurs. We might also ask whether the "rebel" groups the US arms in e.g. Syria are terrorist organizations from another perspective, where four years ago DoD-funded groups were fighting CIA-funded groups: https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-...

> Afaik the U.S. no longer sponsors terrorists.

I find that very hard to believe, considering the activities of the CIA -- just the ones we know about -- over the last several decades (or, really, since its beginning).

--

Side note:

Does selling billions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia count as sponsoring terrorists?

cf. Jamal Khashoggi, et al.

A state killing a political opponent, however unacceptable, isn't terrorism. The point of terrorism is that it effects unsuspecting bystanders. I already said I think we should sanction the saudis though, because they actually are sponsoring terrorism. See the Yemen war and their funding of al queda as well as their infiltration of twitter.

"unsuspecting bystanders"

What about civilians killed by Saudi Arabia with American-made cluster bombs?[0] Do they count?

[0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/05/06/yemen-saudis-using-us-cl...

I literally said that the Saudi's actions in Yemen were terrorism in the comment you're replying to?

Oh, right, haven't read that far :) Sorry)

The US has sponsored terrorists covertly for decades now. Just because they stopped publically sponsoring terrorists doesn't mean much when most of the last century was spent covertly sponsoring them too.

Ok but if Iran stopped publicly sponsoring terrorists and trying to nuke Israel they wouldn't be sanctioned. The public support is an integral part of why they're sanctioned.

This is, basically, naive and your view of the world would likely be greatly expanded by reading Manufacturing Consent or Inventing Reality.

Iran would definitely be sanctioned no matter what. The goal of sanctioning Iran is to suppress the Iranian economy and prevent them from somehow achieving the kind of influence that they would naturally have over the Middle East.

"they've never threatened nuking anyone"

Not quite the same, but anyway.

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

Well, I think the sanctions exists because of the nuclear program.

NATO is not going to trade and help technologically a country that's trying to develop nuclear weapons in order to threaten to NATO and their main officially stated enemy – United States.

Why would you buy oil from a country or give access to your tech to them when they are using these resources to ramp up their military against you?

> Why would you buy oil from a country or give access to your tech to them when they are using these resources to ramp up their military against you?

Does the US sanction China like it does Iran? The only difference is that China is a larger market than Iran and is close to power parity with the US.

These sanctions are ineffective and disproportionately punish your average Iranian citizen, while we ignore the elephant that is China, which is far more dangerous as an adversary [1] [2].

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Year-Marathon-Strategy-Replac...

[2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/09/04/w...

Different levels of adversaries require different approaches? The attempted migration of manufacturing of US business from China to other countries I believe is ongoing?

One of the things Iran's unambiguously guilty of is these same kinds of access restrictions. If you've ever wondered why Google's sanctions-related controversy was focused on Google Cloud, it's because that was the biggest Google service allowed at the time - search, Gmail, and Youtube had already been banned by the Iranian government.

So while I share the skepticism expressed upthread that blocking websites is effective diplomacy, it's hard for me to look at the situation and see a one-sided problem.

A couple things to note here. Youtube is blocked, but Google Search or Gmail or not.

Secondly, this is not a question of they block our services, so we block their services. In both cases, it is Iranians who lose access to services.

If anything, it highlights the hypocrisy of pretending to care about Iranian freedom.

Since you know that Google search isn't blocked in Iran, can you tell me if there are any ads displayed in the results? It's something I've been curious about for a while.

Interesting, you seem to be right. I don't know how I managed to read the news about Gmail being blocked but miss that it was unblocked like a week later.

I'm in complete agreement that most of our "allies" in the region are fairweather friends and as morally bankrupt as anyone else.

However, I'm also in favor of blanket sanctions against any nation whose parliament takes up a literal "Marg bar Āmrikā" collective chant.

That's ironic, that you have a problem with casuality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...

Yep, the US did terrible things to Iran 67 years ago. How much time has to pass before it's no longer appropriate? Would it have been appropriate for the US congress to chant "death to Japan" in 2008? The Islamic Revolution was 41 years ago. Should the South Korean parliament be chanting "death to China"?

As if the US has stopped harming Iran 67 years ago.

And at the same time the US still imposes embargo on Cuba, 60 years after the nationalization of the property of American companies [0]. How much time has to pass before it's no longer appropriate?

"In October 1960 a key incident occurred: Eisenhower's government refused to export oil to the island, leaving Cuba reliant on Soviet crude oil, which the American companies in Cuba refused to refine. This led the Cuban government to nationalize all three American-owned oil refineries in Cuba in response. The refinery owners were not compensated for the nationalization of their property. The refineries became part of the state-run company, Unión Cuba-Petróleo.[19][20] This prompted the Eisenhower administration to launch the first trade embargo—a prohibition against selling all products to Cuba except food and medicine. The Cuban regime responded with nationalization of all American businesses and most American privately-owned properties on the island. No compensation was given for the seizures, and a number of diplomats were expelled from Cuba."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...

So because they chanted "Death to America," you are in favor of imposing sanctions that will cause the death of Iranians?

If someone communicates that they want to kill you, I think refusing to do business with them is an incredibly subdued response.

Even though refusing to do business with them will cause some of their family to die of starvation or lack of medicine?

Yes. It's the same reason I don't shop at Hobby Lobby despite a boycott potentially causing innocent workers to lose their livelihood.

They can find new jobs, the people you've killed for disagreeing with your foreign policy are dead forever.

I've found myself in an awkward position defending sanctions I don't really agree with anyway. I'm not sure these differences of opinion are reconcilable. Some people think the appropriate response to death threats is to ignore them, and others like me think the appropriate response is a cruise missile.

You realize that "Death to America" is not remotely a death threat? At worst it wants to see the fall of America and most Iranians say they just want the end of America's imperialist policies.

And you're against sanctions because they don't kill enough people.

Even a cursory Wikipedia-level glance at the US's actions in Iran over the past century should bring understanding of why people might feel that way toward us. The solution is not to punish such sentiments but address our historical misbehavior and demonstrate it won't continue in the future. We are doing neither.