It's not all about preventing the creation of nuclear weapons. It's also about making sure the common person in $SANCTIONED_COUNTRY feels the pain. User UncleEntity says it better than I could in a comment that is buried a few levels:
Iran is one of those dictatorships where the majority of the population already dislikes (or plain hates) the government, as we have seen in many demonstrations that have been extinguished through use of extreme violence by the regime.
Making life more difficult for ordinary Iranians isn't going to change anything as long as the army and revolutionary guard stay loyal to the criminals in power.
> Iran is one of those dictatorships where the majority of the population already dislikes (or plain hates) the government...
Right, just like the people of Afghanistan must have hated so much the Taliban, with their cruel and tyrannic grip on power... just waiting for a saviour like the Americans to bring them up to the modern age...
Well, we all know that's a load of bullshit now. The very moment the Americans left, without resistance of any kind, the Taliban is back. This happens again and again, in country after country, but people still seem to forget (or not even be aware of anything happening) and think everyone in the world wants to be like them, and when those in faraway places are not behaving like themselves it must be because they're being forcibly coerced by some maleficent dictator or some other imaginary villain.
Things are not black and white. Sure, some people in Iran would love a more West-friendly regime, but almost certainly, most would be horrified if their government suddenly started implementing laws to guarantee freedom of speech, legalize abort, separate state and religion, allow same-sex marriage and sex change operations, and a whole lot of stuff that's only preached by the West and is not at all accepted as good by most of the other cultures in the world... can't people just accept that not everyone thinks the same or want to be the same as themselves?? That goes against the Western's own modern values of being accepting of differences and not trying to submit other cultures to our own values and believes.
I don't think this is what they were saying. The political and economic state in Iran is about as far from Afghanistan as possible. Iran/Persia has a long history of national identity and has a highly organized society. Afghanistan is a tribal region and still does not have a sense of nation or really a mature sense of political identity. Iran is also a major power player in Asia with a far stronger economy, with a GDP in the top quartile in the world, and with one of the best performing stock exchanges in Asia in the last decade, while Afghanistan has for many years been the poorest country in Asia.
That said, Iran has a political structure that owes little to no obedience to the will of the people, with a non-elected supreme leader and guardian council (half of which are appointed by the supreme leader) who have the final say in all political decisions, so the actions of Iran should not be mistaken as the will of the people, even in the loose sense that representative democracies are.
Very valid points. But how would you be able to tell whether the majority of Iranians aren't happy with their Government with confidence?
I find that difficult to believe because, if that were the case, at some point, specially because of all the reasons you mentioned, the people would just get over it and kick the current Government out of office for good?! It may be bloody, but if the people really want it, it's not unreasonable to assume, IMHO, that the military would be onboard with it?? Once the military is on board, there's nothing the politicians and cleric can do to stop it as in a revolution, the only thing that matters is physical power.
IRI is likely in control of IRGC at this point. They summoned ambassadors the other week with FM completely out of the loop! The revolutionary courts just ignored the supreme court's judgment and sentenced Toomaj Salahi -- a rap artist that expressed the voice of the people in his dissident songs -- to death.
IRI is the acronym for Iran's official name, Islamic Republic of Iran. I'm reading this as Iran is in control of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. What are you referring to exactly in your first sentence?
First of all, the I in IRGC stands for Islamic and not Iran. In fact, neither their logo or any of their patches mentions the word IRAN.
As my beloved homeland is, imo, under effective coercive occupation of Islamist ideologues (there is not a even hint of godliness in that regime) it is preferred that you refer to the regime by its name IRI and not cast calumny on the beauty that is IRAN.
The name of the IRGC was not the part of your original comment that I was questioning, but your use of IRI. Did you mean to say that the IRI is no longer in control of the IRGC?
Many people in Iran hate their government, but they hate America more. At least the Iranian government always pulls out a “Death to America” rally as a distraction whenever it’s ion the rocks popularity wise. Internal protests show some discord, but it isn’t clear if that’s just cities and the government is still popular in more rural areas.
Maybe the population hates the dictatorship in the same way that pretty much every country hates their government.
Does that mean that they would cheer for a western take over of their land and economy?
It seems pretty damn unjust to indiscriminately punish people (the Iranian citizens) who may or may not even agree with what the government is doing and certainly have no power to change it in any case. Unfortunately I, too, have no power over my government or else I would lean on them to stop making life worse for people who did nothing wrong.
Yeah, it sucks. The only silver lining I see is that it seems this is the alternative to war, in which case people would be indiscriminately enlisted and killed. Maybe things wouldn't go that far either way but it's all I can think of.
Look at how well sanctions worked on Russia. /s. They sure backfired. Especially the USD based sanctions. The idiots who thought them up managed to do more harm to the U.S. than Russia with them. Just go ahead and send in real troops already. At this point, it’ll be better for the US economy and Ukraine.
Putin claims the US already pays mercenary forces from the U.S, UKraine, and elsewhere already. He also makes the claim that “talk about Russia using a nuke is just U.S. propaganda” from the government to gather consent from the general population to raise taxes.
It might be better, though, to keep open communication channels between average people in the two nations. The more you isolate people in $SANCTIONED_COUNTRY the more they get their information filtered by those in power. Iran is likely perfectly happy that Iranians have been cut off from Minecraft.
> It's also about making sure the common person in $SANCTIONED_COUNTRY feels the pain.
This is exactly it - otherwise the populace can just ignore their government's foreign policy decisions. There's consequences for being a bad actor on the global stage... and today that means no more Minecraft, of all things.
Perhaps the OP can write a letter to their representative and pressure them to work on easing sanctions...
Which is why I'm surprised the response is "sanctions" and not topple the government and install western democracy. It's what the countries imposing the sanctions want to happen anyway.
There's so much historical precedent for this working. If a consortium of Western militaries show up and say "join us fighting against your government or when we win you'll be killed/exiled as a traitor" the population will flip immediately.
It's not as if we don't do this already, we just quietly orchestrate violent revolutions and install people loyal to the west. This method would at least be more honest about it.
What historical precedent? Just in the last 3 decades you had afghanistan, iraq, libya and (ongoing) syria in the middle east alone showing how horrific the consequences of this type of meddling are.
> It's what the countries imposing the sanctions want to happen anyway.
Perhaps that's what the countries wish would happen - but there's dictatorships all around the world that don't enjoy the pointy end of the international community's proverbial sanction stick.
Iran simply has to stop being an international nuisance and people would happily return to doing business there.
In the past decade, we've had two US Administrations that desperately sought to warm relations with Iran. Ball is/was in Iran's court, and so far they keep forcing people to punish them...
These aren't really consequences for being a bad actor on the global stage, these are consequences for being deemed a threat to the interests of the military superpowers and their close allies, this is a very important distinction.
The interests might at times be veiled under a discourse of "rights" or "democracy" or whatever and at times this discourse might even be valid, however the underlying reasoning for it rarely lies there as the kings and his friends are free to do whatever they please.
Their government says that America is an evil spiteful bully. The apparent truth of that claim has now been demonstrated to any Iranian who plays Minecraft. You think the result is more Iranians questioning their government? I doubt it.
There are plenty of Iranians alive today that were around before the current Iranian government. Iranian youth are also much more "aware" of global politics than any generation before them...
I think it's difficult for most Iranians to not be aware of their government's decisions and actions around the globe...
Besides - what alternative would you propose? Just pretend everything is ok and business as usual? Bomb their government instead of using sanctions?
I would suggest creating sanctions that hurt those in power, meaning mainly old bearded men who probably don't play Minecraft. Ordinary people have no power to change anything over there, they get shot if they try.
> I would suggest creating sanctions that hurt those in power
People in power remain in power by keeping the population under control. If the population is indifferent to consequences of the power-class' decisions, then everything can keep rolling along as-is. When the population is impacted negatively by the power-class' decisions - then civil unrest happens. With enough of that, the power-class loses power...
This[1] video does a decent job of highlighting the careful balancing act that's required to remain in power... it also highlights the difficulties of changing the status-quo even for a benevolent dictator that desires to remain a dictator - ie. they have to appease all of the powers-that-be under them.
Sure - but it would be ridiculous to expect the world to continue business as usual with a nation that has dedicated the past few decades to being as big of a nuisance as possible.
Given our administration's current views on Iran, and the Obama administration's similar views, it would have been trivial for Iran to be welcomed back into the international community.
Yet... they once again chose the opposite. So, today, that means no more Minecraft. Perhaps one day the population of Iran will have had enough of their government and make changes.
I applaud sanctions because this time Iran simply went too far. It is completely unprecedented that Iran bombed the consulate if Israel. This is an incredibly reckless escalation of violence.
so lets get this straight, in your opinion, it's better for a state to fund a non state actor and direct them to do terrorist activities, than for the state to do it itself?
i.e. the terrorism should be condemned but the state sponsor of the terrorism has clean hands.
I'd argue just the opposite, the state sponsor of terrorism is actually worse than a state that takes action itself and doesn't delegate it to a 3rd party.
b) consulates are not military bases, so unclear why there was a meeting of Iranian Revolutionary Guard in that building if it was a consulate as you said.
c) It wasn't in Iranian territory
d) Iran is trying to build Syria as a base to attack Israel
e) Israel hasn't fired 300+ ballistic and cruise missiles in the Syria attack. The scale of the Iranian attack is absolutely enormous.
I'm sure these children, who just lost their beloved game character and in-game creations, are going to get right on the task of pressuring their government.
Not all wine and cheese is imported.
+ lack of imported wine or cheese should --eventually-- boost the appearance of local alternatives
+ lack of foreign video games? I don't think it's a cornerstone of the economy the way foodstuffs are. Will a local-grown alternative appear? Maybe; that depends on the local priorities and capabilities.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40158797