[chabska]

> Nobody should be expected to take that risk

I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

Their authoritarian militaristic government that doesn't care for human rights.

If you apply the same standard to the North Korean citizens, that they should not be expected to "take that risk", they your country's sanctions are pure collective punishment with no strategic value. You just tortured people for fun.

[kelnos]

> I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries...

"You all" is a weird way of putting it. I don't support my government levying sanctions on these countries, but I have zero power to change it.

It's funny, as the gist author points out that he doesn't support the actions of the Islamic Republic, and has no power to change it because it's minority rule by a theocratic dictatorship.

But even in the US, no one I've ever had the option to vote for (and who had even a remote chance of winning) would ever consider lifting these sanctions. So I am similarly powerless to change this situation.

I think sanctions are largely pointless if their stated goal is to get citizens to rise up and change their governments. Asking people to risk their lives (when you're not risking anything at all) is an awful thing to do, and this sort of thing isn't likely to work.

But it's probably not really that; the idea is to choke the economies of these countries so they can't do whatever Bad Thing the sanction-leviers are worried about (like developing nuclear weapons). How effective sanctions are at achieving that goal is an exercise left to the reader. And even if they are effective, there's a lot of collateral damage that hurts people who have no say in the matter.

[tuveson]

> But even in the US, no one I've ever had the option to vote for (and who had even a remote chance of winning) would ever consider lifting these sanctions. So I am similarly powerless to change this situation.

Not saying Obama’s foreign policy was perfect, but he did do the Iran nuclear deal which lifted some sanctions, and started the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Like so many other things, these were immediately undone by his successor…

[swat535]

> but I have zero power to change it.

I was under the assumption that in Western democracies, citizens have a say their government and its enacted laws.

We can't unfortunately assert the same for people of Iran since they don't live in a democracy.

[imchillyb]

Sanctions are not designed to coerce a populace into rebellion, in order to facilitate regime change.

Sanctions are designed to prevent an enemy government from profiting from our western economy. Sanctions are designed to bring hostile entities to the negotiation table. Sanctions curtail the worst behaviors of enemy nations because the sanctions deny those enemies money. Money is power. Little money = little power.

[YC984983427]

> but I have zero power to change it.

Well, it sounds like you should rise up against your government in violent revolution, then! After all, that's what's expected of Iranian, Cuban and Venezuelan people when the West destroys their countries with sanctions. Get to it!

[lelanthran]

> I've seen this sentiment so many times from westerners. You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government

That's a total non-sequitor.

GP stated that he will personally face prison time for going against the laws of his country.

Why would anyone risk jail time for you? For your countrymen? Why don't you risk jail time for some other country?

[Seattle3503]

> You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

I think the argument is that you deprive belligerent companies from the resources they need to attack and harm others. The suffering their citizens endure is unfortunate, but why should Americans take the blame when Kim Jong Un is so obviously culpable?

[coldtea]

>with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

That's the PR justification. The real one is "to hurt the countries and make them do as we say" and "because we can".

[ajuc]

You misunderstand the goal of the sanctions.

Sanctions are there to cut off 1-2% of GDP each year from the dictatorships' economies.

Over 30 years that turns countries into harmless (to the West) backwater shitholes.

The consequences towards the local populations are just a side-effect (sometimes wanted, sometimes not).

You cannot expect people outside of your dicatorship to prioritize your well being over their own safety. It's on you to fix your country. If you won't - people will isolate you to keep their countries safe.

Can't really blame them.

[ACCount37]

This. The point is, and always was, to exert economic pressure.

Some sanctions aim at military capabilities directly - but most just aim to throw a wrench into a country's economy overall. Which does hurt the population - but it also hurts a country's capabilities, which is the goal.

If North Korea wasn't sanctioned to shit, it would have had the resources to build not dozens but hundreds of ICBMs. This is undesirable, so North Korea remains sanctioned to shit.

[jiggawatts]

This is the right answer, and it's sad to see it so far down the list.

This is the precise realpolitik of international sanctions, it's just not spoken out loud that often.

Don't believe me, some random commenter. Listen to the Professor of History and Grand Strategy at the U.S. Naval War College explain it: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B0k5ToABH7o

[cess11]

No, they're there to kill people. It's war by non-military means, and the US is waging such a war on a very large portion of the world.

There is a recent study concluding that sanctions kill half a million people per annum: <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...>

I don't know what you mean by dictatorship but I'm not exactly adverse to applying the same term to the US, it being a one-party state with the audacity of having two parties, and either way, it's by far the most hostile and violent of contemporary state powers.

[waihtis]

One would think the finger pointing should go towards the shitty governments causing trouble and pain for their own citizens, but somehow you've managed to find an angle to blame the West.

It is truly an unthankful job being the saviour of the entire world.

[vovavili]

>with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government

The justification is reduced financial capacity for war and similar atrocities.

[vFunct]

It doesn't reduce financial capacity for war. It moves the war dollars to different countries.

[junon]

"We" don't do anything. We have a very out-of-touch government at the moment. A lot of us would like things to be very, very different.

[fvgvkujdfbllo]

Iran or United States?

[breppp]

So without sanctions or a military strike, how will a nuclear program will evaporate? spontaneously? Or do you think that nuclear blackmail like the NK case is something that should be accepted

[Keirmot]

Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good. From that perspective, sanctions aren’t meant as “torture for fun,” (as you put it) but as a way of creating pressure so governments change their behavior without having to resort to war. They’re basically a tool to raise the cost of bad actions and make it more attractive to adjust course.

At the same time, sanctions also work in other ways: they punish governments that break international norms, they send a signal to the world about what’s considered unacceptable, and they reaffirm shared values. That’s why they’re still used despite the harsh effects on ordinary people. They aren’t a perfect solution, but in Western thinking their role is to combine pressure, deterrence and symbolism, rather than just collective punishment for its own sake.

[tsimionescu]

The poster above was pointing out that this is a double standard. You don't expect a US citizen to risk their livelihood to help an Iranian, but you then expect an Iranian citizen to risk their livelihood AND life to topple a regime that is doing things that the USA doesn't like.

So, you either take personal responsibility for enforcing sanctions yourself, or you admit that sanctions are a form of collective punishment for no reason. You can't have it both ways.

[ivell]

The leadership of countries under sanctions rarely change their behavior due to sanctions. However the effect on the population of the countries is that they turn against the countries applying the sanctions. It becomes easier for the leaders to sell the sanctions to their populace as the enemy action. If the West is expecting any revolution due to sanctions, I have not seen it.

However, sanctions do have a symbolic value. And I also can't think of anything else short of military action to express displeasure.

[542354234235]

>Sanctions have a theoretical basis behind them. In the Western Political Philosophical Canon, leaders and elites are expected to strive for the Common Good.

I would say it is a bit more realpolitik than that. An "Evil" leader doesn't care about the common good, but all leaders need subordinates to carry out their orders, security forces to carry out their rules, etc. Sanctions are meant to put pressure on all those people. So either A; the leader changes their actions so as not to risk losing the people that turn their will into action, or B; those subordinates put someone else in charge that will play ball.

[wang_li]

Not trading with a despot can just be not trading with a despot. It doesn't have to have an agenda.

If I personally choose to boycott a sneaker brand because I have a firm belief that they run sweatshops in a foreign country, is that collective punishment? No, I'm just not supporting someone who doesn't align with my values. Even if, as a side effect, the workers won't be getting the pittance that they would have gotten from my purchase.

[klntsky]

> with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

I dont't know what is this based on, but no, sanctions are needed to stop the other party from benefitting from economic activity, not to punish.

[SalmoShalazar]

Sounds like punishment to me.

[petre]

Well, that's too bad. Lifting sanctions opens up opportunities for non-alligned government spies and saboteurs. I recall there is a problem with remote workers from the DPRK employed by Western companies. These citizens are already collectively punished by their governments. I used to live in such a country until the US managed to lead on the USSR into bankrupting themselves. Thank you, America! Thank you Ronald Reagan for all the USSR jokes! Thank you Michael Gorbachev for letting it slide!

[koonsolo]

So your proposal is that we do business with all these countries so they have thriving economies with more money they can invest into their government and military?

[nashashmi]

> with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

Is this really a US endeavor by policy?

[nemomarx]

It's the occasionally given justification for embargos on Cuba, Sanctions on North Korea, etc. Whether you believe it's the real reason is a different question.

[gosub100]

It's like saying "all you" Iranians are choosing to publicly hang political prisoners using (Western) construction equipment.

[nmilo]

This the exact same as the email from the post, but the other way around. Either both normal Iranians are responsible for arming Russians and normal Americans are responsible for sanctions, or neither are. In general I don’t like blaming people for the actions of their government.

[Ajedi32]

The US is a democracy, so Americans are, at least on a collective level, responsible for the actions of their government, though not on an individual level of course.

Iran is a theocratic autocracy. Only the autocrat and his supporters bear any significant responsibility for the actions of the government there.

[roenxi]

I just want to add one angle I don't think the other comments covered well - it is obvious that nobody pushing the propaganda angle ("encouraging them to rise up") is serious because the track record is far too clear. I can't think of an instance where sanctions have ever triggered a political change and if they do then it is rarer than a country's elites changing direction due to internal political concerns. Nobody believes sanctions will cause political change in their targets. It is almost unthinkable that they would. What could that even look like? If someone has the power to threaten a country then they don't need to actually levy the sanctions to get compliance. Countries only get sanctioned if the sanctions aren't enough pressure to cause change.

The point of sanctions is to cripple the middle and lower classes, destroying a country's ability to fund a military. That actually makes it less likely for a dictatorship to get overthrown - the middle class is too poor to organise which is desirable from the West's perspective. Dictatorships are really bad at waging war effectively, they struggle to handle the complex logistics and are easier to distract and threaten.

[frabcus]

The example usually given by pro-sanctions campaigners is South Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during...)

[guappa]

This is also applied to italian citizens individually if they say documented facts about what is happening in Palestine.

[deadbabe]

Those countries wouldn’t benefit even if the embargos were lifted. Cuba and North Korea would still be shitty places even if the US had no sanctions on them. There is nothing the US could provide these countries through trade that would suddenly make life better.

[somenameforme]

It's not for fun. It's that politicians are largely impotent in many situations, but refuse to accept this. I mean they're the leader of entire countries after all, and in the case of the US you're the leader of ostensibly the strongest military in the world, with enough nukes to end the world at your finger tips 24/7. How can you not be omnipotent, the most powerful person alive!?

But then it turns out that war is too dirty, cyber stuff isn't dirty enough. So what's left? Economics - sanctions. We've carried out 374 ultra important meetings, and traveled to 73 different countries, to prepare this critical 974th package of sanctions. This time it'll actually do something and be totally more effective than other 973, in spite of the fact that obviously the most impactful things are the first to be sanctioned.

It's obviously little more than theatrics, but it lets politicians feel powerful and like they're exerting influence on their enemies. And indeed, they may be responsible, at least in poorer countries for some people starving, which is then mental gymnasticed into 'Ah hah! They'll blame their government, overthrow them and become our ally, the people making them starve.'

It's really a shock that seems to basically never come to fruition. Well except when you're sanctioning a third of the planet [1], including many of the most unstable places in the world, and any time there's a regime change in these places - 'Ah hah! See? Sanctions work!' The fact that said change would often have happened in any case is kindly swept aside. It's akin to the joke that Zerohedge has successfully predicted 53 of the last 3 economic recessions.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_sanct...

[bradlys]

Who is "you"?

The US government doesn't reflect the majority of Americans, at all. It reflects capital interests - which the majority of Americans are not. Majority of Americans are laborers.

[MarceColl]

Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like a generic "you", not talking about you specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

[Xelbair]

it was voted in by majority, no matter what mental gymnastics you do.

People either voted, or decided that their vote was worthless enough.

[jaapz]

> and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

What other options are there, except idly sitting by or invading?

[hrbsoscbfo]

> you

> you

> you

You don’t understand what the word “you” means.

[ezoe]

Well, we let China grow but there is no democracy or human right in China.

[sofixa]

> You all say this, and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, with the justification that by making their citizens lives horrific, you encourage them to rise against their government.

That's (usually) a secondary goal of sanctions, if even that. The primary is to restrict the regime's ability to fund its growth, stability and military operations.

Russia can no longer (that easily) sell its oil and gas? Great, that's less money to invest into rockets and drones and tanks against Ukraine. It's also less money in the pockets of the oligarchs.

Realistically, you can't really push the civilians of a country to revolt with sanctions, or bombing. As Carl Spaatz said:

> Morale in a totalitarian society is irrelevant so long as the control patterns function effectively.

[mgax]

For fun?

[chickenzzzzu]

[flagged]

[umanwizard]

> and yet at the same time you levy economic sanctions on countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea

No, I don't do this. I'm not in charge of the government. Who is "we" ?

[Xelbair]

'You' elect the government. Even if you didn't vote for ruling parties, majority did.

Also it seems to be a common thing in Europe to refer to other's country populace OR government as plural 'You'. From my small sample size of 3, Americans were always confused by this and thought they were personally attacked.

[matsemann]

Not a dig at you, but it's a bit funny/worrisome to see how "we" are not in charge of what our governments do and "Nobody should be expected to take that risk" here, while comments from for instance sfn42 and mvdtnz says the Iranian people are supporting their government because they live and work in the country and should either take the risk by revolting or be classified as supporters of the government.

Such hypocrisy.

[honeybadger1]

you can't just use harsh language to remove dictators or fascist leaders.

[matheusmoreira]

I for one want the USA to apply more sanctions, not less. It's debatable whether country-wide sanctions are just or even effective but I still think they should be applying sanctions much more freely than they are now.

The USA applied sanctions to the family members and law practice of a supreme court judge from my country literally yesterday. It's said this cut them off from hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.

It really kills their champagne socialism nonsense. They destroy my country and then enjoy foreign developed nations on taxpayer dime. You have no idea how good it feels to see these "gods" get what they deserve. I'll be forever thankful to Trump for it.

[tonyhart7]

don't get me wrong, US gov has many flaw and cons but are you seriously comparing it to like north korea??? this is fucking crazy

also what company even can do???? its law from gov

[incone123]

Do you think North Korean leaders would be nicer to their people if there were no sanctions?