I believe that the only party that suffers from those sanctions are actually the populations living in those dictatorships who don't have a say about who is their leader. Who does actually benefit from them and who do they really harm?
Iran has not really stage any offensive wars since 1856 (and most of the XIXe century wars were in fact to recover/maintain control over the Persian Empire which was slowly eaten by the Russian and the UK).
Since 1940, Iran was constantly meddled with by foreign powers, first being invaded during the WW2 by the Allies and the Soviets, with the Soviet reluctantly leaving the country after 1945.
Then the democratically elected Mosaddegh was deposed by the MI6 and the CIA because of "precious Oil". A "Pro-Western" dictatorial government was was put in place. This regime was of course brutal but also at odds with the population and its traditions, leading to a revolution in 1979.
In the midst of this revolution, Irak, another "Western backed" dictatorship tried to profit from the chaos to invade the country which lead to costly a 8 years war leaving ~1 Million people dead. This war is probably the last high intensity conventional war between 2 roughly equals and relatively developed countries to date.
And then in the 2000, it has seen two countries at its borders being invaded by historically hostile powers. And then these countries collapsed into chaos (And I'm even forgetting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80ies).
And lately, after lengthily and complex negotiations, an international accord was signed, just to be thrown out of the window 1 year later by the US, the US then bullying other signatories into not abiding by said accord.
No wonders Iran government stance can be a bit tense at time and that they want the Bomb to be at peace.
Mossadegh was not democratically elected. He was appointed by a dictator. The only part of that process that was even slightly democratic, was indirectly via Majlis vote. The people of Iran never specifically elected Mossadegh.
> No wonders Iran government stance can be a bit tense at time and that they want the Bomb to be at peace.
How does being at peace square with constantly calling for the genocide of Israel across decades and very aggressively funding terrorism & militias? The Iranian people have been protesting their military adventures in Syria as one recent example. Iran is every bit as dirty as the US and Russia when it comes to such activities over the decades in the Middle East.
The Shah carried out the appointment, only after the democratically elected parliament members nominated Mossadegh in an overwhelming majority vote).
This could be considered "slightly more democratic", only if you consider the Australia to be "slightly more democratic" than a dictatorship such as North Korea.
I'm not going to attempt to untangle your final paragraph, only to say you have made some very large claims without any sources to back up your claims.
I do agree that the successive Iranian governments and the Iranian regime is far from a saint in this story, specially since the Islamic revolution.
Calling Israel a "cancer" or a "little satan" (with the US as the "great satan") is an atrocious way to do diplomacy...
The Iran hostage crisis was a really bad starting move. with long lasting consequences.
Iran is also quite active militarily, but the goal is more to maintain security at its border (Iraq), or maintain the few allies it has in the region (Syria, Lebanon). There are reasons behind these adventures, even if that doesn't excuse them.
For example, the guy in the Tweet, who doesn't even live in Iran and is merely ethnically Iranian.
Not to mention anyone in the US (or, just ethnically North American?) who takes the ethical stance of ignoring the sanction and gets punished for it.