Doesn't the Iranian government deserve at least some of the blame here?
I don't think the Iranian government is "blameless" in general. (If countries were individual people, all of them would be in jail, with most of them about to hang for war crimes.)
But in the very specific context of embargoing software devs (versus weapons), I do think all of the blame for that is on countries on the imposing end of embargo. Big difference between "systemWMD" and actual WMDs. ;)
The horribly broken crypto we all had to deal with in the 2000s was partially due to US trying to treat it like a "munition" and thus weakening everyone - even themselves - by the mere existence of the hobbled "export-grade" ciphers.
"If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries on missions of war, goods must cross them on missions of peace." - Mallery, Economic Union and Durable Peace
Thus, embargoes are acts of war. Also, as evidenced by this very article, they don't tend to have the desired effect on their targets anyway, instead largely affecting innocent people and especially those of lesser means.
Tell me more about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"The nuclear program of Iran has included several research sites, two uranium mines, a research reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include three known uranium enrichment plants.[1] In 1970, Iran ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),[2] making its nuclear program subject to the IAEA's verification. ... In the 2000s, the revelation of Iran's clandestine uranium enrichment program raised concerns that it might be intended for non-peaceful uses. The IAEA launched an investigation in 2003 after an Iranian dissident group revealed undeclared nuclear activities carried out by Iran.[5][6] In 2006, because of Iran's noncompliance with its NPT obligations, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment programs. ... However, in July 2019 the IAEA stated that Iran had breached the agreement.[19] Iran has, since its breach in July 2019 of the JCPOA,[20] embroiled itself in controversy with half of the JCPOA signatories because a November 2020 IAEA report said that Iran had further developed centrifuge technology, the novelty of which was explicitly prohibited by the JCPOA.[21] The IAEA report also said that Tehran "holds more than 12 times the amount of enriched uranium permitted under the JCPOA, and that "work has also begun on the construction of new underground facilities close to Natanz, its main enrichment facility".[22]"
Sorry - not going to play that game.
> Sorry - not going to play that game.
You assume bad faith on my part for no good reason.
You accused me of "playing games". How else should I have interpreted that?
> I could write a lengthy explanation, but as I said: You're not offering anything to the conversation.
You're assuming bad faith again.
Funny thing, international law. Nobody's in charge.
Between countries, everything resembling law is held together by diplomacy, persuasion, agreements, treaties, etc. Sanctions are part of that network, for better or worse.
Treaties are generally treated as law by signatories. So, "illegal". Not that it really matters any; who's going to arrest a country?