Sanctions that worsen things for ordinary people really isn't going to change much in countries like this. It would be much more productive to try turn the army against the regime, or organize political and armed resistance.
If you want a democratic Iran, both the current government of Iran and its most powerful enemies will do everything they can to stop you.
Now I agree that the policies of the United States may not always be in the interest of the people from that part of the world, but a "mild" dictator like the one that the Saudi Arabia has or the one that Turkey has right now, these are better models sometimes. The SA of 50 years ago had no notion of human rights and severely under developed and could in no way support a democracy. Of course a dictatorship is not ideal, and the people of SA will have to pay a terrible price for it some day, but for now a dictatorship that "bows" to the west is not the worst thing either.
The actual intent of sanctions is to cause economic damage. In that respect this is an account of the sanctions working exactly as intended: they are making it harder for OP to work as a software developer, which makes it harder for the Iranian regime to benefit (directly or indirectly) from the efforts of software developers in Iran.
It's probably some kind of coping mechanism for not knowing anything about the people they're talking about, or they want to keep their world view nice and clean: we, the good guys, VS them, the uncivilized bad guys. It's as accurate as saying "all Americans are pro Maga white Christians because obviously if they weren't their government would be different"
A shower thought:
Wouldn't it make more sense if country A that considers sanctions against country B provided very "cushy" immigration laws for highly educated people from country B so that country A profits from these people's efforts while country B will suffer from a brain drain?
And by "hold power internally" I don't mean population uprising, I mean to keep the factions within the government (especially the military) united under the leadership by buying them out.
I believe increased population unhappiness is more of a side-effect that can be both beneficial (if it incites anti-government sentiment) or detrimental (if it incites nationalism) to the country imposing sanctions.
The current government of Iran is a direct result of the US's meddling in this way, so I'm not convinced this is a winning strategy either.
Like we did in Afghanistan? Because we lost Afghanistan in the same time we took the country, about two weeks.
Where did you get that data from and what do you mean by "hate" in quantifiable terms? (just being "unhappy" with outcomes of certain policies does not mean they would necessarily want to uproot everything for the better)
Who would give an honest answer here?
Tales from an insider don't help very much, because people will only report about their own bubble, the city/province/town they live in, their family and friends of similar interest and social status, their workplace, etc. Also, there can be a severe selection bias, people wanting to talk to outsiders on the internet or even leave a country are probably more often critical of a regime and its decisions.
So from the outside, the only sensible thing we can do is see the country as a whole, lump in the government with the people. Because we cannot really know if people think differently and who they are. We cannot isolate or punish "just the government". And if there were a majority against the current government, there would be a revolution at some point. If there isn't one, opposition against the regime just isn't strong enough.
And on the flip side of that, the less educated people are, the more susceptible they are to propaganda.
They have the power to choose who rules them if they want to. Nobody else does. Iranians are responsible for Iran's actions just like Russians are responsible for Russia's actions and Americans are responsible for America's actions.
It's easy to call for action from your comfortable life.
No, the populace does not bear the same responsibility for the country's actions in all countries. Swiss with direct democracy bear much higher responsibility than systematically oppressed populace in other countries.
Failing that, I don't know. I guess they'll have to figure it out as they go. All I'm saying is it's their country, their responsibility. And for example in the case of Russia there's clearly widespread support for Putin and his war so I'm not really expecting nor calling for them to do anything about it. I'm just saying I hold them responsible and I think the rest of the world should too. A leader is nothing without followers.
This screams privilege. I wish you never experience oppression, but please try to understand you privilege.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that it's easy or even possible. Though I also don't think we can completely rule out the possibility of a peaceful revolution. Stranger things have happened. And it certainly would be better than a violent one.
Anyway have a nice day
I agree that the person you're replying to is getting a bit testy, but I think it's a bit justified, as you're being a bit obtuse here.
"Ideally" is irrelevant. We're not talking about ideal cases in these threads, so to bring up that word feels disingenuous. Yes, ideally people in a country where their government is doing bad things can peacefully replace their government with another one that won't do bad things.
But in practice, where in the world does that actually exist? Basically nowhere? So what's the point in bringing it up?
> Though I also don't think we can completely rule out the possibility of a peaceful revolution.
That's a bunch of weasel-word language. Sure, you can't "completely" rule out anything. But for most (all?) of the places under discussion, there's something like a 0.001% chance of that happening, which is far below the threshold of not even bothering to bring up the possibility.
Here's a history on nonviolent revolutions though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution
Yes, there is widespread support for Putin and his war - but by this very reason, how can Russians who do not support Putin and his war can be held responsible for it? What do you expect this minority to do, exactly? You can't hold people responsible for not doing something if you can't even articulate what that something is is.
Your entire argument is premised on the notion that there's a coherent "them". But that is virtually never the case, even in popular dictatorships.
These things affect everyone, that's why we all have a responsibility.
Some even line up to vote for sham Presidential elections of the Mullah regime, whose turnout legitimizes the regime, while inside the United States! Being Stanford educated does not prevent this seemingly cognitive dissonance or perhaps deception; it actually makes that more likely.
Then I recommend some history books. Family ties can be strong and the persecution of the jews was not always as violent and open as it was during the war. It was more systematic discrimination in the beginning, so of course people still travelled back and forth. Uprooting a whole family is not a simple thing.
"Some even line up to vote for sham Presidential elections of the Mullah regime"
What else they are supposed to do?
That is a small option of influence and they use it. You think the Mullahs would loose their power if people just would not vote for them? If that would be true, they would be a democracy.
I am positing perhaps they are a democracy. Many of the "educated people" in question that the GP suggests "hate" the government, may say so but their actions nevertheless are directly and indirectly benefiting the Mullahs. Democracy does not mean good, or effective, or not evil. It might be a collective compromise towards mediocrity and stagnation.
Then maybe take a closer look into how their system works.
Every candidate has to be approved by the Mullah's. So the Mullah's are effectivly in control. Still, there are differences with the candidates. Would I vote under such conditions? No idea, I am struggle to find a party representing my views and I am in a western democracy.
To be clear, I am not defending their system. I am suggesting democracy is not a panacea that automatically guarantees prosperity. Far from it.
No, but I would say it is a precondition for broad prosperity. When the wealth and power lies concentrated with small minority, they tend to use their power to keep it that way. If power is distributed, so will be the wealth usually. And yes, I do see some problems with western democracies as well.
Rule of law is much more important to success and prosperity than fetishizing a mechanism to vote in the head of state. There has been many successful instances of prosperous monarchy in Iran and elsewhere throughout history. The rich Persian Gulf states are prosperous monarchies. Iran was too, a constitutional monarchy, uprooted by Islamic-Marxist ideology partially in the name of “social democracy,” as if that’s a virtuous goal. What they ended up is Mullah. Chaos and tyranny, as Hamilton and Adams would predict.
If you are into that, good luck with that and hope that there will never be a retarted king. Because it all depends on whether the king is nice and capable, or not.
Is that the stability and rule of law I should look forward? And they are all not so long lived either btw.
Plots, intrigues and coup d'etat of people who think they would make a better king is still a thing.
And .. I do make the claim that a real direct democracy does not tend to centralisation of power, as there are check and balances, but politicians left alone surely will aim for that as it make governing easier.
In a democracy if you control all the votes of people you should be able to make changes in the government that the incumbent may not want. You can't do this in Iran.
How are you sure about this? What evidence or statistics do you have that there have been enough people who want an alternative that is sufficiently different? It appears the regime is great at persuading people they want some sort of "light reform" and propagandized the populace to hate taking a risk for real change. It appears lots of people talk the talk but are comfortable where they are and in fact resist change when it happens. Otherwise you should have seen some level of unrest given the lack of water and electricity and the regime at its weakest.
Vice versa, how sure are you about it being true in other countries? Looking at various elections in parliamentary systems like Germany, France, or Canada, it does appear that even a strong opposition has a really hard time competing with the status quo in a "democratic" setup. The system resorts to all trickery including importing voters and creating unnatural coalitions to enforce the establishment agenda. And that is not including physical elimination of the opponent which was attempted in the United States.
That is because they wouldn't be having a family in Germany since they would be dead
Not sure how bringing a family member an iPhone is "benefiting the Mullah's system". It's a rounding error. And those family members are well aware that they can't get an iPhone in the usual way.
> I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family
They might, though, despite the risk! And this isn't really a great comparison, since a Jewish person visiting Nazi Germany to visit family would run a high risk of being found out and sent to a camp (along with the family they're visiting) and killed. I don't think that sort of thing would likely be the case for an Iranian expat visiting family in Iran.
Iran had a democratic government. That democratic government voted to do something against Britian's economic interests. In response America dissolved it's government.
If I lived in a nation where any government instability would be used by wealth foreign powers who didn't care if I lived or died, I would also be hesitant in brewing any anti-government fervor.
You can't hold them wholly responsible when they don't even have the power of true self determination.
I don't care what your history is. I care what you're doing now, and if what you're doing now is killing people over 80 year old beef (or anything else really) then I have absolutely no respect for you nor your history. Get over it, move forward. War should be a thing of the past at this point, we all share one planet.
I'm not sure how Iranian's are supposed to "get over" the fact that America wants middle-east hegemony. My point is exactly that:
You wish the blame the Iranians for the problems with their government, but the underlying problems with their government is because _Americans_ can't stop electing war hawks. The only sin Iranians have comitted in the eyes of the west is being born on top of an oil field. The "beef" might be 80 years old, but the oil is there today and America wants it's cut. Iran didn't want sell their oil to the British while their own people starved and for that they've been a quagmire for 80 years. You are asking them to live as slaves in the name of peace.
Would you tell Ukrainians that they are at fault for the war?
The only part of your claims that I've found information about is the CIA/MI6 orchestrating a coup in 1953, over 70 years ago. Iran was an ally for a long time after that, the Iranian revolution happened two decades later.
So unless you can point to something more recent I really don't think your blaming the US makes a lot of sense. Iran was an ally of the west and Israel for a long time, then religious extremists took over and pissed all over those alliances. Here's an AI-generated summary:
> Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran experienced significant economic growth and secular, Western-oriented modernization under the Shah, with expanded education and some cultural freedoms. After the revolution, however, the economy stagnated, inflation and unemployment rose, and per capita income declined significantly
The revolution was not the fault of the west. Iran was doing well, then the revolution happened and it went to shit. I'm sure the west would be happy to support Iran again if it got its shit together. I honestly don't believe these claims that the US is pressuring Iran for oil. Maybe they were 70 years ago, but that's really not very relevant any more.
Regardless, it's laughable to think that regular Iranian citizens are just as responsible for their theocratic dictatorship as Americans are for the US's (crumbling) representative democracy. Those two things are not the same at all. Your average Iranian has zero influence over what the Iranian government does. The average American... put Trump in office, either by voting for him or by abstaining.