Hacker News Reader

Comment by Saline9515 | Hacker News Reader

Why? If the objective is to weaken a regime, and the sanctions strengthen it, why should you help your “enemy”?

The classic mistake here is to consider that dictatorships are like democracies—they aren't, and their power structure is different and more resilient to economic shocks. Even Bachar Al-Assad, who was much weaker, took 13 years to leave power.

At some point, one should question if wide sanctions targeted at increasing the suffering of the civilian population are really worth it.

View on HN

Your assumption here is that, since sanctions strengthen the regime, not having sanctions weakens the regime, which is not logical.

Not having sanctions potentially strengthens a regime more than sanctions do, embeds them in the global geopolitical/cultural/economic stage, normalises their behaviour, and goes against a lot of people's deontology.

Look at Israel: no sanctions, strong Zio regime, majority of US/German pop supported the "self-defense" argument for decades, complete normalisation of Palestinian genocide until the horror reached an unbearable threshold. Etc., etc.

Yes, sanctions are far from perfect, but I strongly believe that a world with Israel santioned would have been a much better place for everyone, including the Israelis (from having to contend with their ideology).

Edit: I'm also aware that my argument is not perfect either. For example, I wouldn't qualify what Cuba has or what Iraq had as sanctions in the sense that I'm talking about: these are to my eyes an economic war of aggression by the US/West. What I'm defending is sanctions on fascist and ethonationalist global/regional superpowers that are engaging in large-scale horror. But I'm aware how leaky my definition is.

You can do sanctions on items that allow the regime wage wars (weapons and dual-use products), yes, that can work. Or wide sanctions on small countries such as Israel can be a credible deterrent, since it lacks economic depth to find substitutes.

However, wide sanctions on large countries such as Russia or Iran are now proven to be quite ineffective in the long run. Even worse, by preventing the creation of a middle-class, you won't have the conditions to start a democracy later, after a possible regime change.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but it's what data shows.

And sanctions don't prevent countries from committing atrocities either. What about the deaths and suffering induced by sanctions? 500k Iraqi children were estimated to have died due to the US sanctions. The architect of the policy told that it was "worth it". Was it?

https://www.newsweek.com/watch-madeleine-albright-saying-ira...

- Economic growth slows down under sanction.

- removing their leverage over you is also good.

Even if regime will not change, it will be weaker

Sanctions also affect population and create indirect deaths and suffering in the civilian population.

I guess that, just like Madeleine Albright, you believe that 500k Iraqi children death caused by US sanctions were "worth it"? (US still wanted to invade after, proof that sanctions worked!)

https://www.newsweek.com/watch-madeleine-albright-saying-ira...

Quite a loaded question (a-tier).

Counter-question/game:

Hypothetically, imagine that you become president of US today, inheriting current situation. What would you do regarding Iran situation?

What is the correct action now in current situation?

Spoiler: I think there is no “correct” solution, somebody will be hurt in the end despite best wishes.

Note: Lower supply of oil and fertiliser affects poorer countries more than the rich ones (possibility of famine in Africa). Current Iran government just killed their own civilians a month ago in thousands to end protests; and repressions will likely repeat as protests are likely to repeat. (Irans populace seem to be quite educated and want some reforms) Ground invasion of Iran would cost a lot of lives - civilian casualties always exist.

But honestly, what would you choose to do?

No it's a great question. As always when someone makes a point about something, one should ask "up to which point do you believe this to be true". It's the same in science.

The US president is not in charge of the application of human rights in Iran. It's amazing that Americans are so concerned about human rights in oil-rich countries, only. Right?

The US generally don't understand other countries' internal dynamics and only leave a mess after dropping bombs to "liberate" those ungrateful civilians.

Obama's JCPOA was a good framework, I'd work to reinstall it.

But they just became more independent.

Germany stills needs and wants russian energy, because they're overpaying a lot currently, but russians don't need the german paper industry anymore.

Paper is definitely not the only thing Russia was importing. Check statistics of Russian aviation accidents (not sure if Germany was in supply chain for aviation, but this is visible thing that clearly was affected by sanctions)

Is there evidence sanctions strengthen a regime? With Russia at war right now, sanctions do indeed seem to be helping Ukraine with Russia having a budget crisis.

“ sanctions strengthen authoritarian rule if the regime manages to incorporate their existence into its legitimation strategy.”

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-...

Sanction strengthen the political grip of a regime on society, which can use them as a justification for its repression. They also hollow-out the middle class, which prevents a democratic societal change, which requires it.

In the case of a war, it is of course useful, but it won't solve the long-term issue of the nature of the Russian regime, which has gotten only more entrenched since 2014.

Russia is actively and directly at war with Ukraine. Russian tax dollars fund that war with Ukraine.

Sanctions on Russia are us not funding the war on Ukraine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com