Comment by nl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yes it's very painful for Iran, but when have economic sanctions ever created regime change (Or whatever the US's actual goal is)?

The Iranian expats I talk to (who are all very very opposed to the Iranian regime) are depressed because their read is that the regime has increased support within Iran because of their success standing up to the US.

The sanctions have made Iran much closer to Russia and China though.

> In the end Iran's goal seems more attainable: Make this so painful for the US that they do not dare try this again for a long time if ever.

> The US's goal was topple the regime, install their puppet and acquire the nuclear material. Now its just getting back to the JCPOA or something like it. Not good enough for Iran. They want to make sure this stops for good.

I agree with this analysis. If the US could walk away with JCPOA back they'd love it (of course they couldn't call it the "Obama Iran deal" anymore, but putting that aside).

Iran seems to think they can get a more favorable deal because the US has no appetite to make this a long war. I think there is evidence to support that position.

> Yes it's very painful for Iran, but when have economic sanctions ever created regime change (Or whatever the US's actual goal is)?

South Africa comes to mind.

More generally though, economic sanctions usually don't create regime change, they convince regimes to quietly change policies. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. However even if it doesn't work, it can weaken the regime to the point of irrelevance. Sanctions did not cause regime change in north korea, but it made them so poor that they weren't really a threat.

And really this isn't sanctions, this is a blockade which is sanctions on steriods.

> Iran seems to think they can get a more favorable deal because the US has no appetite to make this a long war. I think there is evidence to support that position.

Who can hold out longer is the million dollar question. US clearly has no appetite for war, especially this one. Iran clearly is economically struggling (If it gets to the point where they can't pay the police or the populace cant afford food, things can get very bad very quickly). Long term the leverage on the strait will disappear as the market finds alternative.

So who is more on the clock? I guess time will tell.

Iran is mostly self-sufficient in food. I don't think there is social license in the West to starve a civilian population.

> So who is more on the clock? I guess time will tell.

Well we know the US's deadlines. The midterms are one, and in 2 years time US policy will change (although unclear how exactly).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com