Iranian sanctions

[Goofball]

Here's the article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/25/wo...html?hpt=hp_c1

From the story: "Sanctions are impacting the people, not the groups politicians say they're impacting."

This woman's anger is misdirected. It was her own government that made her nation a pariah in the global community. As cold as it sounds, in my mind this indicates that the sanctions are beginning to have an effect. Perhaps the Iranian people will wake up to the fact that their government and its nuclear goals are not in their best interests?

[Montmorency]

Iran and America will make up before long. Iran just wanted a nuclear program to project power, to give it an ace up the sleeve. It doesn't gain any benefit from actually producing viable weapons. Now that Iran is on the defensive in the region, there isn't much point to being stubborn.

Anyway, the sanctions have been having a severe detrimental impact on their economy for a while (i.e. years) now.

[Beskar]

Thought things would lighten up a little after the elections. Isn't the new President more moderate?

[Sarmatian]

Here's the article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/25/wo...html?hpt=hp_c1

From the story: "Sanctions are impacting the people, not the groups politicians say they're impacting."

This woman's anger is misdirected. It was her own government that made her nation a pariah in the global community. As cold as it sounds, in my mind this indicates that the sanctions are beginning to have an effect. Perhaps the Iranian people will wake up to the fact that their government and its nuclear goals are not in their best interests?

Please use the same line of reasoning next time when a terrorist attack in the west happen.

[Fragony]

Thought things would lighten up a little after the elections. Isn't the new President more moderate?

He isn't the one who is in charge. The Iranians should be our natural allies 'we' totally screwed up by not giving the green wave our support.

Can't be spammed enough http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F48SinuEHIk

[Goofball]

Please use the same line of reasoning next time when a terrorist attack in the west happen.

That's quite a stretch. I'm saying that refusing to do business with a rogue state is a valid strategy, in that eventually its citizens will move for change on their own in order to alleviate the suffering that is being directly caused by their government's policies.


Is it your position that murdering civilians who live in countries with democratically elected governments is a valid strategy, in that eventually the fear of being murdered will prompt them to get rid of their democratically elected governments and install shariah law?

I don't think I quite follow you.

[Sarmatian]

That's quite a stretch. I'm saying that refusing to do business with a rogue state is a valid strategy, in that eventually its citizens will move for change on their own in order to alleviate the suffering that is being directly caused by their government's policies.


Is it your position that murdering civilians who live in countries with democratically elected governments is a valid strategy, in that eventually the fear of being murdered will prompt them to get rid of their democratically elected governments and install shariah law?

I don't think I quite follow you.

Refusing to do business hurts the population rather than the clique in charge. They're not deprived of just commercial goods that we're so accustomed to but they're deprived of basic stuff, like food, medicines, heat, roof and so on, and those who set up the sanctions are very much aware of that. They're purposefully depriving the population of that stuff so they would rise against their rulers and depose them or force them to change their policy, acutely aware that the sanctions may cause severe hardships to ordinary people and even deaths.

Terrorist attacks also target ordinary people with the idea it would force people to change their governments or at least force them to change their policy.

The basic concept is the same. In fact, people in dictatorships are completely innocent. They didn't elect Saddam or the Ayatollah. No one asked their opinion or approval, it was forced upon them unlike in democracies where citizens directly give the mandate to a certain government. It could be argued that citizens in democracies are more legitimate targets than those in dictatorships.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Refusing to do business hurts the population rather than the clique in charge. They're not deprived of just commercial goods that we're so accustomed to but they're deprived of basic stuff, like food, medicines, heat, roof and so on, and those who set up the sanctions are very much aware of that. They're purposefully depriving the population of that stuff so they would rise against their rulers and depose them or force them to change their policy, acutely aware that the sanctions may cause severe hardships to ordinary people and even deaths.

Terrorist attacks also target ordinary people with the idea it would force people to change their governments or at least force them to change their policy.

The basic concept is the same. In fact, people in dictatorships are completely innocent. They didn't elect Saddam or the Ayatollah. No one asked their opinion or approval, it was forced upon them unlike in democracies where citizens directly give the mandate to a certain government. It could be argued that citizens in democracies are more legitimate targets than those in dictatorships.

An interesting argument.

You are brutally consistent in your attack of anything that seemingly fig-leafs political action as anything aside from an exercise of raw power (usually force).

Do you conceive of any instance where a state might pursue some "national interest" beyond its own borders that would be acceptable? Under what circumstances, if any, is it valid to impose sanctions; use influence to thwart some other state's objectives, or use military force?

[Goofball]

Refusing to do business hurts the population rather than the clique in charge. They're not deprived of just commercial goods that we're so accustomed to but they're deprived of basic stuff, like food, medicines, heat, roof and so on, and those who set up the sanctions are very much aware of that. They're purposefully depriving the population of that stuff so they would rise against their rulers and depose them or force them to change their policy, acutely aware that the sanctions may cause severe hardships to ordinary people and even deaths.

Terrorist attacks also target ordinary people with the idea it would force people to change their governments or at least force them to change their policy.

The basic concept is the same. In fact, people in dictatorships are completely innocent. They didn't elect Saddam or the Ayatollah. No one asked their opinion or approval, it was forced upon them unlike in democracies where citizens directly give the mandate to a certain government. It could be argued that citizens in democracies are more legitimate targets than those in dictatorships.

The basic concept is not the same, nor is the morality.

If a person takes actions that you believe are threatening to you or are not in accordance with your views, you are well within your rights to isolate yourself from them and have no more social or economic relations with them. You are not, however, within your rights to murder one of their children while they sleep in order to bring them around to your way of thinking.

I'll ask you again: are you saying terrorism is a valid tool to use to implement social or political change?

[Montmorency]

To say that the sanctions are responsible for deaths is rather meaningless, as even welfare-state benefits could be found to be responsible for deaths. Most Islamic terrorists don't have the goal of forcing target countries to change policies, at least not beyond the medium-term - most Islamic terrorists want nothing less than the utter destruction or subjugation of the Western world, despite the futility of such a cause. But Iran isn't that sort of entity, so whatever.

Just keep in mind this geopolitical rule-of-thumb: Nothing saves so many lives as murder.

people in dictatorships are completely innocent.

They're actually equally culpable and accountable, if one is appraising the situation fairly. On both ends, the populace is equally inactive toward the actual geopolitical events. Your line subtly infantilizes citizens of authoritarian states, while unduly elevating the consciousness of democratic peoples at the further expense of the former. In fact, they are just one and the same. It's one of the horrible secrets of civilization, maybe.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

He isn't the one who is in charge. The Iranians should be our natural allies 'we' totally screwed up by not giving the green wave our support.

Can't be spammed enough http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F48SinuEHIk

The quickest way to doom political change in Iran is to make it look like the US (and to a lesser extent, the west as a whole) is orchestrating it. Moving to support the (overhyped) green movement would've killed more Nedas while setting back the chance of change in Iran.

Here's the article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/25/wo...html?hpt=hp_c1

From the story: "Sanctions are impacting the people, not the groups politicians say they're impacting."

This woman's anger is misdirected. It was her own government that made her nation a pariah in the global community. As cold as it sounds, in my mind this indicates that the sanctions are beginning to have an effect. Perhaps the Iranian people will wake up to the fact that their government and its nuclear goals are not in their best interests?

The Iranian *people* are widely in favor of developing a nuclear energy program, in no small part because they have been told they can't have it. It's hard for me to fault them since it's an attitude as American as the state of Texas. If Canada was told by a great power that it must give up something it takes pride in or face sanctions, would you yield so quickly?

Personally, I think the sanctions as a whole are stupid. Want to neutralize Iran as a threat to the US/west? Lift the sanctions, ship them our fast food, ipads, and porn.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Besides, it makes sense for Iran to pursue nuclear. They desperately need to wean their economy off the subsidised oil.

[Montmorency]

Want to neutralize Iran as a threat to the US/west?

The problem was that Iran was threatening to precipitate a Cold War with Saudi Arabia. This was possible because of the weakness brought to Iraq by American devastation. Now that Syria is in civil war and Iraq is looking similar, Iran is on the defensive. Coupled with the ongoing sanctions, they're hurting from it all; they have nothing to gain by NWMD mummery now. Shouldn't be long before a solid bargain is struck that lets Iran move on with its civilian nuclear ambitions.

[Goofball]

The Iranian *people* are widely in favor of developing a nuclear energy program, in no small part because they have been told they can't have it. It's hard for me to fault them since it's an attitude as American as the state of Texas. If Canada was told by a great power that it must give up something it takes pride in or face sanctions, would you yield so quickly?

I guess that what myself and my fellow citizens would have to decide is, what is more important to us: nukes or medicine? If the answer was "nukes," then so be it, but we would have no right to blame our lack of medicine on the "great power."

The big difference is that because I live in Canada, a country whose government generally plays properly with others in the global community, nobody in the world really cares if we build nuclear reactors. In fact, we have had them for years, and guess what? We have never used them to produce material to build nuclear weapons of our own.

But because the Iranians have had such a wildcard government for so long, the world at large generally does not believe them when they say they want nuclear technology only for energy purposes.

It is up to the Iranian people to get rid of that government. When they do, they can begin to rebuild their image on a global scale, and guess what? Maybe 20 or 30 years down the road nobody bats an eye if they want to have a nuclear program.

[Montmorency]

It is up to the Iranian people to get rid of that government. When they do, they can begin to rebuild their image on a global scale, and guess what? Maybe 20 or 30 years down the road nobody bats an eye if they want to have a nuclear program.

That's obviously totally unacceptable, and a juvenile abuse of power.

"Wildcard government"? No more than the USA's.

A good compromise would be for the IAEA to oversee and supervise the program and for the international community to invest technology and expertise into it. In exchange for an end to sanctions and cooperation toward viable commercial reactors, have the Iranian government temporarily abjure its authority over the details, and progressively loosen the restraints and oversight over some period, allowing for expedition of the process in the case of reforms to increase political openness and so-on.

'Maybe we'll let you do it in a generation if you completely change your political structure and be very obedient to us in the meantime' is not a compromise of any sort, it's just taking the piss, and it's reprehensible.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The problem was that Iran was threatening to precipitate a Cold War with Saudi Arabia. This was possible because of the weakness brought to Iraq by American devastation. Now that Syria is in civil war and Iraq is looking similar, Iran is on the defensive. Coupled with the ongoing sanctions, they're hurting from it all; they have nothing to gain by NWMD mummery now. Shouldn't be long before a solid bargain is struck that lets Iran move on with its civilian nuclear ambitions.

Hopefully. Of course, there have been previous offers from third party governments to work out an arrangement where Iran keeps its nuclear program and the byproducts that could be enriched for weapons would be sent elsewhere. The US turned them down at the time because the powers that be had no interest in negotiations that let up on Iran.

I guess that what myself and my fellow citizens would have to decide is, what is more important to us: nukes or medicine? If the answer was "nukes," then so be it, but we would have no right to blame our lack of medicine on the "great power."

The big difference is that because I live in Canada, a country whose government generally plays properly with others in the global community, nobody in the world really cares if we build nuclear reactors. In fact, we have had them for years, and guess what? We have never used them to produce material to build nuclear weapons of our own.

But because the Iranians have had such a wildcard government for so long, the world at large generally does not believe them when they say they want nuclear technology only for energy purposes.

It is up to the Iranian people to get rid of that government. When they do, they can begin to rebuild their image on a global scale, and guess what? Maybe 20 or 30 years down the road nobody bats an eye if they want to have a nuclear program.

The latest intelligence we have on Iran suggests their nuclear program does not involve weapons in any way. What Israel (and thus, the US) is objecting to is Iran having the capabilities to develop the capabilities to build nuclear weapons. The Iranian people who want a nuclear energy program for reasons of both economy and national pride. As for their government, they seem to be fairly rational, just unpleasant. Though not really any more unpleasant than the Saudis (and I would say the Iranians are a lot less unpleasant on the whole).

In the mean time, we can continue celebrating sanctions that take 30 years to... make Iran a moderate regional power.

[Montmorency]

It's at least noteworthy that Obama recently took the time to mention the 1953 coup again, in addition to (seemingly) upgrading the diplomatic status of Iran by putting Kerry in charge. Hopefully not a waste of everyone's time.

It's also a matter of what message the US wants to send to the world. Some kind of deal along the outlines mentioned in the thread would actually be a diplomatic and political victory for the US, since ultimately the US would be shown to have won out in its position, while at least giving Iran some benefit after a lost economic decade and allowing it to quietly cut its losses. It would be a bad show to take the 'we don't win unless you're eating dirt' approach.

'Stop hitting yourself, pussy! Stop hitting yourself!' vs. 'We are terrible in battle, but merciful in victory. In the words of some Russian dude: "We will outlast you."'

[Sarmatian]

An interesting argument.

You are brutally consistent in your attack of anything that seemingly fig-leafs political action as anything aside from an exercise of raw power (usually force).

Do you conceive of any instance where a state might pursue some "national interest" beyond its own borders that would be acceptable? Under what circumstances, if any, is it valid to impose sanctions; use influence to thwart some other state's objectives, or use military force?

Acceptable to whom?

If there were undisputable evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons to attack US with, I'd say it was acceptable. No such evidence exist, though.

The basic concept is not the same, nor is the morality.

If a person takes actions that you believe are threatening to you or are not in accordance with your views, you are well within your rights to isolate yourself from them and have no more social or economic relations with them. You are not, however, within your rights to murder one of their children while they sleep in order to bring them around to your way of thinking.

I'll ask you again: are you saying terrorism is a valid tool to use to implement social or political change?

I do not see a difference between killing someone by depriving him of food or medicines and putting a bullet in his head. Our legal systems (in almost all countries) also say that causing someone's death by purposefully depriving them of basic needs is murder.

To say that the sanctions are responsible for deaths is rather meaningless, as even welfare-state benefits could be found to be responsible for deaths. Most Islamic terrorists don't have the goal of forcing target countries to change policies, at least not beyond the medium-term - most Islamic terrorists want nothing less than the utter destruction or subjugation of the Western world, despite the futility of such a cause. But Iran isn't that sort of entity, so whatever.

For that to be true, the terrorist attacks would have been spread evenly around the western world, yet they are concentrated in countries doing the most "meddling". Chechen terrorists don't attack USA, IRA didn't attack Russia and so on.

They're actually equally culpable and accountable, if one is appraising the situation fairly. On both ends, the populace is equally inactive toward the actual geopolitical events. Your line subtly infantilizes citizens of authoritarian states, while unduly elevating the consciousness of democratic peoples at the further expense of the former. In fact, they are just one and the same. It's one of the horrible secrets of civilization, maybe.

I'm aware that there's little difference in practical terms. Most western citizens don't vote and have a very limited understanding of the effects of their vote. In some countries, like USA, they aren't even offered a different choice. Both parties deal with Iran practically the same, with the democrats using slightly more carrot than stick, maybe.

It is still important to note that we are offered a choice and they aren't, though.

[Montmorency]

For that to be true, the terrorist attacks would have been spread evenly around the western world, yet they are concentrated in countries doing the most "meddling".

Another way to look at it is that the US is simply the largest and most powerful member of the "West", and so would be a natural target regardless of its actions. In other words, the big terrorist attacks in the US have been independent of US policy actions.

Chechen terrorists don't attack USA

*coughBostoncough*

But the Chechen organizations, like Al Shabaab and Boko Haraam, are pretty much local phenomena - they don't attack beyond the boundaries of their state or sub-region. Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, now, are more international, but going back to "local", most attacks in the USA are planned/committed by grassroots radicals in many cases taking their cue from the international orgs.

To sum, the idea: Al-Qaeda and similar attacks on the US are independent of US policy actions*, while grassroots attacks from within the US may or may not be.

*Obviously, that doesn't include security or military policies that specifically suppress the international organizations

IRA didn't attack Russia and so on.

Well, first of all, IRA aren't Muslim.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sarmation is correct. Sanctions are essentially state sponsored terrorism, and are usually much more damaging to a much larger group of people than the more violent kind we usually associate with the term. The mental contortions some of you are going through to say that they are not terrorism just reinforces that they are.

We in the West need to learn to disassociate our geopolitical actions from morality. There is no good and bad or right and wrong in the global arena, only power. And the overarching criterion for the use of that power should be a rational assessment of the impact that it will have on our short and long term interests.

I support the sanctions against Iran not because I think we are right and they are wrong, but because Iran has challenged our hegemony in the Middle East and aligned itself against our proxies in the region. Global politics is a zero sum game - if you are not winning you are losing; if you are not protecting and growing your power and influence, someone else is gaining it.

In other words, the big terrorist attacks in the US have been independent of US policy actions.

Do you believe this?

[Fragony]

You have been reading Morgenthau panzie?

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm <- fun read for everyone, steamroller logic, bit evil though

[HoreTore]

Besides, it makes sense for Iran to pursue nuclear. They desperately need to wean their economy off the subsidised oil.

They need the power, sure.

But they also need the bomb to avoid being attacked. Nuclear weapons are primarily defensive, and the greatest guarantee you can get to avoid an invasion. With Iran having enemies everywhere, it's only natural that they want nukes.

[Montmorency]

I support the sanctions against Iran not because I think we are right and they are wrong, but because Iran has challenged our hegemony in the Middle East and aligned itself against our proxies in the region. Global politics is a zero sum game - if you are not winning you are losing; if you are not protecting and growing your power and influence, someone else is gaining it.

Disagree.

I support the sanctions against Iran not because I think we are right and they are wrong, but because Iran has challenged our hegemony in the Middle East and aligned itself against our proxies in the region. Global politics is a zero sum game - if you are not winning you are losing; if you are not protecting and growing your power and influence, someone else is gaining it.

Agree.

The mental contortions some of you are going through to say that they are not terrorism just reinforces that they are.

What I'm saying is that considering sanctions as terrorism tells us nothing, since any policy that resuls in major economic loss, intimidates a population, and creates a compulsion for a government to alter its policies is by definition terrorism. Yes, yes, we get it - the US is the greatest terrorist-nation in the history of the world, so what?

Do you believe this?

Yes. Even if the US had somehow done absolutely nothing overt to so much as influence any Muslim-majority country up to the new millenium, major attacka by one organization or another would still have been planned against large American targets, up to and including targets on the mainland.

[Sarmatian]

Disagree.



Agree.

I take it you didn't mean to agree and disagree with the same quote.

What I'm saying is that considering sanctions as terrorism tells us nothing, since any policy that resuls in major economic loss, intimidates a population, and creates a compulsion for a government to alter its policies is by definition terrorism. Yes, yes, we get it - the US is the greatest terrorist-nation in the history of the world, so what?

So nothing in practical terms.

Understanding you're not the "right side" but simply the "other side" is very important for this discussion

Yes. Even if the US had somehow done absolutely nothing overt to so much as influence any Muslim-majority country up to the new millenium, major attacka by one organization or another would still have been planned against large American targets, up to and including targets on the mainland.

I'd disagree.

Terrorism is a reaction. Why aren't other western nations attacked? Why isn't Brazil attacked by the middle eastern terrorist organizations? Or Argentina or Norway? It would be interesting if someone would make a list of countries totally non-involved in the middle east in any way and count the number of attacks on them by middle eastern terrorist organizations and then compare with countries that were involved. I think most people would be surprised.

[Montmorency]

I take it you didn't mean to agree and disagree with the same quote.

Hence the thanks, eh?

And the overarching criterion for the use of that power should be a rational assessment of the impact that it will have on our short and long term interests.

is the one I "agree"d with.

Understanding you're not the "right side" but simply the "other side" is very important for this discussion

Well, of course I don't think there is a "right" side. Given your knowledge of the US, wouldn't you agree that those who think this way can be extremely dangerous to both themselves and others?

I'd disagree.

Terrorism is a reaction. Why aren't other western nations attacked? Why isn't Brazil attacked by the middle eastern terrorist organizations? Or Argentina or Norway? It would be interesting if someone would make a list of countries totally non-involved in the middle east in any way and count the number of attacks on them by middle eastern terrorist organizations and then compare with countries that were involved. I think most people would be surprised.

Well, again, the US is undeniably the largest and richest (in two senses) target, and I think that this in particular is what invites attack - from foreigners. I do accept that US policies may influence even the majority of grassroots types to do their plotting, as after all they are not really so different than young liberal activist types. Don't forget that countries that were involved in the Middle East are always bigger countries, and bigger countries are by their very nature more involved internationally than smaller/weaker ones. This isn't (or shouldn't be) surprising, and I think it would explain any putative correlation along your lines.

The crux: the rise of violently radical and anti-Western Islamic movements of the 20th c. is not tied to any particular action of the West - though it is very easy to argue that some actions, like say the arming of the Mujahideen, have increased their long-term effectiveness - and should be considered an independent historical phenomenon. The West was simply the natural enemy of such religious ideologies, and these radicals would target us no matter what our historical impact on the Middle East. But as I just said, I certainly could agree with arguments that Western interference has made these groups more potent than they otherwise might have been; all I'm saying is that they would have 'come at us' no matter what. (I speak in particular of Al Qaeda and its possible alt-hist analogs here.)

However - I am not saying that this justifies what the US did to the Middle East in the latter half of the 20th century, or that any shenanigans there are acceptable and that anything goes for the USA. Clearly, US "meddling" in the ME has been wanton and poorly-thought-out, having had fleeting benefit at best. I'm sure that if the US had spent the 20thC-Part2 engendering stability and good will throughout the region, it would not have been possible for any organization to perpetrate something on the scale of 9/11, and if it were possible the Middle-Eastern states would even now be handling the problem for us, both on our and on their own behalf.

But this all comes down to my understanding of international politics. You can see that I both agreed and disagreed with PJ on some of his core tenets in this area - well, part of its is that I think that if all states were accurately judging their long-term interests, we would be in an era of (even more) unprecedented international harmony and cooperation. So when I react negatively to a state making a harmful decision for which I can not divine any rational calculus or delayed benefit, it's never really 'That's morally wrong!' but rather 'You're doing it wrong!'.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Panzer, Sarmatian:

Are you sure that you would like to live in a world where power isn't fig-leafed at all and in which each nation-state pursues its objectives rationally and amorally regarding the use of power?

I can accept, however distasteful it may be, the logic of the argument equating terrorism and sanctions. Though terrorism is specifically targeted at the innocent and the latter is not, it has long been known that the innocent are more likely to suffer than the decision-makers and their gunslingers, so I can see how that argument develops.

For all that they may be equated, however, the tone of a "sanctions" effort seeks to be less violent/less malicious. Is that effort not of value at all? Is attempting to take a more reasoned, more law-abiding stance not somehow better than violence?

I don't think the purely rational application of power you suggest would be quite so enjoyable -- for any and all concerned.

[Pannonian]

Panzer, Sarmatian:

Are you sure that you would like to live in a world where power isn't fig-leafed at all and in which each nation-state pursues its objectives rationally and amorally regarding the use of power?

I can accept, however distasteful it may be, the logic of the argument equating terrorism and sanctions. Though terrorism is specifically targeted at the innocent and the latter is not, it has long been known that the innocent are more likely to suffer than the decision-makers and their gunslingers, so I can see how that argument develops.

For all that they may be equated, however, the tone of a "sanctions" effort seeks to be less violent/less malicious. Is that effort not of value at all? Is attempting to take a more reasoned, more law-abiding stance not somehow better than violence?

I don't think the purely rational application of power you suggest would be quite so enjoyable -- for any and all concerned.

There would be less of a legal argument against if sanctions were renamed collective boycotts. There is nothing to stop someone from boycotting contact with another group, and there is nothing to stop groups from agreeing on collective policy, and there are no obligations from one state on another without agreements. If the end results are the same economic sufferings that sanctions result in; that's a moral argument, and as we know, moral arguments do not result in material gains. Why should one state be forced to maintain contacts with another when they're not on friendly terms, and when contacts would overall result in a material loss for the state as a result of consequential poor relations with other states?

As pursued above, terrorism is in no way equivalent to sanctions. One's rights end when they encroach on others. If I choose to have nothing to do with you, that is my right. You don't have the right to impose yourself on me. That is the modern post-Wilsonian worldview.

[Montmorency]

Well, that's a bit disingenuous.

It's one thing for a national government's constituencies and private contractors to refuse to do business with those of another national government's, and another to do that, and prohibit all national private enterprises or individuals from doing business with any of the other nation's, and furthermore to use international fora and instruments to have all aligned states throughout the world adopt and implement the same restrictions.

Both are perfectly legitimate tactics, but don't pretend that what the US is doing with Iran counts as the former.

[Pannonian]

Well, that's a bit disingenuous.

It's one thing for a national government's constituencies and private contractors to refuse to do business with those of another national government's, and another to do that, and prohibit all national private enterprises or individuals from doing business with any of the other nation's, and furthermore to use international fora and instruments to have all aligned states throughout the world adopt and implement the same restrictions.

Both are perfectly legitimate tactics, but don't pretend that what the US is doing with Iran counts as the former.

Not much more disingenuous than equating terrorism with sanctions and citing the obligation to provide basic needs as something that's abused by sanctions. For one thing, one state is not obliged to provide another state with anything. If state B wants something from state A, they'd better provide something in return, or be grateful for whatever they get, and not be surprised if they get nothing at all. The only people obliged to provide the Iranian people with their basic needs so they can survive are the Iranian state. If foreign states refuse to provide them with these needs, it does not equal actively taking someone's life with bombs and whatnot.

[Montmorency]

terrorism with sanctions

Nonsense, sanctions fit the international definitions of terrorism to a T.

Also, you seem to be making the mistake of folding in private businesses and individuals as components of the state. They're usually not, at least in the West...