Iranian sanctions

[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.