Then explain what this political baggage is, and what risk it would be exposed to, and what subtle more deniable ways it could retaliate with.You spoke of how Israel would refrain from.supplying the Ukraine with weapons due to fears or concerns that Russia would retaliate by providing Iran with strategic weapons.
I pointed out Russia would be unlikely to resort to such a risky move which comes with a lot of political baggage and expose it to risk. It can resort to other more subtle and more deniable ways.
Iran's regional aggression has been severely mitigated by sanctions, as it lacked the resources needed for this resource-intensive campaign. They may not have achieved all the goals, but they are a net positive.Maybe at State Department briefings and on PowePoint briefs but in reality they fail to cause the intended effect and it's ordinary citizenship end up paying the price. Sanctions on Iran have nearly crippled Iran but it has failed to lead to the desired political results, either to Iran capitulating to Western demands, to being unable to do what it needs to or to the locals overthrowing their poltical masters. In fact its highly counter productive, [it alienates the locals as it leads to their suffering] despite on the surface appearing to be sound and being politically acceptable to those who impose them.
In the end, the wellbeing of the citizens is a result of their government's policies. If the government embarks on campaigns that it knows will land sanctions on it, then that's the government's responsibility. If resources are lacking, said government can divert resources from military buildup to welfare. The citizens live as well as the government wants them to live, sanctions or not. If Iranian citizens are suffering today, it's because Iran's regime is perfectly fine with that.
I live in a country that's been under sanctions since day 1. It still very much is. We're perfectly fine here, because thankfully I have a government that has welfare at least somewhere in its agenda, rather than expensive military campaigns of choice and domination.
I agree with economical sanctions on any and all regimes that abuse their people and seek to terrorize.Would this include the use, well intentioned and well.informed world leaders whose policies failed in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, causing immense suffering for the locals? The same world leaders who are so gung ho about Iran but have no clear policy on North Korea? The same world leaders who are noticeably silent about a particular country's nuke capability and who also -despite all the non proliferation talk - failed to prevent Pakistan and India from being nuke armed?
Yes, you've repeated that word for word several times already. But what does it even mean?A point be made that its not a richer but weaker Iran which might take certain steps to protect its interests and to retaliate against its enemies in a way it wouldn't has it been in better economic shape. An Iran which was in better economic shape and didn't feel so isolated would be less insecure and desperate and would be less likely to undertake certain types of actions which carry a high degree of risk.
You imply Iran's current weakness is what sets its regional aggression, and say wealth could prevent that, as if wealth prevents China from expanding in its neighborhood.
We have tried that. Iran was not always under sanctions. Its regional expansion started long before any sanctions came.
We know that having no sanctions on Iran is bad, because it expands quickly. We know that having sanctions on it slows it down. We also know that removing them again accelerates expansion and increases aggression. All from experience.
We've seen a rich Iran and we've seen a weak Iran, and how they react to different situations. A weak Iran is objectively better.
Iran's motivation is not from insecurity and weakness. When given the chance to get closer to the west and be relieved from sanctions, it decided to gamble on it anyway and continued with blatantly violating the JCPOA in a way that got the deal cancelled and sanctions reinstated. It happily gave away the potential for a status of an 'untouchable' country (within its borders) whose economy is intertwined with the west (and the rest of the world, hence untouchable), for a weapon that only serves to deter regional foes from reacting to its expansion.