@Earl-of-Trumps saidEconomic sanctions on countries are an indiscriminate weapon of warfare and broadly condemned by most countries and the UN and prohibited the Geneva Convention.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/articles/iran-parliament-speaker-hungry-cannot-223925009.html
Iran Parliament Speaker: 'We Are Hungry, We Cannot Survive'
Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, one of the country's most senior political figures, made the comments during a meeting
with Iranian and Iraqi economists in Baghdad, according to Middle East news outlet Al Bawab ...[text shortened]... ndure," Qalibaf warned, according to the report.
-------------
Iran speaketh with fork-ed tongue
The effects of economic sanctions on countries disproportionately affect women and children, and lead to a measurable reduction in life expectancy and a measurable increase in infant mortality.
"Economic sanctions on countries are inconsistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of Children and in particular articles 24, 26 and 28 which concern the rights of children to access healthcare, social welfare and education. Every nation has ratified the Convention, with the exception of the USA."
source:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8679062/
Starving babies into submission is not faaaaiiiiiiir ! But what does Trump care about brown-skinned babies or fairness?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidRemember when Trump said he won the war because Iran had nothing left?
It’s called propaganda to those of us who are not fools
BTW, how many times did he declare victory over Iran? At least 4 times.
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/trump-said-the-iran-war-was-won-in-march-april-may-june-and-this-weekend-today-senate-democrats-force-ninth-vote-to-end-it
@Earl-of-Trumps saidThe headline misleadingly changes the quote to make it seem like the speaker is saying there is an immediate food crisis when, in fact, his speech is merely calling for a balance between government spending on security v. domestic needs.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/articles/iran-parliament-speaker-hungry-cannot-223925009.html
Iran Parliament Speaker: 'We Are Hungry, We Cannot Survive'
Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, one of the country's most senior political figures, made the comments during a meeting
with Iranian and Iraqi economists in Baghdad, according to Middle East news outlet Al Bawab ...[text shortened]... ndure," Qalibaf warned, according to the report.
-------------
Iran speaketh with fork-ed tongue
Reports indicate food prices have risen in Iran but not that there is any real threat of mass starvation; the country is fairly self-sufficient in agriculture products and what they do import comes from land routes through neighboring countries unaffected by the US blockade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Iran
@moonbus saidEconomic sanctions hurt the poor disproportionately. Trump and his puppet masters are hurting the common Iranian people he and others claimed to want to help.
Economic sanctions on countries are an indiscriminate weapon of warfare and broadly condemned by most countries and the UN and prohibited the Geneva Convention.
The effects of economic sanctions on countries disproportionately affect women and children, and lead to a measurable reduction in life expectancy and a measurable increase in infant mortality.
"Economic sa ...[text shortened]... o submission is not faaaaiiiiiiir ! But what does Trump care about brown-skinned babies or fairness?
Economic sanctions are meant to hurt the people so they will blame their own government and overthrow it. That is the purpose of economic sanctions. They wont admit that though. Because they are hurting the very people they claimed they are trying to help.
It is obvious that regime change is the goal. Trump and his puppet masters killed the supreme leader. Economic sanctions are an attempt at regime change too. They don't even hide that they want the Shah's son to take over the country. Can you imagine what the Iranian people think about that? They remember the SAVAK. The CIA created the savak and ran it.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00552R000505290007-5.pdf
Regime change is unlikely to work. They may not like their government very much, but they hate ours even more. And they don't want the SAVAK back.
@moonbus saidOkay, so economic sanctions are unusable.
Economic sanctions on countries are an indiscriminate weapon of warfare and broadly condemned by most countries and the UN and prohibited the Geneva Convention.
The effects of economic sanctions on countries disproportionately affect women and children, and lead to a measurable reduction in life expectancy and a measurable increase in infant mortality.
"Economic sa ...[text shortened]... o submission is not faaaaiiiiiiir ! But what does Trump care about brown-skinned babies or fairness?
What do you suggest?
Assume, for the sake of argument, that we need to take out the leaders of the fictional state of Gorb (please don't argue about whether we really need to, as that's not the point).
Economic sanctions aren't allowed.
Targeting of the leadership and its military didn't work.
You could put 100,000 boots on the ground and get it done, but there's no political will to do it.
So, what's your suggestion?
@sh76 saidBy “take out leadership” you mean “regime change” and for that you need boots on the ground.
Okay, so economic sanctions are unusable.
What do you suggest?
Assume, for the sake of argument, that we need to take out the leaders of the fictional state of Gorb (please don't argue about whether we really need to, as that's not the point).
Economic sanctions aren't allowed.
Targeting of the leadership and its military didn't work.
You could put 100,000 boots on the ground and get it done, but there's no political will to do it.
So, what's your suggestion?
This isn’t Libya with a single strong man leader. They have a succession system.
One thing you DON’T do is bomb their civilians because that just makes them cling tighter to their leaders.
No solution. Like most of the Right you are demanding the impossible trying to force it to happen through force of will.
Whether economically or militarily it will lead to disaster.
@sh76 saidListen to them, find out what they want. Take their concerns seriously. Treat them as diplomatic equals on the world stage, as people with legitimate interests. Of course, that does not mean conceding to their every wish and whim. Work towards getting voluntary cooperation, instead of grudging compliance under duress.
Okay, so economic sanctions are unusable.
What do you suggest?
Assume, for the sake of argument, that we need to take out the leaders of the fictional state of Gorb (please don't argue about whether we really need to, as that's not the point).
Economic sanctions aren't allowed.
Targeting of the leadership and its military didn't work.
You could put 100,000 boots on the ground and get it done, but there's no political will to do it.
So, what's your suggestion?
@moonbus saidYes, this is not Iran's first rodeo when it comes to bringing down a US president.
Well, that depends entirely on what one thinks the objectives are or were.
Iran does not need to defeat the entire U.S. military in order to come out stronger in the regional political situation.
Militarily speaking, a stalemate is sufficient to thwart Trump‘s stated objective of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Iran only needs to hang on, militarily, ...[text shortened]... ’t lost.
This is a clear loss for the US public, both at the gas pump, and for the national debt.
To affirm one thing you've already pointed out:
https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2021/11/29/the-iran-hostage-crisis/
The 444-day Iran hostage crisis heavily damaged Jimmy Carter's 1980 reelection campaign by making him look weak and unable to solve a major foreign crisis.
Of course, Trump is not up for reelection and never will be, but the GOP is set to sustain a catastrophic loss in November on account of the cosmic incompetence of his "administration."
It's truly hilarious how the right-wingers here, and a fair chunk of the MAGA faithful, have moved the goal posts and still try to spin Trump's illegal war in Iran as some kind of grand victory.
Here we are, half a year on, and Iran is still standing tall, with time on its side and plenty of proxies working mischief on its behalf throughout the region. Slowly, oh so slowly, the vaunted US military machine is realizing that it's trying to fight the wars of a generation ago. It's squandered—rather, Trump has squandered—much of its cache of $4 million interceptor missiles shooting down Iranian drones estimated to cost a mere $35,000. It's suffered more material losses than any conflict since the first Gulf War against Iraq. The traffic in the Strait of Hormuz is a faint shadow of its former self.
Now Trump is switching to "economic warfare." This is a tacit acknowledgement, it seems, that the objectives of the war are no longer achievable by military means. That translates to an admission of defeat, which it most certainly is by any objective measure. That the US military isn't staging a coup to throw Trump's orange ass out of the Oval Office is a testament to the enduring strength of US democratic institutions, despite the president's untiring efforts to anoint himself king and turn the country into an absolute monarchy.
@AThousandYoung saidI don't know about that. The strait was open before Trump started his illegal war in collusion with Netanyahoo, so opening it again just brings things back to where they were in February.
It's not over until the Strait is open for at least one side.
Well, not even that. The US military's munitions are depleted to a degree that will take years to remedy, US allies in the region have had their infrastructure smashed, the repressive Iranian regime has been rejuvenated, US credibility around the world has been dragged through the mud, and NATO allies have learnt another object lesson on the unreliability of a crumbling US empire. And have I mentioned that the price of gas in the US is through the roof?
But I have total faith in Trump's ability to make the situation even worse for the US, even before election day.
@Soothfast saidI'd call a return to the previous status quo a draw. It being war both sides lose.
I don't know about that. The strait was open before Trump started his illegal war in collusion with Netanyahoo, so opening it again just brings things back to where they were in February.
Well, not even that. The US military's munitions are depleted to a degree that will take years to remedy, US allies in the region have had their infrastructure smashed, the repressive I ...[text shortened]... otal faith in Trump's ability to make the situation even worse for the US, even before election day.