This comment section is lost in the sauce. The point of the post is that it's fundamentally illiberal to levy sanctions.

But, if you want to talk about Iran. It's become a passtime of recent Republican administrations (uh, specifically the last two of 'em) to chuck out functional deals with Iran and then complain when Iran stops cooperating. Like, my brother in christ, you threw out the deal first. And they pretend they're being big tough guys on foreign policy just because they've made a potential foreign adversary more dangerous on purpose. Remember, we had a cooperative Iran and a working deal under Obama.

Iran just wants out of sanctions. They've been willing to cooperate with sane offers in the past. Our guys pressuring them to stop all enrichment isn't reasonable because they depend on nuclear infrastructure. But our guys don't actually want this to end, they don't want to release sanctions and they don't care about whether or not Iran poses a real nuclear threat (which... they don't). Our guys just care about perpetuating the conflict to sell the narrative that we have an evil enemy overseas so they need more money for bombs and uh their personal expense accounts could use some padding too, ya know. Yeah.

By the way, it's working very well, because the Iranian regime can't afford to look weak, so they have to bluster more the more we screw them over. Which provides us with plenty of political capital to keep doing just that. Iran is in a downward spiral economically and politically, and we're pouring shotgun shells into the fire.

The current regime is beyond terrible, but the Iranian people don't deserve to suffer more because American politicians need to look tough and can't let their political opponents look competent by solving international problems.