Left to Submit Arguments
Left to Evaluate Arguments
  • Investigating a controversial topic is governed by two deadlines: The Argument Submission Deadline and the Argument Evaluation Deadline
  • The Argument Submission Deadline is the cutoff point for users to submit their arguments. However, users can continue to evaluate existing arguments until the Argument Evaluation Deadline. The time gap between the two deadlines allows for the assessment of all submitted arguments. (Learn more)
Are the U.S. sanctions against countries like Iran and Cuba justified?

The U.S. finds itself placing sanctions on countries that fail to uphold justice or refuse to comply with the West. Are these justified?

Viewpoint 1/2
wb_incandescent
They enhance the security of U.S. allies Argument
expand_more

Iranian officials have often expressed hostility towards Israel. They don't want Israel to be present in the region and have even predicted a time when Israel will collapse. The U.S. has a responsibility to its allies, and sanctions help to constrain governments that do not align with U.S. policies.

The U.S. has a responsibility to its allies, and sanctions help to constrain governments that do not align with U.S. policies.

When the US places sanctions on countries, it’s not because they are refusing to cooperate with the world, it’s because they are refusing to cooperate with America or the West. Why does the world have to listen to what the US wants, even if it comes at the expense of other countries? Who will hold the US accountable when it breaks the laws the UN has set in place?

Governments in countries such as Iran and Cuba not only cause harm to neighboring nations and the global community but also subject their own populations to oppression. The sanctions enforced by the U.S. have the potential to compel these governments to do better to help their people. Additionally, these sanctions could pave the way for a regime change, thereby fostering the growth of democracy to an entirely new level.

Unfortunately, the West has a troubling history of exploiting other countries. A recurring theme in political campaigns organized by hardliners in countries like Iran and Cuba is to remind people of this history and caution them against the possibility of its recurrence. Initiatives that deprive individuals of essential necessities such as food and medicine, and lead to the suffering of people and their loved ones, create an environment where negative perceptions of the West are significantly reinforced. A prominent example of this is the unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, which resulted in the conservative party in Iran overwhelmingly winning the subsequent presidential election. This starkly contrasts the preceding presidential election in the country, where a moderate party, supportive of dialogue and diplomacy with the West, had won by a significant margin.

Military action would lead to not only thousands of lost lives, but also put the country in crippling debt. Sanctions act as more of a push to stop misbehaving and are less violent and oppressive compared to military intervention.

Military action would lead to thousands of lost lives, but sanctions would not only also lead to thousands of lost lives due to lack of basic needs such as medicine and food, but they would also diminish the quality of life for millions of innocent individuals on a large scale. The negative impacts of sanctions, such as malnutrition, can have long-term consequences that may persist for several decades and affect future generations.

Sanctions are only effective because other countries agree to them. The fact that the US puts sanctions on a country, and every country agrees to stop dealing with the sanctioned country, shows that it’s not just the US’s opinion, but a collective decision. The US is extremely selective with their sanctions, because they only use them when they see that a country is risking the success of other countries.

Most countries agree to the US’s sanctions because they are scared to refuse them. If a country does not comply with the US’s sanctions, then that country will face the economic and military might of the West. The technical term for it is secondary sanctions that target non-U.S. people and companies. Here is one example.

Sanctions are a much more affordable way for the U.S. to send a message to a troublesome nation compared to alternatives like military intervention. War can cost billions of dollars and lead to substantial debt.

What wrongful actions have these countries undertaken to warrant such harsh repercussions from the Western nations? In large part, these penalties are being imposed because these nations aspire to self-govern based on their own interests and values, rather than aligning with those of Western nations—a direction that the Western countries find unfavorable. It's essential for them to recognize that the era of colonizing and exploiting smaller nations has come to an end. To gain a deeper understanding of why the West does not have the right to punish Iran, check out this topic, specifically this viewpoint.

refreshLoad More
{{ (total_arguments_per_viewpoint[ "0" ] - allowed_arguments_per_viewpoint[ "0" ]).toLocaleString() }} more Argument(s) are available
close_fullscreenMinimize
Back to the first {{ initially_allowed_arguments_per_viewpoint }} Arguments
Previous Viewpoint
Next Viewpoint
Viewpoint 2/2
wb_incandescent
There are political reasons behind them Argument
expand_more

The United States primarily imposes sanctions on countries such as Iran and Cuba because they do not align with American interests. If that were not the case, why wouldn't the U.S. place sanctions on countries like Saudi Arabia [1] and Israel [2, 3], despite the abundance of reports from reputable international human rights organizations citing human rights violations in these countries? The issue of human rights is merely an excuse.

The U.S. doesn’t say “something” about communism or the hijab and sanction a country, they see how oppressive a country is. Cuba and Venezuela are extremely corrupt countries, and Iran forces their people to follow oppressive laws, especially for women. If the U.S. happens to gain some benefit from sanctions, so be it, but that doesn’t mean that’s the main motive behind them.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) strictly prohibits any form of collective punishment. Therefore, the United States is legally prohibited from implementing policies that diminish the well-being of millions of ordinary citizens, even if the underlying objectives are legitimate. Although the U.S. claims that its sanctions do not affect ordinary citizens, this claim does not align with the actual situation on the ground. It is impossible to drastically reduce a country's income (by some estimates, to a third of its original value) and comfortably assert that its ordinary citizens will not be affected.

The concept of collective punishment lacks a definitive explanation, as neither international treaties nor customary sources provide a clear definition of it (See the abstract in this article). If a country is oppressive, what should the world do, sit and watch? Since it’s not explicitly defined, the U.S. is doing its best to maintain order and justice in the world.

Sanctions result in economic hardship for the people within a country, which naturally leads them to seek someone to blame, often the nation imposing the sanctions. Such an environment is particularly conducive to fostering animosity towards the West, providing people with more reasons to harbor anti-American sentiments.

No matter what actions the Western world takes, those hardliners who hate the U.S. will continue to do so, regardless of the sanctions. The fact that they promote animosity towards the West has nothing to do with the actions of the United States.

wb_incandescent
Not effective Argument
expand_more

Countries that are subject to sanctions often perceive their policies as being moral and virtuous, and they tend to view the United States as a bully attempting to dominate the world. As a result, they are unlikely to yield to the pressure of sanctions. In fact, sanctions may fuel resentment and lead to greater rebellion within the sanctioned country, further exacerbating the situation. This was clearly evident in the case of Iran, which significantly increased its uranium enrichment program after the US withdrew from the JCPOA.

Just because sanctioning a country can mean that that country will continue to rebel doesn’t mean the U.S. should just sit back and do nothing about it. If a country will continue to rebel, then that means more force is needed. And sanctions are extremely effective. If a country is still fighting, by sanctioning them, you are weakening its power, and, therefore its oppressive capability.

Sanctions have a far-reaching impact on society compared to military operations, affecting the lives of countless innocent people. These measures make it challenging for almost everyone in society to carry on with their daily routines, leading to a decline in their standard of living. The negative impact resulting from a shortage of crucial resources like food and medicine can persist for several decades.

At first glance, it may seem that the effects of wars are confined to military domains. However, in reality, civilians are often severely affected by wars too, especially in countries with weak to moderate economies. The most obvious impact on civilians is the inadvertent (or sometimes even deliberate) loss of civilian lives due to explosives. However, a more crucial point to consider is that the exorbitant cost of wars often weakens economies, resulting in significant consequences for the livelihoods of millions of ordinary citizens. These adverse effects include malnutrition, loss of loved ones and mental health issues. It is incorrect to overlook the indirect, yet large-scale impact of wars on civilians.

wb_incandescent
The impacts of sanctions persist for a long time Argument
expand_more

Sanctions have a more prolonged impact compared to wars. While wars are undoubtedly horrendous, their effects often cease when the conflict ends. But the consequences of sanctions are often longer-lasting for two main reasons. First, the period of time over which sanctions are imposed is usually much longer than that of a military intervention. Second, some consequences of sanctions, such as malnutrition among children or untreated (or under-treated) medical conditions due to a lack of necessary medications, may manifest themselves over several decades.

War can have a severely detrimental effect on the economy, and its consequences can be just as long-lasting, if not more so, than those of sanctions. An economy that is weakened by war can have a ripple effect that extends for generations to come, leading to malnutrition and mental health issues among future generations.

refreshLoad More
{{ (total_arguments_per_viewpoint[ "1" ] - allowed_arguments_per_viewpoint[ "1" ]).toLocaleString() }} more Argument(s) are available
close_fullscreenMinimize
Back to the first {{ initially_allowed_arguments_per_viewpoint }} Arguments
Previous Viewpoint
Next Viewpoint