Hypocrisy on western leaders/countries is absolute
The USA and Europeans say they want to help Iranian people, while they are the ones who made them suffer the most by sanctions for decades of years.
They create the problem and then propose a solution that benefits them.
The USA administration, especially Trump, is constantly lying; it's unbelievable. I am not sure these people have a conscience. Probably they are so corrupt that they don't even care anymore.
Your reaction touches on a debate that many people around the world have. Criticism of Western policy toward Iran—especially sanctions—is not unusual, and even many analysts in the US and Europe argue that the policy has contradictions. Let’s unpack the main parts of the issue so the picture is clearer. 🌍
1. The sanctions and their impact on Iranian people
Sanctions against Iran have existed in various forms since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and became much stronger over time, especially after concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.
The most impactful sanctions were imposed by:
United States
European Union
sometimes supported by the United Nations
These sanctions targeted:
Iran’s banking system
oil exports (Iran’s main income source)
international trade and investment
Effects inside Iran:
high inflation
currency collapse (rial losing value)
medicine shortages in some periods
economic hardship for ordinary people
Critics argue that broad economic sanctions almost always hurt civilians more than political elites.
2. Why Western governments say they impose sanctions
Western governments usually justify sanctions with three main arguments:
Nuclear program concerns Fear that Iran could develop nuclear weapons.
Regional influence and military activity Iran’s support for groups in the Middle East.
Human rights issues inside Iran
The official idea is that sanctions create pressure on the government to change policies without direct military conflict.
3. The criticism: sanctions can be hypocritical
Many critics—academics, NGOs, and even some Western politicians—say the policy can look hypocritical because:
Western countries sometimes sanction rivals but tolerate similar behavior from allies.
Sanctions can strengthen authoritarian governments, because leaders blame foreign enemies.
The population often suffers more than the ruling elite.
For example, some Iranian officials argue sanctions help them politically, because they can frame domestic problems as foreign aggression.
4. Trump’s role and the nuclear deal
A key moment was when Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018.
The deal originally involved:
Iran
United States
United Kingdom
France
Germany
Russia
China
It traded sanctions relief for limits on Iran’s nuclear program.
When the US left the deal, sanctions were re-imposed and intensified, which many analysts say greatly worsened Iran’s economic situation.
Even many European leaders disagreed with that decision.
5. The deeper geopolitical reality
What you’re noticing is part of a broader truth about international politics:
Countries usually act based on national interest, not pure morality.
Governments often frame policies in moral language (helping people, defending democracy, etc.).
But decisions are usually driven by security, power, and economics.
This isn’t unique to Western countries—most major powers behave similarly.
✅ So your observation has some basis: There is a long debate about whether sanctions actually help people or mostly serve geopolitical interests.
But at the same time, the situation is also complex because:
the Iranian government itself makes decisions that affect its citizens,
regional conflicts and nuclear concerns are real strategic issues.
💭 Since you often think about systems and power structures (like we discussed with capitalism and global systems), a deeper question emerges:
Do you think sanctions are ever justified as a non-military tool — or do you think they mostly end up punishing populations instead of governments?
I think the Iranian protesters' deaths, killed by the Iranian government, are mostly consequences of the sanctions. So the USA and European leaders have also* blood on their hands.
Your view reflects an argument that some scholars, activists, and political commentators also make: that external pressure (like sanctions) can indirectly contribute to internal violence or repression. But the relationship is complicated, and different analysts interpret responsibility very differently. Let’s break it down carefully.
1. The Iranian protest crackdowns
Major protest waves in Iran occurred in:
2019 fuel price protests
2022–2023 protests after the death of Mahsa Amini
During these protests, security forces from the Iranian state—including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and police—were responsible for suppressing demonstrations. Human rights organizations reported hundreds of deaths in some cases.
The direct actors who carried out the repression were therefore Iranian state security forces.
2. Where the sanctions argument comes from
Some analysts argue sanctions can indirectly increase the chance of repression. The logic is roughly:
Sanctions damage the economy.
Economic hardship creates public anger and protests.
Authoritarian governments suppress protests violently.
From this perspective, sanctions may contribute to the conditions that lead to unrest.
There are studies suggesting sanctions sometimes:
weaken middle classes
increase instability
strengthen hardline factions inside governments
So critics say sanctions can unintentionally fuel cycles of protest and repression.
3. The counter-argument
Other analysts strongly disagree with the idea that outside countries share responsibility for protester deaths.
Their argument is:
Governments choose how to respond to protests.
Economic crises happen in many countries, but not all governments kill protesters.
Responsibility lies with the state that orders and carries out violence.
In this view, blaming sanctions for deaths risks removing agency from the government that made the decision to repress people.
4. A more nuanced position many researchers take
Many political scientists land somewhere in the middle:
Sanctions can create pressure and instability.
That instability may increase the probability of repression.
But the direct moral and legal responsibility still lies with the government that uses force.
So they see sanctions as a contributing factor, not the primary cause.
5. Why sanctions remain controversial
This debate is why sanctions are one of the most contested tools in international politics.
Critics say they:
punish civilians
rarely change regimes
can entrench authoritarian leaders
Supporters argue they:
avoid war
create leverage
signal international opposition to certain actions (like nuclear programs or repression).
💭 Your argument actually connects with a larger philosophical question you often raise about systems and responsibility:
When harm happens in a complex system—economic pressure, political decisions, protests, repression— how far does responsibility extend beyond the immediate actor?
Some people think it stops with the government that pulled the trigger. Others think responsibility spreads across the entire chain of decisions that created the situation.
Both perspectives exist in serious political and academic debates.
If you want, I can also explain something interesting: why sanctions often strengthen authoritarian governments instead of weakening them. It’s a political paradox that has happened in several countries, not just Iran.
I think the reasons and consequences of sanctions are clear as water. Whoever does not see them is trying to defend their actions with things that don't even make sense and that were done with zero positive intentions towards Iranian people. Their reasons are only to benefit themself.
I understand the point you’re making. Many people feel that sanctions are primarily geopolitical tools and that humanitarian justifications are often used rhetorically. That criticism exists not only outside the West but also inside Western academia, NGOs, and even among some policymakers.
However, it’s useful to separate three different questions, because they often get mixed together:
1️⃣ What sanctions actually do
Broad economic sanctions against countries like Iran have well-documented effects:
economic contraction
currency collapse
higher inflation
shortages of some goods
reduced international trade and investment
Even when medicine and food are technically exempt, banking restrictions often make imports difficult, so civilians can still be affected.
Many economists and humanitarian organizations agree that broad sanctions often harm ordinary people significantly.
2️⃣ Why governments impose them
Governments such as the United States and members of the European Union say their goals are things like:
limiting nuclear proliferation
reducing military influence in regional conflicts
pressuring governments to negotiate
For example, sanctions were tied to the nuclear negotiations that produced the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
But critics argue that strategic interests (security, regional power, domestic politics) are usually the real drivers, and humanitarian rhetoric is often secondary.
Both interpretations exist in serious policy debates.
3️⃣ The key disagreement: intentions
The biggest divide in opinions is about motives.
Some people believe:
sanctions are a necessary tool to pressure governments without war.
Others believe:
sanctions are mainly instruments of power politics that prioritize national interests over humanitarian outcomes.
International relations research generally shows that states mostly act based on strategic interests, regardless of whether they are Western, Eastern, democratic, or authoritarian.
A broader pattern in world politics
What you’re pointing to—countries presenting policies as moral while also benefiting from them—is actually a very common pattern in international politics.
Major powers across history often:
justify actions with values (freedom, security, stability, civilization, etc.)
while simultaneously pursuing strategic or economic interests.
That doesn’t automatically mean every policy is purely cynical, but it does mean moral narratives and strategic interests often coexist.
💭 Since you tend to think about systemic issues (like capitalism and global power structures), there’s an interesting bigger question here:
If sanctions are problematic but military intervention is worse, and doing nothing may allow governments to continue harmful policies…
What tools should the international community use instead?
That’s actually one of the hardest unsolved problems in global politics.
Israel preemptively attacks Iran and says it's a rightful defense action. But let's go to the beginning of Iran vs. Israel's bad relations. What happens to those countries that passed from good relations to bad? I am sure it has the finger of the USA and the United Kingdom, and I also think that Israel is more to be blamed than Iran, but please explain. They create the problems and afterward say they need to defend themselves and they are the good guys.
The relationship between Iran and Israel is actually a good example of how alliances in international politics can completely reverse because of revolutions, ideology, and regional power struggles. It did not start as hostility. In fact, for decades the two countries had quietly cooperative relations.
Below is the historical sequence that explains how the shift happened.
1. Before 1979: Iran and Israel were partners
From the 1950s to the late 1970s, Iran and Israel had relatively friendly relations.
At that time Iran was ruled by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
4
Key points of that era:
Iran did not officially recognize Israel, but they cooperated behind the scenes.
Iran sold oil to Israel.
The two countries shared intelligence cooperation.
Both were aligned with the United States in the Cold War.
This relationship existed partly because they both saw Arab nationalist states as rivals at the time.
2. The turning point: the 1979 Iranian Revolution
Everything changed with the Iranian Revolution.
The revolution overthrew the Shah and brought to power the Islamic leadership led by Ruhollah Khomeini.
The new government:
adopted an anti-Israel ideology
framed Israel as a Western colonial project
aligned itself strongly with the Palestinian cause
Iran cut all relations with Israel and began supporting groups opposed to it, such as Hezbollah.
From that moment, the relationship became hostile.
3. The role of the US and UK earlier in Iran
Your suspicion about the US and UK having influence comes from an earlier event that shaped Iranian politics:
the 1953 Iranian coup d'état.
In 1953:
the CIA and British intelligence helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh
Mosaddegh had nationalized Iran’s oil industry.
After the coup, the Shah regained power and Iran became closely aligned with Western countries.
Many Iranians later saw this intervention as foreign interference in their democracy, which contributed to resentment that helped fuel the 1979 revolution.
So the US and UK did play a role in shaping the political environment that eventually produced the revolution.
4. The modern Iran–Israel conflict
Since the revolution, the hostility has intensified because:
Israel views Iran as a major threat due to:
Iran’s nuclear program
support for armed groups around Israel
statements from Iranian leaders calling for Israel’s end
Iran views Israel as:
an occupying power in Palestinian territories
a Western military ally in the region.
This created a long-running shadow conflict involving cyber attacks, assassinations, proxies, and occasional direct strikes.
5. About “preemptive defense”
Israel sometimes frames attacks on Iranian targets as preventive or preemptive defense, meaning they believe stopping Iran earlier prevents a larger threat later.
Whether this is legitimate is heavily debated internationally.
Some countries support that argument; others say such strikes violate international law unless an attack is imminent.
6. Who is “more to blame”?
Historians and political analysts strongly disagree about assigning primary blame.
Different perspectives emphasize different factors:
Some emphasize:
Iran’s revolutionary ideology and support for militant groups.
Others emphasize:
Western interventions in Iran’s past.
regional power politics.
the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Most historians conclude the conflict is the result of multiple historical decisions by many actors, rather than a single country “creating” it.
✅ One thing is very clear historically though:
Iran and Israel were not natural enemies. Their hostility emerged after major political changes and geopolitical shifts.
If you want, I can also show you something very interesting: there was actually a secret period in the 1980s where Israel still indirectly cooperated with Iran, even after the revolution.
It’s one of the strangest episodes in Middle Eastern politics and shows how geopolitics often contradicts public narratives.
So my belief is 100% right. Who started this conflict and instability are, of course, the USA and the United Kingdom. They shaped the actions that lead us to today's conflicts/instability. No one starts hating no one for no reason; there is always a reason, and there is ussualy someone who started it or who is more to blame than the other.
It’s understandable to look for a clear starting point and a main responsible actor when examining long conflicts. Events like foreign interventions can absolutely shape how regions evolve. But historians usually caution against saying any single country is 100% responsible, because the Iran–Israel conflict developed through several layers of decisions by different actors over decades. Let’s look at the key parts.
1. The 1953 coup and Western involvement
One of the most important events shaping modern Iranian attitudes toward the West was the 1953 Iranian coup d'état.
This operation, often called Operation Ajax, involved intelligence services from the United States and the United Kingdom helping remove the elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil industry.
After the coup, the monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was strengthened and became closely aligned with Western powers.
Many historians agree this event deeply damaged trust and later became a powerful symbol used by revolutionaries.
2. The 1979 revolution changed Iran’s ideology
Another crucial turning point was the Iranian Revolution, which brought Ruhollah Khomeini to power.
The new government adopted:
strong opposition to Western influence
ideological hostility toward Israel
support for Palestinian movements.
This was a major internal political shift inside Iran, not directly created by outside countries, although past foreign involvement contributed to the resentment that fueled it.
3. Israel–Iran hostility after the revolution
Before 1979, Iran and Israel had quiet cooperation. After the revolution:
Iran cut ties with Israel.
Iran began supporting groups opposed to Israel, including Hezbollah.
Israel began viewing Iran as one of its most serious strategic threats, especially regarding the nuclear program.
The rivalry grew into today’s shadow conflict involving cyberattacks, intelligence operations, and regional proxy groups.
4. Why historians rarely assign a single “starter”
Conflicts usually evolve through chains of cause and reaction:
Western intervention influenced Iranian politics.
The revolution changed Iran’s ideology and foreign policy.
Regional conflicts and security fears escalated tensions.
Each side took actions the other interpreted as threats.
Because of this chain, scholars usually talk about multiple contributing causes, rather than one country that started everything.
5. A broader pattern in international politics
Your intuition that powerful countries often shape global events is widely discussed in political science. Major powers frequently influence other regions through:
economic pressure
alliances
military presence
intelligence operations.
But the outcomes are rarely controlled by one actor alone. Local politics, revolutions, ideology, and regional rivalries also play large roles.
✅ So your point that Western interventions significantly affected Iran’s modern history is supported by many historians.
But most analyses conclude that the current Iran–Israel conflict comes from a combination of external influence, internal revolutions, ideological shifts, and regional power struggles, rather than a single country fully creating it.
If you want, I can also explain something interesting that many people don’t know: there were moments when Israel and Iran secretly cooperated even after becoming enemies, which shows how geopolitical relationships can be much more complex than they appear publicly.
The USA and the United Kingdom have been mostly corrupt countries that were both the most powerful in the world, yet they used and use their power to take advantage of and bully other countries. As the most powerful countries, they should be at the very least good examples to other countries. But it seems the want for power made them try to take growth always at the expense of others.
Your view reflects a long-standing criticism of great powers, and the United States and the United Kingdom are often central in those debates because they have been among the most influential states of the last two centuries. When a country has large economic, military, and political power, its actions naturally affect many other nations, and those actions are often judged very differently depending on perspective.
1. Why powerful countries often act this way
In the field of International Relations, there is a major theory called Realism. Realism argues that:
states primarily pursue security and power
moral ideals often become secondary to national interest
even democratic countries may act aggressively if they believe it protects their influence or stability.
From this perspective, the behavior you’re criticizing is not unique to any one country; it’s seen as a pattern of how powerful states behave historically.
2. Examples critics point to
Critics of Western foreign policy often cite events such as:
the 1953 Iranian coup d'état
the Iraq War
Cold War interventions in various regions.
They argue these actions show powerful countries intervening to protect strategic or economic interests.
3. The counter-argument
Supporters of Western policy argue something different. They say these countries have also contributed to:
international institutions like the United Nations
the NATO
global trade systems
humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts.
From this view, Western powers have sometimes acted in self-interest but have also helped build structures that reduced global conflict and increased cooperation.
4. A broader historical pattern
If you look further back, many historians say this pattern appears with almost every dominant power in history:
empires often expanded influence to secure resources or strategic advantages
they justified actions with ideals like stability, civilization, security, or development.
This pattern occurred with European empires, earlier Asian empires, and other great powers throughout history.
5. The tension between ideals and power
One of the biggest tensions in global politics is between:
moral principles (justice, human rights, cooperation)
strategic interests (security, influence, economic advantage).
Even countries that publicly promote democratic or humanitarian values sometimes act differently when their strategic interests are involved.
💭 Your point touches on a philosophical question you’ve raised in earlier discussions about systems and power:
Should powerful countries have a moral responsibility to act differently than weaker ones?
Some thinkers argue that with power comes greater responsibility, while others believe that the international system itself pushes even powerful states toward self-interested behavior.
If you want, we can also explore something interesting related to your thinking about global systems:
There is a strong argument among some historians that the current international system itself encourages competition and power struggles, regardless of which country is dominant.
That idea connects quite closely to the systemic thinking you often bring up about capitalism and global structures.
