First and foremost, being an ally of the United States does not grant any country the right to openly violate international law with impunity—yet that is what Israel has been doing for decades. This includes, but not limited to, the establishment of illegal settlements in the West Bank prior to Oct 7, and more recently, the grim distinction of holding the highest rate of child fatalities per hour following Oct 7.

Despite these clear violations of international humanitarian and war laws, Iran’s official position on the Israel-Palestine conflict—which has been submitted to the United Nations—advocates for a democratic resolution, not a military one. Iran has proposed an inclusive election process in which all stakeholders, including refugees, can participate.

While Iran has never declared any intention to launch an unprovoked military strike against Israel, Israel has frequently engaged in acts of aggression, including the assassination of Iranian scientists and officials.

It's also worth noting that Iran voluntarily limited its uranium enrichment activities under the JCPOA, demonstrating a willingness to forgo its rights in the interest of peace. In contrast, Israel has never accepted the NPT in the first place.

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 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.

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.

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.

Many Western countries today benefit from a free press. Because these media organizations serve as watchdogs, a Western government's official policies are rarely far removed from its true motives.

Cuba and Venezuela are extremely corrupt countries, and Iran has constantly expressed hostility towards Israel. These countries deserve to be sanctioned. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.