Despite Israel's clear violations of international humanitarian and war laws [1, 2], 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 to promote peace. In contrast, Israel has never accepted the NPT in the first place.

Regarding support for proxy groups:

1. In 2017, Hamas issued a new charter endorsing the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders—a notable departure from its previous position. However, Israel dismissed this potential opening for peace, determined to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state at all costs.
2. Given Israel’s flagrant violations of international law, much of the Palestinian resistance can be seen as justified and deserving of widespread international recognition and support.

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.

Cheaper isn't always better when human lives are at stake. Sanctions can drastically worsen the lives of millions, leading to inflation, reduced purchasing power, limited access to essential medications, and even malnutrition. These human costs can never be overlooked in favor of financial considerations.