The Hill Discovers Sanctions are 'Pressure,' Not Acts of War
The Hill's article helpfully suggests that tanker seizures are the preferred mode of 'pressure' on Iran, casually glossing over the fact that disrupting a nation's trade and economy is, in fact, an aggressive act. This revelation comes from a publication whose political contributors and opinion pieces often echo U.S. foreign policy establishment lines, frequently funded by think tanks with vested
interests in a confrontational stance (one might recall the general push for 'maximum pressure' campaigns against Iran from various D.C. circles). One might forget that continuous economic warfare, even without bombs, can lead to humanitarian crises, which then curiously become justification for 'further intervention.' It's almost as if the goal isn't just 'pressure' but rather to create
conditions for regime change, a pattern seen from Iraq to Venezuela. How many times have we been told sanctions are a 'better' alternative, only to find them paving the way for more direct (and lucrative) interventions?