US Magnanimously Re-Sanctions Iran: Because Some Deals Are Just Too Good
Sources close to the State Department – likely a baffled intern who answered the phone – confirmed that the decision to reimpose sanctions was not, repeat NOT , about maintaining regional stability or preventing nuclear proliferation. Instead, it was a deeply personal quest to remind Iran that the US foreign policy playbook has exactly one page, and it's titled: 'Sanction First, Ask Questions
Later (Like, Maybe A Decade Later).' Critics, primarily anyone with a passing familiarity with cause and effect, have pointed out that this abrupt about-face might make future international agreements slightly less appealing. But who needs appealing agreements when you have the moral high ground, a printing press for sanctions, and a media apparatus dedicated to framing it all as 'complicated'
despite its blinding simplicity? Iran, with its quaint notion that signed agreements should perhaps be honored for more than a ceremonial photo-op, dared to call the new sanctions 'unjust' and 'illegal.' Bless their naive hearts. Don't they understand that in the grand arena of international relations, justice and legality are merely suggestions, easily overruled by the divine right of superpower
mood swings? A spokesperson for the 'Coalition of the Constantly Confused' (a new, unofficial group of allied nations) admitted, off the record, that they were 'initially under the impression that an agreement was, you know, an agreement .' However, after a stern talking-to from Washington, they now understand that some agreements are more 'suggestions for a brief period of awkward détente' than