Talk:United States sanctions against Iran

Reagan sanctions
Should there be a sentence that despite official sanctions, the US government covertly conducted arms sales, particularly of missiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.104.254 (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

this is only US sanctions
Is seems to me that this article should be renamed "US sanctions agains Iran", since it deals only with US sanctions, not UN sanctions for example, and there could be a more general article named "sanctions against Iran" that would group all sanctions against Iran, whether they are international, US, European etc.--Alain10 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to flag an article, but I think this one needs to be flagged for clean-up, it appears to not only focus on US sanctions, but seems to take a distinctly anti-American slant (ie saying the United States purposefull shot down the civilian airliner, which is exceptionally doubtful)... KrisFricke (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the US downing of the airliner.....it looks true that the shootdown was not intentional (well it was certainly intentional but we assume was intending to shoot down a warplane) but one must call it cavalier. The warship was protecting itself in someone else's waters or not considering the risk to itself more important than the risk to the airplane. It was a gross mistake which should be called manslaughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.161.42 (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is not relevant to a Wikipedia article. What is relevant is the recitation of facts. The facts are that the aircraft did not respond to repeated warnings to identify itself and divert course, and the warship fired before verifying the target. The question of fault is not for random members of the public to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.184.9 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 747
Did anybody notice the aircraft pictured is a Boeing 747? Obviously purchased before the sanctions, the article should clarify that for possibly confused readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.137.59 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Airplanes
What is the problem with the US not selling parts if the plane is not airworthy it should not be flown and any crash is the fault of Iranian officials. 1,500 killed how is that the fault of the US iran should not have flown them or maybe stopped support of terrorist groups blowing up american soldiers or nuclear weapons development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.177.65 (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah, because american soldiers came to change scenery and make new friends. and before you talk about nuclear weapons, why can't iran have them? the US and isreal have them and no one seemed to give a damn. hell, even the US nuked the shit out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over 370,000 and no body said anything.

those terrorist you are talking about are the rightful defenders of their countries. get your news from the internet not from US TV. it fucks up with your point of view--7amada&#39;sback:) (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * hold on one second I can't see after what the Taliban did to the Iranian ambassadors and the Hazara of Afghanistan not being terrorist . And buying things from north korea I mean The west can only make you look so crazy Iran has had many dealings with kim jung il." US nuked the shit out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over 370,000 and no body said anything." because everyone knew a full scale invasion of the japanese home island would have cost many more lives on both sides. As for flying airplanes that don't work its the iranian Govs fault for no checking the planes and grounding them!

Major copyedit
I just did a major copyedit of the page. I focused on changing language to be clear, removing redundancies, and complying with WP:NPOV. I removed information not specifically related to sanctions nor needed to explain them (as, for example, that U.S. forces attacked Iranian naval forces, or that IEEE, not a U.S. government agency, restricted privileges of Iranian members). I fixed a lot of the citations, and removed two external links not complying with WP:EL.

I also removed the three templates at the top of the page. I ask that if someone puts one or more back, he/she also explains, on this talk page, exactly why there is a problem (giving examples of NPOV language still in the article, or examples of where a non-U.S. viewpoint is missing). I do strongly recommend against posting a template regarding the less-than-complete references. There are literally millions of Wikipedia articles that need more footnotes. There is no need to waste everyone's time by pointing out that need in this article specifically. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
I'm trying to cut short the edit war on this article. The reason for rejecting the proposed edits is that they are opinion presented as fact.

The issue is why the November 2004 Paris agreement between the EU3 and Iran broke down. MUCHERS22 asserts that it was because the EU3 reneged, presumably by not developing a proposal for a long-term resolution of the issue. In fact, the EU3 did develop such a proposal, though Iran argued that it was too little too late. In addition, Iran never fully adhered to its commitment to suspend enrichment-related activities, constantly pursuing activities at the uranium conversion facility which was explicitly listed as enrichment-related. The EU3 would cite Iran's decision to end that suspension altogether as the cause for the breakdown. All this took place in less than a year. NPguy (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The EU-3 talks broke down not because of the slow progress of the EU-3, it broke down when the EU-3 with the push from the U.S. demanded Iran to (amongst other things) permanently terminate its enrichment program before any deal could be reached. This demand was in contrast to the Paris agreement the EU-3 and Iran just had agreed to, namely, that the suspension was temporary and volountary. EU-3 failed to recognize the right they had granted Iran in the agreement, they also demanded things from Iran but offered no substantive incentives in return. Since EU-3 had failed to follow the spirit of the agreement and therefore broke it, Iran began to enrich again in accordance with the NP Treaty.
 * The reason for why I changed the article is because I think it is biased and also false, since it putting all the blame on Iran. I am open to compromise on this issue, its a matter of words.
 * MUCHERS22 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, the EU3 never demanded that Iran permanently end its enrichment program. If you have information to the contrary, please provide.  It is clear that the EU3 and Iran had different views of how long the suspension might last.  But given that Iran began nibbling away at the suspension within months of the Paris agreement, it's not clear that Iran was ever serious about a meaningful suspension.  The EU3 did develop a package of incentives and made it public after Iran rejected the package.  Less than a year after the Paris agreement, Iran that walked away from it.  If they ran out of patience, it's only because they had very little to start with.  The EU3 have also consistently recognized Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear program.


 * The question here is what triggered the push for sanctions by the UN Security Council. It was the report to the Council by the IAEA Board of Governors that Iran had violated its NPT safeguards agreement, as required by the IAEA Statute.  This finding was based on the IAEA report of November 2003, but was held in abeyance as long as Iran was seen to be cooperating with the EU3 to resolve the matter.  Once Iran walked away from the Paris agreement, the Board felt it could no longer delay in meeting its responsibility. NPguy (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the EU-3 wanted to impose a indefinite suspension of enrichment - namely to abandon and full cessesion of the fuel cycle activities (enrichment) in 2005, while they (EU-3) earlier, had fully agreed to Iran's temporarily and volountary continous suspenion since 2003 (with a renewal in 2004).

As for the incentives, it has been described by some diplomats as: "an empty box of chocolates" and thats because: "there is nothing else we can offer ... the Americans simply wouldn't let us.". Even the IAEA have outlined this claim, pointing out the lack of profound incentives prosposed to Iran during the dialogue.

For example the WTO-offer, its not up to EU do decide whetever Iran is to join or not, or the incentive about exchange/profilation of civilian nuclear technology, that right are Iran already granted according to the NP Treaty. Another incentive where the EU-3 proposal for Iran to get nuclear fuel abroad, which clearly means that Iran wasnt granted their full right according to the NP Treaty, without discrimination - which then exposed that the EU-3 wasnt serious about the legal right for Iran when it comes to the NP Treaty, because according to the NP Treaty you are of course granted to enrich fuel to begin with. On top of that, there was no substansive security incentives from the EU-3, because they (EU-3) couldn't propose such a incentive since the U.S. wasnt happy with this bilateral dialogue to begin with. Also, the incentives said nothing about sanctions at all (in regards to ease/lift them) et.c.

Then came the sanctions which is highly dubious in itself (legality), but thats offtopic for this specific issue.

So, putting all the blame on Iran which these few sentence does in the article, gives a false impression of what really happend, I therefore think we should neutralize this particular text to make it less biased and seek to portray a more historiclly correct.MUCHERS22 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your rendition of the history bears little resemblance to the facts I am familiar with. NPguy (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well thats I mean, we have an article that is biased and give a false depiction of what happend.


 * I also see a problem with the text portraying that is was due Ahmadinejad becoming a president, that Iran proceeded with their nuclear work. Thats not correct, for example, the possible restart of enrichment was mentioned mounths before Ahmadinejad even took office.


 * Second, it wasnt in 2005 they started its enrichment (which the article tells us), but just a limited conversion acitivity.


 * And let me get back to one of your earlier statements you made that Iran had "violated" the NP Treaty - Safeguards agreement. Iran has never violated those treaties according the bureau that have inspected the sites, namely the IAEA.MUCHERS22 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have a point that restarting Iran's enrichment program should not be linked to Ahmadinejad. In the Paris agreement Iran agreed to suspend uranium conversion, which was identified as "enrichment-related activity."  So restarting conversion was restarting "enrichment-related activity."  In September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors concluded that Iran had indeed violated its NPT safeguards agreement. NPguy (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the article should say that they started working on conversion then, calling it "enrichment-related activity" is a rather vast, and could be a misleading, term.


 * When did IAEA used the word 'violated'?


 * The agreement says first and foremost that the suspension will be 1. Volountary 2. Temporary 3. That the agreement itself is a non-legal binding agreement. The agreement was a mere confidence building "construction" during the talks, not a legal matter.


 * Also "the suspension will be sustained while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term agreements"
 * So when the EU-3 ignored to reply to Iran's proposals they sent, their lack of progress and when the EU-3 itself broke the spirit of the agreement when they called and proposed for incentives that neglected Iran's full right according to the NPT, there was no reason to keep the suspension on going for Iran.


 * The EU-3 proposal incentives also critically lacked the fundamental and basic goal of the agreement, namely to provide serious and substansive guarantees and commitments:
 * "The agreement will provide...."objective guarantees" " provide firm guarantees" "firm commitments"
 * MUCHERS22 (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing misleading about "enrichment related activity." The only purpose for producing uranium hexafluoride is for enrichment.  The IAEA Board of Governors, in its resolution of September 24, 2005, found that Iran had been in "non-compliance" with its safeguards agreement, essentially a synonym for "violation."  The EU3 proposal was quite extensive.  Iran ended its suspension, effectively withdrawing from the Paris agreement, before it received the proposal, even though the proposal was provided at the promised time.  The proposal contained substantial commitments from the EU3.  According to the Paris agreement, it was for Iran to provide "objective guarantees" regarding the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. NPguy (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-compliance, means just that, it doesnt mean anything else and its not in no way synonymous with the usage of the word 'violation'. Non-compliance is when a member state have been (for example) repugnant, delayed, have not been enough collaborative on IAEA wishes. Because when IAEA have used the word 'violated'on the other hand, they have used it when a nation have been in breach with the treaties they have signed, Iran have, according to the the BOG of the IAEA been in non-compliance - but again, being in non-compliance doesnt mean Iran have breached the treaty. For example North Korea have breached the treaty so after the IAEA inspected the North korean nuclear sites they then used the word 'violated' in their report.

No, Iran didnt "withdraw" from anything to begin with. They began its conversion-program at one limited place after the EU-3 presented its breaching of the Paris agreement in August 2005 (the conversion wasnt illegal since the site had been declared to the IAEA and subsequently monitored), also they didnt departure from the talks. Also the agreement itself, as mentioned earlier, was a non-legal binding agreement, it was a sole confidence building measure. The agreement states: "The suspension will be implemented in time for the IAEA to confirm before the November Board that it has been put into effect. The suspension will be sustained while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements," it said. "The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence building measure and not a legal obligation."

The IAEA themselves explicitly made this statement in one of their reports on Iran: "While the results of Agency safeguards activities may influence the nature and scope of the confidence building measures that the Board requests Iran to take, it is important to note that safeguards obligations and confidence building measures are different, distinct and not interchangeable. "

So if anyone withdrew it is the EU-3 group that failed to respect the premise in the Partis agreement they previously had agreed too. Since EU-3 failed to follow the agreement, there was no reason for Iran to keep going since the agreement goal was to find a solution that was mutual.

According to who did the proposal contain "substantial commitments" but also "firm guarantees", "firm commitments" and "objective guarantees"? Which source explicitly say that? Or is it just your personal view? We must reduce all such NPOV arguments and standpoints in this discussion and also in the article itself. Chrissler48 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case, "non-compliance" refers to Iran's failure to meet its international legal obligations. It's more than just not cooperating - it's a long list of specific "breaches" of Iran's obligations under its NPT safeguards agreement with the IAEA.  In particular, Iran violated its NPT safeguards obligations by concealing enrichment activities and related facilities and materials from the IAEA, despite its NPT obligation to place all nuclear material under IAEA safeguards.  It's not an ambiguous case.  The IAEA decisions use the term "non-compliance" because it is how the concept is expressed in the IAEA Statute.


 * As for who walked out on the Paris agreement, it's clear that Iran ran out of patience with the EU3 just as they were about to make a comprehensive proposal. By restarting its conversion facility, Iran took the first overt action to effectively end the agreement while the EU3 were still ready to deal.  Iran's serious NPT violations put the onus on Iran to rebuild confidence in its intentions, an effort Iran does not seem to have pursued in earnest.  The text of the Paris agreement is available here. NPguy (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No they have never breached the NPT, they have been in non-compliance which is not the same thing. And Iran didnt violate the treaty by not notify the IAEA about the facilities since Iran, as a member state is only obliged to to do that 180 days before you place nuclear material which was exactly what Iran did, in fact, they notified the agency even more than 3 mounths prior. Thats no violation.

EU-3 did indeed deviate and broke the the agreement by proposing stuff that violated the agreement itself. When Iran recogized this failure of the EU-3 they started the pre-enrichment activity, that is conversion under IAEA surveillance which they were fully legally to do since it was volountary and non-legally binding.

Also you didnt reply to this:

"According to who did the proposal contain "substantial commitments" but also "firm guarantees", "firm commitments" and "objective guarantees"? Which source explicitly say that? Or is it just your personal view? We must reduce all such NPOV arguments and standpoints in this discussion and also in the article itself."Chrissler48 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are repeating yourself, so I will simply repeat that I disagree. Iran did violate the NPT, in particular its safeguards obligations.  It has nothing to do with the (outdated) 180 day limit on declaring facilities - it's about failure to place material under safeguards - i.e. diversion of material that Iran was legally required to place under safeguards.  My reply to your last point was to look at the text of the Paris agreement, for which I provided a link. NPguy (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I just replied to your statement about violation regarding "concealment", there was no violation since they werent obliged to do so before a specific time. But leaving that off-topics aside... Sure we have a disagreement, therefore we must come together with a compromise over this issue in regards to what should be said in the article.Chrissler48 (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are wrong on the facts. Iran violated its safeguards agreement by failing to declare nuclear material that it was required to declare under its safeguards agreement.  There is no ambiguity. NPguy (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thats your view and thats why I said we need to find a compromise, because your view is not the only one or necessary the fully correct one, regarding what should be said in the article.Chrissler48 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no basis for a "compromise" here. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts." NPguy (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well again, thats your view, we got another view so we need to find a compromise, that doesnt mean that we are not going to respect your view or fully remove it just that we need to add a different view or approach to this short piece of text to make it more neutral.Chrissler48 (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's not good enough. Unless you can present facts to support a different view - which you have not done - there is no basis for changing the current text. NPguy (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We have showed you facts. But either way, we have a disagreement. OK. But then we need to find a common ground we could start building from to make the text more neutral. Its a matter of words.Chrissler48 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You asserted that Iran did not violate its safeguards agreement, making an incorrect claim about what that agreement requires. I corrected this error and you simply repeated it.  This may be a disagreement, but not a basis for changing the article. NPguy (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I am not talking about that, I am talking about the small paragraf you and Muchers22 have been arguing about what should be written, for example I think we could agree on some things on that point even if we have some disagreements, like I said - we need to find a common ground to build something from.Chrissler48 (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There were two disputes. One was whether the EU3 reneged on the Paris agreement or Iran ended its suspension of enrichment-related activities.  The other was whether Iran was in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement.  If we're focused on the former, I think the current version should be satisfactory.  It is POV to assert that the EU3 failed to meet their obligations, but factual to say that Iran lifted the suspension of its enrichment program. NPguy (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course that is your view, again, therefore we need to find a common ground to make the text, and therefore the article more neutral because we dont necessary agree with your views. For example one of the primary focal points is what should be written in the first paragraf under the "Ahmadinejad Government"-headline.Chrissler48 (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You have not explained what you think the problem is with the current text. NPguy (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

SWIFT
I listened to a Jim Sinclair interview on YouTube. If I get him right, the US sanctions against Iran in effect threaten every single bank in the whole world to be cut off from SWIFT if they don't stop trading with Iran! "If you are not in SWIFT (as a bank), you are not in business!" - I don't know if he is right, but he almost sounds like: if only one bank in a country has ties to an iranian bank, all banks of this country will be cut off from SWIFT (effectifely taking them out of business), so no wonder he calls that the nuclear option of economic warfare and fears retaliation... (- his fears are, that China, Japan, India etc. will react to that kind of economic warfare by developping their own settling-system and retaliate by not buying US treasuries anymore etc. - but that's a different story.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.67.190 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Li Fangwei
The bounty on Li Fangwei is for violating sanctions on Iran. Why is this not notable? Hcobb (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't revert, but this seems totally lacking in context. It's not about China so much as it's about the structure of U.S. sanctions, namely that they apply to third parties who engage in certain actions.  And it should not be a subhead under Ahmadenijad. NPguy (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Will create a newer request soon. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

U.S. sanctions against Iran → United States embargo on Iran – Or United States sanctions against Iran, although "sanctions" would look like a "verb". The "U.S." must be spelled out. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * oppose. There is no embargo.  There are sanctions.  And "U.S." is the appropriate form as an adjective,  "United States" should only be used as a noun. NPguy (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What about American sanctions against Iran, NPguy? --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "American" refers to a broader geographic region than just the United States. I see no reason to change the current article title. NPguy (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Regardless of what these penalties "really" are, they are almost always referred to as "sanctions" in the media, and almost never as an "embargo" (unlike, say, Cuba).  I'm more neutral on whether to spell out United States or not, but think U.S. is fine in this context, too. SnowFire (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I also am less opposed to spelling out "United States." Depends on Wikipedia standards. NPguy (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

U.S. sanctions against Iran → Sanctions against Iran by the United States – As said in recently withdrawn request, "United States" should be spelled out. However, if "United States" will be treated as a noun, let's change the title format and put it at the end instead. It also should be consistent with "sanctions against Iran". (Don't worry; I won't propose "embargo" this time.) George Ho (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging NPguy and SnowFire. George Ho (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposed title is clunky. I'd propose American sanctions on Iran. Sanctions are not "against" a country, they are "imposed on" a specific country for a specific reason. Abbreviations are not ideal in article titles. Standard adjectives should be used. Use "American" and used "on" instead of "against". The proper way to do this, in a WP:CONCISE and COMMON manner is to follow my proposal.  RGloucester  — ☎ 05:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a parallel article European Union sanctions against Iran. Probably good to keep parallel structure.  If there is indeed Wikipedia guidance to spell out United States, that's OK with me.  Otherwise, I don't se the point. NPguy (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That redirects to Iran–European Union relations. Might not be a good example. MOS:U.S. might or might not apply; it discusses just context but allows spelling out "United States", especially when discussing another country. Unsure about MOS:TITLE, but go to MOS:TITLE. What about WP:AT or WP:NCCST or WP:NCE? George Ho (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything on any of those pages that informs the question at hand. I'm inclined to leave this title alone.  I don't see a problem that needs fixing. NPguy (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on U.S. sanctions against Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090204180128/http://mianeh.net:80/en/articles/?aid=169 to http://www.mianeh.net/en/articles/?aid=169

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

== Article needs to be updated to reflect recent changes in sanctions regime. ==

The article is outdated, and does not reflect recent changes. On July 14, 2015, the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), the European Union, and Iran reached a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. October 18, 2015 marked Adoption Day of the JCPOA, the date on which the JCPOA came into effect and participants began taking steps necessary to implement their JCPOA commitments. On January 16, 2016 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified that Iran has implemented its key nuclear-related measures described in the JCPOA, and the Secretary State confirmed the IAEA’s verification. As a result of Iran verifiably meeting its nuclear commitments, the United States lifted nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, as described in the JCPOA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.71.67 (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias?
Is there a reason the article fails to mention that the sanctions apply to other countries as well etc.? EnTerbury (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? NPguy (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

move edit
If this is a side-effect of sanctions, not their stated purpose, should not you move them to Effects and criticism part? M1nhm (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, that's what I did. NPguy (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)