It is comforting to know that certain aspects of life never change, like the West believing democracy is a polished version of colonialism. When entangled strings are separated, what remains is the farce called democracy, expect when it pertains to the West, then it’s attempted to be upheld for all the native population in spirt and action, for the rest abstract identification is adequate. This is the reality that is unfolding across the globe, more so in the Gulf region and especially in case of Iran. As in case of other countries, the only aspect that interests the West with regard to democracy is the specific reference to human rights violation within Iran. But within this regard there are two question that are pertinent but never answered: a) Can democratic rights of individuals exist in the absence of sovereign rights of nations, and if they do won’t they be just be gullible commodities for corporations and evolving tech governance; b) Is selection of human rights of individuals a planned choice to facilitate corporate global governance that seek singularity at all levels for the convenience of AI.
The questions raised here are not
alien to the present MOU between Iran and the US, in fact it is central to it.
The West, not just the US love to beat the drum of Human Rights violation so
loud and persistently that the UN can only assert it, in fact there is specific
division with UN to uphold Human Rights but sovereign rights by design of the
UN creation from charter onwards only has a few lines about sovereign rights of
nations and none about how to hold the powerful nations accountable for
violation of the same especially as they rule United Nations Security Council.
Assertion of this bias is not a conspiracy theory but based on the fact that
the entire UN and many of its conventions, were creations of the United States
that initially tested these concepts in the Latin America, South America and
the Caribbeans. It is also a fact that countries the region have been
systematically stripped of their sovereignty with some of them being totally
dependent on the US for military security and have even been dollarized
economically. Strangely, it was done in the name of democracy and regional
security by the US. The cruellest joke of all extent of poverty and economic
disparity has only increased in these countries.
I. The Sanctions on Iran and
total violation of its Sovereign Rights and justice
The apartheid style of democracy
practiced by the West, especially the US and never questioned by UN, is not
just evident in case of Iran but also in other instances. The global narration
to create a direct association between Iran and global threat has been
systematically cultivated with a large dose of fallacies and selective
perception. Iran is country that has never attacked another country first, it
has always defended it sovereignty. Yet, it is a country that faced and
continues to face extensive sanctions from the US, EU and UN. Why? Please don’t
state it uses its proxies and conducts terrorism, or rather exports terrorism.
If Western or US democracy with regard to international relations is not
apartheid in letter and spirit, how come Israel that has attacked maximum
number of countries in the name of its security has never been sanctioned as a
nation? Why?
The false narration of Israel
sense of security is sounding like a stuck record, for it is difficult to
believe Israel, a nuclear power, with a military that is among the most
powerful across the globe with unconditional support from the US, support based
on raison d’être
from Germany and support based on religion, ethnicity and historical injustice
from many other nation is really insecure and feeling threatened. If Israel
still feels insecure, then even if Israeli Jews is the only race that exists in
the entire plant, they would still be insecure and would seek to find threat be
it aliens or threats within themselves. Either way the concept of justifying
everything in the name of Israel’s security has run its course, please find
some other reason to justify colonial extension.
Examples of Clear discrimination and
violation of Rights of Iran through Sanctions
a) The first time the United States
enforced sanction on Iran was in 1979 through Presidential Executive order,
when radical students who supported revolution that saw the King Mohammad Rize
Pahlavi being overthrown, seized the US Embassy in Tehran and held 66 American
including diplomats and other officials’ hostage from 4th November
1979 to 20th January 1981 [1]. This part of Iran reality with regard
to sanction is highlighted and refreshed in mind of public but rarely any
details is given as to why? It is presented as though Iran is filled with
terrorists and nothing better can be done, so America is doing a public good by
holding Iran accountable and protecting the world. Truth?
Data states otherwise, months after
Iranian Revolution Muslim Students followers of the Imam’s Line, stormed the US
Embassy because they wanted the United States to extradite Iranian King
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been granted asylum by the Carter administration
[2]. The King was supposed to stand trail for all the violation he had
committed while in power, this was a legitimate demand from the citizens of a
sovereign nation. But the US thought otherwise and decided to intervene. To
understand the depth of angst of the Iranians, it is important to go a bit
further into the past.
Under King Reza Pahlavi, human
rights violation was rampant and dissent was controlled with an iron fist [3]. Nation’s
massive oil wealth did not benefit the people, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was
controlled by the British government and Iran was severely underpaid for its
resources. While British oil employees enjoyed luxurious living conditions
Iranian workers were segregated and frequently forced to live in squalid slums.
Most Iranian lived in extreme poverty, large percentage of population depended
on agriculture, as land was owned a small percentage of the population,
majority lived without basic amenities electricity, clean water and adequate
housing. The large developed that did happen with many companies across fields
being opened but majority did not belong to Iranians but to foreign
corporations.
The entire internet seems to
be managed in favour of Shah regime, wonder is this American President, Israel and
Tech Strategy, even Wikipedia seems to have given in, critical article once
accessible suddenly disappear. If true, Israel and America stop interfering in
sovereign reality of Iran and stop net manipulation. For there are different
routes for analysis and search that can reveal truth, for unlike AI, human mind
is very flexible at the instant. It just takes time and persistence, that’s
all. Israel, stop wasting my time, you are not going to win.
Here goes, according to
historical data available, Infant Mortality was 201.888 per 1000 births in 1950
and in 1965 it was 235.927, in 1985 infant mortality was 60.7, in 2020 it was
10.956 and 2025 it stood at 10.469 [4].
[The above data is just to
indicate to Israel, President of US, the Iranian diaspora passionate to bring
back Shah Regime in Iran, the reality the assert is not correct; otherwise,
this is a diversion from the topic on hand. By the way mine is just a blog find
someone else to bully through your dispersed network]
Mohammad Mosaddegh was
democratically elected to power in April 1951, he brought in many social
reforms for the benefit of the people, he focused on national sovereignty and
democratic governance. He introduced social security laws, compulsory
unemployment insurance and protection for industrial workers. He carried out
land reforms, he transferred agricultural land from the Shah’s personal estate
to the public domain, improving conditions of rural farmers. Progressive
taxation was introduced; it included taxation on rent of land to redistribute
wealth. Besides, there are two changes that probably that led to him being
ousted in a joint US and British coup d’état on August 19th 1953,
nationalization of Iran’s oil industry and limiting the power of monarchy by
advocating that the King remains a ceremonial figurehead as outlined in the
constitution rather than a direct ruler, thereby shifting the balance of power
to the elected parliament. Decades later US has acknowledge its role in the
coup carried out in 1953 [5].
The shift in governance was good
for Iran but certainly not for the West or their companies. Iran nationalised
Anglo Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and expelled foreign companies from oil
refineries in the city of Abadan. AIOC was United Kingdom’s single largest
overseas asset, so British response to the change was brutal. British warships
blocked Abadon, economic sanction were imposed on Iran, export of key
commodities sugar and steel was prohibited, directed withdrawal of all British
personnel, and blocked Iran’s access to hard currency account in British banks
[6].
Iran was confident that they
could easily hire non-British technicians to run the industry and quickly train
their own nationals. That was not to be, for Iran forgot democracy is but
extended colonialism. The United States, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Pakistan, and West Germany all refused to make their technicians available to
nationalized Iranian industry. Only Italy agreed, but it did not materialise as
it was not acceptable to powers who believed in colonial extension called
democracy. Royal Navy intercepted Italian tanker Rose Mary on the ground that
ship’s petroleum was stolen property. The news spread and scared off other
tankers and effectively shut down oil export from Iran [ibid].
Unable to deal with changes
situation that benefited Iranian more than foreign companies, in 1953 through a
coup d’état
Mohammed Reze Pahlavi was brought back into power by United Kingdom and the
United States. Then the control of AIOC shifted to an international consortium,
ownership share division was made in the following lines, 40% was divided
equally among five major American companies and BP to have 40% share, Shell 14%
and CFP 6%. Iran received 25% of profit and had no ownership rights [ibid].
Still wonder why the Iranian
Students sought to hold the US accountable for letting their corrupt ruler
escape justice?
2. The Second Sanction was in 1984 under
Reagan administration
This was a response to Iranian
complicity in the 1983 Beirut Marine Corps barracks and U.S. Embassy bombing in
Lebanon that led to 241 US service members and 58 French paratroopers being
killed. Early morning a driver rammed an explosive filled truck into the
four-story headquarters building, the massive blast caused the building to
collapse and killing the forces there [7,8]. This aspect is reinforced
continuously by the US and West to assert terrorist profile of Iran, but did
this happen in isolation is never focused on.
From 16th to 18th
September 1982, around 3500 civilians mostly Palestinians and Lebanese were
massacred in Beirut Sabra neighbourhood close to Shatila refugee camp by
Lebanese forces, one of the main Christian militias in Lebanon with support of
Isreal Defence Forces (IDF). The
massacre involved mass killings, acts of slaughter, mutilation, rape and mass
graves. Prior to this horrific act Israel invaded Lebanon with the intention to
throw out Palestine Liberation Organization from there and by August 1982, PLO
withdrew from Lebanon under the supervision of Multinational Force [9].
By 11th September
multinational force withdrew and but they had exposed the area for they removed
barracks and mines that had encircled Beirut’s predominantly Muslim
neighbourhood that kept Israelis at bay. The massacre was carried out by 300 to
400 militiamen and during the massacre IDF received reports about the
atrocities carried but instead of intervening, as they should have as they are
the occupying force at that time, the IDF actively prevented camp’s residents
from leaving the area. In addition, at the request of the Lebanese forces IDF
shot flares to illuminate Sabra and Shatila through out the night to facilitate
the massacre [ibid].
After the incident not a single
official or militia fighter was ever held accountable, a prominent Israeli
inquiry headed by Israeli Supreme Court President and two other members a
Supreme Court judge from Israel and Israel Defence Forces Major General. The
commission concluded held Israel accountable for indirect responsibilities and
that Defence Minister Ariel Sharon bore “personal responsibility”. UN General
Assembly passed a resolution declaring the massacre as an act of genocide. But
nothing happened beyond that, in 2002 dozens of survivors of Sabra and Shatila
filed a case against Sharon, for as per 1993 law there was permission to try
foreigners for war crimes committed abroad. But, the court dismissed the case
state Sharon was not in court, it is alleged Belgium was under pressure from
the US to dismiss the case. Later the law, itself was scrapped.
Still wonder why the US and
French forces were attacked?
After the attack the response was
immediate, US declared Iran as State Sponsor of Terrorism, that designation has
been upheld through the decades by successive US administration, it meant
export control, foreign aid ban, financial and trade sanction which meant the
US stiff opposition to loans from World Bank and other international financial
institutions, exposed to civil liability which meant loss of sovereign immunity
and thus allowing victims of terrorism to sue the designated state for damages
and last it meant secondary sanctions, whereby penalties are applied to other
individuals, companies or countries that engage in certain types of trade with
designated State [10]. As with the Sanction enforce on 1984, all sanctions
enforced by US does not seem to have an expiry date, sanctions kept adding on
Iran with no end in sight. UN and EU added on their selective bit of justice
through sanctions on Iran [11].
Another indication for West
democracy and its practices is merely extension of colonialism!
3. Reimposing UN and EU sanctions
on Iran
Comprehensive UN and EU sanctions
were officially reimposed on Iran on September 28Th 2025 after
European powers, France, Germany and the United Kingdom used snap back
mechanism to ensure sanction on Iran without being Vetoed by China and Russia.
The justification given was Iran was in possession of enriched uranium to a
level higher than what is needed for civilian purpose. Great, why was such
sanction never enforced on Israel, even when it has been attacking countries at
will across the region. Israel, is using its nuclear arsenal and military clout
to threaten the region and yet it is never called to task! Did France, Germany
and the United Kingdom have the ethical or moral ground for these sanctions
[12]. No!
Iran was in negotiation when the
US President decided dropping bombs would be fun task and his merriment lasted
for twelve days with no interference from other structures of governance within
so called democracy the United States. During the 12-day war in June 2025, it
began with Israel simultaneously bombing different locations in Iran, killing
prominent military leaders, nuclear scientist and their family members,
politicians and civilians. This has been Israel’s strategy across the region,
to kill the military and governance network by identifying prominent persons
and killing them with their families. This is the greatly appreciated by the
West as a very democratic move to curtail terrorism and make the region
democratic with a colonial tint. Hence no sanctions on Israel and
parliaments across western countries sent another load of ammunition for Israel
to appease its Kill Urge.
This is the asserted strategy
with pride, the United States and Israel traced nuclear scientists and network
of technicians to eliminate all or significant number to create a gap. The
egoist Israelis and American do not realise this is a strategy any one can
replicate and the number of scientist and senior technicians in Israel at the
most, considering 10 percent of total population of high-tech professionals and
scientists being 400,000, would be around 4000, a small number to eliminate and
can be done with ease using tested Israeli and American strategy. If countries
are not repeating the democratic war strategies of the US and Israel it is
because not many want to live in dark spaces unlike Israelis and Americans. But
it would be nice for Israel and the US to remember everyone has their limits
that cannot be crossed.
What justice did Iran get from
the UN or any international community, for this premeditated attack to wipe out
its intelligentsia and military experts to totally disrupt and destroy its
governance, a complete attack on its sovereignty by so called democracies? None
other than verbal condemnation.
But Iran got sanctions
enforced by the great European Nations who only saw Iran’s enriched uranium
shining through the dead bodies, destroyed buildings and eliminated families.
Data through the decades seems to indicate, Iran can be trusted with nuclear
arms, but neither Israel and the US can be trusted with the same given their
passion for dropping bombs, along with Israel’s specific love of phosphorous
flavour.
Still wonder who are the real
terrorists?
Terrorism and right to
pre-emptive strike has been misused to destroy resources for sovereign nation
Iran. Once resource starved, countries universally seek authoritarianism to
control their population and the West, especially the US is aware of it and
banks on the same. Then the drums of human rights violations start to starts to
beat loud, to ensure the nation cracks.
II. Weaponisation of Strait of
Hormuz
While in case between United
Kingdom and Albania, ICJ ruled that foreign ships including warships have the
right of innocent passage, but then the passage has to be continuous and
expeditious [13]. This is not the case with regard to how the United States and
Israel used the access to sovereign waters or the Strait of Hormuz, and both
weaponised the access to Strait of Hormuz. Hence, their right based on innocent
passage is no longer valid. Both the nations, weaponised the Strait of Hormuz
on two different occasions, once in June 2025, a surprise attack on nuclear
facilities and human resource of scientists and military officials and the next
on Feb 28th 2026, when Supreme Leader of Iran was assassinated along
with his family members across generation and so were more than 50 senior
leaders. Hence this is not a onetime event, this is the total misuse of rights
under UNCLOS by the United States and Israel, especially as they have
technological advantage that can make brutal war due to warships and submarines
proximity to Iranian shores.
Brutally is clearly evident, when
countries like Israel, India and Pakistan declared the development of nuclear
bomb after completing the task and none of them were bombed, this was not the
case of Iran it had enriched Uranium for decades and yet the wisdom of
democratic western countries guided them to bomb Iran and saw it as a
legitimate option. If, any western
country did not see it as a legitimate option, then how come they are all so
silent till now, and no one has even thought of sanctioning the US and Israel?
Wasn’t Iran sanctioned for far lesser acts of war crimes or allegations of the
same. Here clearly colonial tinted democracy is in full display and its integration
in perspective by the West, ensures they are blindsided to criminal, apartheid
discrimination shown to Iran.
Here Iran has to protect its
sovereignty and its citizens, for its not combatants that were targeted, during
peace time civilians were murdered, scientists were assassinated along with
their family members, and a nation’s moral, religious, political and strategic
leader was assassinated with his family. It was a planned premeditated brutal
attack on a sovereign nation with the intention to destroy its governance
structure and ensure chaos and mayhem. If it did not happen in Iran, it means
Iran has a much strong understanding of its governance and has far more support
from the people than western media and Iran’s diaspora make it out to be. Against this background Iran has the
sovereign right the best way to manage the Strait of Hormuz and it has earned
it.
Neither of the attacks on Iran
would have been feasible without the US navy playing an active and its
proximity to Iran’s shores being possible. For this did not just facilitate
attack, it also made surveillance easy and destruction of Iran’s defences
feasible to the advantage of the US and Israel. This once again assert’s Iran’s
sovereign right to decide the best way to manage the Strait of Hormuz in dialogue
with Oman.
III. The great MOU of 14 points or the X knot?
The MOU starts with focus on
sovereignty of nations and avoidance of force including in Lebanon and asserts
the need for peace in the region and not just a bilateral agreement as
everything is interlinked. It then further
focuses on how final deal will be achieved in 60 days through negotiations;
it focuses on removing naval
blockade on Iran in 30 days but will remove the US naval forces from the
proximity of Iran within 30 thirty days after the final deal which time line is
not indicated;
then it focuses on safe passage
through Strait of Hormuz and its administration;
the most publicised 300 billion fund for
construction and economic development of Iran is focused with a vague
suggestion it is through Gulf countries and the United States- here to there is
no time line as it is supposed to be finalised as part of the final deal;
with regard to sanctions being terminated it
would be done so as part of final deal and no time line indicated;
on dealing nuclear enrichment
program of Iran it focuses on disposition of nuclear stock pile through a
methodology worked out with IAEA and with regard to need for nuclear energy for
Iran the issue is slated to be discussed and framework developed in the final
deal, but through out it is asserted that issues will be immediately addressed
through negotiations to achieve mutual agreement which apparently does not need
to wait for the final deal;
till final deal reached, both
parties maintain status quo and US will not enforce any new sanctions on Iran;
Upon signing of the MOU and till
the termination of sanctions on Iran, US Department of treasury will issue
waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and other items,
including associated services, banking, transactions, insurances,
transportation etc.;
Upon implementation of the MOU
the frozen funds will be made available for use Islamic Republic of Iran, the
procedure to release of funds to Central Bank of Islamic Republic of Iran with
United States undertaking to issue all necessary licenses and authorisation
accordingly;
Executive mechanism will be
established to monitor the successful implementation of the MOU and future
compliance of the final deal;
After addressing basic
implementation of the MOU, Iran and the US will start negotiation regarding
final deal exclusively on other issues; and
The final deal will be endorsed
by a binding UNSC resolution.
MOU and Points to ponder on
for clarity
1. While the MOU focused on sovereignty of all nations and need to
refrain from use of threat, the US and Israel already set up a framework for
addressing conflict between Israel and Lebanon, where the focus was to blame
Hezbollah as the cause for all conflict and strengthen the assumption that for
peace the cause of discord should be eliminated from being an active source of
power. This is the layered thinking practised by the US and Israel, where in
the MOU between the US and Iran, peace is tied to sovereignty being respected
for all nations and threat of use of force is avoided. But in reality, the bilateral agreement
between Israel and Lebanon focused on Israel taking over control across Lebanon
in identifying Hezbollah infrastructure to dismantle the same with the goal to
make Hezbollah and other state actors powerless so that Israel can set up the
process of governance within Southern Lebanon to its satisfaction.
2. & 3. Focuses on sovereignty, territorial integrity and working
towards final deal in maximum 60 days.
4. While the MOU does indicate
removal naval blockade and to end the naval blockade in thirty days, it does
not state the same about removing the US forces from the area, which is to
happen thirty days after the final deal is made. This is tricky for logically
there is no need for US forces in close proximity to Iran as US is not under
threat, it was Iran that was threatened and attacked. This is not a defensive
presence but asserting the role as an aggressor in the region and ignoring the
sovereignty rule of Iran.
5. This point 5, is very interesting, while the first paragraph of
point five focuses how Iran would decide and make arrangement for the safe
passage of vessels without any charges being levied for 60 days. The
specification of 60 days with no charges, levels room for the thought that it
is possible to charge after 60 days.
Another aspect focused on is the demining of the Strait which Iran would
initiate within 30 days.
The second para under point
five takes a different turn almost creating a stalemate with regard to issue of
charges by Iran being almost erased. The para starts off with the sovereign
shared rights by Oman for maritime services but then it shifts and focus on
UNCLOS and rights of all Persian Gulf littoral states other than Iran and Oman
to decide on this matter, which is incorrect, even as per UNCLOS.
What is right is that
countries that weaponised Strait of Hormuz and committed mass murder cannot be
dictating or controlling all peace process and decision on sovereign rights of
Iran.
6. The focus is on developing a plan to support Iran’s reconstruction
and economic development with financial support of 300 billion dollars, but
there is no indication as to where the money will come from. The mechanism for
implementation of the plan would be finalised as part of final deal. Further
under the point 6, the US indicates it would handle all required licenses,
waivers, permissions needed for relevant financial transaction. Here there see to be an assumption that dollar
would mode of transfer, otherwise why would American permission be needed for
the financial transfer from other donors.
7. This point is very
interesting because, the US focuses not just on sanctions enforced by US but
also by UNSC, sanctions through IAEA Board of Governors resolutions and all
unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed schedule as part
of final deal. These issues are to be immediately addressed in negotiations in
order to achieve mutual agreement. While it is understandable the US President
making the final call on US sanctions, it is unclear how he has the right to do
in case of sanctions through UNSC resolutions or that of board of IAEA.
Why are these not kept
separate as the process for US sanctions is different from sanctions enforced
through UNSC and IAEA as other parties are involved. Merging them makes no
sense because it ensures US does not make the final call for removal of any
sanctions and may in the end try to walk away without addressing the same.
There is a need for Iran to
look at scope for taking a stand asking international agencies the legality and
ethical ground for discriminatory sanctions against Iran when other commit war
crimes and genocide in total impunity.
8. With regard to nuclear weapon, Iran
reaffirmed that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. Further
enriched uranium will be disposed of in a mutually agreed upon manner in
accordance with details in final deal.
For access to nuclear energy needs of
Iran, it would be discussed but satisfactory framework would be agreed upon in
the final deal.
9. Till the final deal, status quo will be
maintained, Iran will maintain its status quo on nuclear program and the US
promised not to impose new sanctions or deploy additional troops.
10
& 11. These points focused on export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum
products and derivatives, and associated services including banking, insurance
and transportation. This is to be done immediately pending termination of
sanctions.
The funds belonging to Iran that has
been frozen or restricted will be released upon implementation of the MOU. The
procedure will be discussed for it to be fully usable as per the final decision
of Central Bank of Islamic Republic of Iran.
12.
Focuses on developing a monitoring system for successful implementation of MOU
and for future compliance of the final deal.
13.
Focuses on implementation of points such respect for sovereignty including that
of Lebanon for peace in the region; removal of naval blockade; facilitating
export of Iranian oil and other products and making frozen and restricted funds
available to Iran. The rest of the issues are to be kept pending till the final
deal, it also includes removal of American forces from proximity to Iran.
14.
The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution. Why?
The question can UNSC resolution endorse
only the deal and not the process that led to the deal. If it is endorsing the
process, is it stating the US and Israel had a legitimate reason for bombing
Iran from 28th Feb 2026 and killing of Supreme Leader, his family
and his officials. Will it also legitimise the massacre of school children, or
will it hold the US and Israel for war crimes it has carried out, including
premeditated killing of families of scientists and military officials?
According to UN bringing a bilateral
issue to UNSC should be last resort, if so, why is US sanctions being brought
to UNSC, especially when UN does not agree with extended or second and third
level persons being held accountable and how will it pass a resolution on the
same. If it does go ahead, through the process would UN being legitimising
something that UN does not believe.
Any decision taken by UNSC would be
binding, at UNSC justice is rarely delivered so Iran why go through the entire process so that sanctions
by UNSC and IAEA will continue to be in place; US sanctions will continue to be
valid and while the naval blockade would be removed the American forces will
continue to there as the final deal did not material and the US and Israel
could say threat continues to exist.
Sovereignty for all or for None
Molly Charles
References
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanactions_against_Iran
International Sanctions against Iran –
Wikipedia
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
Iran hostage crisis – Wikipedia
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Pahlavi_Iran
Human Rights in Pahlavi Iran – Wikipedia
4. https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/Iran-demograhics/#u5-infa-title
Iran Demographics 2026 (Population, Age,
Sex, Trends)- Worldometer
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
Mohammed Mosaddegh- Wikipedia
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadan_Crisis
Abadan Crisis- Wikipedia
7. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/a-brief-history-of-sacntions-on-Iran
A Brief History of Sanctions on Iran –
Atlantic Council
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings
1983 Beirut barracks bombings- Wikipedia
9. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/16/sabra-and-shatila-massacre-40-years-on-explainer
Sabra and Shatlia massacre: What happened
in Lebanon in 1982? | Explainer News |Al Jazeera
10. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/presurring-irans-nuclear-program
Economic Sanctions: Pressuring Iran’s
Nuclear Program
11. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/777928/EPRS_BRI(2025)777928_EN.pdf
EPRS_BRI(2025)777928_EN.pdf
12. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/777928/EPRS_BRI(2025)777928_EN.pdf
EPRS_BRI(2025)777928_EN.pdf
13. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/1
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.
Albania)
Comments
Post a Comment