A recent poll found that there is broad European and Middle East support for stricter economic sanctions against Iran. I'm not sure I agree.
Social Cycle Theory as theorized by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, predicts that the ruling Iranian cleric will not be in power forever. To enforce harsher sanctions on Iran would be to wound millions of innocent people.
Economic sanctions work to reduce global trade with countries in goods that are legally traded. I'm not sure that the uranium needed to make nuclear weapon is legally traded. Does stopping trade in corn and wheat really stop the trade in illegal goods needed to make nuclear weapons? I don't think so.
If harsh economic sanctions are severe enough, they could motivate change from within Iran. This change might resemble the change that is happening right now in Syria. Is that what we want?
The use of economic sanctions could act like a signal to the rest of the world that the US thinks the actions in Iran violate human rights and principles. Since the region wants the sanctions, the sanctions could be interpreted as Iran's actions are an act of war and should be halted for the common good. For a logical proof that the use of economic sanctions against Iran are moral, click here.
The simple premise of economics is that choices have consequences. If the US continues to act as the world's police, there will be costs and benefits. Sanctions will most likely increase the price of gas. Enforcement of the sanctions will be costly possibly increasing the debt. Iran might retaliate.
All of these thoughts were motivated from one comic by Jimmy Marguiles. Comics awaken feelings in me that standard text cannot. More comics should be used in classrooms to spur debate and develop writing skills?