This is extremely reductive. Just as OP doesn’t support Russia in its war against Ukraine, and just as many US citizens don’t support America’s actions abroad, there aren’t any countries that teach their kids to chant “death to America” for the fun of it. Not to mention the fact that there are options that aren’t “economic oppression” or “war.”
Why would "for the fun of it" be a prerequisite for it to be bad..?
If someone shouts "death to <my name>" from across the street, I take it _very_ seriously.
I fully understand the history between Iran and the US, but you you can't have suicidal empathy with an enemy state that trains its people to want you dead.
If you visit Iran (or pretty much anywhere) as an American you'll have zero issues with the people. Here [1] is a thread of various people visiting Iran, and it's 100% typical. The average Iranian has no problems with an American than anybody else - they have a problem with the American government. And the two are obviously two extremely different things.
The one piece of advice that shouldn't need to be said, but does, is that when traveling to Rome you need to do as the Romans do. You probably would have problems if e.g. you bring a homosexual partner along and make that relationship apparent in public, are a woman who tries go without a hijab, etc. Be respectful of the culture, and people will be respectful of you - regardless of where you happen to come from.
And I wrote that the US is at war with an enemy _state_. The state represents its people, but it is not _all of_ the people. I always see people derailing these discussions in this manner when it's always patently obvious that we aren't conflating the two.
But you are specifically conflating the two. Not only in your implication that Iranians, normal Iranians - children even, want Americans dead, but in your defense of sanctions. Sanctions have no meaningful affect on countries - as in the political leadership and military, but can have a substantially negative impact on the people within that country. In many ways they are even more barbaric than war, because at least in war there is a viable goal and you are targeting the state and its military. Civilians are unfortunate 'collateral damage', not the target.
With sanctions you just inflict suffering on the people for no realistic reason or goal. The idea it'll drive people to overthrow their government and align themselves with the people inflicting mass suffering on them is just so inexorably stupid. It's not even illogical - it is anti-logical. I expect that one day it will be looked upon in the same way that today we might look back on drawing and quartering people as a punishment.
Any warfare hurts civilians. And there's no kinetic warfare that is guaranteed to not hit civilians. In fact we can observe how impossible that is all throughout the world, today.
I'm fairly sure given the choice, civilians would rather their country be sanctioned than bombed. Obviously the best option is no conflict at all, but that's utopian.
The Lancet just released a study on this exact question. [1] From 1971 to 2021, "unilateral, economic, and US sanctions" were associated with some 564,258 deaths per year, disproportionately affecting children under 5, who are most sensitive to disruptions in healthcare or food. That's 1,544 deaths per day - for 30 years.
By contrast as of August 31st 2025, the UN has assessed a total of 14,116 civilian deaths in Ukraine [2], about 10 per day, in one of the largest land wars in quite some time, and one where military casualties are certainly in the millions. War will always be with us - it's simply the final stage of irreconcilable differences. But I think sanctions will go down as one of those things people look back at wondering how we could ever do that to each other. Again I think the parallel with random forms of torture before execution are apt. One can support the death penalty and be completely disgusted by drawing and quartering. It's just unnecessary sadism and cruelty that serves no purpose.
As of March 2025, the US intelligence had assessed that Iran was neither building nor pursuing a nuclear a weapon. [1] Claims to the contrary can from Netanyahu who is increasingly obviously an unstable individual. Notably the 'flip flop' when Trump decided to invade Iran was precipitated on very careful language that Iran could have a weapon if they chose to pursue it, under a likely exaggerated timeline. It's not really a flip flop as both statements can be, and probably were, true.
So why was Iran so close to a nuclear weapon in the first place? What happened is that after years of enriching at a normal level Iran suffered yet another attack from the US/Israel in 2021 that caused significant damage to their nuclear facilities. [2] Following this they increased enrichment to 60%, which is just below weapons grade, to make a point that they were entirely capable of making a nuclear weapon, but had made a conscious decision not to.
Following the latest US/Israel attacks on them, I think it's fairly certain that they will develop a nuke, if not only because it's increasingly obviously the only way they can stop the endless US/Israel attacks. Ultimately, you're not going to be able to stop a country full of brilliant individuals from building a nuke if they want it. It seems likely that Iran was negotiating in good faith, and then we literally launched an invasion on them mid-negotiation. What's the point of negotiating?
And then they got new intel. Iran is also the primary sponsor of international terrorism, and the entire EU is aligned on sanctioning Iran. I know history of western intervention in the Middle East is full of terrible mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should turn the other cheek. I'd argue we've been to lenient on that front, in many ways.
I don't want us directly interfering in the Middle East, but I also don't want us supporting regimes that are diametrically opposed to our own ways of life. And sanctions are the way to do this.
The reason the US acts the way it does in the US is not based on any immediate logic. There's a great paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that describes US foreign policy in extremely straight forward language. It was written during Bush's era, but many of the people with their names on it are part of the effectively permanent political establishment.
Their goal was (and perhaps if they're delusional - still is) to maintain hegemonic control over the entire world. The main motivation for things like attacking Iran is 'projecting force.' It's supposed to work to intimidate other countries into deference and compliance without having to actually get involved in a battle with them. Basically mimicking how school bullies work.
So you're looking for a reasonable explanation based on superficial pretexts, but there is none. The same is true of Iraq. It's not like we really thought there were WMD. But it was simply an opportunity to project power and keep the military industrial complex churning.
>And I wrote that the US is at war with an enemy _state_
The US toppled it's democratically elected leader in the 50s, installed a brutal "king" dictator, and when they finally overthrew him it armed their neighborhood Iraq to wage war on them killing millions, then enforced global sanctions to it (causing tremendous damage to its economy and operation), and still meddles in the region.
Them saying some slogans like that is not even a blip on the radar, compared to the murderous shit the US has done to them for profit and spite.
First off I'm not American, just to be clear. But I don't see the US playing the victim. They're involved in a conflict.
Iranians are playing victims, and they are, but they're victims to their own government's actions, being the foremost funder of anti-west terrorism and sentiment.
If they want things to change, I'd look at the closer threat -- their theocratic government.
