Beyond the obvious benefit to many people’s lives, it’s not clear how sanctions relief would lead to regime change. In fact it may contribute to a reinforced Arab-Islamic elite that is confident that it’s government, political and business class, and center-periphery war machine & economy are the right answers for the rest of the country. Moreover, chronic political instability is not a feature of the sanctions program. Sudan has been unstable long before its relations with the US soured. And sanctions relief neither addresses our lack of national agreement and nor does it promote a sense of individual responsibility and respect for all cultures, beliefs, and non-belief. One can almost say that applying maximum pressure on all people of Sudan focuses the discussion around regime change. That’s the American logic, and though punishing, it is sound. With respect to Iran, I’m afraid you’re garnering the wrong lessons from the US’s engagement with Iran. President Obama has a less bellicose foreign policy than that of other US presidents, and he’s securing what he deems is in America’s longterm national security interests. His administration is avoiding a war trajectory that is salient in the current architecture. Sanctions relief towards Iran have little to do with the Iranian people. Instead it locks a nuclear agreement that if violated gives the US and its allies a mandate for war. Curiously, the idea that sanctions doesn’t work in Sudan is what Ibrahim Ghandour is telling the US. He’s saying, “we’re also important to regional stability in North and East Africa just as Iran is important to its region’s stability where ISIS is concerned. So we should discuss stopping sanctions.” These are tactical arguments by the government. The Americans won’t be moved by them.