The argument is that the US sanctions are wrong. It's totally against what America and the West at large stands for. Those sanctions, as always punish innocent citizens the most. The strategy of course is to make those citizens revolt. But it ain't even working. See with Iraq and Libya, they litterally ended up bombing these countries and ensured the death penatly to those leaders, and now see how worse it has become over there (interestingly the news outlet don't report much of the situation now).
I have been clearly and firmly reminded by my employer about sanctions on Iran and to not engage in any business with Iranian as clients. The US government, like said in another comment is using its country's private economical powers for the service of its (absurd) geopolitics, not far from what China has been doing, but with far more hypocrisy and somehow less success.
[1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-countries-are-i...
>"According to Kelly and Laycock’s book, the United States has invaded or fought in 84 of the 193 countries recognized by the United Nations and has been militarily involved with 191 of 193 – a staggering 98 percent."
"Invaded or fought in" - that's a pretty big "or" there no? The theater of operations for the US Military in World War II was easily 84 countries in itself [1]. Also 84 countries is not all but 3 is it? Nor would it be considered "most" as you stated.
Further that's not really a citation that supports your assertion. It's a post with a single reference to a book entitled "America Invades: How We've Invaded or been Militarily Involved with almost Every Country on Earth." The phrase "or been Militarily Involved with" is casting a pretty wide net no? That's quite a nebulous clause. If you sell someone a tank you are "militarily involved" with them. By that dubious measure much of the globe is "militarily involved" with each other.
Have you read this book? What's seems to be notable about this book is the absence of any footnotes or bibliographic information. This is quite odd for a history book. I think this book could be accurately described as "entertainment reading" as it seems to lack any academic rigor.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_theaters_of_oper...
