You're replying to a post describing the terrible effects of US sanctions on Iran. Imagine if you were living under those conditions, and person from the country enforcing the sanctions responded that there's nothing they can do because their two party democracy makes it too hard to change anything?

This is not the right place to complain about political gridlock in the US.

Why? If a person from Iran comments and says, I don't actually want to destroy the US but I can't really change it because XYZ.

Granted the post is a bit thin and doesn't go beyond the surface level of the issue, but its is relevant information for an outsider.

Given this is the US we are talking about most people probably know about the two party system and so on, but foreign relations is a special case even within that. My responds provides some more context to the problem pointed out.

Of course it's horrendous and completely disheartening but it does not make it not true, and I think it's important to inform that the answer is not 'voting'. Voting does nothing with a non-functioning government.

Unfortunately both parties on this are horribly bad. The Democrats just as bad as the Republicans. In their seal to not seem weak against the Republicans they have accepted the basic premises this foreign policy was developed.

Unlike Saudi, Qatar, Israel, UAE and others Iran has no lobby in the US. Because there is are no commercial ties, US buissness don't have existing relationships with Iran anymore.

While US companies like Boeing certainty would like to establish such commercial relation with Iran. Their far bigger intensive is to continue to support the Saudi/Israel vs Iran conflict and to sell massive amounts of weapons both to the US government and the governments of Saudi/Israel and allies.

Since there are no large factor to push the US a different direction the status quo has basically been established in the post 1979 world and things only changed minimally.

There is not genuine democratic support for these changes, mostly because most people simply have no idea of middle east politics and don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq or anything like that.

There is a broad based anti-war movement from both the left and the right, but it has very little politician influence outside of the presidential elections. In the presidential elections generally the more anti-war presidents wins, but usually once in office, everybody around is not of that opinion. In congress election foreign policy is usually not important enough of a factor.

Just considering that it was most Saudi bombers at the WW2 and the waste majority of issues and terror bombings have been by Sunnis has not changed the US political output in the least. Despite Iran actually reaching out to the US post-911 (threw the Swiss Embassy) putting a lot of issues up for debate but Bush categorically refused to even consider any engagement.

Its really hard to see what strategically could change so this policy direction could change anytime soon.