What's hard to understand about this, seriously?
The part where someone apparently doesn't understand the difference between a name and the thing itself, and that the thing itself doesn't always "own" its name.
Seizing Iran's TLD as part of a judgement against Iran makes exactly
as much sense as seizing the assets of the Iranian American Society of Engineers and Architects
, solely on the basis that it contains the word "Iran" in its name.
As TFA specifically points out, seizing ".ir" doesn't just affect the government of Iran. It affects thousands (millions?) of privately-owned subdomains. Imagine enforcing the same ruling against the US - Not just talking about ".us", but pretty much the entire set of legacy TLDs. Does it make sense that "amazon.com" suddenly belongs to some litigious asshat because of the inadequacy of US foreign policy? And as TFA also
points out, ICANN doesn't even have the ability
to do this unilaterally (they only directly
control root server L), and trying to do so could well trigger as schism.