Follow us on social

2018-03-23t162502z_2140984344_rc1d781c8360_rtrmadp_3_venezuela-economy-scaled

Ending forever wars must include economic warfare

Sanctions like those imposed on Cuba fail to achieve their stated policy objectives and create misery for millions of innocent people.

Analysis | Middle East

Ending endless war has become an ever-present catchphrase, employed by Republicans and Democrats alike, to appeal to the majority of Americans who wish to see an end to ineffective U.S. wars and adventurism across the world, and better use of their hard-earned tax dollars. But, while we may think of war to mean military incursions, bombs and fighting, there is an aspect to U.S. warfare that is too-often absent from the discussion: economic warfare. 

We have witnessed the consequences of this omission in recent days in the case of Cuba. Battered by U.S. sanctions and the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, Cuba is facing its worst food shortages in 25 years. Like people anywhere in the world, many Cubans took to the streets to express their frustrations both with their economic plight and to protest their government, which has failed to address their grievances.

The idea that sanctions are a benign tool or an alternative to war denies the evidence that plainly shows their destructive impact on ordinary people suffering through economic devastation. Although U.S. government officials routinely talk about human rights and a “rules-based international order,” our sanctions policy and unilateral actions in the face of global condemnation undermine those very tenets. In fact, U.N. experts have argued that U.S. sanctions themselves violate “human rights and the norms of international behavior.” Not only do these policies contradict any claim to moral authority, but they also fail to achieve their stated policy objectives, create immeasurable misery for millions of innocent people, and cause instability in the targeted countries. 

In a rare tweet on foreign policy, President Biden stated, “We stand with the Cuban people,” and cited their “economic suffering.” The irony was not lost on many commentators who observed that only weeks earlier the United States rejected — for the 29th consecutive year — a United Nation’s resolution to end the decades-long U.S. embargo on Cuba that has cost the small-island nation an estimated $144 billion and hampered its ability to combat the pandemic. As the international community overwhelmingly voted to end the embargo in a vote of 184 to 2, only Israel joined the U.S. in support of continuing the now 60-year embargo. 

One has to question the judgement of maintaining the same policy position for six decades despite seeing no change. Since sanctions and warfare go hand in hand, the failure of these policies can lead to calls for military intervention, as we saw in the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq after a decade of harsh sanctions failed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Even now in the case of Cuba, there are some hawkish U.S. politicians suggesting airstrikes on the country.

Unfortunately, such lack of logical reasoning pervades our foreign policy. Like Cuba, Iran has been under U.S. sanctions for decades, which have left its government relatively unscathed as millions of ordinary people suffer through the consequences. Though critics of these states may argue that they use sanctions as an excuse to deflect from their own shortcomings, it does not in any way negate the human cost of U.S. sanctions, the fact that sanctions actually enable more corruption, or their failure to deliver on their stated goals. Instead, our sanctions policy continues to be at odds with the values of human rights and international cooperation that we supposedly endorse.

Although Iran came to the negotiating table with the United States in the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal — a historic diplomatic breakthrough that promised Iran sanctions relief for allowing strict oversight of its civilian nuclear program — under the Trump administration the U.S. quickly reverted back to its more common pressure-only strategy. Again, this policy led to increased tensions and brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. While President Biden was a staunch critic of Trump’s Iran policy and promised to restore the deal as a candidate, his administration has yet to take concrete steps to return to the deal or lift the sanctions that Biden himself acknowledged were impeding Iran’s ability to fight the pandemic. 

Not surprisingly, instead of facilitating cooperation these policies have hardened Iranian attitudes and ushered in a less engagement-friendly administration in Tehran. Again, the international community supported and tried to save the nuclear deal, as the U.S. flexed its unmatched power to single handedly prevent Iran from seeing any sanctions relief and to smash its economy, forcing millions of Iranians into poverty. That the U.S. increased sanctions during a pandemic, and the Biden administration has not lifted those sanctions after six months in office, is another point of departure with the international community, which has emphasized the need to lift sanctions and pursue the cooperative measures required to combat this global issue.

The idea of an international community was created in the wake of World War II with the central aim of resolving conflicts and preventing the scourge of war. As such, ending forever wars is a global enterprise in which the U.S. plays a critical role. However, the obstinate refusal to modify our policies can be seen in our persistent use of military and economic power to force other countries to submit, rather than cooperate.

From the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the Cuban embargo and the reimposition of sanctions on Iran after President Trump quit the nuclear deal, the U.S. continues to use its might with little regard for human consequences, even in the face of global censure. But the United States must recognize that it is impossible to uphold the idea of a rules-based international order while unilaterally violating its mandates, and it is impossible to end forever wars as long as we do not recognize that economic strangulation is indeed warfare. 


A woman looks at the almost empty shelves while she looks for groceries and goods in a supermarket in Caracas, Venezuela March 23, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins
Analysis | Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.