The Trump administration has initiated a so-called 'isolation strategy' by imposing secondary sanctions on third countries that engage in trade with Iran. The sanctions target five sectors: digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping. New sanctions have also been imposed on over 60 individuals, companies, and vessels that support Iran's nuclear and missile programs and oil revenues. The aim is to cut off Iran's economic lifeline in pursuit of ending the conflict.
The belief that sanctions alone can end the war is overly optimistic. Economic sanctions are a means to increase costs for the adversary and weaken their negotiating power, but they cannot serve as a solution in themselves. Historical examples support this view. The U.S. and its allies have long imposed strong economic sanctions on Iran, as well as Iraq and Russia, causing significant shock, yet they have failed to change the strategic goals or political actions of these regimes. Iran, in particular, has endured decades of sanctions, establishing trade relationships with countries like China and Russia while creating alternative routes. As sanctions persist, the unintended consequences include the growth of industries that evade sanctions and an increase in the ruling elite's control.
One reason major powers readily resort to sanctions is that they are less costly than full military intervention and allow them to project power on the international stage. The U.S. wields significant influence through the dollar and its financial networks. However, Iran has developed various methods to evade sanctions. China and Russia are unlikely to fully comply with U.S. pressure. If the U.S. were to target China, Iran's largest trading partner, it could escalate tensions in U.S.-China relations. In fact, the U.S. did not immediately include major Chinese financial institutions in the latest sanctions, indicating an awareness of the potential economic and diplomatic fallout from sanctioning China.
The new sanctions may provoke a stronger backlash from Iran. The country has warned of retaliation against nations that cooperate with the sanctions. If tensions rise again over the Strait of Hormuz and the Middle Eastern oil supply chain, the impact of the sanctions will not be confined to Iran alone. The global economy could bear the costs through rising international oil prices and logistics expenses.
Sanctions are indeed effective as an economic tool to support military pressure and diplomatic negotiations. International sanctions against Iran have placed a significant burden on its economy, and the U.S. aims to enhance its negotiating power regarding Iran through these measures. However, it is crucial to establish an exit strategy alongside the sanctions. It must be clear what actions would lead to the lifting of sanctions and under what conditions a ceasefire and negotiations would begin. Sanctions without an exit strategy leave the adversary with only two options: surrender or endure. In this process, the suffering of the populace increases, and the leadership may strengthen internal cohesion.
If the Trump administration genuinely seeks to end the war rather than destroy Iran, it must prepare both economic pressure and diplomatic solutions. While narrowing Iran's options through sanctions, it should also keep the door open for negotiations. Military and economic power are merely tools to bring the adversary to the negotiating table; they are not the ultimate solution for achieving peace. The strength and diplomatic power of a major nation are measured not by how hard it can press its opponent, but by how effectively it can encourage the opponent to choose an exit. If the U.S. clings solely to the power of sanctions, the prospect of ending the conflict will only grow more distant.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.