For decades, economic sanctions have been a preferred tool of international pressure: low-cost, visible, and designed to avoid war. Yet history shows that sanctions alone rarely achieve their intended goals.
From Cuba to Iraq, and across multiple rounds imposed on Iran, they have consistently failed to force decisive policy change. Without credible force behind them, sanctions lack the leverage needed to influence determined regimes.
Iran is a clear case study. Since the early 2000s, the international community, led by the United States and backed by the UN, has imposed extensive sanctions aimed at halting Tehran’s nuclear program. These included financial restrictions, limits on energy exports, technology bans, and asset freezes, especially after UN Security Council Resolution 1737 in 2006.
Yet, despite growing economic pressure, Iran did not abandon its nuclear ambitions. It advanced uranium enrichment and strengthened its resilience. Sanctions hurt, but they did not deliver results.
Trump’s sanctions strategy
This is where US President Donald Trump’s approach marks a strategic departure. His policy toward Iran, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, does not treat sanctions as a substitute for force but as a prelude to it.
Instead of using sanctions to avoid conflict, Trump integrates them with a constant and credible threat of significant military action. In doing so, he takes a well-established theory in political science one step further.
Research has long shown that sanctions are only effective when combined with complementary measures, such as covert operations and limited semi-military activity. Trump raises the bar by moving from indirect pressure to overt, meaningful military readiness.
This is not incremental; it is a conceptual shift.
Results of the strategy
The result is a different equation. Iran is no longer facing economic pain alone; it also faces the real possibility of infrastructure damage and long-term disruption.
This alters decision-making within the regime. Instead of creating unity, as sanctions often do, the pressure generates internal disagreement over risk and escalation.
Two outcomes follow: Iran remains engaged in dialogue because escalation is credible, not because sanctions persuade, and internal fractures emerge within the leadership, something sanctions alone rarely achieve.
The core insight is simple – sanctions were designed to avoid war, and that is precisely why they failed. By removing the threat of force, they weakened themselves. Trump reverses this logic by restoring the link between economic pressure and military consequence.
Critics warn of escalation, and the risk is real. But history is clear: Sanctions without force lead to stagnation, not change.
Trump’s model shows that sanctions can work, but only as part of a broader, assertive strategy. This is not a new theory, but it is a more complete and effective application of it.
The writer is a former minister in the State of Israel and the author of The Abyss.
Source:
www.jpost.com
