Russia and our election

[Dill]

(07-18-2017, 04:57 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Okay, then how about Iran? Last I checked they were sanctioned and still testing their ballistic missiles, too... contrary to their agreement.

In fact, the US has been sanctioning...
-Iran since 1979
-North Korea since 1950
-Syria since 1986 (how's it going today, Syria?)
-Sudan since 1993
-Cuba since 1962

I would argue none of those has accomplished anything. Except maybe for the fact all Cubans just drive around badass classic cars now because of it.

Leonard, I partially agree with you on the ineffectiveness of sanctions. They aren't for every case. 

Your list above is rather heterogeneous. Sanctions aren't always aimed at regime change, and if they are and don't accomplish that end, they still may limit a bad government's power. So we shouldn't apply one measure of the effectiveness of sanctions in every case.

The Cuban sanctions are an example of sanctions imposed for ideological reasons and impervious to assessment. I agree with you they not only have been a total failure, but may have strengthened and prolonged the Castro rule.

I agree they have not effected regime change in NK, but they do curb that state's power.
Same with Syria. Assad's ability to kill his own is greatly limited.
Sanctions on Sudan have enabled the South to break away and become a separate country. When civil war between tribal factions broke out there, the threat of sanctions brought both sides to a cease fire. Sanctions have certainly weakened Sudan's ability to make war on its own people, though they have also ******** economic growth. The sanctions have undergone fine tuning since the '90s and more directly impact the ruling circle. Wait and see.

I dispute that sanctions have not worked in Iran. In addition to bringing Iran to the negotiation table, they have brought the country a step closer to political liberalization. The partial removal of sanctions has ended (or at least paused) that country's efforts to become a nuclear power in the short term. The treaty does not forbid testing mid-range missiles.

So I don't agree that sanctions in most of the above cases accomplished nothing. Regime change over the short term is rarely the actual goal anyway, so it should not be the measure of success. 

Since sanctions sometimes work well, sometimes partially, and sometimes not at all, then the conclusion I draw is not that we should not use them, but that we should do so judiciously.  Listen to area experts who know the target countries economy and social institutions. Keep domestic politics at arm's length, if possible. Develop realistic metrics for deciding whether sanctions are working or not.