Journalist Jeff Stein from The Washington Post dives into the U.S. international sanctions regime, uncovering its massive expansion affecting over a third of all nations. He discusses how these sanctions, while meant to pressure regimes, often harm vulnerable populations instead. The conversation also touches on the Veepstakes and political oddities, including a humorous tale about RFK Jr.'s encounter with a dead bear cub. Stein’s insights reveal the complexities and contradictions of modern American foreign policy.
The U.S. sanctions regime has ballooned to encompass over a third of all nations, prominently impacting developing countries and foreign relations.
Economic sanctions, often viewed as a non-military foreign policy tool, can lead to severe humanitarian repercussions for civilian populations in targeted nations.
The unintended consequences of sanctions may facilitate closer ties between sanctioned countries and rivals like China and Russia, challenging U.S. economic dominance.
Deep dives
Understanding Economic Sanctions
Economic sanctions have become a common tool used by the United States, affecting approximately one-third of all nations. These sanctions can be imposed unilaterally by the U.S. government, which has extensive power to designate foreign governments, individuals, or entities as threats to national security or foreign policy. Once sanctioned, these parties find themselves effectively excommunicated from the global financial system. The implications are severe, as being sanctioned makes it illegal for other countries and businesses to engage in trade with them, thus crippling their economies.
The Rise of Sanctions Post-War
The use of economic sanctions has grown exponentially since the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as American policymakers sought alternatives to military intervention. The Obama administration's approach marked a significant increase, leading to an even more aggressive sanctioning under subsequent administrations. A surprising finding suggests that 60% of the developing world currently experiences some form of U.S. sanctions, highlighting the punitive approach adopted by the U.S. government in its foreign relations. This has led to a new reality where sanctions are considered a more viable alternative to military engagement, reflecting a shift in U.S. foreign policy strategies.
Unintended Consequences of Sanctions
While sanctions are intended to pressure governments or leaders, they often have unintended negative consequences on the civilian population. For example, sanctions aimed at Iran have inadvertently deprived many expatriates of their own family assets, inadvertently benefiting the Iranian government. Furthermore, as with Venezuela, sanctions have contributed to significant economic collapse, resulting in massive outmigration and exacerbating humanitarian crises. While the intention may be to inflict economic pain on oppressive regimes, the broader suffering of the populace raises questions about the effectiveness and morality of this strategy.
Global Repercussions and Counterbalancing Forces
The strategic imposition of sanctions has inadvertently pushed sanctioned nations into closer cooperation with nations like China and Russia, which could undermine U.S. economic hegemony. As the U.S. excludes numerous countries from the dollar-backed financial system, these nations begin to explore alternatives, potentially leading to a new, independent framework for international trade. There are concerns that this trend could yield a counterbalance to the U.S. influence globally, as more nations collectively resist or retaliate against U.S. sanctions. The proliferation of sanctions risks rendering their effectiveness moot, as a substantial portion of the world finds itself categorized under economic siege.
Evaluating the Benefits of Sanctions
Despite the significant costs that sanctions incur on affected populations, U.S. officials often argue that they serve vital geopolitical interests without the burden of actual military engagement. However, this assertion faces scrutiny, especially as sanctioned nations often remain resilient or adapt, without achieving the desired political outcomes. The political calculus behind sanctioning can also reflect a disconnect, where policymakers prioritize punishing regimes without considering the consequences on ordinary citizens. Hence, while the sanctions are intended to signal disapproval or compel behavior modification in hostile governments, the efficacy and morality of this approach continue to be subjects of heated debate.
The Washington Post’s Jeff Stein stops by to discuss his extensive new piece investigating the ever-ballooning U.S. international sanctions regime. Despite Biden recently bragging he’s leaving office with the U.S. not involved in any foreign conflicts, the U.S. now has sanctions in place in over a third of all nations around the world, including more than 60% of “developing” nations. Jeff walks us through this increasingly central policy of worldwide economic coercion, how it shapes American imperial aims, and some intended & unintended consequences of the exponential expansion of sanctions in the 21st century. Then, we take a quick look at the state of the Veepstakes, Josh Shapiro’s whole deal, and of course, RFK Jr. and the road-kill bear.
Check out Jeff’s sanctions investigation here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2024/us-sanction-countries-work/
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
