Sanctions as Statecraft
Published August 18, 2025
Sanctions can be a formidable instrument of national power — advancing security, deterring aggression, and promoting liberty. Their success depends on integration within a coherent strategy, rigorous targeting, and timely execution. Historical successes and failures — from the Cold War to Venezuela — demonstrate that sanctions, when precisely targeted and applied with strategic discipline, can weaken authoritarian regimes while limiting harm to civilian populations. Properly conceived and enforced, they remain an indispensable pillar of U.S. foreign policy.
Check out more from H.R. McMaster:
- Watch the Battlegrounds podcast with H.R. McMaster here.
- Read "Sanctions as a Tool of Economic Statecraft" by H.R. McMaster here.
- Read "Lessons for Israel from the American War on al-Qaeda" by H.R. McMaster here.
Learn more about H.R. McMaster here.
__________
The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Hoover Institution or Stanford University.
© 2025 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University.
>> To improve security, promote prosperity, and counter aggression from authoritarian regimes, the United States and its allies must apply a broad range of diplomatic, military, and economic means. Sanctions, when integrated with other elements of national power and other tools of economic statecraft, are effective at advancing vital interests.
Sanctions are specific economic or diplomatic penalties imposed on states, groups, or individuals as an incentive to change their behavior. Some view sanctions as an easy way to confront adversaries, others as ineffective or counterproductive, easy to evade, and prone to unintended consequences. Sanctions economically isolated the Soviet Union during the Cold War, contributing to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain.
Since then, however, the US has often used sanctions ineffectively. Poorly conceived and poorly implemented sanctions can do more harm than good. They may fail to advance foreign policy objectives, hurt civilians, or even strengthen authoritarian regimes. Anticipating second and third-order effects to mitigate them is essential. After Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, broad economic sanctions crippled Iraq's economy but led to civilian suffering.
More narrowly targeted sanctions with exemptions for humanitarian goods later mitigated the negative consequences while still limiting resources to the Iraqi dictatorship. Timing is just as crit as anticipation. After Nicolas Maduro's false claims of victory in Venezuela's 2024 presidential election, the United States waited six weeks to impose sanctions on individuals who upheld the fraudulent results.
While protests surged and Maduro's regime appeared fragile, the United States missed an opportunity to further weaken the regime at a critical moment. Well-conceived, swiftly implemented sanctions, however, can be a powerful way to check aggression and promote liberty abroad. Arms Embargoes and trade restrictions in 1980s, South Africa destabilized the apartheid regime, helping to free Nelson Mandela and bring an end to apartheid.
Recently, targeted sanctions froze assets and restricted travel for regime elites in Guatemala, incentivizing a successful democratic transition of power in 2024. Policymakers should use sanctions as a tool of economic and diplomatic stability statecraft to advance US Interests. But sanctions should be oriented on clear objectives, strictly enforced, and targeted to advance freedom while limiting negative consequences for the population.