Are Sanctions an Effective Policy Tool?

January 26, 2026

The United States in October imposed economic sanctions on Russian oil companies to try to force Russia to make peace in Ukraine. Sanctions are financial penalties imposed on nations in an attempt to change their behavior. They’ve become a favorite tool of governments. The U.S., for example, often cuts off rival countries from trade and international banking systems, among other measures, to harm their economies.

Proponents of sanctions say they can be effective in compelling rogue nations to follow international norms such as protecting democracy and human rights. But critics argue that the damage sanctions cause ends up hurting ordinary people rather than the authoritarian regimes that govern them.

So, are sanctions an effective policy tool? A political scientist and a foreign affairs expert face off.

The logic of sanctions is simple: Inflict economic pain on a country, and it will agree to your policy demands to alleviate that pain.

The U.S. has frequently used sanctions—say, blocking foreign officials’ access to money in foreign investments or bank accounts—to counter threats to U.S. interests. In 2024, for instance, the U.S. targeted people in China who funded terrorist groups and people in North Korea who lent financial support to the Kim Jong Un regime’s illegal program to build weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Sanctions led directly to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which curtailed Iran’s weapons program without starting a war. The U.S. and its European allies imposed sanctions on Iran’s banking, energy, and shipping industries, among others, ruining the nation’s economy. The coalition’s demands were clear: not regime change, just restrictions on the development of nuclear weapons. Iran agreed, and the sanctions were lifted. Without them, we never would have gotten Iran to the bargaining table.*

Sanctions can force countries to alter their behavior.

Sanctions can be effective too as a show of international cooperation. The United Nations Security Council endorsed the Iran sanctions. This made it harder for the regime to find new markets and suppliers to make up for its losses.

Sanctions don’t always work. They can have unintended effects, such as strengthening repressive regimes by giving them an external enemy against which to rally their people.

But even when they don’t alter a government’s behavior, sanctions still serve as signals to others. When the U.S. blocked Russia from the international banking system in 2022, it wasn’t with the expectation that Russia would withdraw forces from Ukraine, which it invaded early that year. It was to deter other countries thinking about land grabs. On the whole, while far from perfect, sanctions are an essential tool for coercive diplomacy.

—Daniel W. Drezner

Professor of International Politics, Tufts University

^{* President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal in 2018, during his first term. It’s now considered terminated.}

Sanctions are often sold as a peaceful alternative to war—a way to pressure governments into changing harmful policies without using military force. But decades of evidence shows that sanctions don’t achieve that goal. In fact, they often worsen the problems they aim to address.

Sanctions are supposed to target regimes, but in reality, they punish civilians. In Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba, sanctions have crippled economies, driving up prices on food and medicine, collapsing health care systems, and deepening poverty. And while everyday people suffer, authoritarian elites often get richer. As sanctions cut off access to goods, massive black markets emerge to fill the gap. Those who are close to power profit from smuggling and other sanctions-busting schemes.

As populations grow poorer, they become more dependent on the state. That makes political dissent harder, as regimes militarize society to protect their grip. War or regime change often force targeted states to shift their behavior, but it isn’t clear that sanctions do.

Sanctions often worsen the problems they aim to address.

Sanctions also make diplomacy harder. They lock countries like Iran and North Korea into permanent hostility with the sanctioning countries. Rather than opening space for negotiation, sanctions become a form of forever war, blocking compromise.

Some argue for targeted sanctions aimed at elites rather than populations. But even these have broad effects. Few companies want to do business in countries targeted by sanctions, even if these are only meant to punish a regime and its friends.

If sanctions are to play any role, they must have clear goals, sunset clauses, and constant diplomacy. Otherwise, they become a moral and strategic failure—hurting civilians, fueling repression, and making peace harder to achieve.

—Narges Bajoghli

Associate Professor of Middle East Studies, Johns Hopkins University