5 ms·

Sanctions are one of the most powerful tools in the US toolbox short of war. In fact it's more important than war when dealing with Great Power adversaries beca

by IBM 8y ago

Sanctions are one of the most powerful tools in the US toolbox short of war. In fact it's more important than war when dealing with Great Power adversaries because they have nukes. The US should aggressively block any attempt to get around it. Trump shouldn't have pulled out of the Iran deal, but preserving that power for the future is more important. Here's a good article about OFAC, the Treasury Department group that handles sanctions: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sanctions-insight-idUSBREA3D1O820140414 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sanctions-insight-idU...

curiousgal 8y ago
I've always found it fascinating to link the stand of an entire country to a single person or a group of people. For instance when we say, the U.S. has imposed X sanctions, it's weird to think that it's simply the work of a small group of people. I am doing an awful job at wording my thought, but what I am trying to say that putting a human face/name on an entire country's action makes it interesting.
- RangerScience 8y ago
  I think I get (and agree) with that you're putting down. Maybe this phrasing? : "It's weird to think that the actions of the few who wield the most - but not the majority - of the power in the US are talked about as if they are the US." Sometimes, we narrow this down; we say, the X administration. But is that accurate? Does it convey the emotional reality? Maybe we should say; [Person], acting in their duty as [Role] on behalf of the US, has [action]. But, does this have the inevitable effect of distancing those people from the country that has given them power? More than half the voting-power of the US voted for Trump, and some portion of that power is then invested in these decisions; at the same time, less than half the voting-power of the US voted for trump, and some portion of that power is then disinvested in those decisions. It's almost like we need different words to describe the national entity when that entity is democratic than the words we inherited from monarchies. Maybe we take a page from swarms - perhaps instead of "The US imposed sanctions", we say, "From the US emerged sanctions", or, "Those empowered by the US imposed sanctions". But, none of these use as few words as: "the US did X". Brevity wins.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    You are describing a problem I see often when people try to discuss international relations - they get addicted to using grouping or personal terms to describe truly massive numbers of people, organizations and agendas which at an extremely high level can perhaps some some simple motivation ascribed to them.
- chme 8y ago
  Welcome the representative democracy. When someone wants to know how americans currently think and look like, then they just take a look at their current president. /s
devoply 8y ago
Sanctions are a type of war on civilians. Great power adversaries are no worse than allies like Saudi Arabia. American unilateralism is evil, and it has to end. The sooner the better!
- sbierwagen 8y ago
  Russia invades another country. You are the President of the US. Your options are: 1.) Do nothing. Poland, and the parts of Germany that used to be East Germany, might not like the long term consequences of this plan. 2.) Start a nuclear war, killing hundreds of millions of people. A few disadvantages to this plan as well. 3.) Economic sanctions. You can certainly say this will kill people by way of depressing GDP growth. Will it kill fewer people than a full nuclear exchange between the US and Russia?
  - namirez 8y ago
    You forgot to mention the 4th scenario: turning Iran into another Afghanistan or Iraq. smh!
  - gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
    The USA invades at least as many countries as Russia.
    - d__k 8y ago
      Purely statistically you cannot even compare them: |US invasions| >> |Russia invasions| But maybe it is because of the difference in GDP: |US invasions| / GDP ~= |Russia invasions| / GDP
      - S4M 8y ago
        So you're saying that having a large GDP is a justification to invade other countries?
        8y ago
sschueller 8y ago
Why does the US get to unilaterally decide who gets sanctioned and who doesn't? Europe has a lot more to loose on an unstable Iran than the US and can't risk deals being undone because the US has a new regime every 4 years.
- IBM 8y ago
  The US gets to unilaterally decide because they've underwritten global stability and security in the post-WW2 era. Europe being one of the biggest beneficiaries of that. And this isn't even me being a jingoistic American, I was born in Canada.
  - david927 8y ago
    That's still you being a jingoistic American.
  - bambax 8y ago
    The Iran problem was created by the US (and the UK) when a CIA-backed coup deposed Mosaddegh in 1953.
  - teekert 8y ago
    This is just laughable, start with reading "Confessions of an economic hitman", go down the rabbit hole from there.
- partycoder 8y ago
  Imagine a wrestling match. 2 wrestlers fight for some good amount of time. When they're tired enough, a 3rd wrestler gets in and beats both. That was World War II for the most part. After World War II, most of the world was destroyed except for the US. After the war, the US never left. Overseas bases still exist in Germany, Japan and many other places. They had everyone adopt a financial system (Bretton Woods) which was largely abused making the US absurdly rich for a few decades... highways, higher education for a bunch of people, space exploration, absurd wars thousands of miles away, a gigantic navy and air force, you name it. After other countries realized it was a scam (aka "exorbitant privilege"), this golden era ended and the US started to slowly meet reality, rapidly accumulating debt. The inevitable fate of the US is to collapse in the same way the Soviet Union did in 1989. This will likely happen before 2050 and you read it first in the comments section of HN. Once the US collapses, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance will be worthless and South America will be taken apart in a giant pinata party starting by the Argentinean Patagonia.
smnrchrds 8y ago
> The US should aggressively block any attempt to get around it. The ubiquity of US dollars in international trade allows US to torpedo the economy of any country it so desires. It is like the US has a kill switch to shut down any economy it wishes to. But the only reason the rest of the world plays along and allows the kill switch to exist is that they trust the US to use it responsibly and only in extreme circumstances. Now with the erosion of that trust, it is to be expected for the world to move towards eliminating that threat.
- bambax 8y ago
  I disagree. I think the only reason the rest of the world plays along is because the rest of the world is weak. The US are simply a bully. But it's true that the advent of Trump makes the bullying more difficult to accept because it's now absurd and incoherent; if some other powers unite and find a way to resist the bullying, then at least some good will have come out of trumpism.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    I don't think we've been a bully so much as the rich kid that indirectly paid people to be their friend. I think Trump is accurate in pointing out that many of our arrangements are detrimental to the US on the first level, but at the same time those arrangements, and the unstated threat of their removal, is what gave the US the power to arbitrarily exert its influence. This became even more true as other nations started to take those arrangements as a given and became reliant upon them. In the grand scheme of things I'm also happy the rest of the world seems to be becoming less dependent on the US. It removes single point of failure scenarios. Economies and nations keeping each other more at arm's reach would help ensure the world acts in a more democratic fashion while simultaneously also providing insulation against the failing of any given nation's poor decisions - be those social, political, economic, or military.
    - IBM 8y ago
      >It removes single point of failure scenarios. Economies and nations keeping each other more at arm's reach would help ensure the world acts in a more democratic fashion while simultaneously also providing insulation against the failing of any given nation's poor decisions - be those social, political, economic, or military. This is completely ahistorical. You're describing the "balance of power" system that governed international relations and we know what happened: hundreds of years of European wars culminating in two world wars.
nickik 8y ago
This is just factually wrong. There is great beliefe in some groups about economic sanctions but economists and political sientists mostly agree about this, it not. The data is pretty clear on this, it does not lead to regimn change or whatever else the country wants. Now people will claim that the Iran deal is a counterexample, but it is not. I was the US who realied that their sanction had no effect on the nuclear program was going fast. The US then compromised even more. The US is very good at making sanctions, but bad at removing them. The way the do it in the Iran case is directly and clearly against all the international laws the US claims to stand for. Its a sad state of affairs when Iran observes international law and the US spits on it.
tanilama 8y ago
US has this clout because it controls a large part of the organizations for international cooperation. With Trump, it is clear that he only wants to exercise such power without considering the consequences of it. With the trust towards US fading, in and out of West, a complimentary mechanism will be created. US will control/influence where its hard power can still reach, but not beyond.
- IBM 8y ago
  Trump is an aberration and will likely be out of office in 2020, worst case 2024. No one is going to blow up old alliances because of Trump. Every foreign capital is just trying to ride out the storm.
  - tremon 8y ago
    Aberration or not (I think it's not), the rest of the world isn't going to twiddle their thumbs until 2020, worst case 2024.
  - dagw 8y ago
    Every foreign capital is just trying to ride out the storm. True, but they're also starting to think seriously about building storm shelters for the next time a storm blows through.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Trump may be an aberration but the people that voted for him are not.

by IBM 8y ago

curiousgal 8y ago

I've always found it fascinating to link the stand of an entire country to a single person or a group of people. For instance when we say, the U.S. has imposed X sanctions, it's weird to think that it's simply the work of a small group of people. I am doing an awful job at wording my thought, but what I am trying to say that putting a human face/name on an entire country's action makes it interesting.

RangerScience 8y ago
I think I get (and agree) with that you're putting down. Maybe this phrasing? : "It's weird to think that the actions of the few who wield the most - but not the majority - of the power in the US are talked about as if they are the US." Sometimes, we narrow this down; we say, the X administration. But is that accurate? Does it convey the emotional reality? Maybe we should say; [Person], acting in their duty as [Role] on behalf of the US, has [action]. But, does this have the inevitable effect of distancing those people from the country that has given them power? More than half the voting-power of the US voted for Trump, and some portion of that power is then invested in these decisions; at the same time, less than half the voting-power of the US voted for trump, and some portion of that power is then disinvested in those decisions. It's almost like we need different words to describe the national entity when that entity is democratic than the words we inherited from monarchies. Maybe we take a page from swarms - perhaps instead of "The US imposed sanctions", we say, "From the US emerged sanctions", or, "Those empowered by the US imposed sanctions". But, none of these use as few words as: "the US did X". Brevity wins.
- XorNot 8y ago
  You are describing a problem I see often when people try to discuss international relations - they get addicted to using grouping or personal terms to describe truly massive numbers of people, organizations and agendas which at an extremely high level can perhaps some some simple motivation ascribed to them.
chme 8y ago
Welcome the representative democracy. When someone wants to know how americans currently think and look like, then they just take a look at their current president. /s

devoply 8y ago

Sanctions are a type of war on civilians. Great power adversaries are no worse than allies like Saudi Arabia. American unilateralism is evil, and it has to end. The sooner the better!

sbierwagen 8y ago
Russia invades another country. You are the President of the US. Your options are: 1.) Do nothing. Poland, and the parts of Germany that used to be East Germany, might not like the long term consequences of this plan. 2.) Start a nuclear war, killing hundreds of millions of people. A few disadvantages to this plan as well. 3.) Economic sanctions. You can certainly say this will kill people by way of depressing GDP growth. Will it kill fewer people than a full nuclear exchange between the US and Russia?
- namirez 8y ago
  You forgot to mention the 4th scenario: turning Iran into another Afghanistan or Iraq. smh!
- gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
  The USA invades at least as many countries as Russia.
  - d__k 8y ago
    Purely statistically you cannot even compare them: |US invasions| >> |Russia invasions| But maybe it is because of the difference in GDP: |US invasions| / GDP ~= |Russia invasions| / GDP
    - S4M 8y ago
      So you're saying that having a large GDP is a justification to invade other countries?
      - 8y ago

sschueller 8y ago

Why does the US get to unilaterally decide who gets sanctioned and who doesn't? Europe has a lot more to loose on an unstable Iran than the US and can't risk deals being undone because the US has a new regime every 4 years.

IBM 8y ago
The US gets to unilaterally decide because they've underwritten global stability and security in the post-WW2 era. Europe being one of the biggest beneficiaries of that. And this isn't even me being a jingoistic American, I was born in Canada.
- david927 8y ago
  That's still you being a jingoistic American.
- bambax 8y ago
  The Iran problem was created by the US (and the UK) when a CIA-backed coup deposed Mosaddegh in 1953.
- teekert 8y ago
  This is just laughable, start with reading "Confessions of an economic hitman", go down the rabbit hole from there.
partycoder 8y ago
Imagine a wrestling match. 2 wrestlers fight for some good amount of time. When they're tired enough, a 3rd wrestler gets in and beats both. That was World War II for the most part. After World War II, most of the world was destroyed except for the US. After the war, the US never left. Overseas bases still exist in Germany, Japan and many other places. They had everyone adopt a financial system (Bretton Woods) which was largely abused making the US absurdly rich for a few decades... highways, higher education for a bunch of people, space exploration, absurd wars thousands of miles away, a gigantic navy and air force, you name it. After other countries realized it was a scam (aka "exorbitant privilege"), this golden era ended and the US started to slowly meet reality, rapidly accumulating debt. The inevitable fate of the US is to collapse in the same way the Soviet Union did in 1989. This will likely happen before 2050 and you read it first in the comments section of HN. Once the US collapses, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance will be worthless and South America will be taken apart in a giant pinata party starting by the Argentinean Patagonia.

smnrchrds 8y ago

> The US should aggressively block any attempt to get around it. The ubiquity of US dollars in international trade allows US to torpedo the economy of any country it so desires. It is like the US has a kill switch to shut down any economy it wishes to. But the only reason the rest of the world plays along and allows the kill switch to exist is that they trust the US to use it responsibly and only in extreme circumstances. Now with the erosion of that trust, it is to be expected for the world to move towards eliminating that threat.

bambax 8y ago
I disagree. I think the only reason the rest of the world plays along is because the rest of the world is weak. The US are simply a bully. But it's true that the advent of Trump makes the bullying more difficult to accept because it's now absurd and incoherent; if some other powers unite and find a way to resist the bullying, then at least some good will have come out of trumpism.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I don't think we've been a bully so much as the rich kid that indirectly paid people to be their friend. I think Trump is accurate in pointing out that many of our arrangements are detrimental to the US on the first level, but at the same time those arrangements, and the unstated threat of their removal, is what gave the US the power to arbitrarily exert its influence. This became even more true as other nations started to take those arrangements as a given and became reliant upon them. In the grand scheme of things I'm also happy the rest of the world seems to be becoming less dependent on the US. It removes single point of failure scenarios. Economies and nations keeping each other more at arm's reach would help ensure the world acts in a more democratic fashion while simultaneously also providing insulation against the failing of any given nation's poor decisions - be those social, political, economic, or military.
  - IBM 8y ago
    >It removes single point of failure scenarios. Economies and nations keeping each other more at arm's reach would help ensure the world acts in a more democratic fashion while simultaneously also providing insulation against the failing of any given nation's poor decisions - be those social, political, economic, or military. This is completely ahistorical. You're describing the "balance of power" system that governed international relations and we know what happened: hundreds of years of European wars culminating in two world wars.

nickik 8y ago

This is just factually wrong. There is great beliefe in some groups about economic sanctions but economists and political sientists mostly agree about this, it not. The data is pretty clear on this, it does not lead to regimn change or whatever else the country wants. Now people will claim that the Iran deal is a counterexample, but it is not. I was the US who realied that their sanction had no effect on the nuclear program was going fast. The US then compromised even more. The US is very good at making sanctions, but bad at removing them. The way the do it in the Iran case is directly and clearly against all the international laws the US claims to stand for. Its a sad state of affairs when Iran observes international law and the US spits on it.

tanilama 8y ago

US has this clout because it controls a large part of the organizations for international cooperation. With Trump, it is clear that he only wants to exercise such power without considering the consequences of it. With the trust towards US fading, in and out of West, a complimentary mechanism will be created. US will control/influence where its hard power can still reach, but not beyond.

IBM 8y ago
Trump is an aberration and will likely be out of office in 2020, worst case 2024. No one is going to blow up old alliances because of Trump. Every foreign capital is just trying to ride out the storm.
- tremon 8y ago
  Aberration or not (I think it's not), the rest of the world isn't going to twiddle their thumbs until 2020, worst case 2024.
- dagw 8y ago
  Every foreign capital is just trying to ride out the storm. True, but they're also starting to think seriously about building storm shelters for the next time a storm blows through.
- ionised 8y ago
  Trump may be an aberration but the people that voted for him are not.