Possibly, but I didn’t see anything in the parent post that suggests that’s the intended takeaway. In any case it also implies expanding trade, in order to have

Possibly, but I didn’t see anything in the parent post that suggests that’s the intended takeaway. In any case it also implies expanding trade, in order to have the drawdown of trade as a credible tool. However, sanctions, extra tariffs, and other trade-based punishments appear to have had little effect in positively influencing the behaviour of despotic regimes largely because of how hard despotic regimes work to prepare for their eventuality. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be used or that trade should be stopped. Only that trade in and of itself is not the moderating influence it was believed to be, and that despotic governments are not strongly deterred by refusals to trade. This is partially because those regimes put in a large amount of effort and money into ensuring that they’re as insulated as possible from slow downs in any trade area that western countries can easily refuse trade, while working to increase interdependence in areas where they have the advantage. For instance, there’s a reason Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 has such a huge defence industry component and why it focused first on being able to manufacture its own ammunition, bombs, missiles, etc (all the things easiest to cut off) and then on developing the skills to modify existing systems and substitute other components or elements if needed. The goal is to ensure the US (or another partner) can’t influence the kingdom by refusing to deliver bombs for a while. Much of the Middle East is moving in the same direction.