U.S.-China Relations
NextFin News - The standard verdict on economic sanctions is that they do not work. They did not topple Saddam Hussein, they did not stop North Korea's nuclear program, and they have not forced Vladimir Putin out of Ukraine. That verdict rests on a category error. Sanctions are not designed to win wars; they are designed to make adversaries poorer over time, and on that measure the arithmetic is remorseless. An economy growing at three percent doubles in roughly 23 years. Shrink the growth rate to one percent and doubling takes 70 years — three times as long. That is the difference between a rival that can afford a modern military within a generation and one that cannot.
The argument, advanced by S. C. M. Paine of the U.S. Naval War College and Anand Toprani of the American Enterprise Institute in a new essay and in their edited volume The Strategy of Sanctions, is that sanctions have been unjustly maligned because they are judged against an impossible standard. Policymakers demand that sanctions solve problems outright; when they do not, Washington reaches for war. The pattern is familiar. More than a decade of sanctions on Iraq preceded the 2003 invasion. Sanctions pressure brought Iran to nuclear negotiations in the 2010s, and after the United States exited the resulting agreement in 2018, war with Tehran followed in February 2026. The logic is seductive and wrong. Sanctions are not a cheaper substitute for war. They are a different instrument — one whose successes are measured in crises that never happen and whose failures are the only things anyone sees.
The Invisible Success Problem
American politics rewards visible results. A missile strike is footage; a sanctions regime is a spreadsheet. When a nuclear test is prevented, a shipping lane left undisturbed, or an adversary's procurement network quietly starved of components, there is no headline to claim credit for. What remains visible is the adversary's continuing provocation — the missile launch, the border incursion, the defiant speech — and that asymmetry of visibility drives the perception of futility. The book's conclusion tables, which catalogue operational effects, strategic effects, and intended versus unintended consequences, capture the asymmetry in one line: common intended effects include growth suppression and the denial of technology, while common unintended effects include civilian hardship, deepening intransigence, and the boomerang — delivering the opposite of what was intended.
The mechanism that sanctions get right is compounding. The calculation Paine and Toprani set out is simple: if a sanctioned economy's growth falls from the global average of about three percent to one percent, its capacity to generate wealth, tax revenue, and hard currency stretches across three times the horizon. Their own table makes it concrete. Start with a $2.02 trillion economy. At three percent growth it reaches $2.34 trillion in five years and $2.71 trillion in ten. At one percent it reaches only $2.12 trillion and $2.23 trillion. After a decade the gap is nearly half a trillion dollars — not from a collapse, but from a growth rate that looks almost respectable. This is why the word "sanctions" misleads. The damage is rarely a sharp contraction. It is a slower rate of becoming richer, and human politics is notoriously bad at perceiving second derivatives.
"With sanctions, the target country pays the costs. In war, the costs are shared."
That line captures the strategic attraction. War socializes expense across the coalition: blood, treasure, and political capital are spent by the sender as well as the target. Sanctions externalize the cost almost entirely onto the adversary — and, unavoidably, onto its civilians, as regimes shift the burden from regime supporters to the politically disenfranchised. The moral hazard is real, and it is part of why sanctions are politically durable: they look like action while demanding little sacrifice at home.
Why the Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong
The standard critique of sanctions dates to 1935, when the League of Nations sanctioned Italy for invading Ethiopia in the hope of inducing a withdrawal. It failed, largely because the sanctioning states refused to include oil and coal, the vital commodities. From that experience grew a conventional wisdom: sanctions deter bad behavior by raising its economic cost, and if force becomes necessary, they soften the target in advance. Paine and Toprani argue this framing sets sanctions up to fail on their own terms. Measured against maximalist objectives — regime change, surrender, behavioral reversal — sanctions will almost always disappoint. Measured against what they reliably do, which is depress growth and deny technology, they perform consistently.
The instrument has evolved. The broad embargoes of the twentieth century — UN sanctions on Iraq from 1990 were, in the authors' phrase, "the last gasp of the old sanctions regime" — inflicted wide-scale civilian pain and generated political backlash. Saddam Hussein exploited that pain for propaganda while using oil-for-food revenues for kickbacks and signing lucrative oil deals with China, France, and Russia that eroded Security Council unity. Smart sanctions, enforced through the banking system and aimed at specific institutions and individuals, are the modern answer: narrower, more enforceable, and harder to turn into a humanitarian rallying cry.
The deeper lesson is historical. The Cold War was not won on a battlefield between the superpowers; it was managed through containment whose economic spine was sanctions. The Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls, founded in 1949 by the United States and fourteen allies including Britain, France, Japan, and West Germany, blocked the Soviet bloc's exports — its means of earning hard currency — and starved it of high-tech imports. The committee operated by informal consensus and was never formalized by treaty, yet it held for four decades. The Soviet Union could not overcome the damage. Sanctions amplified the system's preexisting weaknesses: the bias toward heavy industry over consumer goods, isolation from the free exchange of ideas, and central planning built on inaccurate statistics. Soviet consumers queued for subpar goods while the military absorbed a growing share of a stagnating product. By the 1980s, a new Soviet leadership concluded the gap with the West could not be closed and called off the Cold War. That is sanctions working as designed: not a knockout, but a slow, compounding attrition that made continuation of the rivalry unaffordable.
The War Trap
The reason Washington keeps abandoning sanctions for war is impatience, not strategy. Wars can overthrow regimes, but only after years of fighting, and the occupation bill comes due afterward. It took an Allied garrison of more than 1.5 million soldiers to hold Germany, a country of 80 million, after World War II. Six decades later, the United States was unwilling to raise the forces needed to subdue Iraq, a country of nearly 30 million — and Americans today show no appetite for the sacrifices required to defeat Iran, with 90 million people, much less China's 1.4 billion. When the problem is too large to solve at an acceptable cost, the honest answer is management, not victory. Sanctions are the economically sustainable form of management.
Here the cyclical-versus-structural distinction matters, and getting it wrong flips the conclusion. A cyclical reading treats sanctions as a shock that the target absorbs and recovers from — a recession, a currency dip, an inventory squeeze, then mean reversion. The structural reading, which the evidence supports, is that sanctions change the regime under which the economy operates. They cut access to capital, technology, insurance, and shipping; they force inefficient import substitution; they redirect talent into sanctions-busting rather than productivity; they raise the cost of every imported input. Russia's experience shows both forces at once, which is why the case is so often misread. Its economy grew 4.9 percent in 2024 on war spending, then slowed to about one percent in 2025 as fiscal stimulus faded and tight money bit. Inflation ran at 9.5 percent in 2024 before moderating to 5.6 percent, and the central bank cut its policy rate from 21 percent to 16 percent. The discount on Russian crude widened to $16.60 a barrel at the end of 2025 from $8.70 a year earlier, and Moscow expects to sell its oil at around $55 a barrel in 2025-26 versus $68 in 2024. War spending can produce a cyclical bounce; sanctions determine the structural ceiling beneath it. Growth projections for Russia's medium term hover around 0.7 percent — a figure that looks nothing like the pre-war trajectory and everything like a sanctioned ceiling.
The Counter-Case: Adaptation Is Real
The strongest objection is that targets adapt, and adaptation erodes sanctions over time. North Korea is growing again on Russian trade. Russia has pivoted exports to Asia, built a shadow tanker fleet, rerouted insurance, and learned to live inside a price cap. Iran's rial, which fell to 2.02 million to the dollar on the open market after Washington's August 2026 "Operation Economic Outcast," has survived worse — the currency had already been under pressure before U.S. and Israeli strikes on February 28, 2026, with the country facing double-digit inflation and negative growth. Sanctions can produce a boomerang effect: deepening the target's intransigence, rallying the population around the flag, and pushing the regime into the arms of rival powers. The empirical literature is mixed on magnitude. One 2023 study of sanction diversity and development levels found sanctions significantly reduce income-per-capita growth in developing countries but show no statistically significant effect on developed economies, and that sanctions without prior threat episodes inflict the highest adverse effect on growth. That is a serious caveat, not a footnote.
The answer is not that adaptation is imaginary but that it is incomplete. Adaptation is costly: it means trading with fewer, less efficient partners at higher transport and financing expense. It means a permanent productivity discount. A sanctioned economy that grows again is not one that has escaped sanctions; it is one that has learned to grow slower under constraint. Consider the difference between Russia's 2024 growth and what it would have been with access to Western capital and technology — the counterfactual is unknowable, but the direction is not. The falsifying test is specific: if a comprehensively sanctioned economy — Iran, North Korea, or Russia — sustains growth at or above the global average of roughly three percent for five consecutive years while sanctions remain fully in place, the structural-attrition thesis fails. Nothing in the current data points that way. Russia's own central bank expects oil revenue to remain depressed; Iran's currency sits at a fraction of its pre-sanctions value; North Korea's per capita income remains at a level South Korea passed before either country's current leadership was born.
What This Means for Markets and Policy
The policy implication is uncomfortable: sanctions are a long-horizon instrument in political systems wired for short horizons. Their payoff arrives in decades, their failures in days. That mismatch is why the doom loop persists — sanctions disappoint, war escalates, the bill arrives, and the public turns against both. The corrective is to judge sanctions by the right metric: not whether the adversary behaved, but whether its relative capacity to threaten has shrunk.
For investors, the implication is that geopolitical risk is not a transient premium but a structural feature. Economies under sustained sanctions trade at a permanent discount to their nominal endowments; their growth compounds at a lower rate, and their access to Western capital and technology remains gated. The beneficiaries are the industries that enforcement creates: defense, energy security, sanctions compliance, and the financial plumbing that screens transactions. The exposed are the companies whose revenue depends on markets that can be switched off by a Treasury designation — a single administrative act, not a vote. The second-order consequence is less discussed: because sanctions succeed invisibly, they create a political incentive to overuse them. Every new designation raises the baseline of acceptable economic coercion, drawing neutral countries into compliance and fragmenting the global financial system into sanctioned and unsanctioned corridors. That fragmentation is itself a structural shift, not a cycle, and it prices into cross-border investment for a generation.
The forward watchlist is concrete, and it splits by time horizon. In the short term, sentiment will swing on headlines — a currency plunge, a strike, a new designation. In the medium term, the numbers that matter are Russia's growth print against the one-percent level and the discount on Russian and Iranian crude: a sustained move back above three percent growth, or a narrowing discount, would signal adaptation outrunning attrition. North Korea's trade with Russia and China is the tell on whether the 2024 growth uptick is durable or a wartime sugar rush. In the long term, the structural question is whether the sanctioned economies can rebuild the technology base that export controls deny them, and whether the unsanctioned world — China, India, the Gulf — can supply it at scale and at competitive cost. The evidence so far says it cannot, not fully.
And watch Washington for the familiar escalation, because the mismatch of horizons is built into the system. The moment sanctions look slow is the moment the war option starts looking fast, and the moment war looks costly is the moment sanctions look attractive again. The cycle feeds itself. The central judgment: sanctions do not get you victory, and anyone who uses them expecting one will be disappointed. What they get you is time — bought at the adversary's expense, compounded quietly, and payable only to those patient enough to wait for the arithmetic to work.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
