Comment by andrewaylett

Sanctions are less damaging than military action. They're obviously a less extreme statement too.

I think a key part of my thinking is "projecting political pressure". That's not what's happening in Cuba, there's no "we want you to stop doing $X and then the sanctions will end".

Whether the Iranian sanctions can be effective is a matter for debate -- and for a while at least, it seemed they were, and we appeared to be making good progress towards not needing them any more.

Modern sanctions are tending towards embargoing specific classes of goods, and things that affect the elite more than the general population. For example, the UK is refusing to sell weapons (directly) to Israel. And various countries have impounded assents owned by Russian oligarchs.

My preference would be for sanctions to come with a clear policy objective stating what they're trying to change (or to avoid) and what conditions need to be met in order to have them withdrawn. The Cuban (and ICC) sanctions instead look like punishment, and the Iranian and North Korean sanctions appear to me to be a mix.