Why the US-Iran Conflict Reveals the Limits of Sanctions as a Weapon

By ✦ min read

<p>The ongoing war between the United States (with Israel) and Iran has dragged on for months, exposing not only military and diplomatic hurdles but also a critical weakness in American strategy: the declining power of economic sanctions. Once a cornerstone of US foreign policy—used against nations like North Korea, Russia, and Iran—sanctions are now showing diminishing returns in a multipolar world where China and other actors challenge US dominance. This Q&A explores how the Iran conflict underscores the erosion of US economic coercion.</p> <h2 id="q1">1. What does the prolonged US-Iran war reveal about the effectiveness of US sanctions?</h2> <p>The protracted nature of the US-Iran conflict highlights that sanctions are no longer the decisive tool they once were. While the US has long used economic coercion to isolate Iran—imposing primary, secondary, and targeted financial measures—the war has shown that these punishments fail to force a quick resolution. Much commentary has focused on military and diplomatic limits, but the conflict also makes clear that sanctions alone cannot achieve US foreign policy goals. As scholars of economic statecraft note, the war demonstrates the diminishing returns of such measures, especially as global power shifts. For example, even when the US reimposed sanctions under the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign, most global firms avoided business with Iran not out of fear but due to the lack of international support. This weakens the bite of US economic threats and reveals a gap between US ambitions and actual leverage.</p><figure style="margin:20px 0"><img src="https://images.fastcompany.com/image/upload/w_1280,q_auto,f_auto,fl_lossy/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit/wp-cms-2/2026/04/p-1-91534932-us-economic-coercion-foreign-policy-goals.jpg" alt="Why the US-Iran Conflict Reveals the Limits of Sanctions as a Weapon" style="width:100%;height:auto;border-radius:8px" loading="lazy"><figcaption style="font-size:12px;color:#666;margin-top:5px">Source: www.fastcompany.com</figcaption></figure> <h2 id="q2">2. How has US economic power changed in the modern multipolar world?</h2> <p>For decades after the Cold War, the US dominated global finance and military spending—its budget far exceeding China's. This allowed Washington to use economic coercion effectively against adversaries like North Korea and Russia. However, the rise of China and the emergence of an increasingly multipolar world have slowly eroded US supremacy. The US is no longer the sole center of economic activity; other nations offer alternative financial systems, trade routes, and markets. This shift means that sanctions backed by the US alone carry less weight, especially when key players like the EU, Russia, or China refuse to cooperate. In the Iran conflict, for instance, the lack of multilateral support for US sanctions has allowed Iran to bypass restrictions through non-Western channels. The lesson is clear: as US relative power declines, its ability to weaponize economics weakens, making coercion less effective.</p> <h2 id="q3">3. What is the history of US sanctions against Iran?</h2> <p>Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, US-Iran relations have been hostile. Washington has punished, contained, or isolated Iran through a mix of sanctions—primary (directly restricting US entities), secondary (targeting third parties doing business with Iran), and targeted financial measures. These sanctions were imposed for alleged state sponsorship of terrorism and Iran's nuclear program, which emerged in 2003 and led to UN sanctions. US and EU interests converged, and they cooperated to limit Iran's access to the European banking system. This coordination was onerous for Iran, which, as political scientist Adam Tarock noted, meant Iran was “winning a little, losing a lot.” Over time, the cumulative effect of sanctions—such as high inflation and soaring food prices—crippled Iran's economy, but the pressure did not force a change in behavior. Instead, it drove Iran to seek new allies and economic strategies, illustrating the limits of unilateral coercion.</p> <h2 id="q4">4. How did the JCPOA affect Iran's economy and sanctions?</h2> <p>The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 between Iran, the US, EU members, Russia, and China, offered sanctions relief in exchange for limits on Iran's nuclear program. At the time, Iran's economy was suffering—crushing inflation and rampant food prices—so the deal was a lifeline. It removed US, EU, and UN sanctions, allowing Iran to access global markets and banking. This brief period saw economic improvement. However, the relief was temporary. The JCPOA showed that sanctions could be a bargaining chip, but its eventual collapse underscored that US-led coercion works best with broad international backing. When the US later withdrew, Iran resumed nuclear activities, and the economic benefits vanished. The episode highlights that sanctions are not a permanent fix; they require sustained consensus to be effective.</p> <h2 id="q5">5. Why did the US withdraw from the JCPOA and reimpose sanctions?</h2> <p>In 2018, the first Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA, claiming the deal did not adequately address Iran's missile program or regional influence. Washington then reimposed unilateral sanctions as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign. This move was not supported by other signatories—the EU, Russia, and China—who opposed the withdrawal and tried to maintain trade with Iran. As a result, most global firms refrained from doing business with Iran not because of US sanctions alone, but because the lack of multilateral support made compliance risky. The reimposed sanctions hurt Iran's economy but failed to force new negotiations. Meanwhile, the US isolated itself diplomatically, reducing its ability to coordinate effective economic pressure. This experience shows that unilateral sanctions, without international cooperation, have diminishing impact and can even backfire by strengthening adversarial coalitions.</p> <h2 id="q6">6. What lessons can be drawn from the diminishing returns of US economic coercion?</h2> <p>The US-Iran conflict offers three key lessons. First, sanctions are most effective when supported by a coalition; unilateral measures lose potency in a multipolar world. Second, economic coercion alone cannot substitute for sound military or diplomatic strategy—as the protracted war demonstrates. Third, the decline of US relative power means that adversaries like Iran can withstand pressure by pivoting to China, Russia, or other partners. The era of unchallenged US dominance is fading, and future administrations must recognize that sanctions are a blunt, weakening tool. To remain credible, Washington will need to rebuild alliances and adapt its approach, embracing multilateralism rather than relying on outdated coercive tactics. Otherwise, the limits of sanctions will continue to be exposed in conflicts like the one with Iran.</p>