As US sanctions expand to cover numerous countries and thousands of entities, a critical question emerges: Are they a strategic tool or simply visible action that avoids harder choices? While tariffs raise costs but allow business to continue, sanctions create legal barriers that can halt transactions entirely — yet their overuse risks weakening impact, accelerating de-dollarization, and hardening the very regimes they target
Key insights:
-
-
-
Different tools, different impacts— Tariffs raise costs but allow business to continue; sanctions create legal barriers that can make transactions impossible, with severe penalties for violations.
-
Scale brings scrutiny— Expansive US sanctions risk diminishing returns as targets develop workarounds and alternative financial systems.
-
Strategic or reactive use?— The core challenge isn’t whether sanctions work, but whether they’re deployed as part of coherent strategy or simply as visible action that avoids harder diplomatic or military choices.
-
-
In the foreign policy arsenal of the United States, economic sanctions have become a widely used weapon. As their use expands, so does the debate about how effective they actually are, what additional risks they create, and what unintended consequences they may bring.
Tariffs vs. sanctions: What’s the difference?
In wartime or during high-tension economic crises, both tariffs and sanctions can significantly impact businesses, but the two methods work in different ways.
Tariffs are a form of economic pressure. Governments use them to reduce an adversary’s export revenue, raise the cost of critical imports, signal disapproval of countries that continue doing business with the target, and generate funds for their own efforts. For companies, tariffs usually create friction rather than a full stop. Businesses can often continue importing, but at a higher landed cost. And that can compress margins and force decisions around topics such as renegotiating pricing, passing costs to customers, or shifting to lower-tariff suppliers.
Sanctions are closer to an economic blockade. They aim to isolate the target by banning broad categories of trade, restricting strategic sectors, blacklisting specific entities and individuals, and sometimes pressuring third parties through secondary sanctions. The business impact is often binary. For example, if a counterparty or its majority owner is sanctioned, trading partners generally cannot make the deal work by paying more. The transaction becomes illegal, and violations can trigger severe penalties.
How the difference shows up in operations
Consider a European manufacturing company in March 2022 that is trying to manage the crisis situation caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
If policymakers respond to the crisis with tariffs, such as a steep duty on Russian aluminum and timber, the primary challenge for this manufacturer is financial and operational planning. Costs rise, and then the company must decide whether to absorb the increase, reprice contracts, or switch suppliers, even if alternatives are more expensive.
Check out our latest Clarity podcast for more on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision here
If policymakers respond with sanctions, however, the situation can escalate quickly. Restrictions on major banks and key import categories, combined with aggressive designations of targeted companies and individuals can disrupt the entire supply chain. Payments can freeze, and goods can be delayed or seized. Even indirect connections to the sanctioned party can create problems, including for banks, shippers, insurers, and in some cases for logistics providers or warehouse owners. Indeed, what looked like a routine transaction can become non-compliant without warning.
The scale of sanctions use
Over the past several decades, the US has increasingly relied on economic sanctions as a core foreign-policy tool. In fact, by the early 2020s, US sanctions programs were targeting more than 30 countries and thousands of individuals and entities, with the sanctions primarily being administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). That trend has not only continued but accelerated under the current administration, which has turned to sanctions more frequently amid a volatile political environment. As the use of sanctions has expanded on a massive scale, their breadth and effectiveness have come under growing scrutiny.
Indeed, the phrase economic warfare reflects how modern sanctions often operate.
Many sanctions now target entire sectors, not only military goods. Secondary sanctions can threaten foreign companies that do business with sanctioned parties, effectively using access to the US financial system and the dollar as leverage. Critics argue that sanctions can also cause harm to civilians through inflation, shortages of essential goods including medicine, and broader economic damage. While targeted sanctions are intended to focus on elites, broader measures can affect entire populations.
What makes sanctions risky
The overuse of sanctions can create several problems. Yet sanctions can be politically attractive because they offer visible action without direct military risk, which may increase the temptation to use them even when they are unlikely to work.
As sanctions become routine, however, their impact may weaken as countries and companies develop workarounds, find alternative payment channels, and establish sanctions-resistant trade networks. Broad pressure from US sanctions can also encourage efforts to reduce reliance on the dollar-based financial system. China, Russia, and others have invested in alternative payment mechanisms such as cross-border interbank payment systems (CIPS) and systems for transfer of financial messages (SPFS) and expanded the use of non-dollar currencies. Over time, this response can reduce US financial leverage.
Sanctions can also provoke retaliation, including cyber activity, support for US adversaries, or wider regional instability. Sanctions also may harden diplomatic positions and make negotiation more difficult. In some cases, shared sanctions pressure can push sanctioned states closer together, strengthening the very coalitions that the US is trying to disrupt.
The argument for a middle ground
Supporters of sanctions argue that they provide an option between doing nothing and using military force. They can impose real costs on harmful actors, signal resolve, and respond to domestic demands for action, while still preserving diplomatic channels and avoiding full-on armed conflict.
The central question, however, is whether sanctions are being used as a substitute for strategy rather than as a single tool within a broader strategy. As sanctions continue to expand, it is worth weighing their benefits against their limits and long-term consequences. For policymakers and businesses alike, understanding these dynamics is critical to making informed decisions and managing risk.
You can find out more about the geopolitical and economic outlook for 2026 here
