Today when tensions arise, sanctions become the favorite tool for American diplomacy. We are currently seeing this in Iraq and other countries. .
The United States has learned a couple of ideas over the years from issuing sanctions. The first idea is that sanctions seldom achieve the desired change in the conduct of foreign countries. This basically states that Woodrow Wilson was wrong because he said countries are usually in sight of surrender. Hufbauer's book stated that one in five sanctions actually work in some form. Some of the most recent successes were in Columbia and South Africa. The sanctions imposed weren't the only factor for why these countries were a success but it did play a role. Another important idea is that Democratic countries, where the elite cares a lot about what the rest of the world thinks are far more affected by sanctions than authoritarian countries. One consequence of this is that the financial sanction imposed may topple a democratic government and let authoritative figures move in. .
The second idea we have learned is that it is nave to think of sanctions as a substitute for force when dealing with authoritarian powers. I say this because sanctions in authoritarian countries have never really worked and the only thing that has really worked is military force such as in Iraq, Panama and Haiti. One thing that needs to be changed is that United State Presidents see sanctions as isolated measures and not part of a plan that emphasizes the use of diplomatic protests then shifting to economic sanctions and if this still hasn't worked military intervention would be used. The result of keeping sanctions separate and disconnected is that a lot of countries look at us as bluffing and if they can withstand sanctions they don't have to fear a surprise attack. .
The third lesson we have learned is that economic sanctions can inflict pain on innocent people while at the same time not weaken the leaders of these countries.