Intelligence Squared

Debate: Sanctions Don’t Work as a Tool of Foreign Policy

November 19, 2025

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • The initial audience vote showed a slight majority (41% vs 36%) against the motion that sanctions do not work as a tool of foreign policy, with 23% undecided. 
  • Proponents of sanctions argue they work by imposing costs, citing examples like freezing central bank assets (Russia, Libya) and achieving specific behavioral changes (Iran nuclear deal, Magnitsky sanctions), viewing them as a necessary, albeit imperfect, tool in the foreign policy toolbox. 
  • Opponents argue that sanctions fail to achieve major foreign policy goals (like stopping the war in Ukraine), often serve as political theatre, and can be counterproductive by strengthening authoritarian narratives (as argued regarding Russia) or causing collateral damage to civilian populations. 
  • The effectiveness of sanctions is debated in the context of modern geopolitical eras, contrasting past successes like the South African boycott with current challenges in coercing regimes like Syria or Russia. 
  • Sanctions are viewed by some as a lazy tool of policymakers, failing when not paired with robust diplomatic follow-up, while others argue they are an undeniable exercise of economic and political power, akin to 'economic gravity.' 
  • The audience vote shifted significantly after the debate in *Intelligence Squared*'s "Debate: Sanctions Don’t Work as a Tool of Foreign Policy," moving from 41% disagreeing to 63% disagreeing with the motion that sanctions do not work. 

Segments

Sponsor Read: Planet Visionaries
Copied to clipboard!
(00:00:00)
  • Key Takeaway: The Planet Visionaries podcast, hosted by Alex Honold, features conversations with builders of a better future, including an upcoming episode with Patagonia conservationist Chris Tompkins.
  • Summary: The episode is sponsored by the Planet Visionaries podcast, which focuses on real solutions and progress in reshaping the planet’s future. Host Alex Honold speaks with scientists, explorers, and activists. An upcoming interview features Chris Tompkins, whose conservation efforts led to a land donation the size of Denmark to create a national park in Chile.
Sponsor Read: Indeed Hiring
Copied to clipboard!
(00:01:28)
  • Key Takeaway: Indeed Sponsored Jobs generate 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs, and 23 hires are made on the platform every minute worldwide.
  • Summary: Indeed is promoted as a fast solution for hiring needs, emphasizing that sponsored jobs help posts jump to the top of search results. The platform offers no monthly subscriptions or long-term contracts, operating on a pay-for-results model. Listeners can receive a $75 sponsored job credit using a specific URL.
Debate Introduction and Motion
Copied to clipboard!
(00:03:12)
  • Key Takeaway: The debate centers on the motion: ‘Sanctions don’t work as a tool of foreign policy,’ with proponents arguing they are political theatre and opponents asserting their utility.
  • Summary: The host introduces the debate topic concerning the widespread use of sanctions, ranging from trade embargoes to asset freezes. Four leading thinkers are assembled to argue for and against the motion. The audience is instructed to cast a preliminary vote before hearing the opening arguments.
Opening Argument For Motion (Ian Proud)
Copied to clipboard!
(00:08:42)
  • Key Takeaway: Sanctions against Russia have failed to achieve their stated goals of ceasing destabilizing actions in Ukraine over 11 years, evidenced by continued conflict and humanitarian crisis.
  • Summary: Ian Proud, a former diplomat, argues sanctions against Russia have not worked, despite authorizing half of the UK’s sanctions against the country. He contends that sanctions prove Putin’s narrative of Western hatred correct domestically, making it politically difficult for him to withdraw from Ukraine. Furthermore, the slow, committee-based decision-making process of sanctioning bodies cannot outsmart Putin’s resolve.
Opening Argument Against Motion (Tom Keating)
Copied to clipboard!
(00:17:00)
  • Key Takeaway: Sanctions demonstrably work by causing behavior change, evidenced by the speaker being personally sanctioned by Russia, preventing his travel there.
  • Summary: Tom Keating argues sanctions are effective, citing the immobilization of $300 billion from the Russian Central Bank and the role sanctions played in bringing Iran to the 2015 nuclear negotiating table. He notes that US transnational organized crime sanctions create ‘muerta civil’ (civil death) for targeted businesses in Latin America. Sanctions against Russia, while not reversing the invasion, force the Kremlin into difficult economic choices, acting as a ‘slow puncture’ rather than a magic bullet.
Opening Argument For Motion (Rebecca Harding)
Copied to clipboard!
(00:25:56)
  • Key Takeaway: Sanctions are ineffective when defined by achieving broad foreign policy goals, as evidenced by studies showing success in only 34% of measurable cases, and Russia’s strategic planning has circumvented Western economic coercion.
  • Summary: Rebecca Harding defines effectiveness as achieving the stated foreign policy goals, concluding that sanctions fail against Russia, Iran, and North Korea based on this metric. She points out that Russia has strategically diversified into grain production since 2014 sanctions, undermining Western assumptions about economic power. The weaponization of trade and the resulting higher cost of living have also fueled populist narratives domestically in the West.
Opening Argument Against Motion (Edward Lucas)
Copied to clipboard!
(00:35:42)
  • Key Takeaway: Sanctions are a necessary tool in the foreign policy toolbox, and arguing they should never be tried is an abdication of responsibility, akin to neutrality in the face of evil.
  • Summary: Edward Lucas rejects the notion that sanctions must work like magic, acknowledging their drawbacks like potential overreach or bureaucratic rigidity. He highlights the success of targeted Magnitsky sanctions in puncturing the climate of impunity for human rights abusers, questioning if opponents would prefer no action against torturers. He argues that sanctions against Russia have successfully cut fossil fuel revenues by half, contributing to the defeat of the war machine.
Initial Vote Results and Q&A Setup
Copied to clipboard!
(00:47:12)
  • Key Takeaway: The preliminary audience vote showed 36% for the motion (sanctions don’t work), 41% against, and 23% undecided.
  • Summary: The chair announced the results of the first vote, showing a slight lead for those opposing the motion. The process for submitting audience questions, either online or via roving microphones, was then detailed to prepare for the next phase of the debate.
Q&A: Measuring Collateral Damage
Copied to clipboard!
(00:54:22)
  • Key Takeaway: The cost of ineffective sanctions, which may cause chaos and harm un-agented populations, is difficult to measure, contrasting with the measurable economic impacts of successful ones.
  • Summary: A question was raised regarding how to quantify the collateral damage and chaotic effects of the two-thirds of sanctions that do not achieve their intended impact. Ian Proud countered that individual sanctions often have meaningless impact (e.g., banning travel for those never intending to visit the UK), while Tom Keating noted that negative impacts like rising energy prices were a function of Russia’s invasion, not the sanctions themselves.
Q&A: Sanctions Off-Ramps
Copied to clipboard!
(00:54:53)
  • Key Takeaway: The lack of clearly defined ‘off-ramps’—specific actions required for sanctions relief—is a recognized failure in sanctions policy, though opponents argue the ultimate off-ramp for Russia is military withdrawal.
  • Summary: The discussion focused on the US Treasury’s principle of providing an ‘off-ramp’ for sanctions, which is currently absent in many regimes, particularly concerning Russia. Ian Proud stated that a peace process leading to Russian withdrawal would be the ultimate off-ramp, while Rebecca Harding noted that offering an off-ramp is politically difficult when facing adversaries who view sanctions as a one-way street.
Sanctions as Economic Power
Copied to clipboard!
(01:08:04)
  • Key Takeaway: The public support and awareness necessary for broad sanctions, like the South African boycott, are difficult to maintain in the current era.
  • Summary: The era of sanctions policy must be tailored to current operating conditions, as issues like regime change or cultural shifts are different now than during past campaigns. The use of sanctions is fundamentally about exercising economic and political power, which larger, richer countries tend to utilize. The continued effort by lawyers to get clients off sanctions lists suggests that these measures carry tangible consequences, even if their primary goal is not immediately achieved.
Syria Sanctions Impact
Copied to clipboard!
(01:09:11)
  • Key Takeaway: Sanctions on the Syrian people have been massive, impacting citizens while the regime remained internationally isolated since the 1960s.
  • Summary: A questioner highlighted that economic sanctions in Syria have disproportionately impacted the general population, despite the regime’s long-term international isolation. One panelist noted that Syria is a case study where sanctions were lifted, raising the question of whether the international community was prepared to provide necessary support afterward. This failure to plan post-sanction recovery is seen as a failure of diplomacy, where sanctions become a lazy tool.
Signaling vs. Tangible Impact
Copied to clipboard!
(01:10:11)
  • Key Takeaway: If sanctions are defined purely as signaling, it risks skewing the debate toward assuming they always work, regardless of concrete outcomes.
  • Summary: The debate addresses whether sanctions on individuals who have no intention of visiting the sanctioning jurisdiction are merely about signaling government position. One speaker argued that if signaling is the sole metric, it implies sanctions always work, which is an invalid measure when seeking to end major geopolitical actions like Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Communication with the public regarding the specific goals of sanctions, such as ‘de-swift Russia’ campaigns, needs significant improvement.
Western Financial Hegemony Tools
Copied to clipboard!
(01:11:01)
  • Key Takeaway: The West is not yet exhausting its financial dominance tools, but the influence of systems like SWIFT and insurance markets is being tested by targeted sanctions.
  • Summary: Specific tools of Western financial dominance, such as using SWIFT for payment sanctions or the insurance market for oil price caps (as seen with Russia), are being applied. While influence is declining, trusted international systems are still preferred by many for payments. However, non-Western countries, including China and India, also actively use sanctions, indicating they are a universal tool of economic power, not exclusively Western.
Tariffs as Sanctions
Copied to clipboard!
(01:17:50)
  • Key Takeaway: Tariffs are functionally another form of sanctions, representing economic warfare tools, though they differ from common external tariffs.
  • Summary: Tariffs are considered economic warfare tools, with one speaker noting they are essentially sanctions with different marketing. The theatrical nature of ‘Trumpian tariffs’ contrasts with the more routine application of common external tariffs by bodies like the EU. Sanctions weaponize trade, restricting access for some countries while potentially benefiting others, which is contrary to the principles of free and fair trade.
Closing Arguments and Final Vote
Copied to clipboard!
(01:19:17)
  • Key Takeaway: Sanctions are a necessary tool within a broader foreign policy toolkit that must include military deterrence and diplomatic engagement, not a standalone solution.
  • Summary: Proponents of sanctions argue that voting against the motion means believing they have never worked or that collateral damage always outweighs benefits, which is too absolute. Opponents counter that current policy has failed because the West refuses military intervention in Ukraine and has cut off diplomatic avenues, leaving sanctions as the sole, ineffective foreign policy. The final audience vote showed a significant swing against the motion, with 63% disagreeing that sanctions do not work, up from 41% pre-debate.