Diplomacy
Economic sanctions, a political tool
Sanctions are a part of international diplomacy in today’s world, applied by sanctioning countries as a non-military tool to force the target countries to respond in a desired manner. In fact, sanctions are an economic weapon in the field of non-military struggle that takes diplomacy beyond the level of negotiation and into the realm of action.
Sanctions are usually designed in terms of three objectives: offensive, defensive, and communicative.
In the offensive dimension, the goal of the sanctioning country is to change a specific behavior of the target country. In other words, the sanctioning country tries to change the behavior and actions of the sanctioned state by applying pressure. In the defensive dimension, the goal of the sanction is to slow down the development process and reduce the strategic capabilities of the target country.
In the communication dimension, sanctions can be used as a tool to convey the message of the sanctioning country’s dissatisfaction with the policies or actions of the sanctioned country. Sanctions are imposed on countries in both political and economic areas. In the political dimension, the goal of sanctions is to force the target country to comply with the policies of the sanctioning countries. These types of sanctions can be imposed with goals such as overthrowing the political system of the target country or demonstrating the power of the sanctioning country.
In the economic dimension, sanctions may be imposed to pressure a country to change its political behavior or to destabilize the economy and domestic politics of the target country. Sanctions can be imposed unilaterally, multilaterally, or comprehensively. Unilateral sanctions are imposed by one country against another without regard to UN Security Council resolutions.
Comprehensive or global sanctions are adopted by international bodies such as the United Nations or the Security Council and are intended to change the policy or behavior of the targeted country. Multilateral sanctions are imposed by several countries or international organizations with different motives and often have a greater impact on the sanctioned country.
Economic sanctions
One of the most common types of sanctions globally is economic sanctions, which are implemented with the aim of weakening the economic power of the target country. In this type of sanction, the sanctioning country attempts to expose the target government’s inefficiency and make it appear incapable of responding to the needs of its citizens.
Economic sanctions inflict a heavy blow on the country’s economy; they cause a decrease in national output, a depreciation of the currency, an increase in unemployment, a rise in prices, and a budget deficit. These sanctions also lead to a significant decrease in gross domestic product, a decrease in exports and imports, an outflow of foreign capital, and a contraction in international investment.
A country that is subject to severe economic sanctions will, over time, face economic fragility and disrupt the balance between supply and demand, which will ultimately lead to economic stagnation.
Economic sanctions as a political tool
Hegemonic powers such as the United States, due to their political, economic, ideological, and military superiority, have always tried to shape the international system based on their interests and institutionalize the acceptance of their hegemony among other countries. Economic sanctions are an alternative to military power and reflect the anger and dissatisfaction of the sanctioning country with the policies of the target country.
United States uses economic sanctions as an effective political tool to impose its demands and national interests
These sanctions are usually imposed against developing countries or political regimes opposed to the United States.
Economic sanctions can have profound negative consequences in the political, social, economic, and legal spheres. These types of sanctions can also be called “international sanctions” because they are implemented with the aim of imposing trade restrictions, investment bans, increasing customs tariffs, restricting financial relations, and preventing the transfer of technology.
Economic sanctions can be imposed for a variety of reasons, but one of the most important is to change the political system of the target country. Sanctions are sometimes not only intended to isolate a country, but can also serve to overthrow its political system. A historical example of this type of sanctions is the economic and political pressure on Iran during the prime ministership of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh.
After the nationalization of the oil industry in 1950, Britain and the United States imposed an oil embargo and imposed severe financial restrictions to suppress this anti-colonial movement. These sanctions, aimed at weakening the Iranian economy, led to internal crises and ultimately the coup of 1953 that overthrew the Mossadegh government.
Sanctions are often designed to create internal unrest by pressuring the public and creating public discontent, in the hope that this discontent will lead to regime change. Another reason for imposing sanctions is to change the policy and policy of the target country.
Sanctions are powerful tools in international relations and are sometimes designed to force target countries to change their policies.
The purpose of sanctions, or so-called restrictions and pressure, is to force the target country to accept the demands of the international community or the sanctioning country. This pressure is usually applied in the form of economic, trade, financial or even diplomatic barriers.
The sanctioning country attempts to force the policymakers of the target country to change course and accept its demands by increasing costs and reducing benefits. Sanctions create indirect pressure on policymakers and decision-makers by affecting the country’s economic and social structure.
These sanctions restrict trade by reducing access to financial resources, technology, and technology, and cause welfare problems for citizens. The combination of factors that sanctions impose on the social and economic structure of society leads to the formation of public dissatisfaction and internal pressure on the government.
Prominent examples of sanctions aimed at changing the domestic policy of the target country were the sanctions imposed by the United Nations and Western countries on South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. These sanctions were imposed due to apartheid and racial discrimination policies and included trade restrictions, sports embargoes, and blocking access to international financial markets.
Economic pressures, trade restrictions, and diplomatic isolation forced the South African government to move toward a more democratic and open system. Another important example is the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council, the European Union, and the United States over its nuclear program.
These sanctions, which intensified in the early 2000s, imposed restrictions on oil exports, imports of sensitive technologies, and access to the global banking system. The aim of these sanctions was to force Iran to halt sensitive nuclear activities.
Sanctions are also imposed to weaken the economic structure of the target country
This effective tool limits the executive power of the target country to advance policies by reducing its financial and economic strength. This is done by creating barriers to access to global markets, advanced technologies, exports and imports, and freezing foreign assets.
Such restrictions can disrupt supply chains, reduce foreign exchange earnings, and halt the target country’s development or military programs. A prime example of these effects is the sanctions imposed on Iran, which have had particularly devastating effects on the oil and gas sector.
Declining oil revenues have led to a decline in domestic investment, high inflation, and a devaluation of the national currency. Banking sanctions have also restricted international trade, making it difficult to import essential goods and increasing economic and social pressure.
Sanctions accelerate the process of policy change by targeting the economic structure of the target country. In this type of sanctions, international financial resources are blocked and the bank accounts and foreign exchange reserves of the target country are frozen. This blockage increases the costs of production and imports and ultimately leads to the inability of the target country to pay its debts.
When exports and imports are restricted, key industries such as oil and gas are affected. Economic restrictions prevent access to advanced technologies and hinder economic development. This leads to higher inflation rates, economic stagnation, devaluation of the national currency, reduced foreign investment, and increased unemployment, ultimately putting more domestic pressure on the government.
Sanctions are often imposed in response to specific actions by countries.
These actions may include human rights violations, support for terrorism, or military aggression. Examples of this type of sanctions include sanctions imposed on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and its military aggression against Ukraine.
In response to the invasion of Ukraine, the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and the Security Council imposed sweeping sanctions that have dealt a heavy blow to the Russian economy. These sanctions have included the removal of Russian banks from the SWIFT financial system, the freezing of central bank assets, and restrictions on dollar and euro transactions. Exports of advanced technology, military equipment, and sensitive industries such as oil and gas to Russia have also been banned. These measures have led to a depreciation of the ruble, rising inflation, and stagnation in key sectors of the Russian economy. Restrictions on access to foreign currency and advanced technologies have posed serious challenges to Russian industries.
In fact, economic sanctions are political tools that powerful and hegemonic countries use to implement national interests, exert power, and control the international order. Economic sanctions can cause a decrease in production, a collapse in the value of the national currency, an increase in unemployment, a decrease in investment, and inflation.
These sanctions are designed with various motives and goals and are usually imposed by developed countries against developing countries. These pressures are applied with the aim of forcing countries to accept the policies of the sanctioning country and have both positive and negative consequences. Economic pressure and sanctions cause inflation and public discontent, which can lead to political and social instability in the target country.
On the positive side, sanctions may lead to greater self-sufficiency, de-dependence, and independence for the sanctioned country. Sanctions force governments to increase their focus on domestic production and take measures to counter the pressures.
Diplomacy
Vance leads indirect push for US-Iran ceasefire and nuclear talks
US Vice-President JD Vance has been personally involved over the past two weeks in indirect talks with Iran aimed at securing a fresh ceasefire and restarting nuclear negotiations.
According to Axios, Vance’s intense engagement indicates that he has taken it upon himself to extract the US from the conflict, which he views as responsible for the Republican Party’s shocking losses in this week’s elections.
This elevates the latest round of indirect talks to the highest echelons of the administration.
US officials and regional sources state that Trump is currently willing to let diplomatic efforts run their course to see whether any agreement is achievable.
Asked by reporters on Friday what his message was to Iran, Trump said, “We are talking to them.”
According to sources with direct knowledge of the matter, Vance speaks almost daily with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir, and other mediators regarding the negotiations with Iran.
White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, are also involved in the process.
Sources say Vance and the Qatari and Pakistani mediators have been discussing the possibility of holding a working-level technical meeting between the US and Iran in the coming days, though this has not yet materialized.
Before the war began in late February, Vance was among the most sceptical voices in Trump’s inner circle on the issue, advocating instead for a diplomatic solution.
In April, he led the US negotiating delegation at the Iran summit held in Islamabad and was personally involved in the talks that yielded a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the US and Iran in June.
Vance subsequently headed the US delegation during a series of direct talks with Iran in Switzerland.
Two weeks ago, Vance sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, proposing that direct negotiations resume.
Rezaei is one of the closest advisers to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.
Iranian officials noted that Vance’s letter generated positive momentum toward restarting talks.
On Wednesday, Vance said the war was the primary reason for the Republicans’ repudiation at the polls.
Sources involved in mediation efforts report that while progress is being made, the process is moving very slowly.
On Friday evening, the prime minister of Qatar said, “Over the past few weeks, we worked with our colleagues in the US administration who have a sincere intention to contain the situation and de-escalate. Thanks to them and the voices of reason in Tehran, we prevented the situation from spinning out of control.”
The prime minister added that discussions with the Trump administration continued following the midterm elections, though they were not as active as in previous days “because there are other matters.”
Nevertheless, he noted that the US intention to find a diplomatic resolution “remains ongoing” and emphasized that an agreement is possible.
On Friday morning, Trump and the Emir of Qatar discussed Qatari efforts to bridge differences between the US and Iran as part of an accord.
According to a statement from his office, Sheikh Tamim emphasized the necessity of “pursuing dialogue and diplomatic channels to resolve differences, prevent the region from facing further escalation, and ensure freedom of maritime navigation as well as the security of energy supplies.”
Separately, Trump confirmed on Friday that the US military conducted a strike on an anti-aircraft missile launcher on Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz after it fired a missile at a US fighter jet.
Diplomacy
Ukraine faces demographic collapse as fertility rates slide
British magazine The Economist reported that mobilization, conflict casualties, and pervasive uncertainty have left Ukraine confronting the threat of demographic collapse.
According to data cited by the magazine, Ukraine’s fertility rate has declined from 1.2 children per woman in 2020 to between 0.8 and 0.9.
This rate marks a lower level than that of any major nation except South Korea.
In the first half of 2026, the number of deaths in Ukraine surpassed the number of newborn babies threefold.
The report noted that ever since independence was gained in 1991, the number of births in the country has lagged behind the number of deaths every year.
The Economist emphasized that the demographic collapse driven by the ongoing fighting constitutes an “existential threat.”
The magazine identified mass refugee migration as the principal driver of the population loss.
More than 5 million Ukrainians reside abroad, predominantly in Europe.
The proportion of those wishing to return among those who left the country is also steadily shrinking.
According to data from the Centre for Economic Strategy (CES), the share of those seeking to return dropped from 74% in 2022 to 43%.
The fact that the majority of refugees consist of Ukrainian children and women under the age of 44 further aggravates the demographic picture.
The Kyiv government decided to exempt men under the age of 25 from mobilization to alleviate the demographic decline.
The magazine reported, however, that many young people have fled the country, while those who remain do not plan to start families.
Projections cited in the report indicate that even if hostilities cease in the coming years, Ukraine can, at best, expect merely a deceleration of depopulation.
Olga Duhnich, an expert at the Ukraine-based think tank Frontier Institute, stated that the generation born in the 1990s and 2000s is the least populous in Ukraine’s modern history, meaning the country cannot expect a post-conflict baby boom.
The United Nations (UN) projects that Ukraine’s population will decline by 0.7% to 0.9% each year over the next two decades.
Under this projection, Ukraine’s population will fall to approximately 25 million by 2040.
If hostilities drag on, people are expected to abandon plans to have children, deepening the crisis even further.
Beyond exempting men under 25 from mobilization, the Kyiv government is rolling out various support packages to boost birth rates.
Under legislation enacted in the country, parents who have children receive a direct payment of 50,000 hryvnias (around $1,100).
Parents are also paid 7,000 hryvnias each month during the first year.
Other state programmes subsidize childcare costs, while Ukrainian soldiers are granted free freezing of egg and sperm cells.
Ukrainian Minister of Social Policy Denis Ulyutin said in May to the Livyi Bereh media outlet that roughly 22 to 25 million people lived in government-controlled territories.
Ulyutin characterized the prevailing picture by saying: “This is a catastrophe.”
Ella Libanova, Director of the Institute for Demography and Quality of Life Research, estimated the population at 29 million during the same period.
Libanova attributed the steep fall from a population of 30 million in 2025 to high death rates and the demographic crisis.
In a statement in October, Libanova announced that Ukraine’s population had slipped to 28.5 million.
Institute Director Libanova said: “The population is already at 28.5 million; we lost half a million people. We lost them, but thankfully this was still caused by migration rather than casualties.”
Diplomacy
Armenian opposition urged to form joint front against constitution
Narek Karapetyan, a lawmaker and head of the Strong Armenia faction in the Armenian parliament, has urged opposition parties to unite around four core principles set out in a joint declaration.
The key points of the declaration include resisting territorial concessions and blocking the adoption of a new constitution, which the opposition has termed the “Aliyev constitution”.
According to a report by Aysor.am, Narek Karapetyan stated that the opposition meeting was originally planned to be led by his uncle, businessman and Strong Armenia movement leader Samvel Karapetyan.
“We initiated the meeting, but the authorities took preemptive steps to prevent Samvel Karapetyan from launching the national unification process,” Narek Karapetyan said.
Noting that, despite these events, opposition representatives convened and signed a joint declaration based on four agreed articles, Narek Karapetyan invited other opposition forces and members of the public to join the alliance.
“We will not allow them to implement the Aliyev constitution in Armenia. We must unite,” Karapetyan said.
Ahead of these developments, Armenian National Security Service personnel detained Strong Armenia Party leader Samvel Karapetyan following a search of his home.
The party’s press secretary, Agavni Sukiasyan, announced that on the morning of the same day, the Investigative Committee of Armenia searched the homes of both Samvel Karapetyan and Narek Karapetyan.
In a report citing the Investigative Committee, Armenpress stated that Samvel Karapetyan was detained as part of a case involving allegations of causing large-scale financial damage to the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA) company, embezzling entrusted property, and money laundering.
According to committee figures, the total damage inflicted on the company exceeds $179 million.
Narek Karapetyan’s home was also searched at the end of July as part of a criminal case.
On 22 July, Armenia’s Central Electoral Commission approved the Prosecutor General’s request to strip Narek Karapetyan of his parliamentary immunity, and Karapetyan was charged with large-scale money laundering.
According to information reported by Sputnik Armenia, the investigation is linked to charges brought against Strong Armenia supporter Aleksan Aleksanyan.
Investigative authorities allege that Aleksanyan received approximately $4.4 million and €230,000 from the Karapetyan-owned Tashir Foundation under the guise of gifts and loans.
Several criminal cases had previously been opened against Samvel Karapetyan.
In 2025, Karapetyan was charged with publicly calling for the violent seizure of power after backing the Armenian Apostolic Church, which had been criticized by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
In January, legal proceedings were also launched against Karapetyan on charges of large-scale tax evasion and money laundering.
Separately, in early July 2025, the Armenian parliament approved a bill enabling the nationalization of the Electric Networks of Armenia company.
In March, Armenia’s Constitutional Court ruled that the nationalization process in question complied with the law.
-
Diplomacy1 week agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Russia2 weeks agoUS and Russia weigh energy deals and corporate return in peace talks
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS warns Gulf allies of possible Iran strikes after midterms
-
Opinion2 weeks agoGaza exposes the myth of the “most moral army in the world”
-
Europe5 days agoEU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises
-
America2 weeks agoBolsonaro reportedly leaves Brazil on jet linked to scandal-hit firm
-
Asia1 week agoChina expands Africa arms sales, displacing France and Western rivals
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSteinmeier seeks to de-escalate German-Chinese tensions on visit
