Jordan Schneider has a very informative interview with Edward Fishman, who is an expert on the use of sanctions. Until recently, the US would occasionally impose sanctions but not require other countries to adhere to our policy. That all changed with the Iran sanctions, where the US imposed secondary sanctions on third parties that engaged in unauthorized trades with Iran. This comment caught my eye:
Secondary sanctions had been tried before in the mid-90s, but the U.S. effectively wound up blinking and not imposing secondary sanctions on Total, the French oil company that had been investing in Iran’s oil sector. Even the George W. Bush administration decided not to impose secondary sanctions. This tool was very controversial. You can imagine it didn’t go down well with other countries. If you’re an American diplomat and you go meet with one of your counterparts abroad and say, “Sorry, we have to sanction your biggest bank if they don’t stop doing business with Iran” — that just feels like mafia diplomacy, not something that goes down very easily.
Fishman is not opposed to the use of sanctions, rather he is describing the mindset in the early 2000s. Fishman suggests that President Obama used his popularity to get the UN to approve of our sanctions policy.
Jordan Schneider: You mentioned “Mafia diplomacy” as a sort of derogatory term for sanctions tactics. There are a lot of moments in this story where gentlemanliness appears to be very important to Obama.
After the invasion of Crimea, around the Maidan revolution, Obama had a call with Putin where he warned that “Moscow’s actions would negatively impact Russia’s standing in the international community.” Putin’s response was basically like, “I don’t know, man, it’s hard to take you seriously.”
Why was Obama’s demeanor so helpful in the case of Iran?
Edward Fishman: Obama was very attuned to international law, or as you put it, gentlemanliness. You could argue he was very lawyerly in his approach. With respect to the Iran sanctions, I think it actually wound up being helpful because the secondary sanctions against Iran were beyond anyone’s imagination.
Fishman seems to suggest that Obama’s “lawyerly” approach was useful in getting support from our allies, but not necessarily in pressuring our adversaries.
Today, I’m not even sure which countries are our allies and which countries are our enemies. Furthermore, the current administration does not seem to be staffed with lots of “gentlemen”. This Jordan Schneider tweet caught my eye:
I guess it’s a sign of the times when I have to apologize for the language used when I quote top government officials.
In the past, I’ve emphasized that both parties need to pay more attention to process. With each administration, more and more power flows to the presidency. That may seem good if you support the party that is currently in power, but the next administration will inherit that power and perhaps push the envelop even further. Tactics that seem mafia-like to one generation will become accepted as normal by the next. But where does all of this end?
READER COMMENTS
Robert Benkeser
Mar 5 2025 at 1:32am
I wouldn’t characterize secondary sanctions as inherently mafia-like. If we are imposing them on autocracies with revanchist intentions or theocracies interested in building nukes, then we are making the result of the world choose between the free world and the Axis of Evil, which is much more mafia-like. Seems like a noble goal to me.
Trump might explore sanctioning our allies, but I would imagine that doing so would be vastly more disruptive to trade flows compared to a tariff.
Scott Sumner
Mar 5 2025 at 9:28am
We do sanction our allies when we have secondary sanctions.
“then we are making the result of the world choose between the free world and the Axis of Evil,”
So when America switches from supporting Ukraine to supporting Russia, are we supporting the good guys or the axis of evil?
Jose Pablo
Mar 5 2025 at 12:33pm
We do sanction our allies when we have secondary sanctions
which means we are essentially sanctioning ourselves when we impose direct sanctions.
So, the U.S. government can ruthlessly sanction its own citizens, yet it is expected to show “gentlemanliness” when sanctioning foreign nationals.
That sounds bizarre.
Jose Pablo
Mar 5 2025 at 1:12pm
Pretty much like a slave owner who had the right to whip their own slaves at will but couldn’t whip another slave owner’s slaves.
Not that I necessarily disagree—just finding the conclusions about the state that seems to follow this way of reasoning fascinating.
BC
Mar 6 2025 at 3:33pm
“So when America switches from supporting Ukraine to supporting Russia, are we supporting the good guys or the axis of evil?”
Easy one: Axis of Evil. Benkeser is correct. “Secondary sanctions” prevent free rider problems. When used to enforce the Liberal World Order, they are more police-like than mafia-like. Without question, America has often acted like policeman to the world. But, when those same actions are used to support the Bad Guys, then they become mafia like. Just like the actual police and mafia. (But, yes, even the policeman to the world must act within the constraints of the Liberal Order and Natural Law, just like real life policemen.)
Interestingly, Trump’s actions could lead to the creation of competitive world policemen, most notably in Europe, which is starting to at least talk about taking security and defense seriously. The world is different than pre-WW2. Germany and Japan are different. What will happen if we return to a pre-WW2 multipolar world, where countries like Germany and Japan are once again military powers but with presumed 21st Century sensibilities? (Keep in mind that AfD could conceivably gain power in Germany at some point.) We may be on the path to finding out.
Craig
Mar 5 2025 at 8:49am
“With each administration, more and more power flows to the presidency.”
The worm turned with the New Deal…..
“I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.
But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis–broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.” – FDR inaugural
Scott Sumner
Mar 5 2025 at 9:30am
You are correct about the New Deal. That was a turning point, at least for peacetime.
steve
Mar 5 2025 at 1:23pm
I think the New Deal may have marked a change but note in that speech that FDR says that he will ask Congress to give him power. That is hugely different from a POTUS that ignores Congress, which supposedly holds the power of the purse, to single-handedly decide what to spend. There has been a gradual concentration of power into the executive branch that has now greatly accelerated. It’s pretty much inconceivable that before now the POTUS could put the decisions about reforming govt into the hands of a single unelected person.
Query- Libertarians have for the most part been quiet about Trump/Musk or outright supportive. Since so much of libertarian thought is based on the work of Hayek and the idea that one body is unable to process all of the info in markets, I would have thought people would be skeptical about placing so much power into the hands of one person, who is also a major govt contractor with his own interests. Is that because libertarians, via Rand, seem to support the Great Man theory of history or are they just willing to tolerate any means hoping for an end they want?
Steve
Craig
Mar 5 2025 at 2:57pm
Well I would say to take that last sentence as a whole, he says that if Congress should fail to take measures to at least grant him the power to meet the emergency, broad executive authority. And that’s kind’ve where we are, these Executive Branch dictats are often rooted in statutory authority to declare an emergency and then to act pursuant to that. Its rooted in a general delegation of statutory authority.
Scott Sumner
Mar 5 2025 at 6:04pm
Regarding Trump, I think libertarians are a mixed bag. I’ve certainly been critical of his authoritarian tendencies, as have most of the libertarians that I know. But some have been silent, which is very disappointing.
Mactoul
Mar 5 2025 at 11:47pm
The term authoritarian connotes something sinister while denoting little. The criterion as applied to political actions should be their legality which is a substantive question and not something atmospheric and literary as authoritarianism.
Scott Sumner
Mar 6 2025 at 10:12am
“should be their legality”
Trump is a convicted felon, and three even more serious charges were dropped because the Supreme Court shielded him from prosecution. In the second impeachment trial 7 members of his own party voted to convict, which had never previously happened in all of American history.
Jose Pablo
Mar 6 2025 at 10:43am
And even worse, he was never tried for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
This is the most serious accusation possible in a democracy. I find it puzzling how anyone can be elected president before their role in these events has been fully investigated and resolved.
Mactoul
Mar 6 2025 at 6:59pm
Trump’s conviction was a major reason behind his victory. People could see the conviction for what it was — partisan lawfare.
Jose Pablo
Mar 5 2025 at 12:11pm
I’m afraid Bongino is right.
The executive branch controls approximately 100,000 armed agents—and one could even argue that also the military. Meanwhile, Congress and the judiciary control none.
The real barrier preventing the executive from openly defying constraints imposed by the other branches is American customs and traditions—the culture of liberty. But this is a soft barrier, one that can be skillfully eroded over time.
Scott Sumner
Mar 6 2025 at 10:13am
“I’m afraid Bongino is right.”
You don’t seem to understand what he is saying. He is advocating authoritarianism.
Jose Pablo
Mar 6 2025 at 10:45am
I fully understand that Scott, I meant that he is right when he says:
“Who is going to arrest him, the Marshalls?. Trump controls them”
That is objectively true. And very dangerous.
Comments are closed.