Not at ALL costs, for the very reasons YOU point out Hossein.

Horatio Nelson --

"The measure may be thought bold, but I am of the opinion the boldest are the safest."

There are times when armed force is the appropriate and least risky response.

My guess is our historical hero would think sanctions are the antithesis of bold and decisive -- more Hamlet than Henry V -- who normalized with France pretty quickly. In contrast, in the former, there was nothing much left at the end of the play for anything.

I was taken aback when NYT columnist Thomas Friedman congratulated President Biden for achieving all he had in Ukraine without a single American life placed at risk. My reaction was, "Why not?"

Putin's actions have cost tens of thousands of lives, millions displaced, and tens of millions likely pushed into food insecurity. This is apart from the hundreds of billions of physical damage. Putin is to blame, but he has done it with our help.

Sanctions are welcomed as avoiding bloody conflicts -- especially involving rich world folk. As you point out in this and previous articles, the costs are grossly under-realized and consequence given cursory consideration and understanding.

Your point that the damage is long-lasting and changes our world in detrimental ways that are difficult to reverse is particularly significant. The sanctions on Iran could remain for reasons difficult to explain, let alone justify.

Sanctions more often assist the leaders they are against, so their use needs serious questioning. The regimes in Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia NEED the U.S. as the bogeyman to give them strength and longevity. Without them, they would all have weaker holds over their populations.

Excellent article. Sorry to take so long to comment. Best to you.