Sanctions Are A Form Of Warfare by David Swanson

Sanctions Are A Form Of Warfare by David Swanson

Screenshot by Dandelion Salad via Flickr

Updated: July 31, 2017

by David Swanson
Writer, Dandelion Salad
Let’s Try Democracy
Originally published in American Herald Tribune, July 26, 2017
July 28, 2017

Both houses of Congress have now passed big new sanctions bills by veto-proof majorities, in fact with near unanimity. The vote this week in the House of Misrepresentatives was 419–3 on a bill to sanction Russia, Iran, and North Korea as punishment for primarily imaginary crimes, despite the sum total of the global legal bodies having asked the United States to judge these crimes, skip over a trial, and move right ahead with punishment being exactly equal to the number of principled opponents of war employed on Capitol Hill.

The most recent vote in the Senate on a version of the bill that did not yet include North Korea was 97-2. The Senate will now take up the new bill for another vote.

Why do I call the crimes being punished imaginary? The latest House bill calls itself a bill “To provide congressional review and to counter aggression by the Governments of Iran, the Russian Federation, and North Korea, and for other purposes.” Where is the aggression?

The bill requires the U.S. government to produce something the bill does not include or refer to, namely a report on Iran’s crimes, which are to include “destabilizing activities,” possession of a military (Congress wants to know exactly what a war on Iran would be up against), possession of chemical and biological weapons (there exists no evidence that Iran has either, though it does have a fatwa against them and refused to retaliate in kind when attacked with them by Iraq with U.S. help in the Iran-Iraq war), possession of ballistic missiles. There is no mention of violating the nuclear agreement or any other actual law. There is mention of “terrorism” and “human rights violations,” things few if any governments on earth are innocent of, least of all the United States, which of course is also openly guilty of destabilizing activities, possessing chemical and biological weapons, etc.

The bill seeks to punish Russia for interference in U.S. and other elections — crimes for which we would almost certainly have seen evidence by now if any existed — and for the “illegal annexation of Crimea” — illegal because opposed by a coup government in Kiev despite being supported by almost everyone in Crimea at the time and to this day. The 2014 vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia involved zero casualties and has never been repeated because poll after poll shows the people happy with their vote. I have seen no written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. The United States had supported the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in the 1990s despite Serbian opposition. When Slovakia seceded from Czechoslovakia, the U.S. did not urge any opposition. The U.S. supports the right of South Sudan to have seceded from Sudan, although violence and chaos reigned. U.S. politicians like Joe Biden and Jane Harman even proposed breaking Iraq up into pieces, as others have proposed for Syria. How is a vote by the people of Crimea an act of aggression and all the rest of this acceptable?

Much of the “punishment” of Russia for these supposed crimes is clearly driven by economic competition. Other elements involve communications competition. The bill demands a new report on Russian media, Congress apparently having found the third-grade book-report-style report by the CIA some months back unsatisfactory.

Meanwhile, this legislation requires the production of reports on North Korea cooperating with Iran (a supreme international crime, as everyone knows), and abusing human rights (something never ever done in Guantanamo, Chicago, or Riyadh).

What actually drives these sanctions? As I discussed earlier on this site, and this week on Russian television, [see video below] sanctions are acts of aggression aimed at selling weapons, preparing the ground for war, responding to successful propaganda, advancing economic interests, and distracting the public from government abuses it might object to. Of course U.S. sanctions against North Korea for 67 years, Cuba for 57 years, and Iran for 38 years have only strengthened the control of those in power in those countries — and the same effect is documented now in Russia. But sanctions led the way to all-out war on Iraq and may now serve that purpose in Iran. Intentional total war with North Korea or especially Russia is less likely because of their nuclear weapons. But these designated enemies are very useful to the weapons industry nonetheless.

There are serious reasons to oppose new sanctions. They create hostility with nuclear governments. They lead toward further militarization and a possible catastrophic attack on Iran. They turn much of the world against the United States. They create major economic conflicts with Europeans who oppose further sanctions on Russia. They tear down the rule of law, replacing it with the practice of might-makes-right. They divide a world that simply must unite if it is to mitigate the climate apocalypse.

So, it ought to be encouraging that a few members of Congress opposed a bill driven by intense anti-Russian propaganda. What gave them the nerve to do something so decent and risky? In short: they’re as nuts as the bill’s opponents and have their own unrelated reasons for opposition.

Congressman Tom Massie of Kentucky was one of the three Congress members, all Republicans, to vote No. “I voted against vague, expensive, and reckless sanctions,” he says. “H.R 3364 would vastly expand unilateral executive authority. This bill cites the United Nations and United Nations Security Council resolutions as controlling legal authority instead of U.S. law and the Constitution. As a co-sponsor of legislation to get the United States out of the UN, I oppose citing international law as authority for congressional action.”

The fact that sanctions are used as tools of war in violation of the U.N. Charter isn’t enough. The fact that the United States is making itself global judge, jury, and executioner doesn’t measure up. That the bill mentions the United Nations as a fig leaf for its piracy is beyond the pale.

“This bill authorizes $250 million for a vague Countering Russian Influence Fund,” Massie says, “with no accountability on who these funds will go to or how they will be used. It also contains language that expands the Treasury’s ability to issue blanket warrants without probable cause, a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. In addition, this legislation threatens businesses and jobs across the country, including some in Kentucky.”

Opposing a slush fund for anti-Russian activities is critical. It’s always nice when people not trying to end mass surveillance or impeach anyone overseeing it take notice of the Fourth Amendment. And I’ve got nothing against jobs. But putting these concerns behind U.N.-bashing and never even considering the serious harm to peace and security, or the many hundreds of thousands killed by past sanctions in Iraq, is just crazy.

Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan tweeted:

Russia part of sanctions bill is too broad & undefined. Bill also includes $ for Ukraine energy & #4thAmendment-violating#HR5602 from 2016.”

All quite true, but all extremely minor concerns.

Rep. John Duncan of Tennessee had no one available to answer the phone in his D.C. office on Wednesday.

In the Senate, one of the few Senators to have voted against any previous version of these sanctions is Rand Paul of Kentucky, whose explanation has ranged from they’re not tough enough to China does it too to the U.S. does it too.

Senator Mike Lee has opposed the same $250 million fund opposed by Rep. Massie.

And Senator Bernie Sanders, who has sometimes voted No, has said,

“I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015.”

Seeking a wiser view, I turned to Ajamu Baraka of Black Alliance for Peace, who told me that

“sanctions and escalating rhetoric on the possibility of war, have become a convenient bi-partisan diversion from the policies that continue the assault on basic human rights in the U.S. from lack of affordable healthcare to intensifying police violence. But as polls demonstrate, people in the U.S. are starting to catch on to the fact that they are being manipulated, and are questioning the permanent war agenda.”

“We have a moral responsibility to oppose the war agenda of the 1%,” Baraka said, “not only in the interests of working class people in the U.S. who will be sacrificed once again for that agenda, but for the people in those nations that find themselves in the cross-hairs of U.S. aggression. There is no more fundamental human right than the right to life. The massive violation of that principle when nations conduct war compels all of who defend human rights to resist in words and deeds.”

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of and campaign coordinator for Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at and He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. War Is A Lie: Second Edition, published by Just World Books on April 5, 2016. I’ll come anywhere in the world to speak about it. Invite me!


CrossTalk: Sanctioning Russia

RT on Jul 26, 2017

The Republican-controlled Congress can’t unite around Trump’s legislative agenda, but with Democrats they are in unison when it comes to punishing Russia for alleged meddling in the 2016 election. Russia will brush off new sanctions as it did three years ago, but the Europeans won’t.

CrossTalking with Mitch Feierstein, David Swanson, and Alexander Mercouris.


[DS added the additional video reports.]

US Senate approves new sanctions bill against Russia, Iran & N. Korea

RT on Jul 27, 2017

The U.S. Senate has just approved a new round of sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea. An overwhelming majority voted in favour of the bill. During the hearing, senators repeatedly referred to allegations of Russian meddling in last year’s U.S. election. READ MORE:


Sanctions Retaliation: Russia tells US to cut embassy staff, stop using storage facilities

RT on Jul 28, 2017

Moscow has told the US to reduce the number of its diplomatic staff in Russia to 455 people, and is also halting the use of embassy storage facilities in the capital, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.


Congress Unites on Russia Sanctions, But at What Cost?

TheRealNews on Jul 24, 2017

As the House overwhelmingly backs new sanctions on the Kremlin, Russian lawmakers vow a “painful” response and the European Commission mulls retaliation of its own.



Updated: July 31, 2017

CrossTalk: Bullhorns: Sanctions War

RT on Jul 31, 2017

It is time to speak the obvious: Cold War 2.0 is officially on. Though this Cold War is different and possibly far more dangerous. The world is in uncharted waters as the Trump White House attempts to find its footing.

CrossTalking with Edward Lozansky, Mark Sleboda, and Vladimir Golstein.

from the archives:

Vijay Prashad: Trump is Setting Up a Dangerous Confrontation With Iran + Saudi Arabia Set to Execute 14 Protesters

Chris Hedges: We Need To Dismantle the Power of the Corporate Oligarchy

The Rise and Rise of the Regime Renovators (Another Splendid Little Coup) by Greg Maybury

Jayati Ghosh: Imperialism in the 21st Century: Capitalism, Globalization, Privatization

Sanctions Are Crimes, Not Law Enforcement by David Swanson

Russia Calls House Bill an “Act of War.” Will the Senate Block H.R. 1644? by Gar Smith

John Pilger: War by Other Means (1992)

31 thoughts on “Sanctions Are A Form Of Warfare by David Swanson

  1. Pingback: Michael Hudson: Dangerous US Financial Imperialism – Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: Frankly, The United States Does Not Have A Government — It Is A Regime + US Sanctions Are Pushing Russia to War by Finian Cunningham – Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: Trump’s Iran Gambit Won’t Pay Off by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich – Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: Let’s Continue Progress Toward Peace in Korea by David Swanson – Dandelion Salad

  5. Pingback: How It Could Finally Be Possible to Prosecute War as a Crime by David Swanson – Dandelion Salad

  6. Pingback: Trump’s Media Furore… US Democracy On Thin Ice by Finian Cunningham – Dandelion Salad

  7. Pingback: John Pilger: The Problem is Not North Korea, Not Russia, Not China, The Problem is The United States – Dandelion Salad

  8. Pingback: Can Another War in Korea Be Avoided? by Ariel Ky – Dandelion Salad

  9. Pingback: This Time The Target Is North Korea by Felicity Arbuthnot – Dandelion Salad

  10. Pingback: The Indispensable Movement Can Cure Fake News: By Becoming the News by Patrick Walker – Dandelion Salad

  11. Pingback: John Pilger: There Is Such Risk At The Moment – Dandelion Salad

  12. Pingback: Am I an American Supremacist? by Adele Roof – Dandelion Salad

  13. Pingback: Paul Street: This is the Most Inflammatory Rhetoric I’ve Heard From a US President in My Lifetime – Dandelion Salad

  14. Pingback: Has Trump Threatened Nuclear War on North Korea? – Dandelion Salad

  15. Pingback: On The Beach 2017–The Beckoning of Nuclear War by John Pilger – Dandelion Salad

  16. Pingback: David Swanson: The Case for Abolishing War + Transcript – Dandelion Salad

  17. Pingback: Uncle Sam’s Grisly Record of Murder and Mayhem Since 1945 by Paul Street – Dandelion Salad

  18. Aaron Mate, and the Real News, is slipping, slipping, slipping. Then again, the Left everywhere is slipping. But there are many genuinely independent progressive investigative journalists out there. So if you must tap George Soros-funded (ugh!) Alternet and deep state-connected Seymour Hersh, et al, fine (Hersh’s limp comments about the White Helmets should clue you in), but also listen to those other ‘independents’ voices (who are often first with the facts that celeb journos later cite and get all the credit for) and let us listen to them, because, frankly, they are more trustworthy. Mate’s comment that the situation in Ukraine (and therefore Crimea) is more nuanced than simply ‘Russia did it’ made me cringe. No, Aaron. It’s not more nuanced. It’s exactly the opposite of what the spittle-flecked monsters in Washington and Congress say. Got that!

        • I’m good at making typos ‘and’ editing. I make the typos, then go on to other things. Eventually, when I review what I’ve written (which I do when others read my posts), I notice the typos and grammatical faux pas and then correct them. So, What you did was help me out with that. And more quickly than I normally work. 🙂

        • My readers do the same thing for me when I miss something. I’m always grateful as I’d prefer to have the post be accurate. It’s a bit easier for me as I’m not the original writer so haven’t looked at it as many times as the writer has done while composing their piece. The typos generally stick out.

          Glad you didn’t mind me pointing out the typo in your article.

  19. There’s Volker Treier, chief economist of Germany’s chambers of commerce, saying, in effect, ‘We don’t give a crap about others who uncle Sam burns, but we care when it’s us’. How nice!

  20. “Much of the “punishment” of Russia for these supposed crimes is clearly driven by economic competition.” In other words, the US only wants competition that others can’t win in. And here we see the number one way that the US, and any lawless and unprincipled state or person gets ahead and on top in this dark world, namely via rule-breaking. When we follow the rules that we all agree on, those who strategically break them – which is what the sanctions we are talking about here – come into positions of power while the law-abiding (‘sucker’, from uncle Sam’s standpoint) states lose.

    As for sanctions and their effects, including fear, the following is an excerpt from one of my own blog posts:

    == =
    ‘Oderint dum metuant’ means ‘Let them hate as long as they fear’. (Encyclopedia Brittanica: Lucius Accius) One, People will hate those who attack them and rob them. Two, They will fear you while you are as powerful as you are, but they will most certainly notice you when you attack them. Therefore, The glory that you seek is ensured. Powerful, uncaring special interests (mainly the defense contractors) in the US want their government to go to war (previously with Iraq, now with Russia or China or North Korea – and in fact there’s a whole stable of targets and Donald Trump is president, unhinged, and has a cabinet full of war-minded ex-generals), might ‘profit’ from such war (provided nukes aren’t launched, which can’t be counted on) while they prove to the world, again, how strong they are. (But it won’t be profitable profit.)
    = ==

    I got that from William Blum’s book, “America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy,” in which he gives the example of the principled John Brady Kiesling who resigned from his post as a political counselor in Athens when he saw that the US (George W Bush) was about to invade Iraq. Kiesling lamented that “Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?”

  21. But how is it possible for Congress in near unanimity to pass such a complicated and dangerous bill with major US corporations opposing it? These sanctions not only threaten, Russia, Iran and North Korea, they threaten the firms of Europe. What power source is in favor of it to the point of greatly increasing war tension on basically fraudulent issues.

    Would it be Israel, to attack Iran? The banksters to increase the military spending? The military? Are the confused American people in favor of it? The neocons are of course, but how did they get the neoliberals to support it?

    These questions are crucial because the response and counter response may lead to war.
    Who wants war over these non-issues?

Comments are closed.