The article argues that sanctions are effective at imposing economic and technological costs, but much less reliable at forcing political compliance. Iran’s experience shows the distinction: severe GDP losses and financial isolation helped create leverage for the JCPOA, but only because pressure was paired with negotiated sanctions relief and a defined off-ramp. Sanctions work best when demands are limited, dependence is high, substitutes are scarce, pressure is fast and compliance is credible.

It warns that prolonged pressure can lose coercive power as targets adapt through rerouting, shell firms, friendly intermediaries and smuggling networks, while civilians often bear unequal costs. Sanctions can still degrade capabilities, especially through finance and technology controls, even when leaders refuse to change core security policies. The piece concludes that economic coercion works as leverage and containment, not as a machine for changing what states consider vital.

It's 2026, and as new AI tools seem to emerge every week while unemployment ticks up, some may ask: are we headed toward a Universal Basic Income scheme?

As more and more tasks become automated, from data analytics to summarizing reports and beyond, almost every person I've spoken to lives with a lingering fear that AI could replace their job. Without a job, a person must find an alternative way to pay their living expenses.

Enter the idea of Universal Basic Income (UBI). Under a UBI arrangement, each individual receives a minimum fixed payment, supposedly allowing them to live without earning an income from a job.