Will the US sanction BRICS?

It is well known that the United States politicians love imposing sanctions on other countries,they are their most favourite weapon apart from invading countries that annoy it ,formenting colour revolutions or implementing regime change in places that are not doing as the USA wants them to do.
The USA has a law that it enacted called the Countering of American Adversaries Abroad which is really a catch all law that allows the US to impose sanctions on any country that it pleases. Recently an advisor of Donald Trump put forward a proposal that any countries that are implementing dedollarisation should be punished and given that is one of the aims of the BRICS is it likely that the US will sanction the BRICS?
Well certain BRICS members are already under sanctions,they are Russian and Iran,also the US is imposing certain trade sanctions on China,it is also threatening secondary sanctions against companies in other BRICS members like China ,India and the United Arab Emirates. Well given the schictzophrenic nature of US foreign policy I certainly would not rule it out.
Now lets look at the US sanctions policy.

The sanctions imposed by the United States on a significant number of countries are not solely intended to exert political pressure on those who oppose Washington. As an expert in the field has discovered after studying the US Treasury Department's data, sanctions have become a fundamental part of the American economy, without which it would not function normally.

The United States is the most "active' country in the world in terms of punishing others, according to the US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Currently, every third country in the world is subject to some form of American sanctions. In total, the United States implements three times more sanctions regimes than all other countries or international organisations combined and that includes the United nations.

This indicates that the United States is engaged in a continuous economic and trade conflict with a third of the global population. According to the US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the current administration has introduced the highest number of new sanctions in history.
Since Joe Biden took office, approximately 3,500 legal entities and individuals around the world (excluding Russia) have been subject to new trade restrictions. In this regard, the Biden administration has significantly exceeded the sanctions imposed by the Donald Trump administration.
During the Republican's tenure in the White House, only approximately 2,500 entities were subject to sanctions. In comparison, Trump introduced sanctions more frequently than Barack Obama (1,000 restrictions) and more frequently than George W. Bush. In the past 30 years, the most "loyal" administration has been that of Bill Clinton. During his tenure, only 500 foreign companies were subject to sanctions.
A comparison of these figures demonstrates that the level of sanctions activity pursued by the United States is not influenced by the political affiliation of the administration in power. The change in the political party in control of the White House has no significant impact on sanctions policy. This is evidenced by an examination of the entire history of the United States, according to Valery Senkov, head of the Department of Economic Security at Kosygin Russian State University.

Now before I continue I would like to make an appeal,if you like and enjoy my videos you can help me fund the channel and my websited sco brics insight .com and to further develop it. You can do this by making a small donation which you can do by clicking on the thanks button at the bottom of the video screen. Everybody who donates does get a personal thank you from me.

In 2022, Columbia University published a paper entitled 'How Sanctions Are Changing the World Against US Interests'. The study demonstrated that the United States' sanctions policy has now become absolute. Restrictions are introduced as a universal tool, which has the effect of reducing their effectiveness. It is important to recognise that any conflict has not only a direct effect, but also a delayed effect. "This is equally applicable to sanctions,"

The number of foreign companies against which Washington imposes restrictions is on the rise. According to data from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), as of July 2024, American sanctions apply to companies and governments in more than 60% of countries. The majority of these countries are classified as emerging markets.

It is not possible to offset this trend by reversing the lifting of sanctions. In 2016, during the final months of Barack Obama's tenure in the Oval Office, the White House implemented the most significant amnesty to date. Subsequently, approximately 1,500 companies were removed from the blacklist, resulting in a net positive outcome with regard to lifting sanctions – the only instance since 1996.
Sanctions represent a "soft" approach for the United States to pursue in order to effect changes in the political landscape of foreign countries. However, this is only one aspect of the situation, the public aspect. While sanctions are often presented in public policy as a bloodless alternative to forceful methods of international relations, there is a less well-known fact that they have become a significant sector of the American economy, generating multi-billion dollar turnover.
The White House and Congress engage with an extensive network of lobbyists representing the interests of American companies, which view restrictions against foreign governments and legal entities as a factor in competitive dynamics. The political motives are merely a facade. If any American company needs to cooperate with a firm from an unfriendly country, this company is willing to turn a blind eye to all the sins of this government.

The optimal scenario is when the competitor in need of weakening is based in a country with an unfavourable political regime. There are five countries currently on the OFAC list (Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Russia). However, experts have highlighted that the benefits of these sanctions for the United States are not immediately apparent. North Korea has continued to develop its missile and nuclear technologies, while Russia and Iran have explored options for 'parallel imports', developed a 'shadow' fleet and identified other methods to circumvent the bans.

As of April 2024, almost 15,400 legal entities and individuals worldwide were under US sanctions ; of these, about 12,000 were in Russia. Switzerland is far behind with 5,062, the European Union with 4,808, the United Kingdom with 4,360, and Canada with 4,292. Only 875 entities are under UN sanctions. In turn, Russia has several hundred representatives of the EU, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom under its own sanctions, as well as organizations that Rosfinmonitoring has included in the list of extremist and terrorist organizations (for example, the Taliban movement that came to power in Afghanistan).
During the Biden administration, there has been a notable increase in the number of voices within the United States expressing concern that the White House has become overly focused on sanctions, to the extent that they are now having the unintended consequence of creating a backlash. Those with a critical view, including within the Treasury itself, highlight that sanctions are frequently imposed without due consideration, resulting in a chaotic and ineffective approach.

They highlight that the US is witnessing a series of unintended consequences resulting from sanctions, including the strengthening of the alliance between Moscow and Beijing, the growth of illicit foreign trade, mounting discontent among allies due to the risk of being subjected to secondary sanctions, and a growing push to de-dollarize national economies.

In March 2016, White House advisor Jack Lew cautioned that an "overdose" of sanctions was undermining the efficacy of this foreign policy instrument.

Sanctions have always been and remain a competitive tool, regardless of the ideological motives behind them. This is comparable to the use of military force and economic pressure – two different instruments with a similar objective. Valery Senkov notes that there are currently 17 UN sanctions regimes and 37 EU sanctions regimes globally, with 14 of these directed at Russia.

"If the current trend of annual increases in sanctions continues under the next US president, then it is likely that almost all companies in the world will be subject to sanctions, both primary and secondary. These could include targeted, sectoral, export control, financial, cyber, and other types of sanctions. It is worth noting that counter-sanctions are typically imposed in response to sanctions. This could eventually result in a significant disruption to global trade. "It is useful to consider the example of a medicine that is effective in the appropriate dosage, but becomes toxic when used in excess," he notes.
American analysts have acknowledged that calls alone cannot halt the sanctions "overdose" as long as the policy continues to benefit its key stakeholders.

George Lopez, an expert on sanctions at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana, USA), generally believes that decisions on imposing sanctions have been taken beyond the control of politicians and have come under the complete control of a small group of people influenced by lobbyists. This group is facing increasing challenges from within. American firms have initiated legal action against OFAC, seeking the reversal of decisions to impose restrictions on their foreign counterparties. Please note the following detail: The OFAC office is located in a small room within the US Treasury Department building. It was not anticipated that the level of sanctions would reach such a scale.