Farhan Ahmed
The strategic weaponization of economic interdependence and the Era of Economic Statecraft
When Trade Becomes Warfare
In an era where traditional military conflicts risk catastrophic escalation, nations have discovered a more subtle yet equally potent weapon: their economic ties. The age-old adage that trade promotes peace has been turned on its head, as major powers increasingly weaponize the very interdependence that once symbolized global cooperation. From Silicon Valley to the Strait of Hormuz, from Moscow’s banks to Tehran’s oil fields, economic statecraft has emerged as the new frontier of international competition.
This transformation represents a fundamental shift in how power is exercised in the 21st century. Where previous generations witnessed proxy wars and nuclear standoffs, today’s conflicts unfold through sanctions regimes, export controls, and the strategic manipulation of global supply chains. The question is no longer whether states will use economic tools as weapons, but how effectively they can deploy them without triggering the very fragmentation they seek to prevent.
The New Geography of Power
The concept of “weaponized interdependence,” as scholars Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman have termed it, reveals how the networks that connect our global economy can be transformed into instruments of coercion (Farrell & Newman, 2019). Unlike the blunt force of comprehensive sanctions that characterized the Cold War era, today’s economic statecraft operates with surgical precision, targeting specific sectors, individuals, and technologies while leaving broader economic relationships intact.
Consider the semiconductor industry, where a handful of companies control the production of the world’s most advanced chips. When the United States imposed export controls on China’s access to cutting-edge semiconductor technology through the CHIPS Act, it wasn’t merely restricting trade; it was wielding control over a chokepoint in the global technology supply chain. This represents what Baldwin (1985) described as economic statecraft: the use of financial means to achieve political ends.
The strategic calculus is clear: in an interconnected world, those who control the nodes of connection wield disproportionate influence. Financial networks centered in New York and London, technology ecosystems dominated by American firms, and energy infrastructure spanning continents all become potential weapons in the hands of states willing to politicize economic relationships.
Three Theaters of Economic Competition
I. Iran: The Sanctions Laboratory
The reimposition of sanctions on Iran following the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 exemplifies the evolution of economic coercion. Unlike the comprehensive sanctions of previous decades, the Iran sanctions regime operates through what experts call “maximum pressure”—a strategy that targets not just Iranian entities but any global actor seeking to do business with them.
The secondary sanctions mechanism extends U.S. jurisdiction far beyond American borders, compelling European banks, Asian energy companies, and global shipping firms to choose between the Iranian market and access to the U.S. financial system. This extraterritorial reach demonstrates how control over key financial infrastructure translates into global influence, forcing third parties to become unwilling participants in American foreign policy.
II. The Silicon Curtain
In the realm of technology, the U.S.-China competition has given birth to what might be called a “Silicon Curtain”: a digital divide that increasingly mirrors the ideological divisions of the Cold War. The CHIPS Act and associated export controls represent more than trade policy; they constitute an attempt to maintain American technological supremacy by denying China access to the most advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
This technological decoupling extends beyond immediate economic impacts. By restricting China’s access to advanced chips essential for artificial intelligence and quantum computing, the United States aims to maintain its competitive edge in the technologies that will define future military and economic power. The strategy reflects a broader recognition that technological dependencies can become strategic vulnerabilities in an era of great power competition.
III. Russia: The Swift Sword
The response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 marked a watershed moment in economic statecraft. The decision to exclude Russian banks from the SWIFT financial messaging system, freeze Central Bank assets, and target oligarchs’ wealth represented the most comprehensive sanctions regime ever imposed on a major economy.
Yet the Russia case also reveals the limitations of economic coercion. Despite unprecedented sanctions pressure, Russia’s economy has demonstrated resilience through alternative payment systems, energy export diversification, and deepened ties with China and India. The emergence of parallel financial infrastructure suggests that weaponized interdependence may ultimately accelerate the fragmentation of the global economy into competing blocs.
The Double-Edged Sword of Economic Coercion
The strategic use of economic interdependence as a weapon comes with significant risks and unintended consequences. While these tools offer policymakers alternatives to military force, they simultaneously undermine the liberal economic order that has underpinned global prosperity for decades.
The proliferation of sanctions and export controls creates what economists call “compliance fatigue” among businesses and allies who bear the costs of enforcement. European companies caught between U.S. sanctions and commercial interests, Chinese firms seeking technological alternatives, and developing nations pursuing financial sovereignty all represent potential sources of resistance to American economic dominance.
Moreover, the repeated use of economic weapons risks creating what scholars term “sanctions blowback”—unintended consequences that ultimately weaken the coercing state. When targeted nations develop alternative institutions, payment systems, and supply chains, they reduce their vulnerability to future economic pressure while creating parallel systems that challenge Western economic hegemony.
Lessons from the New Cold War
The weaponization of economic interdependence reveals several crucial insights about power in the contemporary international system. First, asymmetric interdependence, where one party depends more heavily on the relationship than the other, creates leverage opportunities that states increasingly exploit for strategic advantage.
Second, the effectiveness of economic coercion depends heavily on the target’s ability to adapt and find alternatives. Iran’s development of cryptocurrency systems, Russia’s pivot to alternative energy markets, and China’s massive investment in indigenous semiconductor capabilities all demonstrate how sustained pressure can drive innovation and resilience.
Third, the systemic effects of weaponized interdependence may ultimately prove more significant than their immediate tactical impact. As states anticipate potential economic coercion, they invest in redundancy, diversification, and autonomous capabilities that reduce their integration into Western-dominated networks.
Navigating the Economic Battleground
As we witness the transformation of global economic networks into instruments of statecraft, several critical questions emerge. How can policymakers balance the tactical advantages of economic coercion against its systemic risks? Can the liberal international economic order survive the politicization of trade and finance? And what alternatives might emerge if trust in existing institutions continues to erode?
The answers to these questions will shape not only the effectiveness of current economic strategies but the fundamental architecture of global economic governance. As states continue to weaponize interdependence, they may inadvertently create the very multipolar fragmentation they seek to prevent through economic pressure.
The challenge for policymakers, business leaders, and citizens alike is to understand how economic statecraft operates while working to preserve the benefits of international cooperation. In an age where trade wars have replaced cold wars, the stakes have never been higher—not just for the immediate targets of economic coercion, but for the global system that depends on economic interdependence for prosperity and stability.
The weapons of economic warfare may be more subtle than their military counterparts, but their long-term impact on international relations could prove equally transformative. As we navigate this new landscape of economic competition, the choices made today will determine whether interdependence remains a source of mutual benefit or becomes the foundation for an increasingly divided world.
References
Baldwin, D. A. (1985). Economic statecraft. Princeton University Press.
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42-79.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2011). Power and interdependence. Pearson.
About the contributor: Farhan Ahmed is a Graduate Student pursuing an MA in Global Security Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C. His research focuses on economic statecraft and the intersection of Conflict, Security, and Economies. He is a fellow of DFPGYF Diplomacy, Foreign Policy & Geopolitics Youth Fellowship- Cohort 2.0.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.
Read more at IMPRI:
Diplomacy Among the Stars: ISRO and India’s Smart Power Strategy
Credit Enhancement Guarantee Scheme for the Scheduled Castes, 2015
Acknowledgement: This article was posted by Shivashish Narayan, a visiting researcher at IMPRI.
