The United States is an empire, and for whatever reasons, good or bad, insists upon having its imprint upon just about every facet of significance where it can do so, throughout the world. Not too surprisingly, and very disappointedly, America far too often reaches for the military option, and therefore has military engagements in far too many conflicts throughout the world, of which, whatever its objectives may be, or reasons thereof, seems in recent times to hardly ever get it right.
When it comes to disagreements, there isn't any doubt, that considering that America is the preeminent military power in the world, of which there is no single country, or even consortium of countries that could ever hope to stand up against that American power; still leaves us with the rather puzzling result that the majority of those military entanglements clearly indicates that such adventures or misadventures haven't been satisfactory in the outcome so obtained. This would strongly imply that rather than continuing to demonstrate its misguided quick trigger response to different hot spots throughout the world, that America would be far better served, if it would more often consider that there is more than one way to deal with conflict, other than that straight military muscle.
For instance, the world has become considerably smaller over the last few decades, in which, one would be hard pressed to list any major country that doesn't have some sort of major involvement in regards to the economic necessity of the importing and exporting of certain goods, of which, those goods have not only a material effect upon that country, but are often of utmost importance to that country. Further to the point, the transfer of monies from buyer to seller, or vice versa, is typically done via electronic means, so that, funds of nation-states aren't typically held interior to that country in some sort of lock safe which contains gold bullion or similar, but rather assets of countries are held electronically within banks or banking like instruments, that are often international in scale.
So then, for recalcitrant countries, a means to bring them to heel, so to speak, is to impact both their importing and exporting, as well as to freeze or to divert funds that are earmarked for those nations. None of this should be done without first giving fair warning to those countries, of which, the conditions to be met, should have previously been discussed on an international scale, and the decisions so reached should be an agreement between a confederacy of countries, as opposed to it simply being the unilateral action of one country, for if a country such as America, cannot convince its allies and other respected countries, that its proposed actions are both right and proper, then America needs to rethink or reargue as to whether its proposed actions are actually justified.
While it must be said that economic sanctions take more time to have impact than direct military action, they will, given enough time, be effective. For, when a country does not have the ready means to buy or no longer has the credit to import the items so needed; as well as having their export markets suddenly dry up, they will feel that economic envelopment in the most uncomfortable way, and thereby as their lifeblood slowly drains out of their body, often find a way to come to a reasonable agreement, sooner or later.