>All evidence I've ever seen is that embargoes/sanctions never achieve their purpose of changing government: they're more likely to strengthen despots while harming the civilian population. Sanctions also cause resident dictators to retaliate as best they can, as occurred in Cuba. If you have evidence to the contrary, can we see it? Be sure to include your rebuttal of this sort of thing: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9 .

Arguably the poster child for "effective" sanctions was South Africa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa . Along with some embargoes that situation also included major disinvestment as well as consumer boycotts.

But I know of no other cases, as much as the UN et. al. may want to replicate it elsewhere. Still, that one "success" probably means they will keep trying.