whilst the US kidnaps presidents, arms genocides and bombs countries indiscriminately, why is it that only its enemies face sanctions?

whilst the US kidnaps presidents, arms genocides and bombs countries indiscriminately, why is it that only its enemies face sanctions?

And I’d like to pose a question so obvious it feels absurd to ask, yet so necessary it demands an answer. That is: in a world where the primary tool of imperial control is no longer the bomb (though that is never far behind) but the sanction, the embargo, the financial chokehold, why is it that the chief architect and enforcer of this global siege economy and instability never faces the same treatment?
In the West, we have normalised the idea that certain nations must be crippled for their defiance. Venezuela, for refusing to auction its oil to the highest imperial bidder. Cuba, for the crime of building a society on its own terms for over six decades. Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, for the sin of sovereignty in a world that demands submission.
These countries, crucially, are not invading their neighbours. They are not arming genocides. They are not kidnapping foreign leaders from their palaces. Yet they are strangled by the most comprehensive, brutal sanctions regime in human history, administered from Washington, with the rest of the world expected to comply or face consequences.
Al-Jazeera reports that US and EU sanctions have killed 38 million people since 1970.
And yet the chief operator of this system faces no such pressure. And this is a country that does invade countries on false pretexts, that does kidnap foreign leaders, that is arming and funding an ongoing genocide in Gaza
The Empire that sanctions everyone is sanctioned by no one.