Final answer:
An argument against limiting exports to unfriendly countries is that innocent people can be negatively affected, markets may not be easily regained, and one country's essential product is not always essential to another.
Step-by-step explanation:
An argument against the President taking this action would be that the costs of the sanctions are placed on innocent people rather than on the leaders of the country. By limiting exports to unfriendly countries, innocent individuals, such as workers and consumers, may suffer the negative consequences of restricted trade, including potential job losses and higher prices for essential goods. This raises ethical concerns as innocent people should not be punished for the actions of their leaders.
Another argument against limiting exports to unfriendly countries is that markets cannot be regained easily when the countries become friendly again. Once trade relationships are disrupted, it can take significant time and effort to rebuild those connections and regain market share. This can lead to economic losses for the exporting nation.
Additionally, one country's essential product is not always essential to another. Some goods and resources may be critical for one nation's economy or national security, but may not have the same level of importance for other countries. Therefore, limiting exports to unfriendly countries based on their dependency on a specific product may not be an effective strategy.