The traditional concept of war has undergone a significant transformation, giving rise to new forms of conflict most notably, notion of “indirect aggression” within lexicon of international law. This article focuses on simultaneity and synergistic effect of such violence by examining legal dimensions of unilateral coercive sanctions imposed within context of an armed conflict. The central question explored herein is whether targeted unilateral sanctions, imposed concurrently with military operations and aimed at weakening adversary's defense capacity or harming civilian population, may be considered a form of "use of force" or even an "economic weapon" under existing international legal norms. Drawing upon Article 2(4) of UN Charter, jurisprudence of International Court of Justice, and reports by UN Special Rapporteur on negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, paper argues that such sanctions embody elements of indirect violence, discriminatory targeting, and disproportionality violations that are incompatible with both international humanitarian law and customary principles governing conduct of hostilities. Through comparative case studies, including sanctions accompanying invasion of Iraq (2003), Syrian conflict (2011–2024), and crisis in Venezuela (since 2017), article introduces novel concept of "weaponized sanctions"a framework in which sanctions function not as diplomatic tools, but as components of a broader, multifaceted offensive structure. Paper further demonstrates that, during the Twelve-Day War, sanctions imposed on Iran's pharmaceutical, financial, and defensive infrastructure were deliberately calibrated in ways that breached principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. Ultimately, research calls for development of binding legal criteria to distinguish between lawful and hostile sanctions criteria such as impact on civilians, temporal linkage with armed conflict, and direct targeting of survival capacities. Paper concludes by advocating for establishment of effective legal remedies, including activation of universal jurisdiction by regional courts, to counter normalization of hybrid warfare and implicit legitimization of economic aggression.