We definitely took note of that recommendation in the Senate report. Of course, we're peeling through this very diligently, and it's definitely a recommendation we want to take on board to see how we can increase the consistency.
What I would say is that I would reverse the proposition on its head and say that sanctions are one of many tools we have in our tool kit to intervene, to signal or to have punitive impacts on countries. Really, the starting point is, what interests and vulnerabilities do we have in any given relationship? What is the series of tools at our disposal to have the greatest impact? That's where it starts.
Sanctions come in as one of the possible tools, and we are there to provide the support, the advice, the considerations and the potential ramifications when the geographic leads—the people responsible, let's say, for the bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia or with Iran, etc.—look for additional tools to apply pressure.
On Saudi Arabia, I would say that we may not have a sanctions regime on the country itself, but we have imposed Magnitsky sanctions because of human rights violations due to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi a few years ago. It is an example of a tool we've used without listing the country as a whole. We've been very targeted and have listed the individuals who are believed to be culpable for that horrible murder.