OPEC's oil weapon didn't work that well - apart from initialising a lot of energy saving meassures and investments - that may prove decisive in much greater matters - later. Similarily a food embargo/blockade won't work - at least not where it is intented.
Often embargoes are issued because you don't have the political will for more outspoken or direct meassures. That leaves it as a empty political signal, as enforcing the embargo requires a true blockade, which again in all likelyhood means open war - which you don't have the guts for!
If you have the power to blockade, perhaps so much in abundance that no one dare challenge you, the blockade will be an extremely blunt instrument - hitting anybody and everywhere. In short innocent men, women and children will be hit hard, while the ruling elites for sure will see to, that they get what ever little is left for themselves.
In contrast a military operation is much easier to focus on what/whoever is the problem. Not that you can guarantee that innocents or less guilty are hit, but far fewer than in a blockade - and you have an ummatched opportunity to go for the throat of the real crooks - quite literally.
The problem of course is, that you as a politician or voter will have to openly take responsibility for killing people - and the TV images will generally be more - outspoken.
In the end I see this as a still lasting effect of WWI - when people in general got scared over traditional power politics, especially war as a political instrument. They indeed were right that WWI was a disaster, the problem just was that the "peaceful" instruments, like economic sanctions, mediation embargoes etc in the end were either totally ineffective (leaving room for the crooks the be really bloody) or much more bloody than traditional diplomacy with "hot lead" at the end of the string.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard