Economic pressure cannot ...
Page 1
How much room does Iran have to withstand this pressure, particularly if Washington targets its trading partners and financial channels?
Iran’s room for maneuver can become narrower when the United States threatens countries and companies that continue doing business with Tehran. Secondary sanctions can raise the cost of trade. The financial side is particularly important because restrictions on payments, foreign-exchange transactions and banking relationships can affect trade even when goods themselves remain available.
At the same time, Iran is not economically isolated from the world. China remains an important economic partner, including as a major buyer of Iranian oil and supplier of industrial goods and machinery. Iran also maintains commercial relations with neighboring countries. Its geographic position creates opportunities to redirect some trade when traditional routes become more difficult.
The UAE is an important example. It has long served as a major commercial gateway for Iran, so restrictions affecting financial activity through the country could increase costs and complicate access to imports and foreign exchange. But the impact would also depend on how quickly Iranian traders can use other partners and routes. Iran’s geography and years of sanctions experience make a complete closure of external trade difficult.
The same applies to maritime commerce. Shipping disruptions can be damaging because maritime routes cannot easily be replaced by land routes, especially for oil and industrial goods. A sustained reduction in exports would put pressure on foreign-exchange earnings and make financing imports, investment and public spending harder. Alternative routes and partners mean that pressure is likely to produce adjustment as well as damage.
Can Trump turn this economic pressure into political concessions, or could the new campaign ultimately strengthen Iran’s determination to preserve its economic and strategic options?
Sanctions can restrict Iran’s choices and increase the cost of confrontation, but they cannot by themselves determine how a sovereign state responds. Washington has already imposed extensive sanctions, and Iran has developed ways to adapt. The more Washington tries to close one channel, the greater the incentive for Iran and its trading partners to develop another.
That does not mean the new measures will be harmless. Lower oil revenues, higher transaction costs and weaker business activity could intensify fiscal pressures. If these pressures are accompanied by faster monetary or liquidity growth, inflation could become even harder to control. For ordinary households, especially wage earners and renters, another major shock would be difficult to absorb. Businesses would also face higher costs and greater uncertainty.
However, economic pressure does not necessarily create the political outcome Washington expects. Iran has little incentive to make major concessions while facing direct economic and military pressure, particularly if it believes that one concession could simply lead to additional demands. Tehran is therefore likely to preserve its diplomatic and economic options, strengthen alternative channels and manage the costs while waiting for conditions to change.
Trump’s “Economic D-Day” may create pressure, but pressure is not the same as strategic victory. The real test is whether Washington can convert its financial leverage into political concessions without encouraging deeper economic adaptation, stronger resistance or wider regional tensions. For Iran, the challenge is to limit economic damage, protect trade and essential imports, maintain foreign-exchange channels and preserve strategic autonomy. For Washington, the challenge is to demonstrate that a more severe version of a strategy used for years can achieve an outcome that previous rounds of sanctions have failed to deliver.