A columnist argues that Trump has finally embraced a strategy of relentless economic pressure to end the Iran war, with new sanctions planned to be the toughest in history and layered atop existing blockades to squeeze Tehran’s funding, especially from China and Moscow. The approach aims to force a clear choice between Tehran and the U.S. for global actors, while signaling that Iran’s economy has deteriorated since the February 28 war and internal tensions are rising. Historical precedent warns against rushed negotiations under electoral pressure, suggesting patience could yield durable leverage and a weaker Iran than at the war’s start. The piece frames the pathway as a test of credibility and timing with midterm considerations guiding policy steps and international responses.
Dive Deeper:
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent previews a coordinated plan to unveil what are described as the toughest sanctions in history, designed to coerce governments and banks to choose between doing business with Iran or the United States, with a strategic focus on Beijing and Moscow.
The sanctions would complement a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, aiming to cut Iran’s economic lifelines and constrain its military funding, while emphasizing pressure on Iran’s main oil customers, notably China.
Iran’s economy is depicted as deteriorating further after the February 28 war, with public clashes between President Masoud Pezeshkian and the Revolutionary Guard over war strategy and negotiations signaling a regime running out of runway.
The analysis cautions that electoral anxiety can tempt leaders into dangerous concessions, citing historical echoes from the Carter era and urging patience rather than panic to convert economic pressure into lasting leverage and a potentially durable peace.
The narrative positions Timelines and incentives for midterm political calculations as shaping the pace and framing of sanctions and negotiations, suggesting a strategic shift from reactive threats to sustained economic coercion.