The conflict between the United States and Iran is about to enter a new phase.

The United States, which has previously emphasized military power, is now shifting its focus to an "economic war" utilizing finance, trade, energy, and shipping.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has proposed a plan to thoroughly cut off the flow of funds connected to the Iranian government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This target is not limited to traditional oil exports. The net is cast over multiple sectors where Iran might obtain foreign currency or goods, including digital assets, advanced technology, gold, aviation, and shipping.

The rhetoric from the Trump administration is extremely strong.

This economic offensive is described as an "Economic D-Day," and the U.S. Treasury has launched an operation named "Operation Economic Outcast." The aim is not only to sanction companies within Iran but also to pressure third-country companies, financial institutions, intermediaries, ships, and logistics networks that support transactions with Iran, thereby isolating Tehran from the global economy.

However, will this policy truly subdue Iran, or will it trigger new chaos involving the global economy?

The focus is shifting from the sanctions themselves to "how far countries trading with Iran will comply with U.S. demands."

Targeting Iran's "income routes" beyond just oil

U.S. sanctions against Iran are not new.

Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the United States has imposed various forms of economic sanctions. Although the reasons have varied over time, such as nuclear development, ballistic missiles, human rights issues, and support for armed groups, policies restricting financial transactions and crude oil exports have persisted for a long time.

Yet, Iran has not been completely cut off from the international economy.

The U.S. believes that Iran has secured a certain level of income even under sanctions by using intermediaries and overseas companies for oil exports, complex ship ownership structures, and payment networks via third countries.

Thus, the current operation targets not just "don't buy oil," but the very mechanisms that enable these transactions.

The U.S. Treasury has indicated plans to expand future sanctions to five critical areas: digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping. Additionally, about 60 individuals, companies, and ships allegedly involved in procuring nuclear and missile-related technology, cyber activities, and oil revenue networks have been newly targeted.

The important point is that the targets are not limited to within Iran.

If companies operating in the Middle East or East Asia are deemed to be assisting Iran in technology procurement or fund transfers, those companies themselves could become targets of U.S. sanctions.

In other words, this policy could become a mechanism that forces companies worldwide to choose between the Iranian market and the U.S. dollar market, rather than just a bilateral issue of "economic war between Iran and the U.S."

The greatest weapon is the threat of "excluding from the dollar"

One of the most powerful economic weapons the U.S. possesses is access to the dollar-centered financial system.

The presence of the dollar remains very significant in international trade. For banks and companies, being cut off from the U.S. financial market or dollar settlements can be a severe blow.

Treasury Secretary Bessent has indicated the possibility of excluding financial institutions that support money laundering or sanction evasion for Iran from the U.S. financial system.

This "secondary sanction" can be more powerful than directly sanctioning Iran.

From the perspective of companies, they must compare the profits gained from transactions with Iran against the risk of losing access to the U.S. market and dollar settlements.

For many global companies, that choice is not difficult. To protect access to the U.S. market, they may voluntarily reduce transactions with Iran.

That's what the U.S. government is aiming for.

Instead of monitoring and stopping all transactions by the U.S. itself, it makes private companies choose to stop transactions by making them aware of the risk that "if you trade with Iran, you will also be sanctioned."

But the biggest focus is "China"

China emerges as the entity that could determine the success or failure of this strategy.

According to Kpler data reported by Reuters for 2025, China was said to have purchased over 80% of Iran's seaborne crude oil.

If this structure continues, it will be difficult to completely cut off Iran's oil revenue unless trade with China is stopped.

On the other hand, if full-scale sanctions are imposed on major Chinese financial institutions, the issue could quickly escalate into a U.S.-China economic confrontation.

China is a huge trade partner for the U.S. and holds significant influence in the supply of important minerals, among other things. If Chinese companies and banks are extensively targeted to enforce Iran sanctions, it could provoke retaliatory measures from China.

In fact, China has expressed the stance that issues cannot be resolved through sanctions or pressure.

Herein lies the U.S. dilemma.

If sanctions are not thoroughly enforced, the banner of "Economic D-Day" could become hollow. However, if enforced too thoroughly, it could intensify economic friction with major countries like China, bringing significant costs back to the U.S.

This difficulty is thought to be the background for Bessent showing a stance of providing a certain grace period before sanctioning all countries and financial institutions immediately.

Iran hints at retaliation, not just "endurance"

Naturally, Iran is not showing a stance of accepting U.S. demands.

Iran believes that its major trading partners will not easily comply with U.S. demands.

Furthermore, it has hinted at the possibility of retaliation if economic pressure intensifies.

The most dangerous card in this sense is the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz, connecting the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is an extremely important maritime route for the world's energy supply. Since a large amount of Middle Eastern crude oil and LNG is dependent on this area, even instability in ship navigation can spread significant caution in the crude oil market.

The original article also points out that the Strait of Hormuz has become a major point of contention between the U.S. and Iran, making stable oil transactions difficult due to inspections of ships and port blockades.

If the U.S. tries to cut off Iran's oil revenue, Iran may play the card of "then we will also affect the oil transport of other countries."

Once economic sanctions and maritime traffic are linked, the issue will not be limited to the Iranian economy alone.

Despite the sanction announcement, crude oil prices fall, the reason

Interestingly, right after the announcement of the strengthened sanctions, the market did not necessarily react as if "crude oil supply will become even tighter."

According to Reuters, in the U.S. market on August 24, while caution towards the Iran policy was noted, crude oil prices fell.

One possible reason is that the announced measures were not as immediately destructive as the strong expression "Economic D-Day" suggested.

Although the risk of extensive sanctions on third countries was indicated, not all target countries or major financial institutions were immediately excluded from dollar settlements.

The market might rather perceive that if economic pressure is prioritized over the re-expansion of military attacks, the direct risk to oil facilities and maritime transport might decrease.

This complexity shows that strengthening sanctions does not necessarily lead to higher oil prices.

However, if the situation changes, the reaction could change dramatically.

If secondary sanctions on Chinese companies or major banks are actually implemented, or if Iran further restricts navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, the world's energy market could again face sudden supply uncertainties.

On social media, "Go all the way" and "Prices will rise again" collide

This "Economic D-Day" has sparked significant debate on social media.

Particularly in Iran-related communities on Reddit, there are posts that positively view the economic pressure from the U.S., suggesting that "pressure should be applied until the end without being half-hearted."

Among users critical of the Iranian government, there is a segment that believes weakening the regime through economic pressure is preferable to expanding military conflict.

On the other hand, there is strong caution in economic-related communities.

Posts express opinions such as "This sanction alone may not have a decisive effect," "It will take time to actually start working," and "Sanctioning third countries will naturally lead to retaliation."

What is being noted is the "boomerang" effect on the U.S. itself.

If Iran retaliates and chaos in oil and shipping expands, U.S. consumers will also bear the burden in the form of gasoline prices, logistics costs, and rising prices.

In communities focused on inflation, there are notable posts expressing concern that "in the end, the prices of goods in the U.S. may rise again."

Furthermore, there are voices questioning whether this measure will truly be a decisive blow to Iran, which has been under sanctions for decades.

What is visible from these social media reactions is not just a simple confrontation over the pros and cons of sanctions.

Alongside the debate on "whether pressure should be applied to Iran," the question of "how much cost the U.S. and the global economy are prepared to bear for that" is being asked.

It should be noted that these are opinions posted in specific Reddit communities and do not represent the overall public opinion of the U.S., Iran, or the international community.

Three points that determine the success or failure of "Economic D-Day"

Looking ahead, three major points will be important.

The first is how Iran's major trading partners, including China, will act.

If companies voluntarily reduce transactions in response to U.S. warnings, the impact on Iran will rapidly increase. However, if major countries refuse U.S. demands and strengthen alternative settlements or their own logistics networks, the effect of the sanctions may be limited.

The second is the Strait of Hormuz.

The more the U.S. increases economic pressure, the stronger Iran's motivation to use the strait as a diplomatic and military card. If oil transport becomes significantly disrupted again, the impact could spread not only to oil prices but also to transportation costs, aviation fuel, manufacturing costs, and consumer prices.

And the third is how far the U.S. itself can enforce the sanctions.

There is a big difference between warning "sanctions will be imposed if violated" and actually excluding giant financial institutions and companies from the U.S. market.

As the number of targets increases, the burden also spreads to U.S. allies and friendly countries, and the backlash against using the dollar as a weapon may grow stronger.

Not a substitute for military war, but "another battlefield"

It may not be accurate to view this move as merely a "shift from military attacks to economic sanctions."

Economic sanctions, port blockades, maritime traffic, diplomatic negotiations, and military threats are all progressing simultaneously.

In other words, the economy has become a battlefield, not a substitute for war.

The U.S. aims to reduce the funds available to the Iranian government, weaken its ability to procure military and nuclear/missile-related technology, and ultimately force a policy change.

In contrast, Iran seeks to use its long-established sanction evasion network, oil, maritime traffic, and regional military influence as bargaining chips.

Caught in between are China, Middle Eastern countries, Asian importing countries, and companies worldwide.

"Will you continue trading with Iran, or will you protect access to the U.S. financial system?"

More companies may be forced to make this choice in the future.

The true meaning of the dramatic term "Economic D-Day" will not become clear on the day the sanctions are announced.

It will be when banks, trading companies, shipping companies, and energy companies around the world actually start cutting off transactions with Iran, and when major powers like China accept U.S. pressure.

That will be when the results become apparent.

And if the economic blockade pushes Iran into a corner while simultaneously reigniting tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, high oil prices, and inflation, the U.S. strategy of "cutting off Iran's sources of income" will demand a high price from the global economy as well.

The U.S. aims for the isolation of Iran, which could not be achieved by force alone.

However, the stronger the economic encirclement becomes, the more the impact of the battle will extend far beyond Iran's borders.

Source URL

aktiencheck.de/dpa-AFX
Refer to the U.S. efforts to cut off Iran's sources of income, including digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping, warnings to financial institutions, Iran's response, sanctions on companies, individuals, and ships, and the situation surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.

https://www.aktiencheck.de/news/Artikel-ROUNDUP_USA_wollen_Einnahmequellen_Irans_trockenlegen-20043193

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Official announcement of "Operation Economic Outcast." Confirmation of expanded sanction risks in the five areas of digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping, measures against about 60 individuals, companies, and ships, and the policy of secondary sanctions on third countries.
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0613##