Les murs ont des portes maintenant : pourquoi les sanctions « sans précédent » de Bessent contre l’Iran — l’opération Fureur économique — échoueront
The Walls Have Doors Now: Why Bessent’s “Unprecedented” Sanctions on Iran — Operation Economic Fury — Will Fail
Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised something spectacular. “Watch this space,” he told a television interviewer, previewing “measures like have never been seen in the history of the economic isolation of a country.” Paired with the ongoing US naval blockade of Iran’s ports — a “one-two punch,” in his phrasing — the coming sanctions are meant to force Tehran’s capitulation after nearly six months of war. Ambassador Mike Waltz gave the effort a name: “Operation Economic Fury.”
The ambition is real. So is the problem with it. Bessent is reaching for a tool whose power depends on a world that no longer exists. The economic isolation that once brought Iran to the negotiating table was possible because the walls around Iran were sealed on every side — and, just as importantly, because the money still had to move through pipes the United States controlled. Today those walls have doors — to Russia, to China, and, since this spring, to Pakistan — and the money has found a channel that bypasses Washington’s plumbing entirely. The countries holding the doors open are precisely the ones whose cooperation once made the old sanctions bite. The most useful way to understand why “unprecedented” pressure may nonetheless fail is to compare the board Bessent is playing on to the one his predecessors played on a decade ago.
2015: The Isolation that Worked, and Why
The sanctions regime that produced the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action worked because it was, in a meaningful sense, universal. The pressure that dragged Iran to the table was not merely American; it was enforced by the United States and Europe and endorsed through binding United Nations Security Council resolutions — which meant Russia and China, as permanent members, signed on to it. Chinese banks curtailed dealings with Tehran to protect their access to the dollar system. Russia went along with the multilateral framework. Iran’s oil exports were choked, its banks were severed from global finance, and there was no major power willing to serve as a systematic escape hatch.
Two things made that isolation work: no major economy would keep a pipe open, and nearly all international trade — including oil — ultimately cleared in US dollars, through banks that had to answer to Washington. Sanctions are a game of plumbing. They close the physical pipes (goods, oil) and, more powerfully, the financial ones (dollar clearing). Break either monopoly and the strategy weakens; break both and it fails. In 2015 the United States held both. In 2026 it holds neither.
Consider what has changed on each side of Iran.
Iran is now inside the club it used to be sanctioned from. Tehran joined the BRICS grouping in January 2024, and in August 2026 moved toward membership in the bloc’s New Development Bank — an institution attractive to Iran precisely because it offers project financing outside the Western financial system that sanctions weaponize. BRICS membership does not by itself defeat sanctions, but it structures an alternative economic community that did not meaningfully exist as a refuge in 2015.
Russia and China are no longer enforcers — they are co-belligerents in all but name. This is the hinge of the entire story, and it goes far beyond a refusal to enforce Western sanctions. Following the US-Israeli attack on Iran that opened the war on February 28, 2026 — “Operation Epic Fury” — Moscow and Beijing moved from passive non-enforcement to active material support. US officials reported that Russia supplied Iran with real-time intelligence on the positions of American warships and aircraft, feeding targeting data that made Iranian retaliatory strikes more precise. China supplied satellite imagery and access to its BeiDou navigation system; Secretary of State Marco Rubio was sufficiently alarmed that on May 8, 2026, he sanctioned three Chinese satellite firms for supplying imagery of US military activity during the campaign. Both powers rushed air-defense support: Russia provided parts to repair Iran’s battered S-300 batteries and accelerated delivery of its modern Verba shoulder-fired systems to just before the war began, while China resupplied components for its HQ-9B batteries. This lattice of support rests on a formal scaffolding — a 20-year Iran-Russia strategic partnership signed in January 2025, a 25-year Iran-China accord from 2021, and a trilateral Iran-China-Russia strategic pact signed on January 29, 2026, whose central plank is unified opposition to reimposed sanctions. The powers that once helped seal Iran’s isolation are now helping it fight the war and rebuild its shield.
There is a land bridge that bypasses the blockade entirely. On April 25, 2026, Pakistan’s Ministry of Commerce issued the “Transit of Goods through Territory of Pakistan Order 2026,” opening six overland transit corridors linking the ports of Karachi, Port Qasim, and Gwadar to Iranian border crossings at Gabd and Taftan. The routes were a direct response to the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz: with more than 3,000 containers stranded at Karachi and war-risk insurance premiums having spiked from roughly 0.12% to nearly 5%, sea transport to Iran had become unviable. The corridors — one of which cuts the trip to the Iranian border to two or three hours — allow goods from third countries, including China, to reach Iran by road, entirely outside the reach of a naval blockade. A blockade cannot stop a truck in Balochistan.
And, most consequentially, the money has left the dollar. This is the change that most directly guts Bessent’s toolkit, and it deserves to be understood in mechanical terms. The reason US financial sanctions are so fearsome is that most global trade — oil above all — has historically been settled in dollars, and dollar payments must clear through US-linked banks that Washington can police. Iran and China have simply stopped using that pipe. Iran now sells its oil to China — which buys more than 80% of Iran’s seaborne exports — settled in Chinese yuan rather than dollars, routed through China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), the renminbi clearing network the People’s Bank of China built in 2015 explicitly to move money across borders without touching the US-dominated dollar-clearing and SWIFT infrastructure. A transaction that never touches a dollar and never clears through a US-linked bank is a transaction Washington cannot easily see, freeze, or block. That is not sanctions evasion at the margins; it is the removal of the chokehold itself.
The scale of the shift is visible in the plumbing. CIPS transaction volumes surged as the war began, hitting a single-day record around $178.5 billion in March 2026, and the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center tracked daily CIPS flows jumping from an $85–105 billion range to more than $130 billion, coinciding with the conflict. More than 100 countries now access the system. Chinese refiners buy Iranian oil through intermediaries and non-dollar banks, holding the proceeds in controlled yuan accounts used to pay for Chinese goods and contractors — a closed, dollar-free loop that keeps Iran’s oil revenue flowing and largely beyond American reach.
Put those shifts together and the strategic picture inverts. In 2015 the United States pressed on a sealed box whose only exits ran through its own banks. In 2026 it is pressing on a box with the lid off and a back door cut straight through the financial wall.
There is a temptation to read the Iran-Russia-China alignment as a product of the current war, a marriage of convenience struck under fire. The record says otherwise, because it changes what the alignment implies about American strategy.
The three powers held their first trilateral naval exercise — “Marine Security Belt” — in the Gulf of Oman and northern Indian Ocean in December 2019, at Iran’s initiative. It has recurred almost every year since, becoming a fixture of the relationship. But the execution date understates how early the alignment formed, because a multinational naval exercise is not a spontaneous event. An exercise of that complexity — deconflicting three navies’ schedules, negotiating rules of engagement and communications protocols, arranging logistics and port access across three governments — requires a planning cycle that begins, by professional standards, twelve to eighteen months before the first ship sails. That places the organizing work for the December 2019 drills squarely in 2018, contemporaneous with the American withdrawal from the JCPOA in May of that year.
In other words, the military partnership now sustaining Iran was not conceived in response to the 2026 war. It was set in motion as the nuclear deal collapsed, and it has been maturing through joint operations for the better part of a decade. The 2026 intelligence-sharing, satellite feeds, and air-defense resupply are not the beginning of a relationship; they are the harvest of one planted in 2018.
This reframes the entire question. The instinct that produced Bessent’s plan — abandon the negotiated framework, reach for unilateral maximum pressure, expect isolation to force capitulation — is the same instinct that produced the 2018 withdrawal. And the 2018 withdrawal is precisely what accelerated Iran’s drift into the arms of the two powers whose cooperation any sanctions regime requires. The strategy is not merely failing against the Russia-China-Iran axis. An earlier iteration of the same strategy helped build that axis. Maximum pressure, applied against a state with willing great-power partners, is partly self-defeating: it manufactures the very alignment that neutralizes it.
The administration believes its strongest card is the blockade, claiming that it has drawn real blood: Bessent’s Treasury cites roughly $4.8 billion in lost Iranian oil revenue. But the blockade’s very design reveals the trap. A naval blockade is an instrument for controlling the sea; its entire theory of coercion assumes the sea is how the target trades. The moment Iran’s partners open overland routes — Pakistan’s roads to the east, and the long-standing rail and road links north to Russia through the Caspian and the International North-South Transport Corridor — the blockade becomes a wall with the flank turned. Pakistan’s land bridge did not appear despite the blockade; it appeared because of it, which is exactly how a sanctions target with willing neighbors adapts. The same logic applies to money: a financial blockade routed around the dollar is a blockade of a gate the traffic no longer uses.
There is a further problem, and it is physical rather than conceptual: the US Navy may not have the logistical depth to sustain a comprehensive blockade indefinitely, whatever its commanders assert. A blockade is one of the most resource-intensive missions a navy can undertake — it requires keeping warships continuously on station, which means keeping them continuously fed, fueled, and armed. That job belongs to the Combat Logistics Force, and it has been hollowed out. The fast combat support ships (T-AOE) — the multi-product vessels that carry fuel, ammunition, and provisions together and can steam inside a carrier group — have been cut from four to two since the mid-2010s, precisely the ship type a distant, sustained blockade most needs. The rest of the replenishment fleet has stayed flat in numbers while aging, and its recapitalization runs years behind.
The shore infrastructure that once compensated for that thinness is now gone. For decades, Naval Support Activity Bahrain concentrated the Fifth Fleet’s warehousing, piers, maintenance, and resupply functions a short sail from Gulf operating areas. In the opening days of the war, Iranian missiles and attack drones destroyed much of that base — and with the UAE’s Fujairah and other regional ports sitting inside Iranian missile range and unusable for secure replenishment, the Navy was forced to relocate its principal logistics hub to Diego Garcia, a British-administered island roughly 2,200 miles from where the carrier strike groups operate. A short Gulf sustainment network became a vulnerable 2,200-mile maritime supply line overnight.
The consequences are documented and, by the Navy’s own admission, severe. Vice Adm. Douglas Verissimo acknowledged that the loss of Bahrain created major backlogs that forced the fleet to prioritize food deliveries, conceding that resupply and mail were “extremely bad for a little while” and “still not good.” The carrier USS Abraham Lincoln — approaching nine months on deployment with some 5,000 sailors and Marines, more than 200 days without unrestricted liberty — became the visible symptom, with reporting describing shortages of food, hygiene supplies, mail, and working plumbing and laundry, and, in the worst accounts, unrest and attempted suicides aboard. When the Navy cannot reliably feed the crew of its flagship carrier over a 2,200-mile line, the claim that it can enforce a hermetic blockade of every Iranian port “indefinitely” collides with the arithmetic of its own supply fleet. A blockade is only as durable as the logistics sustaining it, and those logistics are stretched to the point of failing at the galley.
I am not suggesting that Iran is suffering no pain because of the sanctions. Sanctions with holes in them are still sanctions; a country trading through truck convoys and yuan workarounds pays a heavy efficiency tax, sells its oil at a steep discount, and lives with chronic friction that a normal economy does not. Bessent’s threatened secondary sanctions — forcing foreign banks and firms to choose between Iran and access to the US financial system — are aimed precisely at raising the price of using these doors, and that tool retains some teeth wherever a counterparty still values dollar access.
But two familiar objections are weaker than they were even a year ago. The first is the claim that the dollar’s dominance makes the yuan workaround marginal. That is true as a global statement and false as an operational one: the renminbi is still a small share of world settlement and CIPS remains smaller than SWIFT and even leans on SWIFT messaging for much of its traffic, so this is a dollar bypass for determined users, not a dollar replacement. But Iran does not need to dethrone the dollar. It needs one reliable channel that Washington cannot police, and in CIPS-cleared yuan oil sales to China it now has exactly that. The systemic point and the Iran-specific point are different questions, and only the second one determines whether Bessent’s plan works.
The second is the claim that Beijing and Moscow are merely hedging and will not truly underwrite Iran. That was the conventional wisdom in Washington early in the war; it is much harder to sustain now. Real-time targeting intelligence on US warships, satellite feeds serious enough to draw US sanctions on Chinese firms, air-defense repair and resupply, and the yuanized oil lifeline are not the gestures of powers keeping Iran at arm’s length. They are the actions of partners actively keeping Iran in the fight. The hedge that remains — China’s continued care to avoid a head-on trade rupture with Washington, Russia’s refusal to commit combat forces — limits how far the partnership goes, but it has not stopped the flow of the specific support that blunts American pressure.
Weighing both sides, the thesis of this article holds, and holds more firmly once the record is complete: Bessent’s plan to force Iran’s surrender through unprecedented sanctions is built for a world that ended sometime between 2018 and 2026. The instrument that worked in 2015 worked because isolation was total and because the money still ran through American pipes. Today neither condition holds, and neither can be restored by American action alone, because the decisive variables — the willingness of Russia, China, and Pakistan to keep the physical doors open, and the migration of Iran’s oil revenue into CIPS-cleared yuan — lie outside Washington’s control. “Maximum pressure” can inflict maximum pain; the currency collapse proves that. What it can no longer reliably produce is surrender, because a state that imports through Pakistani roads, finances through a BRICS bank, sells its oil for yuan beyond the dollar’s reach, and fights under a shield that Moscow and Beijing help repair has room to endure that the Iran of 2015 did not.
The likely outcome is therefore not capitulation but a more thoroughly Eastern-aligned Iran that hurts but does not break — and that emerges bound more tightly than ever to the very powers whose cooperation the United States would need to squeeze it. The deepest irony of Operation Economic Fury is that the harder Washington presses on the sealed side of the box, the faster Iran walks out through the open one. Bessent may yet unveil measures the world has never seen. He cannot unveil a world in which Iran has nowhere left to go, and no currency left to trade in but the dollar — because that world no longer exists.
My sources for this article (I am including this because I have received some accusations that I am making this up) include Al Jazeera, Eurasianet, Kurdistan24, The National, CNBC, Fortune, The Hill, Rigzone, the Atlantic Council, the Centre for Strategic and Contemporary Research, Disruption Banking, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, JINSA, The Insider, the Jamestown Foundation, CNN, and Wikipedia’s contemporaneous war coverage (2025–2026). The January 2026 Iran-China-Russia pact is a strategic and economic agreement rather than a NATO-style mutual defense treaty, but is accompanied by extensive documented military, intelligence, and air-defense support to Iran following the February 28 attack. The trilateral “Marine Security Belt” naval exercises were first executed in December 2019; the 2018 dating of the alignment’s origin reflects the standard 12–18-month planning cycle such multinational exercises require, which places the organizing work contemporaneous with the May 2018 JCPOA withdrawal. On currency: the renminbi remains a minority share of global settlement and CIPS is smaller than SWIFT, so the shift described is a functional dollar bypass for Iran’s oil trade rather than a wholesale displacement of the dollar. Ok. I need a nap.
Judge Napolitano and I focused on the problems plaguing the US military, not just the Navy:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBdhRgUZDE0
On today’s episode of Transition Protocol, I discuss Iran’s hardening position on the Strait of Hormuz:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrO3oTfA2N8&t=43s
Kyle Anzalone asked me to discuss Trump’s recent belligerent statements regarding Iran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnfOc68LCzQ&t=1s
Nima wanted to know if Iran and Yemen are prepared to go on the offensive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Qq1MFwyPg
Mario and I discussed Iran’s apparent policy decision to go on the offense against the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl7ULooH8Sk
A good discussion with Sulaiman about the latest developments in the Persian Gulf:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=834DXM17JM0
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire