The Theatrics of ‘Maximum Pressure’: U.S.-Iran, with China in the Middle
Picture a sprawling industrial city on China’s eastern coast—the air tinged with chemical haze, tankers looming at the dock. Here, the independent “teapot” refinery Shandong Shengxing Chemical Co., Ltd. recently found itself thrust into the crosshairs of an unprecedented international standoff. The U.S. Treasury’s latest move to sanction this refinery, accused of importing over a billion dollars’ worth of Iranian crude oil from a front company for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force, reveals the relentless complexity of today’s global economic tug-of-war. This action, part of a wave of U.S. sanctions, is but one thread in a complex tapestry woven from geopolitics, market realities, and the persistent shadow of hardline policy.
Many Americans remember the Obama-era diplomatic push that culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—an imperfect but significant nuclear agreement with Iran, providing hope that engagement could supersede endless cycles of economic pressure. Since then, the pendulum has violently swung back: former President Trump’s administration infamously withdrew from the deal in 2018, reviving the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign. That campaign, now carried onward, adopts ruthless sanctions targeting not just Iran but anyone daring to ease its economic isolation—including powerful trading partners like China.
Economic Sanctions: Symbolic Posturing or Effective Strategy?
The new sanctions, issued under Executive Order 13902—designed specifically to cripple Iran’s vital oil sector—mark at least the sixth round since the reintroduction of maximum pressure strategies. It’s not just the Shandong Shengxing refinery under fire. As revealed by the U.S. Treasury and confirmed by independent analyses from groups like the International Crisis Group, several associated shipping companies and vessels form part of Iran’s so-called “shadow fleet” ferrying sanctioned crude discreetly into Chinese ports. Shandong Shengxing’s prior peer, Shandong Shouguang Luqing Petrochemical Co., suffered similar consequences earlier this year after buying $500 million worth of blacklisted oil.
The stated goal, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, is clear: deter and dismantle any apparatus enabling Iran’s oil trade, thus starving Tehran of cash “used to fund malign activities across the Middle East.”
“Any refinery, company, or broker that chooses to purchase Iranian oil or facilitate Iran’s oil trade places itself at serious risk.” — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
Beyond that, the U.S. Treasury updated its compliance guidance for global maritime players, reminding them that turning a blind eye poses “serious consequences.” Yet how much of this warning resonates in boardrooms thousands of miles away, where the incentives to skirt U.S. restrictions are both practical and lucrative?
The underlying reality: These sanctions signify far more than bureaucracy. They illustrate a crumbling international consensus—where each stakeholder scrambles to protect its own interests. China, for its part, simply pivots away from dollar-dominated transactions. According to oil market analysts at Bloomberg, China increasingly employs a patchwork of intermediaries and yuan-based networks, minimizing exposure to American regulatory oversight. Sanctions are now, as much as ever, a cat-and-mouse game.
The Human and Political Cost: Stalemate Without Solution
A closer look reveals the real casualty in this economic standoff—a sustainable and just peace in the Middle East. While hawkish officials tout economic strangulation as a pathway to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, many experts dispute its efficacy and warn of unintended consequences. Suzanne Maloney, vice president at the Brookings Institution, wrote: “Sanctions may inflict pain, but they rarely produce long-term behavioral change without diplomatic off-ramps.” The disintegration of the JCPOA, she argues, underscores the failure of pressure alone to deliver results.
Sanctions inflict harm far beyond their intended targets: ordinary Iranians face shortages of critical medicines, rising unemployment, and a debilitated economy. While Tehran’s hardliners shuffle their oil through murky networks, everyday families pay the steepest price. Reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International highlight worsening humanitarian conditions—least of all altered nuclear calculus.
On the other side, the American public is often left out of this calculus. Do sanctions bring the U.S. closer to its stated security goals, or do they sacrifice the potential for creative, global solutions at the altar of political optics? Recent polling by Pew Research reveals that while Americans broadly support measures to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, there is growing skepticism regarding all-out economic war as a viable long-term tactic.
History offers sobering parallels. Sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s decimated the civilian population while entrenching Saddam Hussein’s regime. Today, similar patterns emerge: authoritarian elites adapt, ordinary people suffer, and diplomatic opportunities evaporate.
Rethinking Engagement and Responsibility in a Multipolar World
Is there a progressive path forward—one recognizing the gravity of nuclear proliferation while rejecting endless adversarial cycles? A true liberal answer must begin with international cooperation and robust dialogue, emphasizing transparency and accountability over futile isolation. Harvard economist Erica Chenoweth points out that “broad-based, inclusive engagement is far more likely to yield compliance than one-sided coercion,” aligning with the experience of the JCPOA before it was upended.
The global economy does not operate in a vacuum. China’s demand for energy is real, and so is its capacity to sidestep American sanctions. Unless the U.S. offers a genuine diplomatic solution—a viable alternative to illicit trade—Tehran and its partners will find new workarounds. While the stunning rhetoric of “zero exports” is headline-grabbing, it masks the shortcomings of a policy disconnected from tangible progress.
The stakes are too high for mere posturing. Wandering deeper into economic warfare risks doubling down on a failed approach, solidifying old rivalries, and unraveling the hard-earned fabric of multilateral engagement. Will another round of sanctions finally break the cycle? Or will it entrench yet more resentment, suffering, and mistrust?
What’s ultimately needed is not another round of escalation, but a fresh commitment to diplomacy, multilateralism, and the progressive values of justice and shared security—values that underpin a safer, fairer world for everyone on both sides of these sanctions.
