Trump wants more economic pressure on Iran. What are his options?
By Adele Rutherford ·
When global powers exchange messages steeped in bluster, one must resist the urge to read between the lines; instead, you must examine the actual architecture of the claim.
The Jurisdiction of a Threatening Headline
When global powers exchange messages steeped in bluster, one must resist the urge to read between the lines; instead, you must examine the actual architecture of the claim. This week’s performance—the escalating rhetoric surrounding US sanctions on Iran—is not an argument about national security or even ideology. It is a predictable clash over who gets to define international law. The reporting from The Guardian details Donald Trump's campaign to isolate Iran using "tremendous economic consequences" against any country that provides a lifeline, while the Khaleej Times relays Iran’s forceful counter-declaration: that such sanctions are merely an “assertion of extraterritorial sovereignty over every independent Member State of the United Nations.”
The legal point raised by Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, is precise and potent. He argues that no state may lawfully compel foreign banks or sovereign enterprises to renounce lawful commerce with a third party. This isn’t merely diplomatic posturing; it is an appeal to the fundamental principle of jurisdictional boundaries. The US Treasury Secretary's stated goal—to enforce its political will through financial chokeholds—is, by definition, attempting to legislate outside the borders of international law itself.
When Power Uses Commodities as a Weapon
The strongest case for Washington’s actions rests on the premise that these sanctions are necessary tools to prevent regional instability and uphold global economic order. They argue that Iran's military capabilities and its role in destabilizing key shipping lanes, like the Strait of Hormuz, necessitate an overwhelming financial response. This is the standard narrative: crisis demands exceptional measures.
But history teaches us that when a nation defines necessity so broadly that it swallows up the rule of law, what remains is not stability, but structural weakness. The current confrontation does not represent a novel failure of international cooperation; it merely mirrors the mechanism employed during the Oil Embargo of 1973. In that instance, the OAPEC leveraged control over essential global commodities—oil—to enforce political objectives and punish non-aligned states for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The shared mechanism is unmistakable: using indispensable resources as a coercive tool to force geopolitical alignment.
A Pattern of Coercion Over Law
The pattern here, from 1973 to 2026, is one where great powers find it easier to wield economic sanctions than they do to negotiate genuinely binding international agreements. The moment political objectives—whether curbing a rival's regional influence or forcing compliance with domestic policy goals—become paramount, the procedural safeguards of global law are discarded in favor of force majeure.
The threat of "crushing, punishing and devastating responses," whether military or economic, is always predicated on the assumption that the targeted state will capitulate to the pressure. But this assumes a legal vacuum where only the coercing power’s definition of rightness exists. The law does not recognize mere force; it recognizes jurisdiction.
The global system cannot sustain itself by allowing any single nation to define its own economic boundaries and then enforce those definitions upon sovereign states through secondary sanctions. This is not an isolated incident of geopolitical tension; it is the predictable, recurring failure of a legal order when faced with overwhelming political ambition. The architecture of international commerce demands adherence to established law, and today’s exchange proves that the only thing truly at risk is the credibility of the rule itself.
Sources
- Khaleej Times: Iran says any country joining US sanctions considered 'enemy'
- The Punch: Countries joining US sanctions will be considered enemies, Iran warns
- Free Malaysia Today: Iran warns any country joining US sanctions considered ‘enemy’
- France 24: Iran warns states joining US sanctions will be considered enemies
- The Guardian: Trump threatens Iran’s trade partners, as military strikes make way for economic pressure