The White House says this is the Iran endgame. We’ve heard that before

August 25, 2026 — 3:30pm Washington: Scott Bessent gave the game away when he acknowledged the danger in taking the very step he had just told the world he was going to take. When the US Treasury Secretary was asked why he was not immediately applying sanctions to Chinese banks that finance Iran’s oil trade, he replied: “We are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior. Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks to reporters this week. AP Bessent and his boss, Donald Trump, spent the past week building up Monday’s announcement of crippling new sanctions against Iran and its enablers. They called it an “economic D-Day” and framed it as the endgame in the US-Israeli war against Iran. However, the new sanctions fell short of their rhetoric. Fresh sanctions were imposed against Iran-linked entities, people, and ships, but no major blacklisting of banks and financial institutions enabling Iranian commerce was included. To do that, the US would have to target clearing houses in the UAE, Turkey, India, and Pakistan—mostly China. Most analysts believe Trump would not take such a measure with President Xi Jinping’s visit to the White House just weeks away, given the risks of a trade war and lingering hope for a grand bargain with Beijing. Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of state and Atlantic Council fellow, described the sanctions as a warning shot, not an “economic death blow.” He noted that while rhetoric was fierce, the actual impact was limited. “None of the moves was a game-changer,” Fried said. “The costs and risks are too high for Bessent to bear.” The sanctions reflect an administration seeking to end the Iran conflict but lacking a clear strategy. After Trump’s regime-change ambitions faded, the administration operates under political, economic, and military constraints. To truly harm Iran economically, the US would need to target Chinese banks, which seems unlikely. Bessent preferred quiet diplomacy over bold action, contrasting with his earlier megaphone rhetoric. He likened the sanctions to D-Day, comparing the US’s reliance on non-allied countries to the Allied efforts in World War II. Aaron David Miller, a former State Department negotiator, questioned the sanctions’ purpose: “What is the desired effect? Is it to break the regime or negotiate with Iran to reduce its leverage over the Strait of Hormuz?” Bessent reintroduced regime-change rhetoric during his speech, urging Iranian soldiers to reconsider their leadership’s decisions. He referenced the fall of the Berlin Wall as inspiration. However, experts argue that targeting Chinese banks would be politically risky and unlikely to succeed. Bessent’s approach prioritizes diplomacy over confrontation, but his earlier rhetoric suggested a more aggressive stance.