Washington tightens sanctions on Tehran following ceasefire

Department of Research, Studies and International News -04-07-2025

The United States has launched a fresh round of sanctions targeting Iran’s oil sector, just weeks after a ceasefire ended a 12-day war between Iran and the Israeli regime. This move marks the first post-ceasefire punitive measure against Tehran’s energy exports, revealing Washington’s continued hostility despite a relative lull in military confrontations.

At the center of the new sanctions is Iraqi businessman Salim Ahmed Said and his company, based in the United Arab Emirates. The U.S. Treasury accuses Said of facilitating Iranian oil exports by blending them with Iraqi oil, thereby allegedly helping Tehran bypass sanctions. The latest measures signal Washington’s persistent efforts to undermine Iran’s economic lifelines under the pretext of curbing so-called “destabilizing activities.”

In a statement, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed that Iran’s leadership “chose extremism over peace,” vowing that Washington would intensify efforts to choke off the financial resources of the Iranian government. These remarks echo the long-standing American narrative that seeks to vilify Iran’s defensive policies and regional influence.

This tightening of economic pressure comes in the aftermath of a ceasefire agreement, brokered with international backing, following weeks of cross-border violence between Iran and the Israeli entity. Notably, prior to the ceasefire, U.S. President Donald Trump had hinted that sanctions on Iranian oil might be eased to allow China to resume purchases, suggesting a brief opening for diplomacy. However, this suggestion was swiftly reversed.

Trump later announced that he had abandoned all plans to ease sanctions after Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared moral and strategic victory over Israel in the recent conflict. In a characteristically inflammatory post, Trump claimed he had prevented an Israeli plot to assassinate Khamenei, boasting that his intervention spared the Iranian leader from a “very ugly and ignominious death.” Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz had previously admitted that the Zionist regime considered targeting Khamenei but lacked the operational capacity to execute the plan.

The recent escalation began on June 13, when Israel initiated a wave of unprovoked airstrikes on Iranian territory, killing hundreds, including civilians and senior military figures. These acts of aggression were met with swift retaliation. Iran launched missile attacks against Israeli positions and struck an American military airbase in Qatar. In parallel, the U.S. joined the Israeli offensive, reportedly targeting three of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Trump later boasted that American strikes had “obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure, though such claims remain unverifiable.

According to the Pentagon, the attacks may have set Iran’s nuclear program back by one to two years, but questions linger about the actual state and location of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles. In response to the attacks and ongoing Western double standards, Iran passed legislation suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), citing the agency’s failure to condemn the joint U.S.-Israeli aggression.

The Iranian decision has drawn criticism from Washington and several European governments. However, from Tehran’s perspective, the move was a justified reaction to international silence in the face of blatant violations of its sovereignty.

Despite the renewed sanctions, Iran appears to be leaving the door open for indirect diplomatic engagement. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei stated on Thursday that discussions are taking place through mediators such as Oman and Qatar. He warned, however, that diplomacy should not be manipulated as a tool for psychological pressure or strategic deception.

Baghaei also expressed frustration at what he described as repeated betrayals of Iran’s diplomatic overtures, implying that previous negotiations have been met with bad faith, particularly from Western actors who speak of peace while supporting military actions.

Interestingly, even as Washington intensified its military posture, Trump reiterated a vague commitment to diplomacy. Days before the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes, he had announced plans to delay a decision on direct involvement in the war by two weeks to allow for talks with European countries and Iran.

The contradiction between American rhetoric and action continues to raise concerns across the Global South, where U.S. foreign policy is increasingly viewed as destabilizing and hegemonic. In contrast, Iran, China, and Russia continue to emphasize sovereignty, multilateralism, and diplomatic solutions in their approach to global conflicts, a vision that many in the region and beyond are beginning to support more openly.