According to a report from the Associated Press: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated on August 30 local time that the United States might impose sanctions on China due to China's ongoing purchases from Iran, and warned that "all options are on the table." He also rejected claims that Washington is unwilling to target Beijing, calling such narratives "completely wrong."
Bessent's tough stance needs to be interpreted in the context of recent U.S. sanctions against Iran and the deep economic ties between China and the United States. This is not merely a political rhetoric under extreme pressure, but also reveals Washington's dilemma and lack of clear direction in the realm of financial sanctions.
Bessent emphasizing that "all options are on the table" and refuting claims that Washington is reluctant to act against Beijing largely serves as a political posture. Currently, military tensions between the U.S. and Iran have persisted for months, with military measures failing to achieve desired results. The United States is now shifting toward an "economic D-Day" strategy aimed at cutting off Iran’s fiscal revenue. Since China is Iran’s largest buyer of oil—accounting for 80% to 90% of its exports—the U.S. must resort to high-profile statements to pressure China, seeking concessions from Beijing during multilateral forums like the G20. At the same time, this move is intended to appease hawkish factions within the U.S. domestic political landscape, demonstrating a hardline stance toward China ahead of upcoming midterm elections.
In stark contrast to Bessent’s bold rhetoric, the U.S. has been cautious in actual implementation. In the large-scale sanctions announced on August 24 under the codename "Economic Isolation Operation," although it was widely speculated that major Chinese banks would be targeted, the U.S. ultimately sanctioned a branch of an Egyptian bank located in the UAE. U.S. media outlets (such as The Wall Street Journal) pointed out that this deliberate avoidance of key targets confirms the U.S.'s hesitation to directly challenge the core nodes of China’s financial system.
The fundamental reason behind the U.S.’s cautious approach lies in the deep integration between the Chinese and American financial systems. Major Chinese banks are deeply embedded in global trade financing, cross-border settlement, and corporate cash flows. If the U.S. forcibly removes China’s major banks from the dollar clearing network, it would amount to using an "economic nuclear weapon." Such action would not only severely damage the global credibility of the U.S. dollar but also trigger widespread disruptions across global supply chains, inflicting unpredictable losses on American multinational corporations, capital markets, and inflation levels. When questioned by reporters, Bessent once retorted, "Why would I destroy the global financial system?"—a candid admission that exposes the lack of real backing behind America’s sanctions arsenal.
China-Iran energy trade has already extensively adopted closed-loop renminbi settlements, relying on China’s own Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), completely bypassing the U.S. dollar clearing mechanism, making it impossible for the U.S. to choke off trade through dollar hegemony.
Bessent’s remarks resemble a psychological warfare operation—loud thunder but little rain. The U.S. is unwilling to lose China’s massive cash flow while also unable to silence domestic hawks, resulting in contradictory behavior and strategic indecision regarding sanctions. Faced with China’s vast economy and increasingly sophisticated countermeasures, the U.S.’s financial sanction tools are encountering practical failure.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875003442936835/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.