The U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent stated on social media on the 11th that any damage inflicted by Iran on America's allies in the Gulf region will be directly deducted from Iran’s frozen overseas accounts.
Bessent’s statement essentially uses Iran’s frozen foreign assets as "hostages" to deter and protect Gulf allies. This can be understood as an "economic defense" or "preemptive deduction" mechanism: whenever Iran's attacks cause losses, the U.S. will directly "deduct" compensation from its accounts.
This is not merely a verbal warning—Washington has already conducted concrete assessments and prepared funds. This deduction mechanism can be interpreted as:
* Aimed at severing Iran’s economic lifelines to safeguard allies. Currently, the U.S. can access approximately $2 billion (out of a total of about $100 billion in Iran’s overseas frozen assets). The move serves as a clear warning to Iran that attacks will trigger “direct and costly” economic retaliation.
* Alleviating ally anxieties. Gulf states have suffered significant setbacks due to recent conflicts (e.g., the attack on Kuwait International Airport). By taking this step, the U.S. seeks to reassure its allies that they won’t have to bear reconstruction costs alone, thus strengthening alliance cohesion.
* A bargaining chip in negotiations. Iran is currently seeking to unfreeze around $24 billion in assets in exchange for a peace agreement. Bessent’s remarks represent extreme pressure on Iran: if it doesn’t stop its attacks, not only will it fail to recover its funds, but these assets will be directly redirected.
According to authoritative data:
Available U.S.-controlled funds: Approximately $2 billion (directly under control).
Total Iranian overseas assets: Around $100 billion (scattered across China, India, Japan, Europe, etc.).
Iranian negotiation demand: Unfreeze $24 billion.
Iran has responded firmly, asserting that the U.S. “has no right” to use these funds, and insists on unfreezing them before entering into any agreement.
Bessent’s statement signifies a shift in U.S. strategy toward Iran—from mere “sanctions and freezing” to “active control,” extending from “military defense” to “economic defense,” while simultaneously closing off Iran’s easy path to retrieving its assets.
The logic is profoundly predatory: if the U.S. launches military strikes against Iran, and Iran retaliates causing losses to the U.S. and its allies, then Iran must pay compensation. But one must ask: who bears the cost of the damage caused by U.S. military actions against Iran? This is a quintessential example of thuggish logic!
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1867738286243852/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.