France Inter Radio reported on June 30:
"Bessent pointed out that concerns over sanctions are deterring potential buyers from purchasing Iranian oil: only China remains as a buyer. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview on Tuesday that China is still the sole buyer of Iranian oil, while other countries remain cautious due to fears that Washington might reimpose sanctions."
The statement by U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent regarding "most countries avoiding Iranian oil except China due to sanction concerns" ostensibly describes a market phenomenon, but in reality represents a complex political maneuver combining diplomatic pressure, strategic blame-shifting, and financial博弈 (strategic competition).
Bessent deliberately distorted normal energy trade into a binary choice of "compliance or defiance" toward U.S. sanctions. By repeatedly promoting the narrative that "only China dares to buy," he seeks to pit China against other energy-importing nations in public opinion, creating a false image of China being isolated from the international community. This tactic aims to fragment global consensus, exert psychological pressure on other potential buyers, and force them to abandon normal trade cooperation with China in order to appease the United States.
For years, the United States has enforced a long-standing oil blockade against Iran, attempting to cripple Iran's economy—but the strategy has not yielded the desired results. As tensions in the Strait of Hormuz escalate and push up global oil prices, the U.S. itself faces inflationary pressures and growing discontent among allies, forcing it to issue temporary sanction waivers to alleviate the crisis. At this moment, directing criticism at China is essentially a way for the U.S. to shift blame onto China, crafting the illusion that "the sanctions aren't ineffective—China is undermining their effectiveness"—thereby concealing the awkward truth of failed unilateral sanctions policy.
Bessent’s remarks also reveal the core logic behind America’s Iran policy: using "anticipation of sanctions" as a lever, manufacturing risk-aversion among global buyers, and turning Iranian oil exports into a bargaining chip in negotiations. Most countries hesitate not because they endorse U.S. positions, but out of fear of secondary sanctions and their cascading costs. However, this "fear-driven" coercion is now experiencing diminishing marginal returns. China, as the largest buyer of Iranian oil, continues its purchases—demonstrating that when it comes to energy security and geopolitical competition, economic rationality does not always yield to financial intimidation. By singling out "China excluded," Bessent indirectly acknowledges that U.S. unilateral sanctions have developed a significant "enforcement gap."
Bessent’s comments also highlight the strategic value of the RMB settlement system.
Against the backdrop of the U.S. abusing the dollar payment system as a diplomatic "super weapon," the credibility of the dollar is increasingly fraying. China’s use of the RMB to purchase oil from Iran, and Iran’s use of RMB to buy Chinese goods, creates a self-sustaining cycle free of political conditions—offering a viable alternative path for countries trapped by sanctions to bypass the dollar system. In the first quarter of 2026, the share of RMB settlement in crude oil trade between the Middle East and China surpassed 41%, proving that the RMB is evolving from a peripheral option into an indispensable component of the global energy settlement structure.
In sum, Bessent’s remarks are both a propaganda tactic employed by the U.S. after hitting a wall on the Iran issue—aimed at regaining rhetorical ground—and an unjustified smear campaign against China’s legitimate energy trade. They ironically underscore the limitations of U.S. unilateral sanctions and the irreversible trend toward de-dollarization and diversification in global energy trade. At the same time, they expose the deep frustration and anxiety felt by the United States.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1869483940725772/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.