Sanctions

Clippers owner Steve Ballmer released a lengthy statement Sunday night apologizing to fans and accepting the findings of an NBA investigation of salary cap violations.

“This has been a very difficult time for everybody associated with the Clippers, and for that, I have sincere regrets,” Ballmer said in the statement released 11 days after the NBA first sanctioned the owner and his team. “I want to apologize to our fans, employees, and my fellow NBA team owners for the distraction and distress this matter has caused, for which I accept responsibility as principal owner.”

The NBA handed down stiff penalties to Ballmer and the Clippers after the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz found “a pattern of misconduct and multiple significant rules violations” that benefited Clippers star Kawhi Leonard.

The investigation found Leonard received $66 million in cash and equity from four companies facilitated by Ballmer and Clippers executives at the behest of Dennis Robertson, Leonard’s uncle and then-agent. Ballmer invested $60 million in Aspiration Partners, while Boingo Wireless, Daktronics and Lockton Insurance received $22 million from the Clippers in consulting fees.

The Clippers initially protested and vowed to use all means available to contest sanctions that included banning Ballmer from all league activities for a year, fining the team $30 million and taking away five first-round draft picks in the 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2033 drafts.

Leonard previously agreed to pay a $700,000 fine and did not contest the sanctions, removing the possibility of the case going to arbitration because the mechanism only exists for players and not teams.

“We are committing to put this chapter behind us,” Ballmer’s statement read. “We have communicated to the NBA that we are complying with the penalties assessed by the league, have paid the fine and are moving forward. While there are still disagreements concerning the findings in the report, this is not where I want to focus. Team owners should support, not distract.”

Two of Ballmer’s top executives were also sanctioned, altering the way the team will have to operate moving forward.

Clippers president of business operations Gillian Zucker was suspended without pay for one year for “being primarily and directly culpable for the impermissible endorsement arrangements and for providing false and misleading statements to investigators.”

Clippers president of basketball operations Lawrence Frank was suspended without pay for six months for “his involvement with the impermissible endorsement arrangements and for approving impermissible expenses incurred by Mr. Leonard and his family.”

Ballmer, however, has assembled a deep front office staff, giving the Clippers a number of options to offset the loss of those who are suspended.

“The challenges ahead of us are significant, but so is our resolve,” Ballmer wrote. “We will continue to build our team and invest in our community. The confidence of our fans is our priority. With our talented roster, outstanding staff and clear vision, I am certain that we will compete at the highest level and be an organization our fans can be proud of.”

The decision to comply with the sanctions rather than attempting to contest them in the court could help resolve one of the biggest outstanding offseason items the Clippers face.

Leonard’s trade to the Toronto Raptors in exchange for forward Brandon Ingram, shooting guard Gradey Dick, two first-round draft picks, a pick swap and two second-round picks was put on hold while both teams awaited investigation results.

With the NBA stripping the Clippers of five future first-round picks, the package they are expected to receive when the Leonard trade is completed would have a substantial impact on their future roster-building options.

KYIV: US President Donald Trump’s administration should impose new sanctions on Russia “now” over recent deadly strikes on Ukraine, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Friday.

“Sanctions need to be imposed now,” Zelensky told the Yalta European Strategy forum. “Honestly, I sometimes do not understand why decisions cannot be made quickly,” he added.

NEW YORK CITY: A UN Security Council committee tasked with overseeing sanctions on Iran remained blocked for a fourth consecutive quarter on Thursday.

Council members traded accusations over the panel’s inertia, against a backdrop of intensifying US-Iran hostilities and a landmark decision by the UN’s nuclear watchdog to refer Tehran back to the council for the first time in 20 years.

The 1737 Sanctions Committee has not met in the year since it was reestablished with the backing of most council members, and no report on its activities was presented during Thursday’s session after China and Russia once again blocked it.

The impasse has also stalled the appointment of experts to a panel, the mandate for which is due to expire on Sept. 27, that is intended to support the sanctions-monitoring work of the committee.

The dispute dates back to August 2025 when France, Germany and the UK triggered a so-called “snapback” mechanism under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, to reimpose pre-2015 UN sanctions on Tehran.

China and Russia dispute the legality of that move, arguing that all sanctions lapsed on Oct. 19, 2025, with the scheduled expiration of the deal, and so the council’s consideration of the Iranian nuclear file was effectively ended.

Against this backdrop of an unresolved procedural fight, the Security Council session on Thursday was dominated by more recent developments: the International Atomic Energy Agency’s formal referral of Iran to the Security Council and the General Assembly this week; and the continuing military exchanges between Iran and the US.

The agency’s board of governors voted 23-3 on Wednesday to refer Iran over its noncompliance with international nuclear safeguards, the first such referral in two decades. China, Niger and Russia voted no and eight countries abstained.

Ambassador Jennifer Locetta, the US alternate representative for special political affairs, told the council that the IAEA “has not received information from Iran regarding the status of its declared nuclear materials or facilities” and has been denied access to carry out verification procedures.

The agency’s director general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, has again urged Tehran to engage constructively with the process, she added. Locetta dismissed Iranian claims that inspections were being blocked as a result of security concerns, noting that “Ukraine has been a worse and more constant war zone” and yet IAEA inspectors had still been able to work there throughout the conflict.

Washington, she said, would “look to partners in the coming days to weigh options” for strengthening the sanctions regime.

China’s deputy permanent representative, Sun Lei, voted against the meeting’s agenda and placed the blame for the deteriorating situation squarely on Washington. He said the US strikes and campaign of “maximum pressure” on Iran were the “primary causes” of the crisis.

A memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran in June was “undermined shortly after it took effect” by renewed military clashes, he added, and Washington had since “intensified unilateral sanctions” and “launched a new round of military strikes” against Tehran.

Beijing, he said, opposed further use of force and called for a return to efforts to reach a political and diplomatic settlement based on “equality and mutual respect.”

France’s ambassador to the UN, Jerome Bonnafont, said Iran’s stockpile of more than 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent had “no credible civilian justification” and was sufficient for about 10 nuclear devices.

He cited the latest report by Grossi as saying the situation “raises an issue of proliferation and should be addressed with the greatest urgency.”

France backed a US-drafted resolution for the renewal of the expert panel’s mandate, Bonnafont added. He called for the full reopening to international shipping of the Strait of Hormuz, and offered a French naval presence there, alongside the UK, to help secure freedom of navigation.

Pakistan’s permanent representative, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, told the council that the “upsurge of violence in the Middle East in the last few days” was “unsettling for the prospects of peace,” and said Islamabad was engaged in back-channel diplomacy to encourage de-escalation.

He urged “all sides to exercise restraint” and voiced concern over the continuing divisions within the council.

A memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran in June, which paused hostilities and set a 60-day window for a final nuclear agreement, expired on Aug. 17 without any deal.

The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed to international shipping, attacks on vessels have continued, and the US has revoked sanctions waivers on Iranian oil exports. A Security Council vote on renewal of the Iran sanctions expert panel’s mandate is scheduled for Sept. 17.

LONDON: Prominent Israeli figures have welcomed British sanctions against illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, The Guardian reported.

In a joint statement, they described the move as an “inevitable consequence” of their government’s actions.

Sanctions are being imposed “against Jewish terrorists, and not against the legitimacy of the state of Israel,” they said.

“There is no basis to the government’s response that the decision to impose sanctions against Jewish terrorists is an expression of antisemitism.”

Prof. David Harel, British-born president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and a signatory to the statement, said the measures delivered urgently needed support for liberal Israelis who are trying to stop attacks on Palestinians and end the occupation.

“I personally would fight until my last breath against antisemitism and against anti-Israelism,” he told The Guardian. “But what is justified, and I do support, is being anti things that Israel is doing, and these days in particular what it is doing in the West Bank.

“Getting out of there (occupied Palestine), or, at least for the present, stopping these things from happening and starting to really talk about a two-state solution is not only good for the Palestinians. It’s not that we’re doing these poor people a favour. We’re doing a favour to ourselves, no less, maybe even more.”

Signatories to the statement include former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; former commander of the Israeli military Dan Halutz; former ministers Yuli Tamir and Roni Bar-On; and former Ambassador to Germany Yoram Ben Zeev.

They wrote: “This decision is precisely what the state of Israel should have received in order to remove the disgrace of Jewish terrorism from the face of the country.”

Former diplomat Nadav Tamir also said the sanctions are good for Israel. “Any move to prevent annexation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in the West Bank (and Gaza) is serving the long-term interests of the Zionist vision of Israel as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people,” he added. “It will help us to be more secure and moral.”

Avraham Burg, a former parliament speaker, said “like many Israelis and Palestinians, I am grateful for the courageous moral leadership” of UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband. “It’s a good beginning. Do not stop.”

Fourteen Israeli human rights organizations — including B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel and Breaking the Silence — welcomed the sanctions.

“This is an important and necessary first step to meet states’ legal obligation,” they said in a statement. “We urge the international community to take further concrete measures to ensure that its relations with Israel no longer enable Israel’s settlement enterprise, forced displacement and ethnic cleansing in the occupied West Bank, or its broader assault on Palestinian human rights across all territories under its control.”

“It’s terrible for Israel and for Israel’s future, it’s not what Judaism teaches and it’s deeply wrong”, he added.

Supported by other Rabbis in the liberal and progressive UK Jewish communities, Rabbi Wittenberg believes that it is possible to support Israel, be concerned for the safety of British Jews, and that it is right for the UK government to take action to protect Israelis and Palestinians.

However, he also said he was “extremely sad that it’s come to this” and that he shared the “concerns of the Jewish community leadership that people will use this for antisemitism and for demonising Israel even further”.

Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis, who represents the Orthodox community, previously said the sanctions marked a “truly dark day” and placed British Jews at greater risk of attacks.

In Golders Green – where ambulances run by a Jewish medical charity were set on fire and two visibly Jewish men were stabbed in what police called a terror attack earlier this year – there was concern the government’s actions against Israel would increase attacks against British Jews.

“It’s so tricky because, in principle, I agree with opposing these new settlements,” Michael Cohen, who works for a Jewish charity, told the BBC.

But he added: “The timing of it, I think, was completely… just self interest for the Labour Party, signalling before a by-election, before the party conference.”

He said the practical impact of the move would be “almost zero”.

One woman, who runs a jewellery shop that was was twice cordoned off due to incidents in Golders Green, was very critical of the sanctions and said she would “make it my mission” to continue to buy Israeli goods whenever she could.

“We have to [support] our own because no one else is going to”, Deborah Miller told the BBC.

At the end of the week, Jewish congregations will celebrate Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year.

Police are already increasing security around Jewish areas to protect communities who have faced multiple attacks this year and are fearful of more.

The number of antisemitic incidents recorded across the UK since the start of the year is up by a fifth compared to last year, figures show.

The Community Security Trust (CST), an organisation that provides security support to the Jewish community, recorded 1,926 incidents of anti-Jewish hate across the UK in the first six months of 2026.

The Crime Survey for England and Wales, external, estimates that only 44% of hate crime incidents between April 2022 and March 2025 came to the attention of the police.

Caracas, September 9, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The president of Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA, Héctor Obregón, backed the recent agreement with the Trump administration as a “win-win relationship” on Monday.

“We signed Productive Participation Contracts where we put forward crude reserves and qualified personnel. What were we missing? Foreign capital,” he said in an interview with Unión Radio.

Productive Participation Contracts (CPP) are concession-type agreements whereby energy projects are turned over to private corporations which run operations and commercialization while paying a negotiated portion of proceeds to the Venezuelan state.

The recent oil deal, hailed by Trump as “the biggest in history,” will see Venezuela transfer 17 prime oilfields, containing 65 billion in proven crude reserves, to private operator NABEP. The projects are split between extra-heavy crude fields in the Orinoco Oil Belt and mature light- and medium-crude ones in the Lake Maracaibo basin.

Obregón insisted on the mutual benefits, explaining that Venezuela will collect taxes and royalties while the US will be able to supply its domestic demand. Regarding the agreement’s timeline, which the White House has claimed to span 100 years, Obregón stated that the concession is for 25 years but may be renewed for similar periods “as many times as necessary.”

After initially vowing that NABEP would invest US $100 billion in the oilfields, a figure repeated by Venezuelan officials, the Trump administration changed the pledge to “more than $10 billion.” 

According to a White House “fact sheet” on the deal, the US State Department will be able to secure 20 percent of the NABEP’s output at cost and have a right of first refusal over the remaining 80 percent.

Obregón suggested that Washington could secure additional benefits, indicating that a reference $65 barrel would have a $15 “sales discount.” The oil official likewise estimated capital and operational expenditures at $12-15 and stated that NABEP would never secure a smaller portion of proceeds than the Venezuelan state, with the percentage increasing for greenfield projects.

The $19 revenue estimate offered by Venezuelan officials as the government’s take for a reference $65 barrel is significantly lower than the benchmarks established under the 2001 Hydrocarbon Law approved by former President Hugo Chávez and subsequent reforms. Under the previous framework, only PDVSA or PDVSA-majority joint ventures were allowed to operate oilfields, with the Venezuelan state securing as much as $0.80 for every $1 of oil proceeds in the latter case.

NABEP, owned by Venezuelan oil mogul Alejandro Betancourt, will grant a 35 percent stake at no cost to the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC). Washington will likewise have veto power over NABEP’s board of directors. Betancourt has faced corruption accusations in Venezuela, with authorities issuing an arrest warrant in 2022 that was later dropped. For its part, the Trump administration has sought to halt money laundering investigations against the Venezuelan businessman both in the US and in Switzerland.

Obregón went on to acknowledge that Venezuelan export revenues are currently deposited in a US Treasury account before US officials decide on the disbursement amounts and timings back to Caracas.

“There is a state-to-state agreement to receive Venezuelan funds in Treasury accounts,” he disclosed, echoing Washington’s assertion that its seizure of Venezuelan export proceeds aims to protect them from potential creditor claims. 

“The channeling of revenues through the US Treasury could be considered a protection measure, since there are debt claims against PDVSA and creditors could target our accounts,” he argued.

Neither US nor Venezuelan authorities have disclosed the amount of revenue collected and disbursed back to Caracas. Luigi Pisella, an advisor to Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, claimed that the Trump administration is deducting the costs of its January 3 military operation against Venezuela from the country’s funds.

The costs of goods and services supplied by US-based exporters to Venezuela are also being directly deducted from the funds held in the Treasury accounts.

Apart from controlling export earnings, US officials have publicly participated in a pro-business overhaul of the Caribbean nation’s hydrocarbon law and regulations, including reviewing drafts of the legislation.

The Trump administration has maintained sanctions on the Venezuelan oil industry while issuing licenses for select Western corporations. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright oversaw the signing of agreements with Chevron, Eni, and smaller US-backed energy firms during a visit to Caracas earlier this month.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has said the United Kingdom will sanction illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, describing the move as “overdue” and necessary to “salvage” a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He made the comments on Tuesday as 11 nations joined the UK in supporting or ⁠considering curbs on trade in goods with settlements that are a barrier to a future Palestinian state.

But analysts say the step is far from enough to drive momentum for Palestinian statehood, threatened by ever-expanding settlements in the West Bank and an increasingly hostile Israeli political environment.

Tahani Mustafa, a lecturer in international relations at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera the latest anti-settlement measures are “modest” and unlikely to have a significant impact on ambitions for Palestinian statehood.

“After three decades of breakneck settlement expansion, Palestinian territory is only being held together by its sinews,” said Mustafa. “If what remains is still territorially viable as a state, it is only barely so. Much more decisive action is needed to salvage the two-state solution and a durable lasting solution to the conflict.”

Settlements dividing Palestinian territory

More than 30 years after the Oslo Accords set out a negotiating process aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel has remained the foundation of international efforts to forge peace.

But since the Oslo process began in 1993, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem, has ballooned from about 260,000 to more than 700,000, according to the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics, posing a glaring roadblock to the plan.

The challenge is not just the raw number of settlers, but their geographic spread. Today, many Israeli settlements are embedded deep inside West Bank areas that would be needed for a contiguous Palestinian state, including near major Palestinian urban centres such as Nablus, Salfit and Hebron.

Israel’s recent E1 settlement plan, which would build thousands of illegal housing units between the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim and East Jerusalem, is a case in point. The plan would effectively split the West Bank in two and fully sever it from East Jerusalem, which Palestinians seek as their future capital.

Experts have long said Israel will need to dismantle some of its West Bank settlements, as it did in the Gaza Strip in 2005, to make room for a cohesive Palestinian state. But many Israeli settlements, especially those closer to Israel’s pre-war 1967 borders, would likely need to be addressed through land swaps.

“A complete withdrawal from some of the deeply embedded settlements is highly unlikely,” so land swaps would be the only way to create some form of Palestinian “territorial integrity”, Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

However, such an arrangement – under which Israeli settlements close to the pre-1967 borders would become part of Israel and some “northern Arab-Israeli communities would be integrated into a Palestinian state” – would be “highly controversial” and face blowback from multiple communities, said Krieg.

He argued that Israelis would be certain to oppose any forced withdrawal from West Bank settlements, while some “Arab-Israelis may not want to live within a Palestinian state”.

Palestinian citizens of Israel make up approximately 21 percent of Israel’s overall population but are treated as second- or third-class citizens at the institutional level. According to rights groups, several dozen Israeli laws actively discriminate against Palestinian citizens across a number of issues, including education and housing.

Israeli ‘consensus’ against Palestinian state

Beyond the physical obstacle created by settlements is the Israeli political landscape, in which the idea of a Palestinian state has become toxic.

The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be among the most hardline in Israel’s history on the issue. Netanyahu has emphatically ruled out the prospect of a Palestinian state, while his far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who also oversees Israeli settlements in the West Bank, has celebrated blocking Palestinian statehood as a badge of honour.

The views of Netanyahu’s most influential domestic critics do not deviate much. His top rival in elections slated for October, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, has promised not to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state. And Naftali Bennett, a Netanyahu rival from the far right, fervently opposes Palestinian statehood.

As for the Israeli public, a June poll by the Council for a Secure America found that only 22 percent of Jewish Israelis favour a two-state solution, while 63 percent oppose it.

“The consensus within Israel, socially and politically, does not allow for any party to make any steps towards a Palestinian state,” said Krieg.

Meanwhile, Israel’s closest ally, the United States, is unlikely to apply significant pressure over Israel’s settlement policy so long as President Donald Trump remains in office for the next two and a half years, he added.

Krieg said a “best-case scenario” is for Israel’s next elected government to reverse some of the country’s recent settlement advances.

John Strawson, professor at the University of East London, said that any new Israeli government is “unlikely to support a Palestinian state”, but that a more moderate Israeli government may at least “stop the ethnic cleansing and other moves which are aimed at making that impossible”.

“Removing Netanyahu is the first step towards a two-state solution,” said Strawson.

Two states are the ‘only alternative to violence’

If the two-state model is still alive at all, it is largely due to pressure from the international community.

More than 150 countries, including the majority of European Union nations, have recognised Palestinian statehood. And several Arab states with whom Israel seeks better ties have indicated Palestinian statehood is a precondition for normalisation with Israel.

Krieg said Tuesday’s move by the UK and the 11 other mostly European nations is an “overdue step in the right direction”, but also “shows the laziness and lack of creativity on the part of the international community to actually think outside the box in terms of a two-state solution”.

Anders Persson, a political scientist specialising in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said that while the settlement sanctions are concerning to Israel, other previous anti-settlement measures, such as 2013 EU restrictions on funds for Israeli entities operating in occupied Palestinian territory, “changed little on the ground”.

He said the latest sanctions may be “too late” and “too limited … to save the two-state solution”.

Strawson said that while a two-state solution may “seem optimistic”, it is the only alternative to “permanent war and violence”.

Jerusalem: Israel’s President Isaac Herzog warned against British sanctions on settlements in the occupied West Bank, expected to be announced on Tuesday, saying the decision would “fall on the wrong side of history”.

“Later today, we expect to see headlines announcing certain British trade sanctions on Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria,” Herzog said, using the biblical term for the West Bank.

“If this happens – and other nations may join – I believe it will prove to be a grave miscalculation, a decision that will fall on the wrong side of history,” he added.

The expected UK move follows weeks of increasing settler attacks against Palestinians in the occupied territory.

It also comes as the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ramps up settlement construction in the West Bank, which some western governments fear threatens a two-state solution.

British government minister Pat McFadden said Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband would make a statement to parliament laying out “measures specifically targeted at the expansion of these settlements, which are illegal under international law, in the West Bank”.

He told Sky News that the changes, on which he provided no further detail, would be motivated by “the idea of keeping alive this possibility of seeing a Palestinian state alongside Israel”.

“I think it’s also important to say that Israel is an important trading partner for the UK. This isn’t intended to be a boycott of all Israeli goods.”

UK government ministers have suggested recently that goods coming out of settlements could be subject to trade restrictions as part of the changes.

Herzog on Tuesday said: “Sanctions are not a solution. Dialogue is.”

“I say to all foreign governments: Stop! Step away from the dead-end of sanctions and boycotts. And turn toward constructive dialogue and toward cooperation,” he added.

Israel has since 1967 occupied the West Bank, where more than 500,000 Israelis live in settlements among some three million Palestinians.

With Israel headed to the polls next month, Herzog said the UK move, if announced, “would be a gross interference in the democratic elections of a sovereign nation”.

“It will serve no one. It will directly harm – unfortunately – Palestinians, robbing them of business and employment,” he added.

Venezuelanalysis editor Ricardo Vaz joined Clash Point editor Isaac Eshetu to take stock of Venezuela and its present relationship with the United States. The discussion covers the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the political fallout in Caracas, US control over Venezuela’s all-important oil industry, and a marked foreign policy shift in recent months.

(Note: the interview was recorded on August 14, before the US and Venezuelan governments announced a “historic” oil deal)

Source: Clash Report

US sanctions Turkish bank over alleged IRGC ties, accusing it of facilitating millions in transactions for Iran.

The United States Treasury Department has imposed sanctions on a Turkish bank and its subsidiaries over alleged ties to Iran, as Washington seeks to economically isolate Tehran.

The Treasury Department accused Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi (Golden Global Bank) on Friday of facilitating “tens of millions of dollars’ worth of transactions for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force” and providing the Iranian government with banking access to move its funds internationally.

Washington alleged the bank “was established for the purpose of enabling Iran’s rahbar network [shadow banking system] to transfer oil revenues from China to Turkey” using gold and cash.

Golden Global Bank responded on Friday, saying it fulfilled all local and international banking compliance rules and would take legal action against the US-imposed sanctions.

There are no transactions conducted by Golden Global Bank that could substantiate the claims made by the US, the bank said in a news release.

“We will exercise all our rights of objection and legal recourse in the most effective manner and will take the necessary actions at the earliest against these allegations and the decision,” the Turkish bank added.

“Financial institutions continue to find out the hard way that we are serious about Operation Economic Outcast,” said Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent in a statement published by the department on Friday.

The sanctions place the bank and its two subsidiaries on the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)’s Specially Designated Nationals list, cutting off access to the US financial system.

The bank said individuals and entities named in the OFAC decision “have never been and are not currently customers” of Golden Global.

US Ambassador to Turkiye Tom Barrack said on Saturday that it would be a mistake for Turkish officials “to read [the US’s] narrow measure as a judgement upon Turkiye”.

“The health of the Turkish financial system is not in question; the conduct of one institution was,” Barrack said on X.

Last week, the US took steps towards severing the UAE operations of Egypt’s second-largest bank from financial access after accusing it of processing transactions for companies linked to Iran’s shadow-banking system.

Bessent said on Tuesday on the sidelines of a G20 summit that Washington would likely announce a bank sanction this week and another next week, as it ramps up its economic campaign against Tehran.

China is buying ninety percent of Iran’s oil exports, settling transactions in renminbi, and hiding the rest beneath layers of shell companies. This is not defiance. It is a demonstration, conducted in plain sight, of exactly how far American economic reach actually extends.

Scott Bessent promised, when he launched Operation Economic Outcast last week, that no one would be above the reach of US sanctions. China’s foreign ministry responded by saying Beijing would do everything necessary to safeguard its own rights and interests. That exchange, watched by the rest of the world, is not really about Iran. It is about whether the threat of American secondary sanctions can force a country that has already fought several trade wars with Washington to a standstill into changing its economic behaviour. The answer, which China has been demonstrating methodically for months, is no.

How China Made Itself Immune to US Secondary Sanctions

The architecture of Chinese-Iranian trade has been specifically designed to sit outside dollar-system jurisdiction. Chinese banks and companies that buy Iranian oil settle transactions in renminbi or through barter arrangements, making them effectively immune to American extraterritorial authority. The handful of Chinese entities that still touch dollar-denominated transactions do so through shell companies that can be discarded and replaced faster than Washington can identify and sanction them. The result is the regulatory whack-a-mole problem that American Treasury officials privately acknowledge, eliminate one entity, and three more appear in its place, each more obscured than the last.

Washington could escalate by sanctioning major Chinese banks and companies that have no Iran ties at all, using them as leverage to pressure Beijing to rein in those that do. That option exists on paper. In practice, it would constitute a declaration of economic war against China’s financial system at a moment when the US economy is already strained by six months of conflict with Iran, oil prices are elevated, and midterm elections are eight weeks away. The Trump administration knows this, which is why Bessent’s ultimatum came with no major Chinese institution on the sanctions list. The threat was real. The enforcement mechanism was not.

What a US Victory in Iran Would Cost Beijing

China sources roughly forty percent of its oil imports from the Gulf, with Iran accounting for ten percent of that total. If the US wins this war convincingly, meaning Iran’s government collapses or capitulates and Washington reinstalls itself as the dominant security guarantor across the Gulf, the energy architecture that China has spent two decades building becomes dependent on American goodwill. Every barrel of Gulf oil that China buys would effectively pass through a security framework Washington controls.

The regional knock-on effects compound that problem. The Mecca pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, the SCO’s deepening trade and financial architecture, the China-brokered Saudi-Iran normalisation of 2023: all of these represent years of Chinese diplomatic investment in a Middle East that is gradually reducing its security dependence on the United States. An Iranian defeat that pushes regional states back under the American umbrella undoes that investment at a stroke. From Beijing’s perspective, the cost of buying Iranian oil at a discount and absorbing American secondary sanctions is considerably lower than the cost of losing the regional influence that Iran’s survival helps sustain.

Neither Ally Nor Bystander

The SCO summit in Bishkek last week illustrated Beijing’s position with more precision than any official statement. Xi met Putin and Modi bilaterally. Iran’s President Pezeshkian attended the summit and held consultations at foreign minister level. He was not invited to Beijing. He did not get a Xi bilateral. That calibrated distance is deliberate, and it reflects a Chinese calculation that is more sophisticated than either alliance or abandonment.

Beijing does not want Iran to lose. It also does not want Iran to win so completely that Tehran’s regional hegemony destabilises the Gulf relationships China has been cultivating. The Chinese position, buying Iranian oil, refusing to arm Iran, keeping diplomatic engagement at arm’s length, is designed to keep Iran functional without making China responsible for Iranian behaviour. It is the foreign policy equivalent of keeping a fire burning without touching it.

Xi’s scheduled visit to Washington later this month, coming directly after the Bishkek summit, reinforces this reading. Beijing is simultaneously demonstrating to Iran that it has economic backing and demonstrating to Washington that it has strategic restraint. Both demonstrations serve Chinese interests. Neither requires China to choose a side.

Five Things Worth Watching

• Whether Xi’s Washington visit produces any concrete understanding on Iran-related secondary sanctions. If the two sides agree on a framework that gives China cover to quietly reduce Iranian oil purchases over time, the sanctions architecture gains traction it currently lacks. If the summit produces only standard language about constructive competition, Operation Economic Outcast’s China problem remains unresolved.
• The SCO Development Bank’s progress toward implementation. If the bank moves from agreement to operational institution in the coming months, it creates dollar-independent financing infrastructure that makes secondary sanctions significantly less effective not just for China-Iran trade but for the broader Eurasian trade network the SCO is building.
• Whether any Chinese entity on the August sanctions list is large enough that its designation produces real disruption rather than being absorbed and routed around. The signal from August’s first wave was that Washington sanctioned deliberately small targets. The size and visibility of the next wave’s targets will tell you how seriously Washington is willing to press China.
• India’s position on renminbi settlement for its own Iranian oil purchases. If Delhi follows Beijing’s approach and expands non-dollar settlement for energy trade, the secondary sanctions architecture faces a second major exemption that Washington is even less able to address given how carefully it has been courting India.
• Iran’s currency trajectory. The rial has hit record lows despite Chinese oil purchases continuing. If the currency continues to deteriorate even with Chinese demand stable, it suggests Operation Economic Outcast is landing on Iran’s non-oil economy in ways that the Chinese lifeline cannot fully offset which changes the pressure calculus regardless of whether Beijing complies.

The Bottom Line

Washington designed Operation Economic Outcast to isolate Iran. What it has demonstrated is the outer boundary of American economic jurisdiction in a world where China has spent a decade building the infrastructure to sit outside it. Renminbi settlement, dark fleet shipping, teapot refineries, shell company networks, these are not improvised workarounds. They are a parallel financial architecture, constructed precisely for this contingency, and it works well enough to keep Iranian oil flowing at volumes Washington cannot stop.

The deeper problem for the Trump administration is not that China is defying its sanctions. It is that China is proving, transaction by transaction, that the sanctions cannot be enforced against a country of sufficient size and sufficient preparation. That demonstration has an audience well beyond Beijing and Tehran. Every country currently watching whether to comply with American secondary sanctions is learning the same lesson: the reach of US economic power has a ceiling, and China has found it.

Argentina’s president accused of political machinations as he eyes shifting US stance on Las Malvinas.

Argentine President Javier Milei has threatened sanctions against companies drilling for oil near the Falkland Islands.

In a televised address on Thursday, Milei said he would seek approval of urgent legislation to toughen penalties for companies operating near the islands without approval from Buenos Aires. Argentina claims sovereignty over the South Atlantic archipelago, which it calls Las Malvinas,

Milei’s hardened stance is viewed as a bid to revive support for his libertarian presidency, with the Falklands issue one of the few that cuts across political lines.

The sanctions would target the Sea Lion project, a deep-sea oil field about 140 miles (220 kilometres) north of the islands being developed by the UK’s Rockhopper Exploration and Israel’s Navitas Petroleum.

Milei said the sanctions would extend beyond the two firms to suppliers, shareholders and directors and that companies involved could be barred from operating in Argentina altogether.

Argentine war veterans and environmental lawyers have already filed a lawsuit seeking to halt the project, which Milei said violates a United Nations resolution urging Argentina and the UK to avoid unilateral action around the islands.

Britain’s Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, said on Friday that Milei’s statement “tells us more about domestic politics in Argentina than it does about the Falkland Islands”.

“The Falklands are British because Falkland Islanders choose to be British,” he added. “Our commitment to the Falklands is absolute and unshakeable.”

London frequently refers to a 2013 referendum in which the roughly 4,000 islanders voted overwhelmingly to remain British in response to questions over sovereignty.

Rockhopper said in a statement that it does not expect the latest development to have a “material effect” on the Sea Lion project. The company hopes to start drilling this year, with production by 2028.

Milei’s revival of the dispute is seen as a bid to overturn domestic criticism of his relations with United States President Donald Trump, which some have called subservient.

However, the Argentine president hopes to show that the relationship has the potential to reap rewards, with Trump having hinted that Washington could alter its neutral stance on the Falklands to turn it in Argentina’s favour.

Trump recently declined to say whether the US would back the UK in a future Falklands conflict, criticising Britain instead for not doing more to support the US-led bombing campaign against Iran.

Britain and Argentina fought the 1982 war over the islands that killed more than 900 people from both sides. The conflict still shapes Argentina’s national identity and remains one of the few issues that unites its otherwise divided political class.

Milei has faced accusations from opposition MPs that he is exploiting the dispute for political gain as his approval ratings slump to 34 percent.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Buenos Aires, Teresa Bo, said the timing owes as much to domestic politics as to Washington.

“Milei’s approval ratings have been falling as Argentines feel the impact of his harsh austerity plan,” she said.

“And the Malvinas are one of the few issues capable of uniting Argentines across the political spectrum.”

The United States takes its turn chairing the G20 finance track this week under distinctly awkward conditions.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh are hosting counterparts in the North Carolina mountains, following a deputies meeting held over the weekend, with the formal agenda covering economic growth, global imbalances, sovereign debt restructuring, banking regulation and energy security.

Asheville was chosen deliberately.

The city was devastated by Hurricane Helene in September 2024, a storm that killed more than 250 people and caused close to $80 billion (€69bn) in damage from Florida to the Carolinas, and Bessent has cited its rebuilding as a fitting backdrop for talks about economic growth.

“We want the rest of the world to come along with our growth agenda, whether it’s deregulation, the energy independence […]” he said, adding that “the world has this mountain of debt, and we do have to grow our way out of it,” confirming public debt will feature prominently in the discussions.

The setting may prove easier than the substance.

Trade friction between the US and Canada escalated after negotiations broke down, hostilities with Iran have resumed through economic rather than military means, and Warsh arrives days after a hawkish first Jackson Hole address that sharply raised the odds of a US rate rise this month.

Both meetings serve as groundwork for the leaders’ summit at Trump National Doral in Miami on 14 and 15 December, and come weeks before Xi Jinping is expected in Washington on 24 September.

Bessent’s push on Iran

The US Treasury Secretary intends to use bilateral meetings to build support for squeezing Tehran, and stated that Washington will sanction another bank this week, though he declined to name it.

“This is going to be financial violence if we have to,” Bessent told AP.

“We are showing people that we know who you are, you know who you are, and this has got to stop,” he added.

The campaign’s opening move came on Friday, when the US Treasury proposed a rule that would cut the Emirati branches of Banque Misr, Egypt’s second-largest lender, off from the American financial system.

By stopping short of full sanctions, the US administration appeared to signal reluctance to punish major trading partners that still deal with Iran, notably China and India.

On Beijing specifically, Bessent said “all options are on the table” over its continued oil purchases, while dismissing suggestions of hesitancy as “a completely false narrative that the media picked up on.”

The meetings are also being held under unusual media restrictions, after the US Treasury barred certain reporters from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg from covering them.

The New York Times called the move “not just another disturbing effort by the administration to undermine independent journalism, but a blatant attempt to evade public scrutiny.”

The department has not explained its decision, though Bessent told the AP that “it has nothing to do with point of view.”

Who speaks for Europe at the G20

The EU is represented by Ireland’s Tánaiste and Finance Minister Simon Harris, who holds the role by virtue of Ireland’s EU presidency since 1 July, alongside ECB President Christine Lagarde and Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis.

Harris said he was looking forward to “the first Ministerial meeting of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors since Ireland assumed the Presidency of the EU,” describing the forum as a place where the largest economies “can exchange views and work towards international economic and financial stability.”

The Irish minister’s stated priority reflects the conflict shaping much of the agenda at this G20 meeting.

Among the EU’s concerns, Harris listed “energy security and ensuring we have secure and resilient energy supplies at a time of severe volatility caused by the conflict in the Middle East.”

He will also hold bilateral meetings with counterparts from G20 member states as Ireland has also been invited as a guest for the December leaders’ summit in Miami.

Additional sources • AP

The United States has said it will cut off the UAE operations of Banque Misr from the US financial system after accusing Egypt’s second-biggest bank of doing business with the Iranian government.

“ Treasury promised to sever every economic lifeline Tehran has left and finally end the threat of the Iranian regime,” US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in a statement on Friday.

“We also warned that Iran’s enablers cannot continue to enjoy access to the US dollar and the global financial system. Banque Misr UAE decided to find out the hard way, and today, we are taking the first step in holding it accountable for its continued, egregious support of the Iranian regime,” he said.

Banque Misr said on Saturday that it was reviewing the US Treasury’s notice.

The move, announced on Friday, comes as Washington has stepped up its efforts to economically pressure Iran, dubbed Operation Economic Outcast, amid the deadlocked truce talks.

Last week, the US Treasury also imposed new sanctions on nearly 60 individuals and entities, targeting networks accused by Washington of helping Iran generate oil revenue, procure weapons and conduct cyber operations.

Iran has, however, rejected the latest US sanctions, with Economy Minister Ali Madanizadeh saying they will fail.

So, what exactly is this financial limit on Banque Misr? How will it work?

Here’s what we know:

What is the new US financial limit on Banque Misr?

On Friday, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) proposed a rule that would revoke Banque Misr UAE’s correspondent banking access to US financial institutions.

This means that only the UAE branches of Egypt’s second-largest bank will be unable to carry out transactions in dollars and will lose access to the US financial market.

In a statement on Friday, the Treasury said that Banque Misr UAE is a critical node for the Iranian regime’s access to US dollars. It added that it estimates that “between January 2024 and June 2026, Banque Misr UAE processed approximately $1.8bn for 103 companies that are potentially part of Iranian shadow banking networks”.

The treasury added that in order to generate revenue abroad, Iran relies “on multi-jurisdictional shadow banking networks that provide key access to US dollar correspondent banking relationships”.

Banque Misr UAE’s customers include “front companies used by Iran’s Ministry of Defence and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to evade US sanctions, as well as to launder money on behalf of Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei,” the Treasury said.

The US government’s proposed punishment is expected to come into effect in 30 days after a public comment period, and will not impact any other branches of the bank.

What has Banque Misr said?

On Saturday, the bank said in a statement that it was reviewing the US Treasury notice.

It said the new “regulatory measures (by the US) are subject to an official period for receiving and studying comments before a final decision is made regarding them.” The bank added that it “is dealing with these measures and the data and estimates they contain with the utmost seriousness and attention, and is studying them thoroughly.”

The bank announced that it will also contact the US Treasury Department for further information and until then, said its branch in the UAE continues to provide banking services to its customers in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures.

Earlier, on Friday, the Central Bank of Egypt said that, together with Egypt’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was in contact with US authorities on Banque Misr’s UAE branches.

“The CBE (Central Bank of Egypt) affirms that this measure is limited to Banque Misr UAE’s USD transactions with correspondent banks only. It does not affect any other bank within the Egyptian banking sector, including Banque Misr’s operations in Egypt or any of its other overseas branches,” it highlighted.

What has the UAE said?

The UAE’s banking authorities have said they have launched an investigation into Banque Misr’s operations there.

The UAE central bank said in a statement on Sunday that it had decided to conduct a “special and urgent examination” of Banque Misr’s branches in the country, including “a forensic/in-depth lookback covering the period referred to in the statement issued by the US authorities”.

“The Central Bank expects banks licensed in the UAE not to expose the UAE’s financial system to reputational risks, to respect the laws and regulations of the countries whose financial institutions are used in conducting transactions and not to misuse the advanced financial infrastructure of the UAE,” it added in a statement.

Who else has the US taken action against?

Besides Banque Misr, the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed sanctions on Reza Mohammad Taeedi, the general manager of the Dubai branch of Iran’s Bank Melli, under a counterterrorism authority.

“Bank Melli has facilitated billions of dollars’ worth of transactions through accounts controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force (IRGC-QF). It has allowed the IRGC-QF and its parent organisation, the IRGC, to move funds inside and outside of Iran. The IRGC-QF’s accounts at Bank Melli have also been used to fund Iranian-aligned proxies and partners, including in Iraq,” the Treasury department said in a statement.

Simultaneously, another Treasury department statement said that OFAC has also sanctioned Hong Kong-based Kameng Trading Limited, which allegedly “aided sanctioned Iranian persons in accessing the international financial system.”

“Sanctioned Iranian exchange house Pedram Pirouzan Exchange House, also known as Opal Exchange, has used Kameng Trading Limited to launder money for Iran,” the Treasury Department said.

Why is the US sanctioning companies doing business with Iran?

Ahead of Friday’s sanctions, on Monday August 24 , the United States announced sanctions on Iran and various global entities doing business with the country, in what officials called an “economic D-Day” and officially dubbed “Operation Economic Outcast” in an effort to isolate Tehran.

At least 60 entities across the Middle East, Asia and Europe have been targeted in the latest sanctions as part of the economic pressure campaign that could further disrupt energy markets and rattle the global economy.

Nearly six months into its war on Iran, the US is seeing little impact from its military operations.

The long-term implications of the war, analysts say, have pushed the Trump administration to try economic sanctions, but these are unlikely to compel Iran into meeting the demands.

“The United States is returning to economic pressure because military force has failed to deliver the quick victory it expected,” Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the US-based Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera last week.

“The ‘economic D-Day’ declaration underscores the war’s failure so far to force Iran’s surrender or achieve Washington’s political objectives.”

Iran has rejected the sanctions.

Last week, Iranian government spokeswoman, Fatemeh Mohajerani, said the government and President Masoud Pezeshkian will guide Iran through these developments.

“The government and the president, with wisdom and resolve, will guide the country through this phase as well. We do not deny the economic hardships; but with sound judgment and by preserving unity, as in days past, we will pass through this intense gauntlet,” she posted on X.

Sardar Mohebi, an IRGC spokesperson, said the US resorting to economic warfare against Iran is itself proof of its defeat on the battlefield.

Ali Akbar Dareini, a researcher at the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tehran, said Iran is so accustomed to sanctions that it will not be hindered too greatly by the new list the US announced.

“[Iran] has a PhD in circumventing sanctions, so Iran is absolutely sure that it will emerge victorious and the US once again will fail in its efforts to suffocate Iran,” Dareini told Al Jazeera last week.

“The goal of the sanctions is to bring about an economic collapse and cause riots in Iran, but this is based on a big, massive miscalculation like America’s military war of aggression against Iran on February 28 that failed.”

Dutch group Christians for Israel is taking the government to court in the Netherlands over its plans to introduce a ban on importing goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights.

The ban, which was announced in July, is due to take effect on September 22 and will run for three years. It bars importing, buying and selling goods produced in Israeli settlements, as well as intermediary services and any attempt to circumvent the rules.

But the Israel Product Centre (IPC), part of Christians for Israel (CvI), a Dutch evangelical organisation which a recent study found has donated about $300,000 to illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, has responded by filing summary proceedings against the state, with the hearing due today.

Here’s what we know about this case.

What is the case about?

The IPC has issued summary proceedings against the Dutch state, seeking to block the July decree.

The IPC argues the measure is “one-sided” and that the window it now has to clear its existing stock – some 20,000 bottles of wine – is too short.

It is also arguing that a national ban conflicts with the European Union’s principle of free movement of goods.

A verdict is not expected for about two weeks.

How has this case come about?

EU rules have long required goods from illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank to be labelled by their origin – Palestine – rather than as “product of Israel”, but the bloc has not placed an outright ban on trading with Israeli settlements. That remains up to individual countries.

In February 2020, the Dutch advocacy group DocP urged consumers to file complaints with the Dutch food safety authority, NVWA, if they found wine and Dead Sea cosmetics had been mislabelled.

Following complaints, the IPC changed its labelling to “product uit een Israelisch dorp in Judea & Samaria [product from an Israeli village in Judea and Samaria],” which it argued accurately reflected the exact geographical and administrative reality of the origins of the products without deceiving the buyer. Judea and Samaria is the biblical name used by the Israeli government to refer to the West Bank. DocP argued this fell short of the requirement to label products correctly, and continued its campaign.

In 2021, the NVWA agreed and fined the IPC 2,100 euros (about $2,500) for mislabelling goods.

Then, in July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and must end “as rapidly as possible”.

This shifted the legal argument beyond mere consumer labelling, with the court saying countries should take steps to prevent trade or investment relations which help to maintain the unlawful presence of Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories.

The lower house of the Dutch parliament acted on that in September 2025, proposing an import ban.

The national decree against importing goods from Israeli settlements was made in July this year.

Does Christians for Israel describe the West Bank as ‘Israel’?

CvI describes the West Bank as a “disputed territory” rather than accepting the international legal description of it as “occupied Palestinian territory”.

It says it believes that Israel has strong claims to sovereignty there and that Jews have a right to live there.

The vocabulary matters in a legal sense, as “disputed territory” is not the same as “annexed territory”, therefore, the legal apparatus which would make settlement trade unlawful doesn’t straightforwardly apply.

The group’s stated reasons for funding projects there, it says on its website, are rooted in the Bible; it cites Ezekiel 47:21-23: “Peace for the Jewish people and resident foreigners inheriting alongside the tribes of Israel.”

However, the ICJ’s July 2024 advisory opinion is clear that the Fourth Geneva Convention’s Article 49(6) and successive Security Council resolutions treat the territories as occupied and the settlements as unlawful.

How have other Christian organisations in the West responded to trade with settlements?

Western churches are split on the issue, with CvI sitting at one end of the spectrum.

Mainline Protestants, including the Presbyterian Church in the United States, have divested shareholdings in Caterpillar, HP and Motorola Solutions as early as 2014, and from Israeli bonds in 2024. The United Methodist Church has opposed Israeli settlements since 1996 and sold its Israeli bond holdings last August.

The World Council of Churches called for sanctions against illegal Israeli settlements in 2025, divestment and an arms embargo.

The Vatican calls settlements an obstacle to peace but has avoided divestment so far.

Christian Zionist bodies, however, including Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, send funding for settlements and fight against boycotts.

How significant is this ban?

It is significant considering that the Netherlands is one of only four EU countries currently imposing a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

Trade from illegal settlements to the EU is estimated to be worth up to $400m per year.

The Netherlands is also a big market for the illegal settlements; a recent investigation by legal advocacy group Global Echo, which analysed thousands of shipments from Israeli settlements between 2017 and 2026, shows that within the EU, the Dutch market is the largest importer of goods from illegal settlements, with about 30 percent destined for or passing through the country.

Which European countries have banned products from West Bank settlements?

Spain has banned all imports of products from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, since September 2025. The decree also enforces an embargo on defence exports and dual-use technology to Israel, bans ships carrying military fuel for Israel from Spanish ports, and restricts advertising for services or goods linked to Israeli settlements.

Ireland’s parliament approved the text of its Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill in May and the bill was signed into law in July. It covers all goods produced in Israeli settlements, but excludes services.

Belgium’s federal government approved a draft royal decree in July introducing a specific regime for goods from Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The precise details of the new law will be determined by the government in due course.

Slovenia imposed restrictions on imports from Israeli settlements under its previous government, but the new conservative government reversed them in June 2026.

The EU as a bloc remains deadlocked over whether a ban counts as foreign policy requiring unanimity or trade policy needing only a qualified majority, with ministers not meeting again in a decision-making format until October.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar last year described the push by some European governments to implement the ICJ advisory opinion as “shameful”.

Which European countries still allow trade with West Bank settlements?

Nearly all of them.

Outside the three European Union states which still have bans in place, settlement goods can be sold legally everywhere, including in most of the EU.

At a July 2026 meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, which addressed trade from Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories, Germany, Austria, Czechia and Hungary were opposed to an EU-wide ban.

Beyond the EU, the United Kingdom does not forbid trade with illegal Israeli settlements, although new Prime Minister Andy Burnham is reportedly considering a ban. In a recent parliamentary briefing, Amnesty International called on the UK government to implement a ban.

It said: “The argument for a UK ban on trade with settlements is clear. The UK government itself accepts it should take stronger action in response to settlement expansion and annexation. The International Court of Justice has directed states not to trade with Israel in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and there is precedent in UK law and policy to not trade with illegally occupied lands, ie Crimea and other illegally occupied parts of Ukraine.”

Aug. 25 (UPI) — China is angrily pushing back against the President Donald Trump administration on new sanctions against Iran that will harm it.

China said it would defend its interests against the United States and accused the administration of disrupting the global financial order.

On Monday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent set out plans to “sever every economic lifeline” to Iran, targeting countries that do business with the country.

China’s foreign ministry representative, Lin Jian, said China is firmly opposed to what it called “illegal unilateral sanctions” and would take “all necessary measures” to defend its rights.

“Cooperation between China and Iran has always been conducted within the framework of international law and should not be interfered with or disrupted,” Lin said.

China is the largest customer of Iranian oil.

The United States listed more than 60 brokers, companies and ships facing new sanctions. They included more than a dozen small businesses from Hong Kong and China, The New York Times reported. But larger companies in China weren’t on the list, which some have speculated means Washington was being careful not to antagonize the country.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is planning to visit the United States next month to meet with Trump and continue talks.

Iranian Economy Minister Ali Madanizadeh said Tehran was “fully prepared” for the broader sanctions, which he said would lead to “another defeat” for the United States.

“The government is and was ready and has a two-year plan to manage these events,” he told state television. “We also have our own tools and know how to play the game,” he said. He also said that Tehran had been “waiting for these plans for a long time.”

Mérida, August 24, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) –The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued two general licenses granting specific permissions for telecommunications operations with Venezuela.

Under General License 61 (GL61), published on Friday, OFAC authorized US companies to provide “technology, software, or services for the installation, maintenance, refurbishment, repair, upgrade, operation, or support of telecommunications” to Venezuela’s state-owned telecommunications company CANTV and National Telecommunications Commission CONATEL.

According to official OFAC definitions, telecommunications services encompass fixed and mobile telephony, data transmission, internet connectivity, radio and television broadcasting, news agency feeds, satellite communications, and submarine cables.

GL61 permits specific operational activities, including payment processing, logistics, air freight, insurance, data storage, server maintenance, roaming agreements, and infrastructure leasing. However, the license specifies that Venezuelan state entities must procure new acquisitions directly from US companies or US citizens.

In addition, the Trump administration published General License 62 (GL62), authorizing negotiations for contracts in Venezuela’s telecommunications sector, though specific agreements remain contingent on a separate specific license,

Both sanctions waivers impose that any contracts be governed by the laws of a state or federal jurisdiction within the United States. Furthermore, the licenses demand that “dispute resolution proceedings relating to the contract occur in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, or Singapore.”

The Treasury licenses maintain bans on debt swaps, physical gold, or digital currencies and tokens issued by or on behalf of the Venezuelan government.

Furthermore, GL61 and GL62 maintain restrictions prohibiting “any transaction involving a person located in the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cuba, the People’s Republic of China, or any entity that is owned or controlled by or in a joint venture with such persons”.

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Washington has upheld its wide-reaching coercive economic sanctions in areas such as energy and mining,  while issuing licenses to favor US and Western corporations.

US sanctions and restrictions on Chinese technology firms present a challenge to CANTV’s recent operational landscape. For the past two decades, the Venezuelan government has forged bilateral agreements with Chinese telecom firms, including ZTE and Huawei, establishing joint projects to manufacture and deploy telecommunications equipment domestically. 

Over the last decade, CANTV has worked with Huawei and ZTE to modernize networks, expand fiber-optic infrastructure, and sustain broadband services nationwide. Venezuelan authorities have not commented on the latest US licenses and potential impact on existing agreements.

In addition, CANTV has been identified by analysts as a potential candidate for privatization. The company has recently been mired in controversy after reportedly slashing retired workers’ incomes. Retirees have staged protests in several states in recent days after a US $200 monthly bonus was arbitrarily slashed, while also demanding the restoration of basic medical insurance and health coverage guaranteed by collective bargaining agreements.

In parallel, CONATEL has launched technical and legal working sessions with representatives of SpaceX’s Starlink service to examine radio spectrum allocation, equipment homologation, and regulatory compliance under Venezuela’s Organic Telecommunications Law.

Despite Maduro previously criticizing SpaceX owner Elon Musk for destabilizing politics in Venezuela and Latin America, the acting Delcy Rodríguez government thanked the tech mogul for activating free Starlink services in the wake of the June 24 double earthquake in the Caribbean nation.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announces new sanctions on Tehran to sever financial support for the regime, urging US allies to support the measures.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced new economic sanctions on Tehran, describing the measures as an “economic D-Day” as the US war on Iran approaches the six-month mark.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the sanctions on Monday, alongside a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Bessent said the sanctions target key sources of Iran’s revenue, including its oil and gas industry, and called on countries around the world to cut economic ties with Tehran.

What are the sanctions?

The Treasury Department said the sanctions will target Iran’s aviation, digital assets, gold, technology and shipping sectors, as well as impose sanctions on 60 specific individuals and vessels.

“The main point is that Iran seems to have much less room than it did in previous years to simply work around sanctions,” Peiman Salehi, a Tehran-based geopolitical analyst, told Al Jazeera.

Bessent also said on Monday that the new sanctions expose Tehran’s trade partners to secondary penalties. According to a Treasury Department release on Monday, the targets include ships based in or associated with countries including Singapore, China, and Hong Kong.

“Today’s sanctions are mostly incremental, but are part of trying to intimidate remaining trading partners into cutting ties [with Iran],” said Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security think tank.

“There’s a lot of signalling and bluster aimed at getting other countries to crack down on entities involved in grey-zone trade, but new measures are mostly incremental for now,” she said. Grey-zone trade refers to both illegal, underground trade and trade that is unsanctioned but difficult.

The Treasury Department said Iran has used cryptocurrency to circumvent its longtime sanctions and facilitate transactions involving the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and members of the Iranian regime. The department also said Iran has used gold to help prop up the value of its currency amid economic instability.

The new shipping sanctions target Iran’s state-linked shipping fleet, which the Treasury Department alleges is being used to transport oil as well as “sensitive weapons components”.

The technology sanctions are intended to restrict Iran’s acquisition of materials that could be used in its weapons programmes. The aviation sanctions target Iranian airlines that the Treasury Department alleges are being used to transport weapons and military personnel, as well as financial resources to Iran’s proxies.

Washington also indefinitely suspended several broad exceptions to its ongoing sanctions on Iran, including those covering academic exchanges, personal money transfers and certain sporting activities. Organisations currently engaged in those activities have until September 8 to wind down their operations.

Ziemba says these measures “will have more effect on Iranians, not just the regime”.

What sanctions were already in place?

Washington’s sanctions on Iran have been in place since 1979, after students took hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran, and increased over the next 45 years. Sanctions were briefly paused, however, after the administration of President Barack Obama and world powers signed a nuclear deal with Tehran in 2015. But the Trump administration withdrew from the deal during its first term, in 2018, bringing back old penalties while adding new ones.

Washington imposed new sanctions during Trump’s second term, many of them before the US and Israel first struck the country on February 28.

In February 2025, the Treasury Department sanctioned 30 individuals and vessels involved in the “brokering [of] the sale and transportation of Iranian petroleum-related products”, according to a department release. The targets were based in several countries, including India and China.

In December 2025, Washington sanctioned 29 vessels it accused of being part of a so-called shadow fleet used to transport Iranian petroleum. It also sanctioned Egyptian businessman Hatem Elsaid Farid Ibrahim Sakr over his businesses’ alleged ties to seven of those 29 vessels. The measures continued the 1979 sanctions campaign against Iran’s oil industry.

The Treasury Department stepped up the sanctions again in April 2026, targeting another two dozen individuals, companies and vessels operating within the network of Iranian oil shipping magnate Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, the son of now-deceased senior Iranian security official Ali Shamkhani.

Later that same month, the Treasury also targeted what it described as “regime-linked cryptocurrency” and said it had seized nearly half a billion dollars from so-called “shadow banking networks”.

How have sanctions affected US consumers?

Pressure on the Iranian oil market, both through existing sanctions as well as the current war, has tightened the rest of the globe’s oil supply and affected countries that buy Iranian oil.

China, for example, is the primary destination for Iranian oil, buying roughly 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil exports. Beijing bought 1.4 million barrels per day in 2025.

At the same time, Asian markets, China included, also heavily rely on oil travelling through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, where roughly one-fifth of the globe’s oil transited before Iran choked off the route.

This has put pressure on the global oil supply, meaning the benchmark for crude oil has ticked up, translating to higher prices on fuel and food.

For US consumers, that has been most apparent at the petrol pump. The average price for a gallon of petrol (3.78 litres) is $4.09, up from $2.98 on February 28 when the US and Israel first struck Iran, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices.

Experts warn that if Iran retaliation accelerates, it could hit Americans hard.

“If sanctions provoke Iranian retaliation against Gulf shipping, materially reduce oil exports, or cause insurers and shipping companies to avoid the region, then Americans could feel it very quickly through gasoline, diesel, airfares, freight costs and ultimately inflation,” John Deal, managing director of capital markets at Post Oak Group investment bank, told Al Jazeera.

The economy and Iran are emerging as key issues heading into the US midterm elections, with voters expressing dissatisfaction on both fronts. That could put pressure on Republicans in competitive races, including in traditionally red states such as Texas.

A late-July Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested that only about a third of Americans supported the war, while just 28 percent of respondents in a CNN poll approved of Trump’s handling of Iran.

On the economy, an AP/NORC poll suggested that 32 percent of Americans approved of Trump’s performance. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, meanwhile, suggested that Democrats were narrowly ahead of Republicans on which party voters trust more to handle the economy—the first Democratic advantage in roughly a decade.

How are the sanctions affecting markets?

The latest sanctions announcement is weighing on Wall Street as well as the oil and gold markets.

On the heels of the announcement, the price of gold, largely considered a safe investment during times of economic uncertainty, jumped by 0.8 percent to $4,639.49 per ounce (28 grams) in midday trading, ticking up to its highest level since mid-May.

As for oil, prices pulled back on Monday after two weeks of gains. The price of the global benchmark Brent crude tumbled by more than 2 percent on Monday to $85.22 a barrel.

On Wall Street, the major indices are mixed amid the latest sanctions news as well as Trump’s announcement of new tariffs on Canada. The Nasdaq is down 0.5 percent, and the S&P 500 is down 0.2 percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, however, is trending in positive territory, 0.2 percent higher than the market open on Monday.

The oil sector is taking a hit. Chevron is down 0.8 percent, ExxonMobil tumbled 0.9 percent, BP fell more than 2 percent, and Shell is down 0.2 percent.

WASHINGTON — The United States unveiled plans Monday for new sanctions against Iran that Trump administration officials said are designed to sever Tehran from the global financial system as the nearly six-month conflict between the two countries drags on.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who previewed the announcement last week as “economic D-Day,” described the measures as the opening of an all-out financial assault on the Iranian government and its trade partners — a group that includes China, India, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

“To those who enable Tehran, do not discount the cost of testing Washington’s resolve,” Bessent said at a news conference. “No nation should expect to enjoy the rewards of our system while helping those who seek to destroy it.”

Bessent said it was time for world leaders to “make a decision” between “America and Iran,” adding that President Trump has already been calling foreign leaders to make specific requests ahead of the new sanctions.

But when asked whom the president had been talking to, Bessent said he would not “name names.” He also said the secondary measure would not take effect immediately, arguing that the administration is trying to give “everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior.”

“Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?” Bessent said when a reporter pressed him on why the sanctions weren’t immediate. “We believe that it is important to level set and give people a cure period, but they should know that that will move very quickly and that we are serious.”

The pressure campaign will build on a naval blockade and other sanctions the Trump administration has already imposed in its effort to force Tehran into a deal that ends the war on U.S. terms.

Trump’s latest economic push against Iran revives a familiar strategy from presidents of both parties, using financial leverage to pressure Tehran toward more serious negotiations over its nuclear program. Sanctions helped bring Iran to the table before a 2015 nuclear deal brokered by President Obama, but the agreement was widely criticized as weak by Republicans. After Trump withdrew from the agreement in his first term, a new “maximum pressure” campaign failed to secure a new deal.

Trump’s decision to return to a strategy of economic coercion has signaled to Iran that the fighting phase of the war is probably over, for now, with the U.S. administration choosing a path “neither of war nor of peace,” Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s president, said this week.

Iranian officials, who had been anticipating the move, pushed back on Washington’s strategy even before Bessent began speaking Monday.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iranian state media over the weekend that the sanctions amounted to a repackaged version of decades-old American pressure tactics that Tehran has already learned to withstand. Esmail Baghaei, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, warned of “grave consequences” for any countries cooperating with what he said was “illegal behavior” by the United States. And Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme Security Council, suggested that the economic pressure could shut down oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, a threat that would ripple through global energy markets.

That defiance underscores the central gamble of Washington’s strategy. Rather than aiming sanctions at Iran alone, Bessent’s plan to potentially squeeze major economies like China and India over their ties to Tehran could pose a diplomatic risk to the U.S.

The fallout could also reach beyond foreign diplomacy as a hit to global markets also risks compounding Trump’s troubles at home ahead of the midterm elections, as Americans grow unhappy with the economy and their support for the conflict in the Middle East plummets. The Iran sanctions also land as the administration wages a separate trade fight with Canada, adding uncertainty to global and domestic markets.

Whether Washington will be able to apply pressure on Iran’s trade partners remains an open question.

China alone shares nearly $10 billion in bilateral trade with Iran, and paid roughly $31.2 billion for unreported Iranian crude oil imports in 2025, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. That makes China the largest buyer of Iranian crude oil by a wide margin, accounting for more than 90% of Iran’s oil exports, according to the commission.

It is unclear whether Trump has spoken to China’s leader, Xi Jinping, about the sanctions. But the two leaders are set to meet in Washington next month, adding to the diplomatic dynamics of the moment.

Other trading partners have already made some moves.

The UAE said last week that it was suspending trade with Iran, a decision that followed accusations that Tehran had fired two ballistic missiles at the Emirates.

Afra Al Hameli, a spokesperson for the Emirati Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said in a post on Aug. 18 on X that all trade, commercial exchanges and financial transactions with Iran have been halted until further notice. She added that the Emirates was “firmly committed to safeguarding the integrity of the international financial system.”

Bessent said Monday that he expects other countries will “take similar actions as we continue our engagement.”

In an opinion article written for the Financial Times last week, Bessent has cast the new measures as the “single greatest financial offensive ever marshalled against an adversary.”

Bessent wrote that countries that “sever Iran’s remaining financial and commercial connectivity” will see their economies reinvigorated, and those who don’t will experience the end of their “lasting prosperity.”

“Any nation that serves as a financial artery of a withering regime should expect to share in its isolation,” he wrote. “To become a sanctuary for terror is to become, in the eyes of the United States, a global pariah.”

Ahead of the announcement Monday, Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran was “completely collapsing.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s central bank governor, Abdolnaser Hemmati, said the U.S. had already done all that it can against Iran and that the central bank had been shoring up its foreign currency reserves for months. Last week, he said Iran’s crude exports had “virtually stopped.”

“[The Americans] have done everything, so what else can they do?” he said in an interview with Tasnim News.

Despite his assurances that the central bank was working on preventing a devaluation of the Iranian rial, the currency has struggled to remain above a black market exchange rate of 2 million per dollar — a record low. The Central Bank rate stands at roughly 1.5 million rial to the dollar.

Though experts question the effectiveness of additional economic pressure on Tehran, Bessent’s threat to target Iran’s trading partners — especially the UAE, China and Turkey, who together comprise almost three-quarters of Iran’s foreign imports — will undoubtedly be painful for Iranians.

For example, Iran uses the UAE as a reexport hub and buffer, and receives vehicle spare parts from China, according to the Observatory for Economic Complexity. Iranian economic experts say both the agricultural and pharmaceutical sectors also rely on imports from countries such as Brazil and Turkey.

Ceballos reported from Washington and Bulos from Beirut.

Published on
24/08/2026 – 11:00 GMT+2

The US is ramping up its economic pressure on Iran after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared the start of an “economic D-Day”.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

According to Bessent, this represents “the single greatest financial offensive ever marshalled against an adversary.” He set out the position in a post on X late on Sunday and in a Financial Times opinion article published the same day.

Bessent stated that US President Donald Trump’s military campaign had “significantly dismantled Iran’s military capabilities and weakened its nuclear programme”. He added that the administration is now “entering the endgame” and that the economic measures begin at dawn.

The objective, according to the US Treasury Secretary, is to “sever every economic lifeline that sustains the tyrannical regime until Tehran stands alone”.

Bessent cautioned countries that continue to buy or transport Iranian petroleum, facilitate financial flows through exchange houses and free trade zones, handle flights, maintain ship registries or enable seaborne fuel transfers, that any remaining links would accelerate their own isolation.

The comments follow remarks by US President Donald Trump last week. At the time, Trump announced in a Truth Social post “the most crushing economic operation ever taken agaisnt any country!”

Despite both declarations, specific measures have not yet been set out.

According to Bessent’s outline, the package could centre on secondary sanctions against nations and entities that keep purchasing Iranian oil, process its finances, operate related banks or support shipping and other commercial channels, layered on top of the existing naval blockade.

Bessent is scheduled to hold a press conference at 7 PM CET on Monday to announce the concrete steps.

Market reaction

Oil prices are lower on Monday morning even as the rhetoric intensifies.

At the time of writing, Brent crude, the international standard, is trading at around $91.5 which is 2% lower than Friday’s close while West Texas Intermediate stands at roughly $86.2, about 1.5% lower than last week’s close.

The fall may stem from profit-taking after recent gains and from reports of a temporary rise in tanker movements through the Strait of Hormuz.

According to shipping information cited by Axios, around 40 tankers transited the southern channel on Friday night, moving roughly 16 million barrels of oil, higher than the 15-20 vessels recorded on preceding nights.

Overall volumes through the waterway remain well below pre-conflict levels.

On the other hand, US futures are also in the red ahead of market open while European stocks are trading flat.