Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei slams Trump’s latest threat as a return to ‘full-scale classic colonialism’.
Published On 22 Aug 202622 Aug 2026
Iran has decried impending United States sanctions as a “complete erosion of sovereignty” following US President Donald Trump’s threat to punish any country doing business with Tehran.
In a post on X on Saturday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the US announcement was “an assertion of extraterritorial sovereignty” against the United Nations’ member states.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
No state can compel foreign banks, enterprises or airports to renounce commerce with Iran, he said.
“The end result would be the complete erosion of sovereignty as the foundational basis of the UN-based inter-State system, and a recipe for an abysmal return to full-scale classic colonialism,” Baghaei said.
Trump announced on Wednesday the “most crushing economic operation” yet against Iran and said any country whose institutions interface with Tehran would face “tremendous economic consequences”.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent doubled down on the president’s words on Thursday, saying the new sanctions regime would “collapse” Iran and that other countries are “either with us or against us”.
Iranian state media was quick to point out that Tehran has faced US sanctions for decades. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the new measures were “bound to fail”.
“We have seen this movie before,” Araghchi wrote on X, alongside a screenshot of a tweet from former President Barack Obama referencing earlier sanctions in 2012. “Same bull. Different bullies.”
The latest rhetorical back-and-forth comes as peace talks with Tehran have sputtered out. The US Navy has maintained its blockade against Iran’s ports, while oil shipment traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has virtually ceased.
Trump told reporters Friday that his government is “seeing what happens” in the conflict.
“They would love to make a deal, but they’re not ready to make the right deal in my opinion,” the president said.
While the US has blockaded Iranian vessels in their ports, the Strait of Hormuz remained bottled up with thousands of seafarers stranded on hundreds of vessels.
Only four commodity ships sailed along the strait on Thursday, none of them large crude carriers or liquefied natural gas tankers, ship-tracking data showed.
However, Iran has granted permission for several Iraqi oil tankers to pass through the strait following repeated requests from Baghdad, Iran’s state news agency IRNA reported on Saturday.
IRNA said obtaining special permission for Iraqi tankers was one of Baghdad’s main requests during Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf’s visit to Iraq.
NEW YORK — Nearing the six-month mark of the Iran war and facing diminishing stockpiles of key weapons, the Trump administration is touting a crushing financial campaign against Tehran, promising an “economic D-Day” against a country that has withstood nearly five decades of punishing American sanctions.
With sparse details, President Trump announced this week that the U.S. would be imposing an “unprecedented” level of economic warfare and isolation on Iran, aiming to force its leadership to cave to demands to end its nuclear program and fully reopen the crucial Strait of Hormuz to oil and natural gas tankers.
It reflects the dire reality Trump faces with an increasingly unpopular war he can’t seem to end just months before pivotal midterm elections that will decide whether his Republican Party keeps control of Congress. Whether out of desperation or strategy, the president is refocusing America’s might on bringing Iran to its knees through an accelerated sanctions campaign against one of the most economically penalized countries in the world.
In response to the threat, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted Friday on X the history of U.S. sanctions against Iran, saying, “We have seen this movie before. Same bull. Different bullies.”
The immediate reaction from Iran hawks has been praise and a call for patience as it plays out, while other analysts warn that Trump is refusing to learn the lessons of his predecessors.
In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered a small glimpse of what may be ahead, threatening secondary sanctions on nations and companies that conduct business with Iran.
He did not reveal who would be targeted as part of this next phase of the administration’s Operation Economic Fury, which earlier had focused on entities and people who buy oil from or bank with Iran. China and India, however, are major buyers of Iranian oil.
“If you insist on doing business with them, then the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government will put its full might and force against you,” Bessent said. “It’s time for our allies and the rest of the world to make a decision.”
Some experts see ‘uncharted waters’ that could force Iran’s hand
Despite decades of U.S. sanctions against Iran, the Trump administration is arguing that it’s only a matter of time and that striking the right economic target would get Tehran to its breaking point.
Richard Goldberg, who coordinated efforts to put diplomatic pressure on Iran in Trump’s first term, said the consequences of U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites last year, the war this year and the American naval blockade on Iranian ports have created the perfect storm for capitulation — one that didn’t previously exist.
“I think we’re watching a strategy, whether it takes a short time or a long time, that is very much about fundamentally changing the future of the world by seeing the end of this regime,” said Goldberg, who is now at the hawkish Washington think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, or FDD.
“I caution everyone — including myself, who has worked on sanctions, who’s worked on financial warfare — to have the humility to admit that we are in uncharted waters,” he said.
He said the decision this week by the United Arab Emirates — once one of Tehran’s most important trading partners — to suspend trade with Iran over an alleged missile attack will only further isolate the government.
Beyond trade in domestically produced goods, the Emiratis had helped the country absorb some of the shocks caused by sanctions through its re-export hub.
Targeting allies and partners comes at a price
With nearly all of Iran’s energy, financial and transportation sectors already covered by U.S. sanctions, Trump’s aim appears to be to apply secondary sanctions on countries, including allies and partners, that have not cut all ties with Iran to starve the country of any remaining income it may still be receiving.
In many ways, it is a redux of Trump’s first-term maximum-pressure campaign, which he has ramped up during his second term to include military action.
But as Trump and his allies discovered during his first administration, it can be difficult to enforce secondary sanctions without harming U.S. interests and provoking reciprocal measures. There were numerous instances of the administration granting sanctions waivers to countries, particularly those that rely on Iranian oil for their energy needs.
“Trump’s strategy now rests on targeting Tehran directly by impeding its touch points and access to the formal financial system and international economy,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the FDD’s Iran program. “This will require making the Iran issue more important in U.S. bilateral relations with countries in Europe and Asia.”
Iran doesn’t see an ‘open door’ at the end of the sanctions campaign
Iranian officials and analysts have accused the Republican president of flip-flopping with his latest pivot to economic pressure against Tehran. Trump has long derided past leaders who used sanctions to limit Iran’s ability to pay for its military and nuclear development.
In a post last week on X, Esmail Baghaei, a spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, wrote that Washington’s pattern of retreating to sanctions when it doesn’t want to pursue diplomacy has proven to be futile.
“Iran has demonstrated over decades that it will not be strangled by these exhausted refrains,” he said. “The real risk is that American politicians, clinging to this bad habit, will instead strangle their own remaining chances of a less humiliating exit from a crisis of their own making.”
Ali Vaez, Iran director at the International Crisis Group, said the Trump administration’s decision to take its own maximum-pressure policy to new heights with military action seems to ignore years of U.S. foreign-policy lessons that show Iran does not respond well to pressure.
If anything, he says, the latest economic campaign has only “hardened Iran’s position.”
“I think (Trump’s) blind spot is the fact that the only thing that the Iranian regime views as more dangerous than suffering from U.S. sanctions is surrendering to U.S. terms,” Vaez said.
Plus, the past year of start-stop diplomacy has only worsened the already fragile dynamic between the longtime adversaries, Vaez says, adding that Iranian officials’ lack of trust in Trump and his mediators has created an untenable foundation.
“They believe that even if they capitulate to U.S. terms under economic duress, Trump would move the goalposts and ask for more,” he said. “And this is really the fundamental problem: Pressure without an open door is an exercise in futility.”
Amiri writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Matthew Lee and Fatima Hussein in Washington contributed to this report.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says Washington will impose its ‘toughest sanctions in history’ to ‘collapse’ Iran’s government, warning of consequences for countries that maintain economic ties with Tehran.
Japan has issued an unusually direct criticism of its U.S. ally after Washington imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye.
Japan’s foreign ministry described the sanctions as “very unfortunate” and reaffirmed Tokyo’s support for the ICC and its role in prosecuting serious international crimes. The statement marks a rare public disagreement between Tokyo and Washington over an issue of international law.
The dispute comes as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump intensifies its campaign against the Hague based court. Washington has increasingly challenged the ICC over its investigations and arrest warrants involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as its earlier investigation into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
For Japan, however, the issue is particularly sensitive. Tokyo depends heavily on the United States for its national defence, yet it has consistently supported the ICC and the broader international legal framework surrounding it.
Why Did the U.S. Sanction ICC Officials?
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the sanctions targeted individuals involved in ICC efforts to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials from governments that have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.
Among those sanctioned was Tomoko Akane, a Japanese judge who serves as ICC president. Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer, was also targeted. Seye was part of the prosecution team that sought an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and has been nominated for election as an ICC judge.
Washington argues that the ICC has exceeded its authority by pursuing officials from countries that have not accepted its jurisdiction.
The United States is not a member of the ICC and has repeatedly objected to the court’s actions involving American personnel and Israeli officials.
The latest sanctions therefore represent another escalation in Washington’s confrontation with the institution.
Why Is Japan Supporting the ICC?
Japan joined the ICC in 2007 and has consistently supported its role in prosecuting war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
Tokyo’s foreign ministry said Japan remains committed to strengthening the rule of law internationally while maintaining communication with countries involved in the dispute.
Japan’s position reflects its broader commitment to international institutions and rules based governance.
For Tokyo, the ICC is not simply a legal institution. It is part of a wider international order in which disputes and allegations of serious crimes are addressed through established legal mechanisms.
That creates an obvious tension with Washington’s increasingly confrontational approach.
Why Is This Significant for U.S. Japan Relations?
Japan rarely criticises the United States publicly, particularly on issues involving national security.
The two countries maintain a close military alliance, with U.S. forces playing a central role in Japan’s defence and regional deterrence.
Japan’s decision to openly describe the sanctions as “very unfortunate” therefore carries diplomatic significance.
It does not indicate that Tokyo is abandoning Washington or challenging the broader alliance. Instead, it demonstrates that the two countries can maintain close security cooperation while disagreeing sharply over international law.
That distinction is becoming increasingly important as U.S. foreign policy under Trump diverges from the positions of several traditional allies.
The ICC Dispute Is Also Creating Friction in Europe
Japan is not the only U.S. ally to object to the latest sanctions.
The Netherlands, which hosts the ICC, has also criticised Washington’s action. Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen said the Netherlands opposed the sanctions and invited Akane to discuss continued support for the court.
The development places Washington increasingly at odds with European partners as well as Japan.
The disagreement therefore extends beyond the U.S. relationship with a single international institution. It raises broader questions about how far America’s allies are willing to follow Washington when its policies conflict with international institutions they continue to support.
What Do the Sanctions Actually Do?
The sanctions have significant practical consequences.
They freeze any U.S. assets held by the targeted individuals and largely cut them off from the American financial system. Because most internationally active banks maintain close connections with the U.S. financial system, the effects can extend beyond American jurisdiction.
The U.S. Treasury Department has also authorized a temporary wind down of transactions involving Akane and Seye through September 17.
The measures therefore do more than express political disagreement. They can directly affect the ability of sanctioned individuals to conduct international financial activities.
Washington’s Wider Campaign Against the ICC
The sanctions against Akane and Seye are part of a broader U.S. campaign against the court.
Washington previously imposed sanctions on several ICC prosecutors and judges after the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant and pursued an earlier investigation involving U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Rubio has also indicated that the administration intends to intensify efforts against the ICC through diplomatic pressure on other countries.
According to Reuters, Washington has sought to encourage countries to leave the institution, with at least five countries already responding to the call.
The strategy therefore goes beyond individual sanctions. It represents an attempt to challenge the ICC’s legitimacy and reduce its international reach.
Why Does Japan’s Position Matter?
Japan’s response is significant because Tokyo has generally been closely aligned with Washington on major strategic questions.
Japan faces a challenging regional security environment involving China, North Korea and wider tensions in the Indo Pacific. Maintaining a strong U.S. alliance remains central to Japanese security policy.
Yet Tokyo has also invested heavily in supporting international institutions and the rule of law.
The ICC dispute highlights the possibility that these two pillars of Japanese foreign policy can sometimes pull in different directions.
Japan may need American military power for its security while simultaneously disagreeing with Washington on how international law should operate.
That is not necessarily a crisis in the alliance, but it illustrates its increasingly complicated political foundations.
Could the Dispute Deepen Divisions Among U.S. Allies?
The ICC controversy could contribute to a wider pattern of disagreement between Washington and its traditional partners.
The United States is increasingly willing to use economic and diplomatic pressure against international institutions it considers hostile to American interests. Several European governments, by contrast, continue to view those institutions as essential components of the rules based international order.
Japan’s criticism adds an important Asian voice to that disagreement.
If more U.S. allies openly defend the ICC, Washington could face growing diplomatic isolation on the issue even while maintaining strong bilateral security relationships.
That could make the dispute increasingly difficult to contain as a narrow disagreement between the United States and an international court.
How Far Can Japan Disagree With Washington?
Japan’s criticism of the ICC sanctions should not be interpreted as a fundamental rupture in the U.S. Japan alliance.
Tokyo remains heavily dependent on Washington for defence and security, and there is little indication that the ICC dispute will fundamentally alter that relationship.
Its importance lies elsewhere.
Japan is signalling that alliance solidarity does not necessarily require complete alignment on international law.
For Tokyo, supporting the ICC is consistent with a broader foreign policy objective: maintaining an international system governed by rules and institutions rather than purely by the power of individual states.
Washington’s position is increasingly different. The Trump administration views the ICC as a potential threat to American sovereignty and to officials from the United States and allied governments who could face prosecution by the court.
This creates an unusual strategic contradiction.
The United States and Japan remain closely aligned against major security challenges in the Indo Pacific, yet they are increasingly capable of finding themselves on opposite sides of debates over the international legal order.
The consequences could extend beyond the ICC itself.
If Washington continues using sanctions and diplomatic pressure against international institutions while its allies continue defending them, the United States may find that its strategic partnerships remain strong militarily but become more divided politically.
For Japan, the challenge will be maintaining its essential alliance with Washington without abandoning its support for the international legal institutions it considers important.
The ICC dispute therefore reveals a broader tension within the U.S. alliance system: strategic partners may remain united on security while increasingly disagreeing over the rules and institutions that are supposed to govern international politics.
Aug. 18 (UPI) — The United States on Tuesday sanctioned two senior officials of the International Criminal Court, as the Trump administration cracks down on the global tribunal it calls a threat to U.S. sovereignty.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the rest of the Trump administration has aggressively targeted the court over arrest warrants it issued in November 2024 for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, on allegations of war crimes committed during the war in Gaza.
Though not a member of the court, the United States has rejected the warrants, even under the former Biden administration, and has been critical of its jurisdiction over U.S. citizens and potential for politicization. Under the administration of President Donald Trump, Washington has used its powers to target the court with punitive measures.
On Tuesday, Rubio unveiled sanctions against ICC President Tomoko Akane and ICC Senior Trial Lawyer Abdoulaye Seye on accusations that they were “directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials whose government has not consented to ICC jurisdiction.”
“The ICC has repeatedly attempted to assert authority over nationals of the United States and other countries that have not consented to its jurisdiction or ratified the Rome Statute,” he said in a statement, referring to the international treaty that established the court in 2002 to try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
“This sets a dangerous precedent.”
UPI has contacted the Hague-based court for comment.
The sanctions, which freeze all property of those designated, come under an authority given to the secretary of state by an executive order Trump signed in the presence of Netanyahu at the White House in February 2025, during his third week back in office.
Last month, Rubio announced the launch of a whole-of-government campaign to dismantle the threat the Trump administration alleges it poises to the United States. Along with increased sanctions and visa revocations of ICC personnel, the campaign includes encouraging other countries to exit the court and increased scrutiny of countries that receive U.S. assistance but do not criticize the ICC, as well as nations under the so-called U.S. security umbrella are also being urged to reject the ICC’s authority to prosecute U.S. officials and service members.
“The ICC has become a kangaroo court that cloaks its abuse of power in language of international law while undermining the very principles of justice,” said Netanyahu, whom the ICC has accused of using starvation as a weapon of war and crimes against humanity, including murder and persecution.
“I commend Secretary of State Marco Rubio for leading the Trump administration’s determined efforts against the ICC’s illegitimate overreach, and for making clear that the corrupt officials who lead the ICC will face consequences,” he added in the statement.
The court described Trump’s executive order in February as an unprecedented attack that undermines its ability to administer justice and a threat to international law that protects millions of victims.
Following the announcement Tuesday, the Netherlands came to the court’s defense while international human rights organizations chastised the United States.
“International courts and tribunals must be able to freely carry out their mandates,” Foreign Affairs Minister Tom Berendsen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, said in a statement, saying he has invited Akane to discuss the country’s support.
“We fully support the court and its staff,” he said.
Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said she was “alarmed” by the sanctions being imposed on judicial operators for doing their jobs.
“Sanctioning independent judges and lawyers for their work to end impunity and ensure justice for the most grave crimes is a shocking betrayal of the Nuremberg promise and a violation of the human rights guarantee of fair trial and access to justice,” she said in a statement.
Erika Guevara Rosas, senior director for research, advocacy, policy and campaigns at Amnesty International, rebuked the punitive action as a “reprehensible assault” on the international justice system that was part of an intimidation campaign meant to obstruct its work.
“These sanctions are not about sovereignty. They are about shielding powerful actors from accountability and punishing those tasked with investigating and prosecuting the gravest crimes under international law,” she said.
Kenneth Roth, senior fellow at Yale University and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said in a statement that Trump was sanctioning the court “so that American and Israeli officials can commit war crimes (and worse) with impunity.”
“No one should accept this utter lawlessness,” he said.
Last week, HRW and three other human rights groups sued the Trump administration over sanctioning judges and prosecutors of the ICC.
President Donald Trump hosts lifeguard Ryder Williams in the Oval Office of the White House on Monday. Photo by Samuel Corum/UPI | License Photo
Amid trade embargoes, asset freezes and attacks on ships as part of a naval blockade, Washington has announced a plan to enact a new wave of restrictions on Iran, targeting its economy.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last Thursday that the United States was planning to inflict more economic damage on Tehran as early as this week. The US would apply measures that have “never been seen in the history of economic isolation on a country”, Bessent said.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
A day later on Friday, President Donald Trump echoed Bessent and said that Iran would be hit hard economically.
As the memorandum of understanding (MoU) expired on Monday, Trump called on Tehran to hold up the “white flag of surrender” but insisted that he was in no rush to end the war.
Since February 2025, following the start of Trump’s second term in office, Washington has sanctioned “more than 1,000 Iran-related persons, vessels, and aircraft”, the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said in May.
Remaining defiant, Iran’s authorities have said they could shift to offensive operations, and are simultaneously prepared to counter a potential ground invasion.
According to Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, professor of economics of the Middle East at Philipps-Universitat Marburg in Germany, the naval blockade creates a new situation in which traditional sanctions packages are combined with the use of military force to generate a physical shortage of goods in the Iranian economy.
“This is an additional burden that raises new questions for policymakers in Tehran: Should they choose a deal whose terms are dictated by the Trump administration, or should they continue the armed conflict to break the blockade of the ports? It currently seems that Iran is leaning toward the second option,” he told Al Jazeera.
Farzanegan said that for the US to achieve its goals, namely changing the behaviour of the Iranian government, it should also “open a diplomatic exit and offer it as an option”.
If armed conflict does fully resume, he said “the costs will not be confined to the target of sanctions; the global economy will also pay a price” through continued disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and attacks across the region.
Iran emphasises MoU commitments
Meanwhile, talks have stalled in finding a way out of the war, although Iran’s negotiations have been ongoing with Oman and other mediators over a potential temporary arrangement in the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the global oil and natural gas used to flow before the war.
Iran’s parliament speaker and top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, told state media on Tuesday that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed until the US meets the conditions of the now-expired MoU.
“Let me state clearly: Until the commitments made by the United States in the memorandum of understanding, including the lifting of the blockade, the release of frozen assets, the lifting of oil sanctions, the end of threats and military operations on all fronts, and other conditions to which America agreed in the memorandum, are implemented, the strait will not be opened,” Ghalibaf said.
With tensions soaring before the war, Iran’s government delegated some authorities to border provinces to import essential goods and build up inventories.
To survive the blockade over recent months, Iran has also focused more on rerouting imports of food, consumer goods and industrial inputs through land borders with Pakistan, Turkiye and others, as well as through the Caspian Sea with Russia and Central Asia.
During the brief ceasefire period established under the MoU, the blockade was lifted for several weeks in late June and early July, enabling the rapid export of oil stored on board supertankers and giving the military time to regroup.
But Iran’s oil exports have stopped once again since the breakdown of the deal, and US and Israeli authorities have discussed disrupting Iran’s inland imports to ramp up the pressure.
The mounting pressure has only exacerbated Iran’s structural economic issues, rooted in decades of domestic corruption and mismanagement, as well as sanctions and international isolation.
For the country’s roughly 90 million people, the consequences include persistent inflation, insecure and poorly paid work, declining purchasing power and growing uncertainty about the future.
Against this backdrop, President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration this week named stabilising markets, protecting livelihoods and strengthening national resilience as its priorities for the next two years.
However, Mahdi Ghodsi, a senior economist at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, said Iran’s prolonged stagnation over most of the past 15 years suggested that government policy had not been aligned with those objectives.
He told Al Jazeera that to guarantee sustainable economic growth, the Islamic Republic would have to reduce confrontation with the US, the West and Israel while pursuing meaningful domestic reforms that would involve moving away from coercive social controls to restore some public trust.
“Without both external de-escalation and domestic political reform, the government may be able to slow the deterioration in living standards and market conditions, but it is unlikely to deliver durable stability, stronger livelihoods or genuine national resilience,” Ghodsi said.
Energy in the crosshairs
US media outlets have reported that Washington’s forthcoming measures against Iran could include sanctioning additional independent Chinese refineries – known as “teapots” – that buy or process Iranian crude.
OFAC has already imposed secondary sanctions on smaller China- and Hong Kong-based entities processing Iranian oil money, but it could go a major step further by following through on its threat of designating larger Chinese banks if they touch Iran-linked funds.
That move risks prompting a response from China, at a time when Washington is concerned about curtailed exports of critical minerals.
Economist Ghodsi said energy remained the most powerful source of US leverage over Iran, particularly after US and Israeli attacks damaged the country’s infrastructure.
“If the blockade persists into autumn and winter, the country risks severe supply shortages. Iran was already struggling with electricity, gas and water imbalances before this shock; further constraints would mean deeper rationing and temporary shutdowns in industry to preserve household supply,” he said.
The government has also reduced some subsidised petrol quotas for personal vehicles and has been considering raising fuel costs – after an earlier increase last December. Necessary but costly fuel imports amounting to several billion dollars per year have stopped as a result of the war and blockade.
Ghodsi said that is why the US would likely target Iran’s external energy trade, involving maritime transport, shipping services, insurance, payments and the foreign buyers and intermediaries that keep those flows operating.
“In practice, that means tighter enforcement against entities in China and elsewhere that facilitate sanctioned energy transactions, together with closer scrutiny of trans-shipment and payment routes through neighbouring countries and other trade partners,” he said.
