Iran: Moscow Rejects US Sanctions, Islamabad Clarifies Its Position

The new economic offensive launched by Washington against Iran is already provoking mixed reactions among Tehran's partners and neighbors. While Russia openly rejects the use of unilateral sanctions, Pakistan adopts a more cautious stance, primarily seeking to preserve its role as a mediator between Washington and Tehran.

Washington Intensifies Economic Pressure on Tehran

On August 24, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the launch of the "Operation Economic Outcast," presented by the Trump administration as a broad campaign aimed at cutting off the last sources of income enabling Iran to maintain its international economic networks. The initiative targets digital assets, technologies, gold, aviation, and maritime transport. Washington also announced sanctions against more than 60 individuals, companies, and ships suspected of contributing to Iranian oil revenues, acquiring sensitive technologies, or supporting Tehran's cyber operations.

The stated goal of the United States is to pressure not only Iran but also foreign actors who continue to trade with the Islamic Republic. Washington threatens to extend secondary sanctions to foreign companies and institutions that facilitate Iranian transactions.

This strategy marks a shift in the American effort towards the economic arena, as the conflict with Iran enters a prolonged phase and attempts at diplomatic resolution remain stalled.

Moscow Rejects Unilateral Sanctions

Russia quickly expressed its opposition to this new offensive. The spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, stated on August 27 that Moscow categorically rejects the use of unilateral and coercive measures, which it considers contrary to the United Nations Charter.

The Russian diplomat also indicated that Moscow intends to work with Iran and other countries to reduce the pressure exerted by international sanctions regimes. This position aligns with Russia's traditional diplomatic stance, which has contested the use of extraterritorial sanctions by the United States for several years.

Beyond the principle statement, the Russian position especially highlights the difficulty for Washington in building a sufficiently broad international coalition around its maximum pressure strategy.

Pakistan Clarifies Its Position

The case of Pakistan is somewhat different. Comments attributed to Pakistani officials were initially interpreted as a rejection of American sanctions and as confirmation of Islamabad's willingness to continue its trade exchanges with Tehran.

However, Pakistani authorities quickly issued a clarification. In a statement published on August 27, Islamabad indicated that these remarks had been "misinterpreted." Pakistan specifies that it does not comment, as a principle, on the American sanctions regime targeting Iran and refrains from offering an interpretation.

This nuance is important: unlike Russia, Pakistan does not position itself as a direct opponent of the American campaign. Islamabad seeks to maintain a mediating role between the two parties, emphasizing dialogue, de-escalation, and a negotiated solution.

This stance is also explained by Pakistan's geographical proximity to Iran and the risks that an escalation of the conflict would pose to regional stability.

Beijing Represents the Main Challenge for Washington

China appears as one of the main points of tension in the new American strategy. Beijing has denounced unilateral sanctions and asserted that its economic cooperation with Iran occurs within the framework of international law.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has also warned that it will take necessary measures to defend its interests. China remains a major economic partner of Iran and an essential buyer of its oil.

Washington thus faces a dilemma: increasing pressure on Chinese companies trading with Iran could significantly enhance the effectiveness of the sanctions but simultaneously risk opening a new front in Sino-American relations.

This caution partly explains why major Chinese financial institutions were not directly targeted in the first wave announced by the US Treasury. Several analysts believe that Washington is currently seeking to pressure Beijing without provoking a larger economic confrontation.

Tehran Denounces an 'Economic War'

From the Iranian side, the response is unequivocal. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has brought the matter to the United Nations to denounce the new American campaign. In a letter addressed to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, he called for an international response against the American measures and their rejection by member states. Tehran presents these sanctions as a form of "economic terrorism" and demands compensation for the damages it attributes to the American measures.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has also rejected the idea that economic pressure could force his country to yield. For Iranian authorities, sanctions constitute a strategy that has already been tested for years and has not allowed Washington to achieve the desired political changes.

The Strait of Hormuz at the Heart of Tensions

The economic dimension of this confrontation goes far beyond relations between Washington and Tehran. The Strait of Hormuz remains at the center of international concerns due to its importance for global energy exports.

Prolonged disruption of maritime traffic in this area affects oil and gas markets and increases risks for supply chains. States in the region are thus seeking to avoid a lasting escalation that could have consequences well beyond the Middle East. Discussions involving Oman and Pakistan are part of these de-escalation efforts.

In this context, American sanctions add a new dimension to an already military, diplomatic, and energy crisis.

An American Strategy Confronted with Resistance

The Trump administration hopes that financial pressure will accelerate Iranian concessions. However, the response from Moscow, the strategic caution of Islamabad, and especially the resistance from Beijing demonstrate the limits of a strategy relying on the adherence of Iran's trading partners.

The central question will now be the practical application of secondary sanctions. Washington will need to determine how far it is willing to go to sanction foreign actors, at the risk of provoking tensions with some of the world's major trading powers.

For now, Russia shows clear opposition, Pakistan favors mediation, and China defends its economic interests. As for Iran, it publicly refuses to yield to pressure. The new American offensive thus opens a phase where the battle over Iran is fought as much in financial and commercial networks as on the diplomatic front.