Middle East crisis cannot be sanctioned away by coercion

When Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister Miao Deyu met his Iranian counterpart Kazem Gharibabadi in Beijing on Aug 17, he reaffirmed China's commitment to dialogue and peace in the Middle East, saying that Beijing will continue helping restore peace and tranquility to the region.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a news release of the meeting on Sunday, after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly urged China, on Thursday, to join Washington's economic pressure campaign against Tehran. China's message was simple: It will not be pressured into being the US' accomplice in a conflict Washington created — along with Israel — and which it cannot resolve.

The conflict is entering its sixth month. The US' "Epic Fury" strikes in February and following campaigns failed to break Tehran's will. A full-scale invasion, according to Pentagon estimates, would cost trillions and require years of occupation — a political death sentence.

So Washington has increasingly pivoted to "economic warfare", with US President Donald Trump calling it "economic D-Day", a phrase that evokes the Normandy landings but increasingly sounds like a retreat.

This is a familiar Washington reflex: When military pressure fails, double down on sanctions. But three realities complicate that strategy.

First, Venezuela. Tehran has watched what happened under the US sanctions regime and drawn its own conclusion. Second, the Strait of Hormuz. Iran does not need to defeat the US Navy to control the choke point. Washington can squeeze Iranian oil exports, but it cannot open the strait.

Third, the US' own fiscal predicament. Trump's suggestion that military force could be used if the national debt becomes unmanageable exposes an uncomfortable truth: domestic economic anxieties are increasingly bleeding into strategic calculations. A foreign confrontation can become a convenient distraction from problems at home.

So where does China fit in? China is Iran's trading partner. Bessent urged Beijing to sever those ties, but Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lin Jian was explicit: China opposes unilateral sanctions that lack a UN Security Council mandate.

Washington should discard the wishful thinking that it can compel China to cut economic ties with Iran.

If the rest of the world is forced to do the US' bidding, international commerce stops being commerce and becomes permission-based globalization, in which Washington decides who may trade with whom.

There is also a larger geopolitical question. Washington's pressure campaign could produce the opposite effect. There have been reports that Iran has been invited to join the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement. Tehran has denied this, but it highlights that although the US seeks to isolate Iran economically, regional countries may be exploring ways to integrate it into a new security architecture.

Talk about the irony: the US threatens secondary sanctions against countries that trade with Iran at a time when some of its own allies and partners may be contemplating deeper security ties with Tehran.

Unilateral sanctions can concentrate pressure on one country, but they cannot prevent the costs from spreading. War cannot solve every problem; sanctions often create new ones.

Washington has been trying to turn economic interdependence into strategic leverage. But leverage works only when others are willing to accept the rules. Even US allies and partners reject US rules in many fields.

And the golden rule of being in a hole still applies: When you are in one, stop digging. Washington is scrabbling with both hands — military conflict and economic coercion.