Bessent's 'Endgame' Bet That Could Hit Back

The United States sent troops to attack Iran, and Iran refuses to die no matter how hard the blows land. Militarily, Washington is at its wits' end, and fighting on is no answer. So Washington has hastily switched plays to an “economic war,” and this time the field commander is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Bessent came out breathing fire. The United States, he declared, will unleash on Iran “the single greatest financial offensive ever marshalled against an adversary,” cutting off all of the country's economic lifelines and forcing it completely to its knees.

Bessent bets the 'greatest financial offensive ever' will end the Iran war. US media say it can't make Iran kneel.

Sounding the Battle Horn: D-Day Rhetoric and Pascal's Wager

How exactly Bessent will fight this war remains to be announced. US media estimate there could be five tactics, and that estimate looks close to the mark. Bessent promises every move this time will be lethal, but US media and experts who dissected the plan say most tactics will have limited effect and are not enough to make Iran bow in surrender.

Instead, Iran has already built an economic warfare system and made a range of preparations. Washington's strikes could boomerang, deepening the wounds of an economy already suffering internal damage.

Before the fighting began, Bessent took to the Financial Times to sound the battle horn. He likened the war to the D-Day (Normandy landings) of World War II.

Bessent even invoked the French philosopher Pascal's wager. His warning to other countries and enterprises: with the situation unclear, they would be wise “not to bet on the wrong side,” lest they pay a heavy price for it.

The theory runs like this. Bet that God exists and He does not, and the cost is limited. Bet that God does not exist and He does, and you must endure tremendous suffering.

Bessent brandished the analogy as a warning. Misjudge the power of the United States, place the wrong bet on Iran, and the ending will be utterly miserable.

But from Donald Trump to Scott Bessent, the tactic of talking tough to scare has long been seen through. So the “wager theory” drew immediate rebuttals.

The United States is no “God,” the critics shot back, and its weak hand has been exposed many times. Whatever power it claims can no longer fool anyone. On the contrary, betting on the American side now carries an even greater chance of losing.

The truth is, US media and many experts point out that the United States may deploy five tactics to strike Iran's economy. Fierce and aggressive as they look, their effect is limited.

Five Tactics, Limited Bite: From Oil Buyers to the Shadow Fleet

The first tactic: sanction the countries that buy Iranian oil and cut off its main source of revenue. The biggest buyer today is China, which takes 90 percent of its exports.

The New York Times, though, expects China to shrug off US intimidation. For one, the United States needs China to supply critical minerals, especially the raw materials used to manufacture weapons, which amounts to holding Washington by the throat, so China has nothing to fear. For another, President Xi visits the United States in September, a trip Donald Trump has long awaited, and he will not turn against him at this moment.

As for other countries such as Iraq, Turkey and the UAE, even if they heed Washington and temporarily stop buying Iranian oil, that will not be enough to shake Iran's resolve to hold firm.

The second tactic: stop Iran from transferring the money from its oil sales back into the country. Washington would strictly ban currency exchange and cash transfers involving Iran, cutting off the financial channels in between.

Yet Iran has endured years of severe sanctions and already laid out complex alternative routes. It moves funds through multiple channels, using shell companies and currency exchange houses based in Dubai and elsewhere. Iran can also keep trading in currencies other than the US dollar, as well as digital currencies.

The third tactic: confiscate Iran's assets abroad. Easier said than done. Confiscation differs from freezing and must clear complex legal procedures. And because it concerns the sovereignty of other countries and involves diplomatic issues, it cannot simply be done by force.

The fourth tactic: sanction the countries and companies doing business with Iran, blockade its ports completely and ban all imports and exports.

But Iran has long since laid down a regional cross-border trade network, including underground webs of every form, continuing trade overland and then by sea. Bloomberg also points out that Washington previously threatened countries trading with Iran with an extra 25 percent tariff. That threat has still not been implemented, and such measures will be difficult to enforce across the board in the future.

The fifth tactic: strike at the shadow fleet. Sanctions would target not only individual ships carrying goods for Iran, but also the related companies, terminals and infrastructure.

This move is expected to pack a certain punch. But many shadow ships, disguised in all sorts of ways, still remain, and it is impossible to wipe them out completely.

Iran's Trump Card: Hormuz and the War of Economic Will

Scott Bessent's economic 'weapons box' still holds a few tools. But the problem mirrors the one facing military action: Iran commands two sources of anti-American 'confidence.' Even blows that land where it hurts cannot damage the sinew and bone. And there is no way to force Iran to its knees.

The first source: Iran has already built a system for fighting an economic war. The toolkit includes cross-border trade networks, oil-for-goods exchanges, and settlement in currencies other than the US dollar. Iran has also developed self-sufficient local industry to prop up people's livelihoods and maintain 'survival.'

The second source matters most. Iran still commands the Strait of Hormuz and can control the outflow of energy. That keeps oil prices high and hammers the economies of the United States and the Gulf states.

This is the trump card. With it, Iran can go the distance with Donald Trump in a contest of endurance, waging a 'war of economic will' to see who buckles first.

Iran is dug in and deployed for economic war — its plan: outlast the US.

Iran is ready for this hard economic fight. By the look of it, Trump and Bessent may have misjudged the situation once again. They assumed one move could finish the job and carry the US-Iran war into its 'endgame.' What they threw may well prove to be a boomerang — one that spins back and strikes them, inflicting fresh damage on an economy already wounded on the inside.

Lai Ting-yiu

What Say You?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Count the days. Trump ordered the attack on Iran on February 28, and by this Friday it has been half a year. Look back at what has happened: the rapid advance and triumphant victory he expected never appeared. Instead, he has gone around in circles and ended up right back where he started.

WSJ: Six months on, Trump's Iran war circles back to sanctions.

Back to Square One

Some commentators argue that for the United States to compel Iran's submission, the playbook should run as a straight-line 'three-step sequence.' First impose sanctions, then press for concessions through diplomatic negotiation, and only as a last resort deploy major military force to compel capitulation.

This time though, Trump started with military action. After circling around, he went back to square one this week, picking up the old tool of several previous presidents: economic sanctions. Absurdity of the highest order.

The Wall Street Journal reveals today that before the war began, senior figures in the government had already foreseen the many problems an attack on Iran would bring. They warned Trump, and every one of their predictions later came true.

He brushed the warnings all aside at the time and insisted on sending in the troops. The result: he tumbled into a vicious circle and wrapped himself in a cocoon of his own making.

The Warnings That Came True

Trump's predicament today is entirely self-inflicted. Had he listened to his subordinates' warnings and paused to think before deciding to go to war with Iran, this absurd battlefield would never have happened.

The Wall Street Journal learned from informed officials that after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pitched him hard on the plan to attack Iran, then-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivered a warning. According to analyses by different intelligence agencies, if Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, were "surgically removed," the leadership would instead become even more hardline and even more determined to possess nuclear weapons.

In other words, killing the original leader would not deliver "regime change." It would deliver a new leader who is even harder to deal with, and the move would backfire.

Gabbard also said intelligence showed that Iran's new leadership would quickly close the Strait of Hormuz and disrupt global energy supplies. At the same time, it would attack US military bases in the Gulf region, along with allied facilities, to prove that US protection of the region is unreliable.

In hindsight, everything Gabbard said came true. Control of the Strait of Hormuz, in particular, has now become America's Achilles' heel.

The Wall Street Journal also revealed that senior military leaders at the time likewise warned Trump: once fighting broke out, US personnel would inevitably suffer casualties. Weapons stockpiles might not be enough, and manpower would be stretched thin, making deployments difficult.

The brass called it. Recent developments have proven that every one of those warnings was, unfortunately, borne out.

Doubts Ignored, War Chosen

Inside the White House's core team, not everyone was sold on war. Vice President JD Vance harbored serious doubts about military action. He wanted the nuclear issue settled through negotiations, arguing that Iran's economy was already at the end of its rope and there was a real opening to force concessions.

Trump, however, refused to budge. He was set on war. Since early this year, he had pushed hard internally to display American power abroad. Now he saw the chance to ride the momentum of last June's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities and this January's capture of Maduro into another forceful military operation.

Enter Netanyahu. His "plan to attack Iran," pitched at just that moment, suited Trump perfectly.

Intelligence agencies and the military issued warning after warning. Trump turned a deaf ear. He brushed aside the predictions, insisting the military could handle any problem and there was no need for excessive worry.

The Wall Street Journal, citing informed officials, reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and several generals pounded their chests and assured Trump they could handle the many complex situations that would follow once the war started.

Their pro-war views were music to the ears of a president itching for a fight.

From Battlefield to Bargaining Table

Once the war started, the grim scenarios flagged by the intelligence agencies began coming true one after another. Gulf states lined up demanding a ceasefire, Republicans voiced deep alarm, and the pressure on Trump mounted by the day.

The Wall Street Journal reports he was privately furious that the war had met with opposition, and deeply baffled by it. He asked subordinates again and again: why wouldn't Iran back down?

Out of options, he turned back to diplomacy to untangle the deadlock. The breakthrough finally came on June 17, when the two sides reached a Memorandum of Understanding.

Why compromise? Reports say he had seen a private White House poll showing nearly 80 percent of Americans wanted a US-Iran ceasefire. That number told him how grim public sentiment was, and that he needed to cut a deal fast.

But Trump was the one in a hurry, not Iran. Tehran knew time was on its side and kept stalling and making trouble.

Trump's patience snapped. He at one point decided to launch "the largest attack since World War II."

Gulf states scrambled to phone him and talk him down. Under enormous pressure, Trump finally called off the offensive at the last moment.

Trump also knew at the time that military strikes were riddled with difficulties.

Sure enough, the military sank steadily deeper into trouble, confirming the many prewar worries of senior commanders: weapons stockpiles running dry, forces stretched thin, bases battered in attacks, casualties climbing. Continuing the fight was hardly an option any more.

Bessent's 'biggest-ever economic war'? Just sanctions, rebranded.

Back to the Old Playbook: Sanctions, Again

With no way forward, Trump has to take a long detour, landing right back at the starting point: economic sanctions.

Months of fighting, and in the end it was all for nothing.

The problem? From Obama to Biden to Trump, the United States has kept "sanctioning" Iran, and Iran has never yielded.

Now Bessent pulls the same old trick. What makes anyone think it succeeds this time?

Lai Ting-yiu