The looming failure of Operation Economic Outcast | US-Israel war on Iran
Pakistan Defies U.S. Sanctions on Iran, Continuing Trade Relationship
ISLAMABAD – Last week, Pakistan announced its intention to continue trading with Iran, disregarding recent sanctions imposed by the United States. This declaration followed a similar stance from China, further complicating the geopolitical landscape surrounding the sanctions.
The U.S. sanctions, unveiled by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on August 24 as part of “Operation Economic Outcast,” are touted as the most severe in history. They aim to execute what is described as the “greatest coordinated economic isolation in the history of the world.”
In a social media post, President Donald Trump labeled the sanctions “ECONOMIC D-DAY,” asserting that nations extending support to Iran would face “tremendous economic consequences.”
Despite a history of military intervention, including six months of bombing and naval blockades, the U.S. strategy appears to pivot toward economic pressure aimed at compelling Iran to capitulate.
Experts contend that economic sanctions rarely succeed in toppling governments, particularly those determined to endure. Sanctions can exacerbate poverty, empower authoritarian regimes, and foster national unity against perceived external threats, but they have not historically resulted in regime change.
Additionally, the global oil market’s current dynamics complicate the implications of the sanctions. The U.S. aims to eliminate Iranian oil exports from a market already reeling from a significant supply reduction due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Analysts warn that further imposing these sanctions risks deepening economic challenges for U.S. allies, including those in Europe and Japan.
The campaign particularly targets China, which imports over 80% of Iran’s oil exports. Should the U.S. choose to target Chinese financial institutions, such as the Bank of China, it may provoke retaliatory measures from Beijing, which could restrict rare earth exports—a critical resource for numerous industries.
China has previously demonstrated its willingness to employ such tactics. In April 2025, it imposed export licensing on rare earth metals in reaction to U.S. tariffs, resulting in significant disruptions in American and European manufacturing sectors. Following a series of escalations, the U.S. agreed to ease some restrictions in exchange for a temporary suspension of China’s measures.
The existing controls on rare earths remain in effect, with potential changes imminent as a broader package from China is set to expire in November. This timing coincides with anticipated diplomatic discussions between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and U.S. officials in Washington.
Beijing has consistently opposed U.S. sanctions, with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian reiterating China’s stance against unilateral sanctions that lack international legal basis, stating that economic warfare does not provide viable solutions.
Internationally, there is growing skepticism toward U.S. actions. The U.S. withdrawal from over 60 international organizations in January 2026 highlights a trend of decreasing alignment with global multilateralism. Many nations are reevaluating their reliance on the dollar in trade and considering alternative defense arrangements, such as the recent Mecca Agreement involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan.
This shift in strategy reflects a broader recognition among countries of the vulnerabilities associated with dollar-based trade and U.S.-led sanctions, prompting them to seek more resilient economic partnerships.
As tensions between the United States and other nations escalate, experts observe parallels between contemporary conflicts and historical accounts, such as Thucydides’ narrative of the Peloponnesian War, which serves as a cautionary tale about the potential consequences of hubris in foreign policy.
Governments worldwide are increasingly unwilling to follow the U.S. into what may be perceived as a detrimental course of action.
