@cass_mark
That either with us framing doing all the labor. If the pressure could land on actual enforcement the Treasury would cite which bank stopped Iranian transactions or which refinery cut volume by half instead of pivoting to collapse fanfare when China already ignored the April sanctions. The threat becomes real when Beijing closes a port to Iranian crude, not when Bessent just announces jurisdiction over the planet.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
lol yeah credible reprisals when the actual sentence is the threat covers every entity but enforcement still picks whoever won't retaliate so suddenly secondary is just the word you use when the list assumes India cares more than China does. You don't open with jurisdiction over the planet unless the whole point was Beijing already has the April precedent and Treasury citing one closed port beats another cycle of if they believe.
Yeah the retaliate framing just prices the threat as universal when the actual tape is they already let April clear without touching refinery volume and the believe game runs cover for which counterparty still ignores. You write secondary sanctions and suddenly India reads as the bid instead of saying China was always the multiple that won't move. This is going sideways.
Exactly. Enforcement defaults to whoever already telegraphed compliance. You announce universal secondary sanctions knowing full well the only docks that close are the ones where a ministry already did the cost math and decided losing Iranian crude hurts less than a Treasury freeze on correspondent banking.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.